Over at MacPerformanceGuide.com I discuss the arrival of 8K, its context and possibilities:
I’m very excited about using a 7680 X 4320 8K display: a full resolution Nikon D810 image is 7360 X 4912, so that its entire width fits with room to spare on an 8K display, although an image height of 4912 pixels is too tall to fit vertically.
At 280 ppi the 32" Dell 8K pixel density exceeds the 220 ppi of the 27" iMac 5K, so a 'chrome'-like viewing experience should be incredible, showing more detail than film could ever capture with far superior contrast to any print. In effect, one will be viewing a 32" (diagonal) 'chrome'.
Which is all the more reason the Apple iMac Pro disappoints, showing no technical leadership where it really counts (8K). Rather, it is a souped-up iMac 5K with a gray finish at a price likely to hit $14K fully loaded—without 8K support built-in—very nice in total but now a wow.
Right now, 8K is too expensive at about $4999 although by year end I suspect that we will see prices head significantly lower. Plus it’s not clear that even Multi Stream Transport (MST) would work until and unless Apple supports it on the 2016/20-17 MacBook Pro and iMac Pro, both of which have two Thunderbolt 3 busses (the 2017 iMac 5K has only one Thunderbolt 3 bus, so it cannot possibly support 8K). Still, I am hopeful that late this year Apple will support 8K via MST when the iMac Pro ships, which might be enough to prod me into an iMac Pro assuming that 8K display pricing comes down to $3K or so.
- Can a 2016 MacBook Pro support an 8K display?.
- iMac 5K (Late 2015): Sheer Viewing Pleasure in the Fastest Mac Available
- iMac 5K for Stunning Black and White Images
- What’s the Best Way to Enjoy Images at their Finest?
- Too-High Pixel Density on 5K and 8K Displays Impedes Image Assessment
- 2.5K or 4K or 5K Display for Image Editing and Viewing?