Because 8k content is the only reason to get such a display.
8k would allow editing of a 36MP image at 1:1 with about 80% of the image showing. On a 30" monitor that would be amazing for global edits.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New DisplayPort 1.4a Standard Points to 8K Notebook and All-in-One Desktop Displays in 2016
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Because 8k content is the only reason to get such a display.
8k would allow editing of a 36MP image at 1:1 with about 80% of the image showing. On a 30" monitor that would be amazing for global edits.
Agreed, a switch to OLED would nicely improve the quality of the display even at the current pixel density.
I have the same question. Retina is awesome, 5K is too but the difference between Retina and 5K to the average user is very little. And what will 8k do? I am all for better technology, but it has to be useful for something other than boasting that I have more pixels than you do. So my question is what is the use case for 8k?
Who the hell needs this on a 15" screen? Are you a Bird of Prey!?
but 8K for VR screens... now that is interesting.
but 8K for VR screens... now that is interesting.
It's not thaaaat long. Check what NHK is doing in Japan. Actually IIRC some parts of the 2012 London Olympics were filmed and broadcast in 8K (whose commercial name is Super-Hi Vision).
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19370582
Aren't these resolutions pretty much overkill? Other than providing more real estate space, I can barely see the pixels on a MacBook Pro display anyway. Current day graphics chips are just now catching up to comfortably run higher resolutions.
capturing is different than viewing. even smartphones make 4k videos, but practically nobody has TVs and monitors to view them full-sized (i mean, 720p is still the most watched resolution). There is a compact 5K camera. There are no 5K TVs though, LOL. I mean, there are, but who has one?
The laptop may have a port to connect to a larger external display.
I'm all for pushing the standard out as far as it can in order to make it more future proof, but I tend to agree with most of the sentiment here: What's the point if it is so far beyond what our eyes can perceive?
----------
Desktop real estate isn't really the purpose of HiDPI. HiDPI is about updating all the UI resources to high resolution so that everything doesn't become teeny-tiny.
The point of setting a standard is to anticipate tomorrow's needs and usage.
4k TVs are becoming more and more commonplace... and "5k" has no standard - that's why you don't see any TV maker using that resolution.
The way that I read the article, this standard won't work for external displays.
Fix the article..
>> The current DisplayPort standard is 1.2a, with VESA having announced the next-generation 1.3 standard with 5K support last September.
That makes the current DisplayPort standard 1.3; you probably meant the latest shipping by Apple.
>> The current DisplayPort standard is 1.2a, with VESA having announced the next-generation 1.3 standard with 5K support last September.
That makes the current DisplayPort standard 1.3; you probably meant the latest shipping by Apple.
okay, like what? what professional field has a use case to support getting an 8K monitor versus a 4K monitor?
Retina is just a marketing term. Nothing more. Most companies have surpassed what Apple calls "Retina"...
Um... my 220 PPI retina 15" MacBook Pro is all I want. 4k, 8k.... what a joke. As long as they keep that an option (that I won't pay for) I'm ok. But don't make me pay for a better machine and have to pay for that kind of screen. I'm trying to think if I double my PPI would I see any benefit. The answer is no. This is the best screen I've ever had and I don't need 4k or 8k. I think this resolution thing is getting out of hand. I can't see pixels on my MBP or my iPhone. So why continue to make the pixels I can't see even harder to see?
What do we need 8K for at this moment? We are just now getting devices that can actually record in true 4K, so what's the point of having screens that can handle 8K when there aren't any devices that can record in that true of a resolution?
If Apple is charging $2500 for a standard configured 5K iMac I can only scream in horror at what an 8K iMac would cost!!
This is one of the biggest misconceptions about higher resolution screens, that they're merely meant for displaying content at its native resolution. Computer monitors, by and large, are for displaying a ton of different content on the screen all at once. It's why you see so many multiple monitor setups. And it's why computers were able to display HD resolutions way before it became a TV standard. It's not like people using 4K monitors are only using it to watch 4K video.
Even at 70+ inches it's not going to make much of a difference if viewed from a normal distance.
there are 5k tvs, but obviously that's, like, 0,001% of the market. anyways, i was talking about 16k (and that's it's not doubling, but 4x) and trying to say that it probably won't be 2027, but it will be a long time nonetheless till we see it in real life, and especially on the market.