Sharp Demos World’s First 85-inch 8K4K Display

[ojas]

Imagine gaming on this screen! An SLI with 4 GTX 590s or 6990s? Lol we'd need mega full tower cases to start with

 

[remainz]

Hollywood already shoots in 8k. This is basically what we get in the cinema today ,but in the home by 2020.

Imagine what cinema will be like in 2020?

I believe this technology will become mainstream before that for true 4k 3D at home, so we can watch all those rubbish Imax movies.
Its all about making us want crap we dont need!

 

[Travis Beane]

1920x1080 is perfectly fine for me for my movies, I just sit back, relax and enjoy.
My gaming however, the more pixels the better. I ran a multi monitor set-up with 7 million pixels before (until my adapter died), and it was awesome. 33 million pixels? BRING IT ON!
2048x1152 wasn't enough for my PC, and then 3456x2048 still wasn't enough.
Maybe I could just settle with 5x 2560x1600, all lined up in portrait mode? 8000x2560 does sound satisfying, if only there weren't those damned black edges.

 

[dimar]

Good luck streaming this online. Looks like the optical media isn't going anywhere. They should combine that stone tech with holographic disk tech.

 

[kartu]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]megapixle race had some merits, but once they went into the 12 megapixle area, going any higher there would have been stupid. now its about better lenses and better sensors, once we can get slr quality on consumer cameras, the mp race will go on a bit more[/citation]
Nope. After 5+ megapixels (actually even 3 is arguable) it made no sense whatsoever on pathetic 2-3mm lens.

 

[baddad]

I have a MITSUBISHI WD-82838 82" 3D HOME CINEMA TV that's just stunning for games or video of any kind, a huge leap from the first black and white 17" TV I watched when I was a kid in 1950.

 

[vaughn2k]

... and coming 2020, there would be 2PB (petabytes) hard drive to store 100 films with 8k4k resolution...

 

[pleuph]

Am I really the only one thinking: What's the framerate?
SuperDuperMegaAwesome resolution means absolutely nothing it still gets choppy when something moves.
If we could just get some more fluidity (and better cared for content releases), I could live with 1920x1080p for a looong time.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]pleuph[/nom]Am I really the only one thinking: What's the framerate?SuperDuperMegaAwesome resolution means absolutely nothing it still gets choppy when something moves.If we could just get some more fluidity (and better cared for content releases), I could live with 1920x1080p for a looong time.[/citation]
Peter Jackson is filming The Hobbit in 60fps so that should help, as soon as one person does it all the rest will follow shortly behind.

 

[AnUnusedUsername]

Seeing higher pixel density in TVs is great, if only because it means companies (may) FINALLY start making computer monitors with higher pixel density. The standard has been 1920x1200 or 1920x1080 @ 24'' and 1680x1050 or 1440x900 @ 22'' for ages. That's still far too low for my tastes, at 24'' resolution really should be at least 2560x1600 or higher, especially considering that many laptop panels are already sharper than that.

A 40'' television that only reaches 1920x1080 looks pretty bad if you use it for anything but watching video/tv shows, especially if you sit closer than a few feet away. At that size, 3840x2160 should be the minimum, not above the top of the line. I guess we just have to wait for cost to come down enough that companies can't use the "its cheaper" excuse to not produce a single product that uses technology that's been around for years. Sure, the brand-new games out there would be impossible to run at super high resolutions, but games that are even two or three years old would run flawlessly, and higher resolutions are always better for office work.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]kartu[/nom]Nope. After 5+ megapixels (actually even 3 is arguable) it made no sense whatsoever on pathetic 2-3mm lens.[/citation]

when i thinkof good cameras, i think the higher end consumer grade, you know, the ones that are in the 500+range.
and when i think slr i think the 1500+ cameras

just some clarification on where i'm coming from.

and i believe when you are prining a 4x3 or whatever the photos sizes are, 3mp is all you need, because any more and you cant see the detail at that small of a photo, but when you start getting higher end, more mp is actually a great advantage.

i believe that, and correct me if im wrong, but the biggest normal prints are where 12mp has its merits.

a few years back i was considering a slr and looked all this crap up, memory isn't great, but there is always a use for higher resolutions, and with a 12mp consumer, you can go one of two ways with it, you can get the high end, and shrink the photos getting rid of the imperfections, or you can go with a 3-5mp camera, with good optics.

and lastly, i dont even consider the ultra thin cameras cameras, take a look at the Canon PowerShot A640, i just googled canon cameras, that size camera is the bare minimum i consider a real camera, everything else is trendy crap where you want to look hip over quality.

[citation][nom]pleuph[/nom]Am I really the only one thinking: What's the framerate?SuperDuperMegaAwesome resolution means absolutely nothing it still gets choppy when something moves.If we could just get some more fluidity (and better cared for content releases), I could live with 1920x1080p for a looong time.[/citation]

and we will, these REALLY high resolutions are a joke. this is a rough estimate, but most people would have to sit 7 feet away from the 85 in screen to actually see the resolution, for a tv, that resolution is stupidly unnecessary, but a pc monitor, higher resolutions are a viable option due to we only sit 3 feet away. its hard to explain if you don't under stand how eyes work but google resolution vs distance and it will give you an idea at least.

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]Peter Jackson is filming The Hobbit in 60fps so that should help, as soon as one person does it all the rest will follow shortly behind.[/citation]

not exactly. 60fps will seam... natural to people at first, and their could be a backlash, lets hope there isnt, because that pathes way for faster fps.

and currently i believe movies are shot at 24 fps, correct?

 

[CaedenV]

[citation][nom]pleuph[/nom]Am I really the only one thinking: What's the framerate?SuperDuperMegaAwesome resolution means absolutely nothing it still gets choppy when something moves.If we could just get some more fluidity (and better cared for content releases), I could live with 1920x1080p for a looong time.[/citation]
Indeed, to notice the detail of something above a 1080p screen you would have to be on a very large TV, or a projector. Next they need to work on frame rate and color depth. Unfortunately they will likely first work on 3D some more before packing it back on the shelf for another 10 years.

8K4K is not a standard. There is 8K video which is supposedly film quality (and I believe them), and there is 4K which was the original video for theater standard. I could easily see 4K becoming the new home standard, or at least 2K (aka quad HD), because 1080p does get a little pixelated when it is blown up on a wall. But most people don't have walls tall or wide enough to properly support 8K resolution, so that will likely be the end of the consumer pixel race. Once we get those resolutions standard, and get frame rates up to 60+fps then we can start talking about 3D and I will believe it to be something more than a fad.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

I can't see myself getting one of these for a long time though. You always have to wait for several years before buying new technology.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

Anyway if buy a TV addin card for your computer,it usually generates its own screen resolution. Even better resolution than your 720 or even a 1080 TV has.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]60fps will seam... natural to people at first, and their could be a backlash, lets hope there isnt, because that pathes way for faster fps. and currently i believe movies are shot at 24 fps, correct?[/citation]
It will be awesome when they show it at a movie theatre, but home technology will have to be scaled back because it will have to conform to the FPS of PAL or NTSC.
Small steps, but at least its heading in the right direction.

 

[Wish I Was Wealthy]

I've to agree with many,that this will not be implented,nor used for at least another decade.

 

[in_the_loop]

This isn't something that is new or surprising. It has already been demonstrated in may this year. There already is an UHDTV standard for this resolution. NHK in Japan are pushing it and broadcasts may start there as early as in 2016 (remember that Japan also was very early with standard HD).

And at the London Olympics next year there will be a "super-hi vision" transmisson (same resolution) of the opening ceremony that are going to be shown on three 15 meter high screens around the country.
Exciting stuff!

 

[liveonc]

I'm gonna play Crysis on this when they make a PC that can run Crysis on 7680 x 4320 on very high at 60FPS

 

[applerocks]

[citation][nom]zankuto[/nom]Great even higher resolution when we cant even get decent 1080p programing. I wonder if apple will try to patent this?[/citation]

What do you mean "try to patent this"? Apple invented this years ago and Im sure have lawyers serving cease and desist notices on sharp right now.

 

[CPU666d1]

No use spending the money to buy this product. You will not get your money worth out it for a decade or so & when you do,you'll will most likely buy a newer model anyway.