Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Japan Display Working on 4k Tablet Screen

Last response: in News comments
Share
October 27, 2013 1:38:43 PM

I'd like to have one of these...
Score
0
October 27, 2013 1:44:11 PM

You will have 4k in tablets and phones before you can afford one for your desktop...
Nice...
But good to see that at least tablets are soon ready to 4K time, lets see when the CPU/GPU for the tablets can for the same... in two years?
Score
4
Related resources
October 27, 2013 2:03:51 PM

Oh god no :( 
This PPI war need to stop and instead focus on color gamut,contrast, response time... etc
and give us GPUs that can fully handle today's 1080p/1600p mobile and tablet displays instead of the measly ~100gflops gpus available in devices right now.
Score
18
October 27, 2013 2:24:58 PM

^ Agreed. Unless you sit 3 feet from your screen, 1080P is good enough. I want epic contrast ratios that aren't dynamic and so many colours I barf rainbows when playing games please :D 
Score
2
October 27, 2013 2:28:36 PM

Shankovich said:
^ Agreed. Unless you sit 3 feet from your screen, 1080P is good enough. I want epic contrast ratios that aren't dynamic and so many colours I barf rainbows when playing games please :D 


In 10-15 years, people will joke about how people from the 2000's and 2010's thought 720p and 1080p was "good enough"
Score
5
October 27, 2013 2:42:48 PM

A GTX Titan struggles to provide consistent high FPS on that resolution. Surely this will be a more abysmal experience gaming on than the Nexus 10, even if they use a next gen Snapdragon.
Score
2
October 27, 2013 2:52:56 PM

therealduckofdeath said:
A GTX Titan struggles to provide consistent high FPS on that resolution. Surely this will be a more abysmal experience gaming on than the Nexus 10, even if they use a next gen Snapdragon.


It's not like you're gonna be playing Crysis 3 or Metro on a tablet anytime soon. To power this, for basic usage, even Intel HD graphics would be good enough.
Score
0
October 27, 2013 2:53:24 PM

why? whats the point on a petty screen
Score
2
October 27, 2013 2:59:23 PM

John Bauer said:
Shankovich said:
^ Agreed. Unless you sit 3 feet from your screen, 1080P is good enough. I want epic contrast ratios that aren't dynamic and so many colours I barf rainbows when playing games please :D 


In 10-15 years, people will joke about how people from the 2000's and 2010's thought 720p and 1080p was "good enough"


I imagine they will joke about how companies wasted their time on screen improvements that were imperceivable to the human eye, but thats just me
Score
9
October 27, 2013 3:02:51 PM

nevilence said:
John Bauer said:
Shankovich said:
^ Agreed. Unless you sit 3 feet from your screen, 1080P is good enough. I want epic contrast ratios that aren't dynamic and so many colours I barf rainbows when playing games please :D 


In 10-15 years, people will joke about how people from the 2000's and 2010's thought 720p and 1080p was "good enough"


I imagine they will joke about how companies wasted their time on screen improvements that were imperceivable to the human eye, but thats just me


You've probably never used a 4K monitor...

Trust me, you notice. Especially going back to a 27" 1080p screen.
Score
1
October 27, 2013 3:11:39 PM

yes on a 27" display i am sure i would notice, however on a 12.1" screen as the article discusses....i have doubts
Score
6
October 27, 2013 3:14:29 PM

nevilence said:
yes on a 27" display i am sure i would notice, however on a 12.1" screen as the article discusses....i have doubts


4K res is kinds useless on a 12" screen, yes.
Score
4
October 27, 2013 3:23:25 PM

out of curiosity does anyone know what the PPI on a screen like that would be, I tried working it out but my answer was outlandish
Score
0
October 27, 2013 3:28:19 PM

nevilence said:
out of curiosity does anyone know what the PPI on a screen like that would be, I tried working it out but my answer was outlandish


~365 ppi.

http://members.ping.de/~sven/dpi.html
Score
2
October 27, 2013 3:35:37 PM

Huh, there you go, I always thought PPI was PPI^2, no wonder my answer seemed way to big. Well I have learnt something today
Score
1
October 27, 2013 4:56:03 PM

John Bauer said:
nevilence said:
John Bauer said:
Shankovich said:
^ Agreed. Unless you sit 3 feet from your screen, 1080P is good enough. I want epic contrast ratios that aren't dynamic and so many colours I barf rainbows when playing games please :D 


In 10-15 years, people will joke about how people from the 2000's and 2010's thought 720p and 1080p was "good enough"


I imagine they will joke about how companies wasted their time on screen improvements that were imperceivable to the human eye, but thats just me


You've probably never used a 4K monitor...

Trust me, you notice. Especially going back to a 27" 1080p screen.


With a very keen eye you might be able to notice a small difference with a 4k screen on a 27" monitor over 2k. However, you could get those same results with a 3000 or even a 2500 pixle wide display. At comfortable viewing distances and realistic screen sizes, 2k is pushing the limits for what the human eye can perceive.

The only reason 4k receives so much hype is because that is what manufactures want. Higher resolution is easy to develope and even easier to market. The consumer would be better served with advancements in color quality than increased resolution.

Don't perpetuate the hype.
Score
0
October 27, 2013 5:35:47 PM

If they can build 4k 12 inch panels, where the hell are the 24 inch panels, it should be FAR easier to make desktop monitors with that resolution then tiny screens.

In a tablet 4k is largely a waste, but for a 24" desktop monitor it would make a difference.

Unless.....you like to hold your tablet 1 foot from your face---which no one does---you would never notice the difference between 2k and 4k.
Score
1
October 27, 2013 6:45:46 PM

4K is absolutely unnecessary for a tablet. But, like the term 'HD", it sells itself to unsuspecting customers

4K may be worth looking into for 17 - 18" gaming laptops....in a couple years when the hardware is good enough to actually run a game at that resolution (note I say run, not max out) , and when 4K content is widely available
Score
0
October 27, 2013 9:07:04 PM

What most of you are skipping over here is that while 4k isn't necessary for a visual standpoint, you reap massive rewards in running native format vs having to always use the processor to scale EVERYTHING. The extra power needed for the screen will ALWAYS be less then the amount of power to re-process a 4k image down to a lower resolution. Not to mention that any type of scaling producing visual artifacts as a pixel can only ever be one color as one time.
Score
-1
October 27, 2013 9:55:32 PM

Squeeze it down a few inches, throw it in the Oculus Rift.
Score
2
October 27, 2013 11:38:20 PM

pointless....just pointless.......
Score
1
October 28, 2013 12:32:18 AM

This whole PPI thing is not very different from the megapixel war on cellphones and point and shoot cameras about 6-10 years ago. And the FPS thing in games these days has some similarities too.

Like the first poster said, there are far too many other variables in making a screen look good to us.

With the current lack of adequate 4K content, wouldn't you be at a disadvantage watching and playing 1080p/1440p content on a 4K screen?

4K on 12", impractical and little more than a gimmick.
Score
0
October 28, 2013 12:45:56 AM

4k on a 12.1 inch screen. Really cool but, how many batteries will I need to carry around just to keep the tablet on?
Score
-1
October 28, 2013 5:08:20 AM

Just give us a phone where the damn battery can get through the day!
Score
0
October 28, 2013 8:20:17 AM

It's like the chicken and the egg. This is a good thing. Yes, most people have no need for this, and GPU technology is still catching up, but if you start producing the product, it will force the GPU/CPU manufacturers to step up as well. Keep pushing the limits.
Score
0
October 28, 2013 10:06:50 AM

Grandmastersexsay said:
John Bauer said:
nevilence said:
John Bauer said:
Shankovich said:
^ Agreed. Unless you sit 3 feet from your screen, 1080P is good enough. I want epic contrast ratios that aren't dynamic and so many colours I barf rainbows when playing games please :D 


In 10-15 years, people will joke about how people from the 2000's and 2010's thought 720p and 1080p was "good enough"


I imagine they will joke about how companies wasted their time on screen improvements that were imperceivable to the human eye, but thats just me


You've probably never used a 4K monitor...

Trust me, you notice. Especially going back to a 27" 1080p screen.


With a very keen eye you might be able to notice a small difference with a 4k screen on a 27" monitor over 2k. However, you could get those same results with a 3000 or even a 2500 pixle wide display. At comfortable viewing distances and realistic screen sizes, 2k is pushing the limits for what the human eye can perceive.

The only reason 4k receives so much hype is because that is what manufactures want. Higher resolution is easy to develope and even easier to market. The consumer would be better served with advancements in color quality than increased resolution.

Don't perpetuate the hype.


everytime i make that argument, thumb down... its hard to tell if im just wrong or if people just have no idea what they are talking about and have a constant "more is better" approach.

otacon said:
Yes 4K screens are gorgeous.... on the 80" screen I saw it on. I'd never want to look at a 4K screen that was less than 42". What's the point? I mean damn 1080P on my laptop's 17" screen is almost too small. It's just marketing at this point..


i say it allot, 48 inch is the bare minimum i would take a 4k monitor at. why? because of the ppi, at 24 inches it would be so small that i would have to scale the ui, sure everything would be higher resolution, but if i have to scale the ui because everything is to small, it has VERY little useful applications for me.

none12345 said:
If they can build 4k 12 inch panels, where the hell are the 24 inch panels, it should be FAR easier to make desktop monitors with that resolution then tiny screens.

In a tablet 4k is largely a waste, but for a 24" desktop monitor it would make a difference.

Unless.....you like to hold your tablet 1 foot from your face---which no one does---you would never notice the difference between 2k and 4k.


what i want is a tablet with a dvi input or something that can handle a 2560 or 4k on one cable, just so i can use it as a second monitor, granted smaller monitor, but second monitor none the less.

fadeese said:
What most of you are skipping over here is that while 4k isn't necessary for a visual standpoint, you reap massive rewards in running native format vs having to always use the processor to scale EVERYTHING. The extra power needed for the screen will ALWAYS be less then the amount of power to re-process a 4k image down to a lower resolution. Not to mention that any type of scaling producing visual artifacts as a pixel can only ever be one color as one time.


scaleing up without any gpu processing can look like hell, but in my experience scaling down can only make it look better.

HiTekMuppet said:
This whole PPI thing is not very different from the megapixel war on cellphones and point and shoot cameras about 6-10 years ago. And the FPS thing in games these days has some similarities too.

Like the first poster said, there are far too many other variables in making a screen look good to us.

With the current lack of adequate 4K content, wouldn't you be at a disadvantage watching and playing 1080p/1440p content on a 4K screen?

4K on 12", impractical and little more than a gimmick.


no, megapixels are important to some extent. 3mp can do a normal photo size print, 8 can to a full sheet of paper print, and the higher mp you go, when you scale the pictures down, they look better, so long as you you sacrifice quality for size to any major extent, with a point and shoot higher megapixel = higher quality photos after the post processing. not everyone can spend the 2-3 grand to get a camera where you don't need any post work to make a 8-12 mp picture look good.
Score
0
October 28, 2013 11:02:29 AM

fadeese said:
What most of you are skipping over here is that while 4k isn't necessary for a visual standpoint, you reap massive rewards in running native format vs having to always use the processor to scale EVERYTHING. The extra power needed for the screen will ALWAYS be less then the amount of power to re-process a 4k image down to a lower resolution. Not to mention that any type of scaling producing visual artifacts as a pixel can only ever be one color as one time.


You're also skipping one thing. Today most powerful SoCs can downscale a 4K video to 1080p without a hitch. By the time 4K screens are introduced on tablets their SoC won't be able to handle 3D graphics at 4K. Heck a computer with a Intel i7 Extreme and Nvidia GTX Titan struggles to play 3d games at that resolution! How can you expect that a SoC of a tablet to handle that kind of workload in the near future?
Score
0
October 28, 2013 12:26:47 PM

4K is good for reading the text from screen, so it is not a pointless from that point of view. But gaming in native 4K... That will take some time untill we are there...
Score
0
October 28, 2013 4:15:59 PM

My 27" QHD (2560X1440) monitor and 720p tablet will do just fine for me for while yet.
Score
0
!