Dell 8K Monitor

[Bokishi]

Only $4999

 

http://www.pcworld.com/article/3155016/displays/dell-will-ship-first-the-32-inch-8k-display-the-ultrasharp-32-ultra-hd.html

[Gorgon]

After you cant see individual pixels anymore what's the point. I could on my HD screen. I can't on either my ipad or my 4k screen. The 4k video he is editing is 1/4 of the upper right corner, he would have to have his nose up against the monitor to even tell that it was 4k

[Sarex]

This is what I'm interested in http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/news_archive/37.htm#asus_rog_swift_pg27uq. I just hope it comes out soonish.

[Bokishi]

8K will only benefit large screens. I can still see the pixels on my 75" 4K HDR screen, if I put my head really close. 8K would fix that by making that 75" screen into same ppi as a computer monitor. However far future 16K would make that screen into same pixel density as iPhone retina screen

[Sarex]

Turns out the price for the Asus monitor is going to be 2000 euros not 1200... That is way too much.

[Keyrock]

That's just plain stupid.  It's not only insanely expensive, it's also impractical.  You reach a certain level of pixel density beyond which it just doesn't matter, or, at best, you get extremely diminishing returns.  You're paying an exorbitant amount for a monitor that, in practice, will look maybe 2% more sharp than a 32" 4K monitor and you require a significantly more powerful and expensive GPU(s) to run it at full resolution.  You're basically flushing thousands of dollars down the toilet and getting no practical advantage for it.

[mkreku]

Btw, kind of on topic.. I was active in a thread on another forum (for my phone like the complete nerd I am) and one thread was about designing your dream phone. So I made up some specs and drew a rough sketch of how it should look and submitted it. Then I started reading everyone elses submissions.. and people were like "I WANT A 5.5 INCH SCREEN WITH 4K RESOLUTION" and it annoyed me. Why on earth would you want 4k on a screen that small?? No-one can see detail that small!

 

So to prove my point I wrote a post about Apple's Retina screen that's 330 ppi and that's around the limitation of the human eye (5.5 inches and 4k resolution is like 800 ppi) and that's why it's called retina blah blah. I also wrote about how more than 1080p is not necessary, and as a test I made a picture. A white picture, 1080x1920, with black text ranging from 8 points to 12 points and was about to post it and challenge people to read it on their screens.. until I actually tried reading it on my own 5.15 inch 1080p (428 ppi) screen.. and it turned out to be fully readable.. Even the 8 point text.

 

To eliminate the possibility that I've somehow been blessed with the eyes of Australian aboriginals I tried it on several of my work colleagues and most of them could also read it.

 

WTF APPLE?? I'VE BEEN USING YOUR RETINA SCREEN AS AN EXAMPLE IN SEVERAL RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS! I FEEL TRICKED!

 

So yeah, I had to come to another forum to vent my shame.

[Gorgon]

Well, a phone is right up in your face. You factor in distance when you try to calculate what the human eye is capable of seeing surely. 

[ShadySands]

I want this

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/samsung-qh90-super-ultra-wide-329-monitor-photos-2017-6/#behold-the-49-inch-chg90-super-ultrawide-gaming-monitor-from-samsung-samsungs-marketing-photo-simply-doesnt-do-justice-to-the-chg90s-incredible-super-ultra-width-so-here-it-is-displaying-an-excel-spreadsheet-to-help-put-it-into-perspective-1

 

[Bartimaeus]

man, that's horrific

[LadyCrimson]

I saw that double-monitor/one screen earlier, from elsewhere. On the one hand, it's kind of appealing because you can, in essence, use it like two separate 1080 monitors (something on one side, another thing on the other side), whilst also removing the monitor-edge borders of a game stretching across two monitors.

 

But on the other hand, I can also picture a lot of potential (tech) headaches as well that I'm sure I'd end up griping about constantly. Plus I like having three monitors and in that case I'd rather have them separated and moveable etc.

 

Still...one of those "horrific yet oddly appealing" things.

[SonicMage117]

8K will only benefit large screens. I can still see the pixels on my 75" 4K HDR screen, if I put my head really close. 8K would fix that by making that 75" screen into same ppi as a computer monitor. However far future 16K would make that screen into same pixel density as iPhone retina screen

Someone who works at Imax said their theater screens are 16K already. I wouldn't doubt it either.

 

I agree that only larger screens benefit from 8k and above. I look at the Sony Vita which is not even 1080p and conpare it to my 4k phone screen and there is virtually no differences the eye can see. Useless lol Then again, I'm sure this is great for when you hook up the phone to a 4k tv via radioshack mini-usb (charger) to hdmi ;-)

 

...So there is a purpose behind 4k 6in phones after all.

[Wrath of Dagon]

So I see Samsung's QDOT 4k monitors don't have HDR and their HDR monitors aren't full 4K. Bleh.

[mkreku]

I bought an OLED TV and now I want an OLED computer screen.

[Gorgon]

man, that's horrific

That's too much excel. 

[Wrath of Dagon]

I bought an OLED TV and now I want an OLED computer screen.

Me too. But OLED is susceptible to burn in, so it's not very good for static displays. The only ones are professional monitors, which cost more than a 65" OLED tv. Samsung QDOT should be a good approximation.

[Jozape]

Btw, kind of on topic.. I was active in a thread on another forum (for my phone like the complete nerd I am) and one thread was about designing your dream phone. So I made up some specs and drew a rough sketch of how it should look and submitted it. Then I started reading everyone elses submissions.. and people were like "I WANT A 5.5 INCH SCREEN WITH 4K RESOLUTION" and it annoyed me. Why on earth would you want 4k on a screen that small?? No-one can see detail that small!

 

So to prove my point I wrote a post about Apple's Retina screen that's 330 ppi and that's around the limitation of the human eye (5.5 inches and 4k resolution is like 800 ppi) and that's why it's called retina blah blah. I also wrote about how more than 1080p is not necessary, and as a test I made a picture. A white picture, 1080x1920, with black text ranging from 8 points to 12 points and was about to post it and challenge people to read it on their screens.. until I actually tried reading it on my own 5.15 inch 1080p (428 ppi) screen.. and it turned out to be fully readable.. Even the 8 point text.

 

To eliminate the possibility that I've somehow been blessed with the eyes of Australian aboriginals I tried it on several of my work colleagues and most of them could also read it.

 

WTF APPLE?? I'VE BEEN USING YOUR RETINA SCREEN AS AN EXAMPLE IN SEVERAL RESOLUTION DISCUSSIONS! I FEEL TRICKED!

 

So yeah, I had to come to another forum to vent my shame.

 

Good that you can at least admit that you were mistaken. Human daylight vision is actually among the best on Earth, beaten only by some apex birds.

 

Using some basic geometry and assuming you have 20/10 or 6/3 vision -- good, but not close to the best possible human vision -- you can calculate that you can resolve pixels on a 7680x4320 pixels screen at an angle of view equal to 60 degrees. 60 degrees is only really achievable on desktop monitor and television screens though as you need to view from a distance equal to 3/4 of the measure of your screen's diagonal assuming a screen with a 16:9 aspect ratio. 30 to 40 degrees is common for smartphone, tablet, and laptop monitor screens; Not much more than 3840x2160 is resolvable for a person with 20/10 or 6/3 vision at such viewing angles. 3840x2160 is almost resolvable at 30 degrees and 5120x2880 is almost resolvable at 40 degrees.

 

Benefits from more pixels doesn't end at what you can resolve though. More pixels means you have less aliasing caused by representing a continuous signal with discrete elements aka pixels. Realistically you shouldn't need much more than 2x or maybe 4x the resolution to get an image indistinguishable from perfect.