LG May Have Leaked 8K iMac

Status
Not open for further replies.

none12345

Honorable
Apr 27, 2013
37
0
10,580
0
While the move to 4k cant happen soon enough. I think 8k is overkill. For your average desktop monitor size that is. Obviously if it's really wide that's another story, 2 side by side 4k screens is fine.

Really it comes down to how good is the human eye. And the number of pixels you need depends on distance to the screen.

Average human eye visual acuity is about 1 arc minute(20/20 vison). The people with the best eyes can go down to about 0.4 arc minutes, but you would have to have like 1 in a billion vision to get down that low.

At 2.5 feet, which is a common desktop viewing distance. An average person can resolve about 115 ppi. And someone with the very best vision on the planet can see about 300.

A 1080p 16:9 27" screen has about ~82 ppi. So thats not enough to meed the 2.5 requirement for the average person at 2.5 inch.

A 4k 2160p 16:9 27" screen would double that to 164ppi. So that covers the average 20/20 person at 2.5 foot. Its 40% better then you need at that distance. But it doesnt cover the truely exceptional eyesight case. Id say this covers 99%+ of the population of the earth tho.

The people with truely exceptional vision could make use of a 8k desktop screen. But almost no one would be able to tell the difference between a 4k and 8k desktop monitor at normal viewing distances.

Now lets get back to the real world. In the real world, the best of the best graphics cards can barely do 4k. So, who cares about 8k at this point.

And to get back to even more reality.....8k is bigger then 4k so it must be better...im sure all the ifans will love it and scoop it up.

Edited for language by moderators
 

clonazepam

Distinguished
Jul 10, 2010
134
0
18,630
0
nVidia's Titan X
Display Support:
5120x3200 Maximum Digital Resolution*
2048x1536 Maximum VGA Resolution
Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 Standard Display Connectors

Where's the next batch of products this year to pump out that resolution? Can't wait to see them.
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
0
While the move to 4k cant happen soon enough. I think 8k is overkill. For your average desktop monitor size that is. Obviously if it's really wide that's another story, 2 side by side 4k screens is fine.

Really it comes down to how good is the human eye. And the number of pixels you need depends on distance to the screen.

Average human eye visual acuity is about 1 arc minute(20/20 vison). The people with the best eyes can go down to about 0.4 arc minutes, but you would have to have like 1 in a billion vision to get down that low.

At 2.5 feet, which is a common desktop viewing distance. An average person can resolve about 115 ppi. And someone with the very best vision on the planet can see about 300.

A 1080p 16:9 27" screen has about ~82 ppi. So thats not enough to meed the 2.5 requirement for the average person at 2.5 inch.

A 4k 2160p 16:9 27" screen would double that to 164ppi. So that covers the average 20/20 person at 2.5 foot. Its 40% better then you need at that distance. But it doesnt cover the truely exceptional eyesight case. Id say this covers 99%+ of the population of the earth tho.

The people with truely exceptional vision could make use of a 8k desktop screen. But almost no one would be able to tell the difference between a 4k and 8k desktop monitor at normal viewing distances.

Now lets get back to the real world. In the real world, the best of the best graphics cards can barely do 4k. So, who cares about 8k at this point.

And to get back to even more reality.....8k is bigger then 4k so it must be better...im sure all the ifans will love it and scoop it up.

Edited for language by moderators
that is all assuming that you only use 27 inch...
personally i wouldn't get a 4k monitor under 40 inches, and may even than require 48 inches to keep the exact same ppi i currently have.

i personally see no value at all in making crap sharper, its a waste of resources and space i would rather use elsewhere.

what i want a 4k for is productivity,

8k, while it may be overkill, just imagine a 80~ inch display all at around 100 ppi where every inch is useable realestate and there is no upscaled anything.

personally, i plan on an oculus rift for games, a 1080p window (or monitor) for games where or is not supported or possible. a 4k monitor at 48 inches for normal use and possibly a 60-80 inch 4k (when price comes down) for watching multimedia at a distance.
 

InvalidError

Distinguished
Moderator
May 18, 2007
295
0
19,260
89

Back when Retina first came along, most mobile devices had display densities in the 100-200ppi range. The move from 200ppi to ~300ppi was a noticeable improvement but how much of a qualitative improvement tag would you put on it? You have 2.25X as much pixel density but qualitatively speaking, graphics and text look maybe 20% better. For most people, going beyond that is not going to be worth the cost or effort.

4k on displays below 30" already takes us pretty deep on the diminishing return curve since people usually sit 2-3X as far away from their desktop display as they do on their mobile.
 

turkey3_scratch

Estimable
Herald
Jul 15, 2014
571
0
5,210
89
For one thing, graphics cards. What on earth can even push 8K? That's the equivalent of 4 4K monitors. Apple's iMacs will have to have 4-way Titan SLI to run this thing, and you know that's not going to happen. 4K is not even yet mainstream so why jump into 8K so quickly? The OS better be optimized to scale text well.
 

falchard

Distinguished
Jun 13, 2008
421
0
18,930
0
LG's source? Themselves. They make the panels for Apple... I would be more surprised if the gimped hardware macs use can even support that resolution.
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
501
0
18,940
4
8K should not be a next gen standard. 8K should be a current standard, and 4K should have been a standard years ago, with it just begining the process of being phased out as people move to 8K.

Other than that, 16K should really be in its early stages of market entry, for use with higher end displays.
 

turkey3_scratch

Estimable
Herald
Jul 15, 2014
571
0
5,210
89


The human eye won't notice any difference in 8K and 16K. Overall I think your expectations are too high of the display market, it's been advancing over the years gradually. Too quick change is never good, for companies nor consumers.
 

razor512

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2007
501
0
18,940
4
PS while gaming will take time to catch up to being able to handle 4K and 8K, for non gaming needs, 8K is good, and 16K+ would be even better, as it means that you gain a new dynamic for examining content. You can display high res images at 100% zoom, and explore the entire image by looking more closely at it. You will be able to have highly detailed backgrounds where staring at it can allow you to notice new details (e.g., the tree in the distance having a squirrel on it, which instantly makes it better since squirrels are awesome).

8K resolution offers a smooth viewing experience for displays ranging from 20-27 inches, 16K works for 32 to possibly 50 inches, and 32K resolution (hopefully we can get there soon), will likely do well for 50-70 inches.
 

jldevoy

Distinguished
Aug 2, 2011
76
0
18,580
0
I saw a documentary a year or 2 ago where 1 japanese TV maker said 4k was a stepping stone to 8k; 8k is where they expect to stop as after that the benefits become increasingly small.
 

mapesdhs

Distinguished
Jan 22, 2007
35
0
18,590
3
The BBC and other corps (including one in Japan) have already done tests with 8K.
Numerous movie studios are already working with it, though atm they have to use
multiple monitors to display it.

The human eye can see a much better resolution than 8K equivalent btw. Where
our vision suffers is our poor 'response time', though when it comes to technology
that's been an advantage, ie. a lowish frame rate is enough to fool most people (by
that I mean 20 to 60 typically), whereas a bird for example can detect nuch higher
frequencies in its visual input, up to 200Hz in some cases.

Ian.

 

iam2thecrowe

Distinguished
Moderator
if the 8k monitor isn't more than 27", the scaling of icons, text, applications, etc, is going to just make everything hard to read. It already can be on a 4k 27" screen.
 

daglesj

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2007
82
0
18,580
0
So I take it this iMac will come with a decent desktop i7 CPU/GPU and 32GB RAM minimum to actually allow anyone who works with this kind of resolution to use it?

I won't hold my breath.
 

cats_Paw

Distinguished
Oct 19, 2007
425
0
18,940
5
I got a Panasonic plasma 50 inch, 1080p as my monitor.
It dosent look sharper than my laptops 17 inch 1080p , but it sure as hell looks better and more natural.
Pixels alone can only get you so far. We still need high and steady fps, right colors, contras, brighness, black levels, refresh rates, input lag... the list is rather long.
Its all a placebo effect: Telling people 4K is better than 1080p and 8K is better than 4K.
Sure, on paper they are right, but if the resolution is life-like while everything else is wanky and out of place, you wont really see that big of a difference.
You will think you do, because, well after all 8K is more than 4K! Even if you are looking at colors with a Delta so high that it looks like a 90s CRT.

So, for the most part I am not exited. Since plasmas demise, a lot of quality has been lost, so its obvious that companies are not trying to make better products but sell more.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Thread starter Similar threads Forum Replies Date
G MacBooks 0

ASK THE COMMUNITY