Sharp to sell the first commercial 8K screen for $133K in October, but you'll need not one, but 4 HD - Polidicks

[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-34267265[/url] [quote=BBC]Sharp has announced plans to sell an 8K television screen from October. Although several companies have developed "super hi-vision" resolution test models, this is the first such TV to be made commercially available. The 8K format provides 16 times as many pixels as 1080p high definition. It creates an image so detailed that it can appear three-dimensional. However, the 85in (2.16m) device's 16m yen ($133,000; £86,000) price is likely to limit sales.[/quote]

OK so does this mean 4k will now be half the price?

This is getting ridiculous. You can only make a picture so crisp.

[QUOTE=Sableye;48698580]OK so does this mean 4k will now be half the price?[/QUOTE] You wish

In the next 6 months, we'll have a 16k T.V. in 3 months after that we'll have a 32k tv.....etc. Soon enough holograms!

What, 4 cables? We need an HDMI replacement [I]already[/I]?

[QUOTE=Hypershadsy;48698659]What, 4 cables? We need an HDMI replacement [I]already[/I]?[/QUOTE] There already is an HDMI replacement of sorts in the way of DisplayPort, which is good but not widely supported.

What sort of system can even handle 4 HDMI inputs/outputs at once?

I think it's time for better batteries not fucking 8k displays. Soon we will reach bigger resolution that [b]our eyes can handle[/b]

[QUOTE=Fourier;48698749]I think it's time for better batteries not fucking 8k displays. Soon we will reach bigger resolution that [B]our eyes can handle[/B][/QUOTE] This is a TV they're developing, not a phone. The technologies being developed will be exclusive to each other, anyway. The fate of this 8K display thing isn't going to have an impact on battery development. Personally, I think 8K displays will eventually be used for very (very) large screens, such as having actual screens at cinemas. I don't think this kind of technology will achieve much success on consumer-grade TVs.

Display Port 1.3 is fast enough to handle 8k at 30 FPS (~24 Gbits, DP 1.3 is ~32 Gbits) which is enough for a TV. [QUOTE=Fourier;48698749]I think it's time for better batteries not fucking 8k displays. Soon we will reach bigger resolution that [b]our eyes can handle[/b][/QUOTE] Eyes are resolution agnostic.

[QUOTE=Fourier;48698749]I think it's time for better batteries not fucking 8k displays. Soon we will reach bigger resolution that [b]our eyes can handle[/b][/QUOTE] Pretty much the only reason to put 4-8K into a phone is mobile VR headsets like the Gear.

[QUOTE=Fourier;48698749]I think it's time for better batteries not fucking 8k displays. Soon we will reach bigger resolution that [b]our eyes can handle[/b][/QUOTE] ah yes, we should take all the people working on the 8k displays and put them into the battery research division. that will surely expedite progress.

[video=youtube_share;Zl5cN8Z7LnM]http://youtu.be/Zl5cN8Z7LnM[/video] from another thread about this no actually there is a point where yes, there are too many pixels to really make a difference the point where it doesn't matter is when you can no longer individually count every pixel on your screen by putting a [del]magnifying glass[/del] microscope on it.

They can sell it all they want, but is there ANY media out there that's at 8K resolution? If not, then it kinda makes all those extra pixels superfluous. Same thing with 4K right now; sure it looks great in theaters when they've got a native 4K signal, but we sure as hell don't have that at home yet.

Just buy a high end projector and it will be compatible with everything and you can have a picture that's way bigger than 2.16m.

[QUOTE=Hypershadsy;48698659]What, 4 cables? We need an HDMI replacement [I]already[/I]?[/QUOTE] HDMI 2.0 supports 4K at 60Hz (so up to 60fps), since this is 8k, think of it as 4 4k displays slapped together. In order to actually push a 8K picture into the TV, you'd need 4 HDMI 2.0 cables.

[QUOTE=aydin690;48698984]Just buy a high end projector and it will be compatible with everything and you can have a picture that's way bigger than 2.16m.[/QUOTE] Anybody that buys this TV is a dumb dumb. For 25k you can buy one of these 4k sony projectors (VPL-VW1100ES): [t]http://www.projectorreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/test_sony_vpl-vw1000es_artikelbild.jpg[/t] and it will be even higher quality than what you get at most cinemas and you can have the picture pretty much as big as you want.

For those wondering about 4K+ media, they exist. Usually made by big companies for display wall advertisements. Biggest one in times square is 24 x 4k screens iirc.

[QUOTE=aydin690;48699136]Anybody that buys this TV is a dumb dumb. For 25k you can buy one of these 4k sony projectors (VPL-VW1100ES): [t]http://www.projectorreviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/test_sony_vpl-vw1000es_artikelbild.jpg[/t] and it will be even higher quality than what you get at most cinemas and you can have the picture pretty much as big as you want.[/QUOTE] God damn for that price you'd need to be the guy who sends his kids to school in a hovercraft to even think "I should get this for my house"

Hollywood films aren't even shot in 8K yet lol

[QUOTE=smurfy;48699801]Hollywood films aren't even shot in 8K yet lol[/QUOTE] RED, Arri, Canon, and Sony don't even make 8k cameras.

[QUOTE=meppers;48699855]RED, Arri, Canon, and Sony don't even make 8k cameras.[/QUOTE] Canon and RED do.

Well, I suppose pushing absurdly high resolution monitors is better than gimmicky stuff like curved screens or 3d.

[QUOTE=MightyLOLZOR;48698603]This is getting ridiculous. You can only make a picture so crisp.[/QUOTE] But you can always make a bigger screen that is equally crisp.

[QUOTE=Hypershadsy;48698659]What, 4 cables? We need an HDMI replacement [I]already[/I]?[/QUOTE] HDMI is already on its way out.

Developing a 8k display seems massively pointless when most movies, shows, and videogames can't even do 4k yet. By the time 8k becomes a thing, this TV will likely have malfunctioned due to age.

[QUOTE=Saber15;48701646]Developing a 8k display seems massively pointless when most movies, shows, and videogames can't even do 4k yet. By the time 8k becomes a thing, this TV will likely have malfunctioned due to age.[/QUOTE] Well 4K for PC games is on the fast track to becoming a standard feature. After all, asking a graphics engine to render at an arbitrary resolutions isn't exactly the hardest thing to program.

[QUOTE=StrawberryClock;48701691]Well 4K for PC games is on the fast track to becoming a standard feature. After all, asking a graphics engine to render at an arbitrary resolutions isn't exactly the hardest thing to program.[/QUOTE] Sure for PC games, but I find TVs are pretty much balls for any type of crispness, far too much image processing done. Our current consoles struggle to even function at 1080p, we're a long way from even needing 4k for your average person/gamer. There is literally no point to go beyond 4k (or 2k for that matter). That processing power is better spent on VR and consoles catching up to resolution sizes.

This isn't for homes. It's for production sites and offices that do things picture in picture, and teams that are actually needing to have a non BVM source monitor for 8k content that will eventually get put out for sale to production companies think beyond your own home [editline]17th September 2015[/editline] I'm working at a news editing board right now, and we have 8 or so 4k monitors and Lord knows you could see benefits from more than halving that number whilst keeping the same amount of sources and time codes on screen.