SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the taking-a-look-at-the-big-picture dept.
There's competition in an overfoveated but underserved segment of the display market:
TPV Technology is demonstrating a preliminary version of its upcoming 8K ultra-high-definition display at IFA trade show in Germany. The Philips 328P8K monitor will be a part of the company's professional lineup and will hit the market sometimes next year.
Philips is the second mass-market brand to announce an 8K monitor after Dell, which has been selling its UltraSharp UP3218K for about half of a year now. The primary target audiences for the 328P8K and the UP3218K are designers, engineers, photographers and other professionals looking for maximum resolution and accurate colors. Essentially, Dell's 8K LCD is going to get a rival supporting the same resolution.
At present, TPV reveals only basic specifications of its Philips 328P8K display — 31.5" IPS panel with a 7680x4320 resolution, a 400 nits brightness (which it calls HDR 400) and presumably a 60 Hz refresh rate. When it comes to color spaces, TPV confirms that the 328P8K supports 100% of the AdobeRGB, which emphasizes that the company positions the product primarily for graphics professionals. When it comes to connectivity, everything seems to be similar to Dell's 8K monitor: the Philips 8K display will use two DP 1.3 cables in order to avoid using DP 1.4 with Display Stream Compression 1.2 and ensure a flawless and accurate image quality.
It is noteworthy that the final version of the 328P8K will be equipped with a webcam (something the current model lacks), two 3W speakers as well as USB-A and at least one USB-C port "allowing USB-C docking and simultaneous notebook charging". In order to support USB-C docking with this 8K monitor, the laptop has to support DP 1.4 alternate mode over USB-C and at present, this tech is not supported by shipping PCs. In the meantime, since in the future USB-C may be used a display output more widely, the USB-C input in the Philips 328P8K seems like a valuable future-proof feature (assuming, of course, it fully supports DP 1.4 alt mode over USB-C).
Previously: Dell Announces First "Mass-Market" 8K Display
(Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:31AM (1 child)
Webcam (and mic I suppose)? Not in my house.
Wasn't suckered into a 3D tv, and won't be buying this one either.
I actually prefer a TV that has no direct internet connectivity. I'll add that if I need that, but it won't be theirs.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Informative) by c0lo on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:44AM
There's a difference between a TV and a computer monitor.
Especially when it comes to the needs of "designers, engineers, photographers and other professionals looking for maximum resolution and accurate colors".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:22AM (4 children)
For those wondering: since May 2014, Philips the company has nothing to do with Philips-branded TVs.
Philips started a joint-venture with TPV to produce TVs. Philips sold its remaining shares in that joint-venture by May 2014. The (not so) joint-venture is the company producing the TVs, Philips is mostly just licensing its brand.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Tuesday September 05 2017, @08:44AM (3 children)
While this is true, I don't think Phillips would continue to license its brand if the products are crappy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Insightful) by KritonK on Tuesday September 05 2017, @09:53AM (1 child)
Philips was the first brand I put in my "avoid" list, as everything(*) I bought from them had problems. Thus, any claims by Phillips, that Phillips-branded products are up to their standards, do not amount to much in my book.
(*)Nearly everything. The made-in-Holland Phillips CFLs, that I bought in the early 1990s, are still working, some twenty-five years later. However, Phillips have taken steps to remedy that: their CFLs are now made in China and only last a couple of years, like most other brands.
(Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday September 05 2017, @11:51AM
This.
Philips as a company has changed a lot over its existence. They started from humble beginnings, creating light bulbs and doing well. They expanded into radio and television and made decent stuff post-war, and had a good quality brand name (justly deserved, back then). Then, the push for profits came in the 90s. A few reorganisations followed, together with jettisoning well-doing parts of its business (e.g. TVs, or Polygram). Somewhere in the 90s they transformed from a company that took pride in producing high-tech quality stuff into a company that focused on selling products. Right now, if it's Philips-produced, it's probably okay-ish. But don't expect the quality difference that you may be accustomed to - it's too expensive and the Philips brand is not seen as exclusive enough for that.
For stuff that they don't produce themselves, but only license their brand to? Yeah, that's really only a money thing. You won't get bottom-of-the-market quality, but don't expect anything above average.
Philips used to be an awesome company, proud of what it was creating. Nowadays, most philips-branded stuff you find in a store will not be considered "core business" by the upper management. Nowadays, they're into "wellness" and lighting - the major projects, not the one bulb at a time projects. Pride in consumer goods seems to be a thing of the past.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Tuesday September 05 2017, @01:48PM
RCA used to make very high quality goods, but today, RCA is garbage. Probably the same with Phillips.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2, Disagree) by bob_super on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:21PM (4 children)
Reading this on a 4K 40-inch monitor, I'm really wondering what the point of 32-inch 8K can be (HDR and RGB are good features).
If you need a near-sighted guy with a magnifying glass to see the pixels, why bother? A 4K with interpolation will give the same visual result.
But bragging rights, and money...
(Score: 2) by takyon on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:42PM
Most people's first exposure to HDR might be on a smartphone screen. I saw this yesterday:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/142162-netflix-confirms-hdr-compatibility-with-samsung-galaxy-note-8-and-lg-v30 [pocket-lint.com]
Well, it's a good thing for smartphone-powered VR headsets... unless it blinds you with a sudden contrast transition?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:58PM
I use a 28" 4K monitor (that's around 150ppi density), and it's great for working with photography.
Now I can appreciate the full potential (big and with all the details) of photo without having to print.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @10:00PM (1 child)
I don't know; I used a 22" 4k (ye olde T221), and while it was a world apart from normal monitors at the time, it was not quite fine enough (I could see the pixels, barely). 32" 8k is about half again the pixel density -- at first that density sounds just about right to me, but then since a larger screen is typically further away, it's probably overkill. I could see 6k or so being the best answer in the 30-32" range, but I won't argue with 8k once the price comes down.
Remember, if we can't see the pixels, we can stop caring about anti-aliasing, subpixel rendering, and hinting. (And all the holy wars that go with them!) What will our grandkids think when they read about these bizarre algorithms people used to invent to accommodate the deficiencies of their primitive 4k displays?
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Tuesday September 05 2017, @10:21PM
With my 4K 40-inch screen, I see the pixels if I'm about 10 inches away.
I'm typically three times or more as far. Having more pixels would make it potentially a ridiculously small bit smoother, but it wouldn't really be more visual information. Or, to be exact, if I cared about that extra information, I would zoom in anyway.
That monitor is much smaller. So not only are those pixels barely visible to anyone past 4 inches, but at standard viewing distance, you can fit less information than I do on my $400 TV (a true desktop with many full-pages docs side by side).
Gimme HDR any time. That's worth my HDMI/DP bandwidth. Getting 4 times the pixels adds no value.
(Score: 1) by LAV8.ORg on Wednesday September 06 2017, @06:17AM
I ran numbers on this recently.
A 30" 2560x1600 monitor has 100.6 pixels per inch.
For approximate pixel size parity, 4k is at 44" and 8k is at 88"
This is of interest to me because I calculate very high resolution fractal art, and run my own prints. When it comes to resolution, printers are much better, with 300 dpi considered the minimum acceptable for photos. The typical inkjet photo printer will also do double that, and some claim much more, but without meaningful technical justification. Anyway, the higher pixel density certainly allows for finer detail, but it doesn't eliminate the most noticeable/common artifacts--jaggies and discontinuities from thin lines and edges very close to orthogonal relative to the screen. Which is to say it's easy to overlook the better (tiny little) detail for the obvious defects. But also that things such as non-rectangular pixel grids and OLED style true black could improve facets of perception in ways that more pixels can't.