New Graphics Standard approved - 7680 x 4320 @120Hz

[Grooveriding]

LG just released an 84 inch 4k Television in asia, the cost is 22,000$. A PC monitor at 4k may be more expensive due to more pixel density, not sure.

It is expected to have availability in September (the LG 4k TV)

Man, I'd like that. But $22 grand is nutso. It's also too big imo. I'd prefer a 60" with that resolution. I have a 60" plasma currently and find it is the perfect size. I've seen some of the big 80"/90" LCDs in the stores and they are just horrible because of the pixel size with that screen size @ 1080P.

 

[Borealis7]

and have all TV channels still broadcast at 1080p@50Hz? please upgrade programming to 100/120Hz first please thankyou.

 

[3DVagabond]

and have all TV channels still broadcast at 1080p@50Hz? please upgrade programming to 100/120Hz first please thankyou.

It's the old "Chicken or the Egg" conundrum.

Making something a TV standard is the best way to get it mass produced to the point of affordability. That's why 1080 monitors are so cheap.

 

[Haserath]

Waiting for content to be true 1080p still.

Wonder if you could tell the difference between this and 1080p with AA in games.

I think 1080p is good enough for a 40" television. The hertz would be nice for some extra clarity in games, but I don't really care on a television.

I would rather see better quality, lighter, and thinner screens than a focus on high res.

High res and more hertz also requires more bandwidth, while just plain better quality requires better engineering.

 

[Magic Carpet]

What the heck are you people talking about? This isn't about GPUs. This standard is designed for TV's, i'm not sure why people are even correlating this to PC graphics hardware, did you people even read the article?

This.

 

[Capt.OBViOUS]

Ive never seen anything above 1080p.My question is ''Can we distinguish such high resolutions(4320p)from,lets say half (2160p)of the original,provided both V.I.S of the monitors are the same?''

 

[Pottuvoi]

Ive never seen anything above 1080p.My question is ''Can we distinguish such high resolutions(4320p)from,lets say half (2160p)of the original,provided both V.I.S of the monitors are the same?''

If the monitor is large enough, yes.
Also 4k = 2160p difference from 1080p is visible.

 

[futurefields]

a old tv show from the 50's, on a tv from the 50's, still looks more realistic than any computer game, and has like 320x240 resolution.

how about they focus on making the graphics look better on existing hardware?

oh thats right, theres no money in it for them. they'd rather update the resolution, which is much simpler on their end, and gets us to spend our $$$

 

[Smoblikat]

a old tv show from the 50's, on a tv from the 50's, still looks more realistic than any computer game, and has like 320x240 resolution.

how about they focus on making the graphics look better on existing hardware?

oh thats right, theres no money in it for them. they'd rather update the resolution, which is much simpler on their end, and gets us to spend our $$$

I do believe you have just been served sir.

 

[2is]

I'd settle for just 1080p@120hz at anything larger than 27".

Jeeezus what is taking so long.

Those are called TVs

 

[Jacky60]

Many of us will be long dead before this becomes reality. Here's hoping they get a move on!

 

[kache]

Many of us will be long dead before this becomes reality. Here's hoping they get a move on!

Nope: http://www.businessinsider.com/sharp-8k-tv-ces-2013-1

Sorry for the gravedigging, but there are news on the matter, and I didn't feel like opening yet another thread.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

I don't care about the extreme resolution nearly as much as I care about the 120fps standard 😀

this is 7680x4320@120

gg

not even sure I want to think about the hardware its going to take to push that...

Not to mention the hardware to store that data. Imagine a two hour movie at that resolution and refresh rate...

I also have to wonder why kind of interface they are using to do 8k@120hz. Likely it is something similar to what was done with the IBM T220/T221 monitors, using existing interfaces in multiples.

 

[Father Torque]

Hardware is already far enough behind software as it is for 1080p/60 gaming. I'll be dead before i can game at that resolution and frame rate with anything other than Atari Jaguar graphics.

 

[OVerLoRDI]

Nope: http://www.businessinsider.com/sharp-8k-tv-ces-2013-1

Sorry for the gravedigging, but there are news on the matter, and I didn't feel like opening yet another thread.

I would love to see one of those in reality. The resolution must be unreal (or perhaps too real)

 

[Shinjo]

before 4K monitor reaches reasonable pricing, it looks new-gen motherboard can import 4K resolution by using dual thunderbolt. I think it is similtar to SLI.

http://www.pcper.com/news/General-T...s-Debut-4K-Resolution-Intel-Collage-Technolog

 

[gorobei]

FYI
4K = 3840x2160
8K = 7680 x 4320

the names are based on horizontal pixels not vertical as with 1080p 720p.

i would rather see some of the wider aspect ratio resolutions be standard.

also this will play hell with OTA broadcasts. there is barely enough bandwidth for HD 1080i as it is, 4K will bring our current system of frequency allocation to its knees.

 

[2is]

Eh, TVs have scalers. Doubt there's going to be native 4k broadcasts anytime in the near future.

 

[Railgun]

It`s already possible to do this TV. A 32" TV in this resolution has less PPI than the iPhone`s display. (Comes out to 275PPI). Not that you`d have a 32" at this rez...you get the idea.

Japan may broadcast this in three years.

http://www.networkworld.com/news/2013/010613-japan39s-nhk-eyes-8k-tv-265522.html

And just because cards can`t push it today is irrelevant as 1) no displays exist to give it to you (easily) and 2) no one has a clue to what kind of performance will exist next year, let alone two or three years from now.

Even when this thread was created we were already talking 8K.

 

[Pottuvoi]

IBM had http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors in 2001 🙁


I bet response time and quality were pretty bad though.

There was 4096 X 3300 19" monitor in 1987. (~300PPI)
So yes, high PPI monitors have certainly taken a while to become common. 😉

 

[kache]

Hardware is already far enough behind software as it is for 1080p/60 gaming. I'll be dead before i can game at that resolution and frame rate with anything other than Atari Jaguar graphics.

Who cares about gaming, the awesome thing here is the huge amount of working space on the screen!

 

[crisium]

a old tv show from the 50's, on a tv from the 50's, still looks more realistic than any computer game, and has like 320x240 resolution.

how about they focus on making the graphics look better on existing hardware?

oh thats right, theres no money in it for them. they'd rather update the resolution, which is much simpler on their end, and gets us to spend our $$$

I tend to agree. I'd be fine with 2560x1440 being the new standard and we simply work on improving performance. But this announcement is for TV's anyway.

 

[chucky2]

At the risk of sounding stupid, can our eyes perceive a difference between a 4k display and this 12k display?

Depends how far away you sit from the display and how large the display is. WIth a 27-32" PC monitor at normal PC monitor viewing distances, you absolutely could see a difference between 4K and 12K. At 12K in a PC viewing experience, you'd be getting pretty close to what the average person would deem 'real'.

Chuck

 

[zCypher]

gimme!

now that I'm used to 2560x1440 @ 27", need MOAR PIXELS!

however, I find that a single 7970, still while very good, is insufficient to play all titles smoothly with maxed out settings. 🙁 must.. have.. more!!