Say goodbye to 1080p

Subject: General Tech | August 27, 2012 - 02:31 PM |

We at PC Perspective are no strangers to high resolution displays, like the 1440p Achieva Shimian display Ken recently reviewed.  It looks like even that will be considered low resolution in a few years as a new Ultra High Definition standard has been approved, with resolutions of 4K (3840 x 2160) and 8K (7680 x 4320).  It may be a while before we start to see 8K displays, let alone content but according to what DigiTimes reported there are already manufacturers assembling 4K displays.  11,520 x 2160 is going to push any existing GPUs to their utter limits and we may see onboard memory grow beyond the 2 to 3GB which is becoming the standard on high end GPUs.  This will also apply to televisions, which will finally start to get the higher resolution needed to make large screen TVs look less pixellated. 

View Full Size

"LCD monitors that have high resolution and are large and thin in size will continue to be the monitor trend throughout the second half of this year and 2013, accoridng to industry sources.

Sources said that monitor makers are proactive in making 21- and 24-inch thin sized monitors at present and are aiming at producing 4Kx2K ones by the end of the year in order to stay competitive with notebooks and tablets."

Here is some more Tech News from around the web:

Tech Talk

Source: DigiTimes

August 27, 2012 | 04:04 PM - Posted by PerfectShot (not verified)

I'm confused, since when do they start counting the horizontal pixels?

I thought if they spoke about 1080p they meant the vertical pixels... Is that a thought out marking campaign to make people think they're getting four times the row count???

August 27, 2012 | 05:17 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

It would make more sense to call it "4X" since it's four times the resolution of 1080p.

August 27, 2012 | 08:45 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

They pretty much always have... to what I understand we just counted vertical because we needed to distinguish if a TV vertically interlaced or not. That's not an issue now so they just count the bigger number.

August 27, 2012 | 05:26 PM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I think 4k should probably be where you draw the line for computer monitors. It just doesn't make any sense to have an 8k resolution for a screen under 30", and the price would undoubtedly be sky high. Then again, maybe they'll just let dead pixels slide after that point since you probably won't be able to tell without a magnifying glass.

August 27, 2012 | 08:48 PM - Posted by Scott Michaud

Actually 6K at 30" would be the same pixel density as Apple's latest high-density Macbook. I could see trying to round up to an even 8K for scaling of 4K content to work better.

August 28, 2012 | 09:50 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

If you believe that the so-called "4k" resolution, i.e. twice the current resolution is good enough for a computer monitor, than you are one of those that use computers only for watching movies or playing games. For such uses, even the current monitor resolution of about 100 pixels per inch is acceptable.

Nevertheless, there are also many like myself that spend a lot of time in front of a computer reading books or other documents or looking at technical drawings.

For such uses, the current monitor resolution is totally unacceptable and the fact that during the last 12 years (2000 ... 2012) the computer industry was completely unable to increase the display resolution beyond 100 ppi, is extremely annoying.

For a 24 in monitor, "4k" would mean about 200 ppi, which will be better than what is available now, but it will be still much worse than even the lowest quality printed books.

"8k", i.e. 400 ppi will finally have a decent resolution, but not even that will match printed books.

A human with normal vision can distinguish pixels at an angular distance of about half of a minute of arc. That means that if you look at a computer monitor from a distance equal to twice the height of a screen, i.e. from the distance from which a photograph taken with a normal camera lens would be seen under its original angle, than the display should have at least 3300 pixels on the height.

This means that at normal viewing distances, for a computer monitor, the pixels of a "4k" monitor will be still distinguishable, but those of an "8k" monitor will be not.

In conclusion, I would certainly want an "8k" 24 in computer monitor. However I wonder how many years will pass until it will become available. I have been already waiting since the year 2000 for a computer monitor with more than 1200 vertical pixels, but none have appeared. (27 in monitors do not count, they do not have a better ppi resolution than 1200 pixel 24 in monitors).

November 3, 2012 | 09:53 AM - Posted by Anonymous (not verified)

I like the television but the cost is definitely out of my pocket.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <a> <em> <strong> <cite> <code> <ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <blockquote><p><br>
  • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.

More information about formatting options

By submitting this form, you accept the Mollom privacy policy.