NHK prototypes one-fourth of a 116-inch, 8K plasma set (video)

NHK has been working on 33 megapixel, 8K Super Hi-Vision displays for quite some time now. As the story goes, in 2005 the group's Science and Technology Labs estimated a necessary 0.3mm dot pitch for plasma screens in the 100-inch category to achieve the necessary 7,680 x 4,320 pixels for display. At the time, the best plasma could muster was 0.9mm, but now the researchers have created a prototype 58-inch screen with 0.33mm pixel pitch. Ergo, four such prototypes stacked together should create a 116-inch window to the world that just about displays 8K video. It's still a ways off from market, but be honest, are you really already griping about the visible pixels on your 1080p set? Totally inadequate web video version after the break.

[xkmasada Posted Jun 11th 2010 8:56AM]

Anybody care to calculate the implied PPI of the 58" prototype?

[USApple Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:21AM]

@xkmasada

7680 / ((cos(arctan(4320 / 7680)) x 58) = 152 ppi

[S4E Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:33AM]

@xkmasada
Forget it, it is not coming to the theaters near you. I think we all need 4K (4 times more pixels) but 8K (4 times MORE pixels) is overkill

[Paul Elmy Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:38AM]

@S4E

Just like when you say standard definition is overkill, when high definition just came out a decade ago. BRING IT ON, SUPER ULTRA GODDAMN HD!

[Kratos Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:44AM]

@USApple

The resolution of the display isn't 7680x4320 that is the full Super Hi-Vision resolution. You would have to put 4 of these displays together to get 7680x4320.

The resolution of each display is 3840x2160. The real PPI of each display is about 75.


You don't really need a very high PPI with a TV screen. The further you sit away from the display the smaller each pixel will look. If you are sitting 10 feet away from a TV the PPI is acceptable at 40 to 80.

It's only when you get closer that you start seeing pixels. For example if your looking at a photograph or display 10 inches away from your face you need about 300DPI not to see individual pixels.

For a TV you don't need such a high PPI.

[S4E Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:46AM]

@Paul Elmy
Paul, I also like SUPERs, POOPERs and GODDAMNs too. But after some threshold there is no difference. Unless you use it for special purposes. For example to brag in corporate meetings :))

[Kratos Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:48AM]

@Paul Elmy

lol i love when people say "OMG this is too much". I bet the first gigabyte hard drive you saw gave you a heart attack. 33 megapixels is still low by the standards of your eyes.

A little rough math:

90 degrees * 60 arc-minutes/degree * 1/0.3 * 90 * 60 * 1/0.3 = 324,000,000 pixels

120 * 120 * 60 * 60 / (0.3 * 0.3) = 576 megapixels.


Hmm yeah your eye can see quiteee a bit more than 33 megapixels. I think the team of scientists working on these displays would be fairly knowledgable about this.

I bet youd have a heart attack if you knew what the resolution of very high quality 35MM or very high quality 70MM was.

Heres a good article on the human eye:

http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

[Xstream Posted Jun 11th 2010 11:31AM]

@Kratos
actually it can't cause you cant focus on such a huge area at once. most people can't even see the difference between 720p and 1080p at their normal viewing distance away from their hd tv.
http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

[Kratos Posted Jun 11th 2010 12:09PM]

@Xstream

The average person doesn't have a 58 inch/116 inch set. If your TV is 32 inches big your not going to notice the difference between 720P and 1080P. To make matters worse if the content you are looking at is low bitrate then your going to struggle even more to tell the difference.

With a 116 inch set you are certainly going to be able to tell the diffrence between 1 megapixel, 2 megapixels and 33 megapixels. Obviously squeezing 33 megapixels into a 32 inch TV(I believe thats the most popular size in HDTVs around the world) is not going to do that resolution justice.

[GGG Posted Jun 11th 2010 12:11PM]

@Kratos

Your calculations are wrong, the human eye only has lot of receptors in the centre. If it had the same density all over, i might believe your claim about 576 MP. But actually the density of receptors falls really fast in all directions and so humans are only capable of seeing sharp images exactly in the direction they are looking, everything else is blurry.


Furthermore 8K resolution is completely pointless. Even on a still image of that size you have to take some time and look at it closely to appreciate all the detail. But in fast moving video you have no chance of telling the difference between 1080p and 8K.

[barkingghos Posted Jun 11th 2010 2:43PM]

@GGG This is true, and the fact that the human brain's sensitivity to changes in resolution is more on one axis (horizontal) then the other (vertical). Now, add these lab conditions into the thought consumption and realize that probably 99% of flat panel owners sit well outside the range for them to benefit from the panel's resolution in the first place makes the entire discussion moot.

[S4E Posted Jun 11th 2010 6:29PM]

@USApple

I think you are wrong with the number. It is 76 DPI screen. The implied DPI (the DPI of the same resolution screen with smaller size but the same view angle placed at 30 inch distance) is almost 294.

[Motoken Posted Jun 12th 2010 2:54AM]

@Kratos
i think this technology would be good if you had a 4k 32 inch monitor, but even at 2 feet viewing distance 8K would be much?

[S4E Posted Jun 12th 2010 4:40PM]

@USApple
My bad, i also made a mistake. I took 30 inch instead of 30 cm (12").

So my first number of regular DPI is correct but iDPI ( implied DPI ) one is actually 747. I take the viewing distance equal to diagonal 116". iDPI increases with the viewing distance and if you are at the twice of diagonal from the screen it is twice larger too 1495!

Make an experiment.
All 1920x1200 monitors have the same iDPI around 189 (according to this definition you bring it closer with the smaller screen size) and pixelation is visible. Try to increase viewing distance twice when iDPI becomes 380 and you do not see pixels. I do not see them. Means we all need 4K and more then that is almost worthless unless you will use it for something requiring look at very close distance too.

So this monitor is made for special purposes of being seen as close as your hand distance as well as from the auditory. Architecture with its super high res static images is one of such applications. They are taken by Mamiya or Hasselblad. Advertisement is another one. We all well know that for the close look 0.3 mm pitch is critical number.

[engeek Posted Jun 12th 2010 10:52PM]

@GGG Yes, the human eye has sharpest acuity in the center, but when you are at an Imax, for instance, you are not looking at the screen like a photograph, your eyes are constantly scanning the peripherals and then adding the video together. And not all video is "fast moving." In fact, some of the best movies have slow pans, cinematic sweeps and static cameras, at least every once in awhile. Anyway, what better way to immerse yourself than with a screen that you can stand close enough to that it covers your peripherals (similar to Imax or Cinerama) and not be able to make out individual pixels? Now all we need is the new Google 1GBPS internet connections to take advantage of some UHDTV channel surfing!

[hammydbest Posted Jun 11th 2010 8:56AM]

yummy... biiiiiiiig tvs

[jrm125 Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:07AM]

No bezel and you've got a deal!

[untitled Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:10AM]

Mmm...Pixel Density...

[S4E Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:11AM]

Not sure about 8K for the movies (there is no such equipment!) but 4K for monitors larger then 24" is long overdue. It is not about the pixel size but the angular size of the pixel. In other words from which distance you are looking at this pixel. Pixelation of current 1920x1200 monitors when size is 20" and larger is TOO visible. I remember DELL first started 17" laptops with 1920x1200 resolution almost 10 years ago and you do not see pixelation there. Maximum what we have right now is 2560x1600 but this is on larger screens like 30" where pixels visible a lot.

[Oflife Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:11AM]

Uh oh, iPad 15" with Retina display for 2012?

[Kid Red Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:32AM]

@Oflife You mean 150" iPad for 2012 that you can hang on your wall.

[HawtDawg Posted Jun 11th 2010 10:37AM]

@Oflife

A larger iPad? Now that is just too much magic and revolution for me to even begin to comprehend.

[bahathir Posted Jun 11th 2010 9:56AM]

Ooo... NHK already developing retina display version of HDTV :)..

Actually, I already saw plasma HDTV (HiVsion) back in early 1990's, and in early 2000's, I already used IBM T220, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors .:) Yes, the 4K LCD display, which need to use at least 2 HDMI input from Nvidia Quattro level graphic card to get a usable or satisfying refresh rate.

8K display... Wow, now I see every pimples on actor's face very clearly :)

[kcmurphy88 Posted Jun 11th 2010 11:13AM]

And it has to be plasma why?

[kgod0wnz Posted Jun 11th 2010 12:29PM]

@kcmurphy88

Because it's a great technology and has superior quality when compared to LCD?

[engeek Posted Jun 12th 2010 10:44PM]

@kgod0wnz Where's my 152" 8K Super AMOLED? With 3D (or stereoscopic, to be exact)?

[Kromatik Posted Jun 11th 2010 1:23PM]

Pfft, I want a 55" OLED RGBY Ultra-HD @ 1200Hz...

lol

[besi Posted Jun 12th 2010 9:34PM]

im more exited about super hi vision than 3D.
you have to see it ,its unbelievable.

[shv Posted Jun 12th 2010 11:03PM]

Whereas a painting like a Manet or Pissaro is relatively easy to see at all times, a work of art like a movie in its orginal rendering intent is much more ephemeral, primarily because of commercial distribution constraints. So for instance if you missed Avatar 3D in a true-IMAX screen like Lincoln Square, it's not very likely that you'll be able to catch that level of presentation for a while. On the other hand, the evolving technology might make it a reality for a home user to get closer to that level of performance with a 20 foot screen and I gamble that in such case 1080P might not fulfill one's visual acuity, thus justifying higher resolutions like Super HiVision. Network content delivery is now overcoming the numerical aperture limitations of medium like BR...