Sharp Unveils Prototype 27-Inch 8K IPS 326 PPI Display

Megalith

Megalith

24-bit/48kHz
Staff member
Joined
Aug 20, 2006
Messages
13,000
Sharp is giving us a look at the future of display technology with their new 8K panel, which features a PPI consistent with newer smartphones. Hopefully, you won’t actually need eight DisplayPort cables to power these panels by the time they become affordable and widely available.

The IGZO display is down at 27-inches, marking a 326 PPI, just hitting at the door of large FHD smartphone displays. The panel is also listed at 1000 nit brightness. But to double down on specifications, the stand listed the display as supporting 120 Hz while in 8K mode, and also supporting High Dynamic Range, or HDR. This requires a large amount of data to be pumped into the display, and as a result a photograph of the rear shows eight separate DisplayPort cables being used in order to give the display the data it needs. 8K120 with HDR is no easy task, suggesting 7680x4320 at 10 bits per color channel (so 30-bit for RGB) at 120 times a second would suggest needing 120 gigabits per second of bandwidth at a minimum (or 15 GB/sec).
 
DAYYUUM.

Even if it's only 27 inches that would make for one sweet computer screen. 8K@120hz + HDR. I wonder how long before anyone (money aside) can actually purchase one?

For people doing professional photography most cameras would have resolution lower than the 33MP of 8K, so you could look at a 100% of the entire image with all pixels being displayed at once.
 
Would 8k really look different than 4k at 27 inches? Scaling aside.
 
8 DP cables huh just to feed the beast? Damn...
 
mnewxcv said:
Would 8k really look different than 4k at 27 inches? Scaling aside.
Click to expand...

I guess, that's the kind of density where you're getting hard pressed to even see pixels any more without help.

Nearing the end of the road for that size.
 
I understand the awesomeness of the pixel density but why can't they get bigger than 27"?
 
Great Tiger said:
I understand the awesomeness of the pixel density but why can't they get bigger than 27"?
Click to expand...

Tvs are built upon a glass substrate that is similar to the way wafers for processors are created. The larger the size of the display, the bigger chance there is for errors which make the yields lower. It would be very difficult for them to manufacturer an entire substrate with a high density and not have errors. Like processors, some of them are tossed out because they are defective. The larger a single panel is, the more waste there will be if something isn't right. Costs go up exponentially to the point where it's just not feasible to do.

Click on the "how to make a flat panel display" video, it should give an overview.
How We Do It | Applied Materials
 
Does it come with a 27" magnifying glass to see all those pixels? Needs SLI Pascal Titans just to run CS:GO at 40 fps :eek:
 
mnewxcv said:
Would 8k really look different than 4k at 27 inches? Scaling aside.
Click to expand...
I use a 15inch 4K display which has roughly the same ppi as this and it looks amazing and sharper than 1080 at 15 inch which represents the same ratio here.

Short answer, yes.
 
As far as I am concerned 27" is too small for 4k. 8k is just stupid.

AFAIK, 27" is even a bit small for 1440p...

4k doesn't even make sense until you hit 40", even if you are sitting right in front of it.

If I am going to get an 8k screen, it better be 80" :p

Actually I pass. I have no need for a screen that large.

There is no reason to go above ~110dpi on the desktop.

Scaling is just dumb.
 
While I'm fine with 4k or 5k at 27", I think larger is better. For 8k, I think you want a lot bigger than 27", but let's not forget this is a prototype. I doubt these will be commercially available for several years. By then they may be able to make larger panels and surely they won't require 8 DP cables

bman212121 said:
DAYYUUM.
Even if it's only 27 inches that would make for one sweet computer screen. 8K@120hz + HDR. I wonder how long before anyone (money aside) can actually purchase one?
For people doing professional photography most cameras would have resolution lower than the 33MP of 8K, so you could look at a 100% of the entire image with all pixels being displayed at once.
Click to expand...

I've got 5k and I often end up viewing images at 2x or 3x magnification (for detailed work). For a 33MP image, I suspect I'd want a much larger panel if I'm just viewing it at 1:1. 27" is what, 23x13? It'll look great, but I don't think you'll see any more detail than at 5k (all other things being equal...i.e. no HDR or wider gamut). But maybe my eyes are just too old. I like my 5k, but that's pushing the limit of my eyes, so maybe it's age dependent.
 
Waste of gpu processing power - 4K is maximum we reasonably need for pc displays and even with 50" TV you have to be uncomfortably close to it to notice bigger pixels.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
As far as I am concerned 27" is too small for 4k. 8k is just stupid.

AFAIK, 27" is even a bit small for 1440p...

4k doesn't even make sense until you hit 40", even if you are sitting right in front of it.

If I am going to get an 8k screen, it better be 80" :p

Actually I pass. I have no need for a screen that large.

There is no reason to go above ~110dpi on the desktop.

Scaling is just dumb.
Click to expand...

In the same way that it seems like consumer grade processors are only getting, or even needing, minor computer power improvements because it seems good enough, 8K at that size is when you will finally reach "good enough" for monitors. This sort of monitor at 60Hz (or especially 120Hz) should be essentially photorealistic like you are looking through a window.
 
The only benefit I see from an 8k monitor is making Intel, AMD, Nvidia release more and more powerful CPU's and Video Cards to keep up with 8k.

I know a lot of people and hardly anyone has 4k yet. So this is confusing. I really don't see 4k becoming mainstream until at least 2018 or 2019 and even then the numbers will be small.

1080p has taken a decade to get to where it is now.

So .... 8k? smh
 
I'm loving my 24" 4K monitor I use purely for text work. Set scaling to 175% and the text is gorgeous.
 
4k for 27 is broderline if you really dont wanna see the pixels, 8k is just ridiculous.
 
Does this mean dead pixel policies will be 500 dead pixels 20 bright for warranty service?
 
Teenyman45 said:
In the same way that it seems like consumer grade processors are only getting, or even needing, minor computer power improvements because it seems good enough, 8K at that size is when you will finally reach "good enough" for monitors. This sort of monitor at 60Hz (or especially 120Hz) should be essentially photorealistic like you are looking through a window.
Click to expand...

It isn't resolution that is lacking and why things aren't photorealistic with modern monitors. It's because of things that no monitor can ever correct, due to the need for things like balanced backlighting, better darks, greater dynamic range, etc. Etc.

Unless you sit stupidly close to your screen 110dpi is all you ,me or anyone else needs on the desktop. Anything above that is just wasted on placebo.


To me, if you have to use scaling on your screen to make it usable, it only means one thing, that you bought too many pixels for the size/viewing distance.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
It isn't resolution that is lacking and why things aren't photorealistic with modern monitors. It's because of things that no monitor can ever correct, due to the need for things like balanced backlighting, better darks, greater dynamic range, etc. Etc.

Unless you sit stupidly close to your screen 110dpi is all you ,me or anyone else needs on the desktop. Anything above that is just wasted on placebo.


To me, if you have to use scaling on your screen to make it usable, it only means one thing, that you bought too many pixels for the size/viewing distance.
Click to expand...
I don't know what your eyes are like, but i have a WFP 2408 and a 2715k (5k 27") and there's a huge difference in pixel density that is evident from about 22" away. On the 2715, you can't see pixels without a magnifying glass. On the 2408, I can see them with my naked eye. It's not bad, but when you view it side by side, it's obvious...and for reference the 2408 is 118ppi.
 
Have one of these panels in my laptop. They are indeed quite nice. However, when I did a side by side comparison of the IGZO display (12.5" 2560x1440) next to an HP Envy 13 using a quad subpixel (RGBW) IPS (13.3" 3200x1600) display... it was INCREDIBLY difficult to see any real difference. Brightness, gamut all excellent, color saturate and tone was very even. The real difference is that the IGZO requires less backlight to be as visible since the panel is more transparent, thus lower power consumption. I'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between the IGZO and IPS panels from a foot away though.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
As far as I am concerned 27" is too small for 4k. 8k is just stupid.

AFAIK, 27" is even a bit small for 1440p...

4k doesn't even make sense until you hit 40", even if you are sitting right in front of it.

If I am going to get an 8k screen, it better be 80" :p

Actually I pass. I have no need for a screen that large.

There is no reason to go above ~110dpi on the desktop.

Scaling is just dumb.
Click to expand...

Depends on what you are using it for.

For typographic usage 8K is excellent. Serif fonts no longer look like ass. Even 150 DPI (4K@32" class), serif fonts aren't as good as they are on say a current-gen high-res smartphone.
 
Sweet I guess? I thought 4K on less than 30" was kinda dumb, but 8K? Just nuts. 8K probably needs to be like 50".
 
bman212121 said:
Tvs are built upon a glass substrate that is similar to the way wafers for processors are created. The larger the size of the display, the bigger chance there is for errors which make the yields lower. It would be very difficult for them to manufacturer an entire substrate with a high density and not have errors. Like processors, some of them are tossed out because they are defective. The larger a single panel is, the more waste there will be if something isn't right. Costs go up exponentially to the point where it's just not feasible to do.

Click on the "how to make a flat panel display" video, it should give an overview.
How We Do It | Applied Materials
Click to expand...

Is this on their IGZO process? That's relatively new material over a-Si (I was fabricating circuits using that material set only 8 years ago in my MS and talking/working with AMAT on developing amorphous semiconductors), so I imagine yield are also going to take a bit of time to come up. You can definitely make better transistors with IGZO than a-Si--way better mobility.

FWIW, IGZO is the channel material for the pixel-switching transistors. You can (theoretically) have any sort of liquid crystal cell in front of it. I'm not up to date on the details of what's realistic.
 
You guys are starting to sound like the whole "the human eye can't see more than 24fps" debaters. We have proved time and time again that the human eye kicks all kinds of ass given its full technical specs. 8k at 27 inches is not too small it just might finally be enough. I use this ppi daily and it's very noticeably sharper. You want there to be an abundance of pixels so you never see one. Aliasing has always made computer images instantly recognizable and is the main reason we can't get photorealism. Once you hit pixel saturation you don't see edges you see complete images. This is supposed to be [H] forum, why is everyone going so lite today.
 
When I got my 40" 4k 60hz monitor I was excited for the 8k future. People who draft plans get a lot of benefit from this. I imagine actual work being done, can get quite a boost from these. 50"-60" 8k? Will be an early adopter again.
 
SixFootDuo said:
The only benefit I see from an 8k monitor is making Intel, AMD, Nvidia release more and more powerful CPU's and Video Cards to keep up with 8k.

I know a lot of people and hardly anyone has 4k yet. So this is confusing. I really don't see 4k becoming mainstream until at least 2018 or 2019 and even then the numbers will be small.

1080p has taken a decade to get to where it is now.

So .... 8k? smh
Click to expand...

I have a 28" 4k monitor and two 22" 1080p monitors. I set the 4k monitor to 1440p, cause it becomes ridiculous to mouse from one monitor to the other. Goes quick on the 1080p, then once you hit the 4k, it feels like my mouse drops to 300 dpi. I was actually swapping between 800 dpi on the 1080p and 2200 dpi when I hit the 4k monitor. I got sick of doing that after a day, so I just set it to 1440p. Not to mention everything is freaking tiny.

Maybe if I was only using a single monitor or dual 4K monitors, I'd set it for actual 4k. With the other 1080p monitors, it made no sense to have it set at 4k.
 
Derfnofred said:
Is this on their IGZO process? That's relatively new material over a-Si (I was fabricating circuits using that material set only 8 years ago in my MS and talking/working with AMAT on developing amorphous semiconductors), so I imagine yield are also going to take a bit of time to come up. You can definitely make better transistors with IGZO than a-Si--way better mobility.

FWIW, IGZO is the channel material for the pixel-switching transistors. You can (theoretically) have any sort of liquid crystal cell in front of it. I'm not up to date on the details of what's realistic.
Click to expand...

Not a clue on that one. I can't say as I really see much news about tv manufacturing processes so I don't know that much about what they are doing. I'd certainly be interested in reading up on it though if I come across something.




krotch said:
I have a 28" 4k monitor and two 22" 1080p monitors. I set the 4k monitor to 1440p, cause it becomes ridiculous to mouse from one monitor to the other. Goes quick on the 1080p, then once you hit the 4k, it feels like my mouse drops to 300 dpi. I was actually swapping between 800 dpi on the 1080p and 2200 dpi when I hit the 4k monitor. I got sick of doing that after a day, so I just set it to 1440p. Not to mention everything is freaking tiny.

Maybe if I was only using a single monitor or dual 4K monitors, I'd set it for actual 4k. With the other 1080p monitors, it made no sense to have it set at 4k.
Click to expand...


The thing to keep in mind is that every time there is a resolution bump, things need to be setup to scale correctly to it. This is actually one of the advantages of UWP windows apps, that they will automatically scale in order to keep with the times. (I'm actually curious if you open up a UWP store app, is it the same size on the screen at 1440p as it is at 4k?) There was certainly a time where 1080p was new and it was crazy to use one of monitors because text was so small then. Back when most people were rocking 1024 x 768 or even lower, none of that stuff would be big enough now for 1080p let alone 4k. I can only image with an 8K monitor, you might need to have icons that are like 640 x 480 pixels in size. Go back 20 years and that icon would fill the entire screen.
 
Awesome for work perhaps, but I can't afford the quad TitanX SLI setup it would take to fuel that monster monitor for gaming.
 
John721 said:
Awesome for work perhaps, but I can't afford the quad TitanX SLI setup it would take to fuel that monster monitor for gaming.
Click to expand...
This won't be available for normal consumers for several years. By then, GPUs will be much more powerful.
 
bman212121 said:
Not a clue on that one. I can't say as I really see much news about tv manufacturing processes so I don't know that much about what they are doing. I'd certainly be interested in reading up on it though if I come across something.

The thing to keep in mind is that every time there is a resolution bump, things need to be setup to scale correctly to it. This is actually one of the advantages of UWP windows apps, that they will automatically scale in order to keep with the times. (I'm actually curious if you open up a UWP store app, is it the same size on the screen at 1440p as it is at 4k?) There was certainly a time where 1080p was new and it was crazy to use one of monitors because text was so small then. Back when most people were rocking 1024 x 768 or even lower, none of that stuff would be big enough now for 1080p let alone 4k. I can only image with an 8K monitor, you might need to have icons that are like 640 x 480 pixels in size. Go back 20 years and that icon would fill the entire screen.
Click to expand...
Unless you had vision problems, text was never small at the typical 23 to 24 inch size used for 1920x1080. And when people were running 1024x768 it was on 15 to 17 inch screens with really only 14 to 16 inch "viewable" as they called it.
 
Linus Tech Tips did a video of "simulated" 8k gaming by putting together 4 27" 4k displays.

IMO that would be the perfect display size for 8k. 27" is just far beyond practical.
 
Zarathustra[H] said:
As far as I am concerned 27" is too small for 4k. 8k is just stupid.

AFAIK, 27" is even a bit small for 1440p...

4k doesn't even make sense until you hit 40", even if you are sitting right in front of it.

If I am going to get an 8k screen, it better be 80" :p

Actually I pass. I have no need for a screen that large.

There is no reason to go above ~110dpi on the desktop.

Scaling is just dumb.
Click to expand...

1440p is just OK for 27". It's just below 110DPI so it's good. But 28 is perfect.

But I'd love a 8K 28" screen. If the scaling actually worked as intended. Scaling in windows is completely broken garbage. Why can it work perfectly on an Android phone, but not on a damn desktop? Right now scaling is useless. But it's not dumb. If it worked it would be nice.
 
bman212121 said:
The thing to keep in mind is that every time there is a resolution bump, things need to be setup to scale correctly to it. This is actually one of the advantages of UWP windows apps, that they will automatically scale in order to keep with the times. (I'm actually curious if you open up a UWP store app, is it the same size on the screen at 1440p as it is at 4k?) There was certainly a time where 1080p was new and it was crazy to use one of monitors because text was so small then. Back when most people were rocking 1024 x 768 or even lower, none of that stuff would be big enough now for 1080p let alone 4k. I can only image with an 8K monitor, you might need to have icons that are like 640 x 480 pixels in size. Go back 20 years and that icon would fill the entire screen.
Click to expand...

I have my icons set to "small icons", but in 4k I had them set to "large icons". Size wasn't really an issue. It was just moving my mouse across it after leaving a 1080p screen.
 
I have a 4K 27" and to me it is about perfect, still need more resolution to totally wipe out edge aliasing. I can read text at 100% size fairly well but prefer 125% to 150% which blows away for clarity lower resolution screens texts. The other advantage of 27" is, if you have to go to 1440p for a game, it is still good enough ppi resolution with less black space between the pixels then a native 1440p monitor. Now I would like an ultra wide 21:9 5K curved monitor 34"-36" which to me would probably be about perfect for gaming. For 8k 16:9, 32"-36" would seem perfect, anything bigger would make it more a UHDTV then a computer monitor. I really don't want to have to turn my head constantly at the desk to see something with an oversized monitor nor have to sit back several feet back so I can see it making no different then a smaller monitor at a closer distance. Bigger is not always better in other words, there is a point that it becomes less efficient or uncomfortable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top