Japan Display managed to get 8K pixels into a 17.3-inch screen

that's ridiculous (in a good way)

"old mode"

long gone are the days of 256x192 4 simultaneous colours on My Dragon 32 computer

Yes I'm that old

 

8 way SLI with 32GB memory FTW!

 

We need to stop saying 4K/8K, thats marketing BS.
Its UHD, and QUHD.

Way too many pixels for any current GPU's, and even next gen.

off-topic:
I had a Dragon 32 too.

Intruder Alert was the first game with digitized voice iirc.
I think Chuckie Egg was available for it too.
First foray into computers.
Its what got me into computers.

 

I prefer 2k, 4k, 8k, and so on naming, it is much easier to get which one is better and it tells how many pixels it has.

HD, UHD, QUHD it just makes confusion, next will be XQUHD then ZXQUHD, I think it's stupid.

I agree what is the bloody point in so many pixels in such a small screen? do they think people will be looking at it with magnifying glass? Well I'll answer it myself it is just another way to force us to buy more expensive GPUS to drive the sale. I agree that in bigger screens it makes sense but not in 17inch! it's the same bull.. like samsung does with its phones, tiny screeen (even 5inch) and yet so many pixels. where there is a very very subtle difference but not worth it at all. It reminds me of comparing colors with pantone sampler...

 

I agree, 4k, 8k etc might be marketing but it is easier to say. Retrospectively 8k would probably be more detrimental of a marketing term than 4k is, because to the layman it sounds like it is only twice the resolution of 4k, whereas in fact it's four times the resolution (as a function of total pixels).

Saying to someone that you just bought a QUHDTV LMNOP? is just a mouthful.

 

QUHDTV LMNOP!! Hah!
Good old xxxxXyyyy is better imho

 

Just make it 60+ inches for less than 800 USD and I will buy it now!

 

There are phones with higher PPI. The most impressive thing about this screen is that they got a 2000:1 contrast ratio out of an IPS panel.

 

Exactly. 17" is entirely too small for any pixel resolution, imo. I'm amazed to hear these MacBook folks with tiny 13" screens talk about how "great" their "retina" graphics are. In 1986 I was using 13" monitors with an Amiga and I thought they were way too small even then. 27" to 30" is my sweet spot today, regardless of the pixel resolution and/or density.

 

120 Gbit/s = 15 gigabytes/s

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_2.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.3

All we need is an interface standard to actually support the damned thing. Nothing even comes close to delivering enough bandwidth for this monster, lol.

Pretty neat, though, maybe SOON™...

 

wow! Imagine the possible applications for this kind of DPI! Oh wait...

 

now stick a 4k 120hz screen into a VR unit and were golden

 

This is what I came to post here for haters.

Yeah its pretty useless in that screen but just imagine when they stick this tech in some VR set.

 

It is useless there as well. It's not hating, it's science.
The amount of detail and information brain can perceive can be and has been measured and translated to rough digital numbers. It's something along ~5mpx total with 3mpx being taken by focus point area and the rest falls off to everything outside of that area.

You can google that stuff. There is literally no need or point having ~20mpx in front of your eye.

You can also test all this by yourself. How close do you need to be to your screen to actually see the matrix (the "pixels")? To achieve good VR results you only need cut out a small portion of an already existing 32" 4K or 5K panel, you wouldn't see the pixels.

So seriously, I am not hating, am I just saying. Like with everything, there is a point where enough is really enough.

 

its funny how everyone limits those things to gaming/tv and crap.
how about a surgeon working on your brain. you want him/her to have a 32" in 1080p (cause you dont need more), or a 20" in 8K??

a Golf GTI in the mid 70's did 9s to 60, top speed was 118mph and had decent performance to give (other) sports cars the run around.
but just because it was good enough (back then) doesnt mean it will
be my next car in 2015.

why dont we all go back to live in a cave. was "enough" back in the day...

 

Have you ever tried a VR headset because you seem kind of clueless? :infinity: Watch the Oculus Connect 2 keynote if you are interested in knowing what is required for a great VR experience (I can tell you it is a lot more than just a small portion of a 4K screen (we already have 2560x1440 on the Gear VR and that's not even close to being enough)).

 

MP isn't a very good metric. PPI is a more useful gauge. A person with excellent vision can resolve over 2000 PPI. In practical use, ~300 PPI is the effective limit due to the typical viewing distance from the screen (for computer monitors). The effect is similar to looking at 40" 1080p and 2160p displays side by side from 15 feet. They eye can't effectively resolve the higher resolution at that distance. Of course if you increase the size of the display area or move closer while keeping the resolution the same...

http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/

 

You do realize that devices would prefer the smallest possible screens and use a lens or an assembly of lenses to alter it projects into the eye? Right? you can't stick a 17" screen in a headset.

If you are going to claim SCIENCE!, then you better also bring the MATH.

In rough numbers (assuming square screen and your target of 5mpix number) the target screen width/height in pixels would be

root(5,000,000px²) = 2,236px.

A 32 inch 4k monitor has 146.86px/i according to this tool (https://www.sven.de/dpi/).

2,236px / (146.86px/i) = 15.22in.

To get your 5mpix in a vr headset using a 32" 4k display's ppi, you would need a 15.22in (width and height) in screen. Yeah. No, that doesn't fit in a headset.

If I wanted to make a retina display in a vr headset (again assuming your 5Mpx number and the screen is perfectly projected into your eyes with minimal wasted pixels). I would say the equivalent to a 5in x 5in screen would be about the bulkiest i could fix into a headset.
again according to the dpi calculator. With inputs of 2236px x 2236px and 7.07 inches (17.96cm) diagonal (for a 5x5 screen).

I would probably want at least 447px/i.

The cited display in the article
Pixel density 510ppi

Which is not overkill for headset applications. In fact cell phone use > 510ppi right now. OLED already hit and surpass this density. I have no doubt, however, that OLED is the most likely candidate for these applications. It is however cool to see that IPS still has some kick left in it.

And the point to making a screen this size? well that is simply to show that your manufacturing process is mature and defect free enough to mass produce. If you can produce a 17" screen defect free, then you can product more practical smaller one's too.

 

Those are terrible analogies, sorry. You are not going to start seeing better or more in 20 years.

No I have not. Not everyone has a privilege to use one.
But, I wouldn't just blindly trust a seller telling me what I want and need... What I do know is that initial 720p on O.Rift was indeed lacking. I also know that they haven't resolved motion sickness and until they do, that technology is pretty much just a stepping stone and should be used with care. I know they have 1080p version at the moment.
Like I said, you can jam whatever display you want in there but until they resolve other issues that technology is not going to be mainstream. Personally I wouldn't buy a product that induces sickening state to my body and O.R. does that atm.

this is a very good post that you have made. Yes, MP is not ideal for this example but it was the first thing that came to mind when I was posting since I recently watched a video on this topic and they used MP in most of the video because people are generaly more familiar with MP than PPI or DPI.

As for the 2000 PPI, I am inclined to believe doctors but personaly, as someone who works with print industry (I am graphics designer) I challenge you, or anyone for that matter, to take a good magazine and look at the any quality photo or poster inside it and try to resolve dots/pixels in it from up close and from afar. Those are mostly 300 PPI. @2000 PPI I doubt you could see any dots without using a magnifying glass. You would be pretty rare specimen if you could resolve 2000 PPI with a naked eye I can barley resolve my phone's 340 PPI, BARLEY, and I might even be lying to myself :3eyes:

edit: here is the video I was referring to: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0
Take from it what you will.