8K by 4K or Octo HD - the real SUHDTV technology - Page 23 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 18Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #661 of 725 Old 02-13-2014, 10:44 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
^True, but there is definitive gearing up towards 4K. Technology will soon make it cheap.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #662 of 725 Old 02-20-2014, 12:16 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Where the 8K, 80K, 800K and higher resolutions will be a must.....in rollable wallpapers eek.gif

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #663 of 725 Old 02-23-2014, 01:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,597
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Liked: 866

 

Terrible idea.  For comfort reasons alone I want to move close to a window and look around.  Particularly in a sealed tube.  Imagine there's an electrical failure and you're completely blacked out on a runway.  Oh now THAT'LL be a great feeling.

 

I'm going to pass on buying that plane in 2018.


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #664 of 725 Old 02-24-2014, 12:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
I think it's a good idea except it won't match what you're eyes would see. You'll be looking at and focusing at a screen very near you instead of through a window to something far away. And it will probably be in 2D and will have a lower frame rate than real life. It should look better the further you are from the screen/"window".
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #665 of 725 Old 03-07-2014, 02:53 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
irkuck is offline  
post #666 of 725 Old 03-07-2014, 04:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Good - I'd rather skip 4K and go directly to 8K.
tgm1024 likes this.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #667 of 725 Old 03-07-2014, 09:07 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,597
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Liked: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post

Good - I'd rather skip 4K and go directly to 8K.

 

I like the powers of 2 to be even. Computer scientists tend to be this way.  0 to 8191 is expressable in 13bits width.  Ick.  I want 2^2, 2^4, etc.  Give me true 16,384 across please.  I know, I know, it's not 8192, etc...


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #668 of 725 Old 03-07-2014, 10:48 AM
Senior Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I like the powers of 2 to be even. Computer scientists tend to be this way.  0 to 8191 is expressable in 13bits width.  Ick.  I want 2^2, 2^4, etc.  Give me true 16,384 across please.  I know, I know, it's not 8192, etc...

Even powers of 2 went out of style with the 128mb DRAM. :-)
Luke M is offline  
post #669 of 725 Old 03-07-2014, 11:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,597
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Liked: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Luke M View Post
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

I like the powers of 2 to be even. Computer scientists tend to be this way.  0 to 8191 is expressable in 13bits width.  Ick.  I want 2^2, 2^4, etc.  Give me true 16,384 across please.  I know, I know, it's not 8192, etc...

Even powers of 2 went out of style with the 128mb DRAM. :-)

 

?


Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #670 of 725 Old 03-07-2014, 03:31 PM
Senior Member
 
Luke M's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 454
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 48 Post(s)
Liked: 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post

?

DRAMs use multiplexed addressing (row/column) and the chip capacity increased by a factor of 4 (1K, 4K, 16K, 64K, 256K, 1M, 4M, 16M, 64M). "Even" powers of 2! Then somebody said - this is silly, screw it, and followed the 128M, 256M, 512M, 1G, 2G, 4G.
Luke M is offline  
post #671 of 725 Old 09-05-2014, 04:45 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
irkuck is offline  
post #672 of 725 Old 09-05-2014, 08:34 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,236
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1160 Post(s)
Liked: 1303
Funny how whenever one format makes inroads, the rumor mill churns on to the next format.

Seriously though, 8K will be a really really tough sell. When some claim they can't see the difference going from 2K>4K, good luck selling 8K.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #673 of 725 Old 09-05-2014, 08:56 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,597
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Liked: 866
8K will be a tough sell, but consider a 16K 65" TV with the frame all black and one lit up pixel.

If it's only moderately lit you likely won't see it from the couch. But if it were putting out amazing amounts of light it could be far far smaller and you'd still see it.

We're looking at resolution entirely incorrectly whenever we start digging out the old spatial acuity calculations for eye charts.
UltraBlack likes this.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #674 of 725 Old 09-05-2014, 11:28 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Funny how whenever one format makes inroads, the rumor mill churns on to the next format. Seriously though, 8K will be a really really tough sell. When some claim they can't see the difference going from 2K>4K, good luck selling 8K.
Marketing machine will invent selling slogans and gimmicks: e.g. 'wonderfully silky smooth 8K pixels' vs. 'old roughly chopped 4K pixels bad for the eyes'

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #675 of 725 Old 09-05-2014, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
GregLee's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Waimanalo HI
Posts: 3,249
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 165 Post(s)
Liked: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
8K will be a tough sell, but consider a 16K 65" TV with the frame all black and one lit up pixel.

If it's only moderately lit you likely won't see it from the couch. But if it were putting out amazing amounts of light it could be far far smaller and you'd still see it.

We're looking at resolution entirely incorrectly whenever we start digging out the old spatial acuity calculations for eye charts.
Yes, and a similar comparison is to consider the light output from an area of the size of one 1080 size pixel on the screen. That area on a 4k or 8k screen will have more pixels, hence more light (and more colors), other things being equal on a pixel-by-pixel basis.

Greg Lee
GregLee is offline  
post #676 of 725 Old 09-05-2014, 12:15 PM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,597
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Liked: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by GregLee View Post
Yes, and a similar comparison is to consider the light output from an area of the size of one 1080 size pixel on the screen. That area on a 4k or 8k screen will have more pixels, hence more light (and more colors), other things being equal on a pixel-by-pixel basis.
Sure, but my point is addressing the whole "it's too small thing". That the sheer amount of light output has more to do with whether or not you'll see something...even something that is technically too angularly small to see otherwise. Something "too small to see" can be seen if bright enough.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #677 of 725 Old 10-09-2014, 11:18 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
irkuck is offline  
post #678 of 725 Old 10-09-2014, 11:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
It's not the first "8K" (7680x4320) TV there have been others demonstrated before. Their claim is it's the first "full spec" "8K" TV (they never mention Octo - only you do) - yet they don't mention any of the specs other than the 7680x4320 resolution. They don't mention if it supports the 120 fps frame rate of UHD2 or any of the other specs.
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #679 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 04:45 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,236
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1160 Post(s)
Liked: 1303
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
Quote:Originally Posted by specuvestor 

As a pro-4k guy, I have to say 8k is an overkill, simply because of the size and viewing distance required which is likely to be beyond the normal city dwellings.

I think the point is that 8K should look good at any size or viewing distance. At larger screen sizes, 4K is not going to look any better than current sub-60″ 1080p displays. Having more resolution than you need is never a bad thing, and I am definitely looking forward to 8K displays. I can’t imagine them being released any time in the near future though.
I'm sorry, this makes no sense to me. With 4K we are already at the point where most people don't have the room, at their current viewing distance, for either a display large enough to show all the benefits of 4K or the ability to move closer to smaller 4K screens to see all the benefits.

So I'm not sure how 8K improves on that. It simply exacerbates the well known issues of seeing all the detail that 4K offers. You'd need utterly huge screen sizes that almost no homes could accommodate, or absolutely absurdly close viewing distances.

No, it's hard enough now to take in all the goodness that 4K can offer, good luck with trying to make 8K work...forget the infrastructure issues.
mattg3 likes this.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #680 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 05:17 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 71
I hope they don't stop pushing the limits. 8K 120Hz will start a whole new world of immersive content. As we've learned over the years from PC games and more recent fine tuning of VR devices like Oculus, to truly create presence (an immersive entertainment experience that makes you feel like you are physically part of the world) you need very high frame rates and very high resolutions. You need to eliminate visible pixels and the visible patterns they produce, those pesky optical effects that your brain uses to break the illusion. For television and movies to reach that level, 4K won't cut it.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #681 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 06:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
Ken Ross's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: N.Y.
Posts: 24,236
Mentioned: 4 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1160 Post(s)
Liked: 1303
Good luck seeing visible pixels on a 4K display unless you're right on top of it. High frame rate 4K can certainly be accomplished if it's high frame rates you're after. Video games will not, IMO, provide an impetus for massive infrastructure changes on the part of broadcasters.
Ken Ross is offline  
post #682 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 06:52 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,597
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Liked: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post
I hope they don't stop pushing the limits. 8K 120Hz will start a whole new world of immersive content.
120 FPS yes.

8K, no.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
post #683 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 06:53 AM
Advanced Member
 
nathanddrews's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 914
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 19 Post(s)
Liked: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
120 FPS yes.

8K, no.
Well then, your wish has been granted via DisplayPort 1.3! Now you just have to wait for the displays to arrive.
nathanddrews is offline  
post #684 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 07:24 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
It's not the first "8K" (7680x4320) TV there have been others demonstrated before. Their claim is it's the first "full spec" "8K" TV (they never mention Octo - only you do) - yet they don't mention any of the specs other than the 7680x4320 resolution. They don't mention if it supports the 120 fps frame rate of UHD2 or any of the other specs.
"....The 8K*4K TV from Sharp is 85” in diagonal and features 120Hz refresh rate..."

What was demoed before were 8K displays. Now they demo a full blown TV indicating the planned introduction of 8K broadcast in Japan in mid-2016 is on course. 8K TVs may show in shops there late 2015. Mentioning lesser specs would not make much sense, it is likely though that this TV is even capable of receiving SDTV

irkuck

Last edited by irkuck; 10-10-2014 at 07:28 AM.
irkuck is offline  
post #685 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 07:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
JWhip's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Wayne, PA
Posts: 4,217
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 176 Post(s)
Liked: 240
I would hazard a guess that very few people want to watch TV sitting a foot from the screen, maybe gamers, but that is about it. 4K is having a slow roll out as it is. The idea of pushing 8K at this point makes no sense to me financially and is certainly not needed technically. Maybe in Japan given the size of flats.
mattg3 likes this.
JWhip is online now  
post #686 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 07:46 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post
"....The 8K*4K TV from Sharp is 85” in diagonal and features 120Hz refresh rate..."

What was demoed before were 8K displays. Now they demo a full blown TV indicating the planned introduction of 8K broadcast in Japan in mid-2016 is on course. 8K TVs may show in shops there late 2015. Mentioning lesser specs would not make much sense, it is likely though that this TV is even capable of receiving SDTV
The refresh rate doesn't tell you what signal it can recieve and display. There are already 100, 120, 200, 240Hz TVs. If they are going to say it's the first full spec 8K TV, that should at least confirm what those specs are (120 fps is one of the main specs of UHD2 but no mention is made of that - 120Hz refresh rate doesn't tell you). The previous "8K" TVs were described in the demos as "8K Ultra HD TV" (not just a display). It's good if this is the first one really going on sale that they're producing in big numbers, but a shame they don't say the specs and the refresh rate is lower than the latest LCD TVs (technically with a bigger TV you probably need a higher refresh rate).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #687 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 07:58 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Joe Bloggs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 2,579
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 148 Post(s)
Liked: 59
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathanddrews View Post
I hope they don't stop pushing the limits. 8K 120Hz will start a whole new world of immersive content. As we've learned over the years from PC games and more recent fine tuning of VR devices like Oculus, to truly create presence (an immersive entertainment experience that makes you feel like you are physically part of the world) you need very high frame rates and very high resolutions. You need to eliminate visible pixels and the visible patterns they produce, those pesky optical effects that your brain uses to break the illusion. For television and movies to reach that level, 4K won't cut it.
Couldn't they use the Oculus or something like it to map 8K video onto a sphere or 2 and film with lenses that captured approx the full 360 degree sphere of video? That way you wouldn't need room really huge (eg. almost wall size) TVs for 8K TV broadcasts, and you could have a much wider field of view (360 degree).
Joe Bloggs is offline  
post #688 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 08:00 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Special Member
 
irkuck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: cyberspace
Posts: 3,519
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 51 Post(s)
Liked: 65
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Bloggs View Post
The refresh rate doesn't tell you what signal it can recieve and display. There are already 100, 120, 200, 240Hz TVs. If they are going to say it's the first full spec 8K TV, that should at least confirm what those specs are (120 fps is one of the main specs of UHD2 but no mention is made of that - 120Hz refresh rate doesn't tell you). The previous "8K" TVs were described in the demos as "8K Ultra HD TV" (not just a display). It's good if this is the first one really going on sale that they're producing in big numbers, but a shame they don't say the specs and the refresh rate is lower than the latest LCD TVs (technically with a bigger TV you probably need a higher refresh rate).
OK, for precise details one has to get to the original source of the information: is started test broadcasting in 2016 "full-spec 8K LCD display". The resolution of 7,680 × 4,320 dots, the refresh rate is the 120Hz, resolution 4 times, can receive the video information overwhelming twice the frame rate compared to the corresponding 4K TV.

No reason to doubt this is full-specs TV capable of receiving 120 Hz video. As a bonus: In addition to mount a combination of speakers to 64 "wavefront synthesis speaker" also feature. It can be up to 22.2ch sound reproduction, so that it is possible to enjoy the sound with realistic approaching ambient.
Joe Bloggs likes this.

irkuck
irkuck is offline  
post #689 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 08:49 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chronoptimist's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,619
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 251
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
Good luck seeing visible pixels on a 4K display unless you're right on top of it. High frame rate 4K can certainly be accomplished if it's high frame rates you're after. Video games will not, IMO, provide an impetus for massive infrastructure changes on the part of broadcasters.
I don't care what broadcasters do, I just want the panel to accept 120Hz or faster signals at 4K or higher resolutions.
And more than that, I want them to include DisplayPort 1.3 connections with support for Adaptive Sync, so that it supports dynamic refresh rates rather than fixed ones.

I haven't watched broadcast in almost a decade now. I couldn't care less about what they do, and I think it's incredibly short-sighted if you think that display technology should be tied into what the broadcasters are doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tgm1024 View Post
120 FPS yes.
8K, no.
For PCs, 8K is still a big deal.
4K means four times the workspace or four times the resolution.
8K means four times the workspace and four times the resolution.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken Ross View Post
I'm sorry, this makes no sense to me. With 4K we are already at the point where most people don't have the room, at their current viewing distance, for either a display large enough to show all the benefits of 4K or the ability to move closer to smaller 4K screens to see all the benefits.

So I'm not sure how 8K improves on that. It simply exacerbates the well known issues of seeing all the detail that 4K offers. You'd need utterly huge screen sizes that almost no homes could accommodate, or absolutely absurdly close viewing distances.

No, it's hard enough now to take in all the goodness that 4K can offer, good luck with trying to make 8K work...forget the infrastructure issues.
I have posted this before, but a friend upgraded from a 46" 1080p display to a 65" 4K display a few months ago. For no reason other than wanting a new TV and wanting "the best" whether everyone was telling him that 4K was pointless or not.
He was surprised to find that pixels were almost as visible on his new 4K display as his previous 1080p one.

A 46" 1080p display only has a pixel density of about 50 PPI.
A 65" 4K display only has a pixel density of about 65 PPI.

While there are four times as many pixels, it's not actually that much of a difference at these sizes.
The increase to 4K really only helps retain the same image quality at larger sizes as you had with smaller displays. It doesn't actually improve image quality much because the pixel density is still so low.

Compare that with phones and tablets where everyone said that 200 PPI was overkill and now that 400 PPI devices are becoming mainstream people are actually admitting that there is a noticeable difference.
The new argument is that 400 PPI displays (1080p) make a difference but 500 PPI displays (1440p) don't. We'll see whether that changes in a year or two once that resolution becomes mainstream.
While viewing distance is obviously a factor, do you really think that there will be no benefit from moving to 100+ PPI on a television?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JWhip View Post
I would hazard a guess that very few people want to watch TV sitting a foot from the screen, maybe gamers, but that is about it. 4K is having a slow roll out as it is. The idea of pushing 8K at this point makes no sense to me financially and is certainly not needed technically. Maybe in Japan given the size of flats.
The charts that people post on these forums about how close you have to sit for 4K to be worthwhile are absolutely laughable.
I agree that if you're just going to be watching streaming services or broadcast, there's no point in 8K at all. For gaming, PC use, and potentially disc-based media (if it still exists) it will be worthwhile.
Chronoptimist is offline  
post #690 of 725 Old 10-10-2014, 09:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
tgm1024's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 6,597
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 529 Post(s)
Liked: 866
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chronoptimist View Post
For PCs, 8K is still a big deal.
4K means four times the workspace or four times the resolution.
8K means four times the workspace and four times the resolution.
I don't understand. You mean driving an 8K display with what amounts to 4 4K video cards or a big honk'n card with 4 4K outs?

Otherwise, given:

A: 2K card --> 2K display
B: 4K card --> 4K display
C: 8K card --> 8K display

All of the above are the same workspace (unless divided up by software, smaller icons, etc.) and C is 4x the resolution of B, and B is 4x the resolution of A, no? I'm missing what you meant.

Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Unless, of course, it's to keep someone from creating a phone video in portrait mode, in which case it's a pretty good first step. Portrait mooks: KNOCK IT OFF.
tgm1024 is offline  
Reply OLED Technology and Flat Panels General

Tags
Lcd Hdtv , Displays , Plasma Hdtv , Panasonic

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off