Where are the 8K Monitors?

Still don't think 120Hz should be a luxury consideration. I was sat at 85Hz in the 90s with my old CRT and that wasn't especially high end.

It's eternally disappointing that LCDs regressed to 60Hz and are only recently making a proper push higher. At this point it should be no more expensive than 60Hz to implement.

120Hz as (minimum) standard is not likely to happen soon given the incumbency of 60 but I'd get behind seeing it everywhere.
 
Many valid explanations but I'm not talking about 8K replacing other tech - why can't they release a couple of 8K monitors at the top end of the market with the latest tech - I think DP 2.1 should be able to do 8K 120hz iirc. Of course sales won't be very high but that's not the point - pushing the boundary of what's doable will percolate to other models (i.e. like F1 tech getting into road cars eventually). It just seems strange that after the Dell 8K monitor over 5 years ago, there has been a complete dearth of 8K panels.

Here's to hoping 8K 120Hz OLED will be a real thing sooner rather than later. I would use it mainly for productivity (photo/video editing) but gaming on the side should be fun too.
 
I would want a 8K display, but I think it should cost maybe 2.5-3x of a 4K display for me to be pouncing. I generally don't spend $5000 on anything computer related.
 
Baasha said:
Many valid explanations but I'm not talking about 8K replacing other tech - why can't they release a couple of 8K monitors at the top end of the market with the latest tech - I think DP 2.1 should be able to do 8K 120hz iirc. Of course sales won't be very high but that's not the point - pushing the boundary of what's doable will percolate to other models (i.e. like F1 tech getting into road cars eventually). It just seems strange that after the Dell 8K monitor over 5 years ago, there has been a complete dearth of 8K panels.
Click to expand...
Yeah its pretty ridiculous we get these unicorn product years ahead competition at "please do not buy!" price point and then instead of iterating improving tech (especially connectivity!) and reducing price until product catches on they are discontinued without anything to replace them.

Other than 8K Dell UP3218K which doesn't have single connection which can handle 8K at 60Hz we had other 'would be gem' Dell UP3017Q: a 120Hz OLED panel which Dell changed last moment to 60Hz to reduce cost - and to make us cry even more it was actually strobed display. Didn't have VRR but even without VRR at 120Hz it would probably find its niche. This thing cost was $3500 in 2017 so not easy buy but I think Dell could make the same damn monitor with 120Hz electronics later at more reasonable price and get some sales going on.

Baasha said:
Here's to hoping 8K 120Hz OLED will be a real thing sooner rather than later. I would use it mainly for productivity (photo/video editing) but gaming on the side should be fun too.
Click to expand...
It will definitely happen but I would not hold my breath.
 
My prediction: somebody will make an 8K 42” TV that becomes an unintended monitor sensation among enthusiasts first. And then we’ll start seeing companies target the resolution for PC in earnest.
 
Last edited:
I have a counter prediction. Apple will be the first to offer an 8K OLED with 120Hz. It'll be amazing but will cost twice what anyone wants to pay for it. It'll be years later before there is any competition. :)
 
LukeTbk said:
or does those 120hz 8k tv specs are misleading (does not support it at 8k, only lower ?)
Click to expand...
I would say typical 4K@120Hz
Personally I wouldn't mind this solution if such display used integer/point scaling for 4K. It would make it good for desktop because all the desktop space while also making it great for gaming.

That said I personally do not care for >4K gaming. Not at the point when only GPU remotely approaching 8K@>100fps has cost almost $2K and need to use tons of upscaling and frame generation and doesn't even have connectivity for 8K@120Hz ...
In this light not having 8K@120Hz is probably least of our display issues 😪
 
XoR_ said:
I would say typical 4K@120Hz
Personally I wouldn't mind this solution if such display used integer/point scaling for 4K. It would make it good for desktop because all the desktop space while also making it great for gaming.

That said I personally do not care for >4K gaming. Not at the point when only GPU remotely approaching 8K@>100fps has cost almost $2K and need to use tons of upscaling and frame generation and doesn't even have connectivity for 8K@120Hz ...
In this light not having 8K@120Hz is probably least of our display issues 😪
Click to expand...
The great thing about 8K is you should be able use integer scaling to play at 4K while still having the HiDPI for work. However, I tried that with a UP3218K before I returned it, and an RX 6800 XT didn't offer the option to enable integer scaling for it. I don't know if that was due to the use of two DP cables. The same issue happens now with my Apple Studio Display and an RX 7900 XTX. I plan to order the U3224KB and will try integer scaling with it.
 
From one of my replies there:

once you hit something like a 55" 1000R 8k screen you could have quads of 4k windows or any tile you want on that wall of screen. Notably a 32:9 or 32:10 uw belt wouldn't be limited to 1080px or 1200px tall anymore. You could also run 4k - 6k screen spaces 1:1, etc.

I think the best case would be if they started integrating some kind of AI upscaling tech on the screens themselves in order to bypass the port and cable bandwidth. Then you could send (perhaps more advanced frame amplification tech amplified) 4k or 4k based uw resolutions in games and upscale them on the screen end of the equation.

As for 8k fidelity, we are forced to use Anti-aliasing and text sub-sampling to compensate for aggressive pixelization on screens as it is. *Aggressive* anti-aliasing (at a performance hit) , and heavily massaged and/or alternate forms of text sub-sampling only start to compensate enough around 60PPD or so. Notably, there is typically no AA outside of text's sub-sampling on the 2D desktop for desktop graphics and imagery (outside of the viewports of some select cgi authoring/digital imagery authoring apps). So the 2D desktop is even worse as it's not compensated outside of text. We can definitely benefit from higher PPD.

For example, the samsung ark is around 61 - 62 PPD when sitting at the focal point of the curve, which is still pixelated pretty badly but can be compensated for with aggressive AA and heavily massaged text sub sampling (which are fogged edge hacks really). The 2D desktop remains uncompensated for at all. We won't be able to get away with not using AA /text-ss for the most part until we get around 160PPD, maybe even 200PPD. Not that we shouldn't use them to some degree in the meantime, I'm just saying - we really have room for and can benefit a lot from higher PPD.

A 55" 1000R curved 8k screen would have a 1000R, 1000mm radius ~> 40" focal point. Sitting at that focal point you'd get around 122PPD instead of ~ 61 PPD. That would be a huge benefit in overall display quality.
Click to expand...

The price and overall cons on the current 8k screens combined do not equate to a good purchase choice for me currently considering what models are available. If I was going to spend $3000+ usd on a 8k screen it had better be great. Currently 4k screen's performance is better, even on normal non-high hz material.

Optimally for me would be a 55" 1000R curved 8k with 120hz+ 4k through 32:10 and some kind of advanced AI gaming upscaling on the display someday, better yet with high nit for FALD or OLED supported by a fatter air grille chasis, heatsink, and active cooling fan profile with modular swappable fans. Multiple inputs in OSD framed window spaces would be a big bonus (unlike the ark) - PbP mode , picture-by-picture. That would be a powerhouse.

The main nut to crack would be being able to get fairly high hz 4k through 32:10 (x1200) upscaled to 8k and 32:10 (x2400) without dropping to 60hz.

Like people often said in samsung 55" 4k ark threads: "I don’t understand why they would take a step up in size just to take a step back in functionality". That was true of 4k back in the day as well though, and for some people even now to their perspective.

At the end of the year I'll be looking at those "4k double-wide" screens from samsung and TCL. 7680x2160, 240hz, like two 32" 4k screens side by side. I'd prefer if it were ~ 800R though for the focal point of the curve vs distortion while sitting close enough to get similar to a 32" 16:9's usual desktop height but it is what it is. Those screens seem like about the best we'll be able to get for awhile in regard to moving above 4k (especially at considerably high hz + high color volume HDR) - at half height of a 8k screen. If the 8k tvs weren't so expensive I'd even consider throwing one above one of the 4k doublewides for desktop and some media use, keeping the bottom uw mostly for gaming . . but between the power thing squashing their promotion and rollout and the price, reviewed performance/cons I'm probably not looking at a 8k screen for several years yet (as a primary let alone an affordable 2nd display one like I can do with more affordable 4k tvs currently). Perhaps someday we'll be able to get those same '4k doublewide' specs in a full 8k screen, like two of those stacked w/o middle bezel. Hopefully someyear 8k tvs will get a gaming-TV renaissance like LG did for 4k gaming tvs but that seems a long way off now.
 
Last edited:
but take the Sharp for e.g., is the text falls under the 4:4:4 ratio? And how much is that Sharp and what size?
 
When I got the Dell UP3218K back in April of 2017:

JP7rhQR.jpg


lQPQuaR.jpg


SBrrv8G.jpg


Needed to use 2x DP 1.4 cables to get 8K 60hz and it had its own set of issues. Sold it in Dec. of that year and never looked back. Still waiting for a decent replacement for an 8K monitor. Sigh... the wait continues. :rolleyes:
 
Heh, the size of that taskbar and its icons is something to behold.
 
Baasha said:
When I got the Dell UP3218K back in April of 2017:
Click to expand...
Second shot reminded me I need IPS Black panel on my desk. Much more than 8K panel.
Even if its only ~2K:1 rather than inf:1 it would be huge improvement.

Needed to use 2x DP 1.4 cables to get 8K 60hz and it had its own set of issues. Sold it in Dec. of that year and never looked back. Still waiting for a decent replacement for an 8K monitor. Sigh... the wait continues. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I once saw this monitor on sale barely used for less than $2000. If that thing ran on single input I would already have 8K monitor.
It is just all this dual inputs setup and people saying words like "issues" plus already high price (2K is still high price! let alone 5K...) just turns me down enough to pass on such product.
 
1. Unless you professionally shoot and edit 8K for a living on a 100,000 USD RED Cinema telecine you do not need it.
2. Unless your screen is 75"or larger DPI issues warrant 8K very expensive solution.
 
Baasha said:
When I got the Dell UP3218K back in April of 2017:

View attachment 569996

View attachment 569997

View attachment 569998

Needed to use 2x DP 1.4 cables to get 8K 60hz and it had its own set of issues. Sold it in Dec. of that year and never looked back. Still waiting for a decent replacement for an 8K monitor. Sigh... the wait continues. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Can't believe they were selling this crap for over 5000 bucks back then. No Adaptive-Sync, no DV / any HDR mode, 60Hz, MST, crappy QC, firmwares, etc...
It made PG32UQX/UCG worthy of its asking price.
 
VR has very low PPD, pixels per degree. The pixels are pretty huge. So saying 8k, or 4k per eye of the same scene for stereoscopic 3d, is not the fine pixels you might think of when comparing to a 4k or 8k "pancake" screen in a room viewed at 60 to 50 degree horizontal viewing angle's distance. VR still has a very long way to go in the PPD department.

The Pimax Crystal VR. (Very high price tag for a fully operational kit, also may have some QC and support issues from some reports I think so not your typical consumer headset. Might say niche market).

Using glass lenses and QLED & miniLED panels with 5760 x2880 pixels, this VR headset will show you all the details you want to see in movies. The amount of pixels is the highest in any consumer VR headset, which also puts it clarity at 35 PPD with the 140° field of view
Click to expand...

. .
Quest/meta is more common
thanks to the higher pixel density of Meta Quest Pro's display and its subsequent magnification by the headset's pancake optics, we were able to increase overall system resolution for Meta Quest Pro (22 PPD) by 10% compared to Meta Quest 2 (20 PPD).
Click to expand...

Has a column listing PPD

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virtual_reality_headsets#Tethered_VR
 
Last edited:
VR movies afaik are SBS 3d material so when viewed on a 2d screen it's half of that resolution plus if first person it usually has an extreme fish-eye lens effect where it is stretched and distorted like the image was stretched across a sphere. You could convert it back in software somehow I guess but it would still probably end up being a single eye's worth of 2000 something by 2000 something resolution I think or less. For example if you captured two fields at once on a 8k space it would be 4k per eye/single field screen or less sutracting framing, and if you captured 4k space it would be 2k per eye/single content field or less subtracting framing.. and that if not suffering rez loss due to the switch from 1st person fish eyed lens back to uniform field type. Also like I replied earlier, if actually viewing said content in VR instead of on a flat 2d screen, most consumer headsets are only around 22 PPD or less which is very poor.

I'm not saying VR doesn't bring a lot to the table in immersion and the 3D holographic effect is has but I'd caution that saying 4k or 8k resolution in VR doesn't end up with the same kind of pixel size those "K" terms represent in flat panel screens in a room. Most common consumer VR screens are as bad or worse than 1080p pixel density at a desk currently, and some VR headset screens only have a sweet spot of their best capable PPD in the center, bulls-eye like and worse outside of it.

elvn said:
VR has very low PPD, pixels per degree. The pixels are pretty huge. So saying 8k, or 4k per eye of the same scene for stereoscopic 3d, is not the fine pixels you might think of when comparing to a 4k or 8k "pancake" screen in a room viewed at 60 to 50 degree horizontal viewing angle's distance. VR still has a very long way to go in the PPD department.

The Pimax Crystal VR. (Very high price tag for a fully operational kit, also may have some QC and support issues from some reports I think so not your typical consumer headset. Might say niche market).

Using glass lenses and QLED & miniLED panels with 5760 x2880 pixels, this VR headset will show you all the details you want to see in movies. The amount of pixels is the highest in any consumer VR headset, which also puts it clarity at 35 PPD with the 140° field of view
Click to expand...

. .
Quest/meta is more common
thanks to the higher pixel density of Meta Quest Pro's display and its subsequent magnification by the headset's pancake optics, we were able to increase overall system resolution for Meta Quest Pro (22 PPD) by 10% compared to Meta Quest 2 (20 PPD).
Click to expand...

Has a column listing PPD

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_virtual_reality_headsets#Tethered_VR
Click to expand...

The measure for this that takes the ppi and distance into consideration is PPD, pixels per degree. The PPD number is how many pixels per degree of your view but it also represents the perceived pixel size to your eyes and brain by nature of that so you could think of it as the perceived pixel density (though the D really stands for 'per Degree).
https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/
Click to expand...
.
.

In comparison to flat screens in a room:

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 4k screen of any size gets around 64 to 77 PPD.
.
At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD.
.
At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 1920x1080 screen of any size gets only 20 PPD to 25 PPD
Click to expand...

. . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/news/79914...usual-canon-rf-5-2mm-f2-8-l-dual-fisheye-lens

https://www.yankodesign.com/2021/10...ye-lenses-for-recording-8k-ar-and-vr-footage/

The two lenses offer 190° field of view, and are spaced a precise 60mm apart to resemble the pupillary distance in humans, making the VR content look believable and have just the right amount of parallax too. Focusing for both the lenses is controlled by a single ring, although minor tweaks to the focus of individual lenses can be done using hidden adjustment dials on the left and right-hand sides of the lens body.
Click to expand...

I believe the 8k and 4k recording quote is the full field of the recording so you'd be at half of that in each case in the final single frame composition in the VR headset in "3d" (minus any of that black frame area on both sides in the screenshots. That or if you master it cutting away the outside frame you'd also lose some 1:1 pixel material worth of those resolutions quoted).

like drones and AR/VR cameras, Canon has just embraced good old-fashioned innovation instead, with a newfangled lens that is compatible with their existing EOS range of cameras. The lens, when paired with the company’s 1.5.0 firmware update, enables the humble yet capable 2D camera to shoot SBS 3D content. Pair the lens with the EOS R5 mirrorless camera and suddenly you can perform high-resolution video recording at up to 8K DCI 30p and 4K DCI 60p.
Click to expand...
canon_dual_fisheye_camera_lens_2.jpg





. . .

Canon-VR-lens-05-2048x1113.jpg


. . . .

Canon Dual Fisheye Lens Review

9UXNPdu.png
 
elvn said:
VR movies afaik are SBS 3d material so when viewed on a 2d screen it's half of that resolution plus if first person it usually has an extreme fish-eye lens effect where it is stretched and distorted like the image was stretched across a sphere. You could convert it back in software somehow I guess but it would still probably end up being a single eye's worth of 2000 something by 2000 something resolution I think or less. For example if you captured two fields at once on a 8k space it would be 4k per eye/single field screen or less sutracting framing, and if you captured 4k space it would be 2k per eye/single content field or less subtracting framing.. and that if not suffering rez loss due to the switch from 1st person fish eyed lens back to uniform field type. Also like I replied earlier, if actually viewing said content in VR instead of on a flat 2d screen, most consumer headsets are only around 22 PPD or less which is very poor.

I'm not saying VR doesn't bring a lot to the table in immersion and the 3D holographic effect is has but I'd caution that saying 4k or 8k resolution in VR doesn't end up with the same kind of pixel size those "K" terms represent in flat panel screens in a room. Most common consumer VR screens are as bad or worse than 1080p pixel density at a desk currently, and some VR headset screens only have a sweet spot of their best capable PPD in the center, bulls-eye like and worse outside of it.




.
.

In comparison to flat screens in a room:



. . . .

https://www.dpreview.com/news/79914...usual-canon-rf-5-2mm-f2-8-l-dual-fisheye-lens

https://www.yankodesign.com/2021/10...ye-lenses-for-recording-8k-ar-and-vr-footage/



I believe the 8k and 4k recording quote is the full field of the recording so you'd be at half of that in each case in the final single frame composition in the VR headset in "3d" (minus any of that black frame area on both sides in the screenshots. That or if you master it cutting away the outside frame you'd also lose some 1:1 pixel material worth of those resolutions quoted).


View attachment 570435




. . .

View attachment 570436

. . . .

Canon Dual Fisheye Lens Review

9UXNPdu.png
Click to expand...

Yeah the resolution of videos in VR is effectively much smaller than the actual resolution of the video.

In VR 180 degree side by side movies (which is the standard) you don't see the entire picture at once (at least on a normal headset).

Basically it's like you're in a sphere and only the front half has video, the back of the sphere is just black. You look around and see different parts of the video.

It's basically like if you were in a sphere in a video game and the sphere had the video applied as a texture. Just because the texture is 8k that isn't the resolution you see on your screen.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
sharknice said:
Yeah the resolution of videos in VR is effectively much smaller than the actual resolution of the video.

In VR 180 degree side by side movies (which is the standard) you don't see the entire picture at once (at least on a normal headset).

Basically it's like you're in a sphere and only the front half has video, the back of the sphere is just black. You look around and see different parts of the video.

It's basically like if you were in a sphere in a video game and the sphere had the video applied as a texture. Just because the texture is 8k that isn't the resolution you see on your screen.
Click to expand...

yes and the virtual screen size is huge vs your virtual distance so most people are getting like 20 PPD on common VR headset models if that which is as bad or worse than a 27" 1080p screen at a desk or any 1080p screen at 60 to 50 deg central viewing angle. That's very large pixels compared to what people typically think of when they think of 4k or 8k at typical viewing angles/view distances. You usually think it would be a very fine pixel grid. The VR headsets tend to add both eye resolutions together for their final "K" too, when in reality both images are nearly the same and are composited together into a 3d image in your head so you are only getting the full resolution of one eye's worth which is half of that they call their headset. E.g. "4k" vr headset is only a 2k image/scene. Then like you said, the video can be stretched well outside of 1:1 pixel onto a sphere or half sphere or using fisheyed lenses with directed "fixed" camera FoV cinematography panning/movement and scene changes.

. . . . . .

There are two Varjo model VR headsets that get 60 or 70 PPD but it's only that on a bullseye in the center of the screen. It drops off to 17 or 30ppd respectively on the periphery.

The full-frame Bionic Display in Varjo XR-3 and VR-3 features human-eye resolution running at more than 70 pixels per degree (ppd) or 1920×1920 pixels per eye, compared to earlier 60 ppd.


Outside of the human-eye resolution area, the resolution is 35 ppd (or 2880×2720 pixels per eye) and gradually lowers towards the far periphery. Compared to the earlier peripheral resolution of 14 ppd, the resolution has more than doubled. This makes the visual experience even more natural than before and eliminates screen-door effect.


The refresh rate is 90 Hz, providing a smooth experience even with dynamic content. All devices are color calibrated to 99% sRGB and 93% DCI-P3. This means that the headsets suitable for even the most demanding use cases like car design.
Click to expand...

While those exist as a reference for the state of current VR tech overall, they aren't consumer devices. They are expensive and have a subsciption model.

The Varjo VR-3 is available for enterprise purchase for $3,645 along with a one-year subscription starting at $795. The Varjo XR-3 is available respectively for $6,495 and $1495/year.
Click to expand...

So those aren't really comparable to what most people are using. If you have a meta 2 or pro you are getting 20 to 22 PPD . 20 to 22 ppd is like a 1080p screen or worse at normal 60 to 50 degree viewing angles. It's also like a 32" 1080p screen viewed from 15 inches away for comparison.

If you spring for an expensive top tier Pimax VR headset model + controllers + lighthouses, maybe a few mocap limb units, etc at considerable price for the entire base functioning kit, you'd be getting ~ 35 PPD. (Most people aren't doing that either).

At the human central viewing angle of 60 to 50 degrees, every 2560x1440 screen of any size gets only 43 PPD to 51 PPD so even the pimax at 35 PPD is larger pixels than a 1440p screen at normal viewing angles. Like viewing a 32" 1080p screen from 27 inches away (1.5').

The PPD in VR has gotten a little better in successive gens but it still has a long way to go imo especially in more common, less extreme entry priced headset models from major mfgs.

. . . . . . . . . .

Any way you look at it a "8k" resolution VR video won't look "8k" in effect in a VR headset or when viewing on a flat pancake screen in a room - even if you convert it from sbs. . and the PPD in VR would still be low (on current gen headests) even if you viewed a 4k or 8k movie on a flat frame in VR, it'd be more like viewing in a window on a 1080p. Maybe if the VR kits and videos were 16k so you'd have two 8k images side by side more or less you could end up with something closer to 8k if you converted it from wrap around or fisheye to a flat screen field for a flat screen in a room.
 
Last edited:
Well, I'm in the market now for another 40"-50" screen as my CG437K is acting up (lost the audio circuit but who knows what's next to go) but I still does not see a point of getting a 8K screen. A 43" 4K is the minimum size you need if you're using 100% font size (which I do as actually I needs the screen real estate for multiple apps and windows to be active at the same time). A 8K screen would not give me more screen real estate to work with without going to a much large screen size which would be impractical. As for using it for media playback or gaming, the point is also moot as we don't really have access to 8K media and since even a 4090 still struggle with 60fps with ray tracing on full on some newer titles, good luck getting any game to run at usable fps at 8K. The only reason I would get a 8K display (and it will be a 75"+) is if I'm actually working with or editing 8K media. Otherwise I don't really see a point for a desktop 8K monitor.
 
Last edited:
Wiz33 said:
Well, I'm in the market now for another 40"-50" screen as my CG437K is acting up (lost the audio circuit but who knows what's next to go) but I still does not see a point of getting a 8K screen. A 43" 4K is the minimum size you need if you're using 100% font size (which I do as actually I needs the screen real estate for multiple apps and windows to be active at the same time). A 8K screen would not give me more screen real estate to work with without going to a much large screen size which would be impractical. As for using it for media playback or gaming, the point is also moot as we don't really have access to 8K media and since even a 4090 still struggle with 60fps with ray tracing on full on some newer titles, good luck getting any game to run at usable fps at 8K. The only reason I would get a 8K display (and it will be a 75"+) is if I'm actually working with or editing 8K media. Otherwise I don't really see a point for a desktop 8K monitor.
Click to expand...

Some people like it for the better-looking text - more comparable to text quality on phones which are high PPI.
 
Wiz33 said:
Well, I'm in the market now for another 40"-50" screen as my CG437K is acting up (lost the audio circuit but who knows what's next to go) but I still does not see a point of getting a 8K screen. A 43" 4K is the minimum size you need if you're using 100% font size (which I do as actually I needs the screen real estate for multiple apps and windows to be active at the same time). A 8K screen would not give me more screen real estate to work with without going to a much large screen size which would be impractical. As for using it for media playback or gaming, the point is also moot as we don't really have access to 8K media and since even a 4090 still struggle with 60fps with ray tracing on full on some newer titles, good luck getting any game to run at usable fps at 8K. The only reason I would get a 8K display (and it will be a 75"+) is if I'm actually working with or editing 8K media. Otherwise I don't really see a point for a desktop 8K monitor.
Click to expand...
The benefit would be the same as a smaller size 4K display.

As an example, my 28" display is set to scaling equivalent of 2560x1440 desktop space. Except all text and UI is much sharper, making it more pleasant to read, small text is more legible and so on.

So if you were to take that 43" 4K display, make it 8K, you would be at ~205 PPI which would give you extremely sharp text and UI at the same desktop space you are using now. Or alternatively you could use less scaling and get a compromise between the two. Options.

It also happens that 8K is integer scalable to 4K, 1440p and 1080p. Gaming does not have to be at 8K native as that's largely pointless and way too demanding, but 4K integer scaled would be fine. For the most demanding games you could even drop to 1440p integer scaled. Or employ tech like DLSS with all this. Options again.

The only problem is that manufacturers see 8K as "medical imaging", "film editing" at <= 32" size product or alternatively "rich person wants the largest, highest spec, most expensive TV ever in their McMansion" territory.

IMO, the absolute perfect usecase for 8K would be something like a 43-55" curved display ala Samsung Ark. Hell, they could drop the resolution to 6K and it'd still be pretty sweet.
 
GoldenTiger said:
Same thing goes for game graphics. I remember being told 4k was ridiculous a decade ago when I first went 4k. High ppi rocks!
Click to expand...
I see the argument of "I remember a decade ago x resolution was considered ridiculous" but this becomes less relevant with each resolution increase.

1080p to 4k makes sense in a lot of scenarios. 4k to 8k really doesn't. And we can't keep making the same argument - 8k to 16k, 16k to 32k? Sounds ridiculous, right?

It has to end somewhere, our eyes don't have infinite resolution and it's utterly pointless to keep pushing GPU hardware on resolutions that aren't necessary.
 
36" 8K 120Hz microLED would be nice for pro desktop use. Definitely better than juggling four monitors on the desktop.
It's all about multi tasking and having tack sharp text when scaled. Could not care less about gaming.
 
  • Like
Reactions: elvn
like this
Senn said:
I see the argument of "I remember a decade ago x resolution was considered ridiculous" but this becomes less relevant with each resolution increase.

1080p to 4k makes sense in a lot of scenarios. 4k to 8k really doesn't. And we can't keep making the same argument - 8k to 16k, 16k to 32k? Sounds ridiculous, right?

It has to end somewhere, our eyes don't have infinite resolution and it's utterly pointless to keep pushing GPU hardware on resolutions that aren't necessary.
Click to expand...


My quote from the other thread that got bubbled:

once you hit something like a 55" 1000R 8k screen you could have quads of 4k windows or any tile you want on that wall of screen. Notably a 32:9 or 32:10 uw belt wouldn't be limited to 1080px or 1200px tall anymore. You could also run 4k - 6k screen spaces 1:1, etc.

I think the best case would be if they started integrating some kind of AI upscaling tech on the screens themselves in order to bypass the port and cable bandwidth. Then you could send (perhaps more advanced frame amplification tech amplified) 4k or 4k based uw resolutions in games and upscale them on the screen end of the equation.

As for 8k fidelity, we are forced to use Anti-aliasing and text sub-sampling to compensate for aggressive pixelization on screens as it is. *Aggressive* anti-aliasing (at a performance hit) , and heavily massaged and/or alternate forms of text sub-sampling only start to compensate enough around 60PPD or so. Notably, there is typically no AA outside of text's sub-sampling on the 2D desktop for desktop graphics and imagery (outside of the viewports of some select cgi authoring/digital imagery authoring apps). So the 2D desktop is even worse as it's not compensated outside of text. We can definitely benefit from higher PPD.

For example, the samsung ark is around 61 - 62 PPD when sitting at the focal point of the curve, which is still pixelated pretty badly but can be compensated for with aggressive AA and heavily massaged text sub sampling (which are fogged edge hacks really). The 2D desktop remains uncompensated for at all. We won't be able to get away with not using AA /text-ss for the most part until we get around 160PPD, maybe even 200PPD. Not that we shouldn't use them to some degree in the meantime, I'm just saying - we really have room for and can benefit a lot from higher PPD.

A 55" 1000R curved 8k screen would have a 1000R, 1000mm radius ~> 40" focal point. Sitting at that focal point you'd get around 122PPD instead of ~ 61 PPD. That would be a huge benefit in overall display quality. "
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Wiz33 said:
Well, I'm in the market now for another 40"-50" screen as my CG437K is acting up (lost the audio circuit but who knows what's next to go) but I still does not see a point of getting a 8K screen. A 43" 4K is the minimum size you need if you're using 100% font size (which I do as actually I needs the screen real estate for multiple apps and windows to be active at the same time). A 8K screen would not give me more screen real estate to work with without going to a much large screen size which would be impractical. As for using it for media playback or gaming, the point is also moot as we don't really have access to 8K media and since even a 4090 still struggle with 60fps with ray tracing on full on some newer titles, good luck getting any game to run at usable fps at 8K. The only reason I would get a 8K display (and it will be a 75"+) is if I'm actually working with or editing 8K media. Otherwise I don't really see a point for a desktop 8K monitor.
Click to expand...

We'll burn through gpu gens in no time and along the way AI upscaling and especially frame amplification tech should mature as well. It doesn't matter what a 4090 (october 2022) can do anymore than what a 2080 / 2080ti (Sept 2018) can do. Calendar months are flying by. Display tech moves a little slower anyway and the adoption curve is slower outside of enthusiasts who spend on it up front.

cpufrost said:
36" 8K 120Hz microLED would be nice for pro desktop use. Definitely better than juggling four monitors on the desktop.
It's all about multi tasking and having tack sharp text when scaled. Could not care less about gaming.
Click to expand...

A wall of high ppd would be great. Then you could put things wherever you want to. The desktop's graphics and imagery get no text-ss and graphics-aa hacks to mask how bad the ppd is either so things will look way better at higher ppd overall.

GoldenTiger said:
Same thing goes for game graphics. I remember being told 4k was ridiculous a decade ago when I first went 4k. High ppi rocks!
Click to expand...

Text-ss and *aggressive* game graphics anti-aliasing barely mask how badly pixelated a screen looks at around 60 PPD (and OLED layouts make even 60PPD too low of a baseline for text). Images and graphics on the 2d desktop get no masking typically. Lower PPD is usable but it's pixelated even with graphics AA and text SS applied. 2D desktop won't get as good as the masked/compensated for pixel grid you get with text and 3d game engines on a 4k screen at 60 PPD to 70PPD until much much higher PPD on higher rez screens. . and the less you have to lean on AA masking types overall for text and game graphics the better imo anyway.

High PPD also makes any edge artifacts more tiny, like those you might get occasionally from DLSS/Frame amplification. The higher the base rez you are AI upscaling from and the higher the fps the less difference between frames for AI upscaling and frame amplification to adjust from so you'll get much less mistakes/artifacts to begin with.

Eventually upscaling and frame amplification might improve so much that we get more than one more frame for a x2 frame rate. Theoretically x3, even x5. So if you got a 200fps rate at 4k on a future gpu it could be interger scaled and/or AI upscaled (even to a supersampled state +DLSS AA) to 8k ---> then it could be amplified to 400fps, 600fps, 1000fps . . . at least theoretically. For now we could use better deving of games, drivers, os to inform frame amplification techs of actual vectors from peripherals and game entities rather than just AI guessing vectors between two frames.

Besides that, on a larger 8k you could run 4k, 5k, 6k resolutions 1:1 pixel when desired, or different 32:10, 21:10 resolutions.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
*Aggressive* anti-aliasing (at a performance hit) , and heavily massaged and/or alternate forms of text sub-sampling only start to compensate enough around 60PPD or so.
Click to expand...
And yet you want panel-based AI upscaling to compensate for lack of GPU power so 8k becomes viable?

For videos and games I can accept it. For desktop use, sorry, nope. Big nope.
 
Senn said:
And yet you want panel-based AI upscaling to compensate for lack of GPU power so 8k becomes viable?

For videos and games I can accept it. For desktop use, sorry, nope. Big nope.
Click to expand...

Yes. AI upscaling a healthy 4k rez to 8k, even supersampled in comparison to "regular" non-upscaled 8k (or in comparison to integer scaled). Also frame amplified from a fairly high frame rate 100fps, maybe 200fps as a base in future more powerful gpu gens x2 (x3 to x5 in the long run), and hopefully with vector information translated from games physics, game entities/pathing and peripherals in future development instead of using AI to compare two frames and guess the vectors without being informed of any up front. Not only for 8k but for the path to much higher Hz overall.

Also in the meantime, on larger 8k screens in addition to running AI upscaling/frame amplification to 8k rez . . you could optionally run 4k native 1:1 pixel, 5k, 6k, or 32:10 and 21:10 resolutions 1:1 pixel and still have appreciably large screen space in your FoV.

For desktop use, the higher the ppd the better since 2d photos, images, and app graphics (unlike text and game graphics) typically get no masking to fog how large the pixel structure really appears and how bad the stepping/fringing is on contrasted edges. Also the less you have to lean on fogging the edges, especially text, the better.


For videos and games I can accept it. For desktop use, sorry, nope. Big nope.
Click to expand...

You don't need to upscale 2d desktop use to use 8k if that's what you mean? I run three 4k screens already as it is with no problems gpu wise for desktop use.

If anything I'd say the opposite at the current/nearer timeframe. . . (If money were no object and the performance/specs were there) I'd use a 8k for desktop/apps and I'd use a 240hz "4k doublewide" 7680x2160 or other high rez high Hz HDR screen for games.
 
Last edited:
elvn said:
We'll burn through gpu gens in no time and along the way AI upscaling and especially frame amplification tech should mature as well. It doesn't matter what a 4090 (october 2022) can do anymore than what a 2080 / 2080ti (Sept 2018) can do. Calendar months are flying by. Display tech moves a little slower anyway and the adoption curve is slower outside of enthusiasts who spend on it up front.



A wall of high ppd would be great. Then you could put things wherever you want to. The desktop's graphics and imagery get no text-ss and graphics-aa hacks to mask how bad the ppd is either so things will look way better at higher ppd overall.



Text-ss and *aggressive* game graphics anti-aliasing barely mask how badly pixelated a screen looks at around 60 PPD (and OLED layouts make even 60PPD too low of a baseline for text). Images and graphics on the 2d desktop get no masking typically. Lower PPD is usable but it's pixelated even with graphics AA and text SS applied. 2D desktop won't get as good as the masked/compensated for pixel grid you get with text and 3d game engines on a 4k screen at 60 PPD to 70PPD until much much higher PPD on higher rez screens. . and the less you have to lean on AA masking types overall for text and game graphics the better imo anyway.

High PPD also makes any edge artifacts more tiny, like those you might get occasionally from DLSS/Frame amplification. The higher the base rez you are AI upscaling from and the higher the fps the less difference between frames for AI upscaling and frame amplification to adjust from so you'll get much less mistakes/artifacts to begin with.

Eventually upscaling and frame amplification might improve so much that we get more than one more frame for a x2 frame rate. Theoretically x3, even x5. So if you got a 200fps rate at 4k on a future gpu it could be interger scaled and/or AI upscaled (even to a supersampled state +DLSS AA) to 8k ---> then it could be amplified to 400fps, 600fps, 1000fps . . . at least theoretically. For now we could use better deving of games, drivers, os to inform frame amplification techs of actual vectors from peripherals and game entities rather than just AI guessing vectors between two frames.

Besides that, on a larger 8k you could run 4k, 5k, 6k resolutions 1:1 pixel when desired, or different 32:10, 21:10 resolutions.
Click to expand...

Haven't you heard the saying "never buy for the future" as there will always be better tech down the road. Buying a 8K monitor now waiting for other tech to catch up just does not make sense. as for AI upscaling (while pretty impressive) would induce lag which is bad for gaming. I have no aversion to being a 1st adopter but I see no point on getting a desktop size 8K at this point even if they're available.
 
Last edited:
Yes I am not right now but some people were saying "No reason to ever get 8k" .. "it will never be good" . . "where will it end???" type of comments. I disagree with that.

So yes, not now considering that 4k screens perform better even on regular media and 60hz material currently (and not because it's 8k, just design wise.. would still be poor 1:1 4k in a window)... and 8k are priced very high for that worse display technically. I wasn't saying get one now I'm saying 8k resolution definitely has value and will look better than 4k for computer use pixel definition wise with big benefits on the 2d desktop/apps as well as benefits in gaming spaces (especially in the long run across several gpu gens and ai upscaling/frame amplification maturity).

For now I'm looking at what I've started calling "half 8k" or "4k double-wide" 1000r curve, 1000nit HDR, 240Hzscreens at 7680x2160 rez at the end of this year. Two stacked without a middle bezel would be the target for 8k someday, hopefully with PbP mode (multi input) but that's what I can get for now. If a 8k tv came out that had good reviewed performance at a decent price, from TCL for example at some point - then I would consider putting that above the 4k double-wide for use as a big desktop-app area with quad of 4k real-estate without bezels while keeping the 240hz doublewide 4k for gaming.
 
I feel like PPI of monitor could get very high before loosing value all else being equal.

With a 9000 by 5000 resolution a 36 inch monitor is still under 300 ppi (which I imagine it is a minimum ppi for which going higher is pure useless), a monitor is not like a TV that made to play compressed medium or video games you sit a good distance from.

If the max theoretical possible benefit for someone with a bit better than 20/20 vision sitting realy close is around 1000 dpi, that would be 32k-18k res on a 36 inch monitor
 
Last edited:
How close do you guys sit to your screens? Comparing them to phones seems a bit mad. Phones are always held close in comparison.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top