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.
What applications? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What applications? (Score:4, Interesting)
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)
No, the idea is that the pixel density is so great that the pixels are not even on your mind.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
But what else am I going to connect my diamond plated, gold enfused, gas pumped Monster Cables too?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
No, the idea is that the pixel density is so great that the pixels are not even on your mind.
But that is already true with current retina displays. Even 4k is total overkill for a 17 inch monitor. You won't notice the difference.
This is only true in Apple marketing land. Apple retina marketing has misled a lot of people into believing that their "retina" displays match the maximum resolution of human vision, but they do not. This page details how we can see 530 ppi at 20 inch viewing distance, which is higher than even the display this story is about: http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html
Re: (Score:2)
1440dpi is regarded as the minimum print resolution for glossy magazines. Many of the upmarket ones use higher densities than that....
Would you buy a 300dpi printer? (Score:3)
How long ago did 300dpi printing become obsolete? These days I usually print drafts at 600dpi, because laser printers and LANs are fast enough that it's not annoying, and I don't usually explicitly notice jaggies at 300dpi, but you can still tell that the higher resolution looks better, if you care.
But that's black and white text printed on dead trees, not screens. Sure, it's harder to notice minor resolution differences with color photographs than with letters that have well-defined edges, and even harde
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Small features, yes. But you *expand* digital images to get a better look. No one's eyes can reliably see details that fine.
Re: (Score:3)
The human eye however has a maximum resolution that's not about to change anytime soon without genetic engineering,
Yeah, and we are still nowhere near max resolution.
http://hardware.slashdot.org/c... [slashdot.org]
Re:What applications? (Score:5, Funny)
Remember to use gold plated connectors to get the best visual fidelity.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Until we get down to Planck-scale, the pixels are still too "digital".
Re:What applications? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What applications? (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
If I did that, what would I do with the microscope? I just finished paying for it
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
My monitor is 22" 1080p and I don't see pixels.
Your monitor has < 100 PPI
The only reason you don't perceive pixels is due to anti aliasing or because you're using it as a TV.
Re:What applications? (Score:4, Informative)
120Hz is good, 8K native resolution is also good, even if I would not use the monitor at that resolution. One of my problems with LCDs is that they distort the image if the resolutions do not match. CRTs do not have this problem. An 8K 17" LCD also won't have this problem. Whether I would set it to 1920x1200, 1280x800 or 1152x864 (4:3 with pillarbox), the image would look just as nice as on a CRT.
120Hz means faster image update rate at any resolution (unlike my CRT which can do 160Hz at some low resolution but only 85Hz at 1920x1200, a LCD that does only 60Hz at its max resolution does not get any faster at lower resolutions).
I am only concerned now with the input lag and black levels, but it seems that one day I will be able to replace my CRT monitor with a similar size LCD (24") that will have higher resolution and none of the annoyances of current LCDs.
Re: (Score:2)
>There are dozens of products that will give you everything you want
Thats why one starts a argument like that by listing said products.
Examples would need to have a few specific qualities like:
-Being able to run 480p/i without degrading quality
-No input lag
-Black and white levels
-Saturnation levels
So far, the first point is a very huge problem. LCD has no scaling capabilities, before you reach a 4-5x resolution. The second problem is a huge one, since there is no industry standard for it, so there is no
Re: (Score:3)
On a CRT:
Black levels are better - the black part of the screen emits as much light as a monitor that's completely off.
There is no input lag, at all.
1440x900 looks just as nice as 1920x1200, no scaling artifacts.
The colors do not change, no matter the viewing angle.
Now, the last part is taken care of by the 8K display, now just the input lag and black levels remain.
"Contrast" is a bit different. Some monitors claim to have high contrast, but actually have really crap black levels, it's just that at full bri
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re:What applications? (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
In Japan "BS" referring to TV means broadcast satellite, as opposed to broadcast from terrestrial towers.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
ok, but... (Score:2)
Why ? At normal viewing distance I can't see the pixels on my 28" 4K monitors.
-Matt
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Any monitor would crack at 510 PPI (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Not a CRT.
Re: (Score:2)
What if the monitor weighed 2000 lbs and sat on a base that was 2"x2"?
Re: (Score:3)
"The symbol for "pounds per square inch" units is "psi" not "ppi". You dumb fuck."
Those are letters and abbreviations, not symbols, you dumb fuck.
Re: (Score:2)
A letter is a symbol, you ... oh wait, I'm not playing this game.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, no. Psi used in engineering and science is denoted with .
I think you need to go back to fucking your sister - see I don't even have one, which shows your own utter retardation.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, pounds and inches aren't metric, so there is NO SI SYMBOL in the first place.
But engineers use the Greek letter Psi for air pressure. At least those with any classical education.
Re: (Score:2)
ppi = penises per ... dammit I can't think of a good 'i'
Only because you haven't watched enough porn. Individual, innocent, insertion, interview, Italian...
Not wasted (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a good image [techsmart.co.za] that shows off that difference that additional resolution can achieve.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
So the huge back catalogue of classics is just another generation of scanning and cleaning away
Re: (Score:2)
, 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?
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:2)
I can see the pixels on my phone if I look carefully. I don't have the best eyesight either.
It's screen is 423 ppi. 5.2" 1080p
Re:Not wasted (Score:4, Insightful)
Just as a matter of basic freshman physics (Rayleigh criterion) humans do not have the optical hardware to see sub-arcminute sized detail.
Yes, they really do. Arcminute resolution is only 20/20 vision (by definition) whereas more people manage 20/15 (corrected, better eye)[1] [cdc.gov]; that's 45 arcseconds. Almost 1% of people manage 20/10 or 30 arcseconds.
Staying with 45 arcseconds, viewing distance to see the pixels on this display is then 9". If it were a 4K display of the same size the number would be 18".
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, you are wrong, there is an excellent reason to have 8K displays - to sell them. The exact same reason we have always sold on spec's. Most people buy based on "mostest". Because, well they are told it is best...
Re: (Score:2)
The only real value of this is saving a graphics card, or CPU some effort in converting 8k down to 4k or 1080p.
There's no value in that, because scalers are very good now. But the human eye can tell the difference between 300 and say 600 dpi, to which 550 is close enough, especially when viewing images with a lot of stippling. For photographs, the difference will be imperceptible.
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, it'll still be readabe, but not in any comfortable way.
You say you did it to fit more on the paper, which means you'd normally print larger.
Re: (Score:3)
>It's probably industrial
Or medical.
X-rays are sent 'round the hospital not on film these days, but as files. 7-8 years ago XGA flat panels and similar were pretty standard at RI Hospital. The thing is, when you have a fracture that is the head of your radius pushed into your radius, it's very difficult to see the actual break with that fuzzy resolution (because it looks normal). After going home with some Oxycontin (urgh, never again) I had to take the actual films to my orthopedist who put them on a
Re: (Score:2)
I think you are confusing image capture resolution with image display resolution.
It doesn't matter what image image capture resolution you have if your display resolution is orders of magnitude less.
So no, I'm not confusing the two.
>I said 7 years ago
'Splain to me how RI Hospital had access to Retina display resolution. Give three examples.
I'm pretty sure it is you who are confused.
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
>but there were some very high resolution displays commonly sold to radiology departments 8+ years ago.
Which did not make their way to the ER department.
>as much as a small car
And this is why.
--
BMO
Direct Link (Score:4, Informative)
to the company's press release [j-display.com].
16:9? (Score:3, Insightful)
If it's 16:9 ratio I'm not interested. You can pry 16:10 displays from my cold dead hands.
Re: (Score:3)
You work in windowed interface. When the pixel density goes up, the importance of aspect ratio goes down.
Re: (Score:2)
pro-tip: dual external monitors.
One landscape, one rotated for portrait.
I am studying at university. Portrait is great for viewing most documents for print except when book chapters from the library are scanned in landscape in 2-page view. Landscape is fine for web pages that wrap text horizontally but not so much when they have fixed width margins for ads on the side.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not the only one who does this?! It's great when I have a document to read while making a presentation (among other potential task combinations).
OT side-note: I like to use my background to cycle through family photographs. The problem with our setup is that it makes it hard to do that (at least on Windows). If you set "Picture position" to tile, you can do it. But depending on how you set up your screen alignment, you have to mess with the way the pictures are arranged in the background. For instance,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
No, he means 16:10. You may think you're awesome remembering grade school math, but comparing 16:10 to 16:9 is more intuitive, even for geniuses like you.
What interface ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:What interface ? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What interface ? (Score:4, Informative)
According to my calculations, 7680*4320 pixels * 24 bits/pixel * 120 Hz equals about 95 gigabits/second. Wow.
Re:What interface ? (Score:4, Insightful)
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)
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)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm waiting for holograms. :P
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Phones are higher density (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Or the just announced Sony Xperia Z5 Premium - 3840x2160 5.5" screen with 806 PPI.
806.
http://www.sonymobile.com/glob... [sonymobile.com]
Monster cable already supports it (Score:2)
As someone who deals with architectural drawings (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Blind as a Bat-Man (Score:2)
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]
Getting accustumed to bullshit. (Score:2)
"...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 (Score:2)
A step towards presence. (Score:2)
Basic un-maths (Score:2)
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??
Fix the stuck pixel problem first (Score:2)
This is nice, but what we need is the industry to fix, once and for all, the dead pixel/stuck pixel problem first.
Re: (Score:2)
some people like hamburger grease all over their touchscreen!
Gigahertz just hit a wall (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
By this logic, why did print resolutions go past 300dpi? There is no reason at all to expect monitor resolutions to stay inferior to print resolutions.
Also, no matter what the averages are from however many billion measurements, there's always a market for those who are more discerning than the average.
Btw. 20/20 never ever meant perfect vision, and, given the variation in the anatomy of the eye, probably there's no such thing.
Re: (Score:2)
> There's also a market for diamond-encrusted cars and solid gold toilets.
Nice strawman, but comparing 600dpi and 1200dpi printing to solid gold toilets is excessive... like solid gold toilet excessive. And yes there's a market for that, but let's consider that niche and leave it at that.
Of course your flawed point above doesn't mean that the essence of your previous post is invalid, as evidenced by how Intel introduced the Pentium 4 at the time - competing on just the PR metric of the CPU frequency. But