http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/ Engadget Comments for NHK prototypes one-fourth of a 116-inch, 8K plasma set (video) http://www.engadget.com/media/feedlogo.gif http://www.engadget.com en-us Copyright 2012 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only. Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 8:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
7680 / ((cos(arctan(4320 / 7680)) x 58) = 152 ppi]]>Jun 11th 2010 9:21AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/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]]>Jun 11th 2010 9:33AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
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!]]>Jun 11th 2010 9:38AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
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.
]]>Jun 11th 2010 9:44AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/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 :))]]>Jun 11th 2010 9:46AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
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]]>Jun 11th 2010 9:48AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/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]]>Jun 11th 2010 11:31AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
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.]]>Jun 11th 2010 12:09PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
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.]]>Jun 11th 2010 12:11PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 2:43PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
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. ]]>Jun 11th 2010 6:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/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? ]]>Jun 12th 2010 2:54AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/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. ]]>Jun 12th 2010 4:40PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 12th 2010 10:52PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 8:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 9:07AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 9:10AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 9:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 9:11AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 9:32AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
A larger iPad? Now that is just too much magic and revolution for me to even begin to comprehend.]]>Jun 11th 2010 10:37AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
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 :)]]>Jun 11th 2010 9:56AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 11th 2010 11:13AMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
Because it's a great technology and has superior quality when compared to LCD?]]>Jun 11th 2010 12:29PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/Jun 12th 2010 10:44PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/
lol]]>Jun 11th 2010 1:23PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/you have to see it ,its unbelievable.]]>Jun 12th 2010 9:34PMhttp://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/11/nhk-prototypes-one-fourth-of-a-116-inch-8k-plasma-set/

]]>Jun 12th 2010 11:03PM