A 8K prototype monitor is unveiled. With HDR support.

Now that 4K TV's and monitors are lowering in price and becoming standard.

Anyone think this resolutions stuff is moving to fast now?


I mean I still don't have a 4K monitor and only not to long ago purchased a 4K capable graphics card.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1289807

I think they should of just stayed with 4K for the next five years?

I am going to be purchasing probably next month a 4K capable monitor.

They've had 8k for a while now >_>

Not when I go to Best Buy or Target.

I only see up to 4K TV's no 8K capable TV's.

I did read about 8K TV's back in 2012 though.

They've been available online for a few years. Shops like target would never sell something like that. The market is less than 1%, no one would by an 8k tv from there. So obviously they won't carry it.

I don't need 4k yet, there's no enough content for it (movies etc). Let alone 8k.

As for computer monitor, my 970 gtx is struggling with 1440p resolution, why would I be nuts to try 4k gaming.

So yes, it's moving too fast for me. Maybe if I can save enough money I'll prepare a new gaming computer with 4k monitor when TES VI is about to be released. (Un)lucky me that's 3-4-5 years away.

It's only in 2013 that I upgraded from 1080p to 1440p and I like the visual upgrade, but I'm not very willing to have 2x video cards in my PC.

Yes, it does move too fast and has done for many years, if not decades.

But my CRT doesn′t care

Oh dear.

I was just adjusting to games having to be 1080p and 60fps or they had to be garbage.

I'm not sure who picked this magical number since you had this on the old XBox 360 and even back then 1080p was a lower res than my TV actually displayed at so the images were automatically upscalled.

What's the new standard so I may complain appropriately on the appropriate internet forums?

All joking aside there was a really interesting piece by a PS 4 blogger who ran an XBox ONE, PS 4 and High End PC playign the same game with the same controller side by side by side and invited them to say which one was which.

Most people weren't able to tell which was which, though to be fair a couple did spot the High End PC version.

Most telling was when they got another chance to play them and this time were told which version they were playing.

Here people easily were able to spot the better anti-aliasing on the PS 4 and the improved textures on the High End PC.

But on this final test... he let them play 3 PS 4's side by side by side.

Yes 4K is a better picture.

But a lot of it is in your head.

Bah. I'm just now getting my 4K tv to replace my 32 inch 720 resolution set that I bought with President Bush"s stimulus check. That's gotta be at least 9 years if not more.


And my computer monitor is at least 5 years.


8k is just gonna have to wait.

Yeah I don't think I'm going to be going to 8K ten years from now, probably not even twenty years from now.

I might be purchasing probably next month a 4K capable computer monitor, a 4K capable TV is just going to have to wait.

I dont think im going to own a 4k tv for some time my lcd tv is doing fine hell i still have an old sd tv i use to watch what evers on i cant use any of the buttons anymore because they have been worn out from years of use and sometimes I have to hit it in the back to get the tv to display in color again.

Those [censored] things are history i don't miss

Why? They are awesome with old school gaming consoles

My bad back doesn't miss them either!

I guess 8k is useful for certain kinds of professions. Obviously, these aren't for gaming (for several reasons). 8k at 27" seems strange, though. I wonder if one can see a difference between 4k and 8k on a screen that size.

Anyway, I wish monitor manufacturers would stop focusing so much on resolution and thinness and start addressing some of the obvious shortcomings of most current monitor offerings. For example, back lights. I'm still using IPS monitors from 2007 at home because aside from a few features like FreeSync/G-Sync, there's very little reason for me to upgrade. I'd really like to get a monitor with some kind of active sync tech (I guess I'd go with G-Sync since my primary desktop has an nVidia card in it), but I'd want an IPS panel. Current IPS panels are all edge-lit, which I won't buy. It creates too many back light uniformity problems. Why won't someone make a direct-lit IPS monitor (preferably with FALD, or Full Array Local Dimming)? If someone made a direct-lit IPS display with G-Sync that's at least 1440p and at least 27" I'd buy it in a second. I refuse to pay $600+ for a display that's edge-lit. Direct-lit LCD TVs have been around for nearly a decade...why no monitors!?!?!

they are more easily available, but they are still not standard

I'm still not interested in 4K at all (I'm perfectly content with 1080p), so I'm not getting 8K anytime soon. As I see it, more than 1080p is a waste

Like soundcards, still perfectly pleased with 16-bit soundcards, wouldn't pay extra to have a 24/96 one.

theres not even alot of 4k content out there yet

That's why I said 4K TV's and monitors ARE becoming standard.

The Best Buy by me has like twenty or thirty 4K TV's in the electronics section and the Target by me has about twenty or so 4K TV's in the electronics section.

Although for both Best Buy and Target they have more 1080P TV's though.

Fry's Electronics has been a long time since I last checked how many TV's and monitors they have.

They're basically particle cannons that happen to make pictures too. They weigh a ton and give off so much heat. LCDs freed us from their awful tyranny.

While I do prefer LCD monitors myself, I will say in CRT monitor's defense: Those things last FOREVER. Seriously, I still have one, and anytime my desktop monitor burns out, I break it out for the time period between old one burning out and managing to get a new one. Hell, I keep the thing out inside of a leaky storage shed. Hasn't phased it a bit. I even put a crack in the middle of the monitor when I got really angry as a teenager and slammed a pen against the screen(point first!), and it hasn't hampered it's ability to function a bit. Those things are flipping unstoppable tanks. I'd heartily recommend everyone owning one just for desperate times.

Heh, yeah. My current 65" TV use about half as much energy as my 2 decade old fat 20" TV.

They do svck when it comes to anologue signals though, well, most do. So I'm grateful for modern HDMI-compatible stuff that run old games, like the PS3 running PS1 games (and SEGA Ultimate Collection), Wii U running Virtual Console and soon the NES Mini is here too. Sure would have been nice if Sony had released a final PS2 slim model with HDMI after killing the PS2 BC on the PS3.

Yeah, their only problem is the anologue signals, but i can deal with that since they don't wieght a ton, use a dman lot less electricity, and have a MUCH better image quality.
My LCD TV is 5 years old already, and the only fault it has that the power led doesn't work, so LCDs last a nice amount of time too.

On topic, i'm perfectly happy with 1080p too, for the time being.

Really? Every CRT I've had has burnt out, or the picture degraded so much that it was unwatchable. I still have every LCD I've bought.

And have you seen CRTs used in control rooms of factories? The image they have displayed for so long has burned into them, you can read the information when it's not powered

Yeah, I used one so old that the text had degraded into fuzziness. When a guy tried to fix it, the thing exploded.