With the recent releases of the MacBook Air and the Mac mini, Apple made a point of saying that they can drive a 5K display running at 5120-by-2880 resolution with a refresh rate of up to 60 Hz. That sounds great, but if you’ve been assuming that you could waltz out and buy such a 5K display, you might need to think again.
My Kingdom for a 5K Display
Although the 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display and iMac Pro both have 5K displays built in, Apple doesn’t currently make a standalone 5K display, or, in fact, an external display of any sort. When Apple dropped its 27-inch Thunderbolt Display (see “Apple Discontinues Thunderbolt Display with No Replacement in Sight,” 27 June 2016), the company worked with LG on a replacement: the $1299 LG UltraFine 5K Display.
So you could buy an LG UltraFine 5K Display, but you might not want to. That’s because the availability of that monitor seems to be in decline, with AppleInsider reporting that Apple Stores say it hasn’t been restocked in a while and that it’s not available for in-store pickup when ordered online. With luck, its availability is dropping because LG is replacing it with a new model, but LG could just be running down stock before discontinuing it.
The Wikipedia page for 5K resolution lists a small number of other 5K displays, including screens from Dell, Philips, and HP, but as far as I can tell, none are currently for sale, apart from a handful of ultra-wide monitors with unusual aspect ratios like 64:27 and 32:9. Also on that list is the Iiyama ProLite XB2779QQS, but its page on Amazon says it ships directly from Japan and has absolutely no ratings or reviews, which is suspicious.
In short, the LG UltraFine 5K Display appears to be the only 5K display you can buy today, and you would have to order it online, sight unseen. If you can wait, it’s possible that LG will have a new model, and Apple has said that it will be releasing an Apple-branded professional display alongside the revamped Mac Pro in 2019. Apple has said nothing about specs, but it’s hard to see the company selling a screen that doesn’t at least match up to its iMacs.
What’s going on here? There are innumerable 4K displays for sale, but only one 5K display? There are some possible explanations, such as the industry standardizing on 4K, there being interface issues for all but the most recent computers, the panels being hard to manufacture in quantity, the costs being too high for the perceived win over 4K, or even 8K being the next jump instead of 5K. I have no answers here, but if anyone knows more about this part of the industry, let me know.
How Did We Get Here? And Where Are We Going?
In October 2014, Apple introduced the 27-inch iMac with 5K Retina display with 5120-by-2880 resolution, and it was, if you’ll pardon the expression, a true eye-opener. It wasn’t the first Retina display from Apple—that honor goes to the iPhone 4 introduced in 2010—nor was it the first Retina display used on a Mac, which was 2012’s 15-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display. But the 27-inch Retina iMac’s screen was huge, making it a different beast than the smaller iPhone and MacBook Pro screens.
The point of “Retina,” which is now an Apple trademark, is to make the pixel density of a display high enough that text and images on the screen become sufficiently crisp that the human eye can’t detect individual pixels. The closer you get to a screen, the easier it is to make out individual pixels, so Retina doesn’t refer to an absolute resolution, but instead one that varies with the size of the device and the distance from which the user would generally be viewing. You hold an iPhone much closer to your face than you do an iMac. Or at least I do.
The iPhone 4 had a pixel density of 325 pixels per inch (ppi), the MacBook Pro screens are 220 ppi, and the iMac Retina screens are 218 or 219 ppi. The Mac screens haven’t changed over time, but Apple increased the iPhone X’s pixel density to a whopping 458 ppi.
A “5K” display is generally defined as one having about 5000 pixels of horizontal resolution; similarly, a 4K display has about 4000 pixels horizontally. Although you can theoretically run a 5K display at its native resolution, the text would be too small for most people to read, unless you were to get really close. Instead, macOS scales the resolution by default, so the 27-inch Retina iMac’s default setting is for a scaled resolution of 2560 by 1440. With scaling, macOS combines four native pixels (a 2-by-2 matrix) into one scaled pixel, and since it can adjust the color of each pixel, the result is a crisper look.
When the 27-inch Retina iMac came out, I bought one nearly instantly. I was ready for a new Mac, the performance was stellar for the time, and the screen was absolutely gorgeous. The only problem was that my main Mac has always been a dual-display system, dating back to the SE/30 with a 13-inch Apple Color Display in 1990. In 2014, there was no equivalent 27-inch 5K display that I could pair with the iMac, so I settled for Apple’s now-obsolete 27-inch Thunderbolt Display. It has a native resolution of 2560 by 1440, identical to the iMac’s scaled resolution, which gives me a single rectangular Desktop. I’ve been using that combination since 2014, but it has never been ideal. I can feel the difference in quality every time I look to my left at the Thunderbolt Display, and I have to make sure to take all screenshots on the iMac’s screen for maximum resolution—screenshot resolution, it turns out, varies by screen.
I initially assumed that 5K displays would become commonplace and that at some point they’d get cheap enough that I could justify replacing the 27-inch Thunderbolt Display with a 5K display that would give me the same scaled resolution as the iMac. That hasn’t happened, though, so I’ve decided to wait and see what Apple comes out with for the Mac Pro. It will undoubtedly be a Thunderbolt 3 device, so I’ll have to contend with replacing my iMac at the same time.
I hope that Apple pays more attention to the industrial design of this new display in conjunction with the iMac and the iMac Pro. Part of the problem with the 27-inch Thunderbolt Display when paired with a 27-inch Retina iMac is that the iMac is about an inch (2.5 cm) taller than the Thunderbolt Display. Since Apple doesn’t let you adjust the height of either device, the only way to get the two screens at the same height is to put the Thunderbolt Display on a book or other riser. It’s a kludge, and I expect better of Apple’s vaunted designers.
It’s hard to see the broader display industry getting behind 5K displays in a big way at this point. Apple often releases new technologies before other companies, which sometimes makes Apple’s engineers seem prescient and at other times causes Apple’s products to end up in technological cul-de-sacs. The 5K display may be one of those dead ends, but it won’t matter to Mac users if Apple’s pro display is good enough and not insanely expensive.
I also wonder why the industry has been so hesitant. Maybe it is because many users have cheap hardware that would have trouble driving such bandwidth. Or just the usual, “it’s close so probably good enough”.
I think Apple was spot-on with 5k. When going retina, it makes perfect sense to take a common resolution and just double it. Quality 27" screens (including Apple’s) were running 2560x1440 so 5k is the perfect retina resolution for such a screen size.
I’ve used both a Samsung 27" 2560x1440 and a Dell 27" 2560x1440 with my MBP at work. The next 27" screen I buy will definitely be 5120x2880. The 27" screens are nice (especially—and it pains me to admit it—the Dell), but they’re no match for my MBP’s retina. The only thing saving that situation (barely) is that I’m usually much closer to my MBP’s screen when on the road (or at home) than I am in front of my 27" screens at work.
I suspect it’s because 5k, at least at the moment, is significantly more than expensive than 4k. Currently, the majority of the market is probably made up of graphic professionals. Dell is currently selling a 5k, and it’s listed in the “For Work” section of their website:
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/cty/dell-27-ultrasharp-ultra-hd-5k-monitor-up2715k/spd/dell-up2715k-monitor
Not only is the pro market significantly smaller than consumers or prosumers, any manufacturers would also be competing with the 5k iMac Pros. A company I recently worked with has teams of high end Photoshop retouchers and designers, as well as video editing teams, working on them. I was drooling with envy.
I do wish Apple had adopted Adobe RGB as the color space for the iMac Pros however. That Dell for example does.
DCI P3 in the iMacs is wider gamut than sRGB, but while it exceeds Adobe RGB in the reds, it doesn’t meet it in the blues and greens.
I’m pretty sure that Dell monitor is no longer for sale. There’s no Buy button on that page, and if you navigate in from the monitors for sale from the main page, you won’t find that one.
I was lucky enough to find a Dell UP2715K through newegg.ca for my 2014 Mac Pro early last year (April 2017), but even then it already looked like the monitor had been discontinued by Dell.
New three-monitor (4K + 5K + 4K) setup for my 2014 Mac Pro
The 5K requires two Thunderbolt 2 ports (out of six), but it works well, and is very easy on the eyes. My two 4K displays on the sides (using two more TB2 ports) work well at scaled resolutions as secondary displays. (They’re farther from my eyes and the slight imperfections don’t bother me much.)
What remains to be seen is which displays I’ll be able to continue to use with the 2019 Mac Pro when it finally comes out. But at least I have been able to enjoy a Retina display as my primary monitor with my pro setup while waiting for Apple to get its act together.
Well, not to say that Apple can claim all rights to 5K displays, although have you considered that the reason for the lack of 5K displays is in fact Apple themselves and the messages they give as to the direction they’re going. If the iPad Pro is all the computing one needs, and it can replace your computer, why would any manufacturer throw down behind Apple with resources to build 5K displays when Apple themselves seemingly don’t want to be making Macs any more. Its not like anyone with an iPad Pro is going to flap about not having a 5K display.
I don’t think this can be placed at the feet of the iPad—Macs have been selling well for years. However, to extrapolate your basic point to the Mac lineup, I think you may be onto something. The two Mac models that need an external a display are the Mac Pro and the Mac mini, and both have been embarrassingly stagnant for years. Apple finally revved the Mac mini after 4 years, and the Mac Pro revamp is still due in 2019. So I could see display manufacturers not seeing much of a market in those like me who want a second monitor to attach to an iMac or someone who wants a secondary big screen for a MacBook Pro.
I think the big holdback on 5K is that it’s just so difficult to drive one.
Graphics cards that support DisplayPort 1.3 or 1.4, or HDMI 2.1, are still fairly rare at consumer prices. And with DisplayPort 1.3 or 1.4, you still only get 50Hz refresh at 5120x2880 and 10 bits of color depth. The original 5K iMacs used a DisplayPort 1.2 hack that was essentially using two DisplayPort connectors, and others actually used two unpacked connectors. Thunderbolt 3 is still rare outside of Macs, too, though getting more common. So demand is definitely on the high end, and to a very limited market.
The upshot is that you can run 2 4K displays with about the same bandwidth as one 5K display, and you could run an 8K display for about the same horsepower as two 5K displays.
But as manufacturers upgrade to support 8K displays and the latest HDMI specs, the silicon may trickle down to some affordable 5K displays, too.
I think it’s clear that while the pro photographers and some designers can see a difference in color/clarity, the vast majority of the buying public cannot distinguish the difference between 4K and 5K displays (good 4Ks anyway). And since few people can actually use a computer at 5120-by-2880 resolution (everything is just too small and unreadable) for more than watching video, there’s no reason to pay the premium for 5K when you’re going to run it at the same resolution as a 4K display at 1/3 the cost.
As for Mac users, until they sell a 5K display with Thunderbolt 3 connections, USB-C powered ports for connecting and charging other devices, and a webcam compatible with Facetime, the LG is likely to be the only 5K display for Mac users until Apple releases their own pro display (which few people will be able to afford).
I have kept my original Cinema Display around for one reason: its matte screen. The market today is all “glossy.” I remember the glossy/matte discussions a few years ago, but matte screens today are extinct. Certainly the great minds working on displays of the future are also trying to come up with an effective anti-reflective solution! If so, they’re keeping it real quiet.
I’m not sure that’s true. Maybe it’s harder for 4K, but for 1440p matte displays are readily available. After my ACDs I bought two 27" monitors from other manufacturers and both were matte. I never had issues finding matte external displays, especially higher resolution models. I suppose it’s because these are mostly for professional use and least used for movies/TV where glossy appears to be most popular.
I was able to find this 4K display that’s definitely matte. At $348 shipped it’s quite inexpensive for an IPS, so no idea if it’s actually really a good monitor.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01IRQAYPE
I was talked into buying a matte display on the ancient MacBook Pro I’m still using, even though the salesperson at the Apple Store tried talking me out of it (though not too hard). I had told him that I was a heavy graphics user, and the salesperson told me The matte would dull color. He was right, and it’s the one thing I regret about the purchase. Afterwards, I heard a lot of regrets from others for the same reason.
Since graphics users are likely to spend more money on screens, no matter how much they want anti glare, color fidelity is more important. Graphics pros are the most likely to spend more money for top of the line screens, and if they aren’t shelling out extra money on a particular feature, it’s not likely to survive in the marketplace.
Glossy screens are equally important for print, even on uncoated stock. Color seems to loose punch on matte screens.
We do precise color proofing in our office. Lots of graphic work. When we moved to the glossy iMac screens from the 30" Apple Cinema displays no one complained.
It’s not technically matte in the way that old time TFT matte displays are, but it’s not anything like glossy, either. It shows virtually no reflections under bright lights or in a very sunny room.
I’d also like to point out that that 27UD58 model regularly goes on sale for around $300, occasionally under; but the bezels, enclosure and stand are awful; but is a very good panel; identical to the panels in most other affordable 4K displays, as most are made by LG anyway; so if you don’t care about the enclosure, and are willing to pop $30 or more on a good VESA mount, it’s a great, affordable choice.
The panels used in that one are similar, but there are better specs available on the 27UD68 and 69 series, and those are regularly on sale for $400 or less; I even saw the very best version, the 27UD68P-B (best NIT and color), go on sale for ~$370 on Black Friday.
Best Buy usually has the 27UD69-W (white enclosure) for around the $400 regularly; it’s a fantastic screen, with the nearly-matte finish and super-narrow bezels, great for multiple displays.
I have two 68P-B, and one 69-W, side by side, and I swear I can’t tell the difference, nor can others who’ve tried without looking at the color of the enclosures on the back, but I also don’t need them at full brightness (I run at around 70%).
Well CES 2019 came and went, and AFAICT we’ve seen zero announcements of any new ‘true’ 5K3K displays to add to the very few that exist. Only these 1440/2160-height widescreen displays, instead of true 2880-height 16:9 models.
This is strange, given Apple said at the October iPad event that the new (10Gbps) USB-C iPad Pros can connect with ‘up to’ 5K displays. Exact time:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfHEnw6Rm-4&t=3331s
However, zero non-Thunderbolt 3 5K3K displays actually exist?
Is it even possible to run true 5120x2880 5K displays (obviously in pixel-doubled mode: 2560x1440) at either 30 or 60Hz over a maximum 10Gbps USB-C connection? It seems a strange claim to make if no displays exist, and especially given the LG 5K’s rely on dual-DP 1.2 channels over a single TB3 connection in order to work on TB3 Macs? (I have two of them on my 2016 maxed-out 15MBP, which generally work really well.)
Weird and annoying, for sure.
Yeah, it is curious. I’m dying to see what sort of a display Apple releases with the new Mac Pro later this year.
Well, here’s a new 5K display, but it’s not Retina.
That’s the problem with using pixel width alone as a shorthand, assuming the aspect ratio will be something normal like 16:9 or 16:10.
It is nice that the Dell Ultrasharp U4919DW provides enough power to handle a 15-inch MacBook Pro, has picture-by-picture, and KVM features. However, there are some significant limitations if you attempt to use this with the single USB-C connection. The USB-C connection only supports USB 2.0 for data so if you have higher speed peripherals like an external drive, it will need a separate connection. Also, if you use the USB-C as the video connection, the color depth is only 8-bit (~16M colors) instead of 10-bit (~1B colors); using the full color depth will require using an adapter to connect to one of the HDMI or full-size DisplayPort ports. So instead of using one cable, you have to use three cables to connect to this display to take advantage of all its features.
LG just recently released another beast of a 5K widescreen; looks like what the Dell above is based on.
Now we have Ming-Chi Kuo suggesting Apple’s new display will be a 6K retina quality 218ppi model.
Sounds a weird option to me that Apple would go for this. But then, it may be they simply cannot wait for Thunderbolt 4 to arrive, which would offer enough bandwidth for 8 or 10K options along with hub like functionalities. So a 6K may sell well when marketed especially for use with a new Mac Pro. We’ll see.
We now have the answer. At WWDC last week Apple announced their own display, the 32 inch Pro Display XDR. But with a $5,000 price tag, there are undoubtedly less expensive alternatives. If you’ve got the scratch, though, it looks to be a great monitor. You can see it at https://www.apple.com/pro-display-xdr/.
One thing that’s not clear to me is what Macs, other than the Mac Pro, will be able to drive this 6K monitor at full resolution. I’m guessing that the iMac Pro will be able to, since it can drive two 5K displays along with its built-in screen, but the MacBook Pro can supposedly drive only one 5K display—will it have enough overhead to run a 6K display?
And regardless, I’m sadly priced out of it. I was hoping for a 5K Retina Thunderbolt Display to replace the non-Retina one I use now with my Retina iMac (and that’s noticeably lower quality).
I’m sad about being priced out of both Mac Pro and the display. Dell does sell an 8k monitor, and they just dumped the price from $4,999 to $3,899. B&H is selling it for $3,415, and you can pick it up at the store or have it shipped to you today:
https://www.dell.com/en-us/work/shop/dell-ultrasharp-32-8k-monitor-up3218k/apd/210-alez/monitors-monitor-accessories
Samsung’s got an 8k on sale for $3,999, down from $4,999 at Best Buy. This is way out of my price range too:
https://www.bestbuy.com/site/tvs/8k-tvs/pcmcat1552503373763.c?id=pcmcat1552503373763&qp=brand_facet%3DBrand~Samsung&ref=212&loc=1&ds_rl=1260573&gclid=EAIaIQobChMI6PimzIbn4gIVj8DICh17ZwDJEAAYAyAAEgLvE_D_BwE&gclsrc=aw.ds
Apple is, once again, disrupting the high end professional market.
No doubt Apple will announce compatible Macs when the monitor is released for sale. Most of us, though, like you, will be priced out of it. Not that I’m dissatisfied with my current iMac. Because I am visually impaired, however, I don’t need a Retina display of any kind. That said, there are plenty of Retina Macs available for those who do. Nor are many people likely to dispose of their current investment in big monitors to pick up an even bigger one. The market for that Pro Display XDR is likely to be as limited as the market for the new Mac Pro. Given the small potential market, I’m surprised Apple went for it. But, even though I’m no longer in the market for a Mac Pro, I’m glad Apple did, if for nothing else than for bragging rights. I can’t wait to see which, if any, PCs will even try to contend with it, at any price. Though Apple mentioned a way expensive “reference” monitor in the keynote. Who owns one of those, except, maybe, James Cameron?
5K is the new “curved display.”
While appealing and cool to most people—it’s simply not useful for the overwhelming majority of users. And it came at a time that fell in the middle of the more popular 4K and the hot new 6-8K.
5K not a gimmick when it’s used to provide the same pixel density (i.e. “Retina”) on a larger screen. The Apple iMac Retina 4K and Apple iMac Retina 5K have basically the same DPI (~218) but the former is 21.5" diagonal and the latter is 27". Apple’s Pro Display XDR is 6K but it’s also 32" diagonal so it’s still 218 DPI.
The Dell 32" 8K is 280 DPI, I expect there are diminishing returns from increasing the DPI. For example, I wonder if anyone notices the higher DPI of the iPhone X, XS, XS Max compared to the XR and previous generation iPhones. I feel like it only matters if you put it in a VR headset, where there are lenses magnifying it.
The new display is wonderful but most of us wanted a 5K display based on the iMac. One possibility is that Apple wanted to started high and there might be a new much lower cost display in a year or 2 that incorporates lessons and technology from the announced display.
Another possibility is that the iMac is undergoing a case redesign and they want a new 5K display to match the new iMac display.
Or they might just not going into the lower priced display market. Which would be a shame since I don’t think there are great displays for our Macs, the 3rd party 5K retina display market never appeared. No one seems that happy with the LG displays that fill this niche.
And those LG displays are disappearing. Not a lot of Retina-level screens available for the Mac in general, it seems, much less something that matches nicely with the 5K Retina iMac.
If you total up all the people working in VFX shops on a superhero or James Cameron movie, there can be hundreds and hundreds of them for each special effect. Double or triple the headcount for each one of 3D is involved. And it’s not just special effects. Movies, TV shows, commercials, high end print, the overall graphics market itself profits from high resolution, super speedy rendering, color accuracy, etc. It might not be the largest market, but it is a very highly profitable one.
I just read this about LG the other day, and LG has been shipping and selling probably millions more mobile phones across the globe than Apple does each year:
https://techcrunch.com/2019/05/01/lg-mobile-still-losing-money/
I’m in the same situation. Still rocking the Thunderbolt display, as the 5K LG monitor looks ugly and cheap to me so I refuse using it at home. I’ve heard those 5K LG monitors are being discontinued soon. Wondering if they are being replaced by another LG or Apple might announce a non-Pro version of their XDR display?
Yes, it’s clear the LG Retina displays are on their way out. We wrote about the replacement, a 23-inch display that’s roughly 4K but not as high PPI as the older ones.
Yay! Apple is now carrying a new LG 27-inch 5K Display.
Look what I just ran across. Dell has a 49-inch curved display with a resolution of 5120-by-1440 for $1500. Not cheap, and not as high resolution as the LG 5K Display or the Retina iMac, but still, that’s a lot of pixels in a single monitor.
Interesting. With these displays Dell apparently just keeps making them wider and adding pixels accordingly. The 1440 pixel height and the PPI remains ~ unchanged.
I also notice that their USB-C does PD and DP 1.4, but only USB2 for data. At first my reaction was WTH, but then it dawned on me that when you push DP 1.4 across USB-C, you most likely no longer have enough bandwidth/lanes left for data at 3.1 Gen1 let alone 2.
That’s a huge issue. The reason 4K is so affordable is that monitor manufacturers are able to use the same LCD panels that are sold for use in televisions - which are produced in very large quantities.
5K, or any resolution not supported by consumer TVs, is going to cost more because the manufacturers can only sell them for computer use and specialized applications - they’re not going to be used in TVs.
I predict that when 8K TVs start to become popular, we’ll quickly find 8K computer displays costing less than 5K displays, for this very reason.
And looking back, compare the cost of computer displays at 1920x1080 (matching HD TV’s 1080p) and computer displays with 1920x1200 (which is not used by TVs). That small increase in screen size translates to a disproportionate increase in price and decrease in availability, entirely due to the fact that 16:9 displays are used in TVs and 16:10 displays are not.
This is certainly true, and I also think that there’s a “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” scenario going on. Content providers didn’t shoot in 5k because there weren’t enough 5k TVs in the wild, and 5k screens weren’t selling because people were reluctant to buy unless they could be sure that they could have stuff to watch in 5k.
Netflix was the first service out of the gate with 4K, and picture quality was one of the ways they differentiated their internet streaming service vs. On Demand from HBO and other cable TV services. HBO still doesn’t broadcast or stream in 4K because cable is by far their biggest revenue stream, and not all cable providers have the bandwidth or storage capacity. If they Streamed 4K in HBO Now, cable companies would go ballistic.
https://help.hbonow.com/Answer/Detail/23
I’ll bet Netflix has plans for 8k up its sleeve; it’s as big a differential as 4k was. And the same goes for Apple TV+, which is 100% 4k because it’s all original programming.
Except that there never was any concept of a 5K TV. None were ever sold for any amount of money and I don’t have any recollection of there even being prototypes demonstrated.
The TV industry plans are to move from 4K to 8K, not stopping at anything in between. Any display panel with a resolution in between is only going to be used for computer displays and vertical-market applications and will therefore be more expensive than either (once 8K screens enter mass production, of course).
There have been 5K TV’s produced, but they were highly specialised stuff. For example this one was released in 2014, for a mere MSRP $120K! Others were ‘only’ in the tens of thousands.
8K UHD TV’s are around now, although still pricy and non-mainstream yet, and almost no native content, so upscaling is the key to using them (much as 4K’s have had to upscale FHD content, already).
It’ll be interesting where computer displays go here: 8K or 10K? And likely will have to be Thunderbolt 4 using DSC (Display Stream Compression) at a minimum, if not Thunderbolt 5 for 120Hz of something. It’s related to the DP standards (i.e. DP 2.0, and beyond):
EDIT: Should have added, that those later standards may finally make a 32:9 widescreen 2x 5K3K display possible.
It will be interesting. I’m guessing that this many pixels will not be used at all for 16:9 aspect ratios.
Computer displays have a certain maximum height. Anything too tall and you’ll find it uncomfortable to have on your desk less than a meter away from your eyes. Too much vertical head motion will lead to neck strain.
And once you’ve gone into the realm of “retina” resolutions (say, 200-250 ppi), adding more pixels doesn’t gain anything. All the extra pixels will produce better images on very large screens (say, above 70") or for projectors, but neither of those form factors are practical for desktop use.
So if we do see 8K and 10K computer monitors, I predict that we’ll only find them in ultra-wide aspects with curved screens to reduce horizontal head motion. We’ll probably see the same number of lines as 4K, but stretched into wider aspects (e.g. a 32:9 display featuring 7680x2160 pixels).
At least that’s my prediction. But it’s really anybody’s guess right now.
In January 2016 Japan’s NKTV began broadcasting 8K content via satellite:
In January 2018 NKTV launched the first 100% 8K TV channel via satellite and cable:
The 2020 Olympics and Paralympics, which are likely to be postponed till 2021, are scheduled to be shot in 8K by NKH TV and will be broadcast live via satellite, unless the pandemic is still active.
https://www.insidethegames.biz/articles/1091594/nhk-to-provide-tokyo-2020-coverage-in-8k
Sony and Panasonic have been selling 8K TVs in Japan for a while now, and LG and others are moving in to the market. 8K TV sales have been doing well across the Asia Pacific:
https://hdguru.com/lg-begins-8k-oled-tv-pitch-in-japan-prior-to-olympics/
There’s no word yet about whether or not NBC Has plans to shoot or broadcast the Olympics in 8K for the US consumer market. There’s no 8K currently being broadcast in the US, and not a peep about it from Netflix, who was the first out of the gate with 4K. But I do think that 8k is inevitable down the road. Netflix is the #1 streaming service in Japan.
Sure yes NHK did trials before this with the BBC here in London, before then launching a limited service, and plans for this (now next) year’s Olympics. But outside of that limited market and context, in NA/Europe (or other developed markets), there is hardly any native 8K content, broadcast or otherwise.
Netflix may be the first like they were with 4K (no doubt their plans will add a tier for ‘only another few bucks a month’!), but satellite/cable will still be ages away I suspect (as in 2+ years minimum, I reckon), and terrestrial can forget about it, as they can barely transmit FHD over the air, never mind 4K or 8K, even using newer codecs like h265.
FYI:
Haha, I was literally just coming here to paste the same thing.
Here’s another link:
The thing I don’t get, is how this DP alt mode supports up to nearly 80Gbps, yet both USB4 and TB4 only do 40Gbps?
This stuff is getting as confusing as hell, TBH.
Becoming beyond perceptible/pragmatic for close working displays now. Increasing resolution driving larger displays away from the desk, where human scale dictates useful scale, my neck whips from left to right quite enough thank you. When we get off the desk and on the wall we hit viewing distance metrics which render resolution gains irrelevant pretty quickly.
Chasing an end game on all that.
Data rates and tonal range will be everything, deeper pixels man… Eye health another. The form of illumination becoming key, I still think my old HD plasma TV has a more beautiful color tonality than any of my probably more precise higher end displays, it feels gentler on my eyes too. I know they’re not as green as the more modern display technologies.
In my wife’s new office complex where over 10K people work they gave every desk a 34" wide display. 3440x1440. And it can operate as a single large display or dual displays. Which in development and support environments works great. I see this as more where larger displays go.
(Although it has been mostly empty for the last month or so.)
That’s an ultra-wide display. At that size and resolution (110 dpi), the panel’s height is only 13", which is the same as my old 24" display with its 16:10 aspect ratio.
9to5Mac has a review of the Dell 49-inch screen now. As expected, the text quality is the issue, if you’re used to Retina.
It would be good to have two of them…
Perhaps one above the other…
My son has a similar ultra wide display, but they all feel too short to me. I have a 27" iMac with two NEC 24" monitors in portrait mode beside them, kind of a stocky tall square beside the iMac. I get loads of work done with them.