Well away from any sort of viable gaming set up for the vast majority of people but
[video=youtube;IjpqQwhAVE4]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IjpqQwhAVE4[/video]
[editline]10th January 2017[/editline]
ssh i haven't embedded a video since media tags were used
My screen may have 64x less pixels but it's got a single dead pixel instead of a massive line you have to hold to make appear.
[editline]butt[/editline]
Err, 16x.
[QUOTE=helifreak;51648371]My screen may have 64x less pixels but it's got a single dead pixel instead of a massive line you have to hold to make appear.[/QUOTE]
Hold onto the screen itself or the frame?
[editline]10th January 2017[/editline]
wait oh god i didn't even notice that line lmfao
No point unless whatever you are watching/playing is 8k
fuck, we haven't even got everything to be 4k yet
prolly just to prove they can do it
[QUOTE=shian;51648377]No point unless whatever you are watching/playing is 8k
fuck, we haven't even got everything to be 4k yet
prolly just to prove they can do it[/QUOTE]
It's not a consumer screen, they are already recording video at 8 it's just downscaled before getting to the consumer.
Then there's photo editing, even if the photo isn't itself 8k, you can still have the full size image + interface around it. But they do have 100 MP cameras at the high end, and RED are bringing out 16k+ video cameras "soon."
[QUOTE=shian;51648377]No point unless whatever you are watching/playing is 8k
fuck, we haven't even got everything to be 4k yet
prolly just to prove they can do it[/QUOTE]
Well sure. It's important to always be pushing the envelope in technology. Just because it won't land in our laps tomorrow in the same way we use 1080p doesn't mean it isn't worth researching now.
Its pretty handy for medical purposes also, if you got a surgeon doing laparoscopic surgery, being able to see very small and fine details is a huge benefit
[QUOTE=shian;51648377]No point unless whatever you are watching/playing is 8k
fuck, we haven't even got everything to be 4k yet
prolly just to prove they can do it[/QUOTE]
Would be awesome for photo editing.
[QUOTE=Saxon;51649347]Its pretty handy for medical purposes also, if you got a surgeon doing laparoscopic surgery, being able to see very small and fine details is a huge benefit[/QUOTE]
I disagree, a surgeon generally doesn't mush his face into the screen and you are working with magnification and scale, not resolution. There's no benefit to tiny pixels showing tiny details. I have never seen any surgeon in our "hightech" surgical theaters complain about resolution either. They complain about everything, but not that.
It looks unusable with how small the UI is.
[QUOTE=helifreak;51648392]It's not a consumer screen, they are already recording video at 8 it's just downscaled before getting to the consumer.
Then there's photo editing, even if the photo isn't itself 8k, you can still have the full size image + interface around it. But they do have 100 MP cameras at the high end, and RED are bringing out 16k+ video cameras "soon."[/QUOTE]
The only use you're going to have for 16k footage is professional film production, and I mean Warner Brothers tier production. IMAX would be the only thing that could properly utilise it.
Most consumer/lower budget cameras are barely entering the 4k space at the moment as it is, and the Sony A7R ii is one of the few cameras that shoots above 25MP (40mp) which is absolutely insane levels of quality.
4k is still reasonable distance away.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;51649373]I disagree, a surgeon generally doesn't mush his face into the screen and you are working with magnification and scale, not resolution. There's no benefit to tiny pixels showing tiny details. I have never seen any surgeon in our "hightech" surgical theaters complain about resolution either. They complain about everything, but not that.[/QUOTE]
higher resolutions aren't going to shrink it down, so long as you have it rescaled to that resolution. Resolution literally equates to better magnification too no less.
[editline]10th January 2017[/editline]
being able to fit more of a magnification on a larger screen is no doubt important
[QUOTE=J!NX;51650524]higher resolutions aren't going to shrink it down, so long as you have it rescaled to that resolution. Resolution literally equates to better magnification too no less.
[editline]10th January 2017[/editline]
being able to fit more of a magnification on a larger screen is no doubt important[/QUOTE]
You aren't going to see more on the same size screen, and a larger screen is almost impossible, because they need to remain mobile and unobtrusive like they are now. There's also no point in a "videowall" that's covered by equipment. Resolution has nothing to do with the magnification tho?
What's with the persistent black line in the center of the screen?
[QUOTE=patq911;51650680]What's with the persistent black line in the center of the screen?[/QUOTE]
If it's just a prototype unit, it could be a genuine fault. CES isn't exactly visited by the general public much, so the people there would understand that it might have problems if it's not the final product still.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;51650643]You aren't going to see more on the same size screen, and a larger screen is almost impossible, because they need to remain mobile and unobtrusive like they are now. There's also no point in a "videowall" that's covered by equipment. Resolution has nothing to do with the magnification tho?[/QUOTE]
Seems reasonable enough then. Hopefully they can get better magnification as well as resolution in time.
1440p would probably be the best they need anyways. 4k is amazing but like, at a distance it'd be the absolute max they would need. Anything more for THAT like 8k would just be "lol what the fuck is the point"
[QUOTE=hexpunK;51650701]If it's just a prototype unit, it could be a genuine fault. CES isn't exactly visited by the general public much, so the people there would understand that it might have problems if it's not the final product still.[/QUOTE]
Outside of CES people don't really understand prototypes
like people looked at Steam controller prototypes and VR prototypes and acted as if it were the final product. like what the fuck. :v:
That line though
[QUOTE=J!NX;51650716]Seems reasonable enough then. Hopefully they can get better magnification as well as resolution in time.
1440p would probably be the best they need anyways. 4k is amazing but like, at a distance it'd be the absolute max they would need. Anything more for THAT like 8k would just be "lol what the fuck is the point"
[/QUOTE]
Yeah I mean we all appreciate a gimmick, and we need pixel density for some applications still (VR being the thing that comes to mind most prominently), but for most applications we are really getting to the point where unless you want to go bigger, you should really just go home :v:
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;51649373]I disagree, a surgeon generally doesn't mush his face into the screen and you are working with magnification and scale, not resolution. There's no benefit to tiny pixels showing tiny details. I have never seen any surgeon in our "hightech" surgical theaters complain about resolution either. They complain about everything, but not that.[/QUOTE]
No ones saying you need 8k super monitors to perform surgery, but the medical world has been experimenting them for some time because of their ability to display finer details, you can read more about it here
[URL]http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20140128/330483/[/URL]
At 8k you could have an amazing display even if the line were present on all units, work the line into your interface for your application or something
I can't wait for those to be affordable
you know, wouldn't it make sense for windows to scale based on DPI rather than pure pixel count (if the monitor gives the PC information about DPI when it's plugged in, that is, i don't know if that's a thing)
[QUOTE=343N;51651686]you know, wouldn't it make sense for windows to scale based on DPI rather than pure pixel count (if the monitor gives the PC information about DPI when it's plugged in, that is, i don't know if that's a thing)[/QUOTE]
I think it does maybe? I remember my laptop having like 150% scaling on by default (1920x1080, 15")
[QUOTE=helifreak;51648392]It's not a consumer screen, they are already recording video at 8 it's just downscaled before getting to the consumer.
Then there's photo editing, even if the photo isn't itself 8k, you can still have the full size image + interface around it. But they do have 100 MP cameras at the high end, and RED are bringing out 16k+ video cameras "soon."[/QUOTE]
Being able to edit my photos at native res (or almost 1:1) is really nice in Lightroom.
[QUOTE=gukki;51651731]I think it does maybe? I remember my laptop having like 150% scaling on by default (1920x1080, 15")[/QUOTE]
Windows does have DPI scaling. It's just not super great still. Better than it used to be, but nowhere near ready to perform scaling like the OS X interface does for high DPI displays.
What's the vertical black stripe
[QUOTE=Toro;51650153]It looks unusable with how small the UI is.[/QUOTE]
Luckily UIs can be scaled
[QUOTE=Talishmar;51651790]What's the vertical black stripe
Luckily UIs can be scaled[/QUOTE]
Manufacturing defect. If you watch til the end he shows that pressing on the bottom of the frame makes them come on again.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
