mobile photography technology, culture and community
www.dpreview.com

Sharp shoots ahead in the screen resolution race with 8K TV prototype

138

If you've been struggling to find appropriate ways to bore friends and family with your vacation pictures since you scrapped your slide projector 10 years ago, this year's Consumer Electronics Show has good news for you. Virtually every TV manufacturer is displaying at least one 4K (3840 × 2160) model. These screens offer four times the resolution of a Full HD (1920 x 1080) TV. Such high resolution content is still scarce, but even if you struggle to find streaming or broadcast content, 4K TVs are great for displaying high-resolution images from DSLRs or other digital cameras.

However, one manufacturer is taking things a step further. Sharp is showing a prototype of an 85-inch 8K LCD screen. At 7680 x 4320 pixels, the screen offers 16 times the resolution of a standard 1080 TV and would allow you to display a 33MP image without any downscaling or cropping. The image detail and vibrance of the screen is quite astonishing. You can only see individual pixels if you press your nose right onto the screen, a very immersive way of watching TV.

While 4K content is rare, 8K content is virtually nonexistent at this point. The clips Sharp showed on the prototype have been recorded by the Japanese Broadcasting Corporation NHK, which has been doing research into 8K technology since 1995. Nevertheless, if you want to display your DSLR or medium format digital images in the best possible way, this resolution giant might just be what you've been waiting for.

Comments

Total comments: 138
12
rdub
By rdub (Jan 11, 2013)

No graphic cards yet, but for just $225,000 you can have one made for you and you unique setup.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Jan 11, 2013)

Right, use an 8K 85" as your PC monitor to view your digital images . This will be on Amazon in 2050.
BTW this 85" 8K Sharp was shown almost two years ago.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9U7e_quvkPQ

Comment edited 7 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Lars Rehm
By Lars Rehm (Jan 11, 2013)

this is an updated version apparently

1 upvote
tiko
By tiko (Jan 11, 2013)

Would be really nice to edit and display those 36MP D800 images on :)

0 upvotes
DaveKaiPiper
By DaveKaiPiper (Jan 11, 2013)

I really do this is the way forward. 3d is pretty bad in an fairness and just is not an option for a home or house.

Also.. I wonder what this would be like to edit photography on ? Are there any graphics cards that could handle it ??

0 upvotes
Combatmedic870
By Combatmedic870 (Jan 11, 2013)

New Graphics card can probably handle it. but they do not support it. do any support 4k yet?

0 upvotes
arab_ninja
By arab_ninja (Jan 11, 2013)

So I guess we'll be seeing 16k prototypes next year.

1 upvote
Francesco
By Francesco (Jan 11, 2013)

sorry posted here by accident

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 6 minutes after posting
1 upvote
technic
By technic (Jan 11, 2013)

suitable graphics cards will be difficult to find for quite some time but you don't need them to use 4K images. The graphics can be built-in, a 4K TV set could display media content from USB or internal cardreader, and other devices have been shown that will allow hires photo editing, e.g. the Panasonic 20" 4K tablet.

0 upvotes
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Jan 11, 2013)

I can see this being big in photo galleries. :-)

Welcome to unscaled photos on monitors.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Jan 11, 2013)

If you check on New Egg.... you will find about 33 or 34 PC graphics cards from AMD-ATI that can do native 4094 x 2160 image resolution output.... and none from Nvidia that can do 4K, ha-ha-ha.

0 upvotes
leecamera
By leecamera (Jan 12, 2013)

Speaking as a broadcast Director of Photography...

Do we need 4K...? Probably not as the difference in resolution is only noticeable of huge screens at close distances - which will no doubt be undermined by high compression rates from greedy broadcasters.

4K is useful for complex post production tasks such as compositing, but the average print at your average cinema is regarded as about 2K resolution, which seems just high enough for most.

Besides with 4K and it's 8x data rate, just think of the post production time required.

What we need is 50p (sorry - 60p to our US friends) to give quality motion.

We need TV's to give accurate colours and dynamic range so OLEDs are a good thing (as is my lovely Viera Plasma 42" (viewed at a comfortable 13ft)

We need broadcasters to reduce compression. If you'd ever have seen SD DigiBeta on a grade 1 monitor then you'd know what I was talking about - sometimes it's not just the number of dots on a picture...

0 upvotes
tjdean01
By tjdean01 (Jan 13, 2013)

If you have a 32" TV 720p is sufficient. 50" you need 1080p. If you have a 70" or larger TV I can see where a vertical resolution of 2180 would be nicer, if there were content, that is. Panasonic's plasmas are still the best image quality out there, and you can get a 60" for $1700.

0 upvotes
Total comments: 138
12
About us
Sitemap
Connect