Japan Display managed to get 8K pixels into a 17.3-inch screen
Click here to post a comment for Japan Display managed to get 8K pixels into a 17.3-inch screen on our message forum
sardine
that's ridiculous (in a good way)
"old mode"
long gone are the days of 256x192 4 simultaneous colours 🙂 on My Dragon 32 computer
Yes I'm that old 😀
AKMS
8 way SLI with 32GB memory FTW!
Evildead666
vg24a3
kegastaMmer
QUHDTV LMNOP!! Hah!
Good old xxxxXyyyy is better imho
Valken
Just make it 60+ inches for less than 800 USD and I will buy it now!
ttnuagmada
There are phones with higher PPI. The most impressive thing about this screen is that they got a 2000:1 contrast ratio out of an IPS panel.
waltc3
David3k
120 Gbit/s = 15 gigabytes/s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDMI#Version_2.0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.3
All we need is an interface standard to actually support the damned thing. Nothing even comes close to delivering enough bandwidth for this monster, lol.
Pretty neat, though, maybe SOONâ„¢...
gx-x
wow! Imagine the possible applications for this kind of DPI! Oh wait...
sounar
now stick a 4k 120hz screen into a VR unit and were golden
Vipu2
gx-x
It is useless there as well. It's not hating, it's science.
The amount of detail and information brain can perceive can be and has been measured and translated to rough digital numbers. It's something along ~5mpx total with 3mpx being taken by focus point area and the rest falls off to everything outside of that area.
You can google that stuff. There is literally no need or point having ~20mpx in front of your eye.
You can also test all this by yourself. How close do you need to be to your screen to actually see the matrix (the "pixels")? To achieve good VR results you only need cut out a small portion of an already existing 32" 4K or 5K panel, you wouldn't see the pixels.
So seriously, I am not hating, am I just saying. Like with everything, there is a point where enough is really enough.
fry178
its funny how everyone limits those things to gaming/tv and crap.
how about a surgeon working on your brain. you want him/her to have a 32" in 1080p (cause you dont need more), or a 20" in 8K??
a Golf GTI in the mid 70's did 9s to 60, top speed was 118mph and had decent performance to give (other) sports cars the run around.
but just because it was good enough (back then) doesnt mean it will
be my next car in 2015.
why dont we all go back to live in a cave. was "enough" back in the day...
Toss3
HeavyHemi
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/
MP isn't a very good metric. PPI is a more useful gauge. A person with excellent vision can resolve over 2000 PPI. In practical use, ~300 PPI is the effective limit due to the typical viewing distance from the screen (for computer monitors). The effect is similar to looking at 40" 1080p and 2160p displays side by side from 15 feet. They eye can't effectively resolve the higher resolution at that distance. Of course if you increase the size of the display area or move closer while keeping the resolution the same...
SamW
https://www.sven.de/dpi/).
2,236px / (146.86px/i) = 15.22in.
To get your 5mpix in a vr headset using a 32" 4k display's ppi, you would need a 15.22in (width and height) in screen. Yeah. No, that doesn't fit in a headset.
If I wanted to make a retina display in a vr headset (again assuming your 5Mpx number and the screen is perfectly projected into your eyes with minimal wasted pixels). I would say the equivalent to a 5in x 5in screen would be about the bulkiest i could fix into a headset.
again according to the dpi calculator. With inputs of 2236px x 2236px and 7.07 inches (17.96cm) diagonal (for a 5x5 screen).
I would probably want at least 447px/i.
The cited display in the article
Pixel density 510ppi
Which is not overkill for headset applications. In fact cell phone use > 510ppi right now. OLED already hit and surpass this density. I have no doubt, however, that OLED is the most likely candidate for these applications. It is however cool to see that IPS still has some kick left in it.
And the point to making a screen this size? well that is simply to show that your manufacturing process is mature and defect free enough to mass produce. If you can produce a 17" screen defect free, then you can product more practical smaller one's too.
You do realize that devices would prefer the smallest possible screens and use a lens or an assembly of lenses to alter it projects into the eye? Right? you can't stick a 17" screen in a headset.
If you are going to claim SCIENCE!, then you better also bring the MATH.
In rough numbers (assuming square screen and your target of 5mpix number) the target screen width/height in pixels would be
root(5,000,000px²) = 2,236px.
A 32 inch 4k monitor has 146.86px/i according to this tool (gx-x
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0
Take from it what you will.
Those are terrible analogies, sorry. You are not going to start seeing better or more in 20 years.
No I have not. Not everyone has a privilege to use one.
But, I wouldn't just blindly trust a seller telling me what I want and need... What I do know is that initial 720p on O.Rift was indeed lacking. I also know that they haven't resolved motion sickness and until they do, that technology is pretty much just a stepping stone and should be used with care. I know they have 1080p version at the moment.
Like I said, you can jam whatever display you want in there but until they resolve other issues that technology is not going to be mainstream. Personally I wouldn't buy a product that induces sickening state to my body and O.R. does that atm.
this is a very good post that you have made. Yes, MP is not ideal for this example but it was the first thing that came to mind when I was posting since I recently watched a video on this topic and they used MP in most of the video because people are generaly more familiar with MP than PPI or DPI.
As for the 2000 PPI, I am inclined to believe doctors but personaly, as someone who works with print industry (I am graphics designer) I challenge you, or anyone for that matter, to take a good magazine and look at the any quality photo or poster inside it and try to resolve dots/pixels in it from up close and from afar. Those are mostly 300 PPI. @2000 PPI I doubt you could see any dots without using a magnifying glass. You would be pretty rare specimen if you could resolve 2000 PPI with a naked eye 🙂 I can barley resolve my phone's 340 PPI, BARLEY, and I might even be lying to myself :3eyes:
edit: here is the video I was referring to: EspHack
according to Wikipedia DP 1.3 already does 8k @60fps, now we need 8k gpus and for some reason we don't have any...
fry178
and i cant go faster than the legal speed limit, yet we increase HP every time a new model comes out.
so my analogy in saying, we dont stop R&D just because we 're already at "enough", fits.
another thing: most people forget that MP/ppi and so on, are "digital" and with humans being "analog", i dont see it always "matching".
e.g. from a technical standpoint the "perfect" audio signal is linear (same vol thru all frqz), but that does NOT "sound" good to the human ear.