Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television

The World's First 88-inch 8K OLED Display (engadget.com) 136

From a report: Come CES, LG will be letting attendees get up close with its new 88-inch 8K OLED display, which is both the largest and the highest-resolution OLED panel to date. But as far as specs go, that's all we have for now. Previously, the largest OLED screen size was 77 inches, and it "only" came in 4K. While this combination is currently offered to consumers by the likes of LG Electronics, Sony and Panasonic, they all source their large OLED panels from LG Display.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The World's First 88-inch 8K OLED Display

Comments Filter:
  • How many defects? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by FrankHaynes ( 467244 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @03:07PM (#55844727)

    How many defective pixels will THIS wonder of the world come with?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      But does it matter if you can't see them?

      The big ones were annoying back in the day, but these small pixels at anything over 4 feet should be invisible...

      • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @04:13PM (#55845151)

        Dead pixels that don't light up? You'd need a nearly completely 100% white display to notice them.

        Defective pixels stuck to "on"? Extremely annoying.

        • Defective pixels stuck to "on"? Extremely annoying.

          "Stuck on" is extremely rare for OLED. "Stuck off" is common, and most big screens will have a few. But as you say, you won't even notice unless you are OCD enough to look for them.

          I saw a big OLED monitor at Costco. It looked really nice. Very bright vivid colors, and the black was totally black. It was also really expensive, so I will wait. I predict that within 5 years, LCD monitors will be in the dustbin of history. Once OLEDs reach price parity, no one will want an LCD.

          • I don't want OLED. The quality degrades over time and not equally on each colour.

            Posted from my computer with the same VP171s I used for over a decade and still working fine.

            • Sounds like Plasma

            • by Anonymous Coward

              I don't want OLED. The quality degrades over time and not equally on each colour.

              Posted from my computer with the same VP171s I used for over a decade and still working fine.

              I've been using 4k tvs as monitors at my house for a couple years and the biggest issue is that even if you try for a tv with low reflections, you still get a lot of reflections, though it is manageable. I recently found out about this dell monitor 43 lcd [dell.com]

              which might be a bit better. Apparently OLEDs are not magically better. As near as I can tell my next computer monitor is going to be something actually sold as a monitor again since they try a little harder for low reflections.

              Has anyone found a good so

          • by dabadab ( 126782 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @05:54PM (#55845585)

            I predict that within 5 years, LCD monitors will be in the dustbin of history. Once OLEDs reach price parity, no one will want an LCD.

            OLED still has a very serious burn-in problem and that just does not seem to go away in the mid term - so no, OLED will not replace LCD in the monitors any time soon.
            The burn-in is not that problematic in TVs and OLED is already dominating the high-end - if the prices keep dropping, LCD will be driven back to the lower end of the TV market.
            But monitors - I expect seeing mostly LCDs there for a long time.

            • OLED still has a very serious burn-in problem and that just does not seem to go away in the mid term - so no, OLED will not replace LCD in the monitors any time soon.

              I've got the 2nd to the last pre-4k 55" LG (3 years old?) and I haven't seen any sign of burn in. It replaced a Pioneer Elite Plasma 50", so I know all about burn in (fuck you NBC logo!).

              I read about the burn concern before buying it, but I simply couldn't stomach the piss poor LCD quality after living with true blacks on the Plasma for so long (the refresh is also far smoother on the OLED so I've never noticed that irritating "soap opera" effect either). I generally try to avoid burn in after owning a Plas

              • I ended up mounting all my TVs after mine fell on a large doggy bed (pretty much a giant pillow) and the damn thing crushed in the top area. No visible crack but you could definitely see the bump in the screen. And that was the only part of the TV that would light up.

                Mine lasted about 3 months before the fall and was my first time in trying to use an extended warranty I bought from Walmart that specifically said it covered accidental drops. What I missed was that it was a general warranty and next to acc

            • Over the holiday, I was window shopping for a potential new large screen TV at my local Costco. I was thinking 4K "OLED". There was of course, the LG OLED, and then Samsung's QLED (Quantum dot display). Side by side comparison, QLED was far richer in color depth, rendition, and contrast compared with the LG OLED.

              Turns out, QLED leverages existing LCD manufacturing infrastructure. If I had to make a guess based on what I've seen, I think QLED will win the TV format. OLED might stick around for mobile devices

      • by Bengie ( 1121981 )
        Depends on the defect. I have a live sub-pixel that I can see from ~6 feet away on my 23" 1080p LCD in a well lit room, a funny angle, and glare on the screen. I'm at work.
    • The ones at CES won't have any defects. That's how it works. Make a batch of 10,000, send the one or two that don't have any defect to CES. Not that this matters much, it's not like we have any movie filmed at that resolution anyway.

      • by darkain ( 749283 )

        Japan had 8k broadcasts for the Olympics two years ago https://www.pcworld.com/articl... [pcworld.com]

    • Does it matter? Serious question. A display like this isn’t for precision work. It’s for enjoying the most cinematic experience possible in your palatial estate. At typical viewing distances for a display of this size you’d be hard-pressed to notice any individual dead or stuck-live pixels, even under adverse conditions.

      Why look for things to complain about, rather than just enjoying them for what they are?

    • Intolerance of dead pixels is why these things are so expensive. That said, I agree we should never be tolerant of them, let them improve manufacturing technology.

  • This will work! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @03:21PM (#55844825)
    ... as a monitor. Because no videos will be in 8K!
    • ...except OLED displays aren't very good for monitors. Although the displays do have countermeasures, static images can still cause burn-in artifacts.
      • ...except OLED displays aren't very good for monitors. static images can still cause burn-in artifacts.

        So? I'll just get another one if that happens.

    • by Kjella ( 173770 )

      ... as a monitor. Because no videos will be in 8K!

      As far as I know Red, Panasonic, Sharp, Canon all have an 8K camera in the $100k range. You also have a ton of cameras between 4K and 8K down to around the $5k range. There's probably a market for these at some high end movie studios, sure there's no consumer format but I hardly expect this to be at a consumer price either...

      • Re:This will work! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by ffkom ( 3519199 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @04:27PM (#55845237)
        Just look at the sad situation regarding 4k content: The vast majority of even high-budget movies is still produced with 2k digital intermediates, and fake-4k is "derived" from this via mere upscaling.

        And amongst the very few productions that actually use 4k digital intermediates, many of them reach that kind of resolution in only a few scenes, when there is outdoor daylight and the picture is not mostly blurred by the "artistic over-use" of unnaturally shallow depth of field (aka "bokeh").

        I for one would not expect any sizeable amount of 8k productions that would earn that label anytime soon. Chances are, even if the recording hardware allows for 8k resolution, 8k movies will be even more "fake-8k" than 4k ones are fake already.
        • Re:This will work! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @05:12PM (#55845473) Homepage

          Just look at the sad situation regarding 4k content: The vast majority of even high-budget movies is still produced with 2k digital intermediates, and fake-4k is "derived" from this via mere upscaling. And amongst the very few productions that actually use 4k digital intermediates, many of them reach that kind of resolution in only a few scenes, when there is outdoor daylight and the picture is not mostly blurred by the "artistic over-use" of unnaturally shallow depth of field (aka "bokeh").

          True, though in their defense releasing a UHD version also gives you Rec. 2020 color and HDR even if the resolution is just an upscale. And in many cases they have gone back to the original film assets for the non-VFX scenes. And there's an increasing trend to do it properly for new films (Chappie, Deadpool, Dunkirk, Logan, Interstellar, The Revenant for example) so... it's getting there.

        • by esonik ( 222874 )

          Bokeh is a side-effect of using large aperture lenses, which you need to collect enough light, especially if the light gets distributed on many pixels.
          If you want large depth of focus (i.e. less bokeh) you'd have to close the aperture, reducing the amount of light that hits the sensor. That is problematic in low light situations.
          Guess what: if you see a real movie shooting you'll notice that they put a tremendous amount of lighting on the scene - for a reason.

          The other thing is that depth of focus leads the

    • I believe Japan is looking to broadcast their Olympics in 8k. The content may not be here yet but it will be by the time the price comes down.
    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      They started doing test filming and broadcasting last year in Japan, but I don't think you can receive it without special equipment. In any case, the 2020 Olympics will be the first thing widely broadcast in 8k.

    • by donaldm ( 919619 )

      ... as a monitor. Because no videos will be in 8K!

      You have not been keeping up with technology. Tokyo Olympics [theverge.com] in 8K resolution. There are plenty of other references for 8K if you care to look.

      To be fair I will concede that 8K has very little content available at the moment but then again 4K when it first came out also had little content. Even 1080p content became commercially viable when Bluray (yes I do know about HD-DVD) became the industry standard. Currently in order of the most content for media is DVD followed by HD Bluray (ie. 1080p) then UHD

    • Almost all cameras now produce resolutions above 8K, so slide shows of still images would look fantastic on an 8k TV.

  • in metric: 223 cm

  • And still almost no content
    • by Greyfox ( 87712 )
      It's not too hard to find a 4K camera. I've started to see a bunch of Skydiving/Wingsuiting videos on YouTube in 4K. If Hollywood isn't careful, they'll be overtaken by amateur content in the next couple of years.
  • Projector time (Score:2, Insightful)

    by chispito ( 1870390 )
    Just buy a nice 4k projector from Sony or JVC. You'll get a bigger, less expensive picture, and the resolution difference probably won't be as great as you imagine.
    • the resolution difference probably won't be as great as you imagine.

      But the color will be better.

    • by Shados ( 741919 )

      This is an OLED screen, which is all about picture quality. Getting screens this size isn't a big deal. Getting an mass produced OLED TV at this size is.

  • by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @04:16PM (#55845169)

    That's 1912 inches smaller than Frank's TV.

  • I wonder if I sell my entire body for parts, will I be able to afford this TV set?
  • At some point, shouldn't we as a society consider doing something else with our capacity for building infrastructure, other than laying fiber to transmit ever higher resolution TV to every eyeball? Roads and bridges are still nice to have.
    • They build roads and bridges too.

      It isn't a matter of one or the other

      • Stick free wifi on the subway and you won't need huge upgrades to roads and bridges because everyone will spend their time down under the city!

  • Considering how its "easy" to get an LCD TV (or whatever Samsung's "quantum dot" actually us) in this size class, its thus far been impossible to find OLED beyond 77" (/w insane price).

    As such, I'm very much looking forward to seeing a display like this go into mass production. (Heck, I'd be equally happy if they did it in only 4k.)

    Right now, I'm still using an old Samsung 61" back-projection DLP set (a late model, so it actually looks good) and have wanted to upgrade to something bigger for a while (moved

  • A display comprised of an array of 100 million light bulbs (assuming RGB sub-pixel configuration) does not seem particularly bright idea (pun intended) from a failure standpoint. You'll never be able to manufacture an array with all working pixels they each have a chance of failure and all non-uniformly degrade with use. Anyone who really intends on benefiting from 8k resolution and OLED quality will notice failures of individual elements as sure as they will notice overall steady desynchronization of uni

    • Modern electronics as a whole is pointless.

      When the first STN displays came out, there were a lot of issues with non-working and marginal pixels. How often do you see modern phone or TV displays with *any* defective pixels? I don't know if you're old enough to remember TV sets with CRTs - but you'd go to a store and see a wall of them, all displaying somewhat different colours and brightness (even between the same model). A big reason why they went away was because LCDs provided much better colour manage

      • Modern electronics as a whole is pointless.

        I would rather stick to the issue at hand rather than playing what about x, y and z games.

        In this specific instance people have a choice between display technologies. For example QLED vs OLED. QLED does not have the same failure modes and problems as OLED. Simply ignoring the issue by making nonsensical generalizations is unproductive.

        When the first STN displays came out, there were a lot of issues with non-working and marginal pixels.

        Still a lot of issues.

        How often do you see modern phone or TV displays with *any* defective pixels?

        I certainly hope progress is being made in this area.

        Personally noticed this in numerous displays purchased over time. Every vendor has a dead pixel

  • Viewing distance (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tomahawk ( 1343 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @05:20PM (#55845495) Homepage

    I saw an article that mentions the viewing distance you need to be from a TV before you can actually see the difference in resolution. For a 1080p display, you need to be at most 3 times the height of the screen away. E.g. for a 55inch screen, that's 3 meters. Any further and people with normal vision won't be able to differentiate between 1080 and 720.
    As the resolution increases, this distance reduces according -- double the resolution and halve the distance. So for a 4k screen it's 1.5x the screen height, and for 8k is 0.75x the screen height.

    The height of a 16:9 screen is approx half of the diagonal, so in this case ~44 inches. So following the rule above, one would need to be less than 3 feet from the screen in order to appreciate the uplift in resolution.

    Basically what I'm saying here is that an 88" screen isn't big enough for my living room!!!

    • > one would need to be less than 3 feet from the screen in order to appreciate the uplift in resolution.

      That sounds perfect on the desk in front of you

    • by mentil ( 1748130 )

      Such calculations are ubiquitous on the Internet, but AFAICT are full of shit. I looked at a 55" 4k TV in a store from as far away as I could get (maybe 15 feet away) and could still tell in some scenes that the resolution was higher than 1080p.

      • by TheSync ( 5291 )

        Such calculations are ubiquitous on the Internet, but AFAICT are full of shit. I looked at a 55" 4k TV in a store from as far away as I could get (maybe 15 feet away) and could still tell in some scenes that the resolution was higher than 1080p.

        The eye has many kinds of "resolution". One is "Snellen Acuity", which is what they measure with an eye chart. It measures your ability to resolve the different between two lines (and thus discriminate between letters). It follows it "3 picture heights for HD, 1.5

  • Even on my 60" 4k OLED I honestly can't see the individual pixels unless my nose is right up to the screen.

    Besides, there's still hardly any 4K content, let alone 8K.
    I can't imagine where you'd find a good source of 8K content that isn't compressed to fuck (so actually no visually better than compressed 4k) or even how you'd play it.

    • 640k pixels should be enough for everyone.
    • Every word of what you just said was wrong.
      There's tons of 4k content on Netflix and Amazon and every new movie on blu ray is in 4k. And you can hook a PC up to it and game in 4k. Even the newest consoles can game in 4k now.
      I'm not sure what your vision is, but I can easily see the individual pixels on my 65" 4k OLED up close to the screen.
      Sharp even did an experiment and proved anyone with 20-20 vision can see the differences between resolutions and would benefit from resolutions much higher than
      • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        The article is talking about 8k not 4k.

        > I can easily see the individual pixels on my 65" 4k OLED up close to the screen.

        Exactly as I said.

    • by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      Good to see you upholding the tradition of speaking in total ignorance. I might suggest you first look up "fad".

      There is high quality 8K source material, just not necessarily available to the public at this time. No need to that to change unless displays exist.

      Everything you've said here was recently said about 4K.

      • by JustNiz ( 692889 )

        > I might suggest you first look up "fad".

        noun: fad; plural noun: fads
        an intense and widely shared enthusiasm for something, especially one that is short-lived and without basis in the object's qualities; a craze.

        Yep thats what I meant.

        > There is high quality 8K source material, just not necessarily available to the public at this time.

        Well its existence is irrelevant to 8k TV owners then isn't it?

    • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
      Classic film can be scanned to support 8K. the back catalogue of old movies is ready.
      "Compressed" is not a problem for fast gig internet connections that can keep up with the demands of one 8K movie to a consumers account and their one 8K display.
      New movies can be made 8K ready as 8K equipment exists to make a 8K movie.
      Content, connection is not a problem.
      Play back with todays advanced and fast gpu and cpu products is no problem.
      Accepted DRM to protect a movie is understood so on average a movie can
      • Classic film can be scanned to support 8K. the back catalogue of old movies is ready.

        Just because film can be scanned at any resolution completely ignores the underlying issue. What people care about are outcomes not process. They want 8k quality not an 8k process with much lower effective resolution.

        As point of reference IMAX uses 70 mm film and it's only 2k. There is no back catalogue of anything ready for 8k.

        "Compressed" is not a problem for fast gig internet connections that can keep up with the demands of one 8K movie to a consumers account and their one 8K display.

        Problem isn't so much customers Internet connection as what is required to serve unicast content to millions of customers concurrently at this level. Given people are currently t

        • by AHuxley ( 892839 )
          What one scan was set at and released with at in the past is not limit on what 8K can be scanned from many the other old films.
          Pay to get a better scan, have the old film thats ready for an 8K scan? The 8K scan will be made and can be sold, rented, streamed as needed.
          Re "single 8k is inconsistent with reality."
          With some cash a real gig internet connection can be connected in some parts of the works.
          Such fast networks can support a 8K movie as needed.
          Re "Storage requirements alone to manage an 8k workf
  • 8k, 88" display? For what? Seeing the hairs on a fly? Considering the junk on tv these days, what's the use?
  • by antdude ( 79039 ) on Monday January 01, 2018 @07:29PM (#55845979) Homepage Journal

    Lots of 8s. Lucky Chinese numbers. ;)

  • So I can use them instead of drywall or paneling for the walls inside my house.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    And it is all couch potatoes.

  • I'm still waiting for a TV with a true Quantum Dot display. That will beat the crap out of OLED.

    The current quantum dot TVs are just LCD TVs with a QD enhanced backlight. But at lease those are letting Samsung perfect the quantum dot tech.

  • I got the big James Bond collection two Christmases back, and it came with material about making it, proudly showing the huge scanner that went over every frame at 4K. The images were knocked down to "mere" blu-ray. So they can do a 4K version of the box set some time if people will buy. If 8K was going to be a thing, they'll have to haul out the negatives or prints again and run them through THAT scanner. Maybe they didn't because it would not have been worth it, only showing the grains in the film

    • Well, you can always scan the film down to finer and finer degrees, but at that point, you're just getting finer and finer resolution of the film grain. For 35mm film, I don't think there's a ton of use in going past 4k, and 4k digital cameras are considered 'equivalent' to 35mm film for filming movies, in terms of resolution and color range.

      Hell, IMDB says that Skyfall was filmed in '2.8K;' the cameras used can go all the way up to 2880x2160.

      • by TheSync ( 5291 )

        Most digital cinema movies are 2K resolution, which right there tells you the value of 4K/8K for television.

        I think you can get some minor benefit from 4K on TV's of size over 90" diagonal, but really not worth it on anything smaller.

VMS must die!

Working...