Nice to see Sharp pushing the boundries, even despite Sharp (the company) being sold off to the highest bidder because the business wasn't doing so well.
Could be something lower than UHD and higher than 1440p - 2880x1800 for instance. Not sure why we need such a big jump between 1440p and UHD, when we could go just a bit higher.
That's nice, but part of me would almost want a wider 34" 3440x1440 variant just because of that kickass display real estate. Also, wider fov is hawt. But I agree that hidpi displays require too much gpu muscle to justify themselves. High refresh is worth more imo.
I'll be more happy with 29~43 incher 21:9 @ 5K resolution ( that's 5120×2160 for those who hate math ) with full HDR and something high in Adobe RGB ( like over 90% )...
but I'll be much more happy if this had a USB 3.1 Gen 2 hub few Type-A and Type-C ports with power delivery standard also... okay that will be a dream after 2-3 years...
I have a 32" 4k from Asus. I do not want smaller because I want my face full of monitor. However, I do not want a larger monitor either, too much swiveling of the head to the sides then leading to strain.
It is pretty amazing programming on it. Two full code pages, side by side with all their widgets.
If it doubles as your TV then I guess you also need wider and taller and a massage therapist for your neck.
Do not write such comments, progress must be made to the limits. 8K (and futher 16K or 32K), give you quality so high, that computer generated artifical life will be preceived as real. 4K is not enough for it. You must see literally every hair to preceive that it is real.
Only the limits that have not been achieved yet. 4k on a monitor has pixels too small to see. We have an angular resolution limit. 4k for sure covers that on a phone. An 8k phone is one you don't need to buy ever. An 8k monitor at my current size of 32" and 2 foot or so viewing distance is likely overkill but I would order one to see. 16k+ would be stupid.
What is not real about a photo has nothing to do with pixels anymore and everything to do with the lack of 3D and motion and color representation issues (both color space available and low HDR capability). After that becomes "real" you would then need to start fooling the other senses as well.
Maybe fewer than 8 if they're testing newer versions of DP in that hardware as well. DisplayPort v.next includes a video compression mode; IIRC targeting 2:1 with no human perceptable impact to picture quality. (Should be doable since current compression can get several hundred to one without problematic artifacts.)
Pretty sure it's DP 1.2 seeing as there's probably a dearth of DP 1.3+ TCONs out there. Also, my napkin math works out to 127.751328 Gbit/s for SST, or 8 tiles at 16.4664 Gbit/s apiece using reduced blanking version 2, which would fit nicely into the 17.28 Gbit/s bandwidth of a DP 1.2 HBR2 main link. That's insane though. Whatever is driving that display needs to pump out 17.28 GB/s (capital "B") of display data if you count the bit-stuffing.
Anything above 1440p with HDR and 100hz+ would do. These 27" 1080p crappy displays the manufacturers keep churning out are just ridiculous (money grab).
Rate we're going. We'll have 20k displays in 10 years time. Where do diminishing returns start at though. How small can a pixel get before it don't matter anymore?
20-20 vision is supposed to be a resolution of a "minute of arc", or 360*60 = 21600 pixels per *360 degrees*. So even well-implemented 4K is probably close to saturating what a human being can see over a monitor-sized FOV (70 degrees say).
For VR, the FOV is wider so 8K will be required for realism. I'm really excited that they're making progress for VR displays above what Oculus/Vive have done.
It's pretty simple. Choose an area of the screen. Increase the pixel density from 447 to 1008 PPI. Now you have ~5x the pixels in that area. Those 200x1 pixels (or whatever unit you prefer) become 451x2.25.
If you're talking about a single row or column of pixels and ignoring the other dimension, that's no longer area.
It's annoying that no-one is doing (and likely no one will ever do) a 215.766 hz 10 bit per pixel without trickery IGZO IPS mode 2560 x 1440 G-Sync display on DP 1.4.
IGZO IPS mode is just begging to be put into high refresh rate displays, but the market never seems to be able to ramp up any display technology that is more expensive than TN and, more recently, IPS.
It's just the highest multiple of 23.976 that fits in the bandwidth requirement of DP 1.3/1.4 without trickery when using 2560 x 1440 x 30 bit per pixel (10 bit per color)
A bit odd to sell an LCD display based on it's VR credentials: even with ULMB, LCD takes a severe latency hit due to needing to wait for all pixels to switch and stabilise before you can pulse the backlight (or else you will be illuminating pixels with the wrong values), which also caps the maximum refresh rate.
Given that IGZO is just a faster replacement for the silicon transistor, I wonder what display technology these displays use. From the contrast I would assume OLED which would benefit from the faster IGZO. However, the problem you're facing then is the awful Pentile Matrix that still plagues OLED beside all its merits.
A 27 inch monitor is far too small for 8k resolution. I have a 5k HP Z27Q and at 5k the default text needs to be magnified to reduce eyestrain. 8k would only be practical for monitors over 40 inches in size in my opinion and the largest dedicated computer monitor that I am aware of is 34 inches. An exception may be for CAD/CAM or medical imaging use.
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
44 Comments
Back to Article
JoeyJoJo123 - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Nice to see Sharp pushing the boundries, even despite Sharp (the company) being sold off to the highest bidder because the business wasn't doing so well.lazarpandar - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
They're certainly living up to their name!GodHatesFAQs - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Nice. Although I'll be happy with a 4K, 27", 120/144Hz monitor.tarqsharq - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
I'd like a 1440p 120hz+ 27" freesync with HDR. That's probably my perfect monitor right now.4K is still too high of a resolution for current video cards to consistently push 100+ FPS on the most demanding games.
Toss3 - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Could be something lower than UHD and higher than 1440p - 2880x1800 for instance. Not sure why we need such a big jump between 1440p and UHD, when we could go just a bit higher.ImSpartacus - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
That's nice, but part of me would almost want a wider 34" 3440x1440 variant just because of that kickass display real estate. Also, wider fov is hawt. But I agree that hidpi displays require too much gpu muscle to justify themselves. High refresh is worth more imo.JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
I can't name a single game worth playing that even allows you to adjust the FOV high enough for a widescreen.The actual good games tend to have low or locked FOV limits. CS:GO, TF2, etc.
thetuna - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
Never played GO, but I know you can change the fov on CS:S.I'd be very surprised if you couldn't with GO as well.
Xajel - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
I'll be more happy with 29~43 incher 21:9 @ 5K resolution ( that's 5120×2160 for those who hate math ) with full HDR and something high in Adobe RGB ( like over 90% )...but I'll be much more happy if this had a USB 3.1 Gen 2 hub few Type-A and Type-C ports with power delivery standard also... okay that will be a dream after 2-3 years...
Azethoth - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
I have a 32" 4k from Asus. I do not want smaller because I want my face full of monitor. However, I do not want a larger monitor either, too much swiveling of the head to the sides then leading to strain.It is pretty amazing programming on it. Two full code pages, side by side with all their widgets.
If it doubles as your TV then I guess you also need wider and taller and a massage therapist for your neck.
TristanSDX - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Do not write such comments, progress must be made to the limits. 8K (and futher 16K or 32K), give you quality so high, that computer generated artifical life will be preceived as real. 4K is not enough for it. You must see literally every hair to preceive that it is real.Azethoth - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Only the limits that have not been achieved yet. 4k on a monitor has pixels too small to see. We have an angular resolution limit. 4k for sure covers that on a phone. An 8k phone is one you don't need to buy ever. An 8k monitor at my current size of 32" and 2 foot or so viewing distance is likely overkill but I would order one to see. 16k+ would be stupid.What is not real about a photo has nothing to do with pixels anymore and everything to do with the lack of 3D and motion and color representation issues (both color space available and low HDR capability). After that becomes "real" you would then need to start fooling the other senses as well.
prisonerX - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
"(6)4(0)K should be enough for anyone..."MTEK - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Eight DisplayPorts.... Where's superMHL when you need it.DanNeely - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Maybe fewer than 8 if they're testing newer versions of DP in that hardware as well. DisplayPort v.next includes a video compression mode; IIRC targeting 2:1 with no human perceptable impact to picture quality. (Should be doable since current compression can get several hundred to one without problematic artifacts.)repoman27 - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Pretty sure it's DP 1.2 seeing as there's probably a dearth of DP 1.3+ TCONs out there. Also, my napkin math works out to 127.751328 Gbit/s for SST, or 8 tiles at 16.4664 Gbit/s apiece using reduced blanking version 2, which would fit nicely into the 17.28 Gbit/s bandwidth of a DP 1.2 HBR2 main link. That's insane though. Whatever is driving that display needs to pump out 17.28 GB/s (capital "B") of display data if you count the bit-stuffing.jjj - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
You left out the most interesting part https://ic.tweakimg.net/ext/i/2001253133.jpegLolimaster - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
I really hate those "2.5D" edges, the moment you watch a video you are annoyed with whitle lane glares from the edges.Worst if you do it on a black galaxy edge + dark content. Just a useless gimmick.
jjj - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
The cover glass has nothing to do with the display itself, that's a choice for the phone maker.Lolimaster - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
You can even see that issue on the picture.Lolimaster - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
I would personally love a 2560x1440 or even bettwe 3000x2000 3000:1 VA/OLED with 240Hz @30inches.Toss3 - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Anything above 1440p with HDR and 100hz+ would do. These 27" 1080p crappy displays the manufacturers keep churning out are just ridiculous (money grab).Galvin - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Rate we're going. We'll have 20k displays in 10 years time. Where do diminishing returns start at though. How small can a pixel get before it don't matter anymore?stephenbrooks - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
20-20 vision is supposed to be a resolution of a "minute of arc", or 360*60 = 21600 pixels per *360 degrees*. So even well-implemented 4K is probably close to saturating what a human being can see over a monitor-sized FOV (70 degrees say).For VR, the FOV is wider so 8K will be required for realism. I'm really excited that they're making progress for VR displays above what Oculus/Vive have done.
satai - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
447 vs 1008 PPI is not over double the pixels in a given area. It's over five times the pixels.Toss3 - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Well if that given area is a straight line then that statement is correct.satai - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
There is no such thing as an area, that is a straight line.pwnish3r - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Sure there is. A line that is 200x1 units would occupy an area of 200 units. A straight line does not have to be infinitely thin, as you assume.chaos215bar2 - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
It's pretty simple. Choose an area of the screen. Increase the pixel density from 447 to 1008 PPI. Now you have ~5x the pixels in that area. Those 200x1 pixels (or whatever unit you prefer) become 451x2.25.If you're talking about a single row or column of pixels and ignoring the other dimension, that's no longer area.
Communism - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
It's annoying that no-one is doing (and likely no one will ever do) a 215.766 hz 10 bit per pixel without trickery IGZO IPS mode 2560 x 1440 G-Sync display on DP 1.4.IGZO IPS mode is just begging to be put into high refresh rate displays, but the market never seems to be able to ramp up any display technology that is more expensive than TN and, more recently, IPS.
Mr Perfect - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
That's a very specific frequency. What is it for?Communism - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Sorry, fumbled an entry, that should say 215.784 hz.That's 23.976 x 9
Communism - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
It's just the highest multiple of 23.976 that fits in the bandwidth requirement of DP 1.3/1.4 without trickery when using 2560 x 1440 x 30 bit per pixel (10 bit per color)sonicmerlin - Saturday, December 3, 2016 - link
Why do you need adaptive sync if you have such a high frame rate?edzieba - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
A bit odd to sell an LCD display based on it's VR credentials: even with ULMB, LCD takes a severe latency hit due to needing to wait for all pixels to switch and stabilise before you can pulse the backlight (or else you will be illuminating pixels with the wrong values), which also caps the maximum refresh rate.Taracta - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
Is it CEATIC or CEATEC?djayjp - Wednesday, October 5, 2016 - link
How is that VR display any different than the Sony phone one?iophobia - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
Given that IGZO is just a faster replacement for the silicon transistor, I wonder what display technology these displays use. From the contrast I would assume OLED which would benefit from the faster IGZO. However, the problem you're facing then is the awful Pentile Matrix that still plagues OLED beside all its merits.Chaotic42 - Thursday, October 6, 2016 - link
8K? 120Hz? A reasonable size? Shut up and take my money!zodiacfml - Friday, October 7, 2016 - link
Awesome, though we have yet to see the latest display interfaces on monitors.TesseractOrion - Thursday, December 1, 2016 - link
This would require at least 2 DP 1.4 connectors, would it note?TesseractOrion - Thursday, December 1, 2016 - link
*Not* 2016 and no edit or preview? FFSTesseractOrion - Thursday, December 1, 2016 - link
I mean 'Not' instead of 'Note' in the first reply. Oh you probably figured that. Not *Not* 2016. Because it is 2016. Argh.jamiles - Sunday, February 12, 2017 - link
A 27 inch monitor is far too small for 8k resolution. I have a 5k HP Z27Q and at 5k the default text needs to be magnified to reduce eyestrain. 8k would only be practical for monitors over 40 inches in size in my opinion and the largest dedicated computer monitor that I am aware of is 34 inches.An exception may be for CAD/CAM or medical imaging use.