Sharp Shows 27-inch 8K 120Hz HDR IGZO monitor
Click here to post a comment for Sharp Shows 27-inch 8K 120Hz HDR IGZO monitor on our message forum
vazup
Are people really obsessed over games that much that they cant think of any others uses for this beauty? This would be fantastic for image editing - I mean holly hell those are a massive 16mpix on a single screen.
Humanoid_1
Personally I am really looking forward to screens like this !
Although I love my new 27" 4K IPS screen with it's billion+ colours, even without using any scaling I find the pixel density frustratingly lacking. 8K would still not be good enough for my eyes, but would at least reach tolerable levels where the pixel density limitations are not like a slap in the face as on my 4K screen.
Kaarme
It's just a prototype. Little need to optimise its structural thickness. I'd bet the insides look pretty ugly as well, although the capacitors probably aren't the cheapest Chinese kind.
Luckily while you are waiting for better screens, your eyes are also growing older and seeing less.
Humanoid_1
Hahaha Very good, I like a good optimist :thumbup:
In the mean time I will be both saving frantically and doing my best to hone my senses to even finer levels ~_^
dfsdfs1112
we need superMHL in video card
Pete J
I imagine those saying that this is completely unnecessary haven't yet tried UHD/4K gaming. Thing is, after a while, you get used to it - then you start to notice aliasing every now and again.
What I personally question is the need for 4K films - unless you have a MASSIVE screen. On my TV I can't really tell the difference between a 1080p film and a 4K film, but the difference is night and day for games.
0blivious
I have tried UHD gaming.
I have a 43" 4K set. To be honest, even at that size, once you get a few feet away, like say, the couch, you can barely tell the difference from the same size TV at 1080p.
I used it as a monitor, up close, and for that, it's fantastic.
4K at 27" would already be plenty clear. 8K is complete overkill at that tiny size. (much like many of the phones, many of which are not VR capable anyways).
I still like that tech is moving forward but 8K is probably 5-10 years from becoming even close to mainstream, let alone affordable for stupid purchases.
tsunami231
40inch 4k vs 65inch 4k I choose the 40inch in terms of pq every time, Seen 24 inch 1440p and 32 in 1440p I choose 24 inch pq wise every time. Have a seen 1080p on 65inch 4k tv I and I rather watch 1080p on 32inch 1080p, now actual 4k is really nice but imo even that is not enough for such huge screen, and would still choose 40in or even 37in 4k tv. Now if I Wanted to look at such small screen which such high res with out proper scaling so things arent impossible to read that is another question which is I would not.
People can see difference and PPI is were it is at. so people that say you "cant" see difference on small screens are just, talking out of there ass, or maybe they "cant" but there is plenty that can.
As for the 8k monitor I would like to know what is response time is, Though I have no doubt with static/slow moving image the PQ is amazing
Neo Cyrus
That would defeat the entire purpose. There's no clear cut universal definition of scaling here, but it's essentially blurry pixels no matter whether you do it through the monitor or GPU settings. It would end up looking signifcantly worse than an actual whatever resolution monitor. That's like buying the clearest glass you can find only to rub mud on it.
It's not the scaling typically talked about when that term is used, those methods usually match pixel for pixel like the stupid checkerboard BS Sony are doing with their PS4 Pro. It's still outputting 3840x2160 actual pixels instead of 1080p being stretched to to 2160p so it doesn't end up looking like blurred garbage.
EspHack
pretty much, at least for phones they can argue Hey! VR! even though that's a hilarious argument on its own right lol
but see the bright side, this will put (artificial) pressure on gpus to get better unlike desktop cpus and their recent history
readonly
Yeah cause VR porn is garbage... Anyone who I have shown my GearVR to and VR porn running on it has immediately asked how they can get it on their phone.
Once you get something like this https://vimeo.com/179832733 with VR porn it will be ridiculous. Thats full motion video where you can move your head to see different angles of the "actors" etc, so its basically like a 3d rendered scene in VR but real life.
Humanoid_1
As an extremely obvious example of what is Really Hard to miss at 27" 4K with no scaling, youtube thumbnails at the side of videos you are watching, the text displaying the channel name and also the "views" text is too small to represent without the "e" in "views", having a semi solid upper part of the "e" due to poor ppi which should be clear hollow and white.
This detail is not exactly small, yet is clearly representative of the limitations of 4K on a 27" monitor.
Still, will be a raather long time before we see much 8K video about I would guess ?
Wish 4K projectors were cheaper, the damn things still only start at about £8,000 🙁
Valken
I cannot say I do not want it. I can't wait for 8K 65" OLED screens for movie buffs!
ElementalDragon
Funny.... cause over on Linus Tech Tips' Youtube channel, they just uploaded a video yesterday where they were gaming at 8K resolution on two of the new Titan X's using 4x 4K displays on NVidia Surround arranged in a 2x2 grid. Running Crysis 3 on Very High brought it nearly to a crawl.
So yea.... 8K gaming is nowhere near a thing yet.
Neo Cyrus
Actually it's pretty important for phones to be at the very least "1440p" for VR because AMOLED phone resolutions are a lie.
It's just some BS Samsung made up to pretend their crappy pentile pattern screens are actually high resolution. The fact is any sort of pentile including the modern Samsung diamond pattern has 1/3rd less subpixels than an RGB array. And no matter what the shills who worked on it tell you it's not comparable at all and you can clearly see the subpixels because of it.
"1080p" on an AMOLED reduced by 1/3rd to give you a more realistically comparable number is 720p. Pentile "1440p" is more like 960p. That's actually not that great for VR as you can still see the subpixels.
Yes I'm well aware you just can't compare it that way, but that's a better comparison than just going by the fake numbers companies spit out.
There's a reason why Google Daydream has a requirement of "1440p"; the real resolution isn't anywhere near that.
abula
For 8k to matter at 27'' you would need to sit at 1 foot or 33 cms aprox, else your eyes wont see the difference between a lower res screen. The further you go back the less resolution matters.
1080p Does Matter – Here’s When (Screen Size vs. Viewing Distance vs. Resolution)
Personally for me 4k is perfect at 32'', my max suggested viewing distance is 2 feet, i sit around 65 cms, so its ideal, for me to have 8k a that viewing distance the diagonal should be around 50'' but at that size, i would have to much head and neck movment because how close im to a 50'' screen, so at the end its not viable for me, and probably for most. I personally think 4k is the sweet spot for PC, we just need 4k OLED HDR 144hz 1ms displays, and we are set for life, until VR becomes the trend.
I'm going to step a little further, 8k for TV is worthless also, you will never be sitting so close for it to matter either way, usually on TVs we are sitting at least 6ft away, for 8k to be noticeable better than 4k at 6ft you would need a 180'' screen.
