Wider release of 8K monitors & TVs (wider than their current "niche" market) will most certainly mean cheaper 4K monitors/TVs. The same thing happened with 1080p.
That's absolutely not true... not if you care about HDR. The only HDR gaming monitors for less than $2000 have only around 350 nits peak brightness. Whoopdie-doo... that's sure worth it. /s Plus those are FreeSync and not Gsync. I'm still rocking a GTX 970, but I think I'm jumping ship to AMD next time as I'm not going to pay out the nose for a Gsync monitor and also I want compatibility with the new VRR televisions coming out (as I'm also not going to pay and arm and leg for an Nvidia BFD.)
Funny how everybody talks in absolutes without even considering the wild variation in price that comes with diagonal or stuff like HDR.
And the diagonal difference alone accounts for anywhere between 50%-300% price hike without impacting image quality in any way. I have the 65" C8 and it cost 3500E. That's 1000E more expensive than the 55" with no difference in quality. And if you want to go to 77" be prepared to dish out 10K. Again, no difference in quality.
But hey, everyone's an expert. Also, cue in the "OMG, 8K at 70", they should have gone for at least 16K, I can see the pixels on my 14" 4K screen".
You're likely to never get there. GSync is Nvidia tech. They control the price and they want their pound of flesh. Best of luck all the same. If GSync get's that cheap i'm likely to spend a lot less for a Freesync monitor. I'm not holding my breath though.
This is great news, but only in that it pushes the resolution boundary.
HDMI 2.0 tops out at 8Kp24 4:2:0. Unless they plan on those HDMI 2.0 ports getting firmware updates to HDMI 2.1 (unlikely), it's already outdated. No 8K60, no 4K120.
I'm guessing is does 8k60 at 4:4;4 by taking input on 4x HDMI 2 at once, like the early 4k/5k monitors that looked like 2 half sized displays to the outside world and needed dual displayport input to run at 60hz.
For the very limited audiences this is intended for that's not a major problem since they're either working on generation 0.1 8k systems, or are using it to replace 4x 4k TVs in a video wall.
110" PJ screen @1080p user here. I am still hesitating if I need to upgrade to 4k. Sitting distance is 13-15 ft. 8k ? NO. For commercial cinema, sure. 32-42" monitor may be. Mega laugh at all those that fall for 4k at 55" at sit more than 6-7 ft away.
Totally agree. HDR and the wider color gamut are way bigger improvements that the jump from 1080p to 4k. Unfortunately, it's going to take some crazy engineering to let a projector the ability to do HDR justice and allow the wider color profile that 4k allows. A non-laser light source can't be shut off in sections, it's all or nothing.
I'm likely going to sacrifice my 100" screen and projector for an ~80" decent 4k TV for the next couple of years until the projector market can offer a reasonably priced unit that can compete with the current crop of OLED and higher end LCD's out there.
We previously had an "issue" where you couldn't cleanly scale 480p/i content (most DVD content) as an even integer and fill the screen on 4K (2160p). 4* scale is a bit too small, 5* scale is a bit too large.
After this, I hope TV manufacturers just stop increasing resolution (we've hit a point of diminishing returns after 1080p) and focus on better internal video scalers, better contrast, better response time, better input lag, better color gamuts, better out-of-the-box color accuracy, etc.
Yes, I did mean whole integer multiple, just had a brain fart at the time or something.
Doesn't really change my point that we're soon hitting a threshold where just increasing resolution really isn't going to affect picture quality significantly, while other display characteristics should likely be focused on to provide more meaningful upgrades to display technology.
I don't want to be that guy that says 8K is fine enough for everybody at every distance (in regards to saying X amount of RAM is enough for everybody), because unlike PC specs (which increase over time, along with increased demands from software in use), our eyes do have physical limits of interpreting images, from a given distance. It's possible displays very close to the eye, like VR, could benefit from something higher than 8K per eye, but I'm talking about just TV/monitor displays here.
"Integer" literally means "whole" in Latin. So a whole integer is an "integer integer". That leaves you with "integers" and "whole numbers" (or "natural numbers").
Integers: every number with no fractional component (positive or negative: -5, -2, 6, 11, ...). Whole numbers: Natural numbers, only positive integers (0, 1, 2, ...)
This is fine but I'm waiting to cover my walls with screens. The direct led Wall would work for a living room (imax+ @home) but it's got serious limitations: 1)unless you keep it turned on you'll have a giant undecorated wall, 2)if you keep it turned on you've got yourself a pretty nice heating unit (though you could turn on only a few elements but I'm not sure what kind of losses you'd end up with when stretched over dozens of ft² if screen), 3) only one stable setting versus bistable, transflective tech like mirasol (hopeful Apple can get it to work).
My 2 year old $ 530 Vizio 43" UHD TV can display 8k from my mac book pro thru HDMI. And so can many 4K monitors. Get a 2015 and up MB pro and install SwitchResX . The system pref will read the alternate reaolutions available and 7680 x 4320 will show . My Imac will also drive 8k on the Vizio
I can guarantee you that it's getting downscaled by your mac book pro. It can help produce a better picture at times, but you're definitely no getting it actually displayed in 8k.
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
26 Comments
Back to Article
milkywayer - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Here i am still waiting for a reliable 4k monitor with G sync under $400.Santoval - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Wider release of 8K monitors & TVs (wider than their current "niche" market) will most certainly mean cheaper 4K monitors/TVs. The same thing happened with 1080p.Talkinggod - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
4k is already below $400cwolf78 - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
That's absolutely not true... not if you care about HDR. The only HDR gaming monitors for less than $2000 have only around 350 nits peak brightness. Whoopdie-doo... that's sure worth it. /s Plus those are FreeSync and not Gsync. I'm still rocking a GTX 970, but I think I'm jumping ship to AMD next time as I'm not going to pay out the nose for a Gsync monitor and also I want compatibility with the new VRR televisions coming out (as I'm also not going to pay and arm and leg for an Nvidia BFD.)Lolimaster - Saturday, April 21, 2018 - link
With craptastic image quality, as cheapo 1080 TV's.Only qualiy TV that is 4K is the LG C8. Start with it.
close - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
Funny how everybody talks in absolutes without even considering the wild variation in price that comes with diagonal or stuff like HDR.And the diagonal difference alone accounts for anywhere between 50%-300% price hike without impacting image quality in any way. I have the 65" C8 and it cost 3500E. That's 1000E more expensive than the 55" with no difference in quality. And if you want to go to 77" be prepared to dish out 10K. Again, no difference in quality.
But hey, everyone's an expert. Also, cue in the "OMG, 8K at 70", they should have gone for at least 16K, I can see the pixels on my 14" 4K screen".
Bateluer - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
Both of my 4K displays were under 400 USD, but neither had the Gsync tax.SleepyFE - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
You're likely to never get there. GSync is Nvidia tech. They control the price and they want their pound of flesh. Best of luck all the same. If GSync get's that cheap i'm likely to spend a lot less for a Freesync monitor. I'm not holding my breath though.nathanddrews - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
This is great news, but only in that it pushes the resolution boundary.HDMI 2.0 tops out at 8Kp24 4:2:0. Unless they plan on those HDMI 2.0 ports getting firmware updates to HDMI 2.1 (unlikely), it's already outdated. No 8K60, no 4K120.
Womp womp.
Eidigean - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680 × 4320) at 60 Hz with 30 bit/px RGB color and HDR. No need for HDMI update.A5 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
This TV doesn't have DP though.DanNeely - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
I'm guessing is does 8k60 at 4:4;4 by taking input on 4x HDMI 2 at once, like the early 4k/5k monitors that looked like 2 half sized displays to the outside world and needed dual displayport input to run at 60hz.For the very limited audiences this is intended for that's not a major problem since they're either working on generation 0.1 8k systems, or are using it to replace 4x 4k TVs in a video wall.
djsvetljo - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
110" PJ screen @1080p user here. I am still hesitating if I need to upgrade to 4k. Sitting distance is 13-15 ft. 8k ? NO. For commercial cinema, sure. 32-42" monitor may be. Mega laugh at all those that fall for 4k at 55" at sit more than 6-7 ft away.A5 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
HDR and better DCI-P3 coverage are worth the upgrade from a 1080p LCD if you watch a ton of modern-produced content.MadDog312 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Totally agree. HDR and the wider color gamut are way bigger improvements that the jump from 1080p to 4k. Unfortunately, it's going to take some crazy engineering to let a projector the ability to do HDR justice and allow the wider color profile that 4k allows. A non-laser light source can't be shut off in sections, it's all or nothing.I'm likely going to sacrifice my 100" screen and projector for an ~80" decent 4k TV for the next couple of years until the projector market can offer a reasonably priced unit that can compete with the current crop of OLED and higher end LCD's out there.
SleepyFE - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
I'm also at 1080p. Dad bought a slightly bigger 1440p. Seeing it first hand i'm starting to consider it.JoeyJoJo123 - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
I'm excited for 8k... Sort of. But only because it's an even multiple of all the previous resolutions we've had before.240p * 18 = 4320p
480p * 9 = 4320p
720p * 6 = 4320p
1080p * 4 = 4320p
2160p * 2 = 4320p
We previously had an "issue" where you couldn't cleanly scale 480p/i content (most DVD content) as an even integer and fill the screen on 4K (2160p). 4* scale is a bit too small, 5* scale is a bit too large.
After this, I hope TV manufacturers just stop increasing resolution (we've hit a point of diminishing returns after 1080p) and focus on better internal video scalers, better contrast, better response time, better input lag, better color gamuts, better out-of-the-box color accuracy, etc.
bji - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
I got news for you ... 9 isn't an even integer either.But I suspect you meant 'whole integer' ...
SleepyFE - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
Nice catch. I just assumed whole integer and didn't even notice that.JoeyJoJo123 - Monday, April 23, 2018 - link
Yes, I did mean whole integer multiple, just had a brain fart at the time or something.Doesn't really change my point that we're soon hitting a threshold where just increasing resolution really isn't going to affect picture quality significantly, while other display characteristics should likely be focused on to provide more meaningful upgrades to display technology.
I don't want to be that guy that says 8K is fine enough for everybody at every distance (in regards to saying X amount of RAM is enough for everybody), because unlike PC specs (which increase over time, along with increased demands from software in use), our eyes do have physical limits of interpreting images, from a given distance. It's possible displays very close to the eye, like VR, could benefit from something higher than 8K per eye, but I'm talking about just TV/monitor displays here.
close - Wednesday, April 25, 2018 - link
OT."Integer" literally means "whole" in Latin. So a whole integer is an "integer integer". That leaves you with "integers" and "whole numbers" (or "natural numbers").
Integers: every number with no fractional component (positive or negative: -5, -2, 6, 11, ...).
Whole numbers: Natural numbers, only positive integers (0, 1, 2, ...)
tuxRoller - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
This is fine but I'm waiting to cover my walls with screens.The direct led Wall would work for a living room (imax+ @home) but it's got serious limitations: 1)unless you keep it turned on you'll have a giant undecorated wall, 2)if you keep it turned on you've got yourself a pretty nice heating unit (though you could turn on only a few elements but I'm not sure what kind of losses you'd end up with when stretched over dozens of ft² if screen), 3) only one stable setting versus bistable, transflective tech like mirasol (hopeful Apple can get it to work).
Talkinggod - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
My 2 year old $ 530 Vizio 43" UHD TV can display 8k from my mac book pro thru HDMI. And so can many 4K monitors. Get a 2015 and up MB pro and install SwitchResX . The system pref will read the alternate reaolutions available and 7680 x 4320 will show . My Imac will also drive 8k on the Viziobji - Thursday, April 19, 2018 - link
Pretty sure you can also display 4K content on a 480i black and white TV with appropriate downscaling. Who cares?mjeffer - Sunday, April 22, 2018 - link
I can guarantee you that it's getting downscaled by your mac book pro. It can help produce a better picture at times, but you're definitely no getting it actually displayed in 8k.Diji1 - Friday, April 20, 2018 - link
Cool, I'll pick one up for every room in the house!