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


#82

There’s something seriously wrong with you man. Metric is b0ss. :wink:


#83

Pimax8K IS 8K HMD. It just not 16:9 aspect ratio HMD. And 16:9 is no good for HMD anyway, because our vision is NOT 16:9! Also, I don’t see the much sense in changing the name at this point, because new name would only adds the confusion: “What is that new “Pimax Whatever” HMD? Oh, it is the same Pimax8K that everyone already know about”.


#84

"8K resolution, or 8K UHD, is the current highest ultra high definition television (UHDTV) resolution in digital television and digital cinematography. 8K refers to the horizontal resolution of 7,680 pixels, forming the total image dimensions of (7680×4320), otherwise known as 4320p. [1]

8K UHD has two times the horizontal and vertical resolution of the 4K UHD with four times as many pixels overall, or sixteen times as many pixels as Full HD."

7680x4320 != 7680x2160
7680x4320 >> 7680x2160
8k != 2x4k
8k = 4x4k

Someone has to edit wikipedia I guess and add this new definition of “8k”, it´s 2 times 4k simple as that.
Also you see a table, where other 8k resolutions are listet which change in aspect ratio and resolution, but have allways about the same amount or a lot more pixel (1:1) but not less.

2 times 4k doesnt make it 8k, 8k is has the quadropole amount of 4k not 2 times.


#85

I feel like it’s time for people to stop making dumb posts demanding unreasonable things that waste time on unimportant non-issues (like a name change that’s never going to happen).

Seriously if you want to waste your own time trying to make a name for yourself, please find another way other than trying to distract the Pimax 8K team on unimportant topics.


#86

Lol. What sounds better 2"x4" or 5cm x 10cm?

When describing a 2x4 plank.


#87

What you may not realize is that the team did involve the community with ideas prior to the kickstarter in 8k hmd ideas. Its also why there is a 5k & 8k-X.


#88

Aspect Ratios.

Yes 8k Uhd is 4x Uhd resolution or rather 2x vertical & 2x horizontal to maintain 16:9.

Now look at the others in the chart.

1:1 is the truest 8k res.

We are dealing with ultra wide not regular wide.

What would be 8k with the new standard of 21:9 which is what movie theaters use?


#89

here, made a table
V: Vertical lines
H: Horizontal lines
Res: Resolution (VxH)
Subpixel: How a Pixel is defined, LCD=3, Oled=2
eff.Res.SubP.: Effective Resolution of Subpixel
eff.Res/3: effective Resolution based on LCD
%: Comparing effective resolutions to Vive

The Pimax 8k delivers a higher resolution compared to Vive by 960%* (!!!)

*[quote=“squngy, post:94, topic:5027”]
Removing 1/3 of the res from pentile is not an accurate measure of picture quality.
[/quote]


#90

Just alter the 8k to be 8k Uhd. :wink:


#91

4k and 8k are bought UHD
4k = UHD-1
8k = UHD-2 or QUHD

looking at the table I also realize that the Pimax 8k should be called Pimax 5k :neutral_face:


#92

I’m just concerned when they release

16k uhd (15360*8640) :v::joy::+1::sparkles:


#93

isn´t it also funny that the resolution of the vive is effectively 20% lower then Full HD?


#94

FullHD = 1920*1080
Vive = 2160x1200
Vive pro = 2880x1600

edit: I see you mean in comparison to @elo table.
His “effective Resolution based on LCD” is a made up number, it will not represent reality.
Removing 1/3 of the res from pentile is not an accurate measure of picture quality.


#95

Checkout i think RoadtoVR article on Psvr. He details the sub pixel res & how its something like 2 or 3x what vive & rift have. While you can see pixels; you don’t generally see sde.


#96

AFAIK, the main reason PSVR does not have SDE is because it has a diffusion filter on the screen.
It literally blurs the lines between pixels.


#97

So, when PiMax debuts 16k people are going to complain about it only being 8k? And what happened to curved panels?


#98

Truth if you do the Math doubling 8k @ 16:9. I’d hope folks don’t accept that as 16k as the big number is 15360*8640

No where near a 16000. :fearful::dizzy_face::joy:


#99

An OLED pixel is not able to represent a dot if it´s not made off one or two colors the pixel consists of.
An OLED pixel consisting of red and green, cant represent a blue dot*.
An OLED pixel consisting of blue and green, cant represent a red dot*.

Every LCD Pixel is able to represent any color composition of a dot*.

OLEDs needs normally at least 2 pixels to represent one dot* correctly it wants to display.

you have 1/3 less subpixels on an OLED screen that are not compansatet in any form, they´re just missing.

If you remember the DK1 it had a “High-Resolution-Mode” where it only used the green subpixels, as ever pixel on an oled screen can represent green.

I won´t contradict that there´s probably a mistake in calculating a useful resolution out of an oled screen. The percentage compares the amount of subpixels, the actual amount of dots ignoring the color it has. Dividing it by 3, doesn´t change anything about the amount and relations to the percentage. In the best case an oled display could represent a colored dot by 3 subpixels like an LCD screen does, thats why I divided them by 3.
Now that I´m thinking about it, the situation is probably even worse - you have to remember that LCD Panels have the same amount of R G B subpixels, where OLED has 50% G, 25% R and 25% B.

I will think about a better way to represent the resolution problem with OLED screens. The impact is really high when comparing same resolution screens.

You can ignore the paneltype-impact by just looking at the “Res”.

*dot= actually meaning a pixel that the display gets send to represent

Also if you compare the vive normaly to the FHD resolution it still has just 25% more then it, which is again not much, and is still funnily low.

edit1: ok this would be a way to go, lets take the vive´s resolution of 2160x1200

First LCD:
2160x1200 equals a resolution of 2 592 000 pixels.
Which is true for an LCD screen, as every one of these pixels can take any color composition the pixel needs to represent. The amount of subpixels is "res3" 2.592.0003=7.776.000 this is the sum of subpixels where every color takes 1/3 of the amount of subpixels (R=G=B)

Now OLED:
2160x1200 equals also a resolution of 2 592 000 pixels.
Which is not true compared to an LCD screen, as each Pixel is not able to represent every color it gets send.
So how high is the actual resolution an OLED can represent without “throwing away” pixels/colors it should represent?
again we look at the amount of subpixels, an OLED screens defines a pixel as consisting of 2 subpixels in combination of RG and BG therefore it has 2.592.0002=5.184.000 subpixels.
But these subpixels have not an equal distribution, the amount of G subpixels equals the amount of R+B subpixels. To correct the amount of subpixel to compare it with an lcd screen we have to throw away the G ones that are not useful in recreating a pixel
, you could say they are “unnecessary” when comparing to an LCD. These make 25% of all subpixels on a oled screen. So 5.184.000*0.75=3.888.000 is the actual number of subpixels that an oled screen could use to represent pixels correctly without throwing away information. And now we can compare them to LCD panels by just dividing it back by 3 as the amount of RGB is now equal.
3.888.000/3=1.296.000 and now we have the actual resolution an oled screen can correctly display.

now comparing: 2.592.000 (LCD) to 1.296.000 (OLED). An OLED panel can exactly display half of the resolution an LCD screen can represent at the same resolution. The eff.Res. should´ve been therefore just 1/2 of res for oled when comparing to an LCD.

*because you need a pair of 2 subpixels, where every second G subpixel is useless RGBG=RGB


#100

Some company patented curved displays for VR-HMDs, guess we´ll have to wait 20 years till they will be a thing : (


#101

I prefer to express the pentile matter as red and blue primaries only being 1/sqrt(2) the advertised resolution. :7

Plenty of prior art regarding the curved screens thing, I believe, as well as for using fiberoptic tapers to achieve the same result with a flat screen. :7