Official requirements for new 8K standard published

its really 4k let me explain this 1920x(1080) was 1080 they used the second number then came 1440p 2560x(1440) second number again starting from 4k 3840x2160 they started useing the first number instead of the second because of marketing and 4k sounded better then saying it was 2k same goes for 8k 7680x4320 so what are your thoughts on this guys and girls

 

8K is peasant resolution. With upcoming 128K you will really be able to see finer detail.

 

Just lol if your current LCD panel doesn't show individual atoms and quarks

 

I wonder when LG will release real 4K TVs, let alone 8K.

 

Who cares about these 8K monitors when DF said CRT are the best looking.

 

Well it depends on what you want to do with your system at the end of the day.

 

First of all the naming of the resolution is just brand naming so you know what you are going to get. If they called it crap for 1080, and loads of crap for 1440 and crap storm for 3840 and diarrhea for 7680 you would still know what you were getting. So the numbers don't mean anything to me.

 

Actually the "K" is for the number of pixels in the vertical line.
This still means that 3840x2160 is in fact not "real" 4k.
Full Frame DCI 4k resolution is actually 4096 × 2160.

However the The official UHD spec is defined to be all resolutions within the scope of 3840 × 2160 or higher.
This is why they defined an approximation standard called ITU-R UHDTV(Ultra High Definition Television) Standard to make it easier for consumers,
And this is where the "4K UHD" and "8k UHD" is defined.as "3840 × 2160" and "7680 × 4320".

 

This. Although I personally wouldn't want a CRT for a slew of reasons, there are reasons to still want one. For example, you get phenomenal response rates for an otherwise cheap display.

Personally, I'm just waiting for uLED displays to get popularized. I personally see them as the future of display technology, at least for high-end devices. LCDs will still be around for a long while as a budget option, and I'm not feeling confident we'll be seeing much of OLED anymore.

 

nK

n = multiple expressed by a number
k = 1,024

4K = 4,096
8K = 8,192

Fortunately, they are not calling it 4K/8K - they are calling it UHD4K/UHD8K.

The only problem is, people are referring to them as 4K/8K, when they are completely incorrect when doing so and, make themselves look pretty stoopid when they do.

I have no issues with 1080P, and kinda wish they just carrired on with that; so 2160P/4320P, that would have been fine and accurate.

 

Intrigued. What do LG 4K TVs lack today, that makes them not real 4K?

 

I totally agree. I don't mind saying 1080p either I say 1080p more than I do 1920x1080. The same thing goes with 1440p. But I do say 4K and 8K though and I need to break that habit and say 2160p and 4320p.

 

Depending on who you ask, 160 columns of pixels (in in the case of just Loobbyluggs, 256). On a serious note though, I'm not sure what FeDaYin is getting at either.

 

when will the refresh rate race start? i think even at over 1khz refresh there are more benefits than doubling res over what you already cant discern from a reasonable distance

 

3.8K is almost as easy to say and remember as 4k is.

 

Simply: mathematics.

 

What about the content?
Putting the carriage before the horses?

 

Does that mean hair follicles on my favourite sites will be sharper than my eyes can see?

 

Depending on the zone where the follicles are and also depending on the positions.