I like the bezels. As for whether the eyes can resolve that resolution - Anandtech did a nice article on that. The effective resolution for a person with 20/20 eye sight is ~150PPD. This monitor at 2.5' away is roughly ~170ppd. At 4K it's only ~86. So there will be a noticeable improvement in quality, but obviously there are diminishing returns.

Would love to see viewing tests on individuals @ 2.5' between 4k and 8k to see if they can spot the diff on 32" screen.

I can understand it not getting too big of a monitor because having a 40'+ screen might get a bit too much for gaming unless you move further away... not sure how much it would impact other things such as media creation. 32inch sounds like a decent compromise overall just be interesting to see how much differences there is overall, jumping from 4K. Then again with the lack of 8K content for awhile we might have to wait to see what happens.

I like the bezels. As for whether the eyes can resolve that resolution - Anandtech did a nice article on that. The effective resolution for a person with 20/20 eye sight is ~150PPD. This monitor at 2.5' away is roughly ~170ppd. At 4K it's only ~86. So there will be a noticeable improvement in quality, but obviously there are diminishing returns.

Very interesting indeed...

Alright, that's a little more than your eyes need at that screen-sizeÂ*but still.

that is such bs, PPI is not the issue is the bad scaling for UI/text we still have in lot programs and games 8k would look twices as good as 4k would IF scaling was done right. Needing bigger screen is just work around for the bad scaling we still have for UI/text people need to stop regurgitating this bs the eye cant see it diffrence

I can understand it not getting too big of a monitor because having a 40'+ screen might get a bit too much for gaming unless you move further away... not sure how much it would impact other things such as media creation.

One large ~40"+ incher vs multiple 1080p to 4k monitors. Can split the area up with software, say game is running in 4k but in the bottom-center, one "side-screen" area on either side (portrait) and another landscape on top of the gaming one... Split like there would be a giant letter H in the middle as a separator. Or have lower half (bit more) in a "surround size" - 7680x2160, upper area split in 3 or something. 🙂 Can also view larger things, movies, full-size images from a sofa etc.

For over 10 years I used a old Sony 22.5 viewable CRT with a resolution of 2304x1440. People were like how can you see or read the screen. I love real estate and having things be small and you can see more on the screen. I was doing audio production on it and going to 1920 was horrible. My friend has a bigger 32" monitor with like 2560 res I believe. That is too big for me I have to look around to see things. I want to be able to see all without moving my eyes around or neck around. 32" is over kill for me unless its 8k resolution. How much is this monitor going to cost Im guessing 1500 to 2000 dollars. :banana:

I can't imagine 8K on 32" O.o It's beyond my eyes - seriously. But I think its not about, seeing pixels.. It's about, "not seeing" Any pixel - smoothnes. Power in whistle, but Anti-Alising good bye. lol

Unless you're using a Mac or Linux (where the UI respects the DPI of your display,) this monitor will be literally unusable on Windows... :P

I have pretty bad vision, wearing glasses, and not that young anymore... and yet I can see the pixels quite well on a 27" 4K screen. Especially on slanted lines or other high-contrast shapes, when anti-aliasing is not used. Actually, what I can see is the different between lines of pixels, as the shape suddenly "jumps" for that 0.1 mm, instead of smoothly blending into the next. Dotted lines or other artificial patterns are quite obvious ! Of course, on a photograph or "natural" shapes pixels are invisible, because colors on nearby pixels blend into each other. So I welcome the advance of technology ! One day you won't be able to distinguish between paper drawn by hand and a screen !

I have pretty bad vision, wearing glasses, and not that young anymore... and yet I can see the pixels quite well on a 27" 4K screen. Especially on slanted lines or other high-contrast shapes, when anti-aliasing is not used.

There's a nice test for aliasing visibility: http://www.testufo.com/#test=aliasing-visibility&foreground=FFFFFF&background=000000&antialiasing=0&thickness=1 (Make sure browser magnification if off; must be set to 100% in the browser, meaning unscaled.) People commonly ask whether anti-aliasing is still needed on 24" 4K monitors. If you can see any aliasing on that test, then anti-aliasing is still needed. Would be very interesting to see how 8K does on that test.