Hacker News Reader

Comment by Nokinside | Hacker News Reader

What you saw was the limitation of display technology, not the potential in 8K. 70 mm IMAX is equivalent to something like 12K (5-perf) or 18K (15-perf).

What is needed is better display technology to exploit the 8K.

View on HN

Or giant screens. The problem is density not resolution.

But your eyes can’t see the whole screen. Even at 40 degreees you lose detail at the edges.

Give me 120fps and HDR before 4K, let alone 8k

Anecdata, I know, but I am much happier with my 165Hz, 2560x1440 monitor than my same-sized 60Hz 3840x2160 screen sitting next to it. The extra fluidity given to mouse motions, text/window scrolling, etc is a much bigger improvement to usability than I would have initially guessed it would be.

Do you mind sharing what model that 165hz monitor is?

It's the Acer Predator G-Sync monitor from a couple of years ago that I picked up during a Costco sale. At the time I paid ~$500, not sure what they're going for now. It's been great. Wish I'd gotten two of them.

[edit] picture of the Costco inventory card, http://i.imgur.com/hNWgFt7.jpg

What card(s) are you driving it with?

Plain-jane EVGA GTX 1080SC. So chosen because it was the only 1080 I could find at the time that only needed a single additional power header, I was building a mini-ITX based workstation, and space for wires was at a premium. No complaints, though, it's held up like a champ.

(This is the card: https://www.amazon.com/EVGA-GeForce-Support-Graphics-08G-P4-... )

When you're stretching a movie across an IMAX-sized screen, you really want the pixels. I can't fit an IMAX screen in my living room though, so I can't really see the benefit.

And unless the movie was designed for that IMAX field of view, it's going to look some combination of ridiculous and terrible.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com