110-Inch BOE Prototype Screen with 16K (15360 x 8640) Resolution: A Glimpse into the Future of Gaming?

Waiting for the OLED model...

 

No option for 16K


But I think I'll wait a tiny bit longer to buy this screen for gaming ...


Judging by these numbers, I should have 4 fps on a 16K resolution, assuming it doesn't run out of VRAM... which it probably will at 16K

 

"As per Vincent Teoh's observations, individual pixels were not distinguishable even upon close examination". Way to sell a half truth, mister Teoh.
When it comes to pixel density, 16K@110in = 8K@55in = 4K@27.5in. You might not be able to see individual pixels on a current 27.5" 4K monitor, but you still notice common artifacts like bad antialiasing and shimmering without need for "close examination". The landmark is making such a big 16K screen, the DPI is completely commonplace.

 

Does RED, ARRI or any of the other big-boy cine-cam manufacturers have cameras able to shoot at 16K resolution? Imagine what a large scale crowd scene shot at 16K and played back on this would look like. A showcase to be sure. But still not practical or needed really for any normal content (movies or otherwise).

 

and i'm just landing on 1440p

 

16K content doesn't exist today, in any shape and form.

Ultra high end cinema camera shoots at 12K, with an 80 megapixels sensor:
https://www.digitalcameraworld.com/reviews/blackmagic-ursa-mini-pro-12k-review

So far nobody has created a 16K sensor, so that resolution is only possible with stitched images from multiple cameras.
The entire thing is kinda pointless.... just a tech demo.
.... and will still be for many years.

 

And here I am, questioning if I'll ever care to go above 4K...
From where I sit from my display, I can't see individual pixels. With good AA, 4K looks as sharp and smooth as I'll ever need it to be. However, if I get a display any larger than I've got, I'd probably want to get a higher resolution. But, I'd be fine with 5K at that point.

Realtime renderings (like games) could work at that resolution, but aside from the obvious issue of getting a GPU powerful enough to render that (I guess a 4090 enabling DLSS from 4K might work), it probably wouldn't look good because you'd notice detail issues in textures.
Perhaps you could use it for productivity use, but I can't imagine any situation where a 110 inch display makes sense for that.

I'm sure the controller for such displays is also very power hungry. By the time a display like this would ever make sense (let alone have usable content), there will be much cheaper and more efficient models.

I guess as a proof of concept, this display is fine, but it's only marketable to rich self-proclaimed videophiles.

 

"So far nobody has created a 16K sensor, so that resolution is only possible with stitched images from multiple cameras.
The entire thing is kinda pointless.... just a tech demo.
.... and will still be for many years."

Actually, sooner than that we will have generative AI making movies in any resolution you want.

 

I'll believe it when I see it.
Maybe after they figure out that people don't have 7 fingers and 4 hands

 

8K TV owners are still waiting for 8K content and that is what, nearly 5 years since the first 8K TV ? 16K, if even a thing one day, is 15 or 20 years away for any real commercial product that have content with it.

 

Been on 4k for almost a decade... Bring on higher resolutions!

 

are you sure that the 4090 could even output at that resolution at 60hz? if i remember nvidia doesn't have the latest technology when it comes to output signals.

 

Indeed. Neither does AMD

Displayport 2.0 is capable of 8K 60 on a single cable, and 2.1 can drive two 8K 60 or one 8K 120 on a single cable.
For this 16K 60 display, at minimum one would need four UHBR cables... which it probably does need, since I suspect the display is actually 4 independent 8K panels and controllers glued together.

 

You're probably right that it's just a set of glued-together panels, because I don't get how this could be driven, let alone manufactured. And yes, I know there's nothing particularly advanced about the manufacturing of it compared to other panels; neither the pixel density or size are unusual, but the combination is, and so I don't know if the tooling exists to make such a display and considering the obstacles, it doesn't seem to make economic sense to make the tooling for such a display in today's market. We can't forget the controller either, which would have to be specially designed for this.

 

4 x 4k is 8k - Xk stands for number of vertical lines, not the actual number of pixels....

 

It would be interesting to see if 4090 would be able to get some playable framerate with dlss and frame generation at this resolution.

 

Yep I definitely replied too early in the morning...

 

Amazing feet, I guess seeing most content is still 1080p and not even 1080p bluray quality, forget 4k Streaming services about place that quality close to what that resolutions truly look like. And PC outputting at said res, Now a GPU handling it isnt even in realm of possibility with way thing are going currently.

By time we have GPU that could handle or even content for it, they will be pushing 32k.... and SuperAI's

 

Sure it does, ultra performance at 8K means upscaling a "meager" 1440p resolution.