FOCUS! 7680 x 4320 notebook and fondleslab screens are coming An update to the DisplayPort standard is promising to bring about a new line of 8k screens for notebooks, tablets and all-in-ones. The Video Electronics Standards Association (VESA) has published a new standard for embedded display hardware. The eDP 1.4a update will support connections of 8.1Gbps per-channel and allow for …
Exactly!
Desktop PC's have a hard enough time pushing 4K can't imagine the power 8K would suck up!
I've been using a desktop with 4K monitor and I can tell you we aren't even ready for 4K let alone 8K!
Too much web and other content that looks terrible at 4K as it is since alot of content was originally designed for 1K or so.
Curious how well that works? From some quick checking I did recently, it looks like the pieces are mostly in place. X & Cinnamon already support it, Firefox 38 (due in May) will. I'm sure some things will be a bit wonky, but hopefully those issues are being addressed.
I'm waiting for Intel Crystallwell CPUs and thinking this fall is when I'd be looking at putting together a new PC with integrated graphics able to handle a 4K monitor.
I am. I got one of the ~$600USD Samsung 28" UHD displays last year. I'm running Ubuntu 14.04 still. I toyed around with the display at work before I brought it home. There wasn't anything I could get my hands on that could drive it at native resolution. I knew the integrated Intel graphics on my home PC would surely be even worse, so I got an Nvidia GeForce 750Ti too, because I figured that had the best chance of driving it at 60Hz without spending even more money and the proprietary drivers aren't hard to install in Ubuntu.
I don't think anything I do even needs that many FPS. I don't game on that machine. It sure does make photo editing a lot easier, though. I have an older DSLR whose images nearly fit on-screen at 100% zoom, so I can figure out that all of my pictures are out of focus that much faster. Google Earth looks great, too. The only "problem" there is looking at a city, it just takes a long time for all the 3D buildings to transfer over from Google's servers.
The default Unity interface isn't a problem for me to use. I never bothered to see if I could scale the widgets. I still find myself making use of multiple desktops like I've always done, with different sets of apps on each desktop (GIMP in one, browsers in another, copying files in a third, etc.).
Most of the stuff on YouTube that claims to be 4K still looks like crap, but I was able to download sample videos that do look spectacular (Blender's "Tears of Steel" and a Canal+ demo). I don't have a fast enough network connection to stream 4K, I guess.
The monitor was so new when I got it that all the on-screen menus were in Korean, and it shipped with a pamphlet that tried to describe how to set them to English. There was some sort of bug where the language settings weren't shown in the menus unless the monitor was already displaying an image, or something like that. I got that all sorted out, though, and I've been using it for almost a year and never regretted it once.
>PC's no. 5k iMac, absolutely fantastic right now today
There have been some 4k-ish Windows laptops around for a year or so... Reviews suggest that these days Windows scales sensibly, but it is at the mercy of applications, especially legacy applications. Stupidly, Photoshop was unusable on high res Windows displays a year ago - though this might have been fixed now.
This post has been deleted by its author
That resolution only makes sense for wall displays, but a display port could drive one such.
This drive for higher resolution resembles the similar drive for digital cameras, where resolutions on most cameras are now much higher than the accuracy of the lenses. What is needed for digital cameras is better light sensitivity instead.
On a laptop or tablet screen 4K is more than enough (3K is IMO the useful limit for less than 17" screens). Like in cameras, what is needed is not more pixels. On screens what is needed is better colour reproduction and better visibility is sunlight. Reflected-light screens (like Qualcomm's Mirasol, once fully developed) may be the future.
Well I'd settle for being able to buy an average laptop with at least a 1600x900 screen but apparently I'm just too fussy it seems.
It's crazy that in a few months time we'll probably have -
% of laptops with 768p screens - 66%
% of laptops with 1080p screens - 2%
% of laptops with 4K screens - 32%
Just no middle ground. From one extreme to the other.
Very big displays of very big data (actually, many images I work on are a lot bigger: 40kx40k). Having a powerful machine with massive GPU grunt and a big screen, that resolution would be very nice. On my tablet, not so much, on my laptop, a more modest improvement in resolution would be better
It's a bit like the £10K ethernet cable the other day.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/02/09/perfect_your_mp3_listening_pleasure_with_this_bonkers_ethernet_cable/
There are people who will buy them because they can, and then insist that they can see/hear the difference.
There are people who will buy them because they can, and then insist that they can see/hear the difference.
You'll see the difference. On a 1024 display of an image containing a very small feature sized one quarter of a pixel squared, that feature will at best cause the single pixel containing it to be one sixteenth brighter or darker ... which you won't (can't) notice. The human eye is far more responsive to sharp step changes in brightness (edges) than it is to slight variation.
On a 4k screen it'll be a bright or dark or different-colour "spark" pixel which you can notice.
If it's not obvious what the pixel represents (there will be a line of them for a line feature), you'll zoom in on your model to see it better. But if you can't see it at all, you won't know there's any reason to zoom.
If you went through part of your childhood with slight uncorrected short sight, you'll remember the sudden impact of reality when you put on your first pair of glasses. Leaves! Raindrops! Stars! A really high-resolution screen displaying really high-resolution imagery will be similar.
It's the sort of thing architects in particular will love.
.. although that is in context actually a terrible pun. Excuse me :)
I have a few Retina devices, but I can't say it's changed anything significant. I assume for people in visual professions such as video, photography or graphic design it would be an improvement, but for me it hasn't made much difference.
As a result, I am seriously not interested in an ever higher resolution - for me, it's not worth the expense.
Pseudo Holographic Displays require about 10 times 1080p resolution to work according to Seereal Technologies. Of course a telly manufacturer still has to put some king of beam steering oil filled block or whatever in front of each pixel to make a lightfield display.
Ultra D also seem to be doing some work in this area:
http://www.ultra-d.com/testimonials/
4320 is an integer multiple of each of 480, 720, 1080 and 2160. This makes an 8K screen the only one that you can use to display content created for all of the common lower resolutions (of the same aspect ratio) with pixel-perfect scaling.
This post has been deleted by its author
The quality of relatively static output should be excellent, but I suspect that we're going way beyond laptop/slab "retina" requirements here.
If you want fast updates, you might need a Titan or two. Actually, that might mean that low performance gadgets are the place to put these things - It stops people wanting to play Battlefield 3 on it. You've also got the option of a DP port on your gadget which you could plug into a real monitor and span the graphics system. Just because the chipset supports it, doesn't mean you're going to have a single screen with it - chained displays with DP are also possible.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
