http://www.anandtech.com/show/11220 /dells-32-inch-8k-up3218

>games at 8k
>movies at 8k
>productivity in 8k
It's 5-7 years too early

File: 4KtqxA8.png (50KB, 960x892px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 960x892px

>>59569804
Wrong, Nvidia is already 8K ready with 8K HEVC Main10/Main12 hardware decoding & 8K VP9 hardware decoding & DisplayPort 1.4 support

this is only worth it if you actually use your pc for work, mainly video/audio/graphic editing or maybe coding. there is literally no content for 8K yet. and quite frankly i think 1440p is more than enough. if you run out of space, just get another monitor or two. no need to spend 5k on a single screen at a resolution that would make even high end gpus struggle.

>>59569828
Yeah, but there's nothing for it to decode yet in 8K.

File: dxva_kaby.png (53KB, 623x1035px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 623x1035px

Intel Kaby Lake is also 8K ready with hardware decoders, only doesn't have DisplayPort 1.4 support so can't output 8K, probably will be supported in Ice Lake

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelake

>not waiting for 32K
you're like the retards that bought 'hd-ready' displays lmao

>>59569804
Pretty much. I mean they have to start on it sometime, but even 4k hasnt matured yet.

Probably in about 5 years I will jump on.

>>59569828
>8K HEVC Main10/Main12

By the time that there's 8K content, they'll probably be using HEVC2/H.266. Your GPU would be obsolete anyways.

>>59569894
No, because new codecs only come out every 10 years or so

It took 10 years for HEVC to be released after H.264

>>59569910
Jumps in resolutions always come with a new codec. So all that means is 8K is at least another 10 years away in terms of content.

>>59569872
I suppose starting now is a good thing. The early adopters will buy it now and it will be more mature and more affordable in 5 years.

Anyways why is it called "8K" and not "16K"?

>>59569937
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardians_of_the_Galaxy_Vol._2

>The film was the first to be shot with an 8K resolution camera, the Red Weapon 8K.

Wrong again, please stop your ignorant posts if you don't know anything, it's embarassing

Because I can't afford a nuclear power plant in my backyard to power all the GPUs I'll need to run stuff at a reasonable frame rate in 8k

>>59569970
>>Will you be able to watch it in theaters in 8K?
Nope.
>Will you be able to buy it in 8K?
Nope.

Also filming in 8K ≠ mastering in 8K. They'll probably use the 8K resolution to re frame for 4K.

I work in production kiddo, you know jack shit on how the industry works.

>>59569970
Also RED makes shitty cameras with tiny sensors.

>>59569859
No, 8K is actually a thing. All the "next gen" resolution/color specs (e.g. BT.2020) or upcoming broadcasting standards (ATSC 3.0 extension) usually support 4K and 8K. Many explicitly define 8K as max.
Given how long we usually sit on such standards, it's pretty likely we will have these new ones for quite a long time as well. Once we finally get content for them, once we shift production to use this stuff, 8K is like the best you can get just like 1080p is today (and 4K will be more like the retarded 720p brother).

So yeah, given that there's no content for this shit yet, there's no point in getting expensive devices. However, waiting for it might be worth, we are gonna sit on these standards for a while (again). It's not like it will be 16K a week after 8K.

>>59569970
That's kinda unrelated because we talk about different codecs and storage formats here (production is not using what gets released to consumers).
Just because it exists doesn't mean it will get released. However, changes might be there will be a 8K re-release just like we had many old movies "remastered" in 1080p.

>but there is no content

What is excel, word, browser, pictures,pdf reader, huge ides, editing software

>>59570002
Like video production is a worthwhile job lol.

It's all in the software anyway.

>>59569748
>720p = HD
>1080p = Full HD
>4k = Ultra HD
>8k = Ultra HD

How cucked are people?

>8k
>would need a 80" monitor to display without upscaling

No thanks

>>59570620
8k is Ultra HD

4k wasn't a thing until corpo fags thought 1. 8k would be too big of a leap, and 2. 8k would rob them of an entire generation of inbetween devices.

The Japs were right all along.

>>59569748
>7282x4096
Is this a real resolution that monitors use?

>>59569944
>Anyways why is it called "8K" and not "16K"?
The horizontal resolution is about 8000 pixels.

I think 4K is nominally 4096x2160 and 8K is nominally 8192x4320, but that's an unusual aspect ratio (2K or 2048x1080 isn't very common either). So what normally gets called 4K and 8K are the 16:9 resolutions at twice and four times the size of full HD, i.e., 3840x2160 and 7680x4320.

>>59569748
I'm still at 1080p. I hope I never encounter a 1440p monitor because sure as shit gonna buy it

>>59573184
What?

>>59569748
4k games isnt 4k enough? the cpu bottleneck is mostly gone right so 8k would just be overkill right?

>>59569748
> not using 640x480 VGA

>>59573763
4K = four times 1080p
8K = sixteen times 1080p

>>59569748
>Why have you not joined the 8K master race, /g/?
16:9 trash

People who call 2560x1440p "2K" should literally die.

>>59574249
1440p is 2k

>>59574258
"K" refers to horizontal resolution. Cinematic 4k is 4096x2160, and UHD 4K is 3840x2160. Approximately 4000 horizontal pixels in both cases. 2K would be approximately 2000 horizontal pixels. Does 2560 look like 2000 to you? It would be 2.5K if you wanted to be accurate, which sounds retarded but whatever.

Whenever I see an anandtech link I read it as "analtech"

>>59574211
In total pixels, sure. I meant in horizontal (or vertical) resolution, since 4K and 8K refer to the number of pixels wide.

>>59574258
With the way 4K and 8K refer to slightly fewer pixels horizontally, 2K could really mean 1920x1080. But it's usually 2048x1080.

>LCD
GTFO

>>59574593
Yep, waiting to QLED ...

>>59569748
Because either you're all superhumans or I have shitty vision and can barely see anything without scaling in a 24 inches 1440p monitor.