Synology DS620slim Gigabit NAS Review
Fractal Design Vector RS review
Corsair iCUE 465X review
be quiet! Pure Base 500 review
Borderlands 3: PC graphics performance benchmark review
Swiftech H240 X3 AIO review
Promo: URCDKey Autumn Sale Windows 10 Pro for $11
Corsair HS35 Stereo Gaming Headset Review
MSI Radeon RX 5700 XT Gaming X review
Gears of War 5: PC graphics performance benchmark review
AU Optronics this year will start delivery of 8k panels
AU Optronics has announced that it will start supplying 8k (7680 x 4320) panels this year. These will be large image panels intended for use in televisions.
Deliveries will take place as soon as the first half of 2018, writes Digitimes . The panels will be made in 65 and 85inch sizes. The display technology used, however, is not clear, AU Optronics mainly focuses on LCD panels. AU Optronics (AUO) will begin to ship 8K TV panels in sizes ranging from 65- to 85-inch in the first half of 2018, while also ramping up shipments of all-screen displays for handset applications, according to Liao Wei-lun, president of AUO's video products business group.
Shipments of TV panels in 65-inch and above sizes will be a major focus of AUO as global sales of 65- and 70-inch TVs and display products are expected to grow 40% and 50% on year, respectively, in 2018, Liao reasoned.
The penetration rate of 65-inch and above sizes of 8K TVs will start gaining momentum in 2018 and reach 10% in 2020, Liao said, adding that AUO will begin volume production of 8K TV panels soon to cash in on the emerging trend.
Demand for 4K TV panels will also remain strong in 2018 as the penetration of 4K TVs is expected to hike to over 40% in 2018, from 30% a year earlier, with 4K displays becoming a standard for 50-inch and larger TV products in the year, Liao added.
Meanwhile, AUO will expand the applications of its LTPS panels from handsets and notebooks to non-consumer devices such as automotive and in-car infotainment devices, according Chen Hung-hsiang, president of AUO's mobile device business group.
AUO's shipments of all-screen handset panels are expected to register multi-fold increase in 2018, with all-screen models accounting for over 80% of its total handset panel shipments, Chen said.
AUO will begin to ship related panels for automotive-use interior rear view mirrors in the first half of 2018 and other panels for in-car infotainment devices before the end of the year, Chen indicated.
AU Optronics has new four new HDR Displays in the works - 04/04/2017 05:21 PM
The lads over at TFT central obtained a few road-maps, AU Optronics is working on four new HDR-monitors. All panels have advanced Edge Backlight Unit dimming and are based on VA-technology. ...
AU Optronics 144 Hz Panels will be AMVA - 08/24/2015 08:52 AM
AU Optronics is working on new 144 Hz Panels type AMVA monitor panels (Advanced MVA). The new VA type panel will go into production in Q1 2016. The 30in curved 21:9 based monitor will get a 2560x108...
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5522311 Posted on: 02/23/2018 02:41 PM
cause the screen is still @8K, no matter the signal.
how many channels match your 1080p tv in signal quality? none.
either its interlaced or lower res (for P content)..
cause the screen is still @8K, no matter the signal.
how many channels match your 1080p tv in signal quality? none.
either its interlaced or lower res (for P content)..
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 4340
Joined: 2012-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 4340
Joined: 2012-11-10
#5522328 Posted on: 02/23/2018 04:00 PM
cause the screen is still @8K, no matter the signal.
how many channels match your 1080p tv in signal quality? none.
either its interlaced or lower res (for P content)..
Well, we're at a time where people are switching over to other mediums that actually support 1920x1080 or higher, with progressive scan (in particular, just about any streaming service, like Netflix or Hulu).
RealNC makes a good point. The industry is still struggling to transition to 4K. To my knowledge, even 2160i content is pretty uncommon. Aside from some YouTube videos (which have terrible compression) and a handful of movies, there just isn't enough content where 4K is worth getting, at least to me anyway.
Meanwhile, consider people who aren't watching shows or movies:
The 1080Ti is the cheapest single GPU you can get that can play games at 4K@60FPS (sometimes not even 60FPS). A lot of other applications don't scale to 4K nicely, either. So whether you're trying to have fun or do something productive, 4K is still un-optimized. And yet, here we have 8K.
Aside from a handful of special-use cases, I just don't know who would get an 8K display and not immediately regret it. Even if you're filthy rich, it's not nice being able to buy a product and not being able to properly take advantage of it. It's kind of like replacing a BMW with a Ferrari - the car might be faster, but despite the performance and price difference, you're still stuck in traffic. Though the BMW is a cheaper car, you're not really losing out when driving that instead. By the time there's enough 8K content to make one of these displays worth getting, it won't be considered a luxury anymore. I'm not necessarily saying that matters, but, the point is AU Optronics is kind of wasting their money designing and manufacturing something too far ahead of its time. But, not my problem.
Anyway, I understand that "8K content won't be made if there aren't any 8K displays" but, as I implied earlier, we're struggling to get sufficient 4K content (hell, there's not even enough 1080p content). We should be taking our priorities incrementally.
cause the screen is still @8K, no matter the signal.
how many channels match your 1080p tv in signal quality? none.
either its interlaced or lower res (for P content)..
Well, we're at a time where people are switching over to other mediums that actually support 1920x1080 or higher, with progressive scan (in particular, just about any streaming service, like Netflix or Hulu).
RealNC makes a good point. The industry is still struggling to transition to 4K. To my knowledge, even 2160i content is pretty uncommon. Aside from some YouTube videos (which have terrible compression) and a handful of movies, there just isn't enough content where 4K is worth getting, at least to me anyway.
Meanwhile, consider people who aren't watching shows or movies:
The 1080Ti is the cheapest single GPU you can get that can play games at 4K@60FPS (sometimes not even 60FPS). A lot of other applications don't scale to 4K nicely, either. So whether you're trying to have fun or do something productive, 4K is still un-optimized. And yet, here we have 8K.
Aside from a handful of special-use cases, I just don't know who would get an 8K display and not immediately regret it. Even if you're filthy rich, it's not nice being able to buy a product and not being able to properly take advantage of it. It's kind of like replacing a BMW with a Ferrari - the car might be faster, but despite the performance and price difference, you're still stuck in traffic. Though the BMW is a cheaper car, you're not really losing out when driving that instead. By the time there's enough 8K content to make one of these displays worth getting, it won't be considered a luxury anymore. I'm not necessarily saying that matters, but, the point is AU Optronics is kind of wasting their money designing and manufacturing something too far ahead of its time. But, not my problem.
Anyway, I understand that "8K content won't be made if there aren't any 8K displays" but, as I implied earlier, we're struggling to get sufficient 4K content (hell, there's not even enough 1080p content). We should be taking our priorities incrementally.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12312
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5522334 Posted on: 02/23/2018 04:10 PM
Honestly I'd rather them focus on improving panel uniformity, contrast, image retention/burnin (OLED) HDR/expanded color gamuts/etc over 8K. Hell I'd go as far to say that I'd rather watch content on my 65" LG C7 in 1080P HDR/DV than 4K non-HDR/DV at normal viewing distances. I could see 8K maybe for productivity purposes, like 5K for native 4K video editing + interface - but an 8K TV I couldn't justify getting.
Honestly I'd rather them focus on improving panel uniformity, contrast, image retention/burnin (OLED) HDR/expanded color gamuts/etc over 8K. Hell I'd go as far to say that I'd rather watch content on my 65" LG C7 in 1080P HDR/DV than 4K non-HDR/DV at normal viewing distances. I could see 8K maybe for productivity purposes, like 5K for native 4K video editing + interface - but an 8K TV I couldn't justify getting.
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5522404 Posted on: 02/23/2018 07:56 PM
@schmidtbag
my point was, why is it ok when ppl buy 1080p tvs in the past +10y, as almost all cable content is (even now) 720p, or worse 1080i,
and does not match the tv's capabilities, but when its a UHD tv, its all of a sudden important to match the screen res with the signal (res).
anyway, running the same signal (1080p), a decent 4k panel will look better, as thats how i sold most my tvs,
by showing the same signal (1080p) on two identical screens (except res).
doubt that anyone of the customers spend about 800-100$ more for something you 'cant" see.
and most UHD streaming like netflix, will look basically like running a movie on BD, when it comes image quality.
at least when i watched blacklist back then.
and you dont have to run games at that res, i tried a 50 in UHD as moni, and desktop/gaming running at 1080p was without any lag,
and i didnt see any need to run it at UHD, even at 3ft distance.
so for anyone that has the money, why not.
same as the ferrari.
as soon as traffic is gone, we know who will have more fun driving...
@schmidtbag
my point was, why is it ok when ppl buy 1080p tvs in the past +10y, as almost all cable content is (even now) 720p, or worse 1080i,
and does not match the tv's capabilities, but when its a UHD tv, its all of a sudden important to match the screen res with the signal (res).
anyway, running the same signal (1080p), a decent 4k panel will look better, as thats how i sold most my tvs,
by showing the same signal (1080p) on two identical screens (except res).
doubt that anyone of the customers spend about 800-100$ more for something you 'cant" see.
and most UHD streaming like netflix, will look basically like running a movie on BD, when it comes image quality.
at least when i watched blacklist back then.
and you dont have to run games at that res, i tried a 50 in UHD as moni, and desktop/gaming running at 1080p was without any lag,
and i didnt see any need to run it at UHD, even at 3ft distance.
so for anyone that has the money, why not.
same as the ferrari.
as soon as traffic is gone, we know who will have more fun driving...
Embra
Senior Member
Posts: 883
Joined: 2014-11-19
Senior Member
Posts: 883
Joined: 2014-11-19
#5522410 Posted on: 02/23/2018 08:12 PM
I thought half of the allure of owning a Ferrari was being seen in one.
Many folks always buy more than they need. Especially if your the first on the block with one, regardless if anyone else knows.
There are some uses for 8k. It's getting hard to find 1080p tv's now. There is very little worthwhile 4k content to watch.
I thought half of the allure of owning a Ferrari was being seen in one.
Many folks always buy more than they need. Especially if your the first on the block with one, regardless if anyone else knows.
There are some uses for 8k. It's getting hard to find 1080p tv's now. There is very little worthwhile 4k content to watch.
goat1
Senior Member
Posts: 2070
Joined: 2011-01-04
Senior Member
Posts: 2070
Joined: 2011-01-04
#5522412 Posted on: 02/23/2018 08:18 PM
The only thing 8k would be useful for is projectors. They could upscale 4k content, but even then, its not the same. Its going to be forever before they even have 8k content. My 1080p plasma looks great. I have no reason to go 4k and lose 3D in the process. 8k is going to be wildly expensive, but the 1 thing that could make people move to it when its more mainstream is.. Doing 3D with 8k while not having to use 3D glasses.
The only thing 8k would be useful for is projectors. They could upscale 4k content, but even then, its not the same. Its going to be forever before they even have 8k content. My 1080p plasma looks great. I have no reason to go 4k and lose 3D in the process. 8k is going to be wildly expensive, but the 1 thing that could make people move to it when its more mainstream is.. Doing 3D with 8k while not having to use 3D glasses.
JamesSneed
Senior Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 2017-02-14
Senior Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 2017-02-14
#5522430 Posted on: 02/23/2018 08:55 PM
Anyone try to do the math yet on a person with 20/20 vision and how large the screen would have to be at normal say 8-10 feet viewing distances? My assumption doing some rough numbers in my head you would need a 250" or slightly bigger screen before you could tell a difference between 8K and 4K at 8-10 foot viewing distances. Im sure Im off a bit on the math I just see no point of 8K on these small TV's.
Anyone try to do the math yet on a person with 20/20 vision and how large the screen would have to be at normal say 8-10 feet viewing distances? My assumption doing some rough numbers in my head you would need a 250" or slightly bigger screen before you could tell a difference between 8K and 4K at 8-10 foot viewing distances. Im sure Im off a bit on the math I just see no point of 8K on these small TV's.
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5522432 Posted on: 02/23/2018 09:07 PM
@goat1
?not sure why projectors.
tvs do the same, upscaling is done by every FHD tv since they came out (for any signal thats not 1080p).
sure most uhd tvs will look the best with uhd content,but
and i repeat myself here, 1080p upscaled to uhd res will still look better (on uhd tv) than on the same size screen thats only 1080p,
as having double the ppi (67 vs 33 for 65") makes a difference no matter the signal.
example: ever seen a movie in 3D (passive) in the theaters in the past 10y?
until hollywood started shooting/producing in 4K, all content was upscaled from 1080p to 4K (and allow for 3D to be 1080p per eye).
not once did i hear that someone wasnt happy with the image quality.
and that was when running it on a really large screen.
sure, you can't compare the upscalers used, but then again its getting viewed on a much smaller screen (in vs ft)..
@
one major reason why a theater is more "immersive", is that the screen is larger than our FOV.
(i never understood why ppl would buy tickets for the last few rows in a theater, as its like watching tv at home when it comes to visible screen size.
unless of course they never planed to watch the movie )
thats one of the advantages of high res screens.
you can be closer, without getting a "screen door" effect.
for a 65in uhd about 5-6ft, and about 3-4ft distances for a 55in, before pixels get visible.
so you can basically half the (minimum) needed distance, which makes the screen a lot larger,
without sacrificing picture quality...
and still enough space between couch/table and the screen so ppl/the kids can get on your nerves
@goat1
?not sure why projectors.
tvs do the same, upscaling is done by every FHD tv since they came out (for any signal thats not 1080p).
sure most uhd tvs will look the best with uhd content,but
and i repeat myself here, 1080p upscaled to uhd res will still look better (on uhd tv) than on the same size screen thats only 1080p,
as having double the ppi (67 vs 33 for 65") makes a difference no matter the signal.
example: ever seen a movie in 3D (passive) in the theaters in the past 10y?
until hollywood started shooting/producing in 4K, all content was upscaled from 1080p to 4K (and allow for 3D to be 1080p per eye).
not once did i hear that someone wasnt happy with the image quality.
and that was when running it on a really large screen.
sure, you can't compare the upscalers used, but then again its getting viewed on a much smaller screen (in vs ft)..
@
JamesSneed
one major reason why a theater is more "immersive", is that the screen is larger than our FOV.
(i never understood why ppl would buy tickets for the last few rows in a theater, as its like watching tv at home when it comes to visible screen size.
unless of course they never planed to watch the movie
)thats one of the advantages of high res screens.
you can be closer, without getting a "screen door" effect.
for a 65in uhd about 5-6ft, and about 3-4ft distances for a 55in, before pixels get visible.
so you can basically half the (minimum) needed distance, which makes the screen a lot larger,
without sacrificing picture quality...
and still enough space between couch/table and the screen so ppl/the kids can get on your nerves
goat1
Senior Member
Posts: 2070
Joined: 2011-01-04
Senior Member
Posts: 2070
Joined: 2011-01-04
#5522442 Posted on: 02/23/2018 09:19 PM
@goat1
?not sure why projectors.
tvs do the same, upscaling is done by every FHD tv since they came out (for any signal thats not 1080p).
sure most uhd tvs will look the best with uhd content,but
and i repeat myself here, 1080p upscaled to uhd res will still look better (on uhd tv) than on the same size screen thats only 1080p,
as having double the ppi (80 vs 40) makes a difference no matter the signal.
example: ever seen a movie in 3D (passive) in the theaters in the past 10y?
until hollywood started shooting/producing in 4K, all content was upscaled from 1080p to 4K (and allow for 3D to be 1080p per eye).
not once did i hear that someone wasnt happy with the image quality.
and that was when running it on a really large screen.
sure, you can't compare the upscalers used, but then again its getting viewed on a much smaller screen (in vs ft)..
It has to do with the pixel density. My friend owns a home theater business. He also has a home theater with a projector on a 120" screen. He initially had a $10,000 sony 1080p projector. He's like look at how the picture looks. I said, my 1080p plasma blows this out of the water. He said bs! I said , ok lets go to my house, which was 3 miles away. I threw in the same movie, and instantly he said, your right its looks much better on the plasma. Now he has a 4k projector.. I told him the other day, when 8k comes out on the projector, that's when the image on a projector will really shine.
On a 120" screen your stretching the pixels out a lot. 8k on a 65" tv isn't going to be nearly as much of a big deal as it will on a 120" screen.. It will look much sharper. A native 8k signal on a projector will rock!
@goat1
?not sure why projectors.
tvs do the same, upscaling is done by every FHD tv since they came out (for any signal thats not 1080p).
sure most uhd tvs will look the best with uhd content,but
and i repeat myself here, 1080p upscaled to uhd res will still look better (on uhd tv) than on the same size screen thats only 1080p,
as having double the ppi (80 vs 40) makes a difference no matter the signal.
example: ever seen a movie in 3D (passive) in the theaters in the past 10y?
until hollywood started shooting/producing in 4K, all content was upscaled from 1080p to 4K (and allow for 3D to be 1080p per eye).
not once did i hear that someone wasnt happy with the image quality.
and that was when running it on a really large screen.
sure, you can't compare the upscalers used, but then again its getting viewed on a much smaller screen (in vs ft)..
It has to do with the pixel density. My friend owns a home theater business. He also has a home theater with a projector on a 120" screen. He initially had a $10,000 sony 1080p projector. He's like look at how the picture looks. I said, my 1080p plasma blows this out of the water. He said bs! I said , ok lets go to my house, which was 3 miles away. I threw in the same movie, and instantly he said, your right its looks much better on the plasma. Now he has a 4k projector.. I told him the other day, when 8k comes out on the projector, that's when the image on a projector will really shine.
On a 120" screen your stretching the pixels out a lot. 8k on a 65" tv isn't going to be nearly as much of a big deal as it will on a 120" screen.. It will look much sharper. A native 8k signal on a projector will rock!
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5522453 Posted on: 02/23/2018 09:51 PM
thats related to the difference in screen size, not that its a projector.
ppi at same res and same size is identical.
e.g. if the projector would have been set to same size (65"), there would have been no difference.
(worked for of the largest multiplex in germany for a few years, and we had +150 000$ sony projectors for the smaller rooms to do live-tv streams etc.
could never convince them to let us play PS2 on them
thats related to the difference in screen size, not that its a projector.
ppi at same res and same size is identical.
e.g. if the projector would have been set to same size (65"), there would have been no difference.
(worked for of the largest multiplex in germany for a few years, and we had +150 000$ sony projectors for the smaller rooms to do live-tv streams etc.
could never convince them to let us play PS2 on them
goat1
Senior Member
Posts: 2070
Joined: 2011-01-04
Senior Member
Posts: 2070
Joined: 2011-01-04
#5522476 Posted on: 02/23/2018 10:49 PM
thats related to the difference in screen size, not that its a projector.
ppi at same res and same size is identical.
e.g. if the projector would have been set to same size (65"), there would have been no difference.
(worked for of the largest multiplex in germany for a few years, and we had +150 000$ sony projectors for the smaller rooms to do live-tv streams etc.
could never convince them to let us play PS2 on them
That was exactly my point.. Screen size. cmon man.. Nobody gets a projector to throw a 65" picture. They want to throw a 100-120" picture.
thats related to the difference in screen size, not that its a projector.
ppi at same res and same size is identical.
e.g. if the projector would have been set to same size (65"), there would have been no difference.
(worked for of the largest multiplex in germany for a few years, and we had +150 000$ sony projectors for the smaller rooms to do live-tv streams etc.
could never convince them to let us play PS2 on them
That was exactly my point.. Screen size. cmon man.. Nobody gets a projector to throw a 65" picture. They want to throw a 100-120" picture.
fry178
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
Senior Member
Posts: 1095
Joined: 2012-04-30
#5522549 Posted on: 02/24/2018 04:50 AM
lol, not me.
i will always prefer a smaller screen, as long as it means "better" image quality.
as long as its 4k, you wont see any pixels, and at 65" you can sit about 6ft away (to stretch your legs), while still "just seeing screen" when watching movies or playing..
Then again, sony put out some nice short-throw 4Ks..
lol, not me.
i will always prefer a smaller screen, as long as it means "better" image quality.
as long as its 4k, you wont see any pixels, and at 65" you can sit about 6ft away (to stretch your legs), while still "just seeing screen" when watching movies or playing..
Then again, sony put out some nice short-throw 4Ks..
The Reeferman
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 2013-11-10
Member
Posts: 92
Joined: 2013-11-10
#5522630 Posted on: 02/24/2018 04:05 PM
Still waiting for 4K content that is visually sharper then for instance these videos.
Still waiting for 4K content that is visually sharper then for instance these videos.
alanm
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
Senior Member
Posts: 8867
Joined: 2004-05-10
#5522639 Posted on: 02/24/2018 05:12 PM
Still waiting for 4K content that is visually sharper then for instance these videos.
Whaa? How the hell is anyone going to see a difference unless they are on 8k to begin with.
Still waiting for 4K content that is visually sharper then for instance these videos.
Whaa? How the hell is anyone going to see a difference unless they are on 8k to begin with.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2986
Joined: 2011-11-24
Looks good. I want one.
As for the panels, what's the point? Or is there 8K content out there already?