It’s time to correct the Pimax “8K” name issue


#6

Sure, technically you can call it 8k of course. But when you say 8k, people think about 7680×4320, so if you then don’t deliver that, people feel cheated. Hence it’s really a bad name.


#7

I don’t disagree as ppl thing in standard of 16:9. But putting 4 so called 4k monitors together truthfully does not make it 8k; its 7.5k or more accurately 7.6k. Which is what the PiMax is in truth is 7.6k @ 32:9.

Now lets try the cross multiply what a real 8k monitor should be at 16:9

8000/x = 16/9

X=4500

So if we are going with 8k @ 16:9 would be 8000*4500.

As consumers maybe we need to stop accepting mfgrs compromises on standards.


#8

Hehe but that’s not how it works @heliosurge. Companies shouldn’t ‘educate’ their customers on definitions, that never works. Pimax should realize that 8k is really not a good name instead.


#9

Pimax 6k sounds fine to me.


#10

The simple truth are you going to accept when they double 8k at 76804320 to give 152608640 as a 16k Tv with almost a full k loss in res?

Start with the big number & find the small.

16k should be 16000*9000

Easy math no compromises & 100% accurate.

So real K res at 16:9

8k = 80004500
4k = 4000
2250
2k = 2000*1125

So you can see how much res were loosing with the compromising rounding of the higher number.


#11

There is a double edge to this marketing blade. Pimax advertising as “8K” sounds great for people who know simply that this means ultra HD. The problem however is for computing enthusiasts who know how graphically demanding 4k is at 90Hz. I have seen PLENTY of posts on the comments section of tech media webpages where people are stating “no GPU in existence can run 8k at 90Hz, what rig are they using for the demos?”.

Immediately some speculative customers are put off by the implied system requirements of 8k resolution at 90Hz, these potential consumers may be lost with the current branding choice.

I am not personally criticising Pimax, I honestly have no quarrel with their branding, it is quite normal for manufacturers to prefer bigger numbers… I am looking at you Microsoft! I merely wish to share the observed trends in community speculation on media and social networks.


#12

I think the name is good. IMO it doesn’t need a name change.
Got no complaints against it


#13

Yes, this is another good point.


#14

my 2 cents to please all I would suggest :
Pimax Horizon 8 ( for 8k)
Pimax Horizon 5 ( for 5k)

:smiley:


#15

I think you hit the nail with the Hammer.

Manufacturers do not educate their customers. So then what you have said the customer should recognize 4k is not actually 4k its 3.8k. So PiMax’s 8k like 8k tv is not actually 8k its 7.6k rounded up & consumers should educate themselves on how aspect ratio changes expected values on resolution. :beers::stuck_out_tongue_winking_eye::+1::sparkles:

Now that being said maybe one should measure a screens realstate in Mega Pixels.

So 4kish(3.8k) 8mega pixels at 16:9
8kish(7.6k) 32MP at 16:9
& Pimax 8kish(7.6k) at 16MP at 32:9


#16

You know…

As a mildly amusing numberwang distraction: ONE way of counting things, is pixel division by pixel division, of the entire field of view, and, amusingly, circumstances allow us the possibility to arrive at precisely true 4 utilised “kibipixels” (a number which happens to be the originating digital cinema definition of “4k”), if one postulate the following:

  • Horizontal screen utilisation was last time anything was mentioned 80%.
  • Two thirds of what one eye can see, covers the stereoscopic region (100 degrees of 150).

…so solving this for both eyes (adding up to four thirds of the per-eye resolution, total (the shared bitmap is six thirds, but two plus two of those are overlapping, so they count only once), for the total FOV): 38400.84/3=4096!

Hopefully the screen driver/scaler is made to squish the aspect ratio of the input signal (16:9 to 12.8:9), and offset it upto the common screen edges, so that it is not, too, only 80% utilised.
(Would rather have 3413 pixels total effective horizontal resolution (paying no attention to the undeniable effect of binocular detail perception), than 2730 (80% of that).)

(EDIT: Come to think of it; Maybe that last thing could account for the peculiar render targets shown in the SteamVR settings window, in the videos that were posted a while back… Oh well, not going to check whether there is any apparent correlation now; Work tomorrow. :7)

:7


#17

Maybe better to use unique names for each tier.

5k - Frontier
8k - Horizon
8k-X - Aurora / Expanse / Prophecy

Alternatively there is likely a good sounding chinese words as well. :v::wink::+1::sparkles:


#18

Xpanse is not a bad name, too.


#19

People need to get over this already… 8K is not really incorrect, sure it’s a little misleading coming from pancake TV/Monitor standards but it’s being used by several companies and I’m pretty sure it’s here to stay. HTC is even claiming 3k on their Pro Vive. As already stated using the K denotation for consumer products is just imprecise anyway no matter pancake or stereo but it’s here and it’s not going anywhere.

I agree however that it shouldn’t really be the name of the product…


#20

I agree, we need to change the name for the helmet.


#21

Could even use Endeavor as well.

But i think as a community we should turn our focus on things like were doing here. Attempting to advance what we can.

Help fix the naming scheme with suggestions.
Those with Artistic talents like @4rcane work on graphical designs.

Work on creating standards for responsible headset spec reporting etc.


#22

The difference is that, although other industries (like TV or storage) rely on specs which may not be as clear as they could be, at least all the players are largely in alignment with how they’re using the terminology. When it comes to Pimax, they’re using the ‘K’ in a way that’s very different than most people expect that it would be used, which is why there’s confusion.


#23

But if you recall not so many years ago Seagate had a class action suit against them for not using tge pre existing standard.

1 meg = 1024 by memory & flash drive makers.

Where as Hard disks were counting 1 meg = 1000

Now those of us who have been around would know that mem chips followed an imperial type format.

Ie 8, 16, 32, 64 etc.

So 1 meg imp = 1024

Where as Hard drive makers are using a Metric standard

So 1 meg = 1000.

Now going by what @sjefdeklerk said is true Manufacturers generally rely on Consumers educating themselves on the specs reported.

So yes using a non standard Aspect Ratio many un-educated consumers will see 8k (7.6k actual) as used by PiMax does not line up against 8k (7.6k actual) at what ppl have gotten used to as the norm. But Neither is incorrect & neither though is truly 8k.

Cause double 8k at 16:9 based on accepted 4k tv (3.8k actual) & you are loosing over 1k.

160009000 (16k actual)is considerably more than 152608640 (15.2k actual). Just look at the difference in numbers.

This why if they want to call it “k” then we should start with that & use it to determine size of the smaller number.

:beers::wink::+1::sparkles:


#24

Hmmnnn. Pimax 8K Horizon. The horizon implying 8000 pixels, if you round up, across the horizon. They can even use that to clarify in the marketing on the box, <----- 8000 pixels -----> Or use an arc in a perspective. That way there is no name change, just a model distinction of the 8k series, and there is clarification.

Hopefully, by now everyone understands when you lie in marketing it’s like putting venom in your own bloodstream, your customer’s sentiments about you. A car dealership can get away with being shysters cause they are parasitic on other brands. But in off the shelf retail, especially in electronics, significantly if you want to claim the bleeding edge, you have no one else to blame but yourself. Integrity is everything at this level of game. If you want to claim to be the best you’ve got to be prepared to connect with the sharpest customers, or they’ll chew you up and spit you out.

No changes, just the addition of clarity for the consumer. You could use this image with the addition of <------ 7680 pixels (8K) ------> boldly across near the top. clarity. Problem solved.


#25

What is giving problems is the 8K; for the name, the shorter the better.