A future 13-inch iPad Pro or MacBook Pro could have this newly-developed 8K OLED panel

Posted:
in General Discussion
A Japanese technology developer has developed 8.3-inch and 13.3-inch OLED displays with an 8K resolution, paving the way for future iPad, iPad Pro, and MacBook models to offer high pixel densities that could even exceed the 1,000 pixel-per-inch milestone.

SEL's 8K-resolution 8.3-inch OLED display panel (via Anandtech)
SEL's 8K-resolution 8.3-inch OLED display panel (via Anandtech)


Semiconductor Energy Laboratory's panels are claimed to have a resolution of 7,680 by 4,320 pixels for both sizes, with the 8.3-inch version refreshing at 60Hz while the 13.3-inch panel can operate at up to 120Hz. On a pixel-per-inch basis, this means the 8.3-inch panel has a pixel density of 1,062, while the larger model offers 663ppi.

For reference, the iPhone XS and iPhone XS Max Retina displays both offer densities of 458ppi, both current iPad Pro models have a modest 264ppi, and the highest-resolution MacBook Pro models are 227ppi.

The method to produce the high-resolution OLED panels use crystalline oxide semiconductor technology, reports Anandtech, specifically with a color filter using CAAC-IGZO material. It is unlikely that any commercial devices will be offering OLED displays using the technology in 2019, as it the designs used are preliminary versions, and would require more work with a manufacturing partner to fully commercialize them.

At its present state, the company has so far demonstrated the 8.3-inch panel in SEMICON Japan in December, though the 13.3-inch OLED has not yet been shown outside the company's facility.

The development of 8K-resolution displays is a natural progression from the 4K panels that are used in televisions and monitors, and in a few smartphones, such as the Sony Z5 Premium. The higher resolutions also offer up more problems for mobile device producers, as more processing and energy resources are required to drive the displays compared to lower-resolution versions, making adapting the technology to mobile platforms tricky.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 21
    wood1208wood1208 Posts: 2,546member
    4K/8K screen is worth for some applications in larger screen like iMAC/PRO, high end monitor but not necessary in iPad, Macbook Pro. Over killed in spec and price. Though one feedback is get rid of that useless OLED touch strip from Macbook Pro. Thanks in advance, Apple.
    edited January 2019 netrox
  • Reply 2 of 21
    Do not think Apple will pay for such overkill that no eye can recognize anytime soon if at all.
    hypoluxa
  • Reply 3 of 21
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 10,302member
    Shrug....

    I have a hard time telling the difference between the screen on my 2014 MacBook Air versus the new Retina displays.   And the same with iPhones:  I have a hard time seeing the difference in the Xs OLED versus the retina display of the Xr.   Yes, there IS a difference.   But, for most people and most uses it is not a significant difference.

    An OLED MacBook would make for a glittery, shiny new object but would mostly just raise the price more than it would quality.   A few would benefit from it but most would not.  At the same price it would be a great improvement,   But, with a nearly 50% price hike (based on the Xr vs XsMax pricing), it would likely push MacBook sales into being even more of a niche market.
    shamino
  • Reply 4 of 21
    "When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display

    ...if such is valid is there much of a role for 8K in anything other than a large (40"?) 'pro' display...?

    ...would bandwidth and heat be possible limitations for portable use...?

    edited January 2019 GeorgeBMac
  • Reply 5 of 21
    foljsfoljs Posts: 382member
    "When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_display

    ...if such is valid is there much of a role for 8K in anything other than a large (40"?) 'pro' display...?

    Not really. Even in cinema (as in actual cinemas with huge projectors) 8K is overkill. 4K looks perfectly fine (and even 1080p looks surprisingly decent).
  • Reply 6 of 21
    racerhomie3racerhomie3 Posts: 1,170member
    I believe the Apples designers know that higher resolution is a two sided sword. Uselessly increasing it does not do good. Battery life & battery life spans need more improvement , colors on displays need to improve. More power optimized displays need to be used on products, etc.
    edited January 2019
  • Reply 7 of 21
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,035member
    I doubt it very much. What’s the point, other than for marketing purposes? The question is just how GOOD a panel is, not how high a resolution it has. I can see a 4K panel, but not 8K. I can even see 5k, for the purpose of editing a full Rez 4K video, with controls onscreen.
    edited January 2019 shamino
  • Reply 8 of 21
    crowleycrowley Posts: 8,765member
    Given the choice, I'd probably even opt for a non-Retina version of every Apple device I own, if performance and/or battery life would benefit.  Breaking the 1000ppi barrier is functionally useless spec fodder as far as I'm concerned.
  • Reply 9 of 21
    rwx9901rwx9901 Posts: 100member
    I thought that OLEDs used less power than traditional screens?
  • Reply 10 of 21
    1) Humans can barely tell the difference between 2K and 4K on HD tablets on pqr with iPad screen size

    2) 8K display would be cery expensive, qnd Apple is having a hard time selling its products to new buyers as it is

    3) An 8K display on current battery technologies would mean around half the battery life due to twice as many LED's needing to be driven, still less even if 25% more efficent LED technology.

    Everyones obsessed with speculations and concept art these days.
  • Reply 11 of 21
    I figure there will be a report any day now that Apple is working on a 4k Apple Watch.
  • Reply 12 of 21
    hypoluxahypoluxa Posts: 674member
    Overkill for small handheld devices. As was mentioned earlier, humans can't really tell the difference past a certain resolution. Now for much larger screens, TVs etc on up, sure, knock yourself out. But it's all mainly about viewing distance in the end as far as a user seeing pixels.
  • Reply 13 of 21
    netroxnetrox Posts: 1,056member
    I don't believe Apple will ever make OLED displays for laptops or desktops. The burn ins are more probable on desktops/laptops given the fact that they tend to be left unattended too long. Also, considering that the dock is always present, the burn in will be inevitable. They will likely use microLED.
  • Reply 14 of 21
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,035member
    rwx9901 said:
    I thought that OLEDs used less power than traditional screens?
    Something that OLED panel manufacturers and device makers using them would like you to think.

    unfortunately, too many writers, even some here, drink that koolaid, and repeat the nonsense.
  • Reply 15 of 21
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,692member
    wood1208 said:
    4K/8K screen is worth for some applications in larger screen like iMAC/PRO, high end monitor but not necessary in iPad, Macbook Pro. Over killed in spec and price. Though one feedback is get rid of that useless OLED touch strip from Macbook Pro. Thanks in advance, Apple.
    It’s not useless. The first thing I did with mine was install BetterTouchTool and start building custom buttons to fire off AppleScript workflows in a few apps. Infinitely more useful than a dedicated Mission Control or Launchpad button which I used exactly never. 
  • Reply 16 of 21
    fastasleepfastasleep Posts: 5,692member
    Sure, they “could have” this or they “could have” a Lite Brite for a display but not sure why you’d jump to the conclusion that it’s at all likely.   8K in a 13” display because...why?
    edited January 2019
  • Reply 17 of 21
    Moire and aliasing effects can be detected on displays with pixels smaller than can generally be resolved (see "hyperacuity"), but these are typically detectable on still images. With moving images, we tend to follow the action, and whatever aliasing artifacts might be present come and go so quickly, that they are effectively undetectable.

    I'm thinking 8K is overkill on smaller displays, but I could see 4K for certain applications. However, 8K could come in handy for micro displays as might be required for AR/VR applications. Also, 4-8K+ is very good for very large scale immersive environments, as is being implemented in various themed attractions around the world.
  • Reply 18 of 21
    If anything apple would most likely not be the company to use this kind of display first. They're gonna do the same thing as they did on iPhones, wait years and years after the tech became popular and then claim it as their own "innovation" and people would believe that. Apple hasnt been innovating anything besides the idea of charging us more for more inconveniences.
  • Reply 19 of 21
    shaminoshamino Posts: 481member
    Anyone who thinks 1,062ppi (or even 663ppi) in a display is important needs to think again.

    Go and test some laser printers (go to a store that has demonstrator models if you don't have access to any) and print a B&W text test page on a 1200dpi printer, a 600dpi printer and a 300dpi printer.

    While many people may be able to see differences between 300dpi and 600dpi, most will have to hold the paper a few inches from their eyes in order to notice.  I doubt very many (if any) people will be able to see any significant difference between 600dpi and 1200dpi without using a magnifying glass.

    And that's with sharp black-on-white text.  When you're dealing with a computer screen, where there are all kinds of shades of color and anti-aliasing algorithms, those differences are going to become even harder to see.

    Once the pixels are smaller than your eye can discern, additional resolution only adds cost and power consumption - it doesn't make the image look any better.
    rcfa
  • Reply 20 of 21
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 6,264administrator
    rwx9901 said:
    I thought that OLEDs used less power than traditional screens?
    Given equivalent pixel counts, yes.
Sign In or Register to comment.