Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 12 submissions in the queue.
posted by martyb on Tuesday September 05 2017, @04:46AM   Printer-friendly
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


Original Submission

Related Stories

Dell Announces First "Mass-Market" 8K Display 25 comments

Good news for anyone looking to overwhelm their fovea centralis with pixels: Dell has announced the first "mass-market" 8K (7680×4320) display, which will be sold for around $5,000 beginning in March:

Dell introduced the industry's first mass-market 8K display aimed at professional designers, engineers, photographers and software developers. The UP3218K will be available this March, but its rough $5,000 price tag will be rather high even for professionals dealing with content creation. That being said, $5K or so was the price that the original 4K MST monitors launched at in 2013, which perhaps makes this display price more palatable. On the other hand, right now an 8K professional display is such a niche product that the vast majority of users will have to wait a few years to see the price come down.

Up to now, 8K reference displays were available only from Canon, in very low quantities and at very high prices. The displays were primarily aimed at video professionals from TV broadcasting companies like NHK, who are working on 8K (they call it Super Hi-Vision) content to be available over-the-air in select regions of Japan next year. A number of TV makers have also announced their ultra large 8K UHDTVs, but these are hardly found in retail. Overall, Dell is the first company to offer an 8K display that can be bought online by any individual with the money and be focused on the monitor market rather than TVs.

At present, Dell is not publishing the full specifications of its UltraSharp 32 Ultra HD 8K monitor (UP3218K), but reveals key specs like resolution (7680×4320), contrast ratio (1300:1), brightness (400 nits), pixel density (280 ppi) as well as supported color spaces: 100% Adobe RGB and 100% sRGB.


Original Submission

AU Optronics to Ship 8K Panels to TV Manufacturers in H1 2018 21 comments

More 8K (4320p) TVs will be coming soon. AU Optronics has announced plans to ship 8K panels to TV manufacturers starting in the first half of 2018:

The lineup of panels featuring a 7680×4320 resolution will be aimed at ultra-high-end TVs and sizes will range from 65 to 85 inches, said Liao Wei-Lun, president of AUO's video products business group, at a press conference. The high-ranking executive did not disclose other specifications of the panels, such as luminance and contrast ratio, but given their positioning, it is logical to expect their characteristics to be comparable to 8K UHDTVs to be offered by LG and Samsung.

Multiple TV makers demonstrated various 8K UHDTVs at various trade shows in the recent years, but so far no one has started to sell them. Given the lack of content, it is hard to expect high demand for 8K televisions in the next couple of years, aside from the halo factor - nonetheless, AUO expects 8K panels to account for 10% of its '65-inch and above' panel shipments in 2020. The presumably high-cost of the panels would indicate that in terms of unit shipments this might still be a low-ish number. However, as with 4K displays, someone has to release 8K TVs to stimulate content providers to offer appropriate material. At this year's CES, Samsung demonstrated its Q9S, its first commercial 8K TV-set, but it did not announce its pricing or availability timeframe. LG and Sony also demonstrated their 8K TVs at CES 2018, but nothing is clear about their plans regarding these products.

[...] As for 8K displays for PCs, Dell is currently the only company to offer an 8K monitor (this one is based on a panel from LG, so the latter might introduce its own 8K display at some point). Philips last year promised to start shipments 328P8K monitor in 2018, so expect the product to hit the market in the coming months too.

Need something to watch on your 8K TV? How about the 2020 Olympics?

Also at DigiTimes.

Related: LG to Demo an 8K Resolution TV at the Consumer Electronics Show
Dell Announces First "Mass-Market" 8K Display
Philips Demos an 8K Monitor
Pimax Launches Kickstarter for "8K" Virtual Reality Headset
HDMI 2.1 Released
LG's 88-inch 8K OLED TV


Original Submission

A New Wave of 8K TVs is Coming 53 comments

Sharp Announces 2nd Gen 8K UHD TVs at IFA

Sharp this week introduced its second-generation 8K ultra-high def TVs at IFA in Berlin. The new televisions use the company's new panels as well as the latest processors that can upscale Full-HD and Ultra-HD 4K content to a 7680×4320 resolution.

The initial lineup of Sharp's 2nd Gen Aquos 8K UHD TVs will include models featuring sizes of 60, 70, and 80 inches. The new televisions will be based on the company's new image processor that doubles its compute throughput over the predecessor and can upscale 2K as well as 4K content to an 8K resolution with a 100/120 Hz refresh rate.

Samsung's first 8K TV goes on sale next month

Samsung is announcing its first commercial 8K TV, the Q900R, at IFA 2018 this week. The QLED panel will be available in 65-inch, 75-inch, 82-inch, and 85-inch sizes, and is capable of peak brightness of 4,000 nits. It also supports the newer HDR10+ format backed by Samsung and Amazon.

The incredibly poor detail of 4K makes my eyes bleed; it's impossible to look at. At least now we'll have some more 8K options to tide us over until we reach 64K (61440×34560).

See also: Tech Tent: Are you ready for an 8K telly?
Samsung's 8K QLED TV looks great, but who needs it?
Toshiba Intros Its First Ever 8K TV Concept – IFA 2018

Previously: AU Optronics to Ship 8K Panels to TV Manufacturers in H1 2018

Related: Dell Announces First "Mass-Market" 8K Display
Philips Demos an 8K Monitor


Original Submission

Sharp Demos a 31.5-Inch 8K 120Hz HDR Monitor; Sony Uses Modules to Build a 783-Inch 16K Screen 11 comments

Sharp Demonstrates 31.5-Inch 8K 120Hz HDR Monitor

Sharp this week demonstrated its first 31.5-inch HDR display featuring a 7680×4320 resolution and a 120 Hz refresh rate. The monitor uses the company's IGZO technology and the manufacturer evaluates plans to release this LCD commercially.

Being one of the key backers of an 8K resolution as well as the Super Hi-Vision format, Sharp was among the first to release 8K screens and 8K cameras for professionals as well as 8K UHD TVs for consumers. Several years ago, Sharp demonstrated its first 27-inch 8K IGZO monitor with a 120 Hz refresh rate and 1000 nits luminance, but the device has never been released commercially (at least, it has not been available in stores). This week the company showcased another 8Kp120 display.

Meanwhile, Sony has created a monstrous 783-inch display:

The screen is 19.2 meters (63 feet) long and 5.4 meters (17 feet) high, it features a diagonal of 783 inches and is generally larger than a bus. Sony does not disclose exact resolution of the display (other than saying that it has around 16,000 horizontal pixels), though judging by the looks of the screen we are dealing with something that has a non-standard resolution and a non-standard aspect ratio.

Sony's 16K 783-inch screen uses the company's Crystal LED technology that uses multiple Micro LED-based modules to build custom displays featuring virtually any size, any resolution, and any aspect ratio. Featuring individually-controlled Micro LEDs, the modules have no bezels and can be attached to each other seamlessly. Sony and Samsung use Micro LED/direct-lit LED-based modules to build custom screens for cinemas, airports, showrooms, and other venues that need large displays.

Related: Dell Announces First "Mass-Market" 8K Display
Philips Demos an 8K Monitor
A New Wave of 8K TVs is Coming


Original Submission

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:31AM (1 child)

    by frojack (1554) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:31AM (#563670) Journal

    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

      by c0lo (156) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @06:44AM (#563674) Journal

      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.

      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
  • (Score: 4, Informative) by FakeBeldin on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:22AM (4 children)

    by FakeBeldin (3360) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:22AM (#563679) Journal

    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)

      by c0lo (156) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @08:44AM (#563695) Journal

      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
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by KritonK on Tuesday September 05 2017, @09:53AM (1 child)

        by KritonK (465) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @09:53AM (#563705)

        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

          by FakeBeldin (3360) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @11:51AM (#563724) Journal

          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

        by mcgrew (701) <publish@mcgrewbooks.com> on Tuesday September 05 2017, @01:48PM (#563750) Homepage Journal

        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)

    by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:21PM (#563829)

    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

      by takyon (881) <takyonNO@SPAMsoylentnews.org> on Tuesday September 05 2017, @05:42PM (#563833) Journal

      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

      by bart9h (767) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @07:58PM (#563895)

      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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 05 2017, @10:00PM (#563942)

      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

        by bob_super (1357) on Tuesday September 05 2017, @10:21PM (#563954)

        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

    by LAV8.ORg (6653) on Wednesday September 06 2017, @06:17AM (#564057)

    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.

(1)