Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
Displays Japan

Japan Display Squeezes 8K Resolution Into 17-inch LCD, Cracks 510 PPI At 120Hz 178

MojoKid writes: By any metric, 8K is an incredibly high resolution. In fact, given that most HD content is still published in 1080p, the same could be said about 4K. 4K packs in four times the pixels of 1080p, while 8K takes that and multiplies it by four once again; we're talking 33,177,600 pixels. We've become accustomed to our smartphones having super-high ppi (pixels-per-inch); 5.5-inch 1080p phones are 401 ppi, which is well past the point that humans are able to differentiate individual pixels. Understanding that highlights just how impressive Japan Display's (JDI) monitor is, as it clocks in at 510 ppi in a 17-inch panel. Other specs include a 2000:1 contrast ratio, a brightness of 500cd/m2, and a 176 degree viewing angle. While the fact that the company achieved 8K resolution in such a small form-factor is impressive in itself, also impressive is the fact that it has a refresh rate of 120Hz.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Japan Display Squeezes 8K Resolution Into 17-inch LCD, Cracks 510 PPI At 120Hz

Comments Filter:
  • What applications? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by AK Marc ( 707885 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @07:36PM (#50658459)
    I can't wait for this in a laptop. I'm tired of horrible resolution and smaller laptop screens.
    • by gweilo8888 ( 921799 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @07:37PM (#50658469)
      Applications like "viewing with your eyeball actually pressed to the cover glass." You know, real critical ones.

      Nothing at all to do with getting the biggest feel-good number on the spec sheet, No sir, not at all.
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        No, the idea is that the pixel density is so great that the pixels are not even on your mind.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        You're wrong. For looking at a website, sure this may be overkill. But for medical applications -- reading digital x-rays and MRI scans, for instance -- it's most definitely not overkill; very, very small and low-contrast features on medical images often are of crucial importance.

      • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @11:29PM (#50659187)

        Remember to use gold plated connectors to get the best visual fidelity.

        • Remember to use gold plated connectors to get the best visual fidelity.

          I've been getting 8K resolution for years just by jamming my Denon Link Cable [amazon.com] directly into my eye socket to interface with the optic nerve. It only hurt the first few times.

      • by BcNexus ( 826974 )
        VR VR VR - Use the technology to build VR headsets. Imagine a full-hd 1080p or higher VR headset with a tiny display or displays for the eyes.
        • by Alioth ( 221270 )

          Oculus Rift DK2 is already 1080p vertical resolution, but it's nowhere near enough. The next versions will be about 1200 vertical which will help. Really the displays in the headsets need to be approaching 4K for a full-on-HD experience.

      • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

        Until we get down to Planck-scale, the pixels are still too "digital".

      • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Monday October 05, 2015 @05:23AM (#50660091) Homepage

        Panasonic sells 4k monitors of this size in volume to the medical industry, and for engineering work (CAD). It's likely that they will upgrade to 8k soon and use that to spur development of the technology. Those industries will pay 5x as much for a GPU because it is guaranteed to produce correct output (gamers won't notice a single pixel being slightly the wrong shade of green now and then), so it's clear that there is demand from them. They basically want to eliminate any visible aliasing issues entirely, which is also why they pay for very high end printers.

        • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
          The first hit for a Panasonic got a result for a $30k 30 inch monitor. That's got a few specialized uses, but I have QHD in a 5" screen for under $500 on my phone, to think that it's almost 100x as much to get the same DPI in a 4x larger screen seems insane. 4k laptop screens should be the norm, but I have trouble finding a laptop that matches my 5" phone, in any screen size.
      • by Alioth ( 221270 ) <no@spam> on Monday October 05, 2015 @07:15AM (#50660295) Journal

        In other words, virtual reality. The problem with the current VR headsets like the DK2, is you have effectively a 1080p display that fills most of your field of vision, in other words, yes - you can see the pixels and they are pretty big. The screen door effect is also pretty bad. Text is very difficult to read using the Rift DK2 unless the text is very large.

        Developing very high PPI displays will be a real benefit for VR headsets. Tne next crop (the Vive/SteamVR and Oculus CV1) have better resolution (IIRC it's something like 1200 pixels vertical) and probably will have much less of a screen door effect, but the resolution really needs doubling at least for a VR headset to truly feel HD.

      • by wirefarm ( 18470 )

        As a biological research scientist, let me tell you that this will have *lots* of applications.
        You have no idea how bad a typical computer display looks when you stick it under a microscope.

    • I 100% agree that this would be a kick-ass display for a laptop, IF:

      1. The OS and programs were actually written to support it,
      2. The display has good contrast and color reproduction (which, at these high PPIs, is far more important than sheer resolution anyway), and
      3. Pushing all these pixels doesn't heat up or slow down the system unacceptably.

      Unfortunately we're probably a bit far from ANY of these being true, so the experience might as well be a net negative one. Windows has laughable high-resolution su

      • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
        AMOLED is supposed to be brighter and lower power than the alternatives. My current phone is 2560x1440 and lasts much much longer than my S3 with much lower resolution. The problem may be TouchWiz, not the resolution.

        It wouldn't be hard for purpose-built hardware to fake a lower resolution. Don't make the GPU drive an 8k monitor, if the source is 720. Have the GPU drive 720, and either in the GPU or monitor, upscale to fit the monitor. Tricks like that, which work fine in a laptop where you are guarant
    • by allcoolnameswheretak ( 1102727 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @08:23PM (#50658631)

      It's not so great. I've seen an image of the new display on the Internet and it has the same pixel density as my monitor.

    • The answer given by The Fine Press Release [j-display.com] to your question is "not only products*[2] for video image production, but also medical monitors and gaming PC monitors which require, high resolution and depth in image quality, and many more." with footnote 2 saying

      According to the roadmap for 4K/8K Television & Broadcasting of Japan's Ministry of Internal Affairs and Communications, it is expected that commercial 4K broadcasting over CS, CATV and IPTV to start in 2015. Experimental 4K/8K broadcasting over BS

      • In Japan "BS" referring to TV means broadcast satellite, as opposed to broadcast from terrestrial towers.

    • Finally an LCD that will be able to display lower resolutions without (noticeable) artifacts, like a CRT. Now, fix the input lag and black levels.

    • by azav ( 469988 )

      I'm typing this response from a 17" Mac laptop right now.

      Daily, I work on a 15" MBP Retina, but I hate the fact that the screen is so small. I need a Thunderbolt display right next to it for decent display of the content.

      Yeah, I want to see 17" displays again too. Badly.

  • Why ? At normal viewing distance I can't see the pixels on my 28" 4K monitors.

    -Matt

    • I can, but I have 20-10 vision. But I suspect you could actually tell the difference if you had 20-20 and you set a 28" 4k and 8k side by side. Even if you can't quite discern an individual pixel you would probably still see some aliasing until you get 2x or even higher pixel density than an individual pixel is discernible at.
      • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

        I'm sure if you studied still images, trying to find the differences, you'll find some.
        But what if it's a moving picture or you're just trying to read text; does it make any difference in real-world use?

        • Real-world use for lots of people includes looking long and hard at still images. Graphic artists, medical imaging specialists, photographers, archivists, and more. Not everyone needs the highest end for their everyday use. That's okay. Not all of us drive an Indy car or fly from city to city in an F16 either.

          • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

            Those people just zoom into images, which is much easier and clearer.
            If you need to lean into your screen to see details, you're doing it wrong.

            • You can't see the whole image if you have an 4k image on a 4k screen and zoom in. You very seriously can't see all the data from an 8k image on a 4k screen. In graphic arts, a person might be making content for a 30-foot tall video billboard. A doctor might want better resolution of a full MRI, and then zoom in even finer. There's no dichotomy here. You aren't going to lose zooming.

    • Why ? At normal viewing distance I can't see the pixels on my 28" 4K monitors.

      Because it happens to be possible, and people love big numbers. Hardly many need 32 GB RAM either, but there are suckers that build gaming machines with 32 GB.

  • by fleabay ( 876971 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @07:39PM (#50658475)
    Any monitor would crack at 510 pounds per square inch regardless of the Hz.
    • Not a CRT.

  • Not wasted (Score:5, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @07:45PM (#50658485)
    Before anyone goes around calling this pointless, the Japanese (as well as many other Asian countries) character system benefits from a higher resolution more than the writing systems used by most all Western countries. The symbols are far more dense, which makes the additional resolution more useful.

    Here's a good image [techsmart.co.za] that shows off that difference that additional resolution can achieve.
    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Back in the real world, The Martian [imdb.com] was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K. In theory a person with 20/10 vision (yes, they do exist) sitting in the middle of a large screen cinema should be able to see 7K [red.com], but tha

      • I saw the Martian 3 hours ago. At no point did I look at the screen and consider the resolution of the images. Whatever it was, it was sufficient to see people and stuff. The people and stuff interacted in way that rendered an adequate but not awesome movie.

      • Back in the real world, The Martian was mastered in 2K and hardly anybody noticed. I have a UHD monitor and using RAW still photos I can tell the difference between a photo natively cropped to 3840x2160 and one that's between downscaled to 1920x1080 and back at my typically sitting distance but you need to watch some fine detail. There's no way I'd see anything past 4K.

        I use a projector at home on a screen 14 feet away to project a 150" image (about 11 ft x 6.5 ft) in FHD (what I assume you're calling 2k).

      • I have 20/10 on one eye and 20/12 on the other. I'm hardly an anomaly. I didn't notice that The Martian was mastered in 2k, because it was a movie. I had other things to focus on than the detail sharpness.

        When I'm working in front of a computer screen things are different. I do not directly perceive the individual pixels, but I clearly notice that text is fuzzy and that colors bleed on my 1440p 27" screen at home. At work I have a 1080p screen and it's even worse. An 8k screen would help with this a fair bi

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Even older movies can get cleaned, 8K scan of the original negative depending on the decade scanned in.
      So the huge back catalogue of classics is just another generation of scanning and cleaning away :)
    • , the Japanese (as well as many other Asian countries) character system benefits from a higher resolution more than the writing systems used by most all Western countries.

      Yeah, but what's the point having a resolution greater than what the human eye can resolve? IOT, if the human eye cannot see the difference between 4k or 4000k what is the point of 8k?

    • by mwvdlee ( 775178 )

      Ironically, the "3mm" markers use a font that is roughly 3x the size of the strangely un-anti-aliassed fonts rendered in the image.
      Zoom your browser to ~50% and imagine the characters are even smaller than that; do you consider text of that size to be reasonably readable even from a 4800dpi print?

  • Direct Link (Score:4, Informative)

    by jaa101 ( 627731 ) <James.Ashton@ashtons.id.au> on Sunday October 04, 2015 @07:54PM (#50658523)

    to the company's press release [j-display.com].

  • 16:9? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ArchieBunker ( 132337 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @07:59PM (#50658535) Homepage

    If it's 16:9 ratio I'm not interested. You can pry 16:10 displays from my cold dead hands.

    • You work in windowed interface. When the pixel density goes up, the importance of aspect ratio goes down.

  • What interface ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by x0ra ( 1249540 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @08:16PM (#50658609)
    4k already needs DisplayPort 1.2 to be able to push data at 60Hz. What interface can conveniently push 8k at 120Hz ??
    • Re:What interface ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by x0ra ( 1249540 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @08:27PM (#50658649)
      doing the quick math, 4k@60Hz require 14Gbps of bandwidth, so 8k@120Hz should at least be able to push 112Gbps... Not anytime soon.
    • Re:What interface ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Lost Race ( 681080 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @08:28PM (#50658653)

      According to my calculations, 7680*4320 pixels * 24 bits/pixel * 120 Hz equals about 95 gigabits/second. Wow.

    • by Overzeetop ( 214511 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @08:48PM (#50658713) Journal

      DP 1.3 is 32.4Gbps (25.92Gbps net through after overhead) which is sufficient for 8k/30Hz full 24bit video at ~25Gbps, and 8k/60Hz using 4:2:0 subsampling. That's clearly not ideal for a computer screen, where you would want 4:4:4, but is probably good enough for nearly any screen up to about 40-50" (and likely on towards 100") regardless of distance when reproducing video (moving) content.

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward

        eDP 1.4a allows for a single link of up to 16 lanes at HBR3.
        That's 103.68Gbps usable, enough for 7680x4320/120Hz 24bpp without any chroma subsampling shenanigans.

    • Re:What interface ? (Score:5, Informative)

      by Crypto Gnome ( 651401 ) on Sunday October 04, 2015 @09:19PM (#50658809) Homepage Journal
      http://arstechnica.com/gadgets... [arstechnica.com]

      Apparently Embedded DisplayPort (eDP) 1.4a is claiming enough bandwidth and functionality to support 8k@60Hz, and in Feb this year they were expecting products to be available in 2016.

      "Embedded" means the spec is for laptop/tablet/phone and other all-in-one type devices (eg iMac).
      • Re:What interface ? (Score:4, Interesting)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojoNO@SPAMworld3.net> on Monday October 05, 2015 @05:18AM (#50660083) Homepage

        Consumer 8k is still a few years out. NHK, who invented it, are planning to start broadcasts in time for the 2020 Olympics in Tokyo. To that end they are ignoring 4k completely so they can concentrate on 8k.

        It's a big project. As well as 8k capable interconnects for consumer products, they need to develop new cameras (manual focus is far too difficult to be practical at that resolution, and current auto-focus is inadequate), new editing equipment, new make-up and sets, and of course a new broadcasting system that can compress ~100Gb/sec+ of data in real time and send it over existing channel bandwidth, for reception on a basic wideband antenna.

        Oh, and it supports 22 channel sound, but it's not clear if that will be used for broadcast.

        I saw a demo of it years ago and it was amazing. Really something else, incredibly life-like.

    • Could you multiplex several ports? Skylake is capable of driving 3x4k monitors at 60Hz. In principle there's no reason why you couldn't treat each quadrant of the display as a separate screen and send the relevant pixels to it (assuming rendering at that speed isn't a problem).
      • As someone with a Skylake chip when I just last week rebuilt this machine... It may theoretically be able to power 3x 4k monitors, but I seriously doubt it could do much with them once it did. My new gear didn't like my old Radeon HD 6970 I wanted to use with it, so since I built it I've been running it's integrated GPU. Tomorrow a new shiny Radeon R9 390 arrives though and that... I can see doing something with multiple 4k screens.

  • Like the LG G3 with 2550x1440 resolution in a 5.5" screen, giving 538ppi
    It came out in June 2014

    What can actually drive an 8k display at 120hz?
    DisplayPort 1.3 only supports 60hz 8K with 4:2:0 sub sampling

    • Which brings up an interesting point. Desktop machines struggle to drive 4k monitiors with hundreds of watts of graphics power. Phones (like the G3) drive their QHD displays with a total thermal envelope of about 5W. Even scaling up, 9 phones is 45W to drive this many pixels. Why the disconnect?

      (note this doesn't really address the connection - phones get ultra-short cables and small total pixel counts compared to this)

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ChrisMaple ( 607946 )

        Graphics cards in computers draw most of their power doing lighting calculations for games, many calculations for each pixel. Phones just pass along pixel information from the source material, with nothing more complicated than scaling going on.

        Even a high end computer video card uses a lot less than maximum power when it's doing as little work as a phone does.

      • Desktop machines don't struggle at all. The phones will just be rendering 3D at a lower resolution and upscaling it.
        If you do the rendering at 720p and upscale it to 1440p... perhaps with a bit of filtering or anti-aliasing, it will still look good on a 5.5" screen.

    • by Troed ( 102527 )

      Or the just announced Sony Xperia Z5 Premium - 3840x2160 5.5" screen with 806 PPI.

      806.

      http://www.sonymobile.com/glob... [sonymobile.com]

  • You need to have solid gold conductors to support this kind of quality in display. Sure, it is digital transmission with automatic error correction, but with the $7999 per meter Monster HDMI cable every one is a perfect straight line and every zero is a perfect circle. True videophiles can tell the difference. If you don't pay for it, you are just confessing your inferior vidophilabiltiy.
  • Wow - this would be great...though in a larger size - say 60ish inches; enough for a 30x42 plan at nearly 150 dpi with room on the side for toolbars. Throw in a wacom/n-trig digitizer interface and a stand that lets me mount it like a drafting table and I'd be in heaven.

    • Wow - this would be great...though in a larger size - say 60ish inches; enough for a 30x42 plan at nearly 150 dpi with room on the side for toolbars. Throw in a wacom/n-trig digitizer interface and a stand that lets me mount it like a drafting table and I'd be in heaven.

      Nope, sorry. We reserve only our best 8K displays for nothing larger than a 6" screen.

      Yeah, fuck all that actual useful shit we could use this technology on, we need 8K smart phones for Instagram filters obviously. Oh and Candy Crush.

  • I wish I could see the difference between a regular display at and 4k one. 8k is just too damn many pixels.

    I should have listened to my Ma when she said not to sit so close to the TV screen, but Julie Newmar as Catwoman was too much to resist.

    http://www.julienewmar.com/ima... [julienewmar.com]

  • "...We've become accustomed to our smartphones having super-high ppi (pixels-per-inch); 5.5-inch 1080p phones are 401 ppi, which is well past the point that humans are able to differentiate individual pixels."

    It would seem that due to this the only thing we humans are getting accustomed to is believing the marketing hype and bullshit.

    Your next cell phone will have sonar and infrared capability...not that you'll be able to see or hear any of it, but that won't matter. Somehow vendors will assume we asked for it, and therefore justified a $3000 cell phone price. It's all about the bells and whistles these days.

  • Why?
  • Good, now we need the screen to be 5" and we'll finally be ready for VR.
  • Is it just me that was completely "shoot this guy off the internet", when TFS multiplied "4k by four yet once again" to get to 8K??

  • This is nice, but what we need is the industry to fix, once and for all, the dead pixel/stuck pixel problem first.

"Irrigation of the land with sewater desalinated by fusion power is ancient. It's called 'rain'." -- Michael McClary, in alt.fusion

Working...