LG Gets Ready for 8K Quad UHD

whyscotty · 2 Apr 2015 at 17:20

"And we say, not even in ten years it will reach the consumer market.

LG is carefully pushing 8K Quad Ultra HD display technology, or is warming us up for it.

8K Quad Ultra HD will get a 7680 x 4320 pixels native resolution which is sixteen times your Full HF telly."

Source

8K monitor anyone?

PCM2 · 2 Apr 2015 at 19:55

'8K' is currently a technology designed to make very large screens at 'normal' viewing distances look appealing. On a smaller monitor screen it is far less attractive. Even if they scale it down to around 40", which some people now quite admire as a monitor size, it is completely overkill for a monitor. You would need to sit very close to the screen to actually appreciate the pixel density, save for the decreased need for anti-aliasing when gaming (perhaps not such a plus given how much GPU horsepower is required anyway). It isn't an attractive proposition with the scaling and GPU horsepower where it's at currently.

Dark Light · 3 Apr 2015 at 11:33

I disagree, you can notice 8k. Monitors are getting bigger and bigger and the thing about 8k it is a image that fills up a lot of one's field of view. And not to mention VR.

PCM2 · 3 Apr 2015 at 12:28

Dark Light said:
I disagree, you can notice 8k. Monitors are getting bigger and bigger and the thing about 8k it is a image that fills up a lot of one's field of view. And not to mention VR.

Do you have much experience with UHD models of various sizes? Have you seen "8K"? Because I have, have excellent vision and stand by my points.

mz/x · 3 Apr 2015 at 12:55

PCM2 said:
Do you have much experience with UHD models of various sizes? Have you seen "8K"? Because I have, have excellent vision and stand by my points.

This is where you start getting only marginal improvements. For many the current FHD is good enough. The 4K I first saw it blew me away. But 8K may not be as noticeable on the usable display size compared to 4K. (Little bit of speculation here...

) I experienced the same with MP increases in digital cameras. At one point the improvements became less and less.

spoffle · 3 Apr 2015 at 13:10

I really wish the industry would stop pretending that 7680 is 8000. Claiming that 3840 is 4000 is bad enough.

That aside, it's all about the pixel density over the overall resolution. I would much prefer 200+ pixels per inch, and 7680x4320 results in about 220 pixels per inch at 40 inches.

Sin_Chase · 3 Apr 2015 at 13:23

Dark Light said:
I disagree, you can notice 8k. Monitors are getting bigger and bigger and the thing about 8k it is a image that fills up a lot of one's field of view. And not to mention VR.

What bearing does resolution have on filling ones field of view?

Nothing. That's all down to physical size of the panel. A 1920x1080 110" monitor would fill your view just as much as an 8K 110" panel would.

Ultra high resolution offers acceptable pixel density for these sorts of size monitors. The point which you entirely missed that PCM2 made is that 8K on anything even remotely close to acceptable for desktop monitor usage will be indiscernible from a lower resolution, such as 4K, in normal usage. Primarily because the pixel density is already massive.

As a side note, 40 INCHES for a DESKTOP MONITOR? Get out. That's not a desktop monitor. That's a TV you should be sitting some metres away from.

spoffle · 3 Apr 2015 at 13:24

PCM2 said:
Do you have much experience with UHD models of various sizes? Have you seen "8K"? Because I have, have excellent vision and stand by my points.

You don't really have to have experience of UHD models, it's all about the pixel density.

I've got an 11.6" laptop/hybrid with a 1080 screen. Its pixel density is about 190 pixels per inch. At the same viewing distance as say, (about 60cm away) my 27" 2560x1440 display games look significantly more detailed.

It's very very noticeable, and as such I would personally prefer monitors with that sort of pixel density. This was over Steam in Home Streaming as well, so the image feed to the laptop will have been compressed too, but the difference was huge.

So 7680x4320 seems ideal to me at 40", however there's more to it than that too. The higher the resolution the more you can get away with running non-native resolutions whilst maintaining a decent level of sharpness.

Sin_Chase · 3 Apr 2015 at 13:26

spoffle said:
The higher the resolution the more you can get away with running non-native resolutions whilst maintaining a decent level of sharpness.

Higher resolution helps in this regard with respect to not being able to notice poor scaling. However most of the sharpens sis going to be down to the scaler and what scaling you are doing. Such as whether it's an even pixel mapping or not.

spoffle · 3 Apr 2015 at 13:34

Sin_Chase said:
Higher resolution helps in this regard with respect to not being able to notice poor scaling. However most of the sharpens sis going to be down to the scaler and what scaling you are doing. Such as whether it's an even pixel mapping or not.

Except that if the physical pixels are small enough, then it won't actually matter. Even or non-even scaling, it won't look that much different.

spoffle · 3 Apr 2015 at 13:39

Sin_Chase said:
What bearing does resolution have on filling ones field of view?

Nothing. That's all down to physical size of the panel. A 1920x1080 110" monitor would fill your view just as much as an 8K 110" panel would.

Ultra high resolution offers acceptable pixel density for these sorts of size monitors. The point which you entirely missed that PCM2 made is that 8K on anything even remotely close to acceptable for desktop monitor usage will be indiscernible from a lower resolution, such as 4K, in normal usage. Primarily because the pixel density is already massive.

As a side note, 40 INCHES for a DESKTOP MONITOR? Get out. That's not a desktop monitor. That's a TV you should be sitting some metres away from.

Resolution does have a bearing on field of view, and or filling it in the context of pixels per degree of vision.

7680x4320 will be discernible over lower resolutions on a fair amount of displays, not just larger ones. I have a phone with 2560x1440 display, there is quite a noticeable difference between it and a 1920x1080 phone display at 5.5".

40" doesn't make a display a TV. The same way a 22" TV isn't a monitor, just because it's small. The presence of a tuner is what determines whether something is a monitor or a TV.

Plus, you don't need to sit metres away from a 40", that's just a ridiculous suggestion, based on this suggestion, you'd need to sit at least 1 metre away from a 27/28" monitor.

PCM2 · 3 Apr 2015 at 15:38

spoffle said:
You don't really have to have experience of UHD models, it's all about the pixel density.

I've got an 11.6" laptop/hybrid with a 1080 screen. Its pixel density is about 190 pixels per inch. At the same viewing distance as say, (about 60cm away) my 27" 2560x1440 display games look significantly more detailed.

It's very very noticeable, and as such I would personally prefer monitors with that sort of pixel density. This was over Steam in Home Streaming as well, so the image feed to the laptop will have been compressed too, but the difference was huge.

So 7680x4320 seems ideal to me at 40", however there's more to it than that too. The higher the resolution the more you can get away with running non-native resolutions whilst maintaining a decent level of sharpness.

It is helpful to have some context here. Firstly I would like to point out that running non-native resolutions is entirely dependant on the interpolation used by the monitor. Many UHD models that I have tested handle non-native resolutions such as 1920 x 1080 extremely poorly. Same goes for the handling of 2560 x 1440. The softness is palpable and really quite ugly in many cases. The pixel density is of limited importance when the display is using an imperfect interpolation process. And since Field of View in games is almost always tied to aspect ratio rather than resolution, which Sin Chase was likely getting at, there is no advantage there either.

I have also experienced UHD displays of various sizes. I have a keener eye than most, not only in terms of visual acuity but also as an experienced monitor reviewer. I can therefore say with authority that pushing up the pixel density really high can only get you so far. It is indeed a key factor when considering how 'detailed' and 'clear' your gaming environment could look. But you only have to push it so far before you get into the territory of rapidly diminishing returns. If you compare a range of modern game titles on '4K' UHD screens (3840 x 2160) it becomes quite apparent that the difference between a 23.8" model with a pixel density of ~185 PPI and a 28" model with a pixel density ~160 PPI is negligible from a normal viewing distance. As you push the pixel density beyond this, you can certainly benefit from a clearer look if anti-aliasing is disabled ('reduced need for AA'), but the detail you can see on objects themselves and their textures does not benefit in the same way. I have analysed both experiences in quite some detail on various reviews and articles. The bump up from the pixel density of ~109 PPI on a 27" WQHD model (or 40" UHD model) to either of these UHD models does give a significant improvement to the overall look of games from a normal viewing distance, of that there is no doubt.

When you're talking about the '8K' QUHD resolution of 7680 x 4320, you'd have a pixel density of >220 PPI on a 40" display. That would certainly be a noticeable upgrade from a 40" '4K' UHD display where the pixel density is equivalent to a 27" 2560 x 1440 (WQHD) model. As I said in my initial post and supported by my comparisons of 28" and 23.8" models, it would also be 'overkill' unless you're planning to sit very close to the monitor (<40cm). You would need an absolutely goliath system to push that many pixels in a game and the return on your 'investment' would be questionable. Just as monitors didn't stick to the TV standard of 'FHD' then suddenly jump up to 'UHD', there is no reason to suspect they will suddenly jump from '4K/UHD' to '8K' without intermediates like '5K' or '6K' or whatever the industry wants to call them. Indeed there are already some '5K' models out there, even though they are something of a niche product currently.

Another fact to consider is that there is no game title that I'm aware of that fully takes advantage of the UHD resolution. Perhaps it would be a real GPU-crippler if it did. There are always textures that simply look out of place due to their relative lack of detail, alongside some that look quite fantastic. When it comes to gaming we are still a long way off getting the most out of the '4K' experience, both in terms of hardware (GPUs and monitors) and software (the games themselves), so getting excited about '8K' is simply premature. Heck there is a lot more to the 'UHD' standard than just resolution as well, there is still an awful lot left to do 'on the side' disregarding resolution entirely.

romanlegion13th · 3 Apr 2015 at 15:39

i was messing with 8K DSR with skyrim modded with AA on everything on max lol on my 32ich BenQ ips 4k with my titan X
FPS was 20-25 lol useing 9.93gb of vram (i was pushing the vram thats why i did it)
ive not tried it with AA off i recan it would do a good job
but skyrim is a old game

romanlegion13th · 3 Apr 2015 at 15:42

what is the ideal 4k monitor size?
is 32ich to small? as thats what i got
did come from a 27ich 1440p ips??

Freddie1980 · 3 Apr 2015 at 15:58

romanlegion13th said:
what is the ideal 4k monitor size?
is 32ich to small? as thats what i got
did come from a 27ich 1440p ips??

There's no right and wrong answer, the ideal size is whatever your happy to live with at the end of the day, it's going on your desk and your the one who is going to have to work with it day in and day out.

romanlegion13th · 3 Apr 2015 at 19:59

Freddie1980 said:
There's no right and wrong answer, the ideal size is whatever your happy to live with at the end of the day, it's going on your desk and your the one who is going to have to work with it day in and day out.

i mean is 32ich to small for PPI count? is 40ich the ideal size for 4K

Adrianr · 3 Apr 2015 at 20:05

PCM2 said:
'8K' is currently a technology designed to make very large screens at 'normal' viewing distances look appealing. On a smaller monitor screen it is far less attractive. Even if they scale it down to around 40", which some people now quite admire as a monitor size, it is completely overkill for a monitor. You would need to sit very close to the screen to actually appreciate the pixel density, save for the decreased need for anti-aliasing when gaming (perhaps not such a plus given how much GPU horsepower is required anyway). It isn't an attractive proposition with the scaling and GPU horsepower where it's at currently.

That res at 30" is actually something I would be very interested in. It would make an excellent proofing monitor for prints providing it was colour accurate and uniform, even more so with better screen technology like OLED.

PCM2 · 3 Apr 2015 at 20:29

Adrianr said:
That res at 30" is actually something I would be very interested in. It would make an excellent proofing monitor for prints providing it was colour accurate and uniform, even more so with better screen technology like OLED.

Presumably for such uses you'd want to be able to get up close and personal with the monitor and see all of the fine details?

OLED would also lend itself very nicely to such tasks, I agree. More so if it has a good screen surface as well. It would be like an interactive magazine.

Adrianr · 3 Apr 2015 at 20:53

PCM2 said:
Presumably for such uses you'd want to be able to get up close and personal with the monitor and see all of the fine details? OLED would also lend itself very nicely to such tasks, I agree. More so if it has a good screen surface as well. It would be like an interactive magazine.

It's not so much getting up close and personal, it's just being able to display an image at both print size and print resolution. Basically you can look at something that's 10x8 inches on your screen, but your only seeing it at maybe 100dpi. You then print it 10x8 but at 300dpi, and suddenly you see problems you didn't see on screen.

We actually had a job in a little while ago for grading, one of the shots was of a map, and on the Sony OLED even at just 1080p I swear to god it looked like someone had stuck a print on the screen. If we can match that colour quality and depth with the resolution of print it would be incredible.

PCM2 · 3 Apr 2015 at 21:04

Adrianr said:
It's not so much getting up close and personal, it's just being able to display an image at both print size and print resolution. Basically you can look at something that's 10x8 inches on your screen, but your only seeing it at maybe 100dpi. You then print it 10x8 but at 300dpi, and suddenly you see problems you didn't see on screen.

We actually had a job in a little while ago for grading, one of the shots was of a map, and on the Sony OLED even at just 1080p I swear to god it looked like someone had stuck a print on the screen. If we can match that colour quality and depth with the resolution of print it would be incredible.

Ah right, understood.

Yes, the contrast potential of OLED is really exceptional, it gives such an inky look to things indeed.