Cougar Terminator gaming chair review
G.Skill TridentZ5 RGB DDR5 7200 CL34 2x16 GB review
ASUS TUF Gaming B760-PLUS WIFI D4 review
Netac NV7000 2 TB NVMe SSD Review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4080 Noctua OC Edition review
MSI Clutch GM51 Wireless mouse review
ASUS ROG STRIX B760-F Gaming WIFI review
Asus ROG Harpe Ace Aim Lab Edition mouse review
SteelSeries Arctis Nova Pro Headset review
Ryzen 7800X3D preview - 7950X3D One CCD Disabled
Rumor has it: LG wants to release consumer 8K-tv next year
It is rumored that LG is about to release an 8K-tv (Super Ultra HD) next year already. Next month on CES they would already show a prototype 55" model. While it is unknown what the precise features and specs will be we do know that the screen will get a 55" panel with a resolution of 7680x4320 pixels.
That's 33 million pixels on there, fur times the number of Ultra HD and in fact 16x the number of pixels of your Full HD screen. So that is a 160 ppi, 55-inch 8K display. LG woulds be opting a rgbw-layout meaning that next to the red, green and blue subpixels a white subpixel would be added as well. As a result the screen would get a 500 cd/m² brightness.
Puny Full HD TV ;)
By itself it is not the first time that a manufacturer puts an 8k Tv on display, in fact LG already had a 98" prototype version on display. But this is the first time it is a consumer sized 55 inch model.
scheherazade
Senior Member
Posts: 2051
Joined: 2004-10-28
Senior Member
Posts: 2051
Joined: 2004-10-28
#4978894 Posted on: 12/17/2014 11:24 PM
HDMI, no scaling, 1:1 pixels (Black and white has no chroma compression, so B/W is particularly easy to see pixels. Colour has chroma compression, so it's fuzzier.).
I used "dimensions" not "size" on purpose. I'm aware that the area ratio is 1/(scaling_factor^2).
A shallow-sloped no-AA line that has clear steps/jumps that are 1" long at 1080p, will have steps/jumps 0.5" long at 4k (with half the jump height per step).
In photoshop, draw a no-AA 1 pixel wide black line on a white background (or vice versa), at some shallow angle (eg. ~5 or ~10 degree slope), and see if you can see the steps.
I can see the steps on my display at a range of reasonable distances.
I can then put my face up close to the screen and inspect the individual pixels, and verify that there is 1 physical display pixel per 1 image pixel, with no artifacting.
The jaggies I see while flight simming are usually in the ~10 degree and ~80 degree slope ranges (haven't measured it, my guess), where the steps are a good size (unlike 45 degree micro steps). They are clearly visible in areas of high contrast, such as dark canopy frame vs light blue sky. Much of the geometry doesn't have visible jaggies for a variety of factors - insufficient contrast between elements, decent line slopes, etc.
I'm not saying the jaggies are terrible, nor that they keep me up at night. Simply that I can see them somewhere on screen, without having to try.
Personally, I like sharp well defined edges, so I don't use AA 99% of the time on account of the edge softening. I'm quite accustomed to jaggies. I prefer no jaggies via extreme fine-ness, over no jaggies via AA blur. So I simply prefer extreme rez.
You also have to understand that my flight sim setup is a flight chair, that is seated away from the display. With a HOTAS, I don't need to use the keyboard or mouse. https://i.imgur.com/GGj4Xtx.jpg
When not flight simming, I can scoot up closer to the display, more like the usual 1.5-2 feet, because that's how close I need to be to the desk to comfortably use the keyboard/mouse. When scooted up, there is really no clarity benefit to 4k@50" vs 2.5k@27". In fact, the 4k display has a lower pixel density than my korean displays. It's great for surface area (productivity), but is in no way especially crisp. Which leads to the next point :
Extreme rez also helps with 3D editors where you have dense wireframes with many nearly-overlapping lines, making it much easier to select individual edges. Even with 4k, I sometimes spend excessive time (i.e. more time than I wish to spend) tweaking the viewport to find a good perspective in order to select the edges I want - because the lines are too fat for the given mesh density.
I would love it if resolution and GPU power simply was so bonkers that lines could be sharp like a hairline fracture in glass, while sustaining FPS of 120+. IMO, the more rez the merrier.
-scheherazade
You're oversimplifying things as well as being incorrect re 4k half the "pixel dimensions" of 1080p. 4k is 4x the number of pixels (8,294,400 vs 2,073,600 for HD). Not half the pixel height in your approximation (2160 vs 1080). If as you say you "can easily (and I mean EASILY) still see dots and jaggies" on a 50" 4k TV @ 5', then all I can say is you are most probably not watching accurate 4k reproduction or that its heavily tainted by a poor connection or digital artifacts of some sort or another. What is connecting your PC to TV btw?
HDMI, no scaling, 1:1 pixels (Black and white has no chroma compression, so B/W is particularly easy to see pixels. Colour has chroma compression, so it's fuzzier.).
I used "dimensions" not "size" on purpose. I'm aware that the area ratio is 1/(scaling_factor^2).
A shallow-sloped no-AA line that has clear steps/jumps that are 1" long at 1080p, will have steps/jumps 0.5" long at 4k (with half the jump height per step).
In photoshop, draw a no-AA 1 pixel wide black line on a white background (or vice versa), at some shallow angle (eg. ~5 or ~10 degree slope), and see if you can see the steps.
I can see the steps on my display at a range of reasonable distances.
I can then put my face up close to the screen and inspect the individual pixels, and verify that there is 1 physical display pixel per 1 image pixel, with no artifacting.
The jaggies I see while flight simming are usually in the ~10 degree and ~80 degree slope ranges (haven't measured it, my guess), where the steps are a good size (unlike 45 degree micro steps). They are clearly visible in areas of high contrast, such as dark canopy frame vs light blue sky. Much of the geometry doesn't have visible jaggies for a variety of factors - insufficient contrast between elements, decent line slopes, etc.
I'm not saying the jaggies are terrible, nor that they keep me up at night. Simply that I can see them somewhere on screen, without having to try.
Personally, I like sharp well defined edges, so I don't use AA 99% of the time on account of the edge softening. I'm quite accustomed to jaggies. I prefer no jaggies via extreme fine-ness, over no jaggies via AA blur. So I simply prefer extreme rez.
You also have to understand that my flight sim setup is a flight chair, that is seated away from the display. With a HOTAS, I don't need to use the keyboard or mouse. https://i.imgur.com/GGj4Xtx.jpg
When not flight simming, I can scoot up closer to the display, more like the usual 1.5-2 feet, because that's how close I need to be to the desk to comfortably use the keyboard/mouse. When scooted up, there is really no clarity benefit to 4k@50" vs 2.5k@27". In fact, the 4k display has a lower pixel density than my korean displays. It's great for surface area (productivity), but is in no way especially crisp. Which leads to the next point :
Extreme rez also helps with 3D editors where you have dense wireframes with many nearly-overlapping lines, making it much easier to select individual edges. Even with 4k, I sometimes spend excessive time (i.e. more time than I wish to spend) tweaking the viewport to find a good perspective in order to select the edges I want - because the lines are too fat for the given mesh density.
I would love it if resolution and GPU power simply was so bonkers that lines could be sharp like a hairline fracture in glass, while sustaining FPS of 120+. IMO, the more rez the merrier.
-scheherazade
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11546
Joined: 2004-05-10
At 4k we're only talking half the pixel dimensions of 1080p, and folks have no trouble seeing jaggies at 1080p. Doubling the res doesn't come close to making jaggies disappear.
If you can see jaggies on a 23" diagonal 4k display 2 feet from your face, then you can still see them at ~2x the screen size and ~2x the distance.
If you're talking movies, then sure, it doesn't matter. Movies are never recorded with such tight focus that any individual pixel represents any individual feature. The finest dot in a movie is still a fuzzy blob that straddles a group of pixels on your display.
-scheherazade
You're oversimplifying things as well as being incorrect re 4k half the "pixel dimensions" of 1080p. 4k is 4x the number of pixels (8,294,400 vs 2,073,600 for HD). Not half the pixel height in your approximation (2160 vs 1080). If as you say you "can easily (and I mean EASILY) still see dots and jaggies" on a 50" 4k TV @ 5', then all I can say is you are most probably not watching accurate 4k reproduction or that its heavily tainted by a poor connection or digital artifacts of some sort or another. What is connecting your PC to TV btw?