Last week, Apple’s biggest display partner LG Display published an explainer on 8K (7,680 by 4,320 resolution) screens, claiming that the specification is the future of display technology. LG has already demonstrated 8K monitors at CES in Las Vegas, and notes that the panel boasts 16 times the number of pixels as a standard Full HD screen. Strangely, however, LG’s document explicitly says that Apple is working on an 8K version of the iMac (emphasis ours):
It has become clear that Japan is planning to launch an 8K SHV test broadcast and then promptly restructure the UHD service. Apple has also announced that they will release the ‘iMac 8K’ with a super-high resolution display later this year. Korea is also preparing to offer an 8K service demonstration at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics. LG Display displayed a new beacon of the 8K era by revealing their 98-inch 8K Color Prime Ultra HDTV at CES 2015.
As anyone who reads up on Apple would tell you, this statement from LG Display is not accurate: Apple has not announced an iMac with an 8K display and has not publicly indicated that one is coming this year…
Perhaps this is just a complete factual error from LG, but it’s also possible that the company, which has been one of Apple’s main display suppliers for years, has some insight into Apple’s roadmap. Regardless, a major manufacturer such as LG claiming that Apple is working toward 8K displays is interesting.
Late last year, Apple leapfrogged many desktop computers on the market by launching an iMac with a 5K display. Apple has not updated its standalone monitors since 2011, so perhaps the company is working on something even more elaborate for that professional-focused product line.
We noted earlier this year that 8K displays will start hitting the marketplace in 2016, so it wouldn’t be surprising for Apple to already have such screens in its Research and Development labs. Speaking of display resolutions, the next-generation Apple TV, to be announced this summer, is not slated to include support for 4K video streaming.
FTC: We use income earning auto affiliate links. More.
I feel like the resolution wars have gone on long enough. Surely there has to be an end in sight somewhere.
There’s little point in pixel-doubling-tripling-quadrupling etc, of interface elements indefinitely. At some point retina should mean bloody retina and then we can focus on the staggering amount of GPU required for high polygon count 3D to catch up to these ridiculous displays.
I’m looking forward to the money being invested elsewhere.
I feel like people who don’t get it ought not to comment on it.
Next time don’t hit reply, head straight for your pillow for a good long cry.
You’re getting what you want, so why don’t you gracefully accept yes for an answer, and stop being a monumental jackass.
There you go, first a completely unintelligent and uninformed post, and then name calling when its pointed out. Keep it up, you’re on a roll.
PMZ back to claim he can hear the inaudible and see the microscopic. A true X-man indeed.
Yo, PMZ, you don’t get to tell me to shut up, and then complain when I call you a jackass. You can suck up you loudmouth blowhard. People have different priorities to you. Deal with it, and step the hell off.
you realize this would probably be a LARGER screen, not a higher density screen, right?
I don’t “realise” anything “probably” … those two words don’t belong together.
Also, you and PMZ should read my post again. I am not saying 8K displays are unnecessary, I’m saying surely, there must be an end in sight soon.
Bloody jihadists, can’t deal with people who have differing priorities to yourself, can you?
Yo genius, 8K is not a higher pixel density, hence no pixel doubling, tripling, etc, if the screen is bigger. I’m not sure why you’re so disgruntled that a larger screen would have more pixels than a smaller screen.
If you watch good 4k content (Netflix stream of the black list) on a 4k TV I can tell you it is EASILY noticeably better at distances beyond retina. Hate to break it to you, but ‘retina’ goes far and beyond just the number of pixels. Eyesight is incredibly complex and a number of things makes it look better still. First of all it has far better depth, color, contrast, and another thing are the cameras used for filming the content. If you’ve ever seen content filmed on the best cameras (sony’s 4 and 8ks) it looks noticeably better even at 1080p than other 1080p content. Watch a scene in the movie ‘oblivion’ which they filmed on those cameras and you’ll see how much better it looks.
Ridiculous. Resolution alone does not increase contrast, colour gamut, “depth” or anything else other than resolution. You can’t compare a shit screen to a good screen and then say “4K” made everything better. That’s just WRONG.
>> If you’ve ever seen content filmed on the best cameras (sony’s 4 and 8ks) it looks noticeably better even at 1080p than other 1080p content
That has nothing to do with them being 4k or 8k, it has everything to do with the quality of the rest of the sensor tech. Take iPhone cameras for example. Comparatively low megapixels, but takes a better, crisper, nicer photo than a 40+megapixel Nokia.
You have no idea what you’re talking about, and you’re actually making my point for me. Resolution isn’t everything. It’s not even the most important thing. Quality is.
Did Apple mention they were going to announce a 5K iMac before they made the official announcement? NO.
Is Apple playing around with a 8K iMac in a testing lab? As long as they can get panels to test, I’m sure they are, when they are going to release it is anyone’s guess outside the people at Apple.
They just announced native 4K Blu Ray players at CES this past Jan.
I’m sure the TV mfg are going to have to tell their customers this. “Hey, you know that 4K TV we just sold you? It sucks, now we have 8K.”
With iMac 5K last end year, no 8K for this year. Too quick. LG has no marketing?…
LG has marketing, but it’s also the second biggest supplier of screens for your Macs and iOS devices
Sounds great, bring it on. I use a 5k iMac all day everyday and I don’t know how I got on without it before. If 8k means a little bit shape and a little bit larger (maybe a 30″?)…I’m all for it.
I have a 27in iMac (not 5K) and sometimes the screen is too big and sometimes it’s too small depending on what i’m doing and how many full sized windows i want at the same time or in full screen mode. :-) Sometimes I feel that I have to sit back away from the screen to actually get a full sized view when I’m watching a movie in full screen mode, but I work closer to the screen when using an app that requires me to read standard text.
Is it possible that by “Apple has also announced that they will release the ‘iMac 8K’ with a super-high resolution display later this year.”, that they’re really saying Apple has made it known behind closed doors and LG slipped up and publicly mentioned it.
It seems doubtful that Apple would put out such an iMac this year but at the same time it seems doubtful to me that LG would just pull the idea of Apple working on an 8K display completely out of their rear ends and say Apple announced it.
Oh bloody shit I’ve ordered 2 days ago an iMac 5k :/
Too soon, Jr.
I could see them creating it for special orders… something for big time movie editors/music producers/people with LOTS of money… also doing big screens for museums/galleries, so they could use an incredible gorgeous picture while using the apple branding.
No way is this for everyday consumers.
Since when are $2500+ computers of any kind/brand/make for everyday consumers?
I wish Apple would just release higher end headless i5/i7 units that the base model was priced in between a MacMini and MacPro and have a variety of monitors so if we want more power but don’t want a 5K or 8K screen that we don’t have to buy one or we can buy one when we want to.
Wouldn’t it be nice to buy a higher end 4 core i7 4.0GHz with 16GB RAM (expandable to more) and 256GB Flash with a decent discrete GPU for around $2,000? Or a 8 Core i7, etc. for around $2,500? Monitor separate?
It’s funny that nobody has yet addressed the big “elephant” in the room. The graphic at the top doesn’t correctly display the dimensions of the resolutions.
我的想法
I dont understand this, can someone help me clarify? If 7,680 (Quad UHD) is 8K, 4096 (UHD 4K) is 4K how is 1920 (FHD) 1K and not 2K?
8K does make sense, if we see a 32 inch (274.77 ppi) or 46 inch (209.78 ppi) iMac, or Cinema Display. Both are within “retina resolution speccs”… I would love a 46″ iMac, now I have a 27″ iMac with a 27” Cinema Display attached to it. An iMac with that kind of screen would be enough for my screen estate needs for some time ;-) Maybe Ill stick around using my old iMac another year :D
The ratio of the picture is incorrect
I was noticing that as well… Something seemed off
Probably for the new Cinema Display monitor.
The QHD ratio is inaccurate.
if this UHD-2 (12bit!) screen is not ITU-R “Rec. BT.2020” 10bit/12bit real colour compliant then why should we care
https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/groups/jtnm/JT-NM%20MVS%20Report%20150303.pdf
Video Format Resolution – The system shall be capable of carrying video payload of any
resolution up to the size of UHDTV2 (7680 x 4320).
Video Image Rate – The system shall be capable of carrying video payload of any frame or
field rate up to 300 Hz, and shall be capable of carrying NTSC style fractional frame rates at
multiples of (1000/1001).
Video Sample Depth – The system shall be capable of carrying video payload sample depths of
10 or 12 bits.
Video Chroma Sampling – The system shall be capable of carrying a video payload of 4:2:2 or
4:4:4 chroma sampling.
Alpha Channel – The system shall be capable of carrying a video payload that contains an
Alpha Channel (a component that represents transparency).
Color Spaces – The system shall be capable of carrying video payload in the color space of
ITU-R Rec. BT.601, ITU-R Rec. BT.709, and ITU-R Rec. BT.2020.
Your diagram is wrong! This 8K resolution is 16 times bigger than 1920 X 1080! The scale of your diagram is way off.
16 X higher I mean. Like taking 16 1920 X 1080 screens and checker boarding 4 across and 4 down.