World's First 8K Ultra High Definition Display #DigInfo

[Gilgamith]

I can see pixels... oh wait... it's my monitor

[Gnosis4you]

its no Sony, No Samsung... its SHARP lol

[yoort]

new iphone 100 will have this display

[JFrameMan]

I watched this video at 360p.

[TheIkawatay]

its like a painting,"better at far"

[yiffybunny]

I want one! I want one! I want one!

[Jewkake1]

Gaming on that along with 3d compatibility will simply kill humanity

[DeathSkwid]

At a certain point, your eyes can't tell the difference until you're in licking distance of the TV.

[crazykong2]

T.v is dead anyways.

[MuscleGainer411]

We will need a crazy internet connection for viewing this resolution online ><

[MidtownMadness1]

beautiful

[Shutterbun4]

Now if only somebody would produce something worth watching!

[troyarmstrong434]

@Shutterbun4 your funny

[thearchiveable]

Amazing. In 2023 it will be mainstram. ;-)

[horrorguy98]

HOW ARE SATELLITE COMPANIES like Direct tv.......Dish network..SKY TV suppose to Keep up With this ?..........THEY Can barely keep up with NORMAL 1980 x 1080p movies and show channels.........

[SinX0000]

@horrorguy98 They can, but they don't its not financially beneficial for them to do it because if they offer 720p one year, then 1080p the year after, 1440p after that etc etc each year until 8K and further, they'd never make money because people would wait for the next one. They just milk each technology while they can, then jump on the next bandwagon as soon as everyone has the previous one.

[horrorguy98]

@SinX0000

O......I never thought about it like that.....Thanks for clearing that up

[RidenFunny01]

*Now ask yourself gadget guy can you do this*

[idkagoodusernameyet]

Very nice and all, but I don't think I would need this since my eyesight is not that great anymore...

[IGotBallzOfStell]

GIMME THAT

[Bradbssargdons]

Ok I see what I was doing.. I feel kind of dumb. Its 4x hd vertically AND 4x hd horizontally not just 4x hd altogether.. so yep. I was wrong :\

[Bradbssargdons]

great... now the link isnt working...

[therobinmalik]

@bradbssargdons FOUR FOUR FOUR FOUR! Saying it in capital letters doesn't make it correct. You're wrong, as Lickedhorn has frequently pointed out.

[Bradbssargdons]

@therobinmalik youre both still wrong. I dont know how else to explain it. Go to the link I posted. Its a TV with the same resolution being referred to as FOUR, YES FOUR FOUR FOUR times the resolution of 1920x1080. This isnt rocket science....

[civilisationskerl]

The calculator of my dog has still a better quality.

[Bradbssargdons]

ubergizmo. com/2011/09/sharp-worlds-first­-85-8k4k-display/

Four times 1080p, not 16

[Axeiaa]

@Bradbssargdons

Four times yes.. four HD monitors next to each other, and four above each other.

Four times four is? Exactly.. that's why this is screen is sixteen times the Full HD resolution.

[Bradbssargdons]

This display is not 16x HD as it claims. Its 4x the resolution of 1080p HD. 1920x1080 multiplied by FOUR is 7680x4320, the resolution of this display. If it were 16x HD the resolution would be 1920x1080 multiplied by 16 = 30,720x17280. Still AWESOME though. Can you imagine if it were actually 16x HD? Damn...

[LickedHorn]

@Bradbssargdons 7680 times 4320 equals 33177600. 1920 times 1080 equals 2073600. Divide 33177600 by 2073600 and you get 16.

[Bradbssargdons]

@LickedHorn Hahahaha! Look at the graphic at 0:20. All you have to notice is that there are four rectangles stacked on each axis. The other rectangles are irrelevant in determining resolution otherwise they would be counted multiple times. Whats the vertical line count of 1080p HD? 1920. The graphic shows FOUR blocks of 1920 vertical lines across the top. Therefore, FOUR times the resolution of 1080p, not 16.

[LickedHorn]

@Bradbssargdons Screens are two dimensional, so you need to count the horizontal dimension, too. 4 times 4 is 16.

[PS3boyGER]

looks like the perfect bedroom tv lol

[MaivoTube]

99 people watch movies on iPad

[RayGunL]

But Will It Blend?

[predvcecerom]

wow just woooow and btw dear santa ...

[mda40000]

Displays are what control the video device industry. The reason Microsoft or Sony won't take the Kinect sensor and playstation move controller out of their asses is because right now, there isn't a large demand for 1080p displays because they are still "too pricey" for some. If we start making 4k displays a luxury like 1080p HDTV's are today, then we can manufacturers to lower prices on 1080p TV's and get the devices that are geared towards graphics to be updated.

[MrCmasternumber1hero]

so? my 20,000 inch 3d tv has 50 k.

[larsostli]

That scene at 0:42 is suspicious because you can see the gray building behind the car fade into a dark city at night, but it was day at the car scene.. Hmm..

[95AlexisOlivas]

Where i connect my xbox?

[MrTavanas]

Asian strikes again

[docksta]

The input lag and pixel response time/ghosting is really bad on these, not pleasant to watch.

[Nefus1988]

This gotta be good with porn :D

[cheilin80]

i am watching this in SUPER MEGA ULTRA HIGH DEFINITION 4D because my pc have a quality of 10000p AND is not 3d IS 4D

[abvflux]

00:42

HOLY FUCKING SHITBALLS

[ID345891]

@abvflux it's fake.. look closely you'll see buildings disapear, also suddenly night.

[abvflux]

@ID345891 Aw fuck, you're right.

[NewCandyCane]

But will it blend?

[saimsboy]

its more expensive than a 1 hour movie record with this definition

[Yotta1983]

tech tech tech

[kazziu]

Mam taki nad kiblem

[jozethdotme]

Now they get HD seizures whilst watching Japanese cartoon videos

[OOOBigMacOOO]

0:42 is insane!

[A1234567890J1]

ah shit, we cant see how good it looks because we only have 1080p monitors.

[gabrielirlanda]

guess what...japanese....haha :D

[brushfirecomic44]

How much????

[kIdReckL3sS]

@veskopolo lmao :)

[monstero111]

1 minute video at such resolution is 70GB :)

[MrShoenel]

@monstero111 no, it's more than 140 GiB/minute:

1920*1080*4*4*10 (bits color depth) * 60 (Hz) * 60 seconds = 1.194.393.600.000 Bits for 60 seconds, what are 149.299.200.000 Bytes ~= 142,38 GiB :D

[PolskiGracz5526]

@monstero111

so if we wanna watch movies in that resolution i guess ppl hav to come up with a new format. Gold Ray?

[Bradbssargdons]

@monstero111 Umm no... One minute of 1080p BluRay video can range anywhere from 40MB up to over 260MB depending on the codec compression, bitrate, etc.. Multiply those figures by "16" and you get a range of 640MB to 4.16GB. 70GB? HUH? But thats irrelevant because that display isnt 16x standard HD as it says. Its 4x the resolution of standard HD. 1920x1080 multiplied by FOUR is 7680x4320

[Bradbssargdons]

@Bradbssargdons A typical 1080p BluRay disc is 25GB. If it were full, take 1/60th of that to get one minute --> 416MB. Multiply that by four and you get 1.66GB for a minute of video on that display.

[Bradbssargdons]

@Bradbssargdons No, thats wrong... haha. Depends on how long the movie is too.... OH WHATEVER I GIVE UP! HAHA

[DaShmoopies]

@monstero111 problebly wont matter, whithin 15 years there will be 1,000TB FLASHdrives on the market for cheap prices

[cryptsys]

@monstero111 so what if 1 minute video is 70gb @ that resolution. we have new disc types in production past blu-ray that can hold upwards of 500gb per disc. I live for the day we get computers where lets say 80TB HDD's (SSD's actually) are in low end supermarket pre built PC's

[Ondraasha]

@monstero111 There is going to be h.265 made specially for videos such resolution.

[GreenLiteProductions]

@monstero111 That won't be an issue once petabytes become common place. It will be the way 70mb is now. Nothing.

[monstero111]

@GreenLiteProductions yea but now its the future and such numbers looks big :)

[Chilli0912]

Even the blind can see this.

[mrlennyv]

60hz refresh ?!. not good.

[motherfan55]

Try being ironic and watch it in 240p.

[coronapounder]

Why not just plug in the computer to my brain via usb and enter the matrix!!!

[kIdReckL3sS]

meanwhile in africa....

[veskopolo]

@kIdReckL3sS they celebrate jumping nude wearing only their bone necklaces

[Ofirinb]

Jizz in my pants.

[mrjswift]

I bet that TV looks 3D without glasses.

[creeperblade]

2 years later: Introducing the first 32k television.

[behnamasid]

1080p we meet again...

[jackestripador01]

@behnamasid but in a good way xD

[galacticmaui2]

Wow I want one of those babies

[RayThrushwood]

Im getn one of those baby's and hooking up my super Nintendo on that mug

[berval951]

My body is ready!

[xxxmarco187xxx]

its like looking out a window

[ThePercussionGun]

97 people are not ultra hd televisions XD

[AMYuntold]

...no need for this... the end.

Stop acting like people have such good eyes.

[bornwisedistruction]

I bet all of thoes guys came in their pants whilst watching that TV

[ctrlshiftaltdel]

imagine porn on this...

[VideoGamezSource]

I'd rather go outside and look at grass then look at tiny pixels that burn my eyeballs out lol...

[mshshattar]

تلحسو طيزي



[persianriderboy]

Samsung will make a better one.

[zenpaiTeVe]

asian...

[MrObame]

probably costs something like 195589475689378589237895378923­46570236535780 dollars

[Literion1]

Imaging porn on this shit.

[FruityLoopsification]

@Literion1 imagine sex irl :O

[pokemax93]

i jizzed when i saw this

[compdude47]

F yeah I'm gonna play NES on it.

[LordOfTheWhores]

I can barely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p unless I'm using a huge TV. Going beyond that just seems pointless.

[ranchohigh]

Shut up and take my money.

[lehmejoun]

just found the perfect tv for my porn

[brutalmajor]

I wanna this tv for playing PS3 games...

[s0nic777]

@brutalmajor

PS3 games only support 1280 x 720

No point in buying this TV for console gaming.

[OnlyCopyRight]

Is it just me or does it look like 3D?

[Emelio917]

@TheDoodlesnatch Yeah, your right and since it doesn't support 8K resolution, the image would just be spread out. Might as well wait until companies start making thins 8K compatible.

[vertigoboy75i]

I wanna play UNCHARTED 3 on that TV!!!!

[MrFARTSANDWICH]

All that resolution in a sorry ass 60 hertz refresh rate

[Jere9my9uh]

I WANT NOW!!!

[Emelio917]

@club4ghz It'll probably be more than 100 frames per second. Lol!

[soquam]

I'd like to fuk with chinease woman.

[soquam]

I prefer 240p. Old school is a best school.

[idan124]

just amazing

[MegaMegawar]

The world of porn will change...@_@

[EagleFernDown]

Yeay let's go buy an 8k TV so it can down-scale the quality to 1080p and our movies to 4k resolution! And that's if you already have a $25,000 projecter to even watch movie theater quality films in which case less than 1% of the population does. God your all fucking idiots. 4k-8k resolution won't even be considered for at least 5-10 years.

[ArminTheWise]

LOL it's BluRay all over again, there will be no 8k content until a year later, then 100k will come out. Can we just make a 1000k TV now or something that surpasses the human eyes input resolution so we can't see the difference between 100k and 200k, so we reach a human biology limitation based technological boundary. and keep one technology forever?

[theflyingdutchmanxD]

@ArminTheWise Is there such a thing as a biological limitation? and 1000k would be 1m ^^

[ArminTheWise]

@theflyingdutchmanxD Yes there is funny enough, the human eye registers at around 576 mega pixel at daytime and 800 mega pixel at night time. So if we create a screen which its definition surpasses the threshold mega pixel of the human eye, creating any higher definition from that point would be useless, very similar to the Hz scam TV sellers do, the human eye can only register at 60Hz, yet you can pay extra for a faster 100Hz TV, but what is the point? You won't see the difference. All in time.

[Mew4000]

@ArminTheWise And yet I've gone into a store, seen a 42" 1080p 120Hz TV right next to a 42" 1080p 60Hz TV, and could tell that there was a clear difference between the two. They were both made by the same company, I can't remember which one right now though... At least for me, that extra 60Hz made a big difference.

[lahtiste]

IM AM THROWING MONEY AT MY SCREEN BUT NOTHING IS HAPPENING?

[MyOivind]

@lahtiste you did not throw enough money, seen the problem before.

[toplak666]

@lahtiste THAT IS BECAUSE YOU DONT HAVE AN ULTRA HIGH DEFINITION SCREEN!

[mugenrider754]

@lahtiste because your monitor is not 8K UHD TV.

[jackestripador01]

@lahtiste i didnt understand u >.<

[TheRipperUGUR]

You would need 10 Gtx 580's to play BF3 on that "thing"

[MultiRico82]

;)



[Kcon83]

Got to love the japs,,

[1albin1]

holy fuck i want that tv in my bedroom >P

[randallindakota]

I can hardly wait for this new technology. Unless data compression makes some hell of an advancement, they'll never fit a broadcast in the 6 mhz bandwidth. For home video, they'll probably need to use a TeraDisc using several layers simultaneously. Over compression is my worst pet peeve with digital technology, cable companies being the worst offender.

[unico374480]

@randallindakota lol new technology?

[Tailow1234]

Awesome

[feytjeburn]

i haven't seen a 8K camera yet, so what do they want to totally use the full resolution?

[Emelio917]

Imaging Battlefield 3 on this shit.

[ihavetehdrugs]

@Emelio917 It'd be still 1080p since Battlefield 3 doesn't support an 8k resolution. It would still look the same on this as with any other 1080p display.

[Emelio917]

@ihavetehdrugs Oh, OK [now I feel stupid - Lol]. Thank for the explanation because what you said makes a lot of sense.

[club4ghz]

@Emelio917 imagine your framerate at this res

[TheDoodlesnatch]

@Emelio917 It would look terrible. A lot like playing a SNES on a 1080p 60" LED TV.

[JuaaOBR]

@Emelio917 BF3 old

[iTrollingLiekABaws]

@JuaaOBR ROFL You retarded or something?

[JuaaOBR]

@iTrollingLiekABaws just realistic

[Emelio917]

@JuaaOBR Shut up, your old and you probably play COD like a faggot.

[JMNS15]

Imaging Counter Strike Source on this shit

[iTrollingLiekABaws]

@JMNS15 CSS Fails. GTFO.

[Buddlebot]

@Emelio917 Does it even support that high of a res? i know 3k but 8k? i dunoooo

[Emelio917]

@Buddlebot Someone else to replied to my comment and said that Battlefield 3 only supports 1080P resolution. Just imaging if it supported the 8K resolution of the TV. That would be crazy stuff.

[HALOARAGOND]

@Emelio917

Õ__Ó serious shit A REAL REAL WAR!

[TalesoftheAbyssftw]

@Emelio917 Probably blurry or pixelated

either that or not taking up the whole screen.

[veskopolo]

@Emelio917 Will be F* shitty image :D

[braydenmaine]

and i thought 2560x1600 was amazing. I would use these TVs as my windows, and pretend i was on the moon :)

[Jonesmin]

Or you could go outside...

[VISIONARYGAMERO1]

why are they standing so close to the thing

[NickBFTD]

@VISIONARYGAMERO1 i think because the resolution is so high it still looks good close up.

[robiniroven]

60hz GAAAY

[MultiNintendo123]

@robiniroven they need to make a 180 hertz first ever 8k ultra hdtv with 180 hertz refresh rate!

[anshulkamboj]

japanese r just to smart....love tech

[IIZODIIAC]

@anshulkamboj Agreed its exciting

[Majorasword64]

And it will only cost £3,000,and you probably won't see much of a difference.

[sanddune1981]

This technology is very old.

P.S. I just came from year 2050 in time machine.

[josshyy123]

what is ultra Hd compared to full Hd?

[FormalRevolutionary]

@josshyy123 full HD def today is 1080p, one step above the second highest def, 1080i, ultra high def would feature a resolution of 16 times that, display is regarded as HD when it is above 720p, so this would be basically get rid of things like streaking, rainbow burn, noise/sharpness conflict and dare I say it might even have deeper color. Basically, brighter but not overexposed, more dynamic display and more definition between pixels, which matters if your getting a big ass t.v.

[RgPOmniMedia]

wow. ill take two please.

[vettedude418]

what scares me severely is how good this television looks THROUGH all our vastly inferior monitors

IMAGINE SEEING IT IN PERSON

[TranceFur]

@srt4pwr Not really... What gave you that idea? It's just a TV with way more pixels than usual, no one mentioned 3D.

[sirbrutal]

At around the 47th second if your watching 1080p you'll notice that the TV image is actually sharper then the real life image captured by the videographer... that's a 1st.

[over2seeyer]

holy hell u_u , a 1080p movie is about 12GB so a 4320p movie would be about 200 GB that's insane !

[astrialkil]

@over2seeyer holographic data storage is already here and its the size of a 3 inch floppy. One company already selling them.

[FormalRevolutionary]

@over2seeyer You're not to good at math are you? jk man, 4320 divided by 1080 is exactly 4 (4 times the crystal of today's top HD) and 4 times a today top HD movie being 12 gb, it would take 48gb to view a movie at 4 times the best current quality. The craziest thing to think of though is that will not even seem like much in the future, back in 1956 a 5mb hard disk drive was bigger than a average bed room and it weighed over one metric ton, someday people will walk with 600gb iPods.

[FormalRevolutionary]

@FormalRevolutionary Or maybe that will be stored through cloud like servers where hundreds of terabytes of info race around whole city hotspots and then are retrieved by accessing devices worldwide, maybe downloading will be obsolete, and you will STREAM INSTANTLY movies at 4320p definition, this doesnt baffle me as much as thinking about what will baffle my grandchildren, every day we get closer to the "extranet."

[over2seeyer]

@FormalRevolutionary you're an idiot aren't you ? , 0:17 he said that the resolution is 16 times that of an HDTV , 16 * 12gb = 192 gb , you need to take account the total number of pixels on the screen not only the side , next time you try to play the smart ass be sure to know what you're talking about !

[FormalRevolutionary]

@over2seeyer Sorry man, didnt catch that part, your numbers are solid, I had my volume quite low and when I read your comment you said 4320p def, I did the simple math thinking that you meant 1080p times 4, not 720p or 1080p times 16, so I thought it was 40 something gb, plus I was kind of tired, it was 3 a.m. and I had worked all day at the local electronics store, I do know a thing or to about this shit, I just had my volume next to mute for my room mates sake.

[zaptor32]

I watched the video in 1080P so i could see every little detail.

I just realized how stupid i am...

[VanKrixsz101]

all flatscreen ive seen sharp is better