I do feel sorry for whomever at LG has lost their job.
It's odd that with TB3 finally in the pipeline, they'd be working on a display that overruns its capacity within three months. Thunderbolt can't continually be a moving target, can it?
Finally, the 40" 8K iMac has a target market of exactly one guy: Batman.
Yup,... and cannot wait for the 16k iphone screen. oh oh--- a 16k Apple watch screen-- Sir Jony- 'We've taken the iMac 16k screen and reduced it be the thinnest and lightest watch screen ever-, it oozes luxury'!!! /s
Instead of a monitor screen, I'm thinking of a huge wall display. If a 70-80" TV with 4k gives a nice crisp picture, image a 140-160" TV (12-foot diagonal) with 8K? Basically turning your wall into your own movie theater screen (or even having the wall/screen displaying some vista/scenery that you can change to whatever mood you want).
I'm thinking Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt" (but without the aggressive lions… hah!).
Instead of a monitor screen, I'm thinking of a huge wall display. If a 70-80" TV with 4k gives a nice crisp picture, image a 140-160" TV (12-foot diagonal) with 8K? Basically turning your wall into your own movie theater screen (or even having the wall/screen displaying some vista/scenery that you can change to whatever mood you want).
I'm thinking Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt" (but without the aggressive lions… hah!).
Not yet but there will be TVs of that size eventually.
Is there actually any demand at all for such high resolutions? One article says AppleTV won't do 4K because there's little demand for it and now this article says there will be an 8K iMac. No demand for 4K but some demand for 8K. Providing this rumor is true it seems like Apple is trying to start a spec war making it harder for rivals to compete. I'm not wasting my time second-guessing Apple for whatever they decide to do. Apple must have its own reasons to believe consumers have some interest in such high-resolution displays. I personally don't need such high resolutions because my older eyes can't fully take advantage of them. To me, it would seem to be a huge waste of processing power trying to drive all those pixels when that power could be used for getting other work done slightly faster. Apple must know what's necessary to drive computer sales so I must be slipping out of the computer needs loop. I'm quite happy with regular HD but maybe that's not enough for most consumers. I still have an older 24" iMac and it's more than satisfactory for my use.
One is a monitor, you are 2 feet away from, the other links to a TV. One is a niche high end product, the other a mass market device. That explains it all.
Not yet but there will be TVs of that size eventually.
Yes, having 8K on anything but a 90+ inch TV is a bit useless (euphemism), unless maybe it is no longer used a only a TV, but also as a changeable backdrop (were you stand much close too). They'd need to make it use a lot less power and make it more durable and thin for this to happen.
That would be a 40" or larger TV, depending on how far away the retina effect is supposed to kick in. 40" if you're 2 feet away, so probably 80" and 8 feet away for retina.
Sounds very much like a TV on the 1st of April. May be, maybe not. Either way, for 8K you'd need one hell of a graphics card to drive anything beyond simple movie playback. And the AppleTV will most certainly run apps.
Is there actually any demand at all for such high resolutions?
There's no video cards that can drive 8K. A iMac that can do 8K would need the highest end part available, and that doesn't work with the current generation of video cards when the highest end parts can barely drive 4K and aren't small/thin enough for an iMac. (I built a system for a friend with all the higest end parts a few months ago, it just barely gets 4K at 60fps, and many applications and games don't know how to deal with 4K)
While I'm on this topic, 8K is when Adobe Flash has to die. Flash animations run out of accuracy already around the 1920x1080 point, and 4K lacks enough accuracy to properly antialias anything. At 8K each "pixel" in a flash stage only has 1 to 2 pixels of accuracy, so you start getting wobbly motion tweens as there's nothing to interpolate between.
As I understand it, even the Mac Pro cannot drive the screen resolution the 5K iMac can.
Whoever told you that was wrong, Mac Pro can drive 3 4k displays, 5k is 1 2/3 a 4k So there pretty even on limit, but the Mac Pro probably rubs so much smoother.
More like 40" (if the idea is to keep the same PPI as the current 5k iMac), but that would be kinda nuts for an iMac.
Perhaps a 40" 8k monitor would make sense for a new Mac Pro that is capable of driving such a beast over a cable. Perhaps a new (late 2015) Mac Pro will be able to do that. That's pretty niche, though.
I just can't see Apple increasing the PPI very far beyond the current 5k iMac. Apple designs balanced products, they don't push one dimension of a product to a ridiculous extreme just because it's technically possible to do so.
I agree 30" be too small but it would most likely be 32-35", I slight ppi increase wouldn't be bad.
Instead of a monitor screen, I'm thinking of a huge wall display. If a 70-80" TV with 4k gives a nice crisp picture, image a 140-160" TV (12-foot diagonal) with 8K? Basically turning your wall into your own movie theater screen (or even having the wall/screen displaying some vista/scenery that you can change to whatever mood you want).
I'm thinking Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt" (but without the aggressive lions… hah!).
This would be most likely is the physical Apple TV drives 8k on a 100-150 inch screen, because why not make the Apple TV the top of the line TV that no one can afford.
It's odd that with TB3 finally in the pipeline, they'd be working on a display that overruns its capacity within three months. Thunderbolt can't continually be a moving target, can it?
So true. DisplayPort development seems to be always outpacing Thunderbolt. And Thunderbolt is lagging behind PCI Express. It still can't match the performance of a single full length PCIe slot, and is still a generation behind the latest PCIe standard.
When will people get that resolution is a surface metric. Twice the resolution has twice as many pixels, by the very definition of what resolution means.
Double the dpi means quadruple the resolution and quadruple the resolution.
Learn math before posing as tech journalists...
A cinema display refresh is overdue, 8k along with a refresh of the MacPro would sound more like it...
Whoever told you that was wrong, Mac Pro can drive 3 4k displays, 5k is 1 2/3 a 4k So there pretty even on limit, but the Mac Pro probably rubs so much smoother
While it can output a total number of pixels, it can only output so many per connector.
The remaining iMacs will all get 5k displays and a jumbo 8k iMac is in the works.. I hope Apple keeps up the graphics hardware to push that huge resolution!
Comments
I do feel sorry for whomever at LG has lost their job.
It's odd that with TB3 finally in the pipeline, they'd be working on a display that overruns its capacity within three months. Thunderbolt can't continually be a moving target, can it?
Finally, the 40" 8K iMac has a target market of exactly one guy: Batman.
16K is just around the corner! /s
Yup,... and cannot wait for the 16k iphone screen. oh oh--- a 16k Apple watch screen-- Sir Jony- 'We've taken the iMac 16k screen and reduced it be the thinnest and lightest watch screen ever-, it oozes luxury'!!! /s
Instead of a monitor screen, I'm thinking of a huge wall display. If a 70-80" TV with 4k gives a nice crisp picture, image a 140-160" TV (12-foot diagonal) with 8K? Basically turning your wall into your own movie theater screen (or even having the wall/screen displaying some vista/scenery that you can change to whatever mood you want).
I'm thinking Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt" (but without the aggressive lions… hah!).
Not yet but there will be TVs of that size eventually.
no matter how this plays out, i think that someone at LG just lost their job.
And the person in charge of that person for failing to vet the work.
It looks like 8K will need Displayport 1.4:
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/199128-vesa-steams-ahead-with-displayport-1-4a-allows-for-8k-scaling
8K would be supported on 1.3 but according to Anandtech, they'd be downgrading color data:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/8533/vesa-releases-displayport-13-standard-50-more-bandwidth-new-features
DP 1.4 includes some lossless compression:
http://www.vesa.org/news/vesa-finalizes-requirements-for-display-stream-compression-standard/
Another 8K contender: Super MHL.
(http://www.mhlconsortium.org/technology.aspx)
Supports 8K @ 120Hz, deep color, HDR, etc.
Also supports an "Alt mode" for USB Type-C compatibility.
Is there actually any demand at all for such high resolutions? One article says AppleTV won't do 4K because there's little demand for it and now this article says there will be an 8K iMac. No demand for 4K but some demand for 8K. Providing this rumor is true it seems like Apple is trying to start a spec war making it harder for rivals to compete. I'm not wasting my time second-guessing Apple for whatever they decide to do. Apple must have its own reasons to believe consumers have some interest in such high-resolution displays. I personally don't need such high resolutions because my older eyes can't fully take advantage of them. To me, it would seem to be a huge waste of processing power trying to drive all those pixels when that power could be used for getting other work done slightly faster. Apple must know what's necessary to drive computer sales so I must be slipping out of the computer needs loop. I'm quite happy with regular HD but maybe that's not enough for most consumers. I still have an older 24" iMac and it's more than satisfactory for my use.
One is a monitor, you are 2 feet away from, the other links to a TV. One is a niche high end product, the other a mass market device. That explains it all.
Not yet but there will be TVs of that size eventually.
Yes, having 8K on anything but a 90+ inch TV is a bit useless (euphemism), unless maybe it is no longer used a only a TV, but also as a changeable backdrop (were you stand much close too). They'd need to make it use a lot less power and make it more durable and thin for this to happen.
Someone at LG has forgotten that April fool is over? o.O
Anyway how they gonna run programs on that resolution?! Will it need like 2 TitanX for that?!
Sounds very much like a TV on the 1st of April. May be, maybe not. Either way, for 8K you'd need one hell of a graphics card to drive anything beyond simple movie playback. And the AppleTV will most certainly run apps.
There's no video cards that can drive 8K. A iMac that can do 8K would need the highest end part available, and that doesn't work with the current generation of video cards when the highest end parts can barely drive 4K and aren't small/thin enough for an iMac. (I built a system for a friend with all the higest end parts a few months ago, it just barely gets 4K at 60fps, and many applications and games don't know how to deal with 4K)
While I'm on this topic, 8K is when Adobe Flash has to die. Flash animations run out of accuracy already around the 1920x1080 point, and 4K lacks enough accuracy to properly antialias anything. At 8K each "pixel" in a flash stage only has 1 to 2 pixels of accuracy, so you start getting wobbly motion tweens as there's nothing to interpolate between.
I agree 30" be too small but it would most likely be 32-35", I slight ppi increase wouldn't be bad.
This would be most likely is the physical Apple TV drives 8k on a 100-150 inch screen, because why not make the Apple TV the top of the line TV that no one can afford.
It's odd that with TB3 finally in the pipeline, they'd be working on a display that overruns its capacity within three months. Thunderbolt can't continually be a moving target, can it?
So true. DisplayPort development seems to be always outpacing Thunderbolt. And Thunderbolt is lagging behind PCI Express. It still can't match the performance of a single full length PCIe slot, and is still a generation behind the latest PCIe standard.
Double the dpi means quadruple the resolution and quadruple the resolution.
Learn math before posing as tech journalists...
A cinema display refresh is overdue, 8k along with a refresh of the MacPro would sound more like it...
That picture comparing screen sizes is insanely not-to-scale. What on earth is it even supposed to represent?
For scale purposes, it looks more like:
Whoever told you that was wrong, Mac Pro can drive 3 4k displays, 5k is 1 2/3 a 4k So there pretty even on limit, but the Mac Pro probably rubs so much smoother
While it can output a total number of pixels, it can only output so many per connector.