so when will be the year of frame rates going up? we are way past the point where resolution makes no difference to most people, unless those big tech companies plan on making the world switch over from tv to projectors, i dont see how this will sell im sure they have graphs showing how sales of 1080p panels were wayyy better when people were upgrading from 720p than they are today from people upgrading 1080p to 4k, what do they expect this time? 8k is a magic number or something? i can already imagine what their desperate marketing will be like; "now x people can watch different stuff at once! splitscreen up to 4 streams at 4k each! ***everyone sits 1m from the screen** perhaps 21:9 goes mainstream thanks to that

tsunami231:

keep on walking you not gona change my mind or the countless other people i know that think the same thing smaller the screen and the higher the resolution is the more PPI there is and PPI is where it is at PPI was thing back with CRT and still is Fix Resolution. if anything it more important now on fix resolution panels. Which why smart phones with 1080p screen show 1080p video look amazing on 4" screen and suddenly not so great on 32" other then just bigger.

Whaat?! With that argument, then why are you not on a 4k smart phone? Smaller screen, highest PPI nirvana!

schmidtbag:

For those of us who don't know? Since when were display widths ever intentionally measured in bytes? 1080p is 2K. Last time I checked, 1920 is not the same number as 2048. 4K is 3840 pixels wide (1920x2), which is clearly less than 4096. 8K is double the width and double the height of 4K. Notice a pattern here? They're just rounding up to the nearest thousand. So far, the only resolutions that follow a multiple of 1024 are 2.5K (which everyone refers to as 1440p) and 5K. Part of me wonders if that's just coincidence. However... I do agree that it's a bit of a stretch for them to round up 7680 as 8000 (or 8192 for that matter). EDIT: BTW, the most common form factors are measured in 16:9, 16:10, 4:3, 4:5, and 2:3. Of all existing resolutions, none of them are an exponent of 2 for both the width and height. So, if you insist an 8K resolution is supposed to be 8192 pixels wide, what about the height? If you conform to either 16:9 or 16:10, you're not going to get a clean squared number. What a reckless level of arrogance.

Pixels are square, making them 1x1y, so you follow the following: 2 (1 vertical 1 horizontal),4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 and this is where you get nK (1,024). As for ratios, you could have 1.6:1 (16X10) and this ratio is much much much cleaner. It's all about the nomenclature, for me; and this "4KUHD" and "8KUHD" is misleading to consumers, because they are not getting what they think, and certainly not what they expect to be getting. These organisations need to completely rewrite all of their 'classifications'.

Loobyluggs:

Pixels are square, making them 1x1y, so you follow the following: 2 (1 vertical 1 horizontal),4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 and this is where you get nK (1,024).

I get that they're square, but nothing else you said there makes any sense. There are only 3 nomenclatures commonly used today to measure pixel area: 1. Number of pixels wide: This is what the Ks signify. The Y axis is NOT counted. A 3840x2160 display is "close enough" to 4000 pixels wide, and is therefore 4K. 2. Number of pixels high, and, whether interlaced/progressive: So, that's where you get stuff like 480i or 1440p. The X axis is not counted. 3. Total number of pixels: This is where we get megapixels (MP). A 1080p display is about 2.1MP. A 4K display is about 8.3MP. Literally all you're doing is multiplying the width by the height. In all 3 of these cases, you aren't squaring anything. For the first 2, it doesn't make sense to do so, because you're only measuring 1 axis; a square (as implied by the name) is 2 axes. In the 3rd option, it's well-established how it is calculated and is not up for dispute. So, I still really don't understand where you're getting 1024 from. The pixels being square (which, BTW, isn't unanimously true) is irrelevant. The panels themselves aren't squares, nor should they be. Are you suggesting that a chess board is 64 spaces wide?

As for ratios, you could have 1.6:1 (16X10) and this ratio is much much much cleaner.

That says nothing about my point... you're still not getting a clean square number for both width and height.

It's all about the nomenclature, for me; and this "4KUHD" and "8KUHD" is misleading to consumers, because they are not getting what they think, and certainly not what they expect to be getting. These organisations need to completely rewrite all of their 'classifications'.

That I agree with. However, I'd take these short-but-misleading numbers any day over the nonsense that is stuff like "WSXGA+" (1680x1050) or "UWQHD" (3440x1440).

schmidtbag:

I get that they're square, but nothing else you said there makes any sense. There are only 3 nomenclatures commonly used today to measure pixel area: 1. Number of pixels wide: This is what the Ks signify. The Y axis is NOT counted. A 3840x2160 display is "close enough" to 4000 pixels wide, and is therefore 4K. 2. Number of pixels high, and, whether interlaced/progressive: So, that's where you get stuff like 480i or 1440p. The X axis is not counted. 3. Total number of pixels: This is where we get megapixels (MP). A 1080p display is about 2.1MP. A 4K display is about 8.3MP. Literally all you're doing is multiplying the width by the height. In all 3 of these cases, you aren't squaring anything. For the first 2, it doesn't make sense to do so, because you're only measuring 1 axis; a square (as implied by the name) is 2 axes. In the 3rd option, it's well-established how it is calculated and is not up for dispute. So, I still really don't understand where you're getting 1024 from. The pixels being square (which, BTW, isn't unanimously true) is irrelevant. The panels themselves aren't squares, nor should they be. Are you suggesting that a chess board is 64 spaces wide? That says nothing about my point... you're still not getting a clean square number for both width and height. That I agree with. However, I'd take these short-but-misleading numbers any day over the nonsense that is stuff like "WSXGA+" (1680x1050) or "UWQHD" (3440x1440).

1: Correct, partially. This is what they are supposed to signify, but they do not. No more than 1,920 equals 2,048, hence why it was called "1080p/i" and also, why the "p" or the "i" was used, as these told the consumer that each frame was interpolated or progressive. This was (sort of) a left-over from the 'old' television standards, wherein broadcasters used to broadcast half the screen 1/25th of the time and the other half of the screen the remaining the other 1x1/25th of the time, alternating. This made the image interpolated. So, it wasn't called "2k" because that was/would have been grossly inaccurate. 2: see (1) 3 Megapixels are typically reffered in reference to receiving photonic energy in a camera, not screen resolution - but anyone is perfectly within their right to call it a megapixel, even though that ignores the resolution. I only see two options. 1) Change the panels to reflect correctly the proposed/indicated/promoted/alluded resolutions. This means 8,192 and 4,096 for 8K and 4K respectfully. 2) Rewrite all classifications to reflect a 'consumer friendly' nomenclature which is accurate, like "4,320p" I am suggesting that a chessboard is "8k", if only the square is 1x1 and the "k" equates to 1 square, which is equal to 1 square in x axis and 1 square in the y axis.

Loobyluggs:

1: Correct, partially. This is what they are supposed to signify, but they do not. No more than 1,920 equals 2,048

What's incorrect about what I said?

hence why it was called "1080p/i" and also, why the "p" or the "i" was used, as these told the consumer that each frame was interpolated or progressive. This was (sort of) a left-over from the 'old' television standards, wherein broadcasters used to broadcast half the screen 1/25th of the time and the other half of the screen the remaining the other 1x1/25th of the time, alternating. This made the image interpolated. So, it wasn't called "2k" because that was/would have been grossly inaccurate.

If being "grossly inaccurate" was the reason, then why did they use 4K to describe 2160p? Also, being 4% off is not "grossly inaccurate". It is absolutely inaccurate, but, not by a significant margin. That being said, despite being 320 pixels off from 8000 pixels wide, it is still "only" 4%.

3 Megapixels are typically reffered in reference to receiving photonic energy in a camera, not screen resolution - but anyone is perfectly within their right to call it a megapixel, even though that ignores the resolution.

Understood; that's actually why I chose the phrasing "measure pixel area" since that's a broader term that isn't specific to screens.

1) Change the panels to reflect correctly the proposed/indicated/promoted/alluded resolutions. This means 8,192 and 4,096 for 8K and 4K respectfully. 2) Rewrite all classifications to reflect a 'consumer friendly' nomenclature which is accurate, like "4,320p"

Ok, now I'm starting to understand you better. I don't disagree with this, but I still don't understand the point of a squared number like 8192 or 4096. Why not just a clean 8000 and 4000? All that being said, I don't really understand why they picked 1920 in the first place (4K and 8K are just multiples of 1920). Why couldn't full HD have been 2000x1125? Anyway, I do agree the classifications are bad.

I am suggesting that a chessboard is "8k", if only the square is 1x1 and the "k" equates to 1 square, which is equal to 1 square in x axis and 1 square in the y axis.

Then where are you getting 8192 from, and, how does that conform to 8K if it's actually 8.2K?

schmidtbag:

Then where are you getting 8192 from, and, how does that conform to 8K if it's actually 8.2K?

because as mentioned, it is like this "K" represents 1,024 pixels. "8K" is therefore 8192.

angelgraves13:

2K is 1920X1080. 4K is double that for both... 3840X2160. 8K would again be double that... 7680X4320. See a pattern? Can you guess what 16K will be? 15360X8640

I can tell you what it will not be, and that is 1,024 multiplied by 16, which is what 16k should equal. This, gentlemen, is WHY they call it "8kUHD" or "UHD8K", depending on who your talk to and which country you are in - what they do NOT do is flat-out call it "8K"...they do (in case of point) do this:- 8Kuhd See the problem?

Loobyluggs:

Pixels are square, making them 1x1y, so you follow the following: 2 (1 vertical 1 horizontal),4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 and this is where you get nK (1,024). As for ratios, you could have 1.6:1 (16X10) and this ratio is much much much cleaner. It's all about the nomenclature, for me; and this "4KUHD" and "8KUHD" is misleading to consumers, because they are not getting what they think, and certainly not what they expect to be getting. These organisations need to completely rewrite all of their 'classifications'.

Pixel are not squares. Pixels are the unit of measurement of the final product of a rasterization process. Frame buffer dimensions do not need to be a multiple of 2, and 7680 is a perfectly legal value if supported by the hardware. Moreover, in the SI, 'K' stands for 1000 not for 1024, in the SI the base is 10.

very cool play h.e.r.o atari 2600 at 8k https://img.lght.pics/lCOu.png

Alessio1989:

Pixel are not squares. Pixels are the unit of measurement of the final product of a rasterization process. Frame buffer dimensions do not need to be a multiple of 2, and 7680 is a perfectly legal value if supported by the hardware. Moreover, in the SI, 'K' stands for 1000 not for 1024, in the SI the base is 10.

It's not base 10, it's power-of-two. Reason? Because a pixel is square, and therefore MUST have an equal vertical and horizontal size to it, which makes it power of two. Try making a texture that has no height to it, but 1 pixel wide. It would be invisible. You are literally dividing by zero, should you try and do that. Resolution is the quantiy of square pixels vertically and horizontally, multiplied, which gives us another thing they could have done to give the nomenclature, because you could say if the pixel count is X, then it is known as "Cinema", but if it is Y, then it is known as "Television". I mean, that's just an example, illustrating the point that if you call something 'something' then it must reflect the actual, not the abstract. The nomenclature of 8K/4K is an abstraction to illustrate something, but is inaccurate and is used to mislead consumers into thinking they are buying something they are not. Aspect Ratio is the the ratio between the vertical square pixels and the horizontal square pixels. You can have pixel aspect ratio, but, that doesn't float with the topic at hand.

angelgraves13:

Who cares what they call it? Are you really going to nitpick over 512 pixels of difference? Are you also going to nitpick over 8TB hard drives only having 7.5 usable TBs?

I got a car in my garage that does Mach-50...wanna buy it?

Loobyluggs:

because as mentioned, it is like this "K" represents 1,024 pixels. "8K" is therefore 8192.

Again: Where are you getting 1024 pixels from? We've already established that when measuring displays in only width (like how 4K is done), you're not squaring anything, especially once you account for the Y axis. Just because you want K to mean 1024, doesn't mean it does. The only time that applies is when referring to bytes. Otherwise, 1KPH would mean "1024 meters per hour". But we're not talking about bytes here, we're talking about pixels. Pixels!=bytes. Bytes are not pixels. You could argue that the more appropriate term would be "4k" or "8k", since lower-case k is almost unanimously associated with 1000, but, seeing as they're rounding up the numbers for marketing purposes, I'm sure they chose upper-case K for a stylistic approach.

I can tell you what it will not be, and that is 1,024 multiplied by 16, which is what 16k should equal.

Why does it need to be a multiple of 1024, especially if you're using lower-case k?

Loobyluggs:

It's not base 10, it's power-of-two. Reason? Because a pixel is square, and therefore MUST have an equal vertical and horizontal size to it, which makes it power of two. Try making a texture that has no height to it, but 1 pixel wide. It would be invisible. You are literally dividing by zero, should you try and do that. Resolution is the quantiy of square pixels vertically and horizontally, multiplied, which gives us another thing they could have done to give the nomenclature, because you could say if the pixel count is X, then it is known as "Cinema", but if it is Y, then it is known as "Television". I mean, that's just an example, illustrating the point that if you call something 'something' then it must reflect the actual, not the abstract. The nomenclature of 8K/4K is an abstraction to illustrate something, but is inaccurate and is used to mislead consumers into thinking they are buying something they are not. Aspect Ratio is the the ratio between the vertical square pixels and the horizontal square pixels. You can have pixel aspect ratio, but, that doesn't float with the topic at hand.

A pixel is not a square as a meter is not a line or a Kilogram is not a burden. Base 2 is never used in the SI. All the rest are useless dramas.

alanm:

Whaat?! With that argument, then why are you not on a 4k smart phone? Smaller screen, highest PPI nirvana!

cause there not made cause people like you think there no point. diminishing returns dont mean differences cant be seen. just mean just mean the returns vs the effort isnt worth it nothing more

Loobyluggs:

Pixels are square, making them 1x1y, so you follow the following: 2 (1 vertical 1 horizontal),4,8,16,32,64,128,256,512,1024 and this is where you get nK (1,024). As for ratios, you could have 1.6:1 (16X10) and this ratio is much much much cleaner. It's all about the nomenclature, for me; and this "4KUHD" and "8KUHD" is misleading to consumers, because they are not getting what they think, and certainly not what they expect to be getting. These organisations need to completely rewrite all of their 'classifications'.

What did i just read? Gosh either i'm a over the hill computer engineer who doesn't understand modern technology (and my boss is stupid for keeping me) or you simply don't make any sense whatsoever. The only thing that make sense to me is Pixels are squares. What do you mean by "2 (1 vertical 1 horizontal)"? If you have 1 pixel vertical and 1 pixel horizontal them you just have 1 pixel not 2 ...

And litre is a pool... OK, let's go more precisely. A pixel is not a fùcking square. A pixel is a damn, single, point sample.

angelgraves13:

I have a car that flies and runs on solar power. Can't beat that!

I have a boat that dives and floats using solar power.

Alessio1989:

A pixel is not a square as a meter is not a line or a Kilogram is not a burden. Base 2 is never used in the SI. All the rest are useless dramas.

A pixel is measured as being square in the height and width are equal, unless you have a Pixel Aspect Ratio applied to the pixel itself. A pixel is not a defined size, unless you actually measure the pixel, or the manufacturer tells you what the size of the pixel is - but that is not your point (I think). Power of Two is used for pixels, because they must have width and height - and they are square. The number calculation notation is nk, with the n being a multiple of the k.

Alessio1989:

And litre is a pool... OK, let's go more precisely. A pixel is not a fùcking square. A pixel is a damn, single, point sample.

From your own link: "For convenience, pixels are normally arranged in a regular two-dimensional grid"

Pixel structures, on variety of panel types: http://lcdtech.info/en/tests/lcd.pixels.structure.htm