Hacker News Reader

Comment by xwintermutex | Hacker News Reader

Up to 8K displays? Other than those Bloomberg terminal guys, who needs more than 3 displays?

Thanks to Moore's law, and desks surface growing 2x every 18 months, we won't have to wait long to really enjoy Win 10 to the fullest.

My office desk is still the same size.

But it has a lower TDP.

It's about the display with 8K resolution, not 8 thousand monitors. Good to see that they are prepare to be future-proof for the next 5-10 years.

Your parent was making fun of the ambiguous (maybe even incorrect) headline. Compare to:

Microsoft’s Windows 10 will support displays up to 8K

8k is considered to be the final resolution for digital displays as it should be sufficient for people with the best vision.

Then someone will invent a 4th primary colour.

Already there for tetrachromatics like Concetta Antico.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concetta_Antico

I don't believe that for a second. My 5" phone has 1920x1080 resolution and it was a very noticeable step up in quality. Assuming the dpi of my phone is near the limit of what is necessary, it'd take more than 8K to fill my field of view with displays at the same DPI.

> My 5" phone has 1920x1080 resolution and it was a very noticeable step up in quality.

Compared to?

The 1280x720 resolution 4.6" phone it replaced.

How far do you hold your phone from the eyes? Now compare it to your regular TV - how far do you watch it from? With 55" 4k UHD you'd get retina-style appearance from 1.5m upwards.

Two issues with that:

For movie watching people keep wanting bigger screens. You can buy 80" TV's, and then come projectors.

Secondly, my main screen use is for monitors, where I am only about twice the distance away from how I typically hold my phone.

So you're saying that 8K ought to be enough for anybody?

Basically that's the mood in the industry for the past 5 years or so.

I am using a 31" Cine 4k 10-bit monitor and barring the very latest M.2 PCIe SSDs, I can't even get realtime playback of uncompressed 14-bit RAW 4k@24fps footage on a top-end system (60fps is a sci-fi). Not to mention a top-end NVidia GPU won't allow me to smoothly run any recent game in best settings in 4k or UHD, experiencing occasional signal drop-outs while driving 4k x 2k @ 60Hz via DP or miniDP with expensive cables, slow progress of CPU performance improvements since 2004, and indeed it looks like it might be the case 8k will be the final digital TV resolution unless some dramatic technological change occurs. Cinemas with their large screens seem to be doing just fine with 4k.

My 55" UHD TV shows noticeable improvements only when I stand closer than 1.5m, subconsciously I have a feeling of a better picture quality under 3m distance while driving 4:4:4 UHD@60Hz from a computer via HDMI 2.0 (YMMV)

"it should be sufficient for people with the best vision"

Sitting within 30cm on the screen I guess?

Maybe it opens up a whole new lucrative market - from audiophiles to screenophiles ;-)

Which is a self-correcting problem for "people with the best vision" :)

Personally I find 4 to be the comfortable minimum for using adobe after-effects.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com