Skip to main content

LG May Have Leaked 8K iMac

LG just might have outed one of Apple's sharpest screens ever. In an article published on March 31 about next-generation 8K displays, the Korean electronics giant claimed that Apple will be releasing an 'iMac 8K' later this year.

According to a post on the LG Display website, 8K is the highest resolution that the human eye is capable of seeing. It is so sharp that you won't notice pixelation with the naked eye, and Japanese research indicates that 8K (7680 x 4320) might be as detailed as real life. That level of detail not only makes for realistic media consumption, it's also extremely helpful for professionals who work with large photos or detailed designs to get up close to their work.

MORE: Hottest TVs for 2015

However, there still isn't much content that is available for 4K displays, not to mention 8K panels. According to our photo editor, professionals may need to soften images to keep them from looking unnaturally sharp. If 8K does become the standard in the future, people like make-up artists may have to re-learn how to do their jobs, since TVs will show more detail than before, and they'd have to do more blending.

We're not sure who LG's sources are, or if such a product even exists, since Apple hasn't said anything yet. But given Apple already has a 27-inch 5K iMac available and that TV makers have begun showing off prototypes of 8K screens, it's possible that an 8K iMac is headed our way. LG is also one of Apple's display partners, so it's possible that it has inside information.

We've reached out to LG for comment, and have yet to hear back.

Staff writer Cherlynn Low can't wait to edit photos on an 8K display. Follow her @cherlynnlow. Follow Tom's Guide at @tomsguide on Facebook.

  • none12345
    While the move to 4k cant happen soon enough. I think 8k is overkill. For your average desktop monitor size that is. Obviously if it's really wide that's another story, 2 side by side 4k screens is fine.

    Really it comes down to how good is the human eye. And the number of pixels you need depends on distance to the screen.

    Average human eye visual acuity is about 1 arc minute(20/20 vison). The people with the best eyes can go down to about 0.4 arc minutes, but you would have to have like 1 in a billion vision to get down that low.

    At 2.5 feet, which is a common desktop viewing distance. An average person can resolve about 115 ppi. And someone with the very best vision on the planet can see about 300.

    A 1080p 16:9 27" screen has about ~82 ppi. So thats not enough to meed the 2.5 requirement for the average person at 2.5 inch.

    A 4k 2160p 16:9 27" screen would double that to 164ppi. So that covers the average 20/20 person at 2.5 foot. Its 40% better then you need at that distance. But it doesnt cover the truely exceptional eyesight case. Id say this covers 99%+ of the population of the earth tho.

    The people with truely exceptional vision could make use of a 8k desktop screen. But almost no one would be able to tell the difference between a 4k and 8k desktop monitor at normal viewing distances.

    Now lets get back to the real world. In the real world, the best of the best graphics cards can barely do 4k. So, who cares about 8k at this point.

    And to get back to even more reality.....8k is bigger then 4k so it must be better...im sure all the ifans will love it and scoop it up.

    Edited for language by moderators
    Reply
  • Catalina588
    Actually, there's a whole lot of 8K content. It's called the real world.
    Reply
  • shogunofharlom
    LOL! 1000K? It would only need the Titan Supercomputer to run a web browser.
    Reply
  • Shankovich
    Not needed for most of us, but I have a lot of artist friends who are professionals who would welcome this.
    Reply
  • clonazepam
    nVidia's Titan X
    Display Support:
    5120x3200 Maximum Digital Resolution*
    2048x1536 Maximum VGA Resolution
    Dual Link DVI-I, HDMI, 3x DisplayPort 1.2 Standard Display Connectors

    Where's the next batch of products this year to pump out that resolution? Can't wait to see them.
    Reply
  • alidan
    While the move to 4k cant happen soon enough. I think 8k is overkill. For your average desktop monitor size that is. Obviously if it's really wide that's another story, 2 side by side 4k screens is fine.

    Really it comes down to how good is the human eye. And the number of pixels you need depends on distance to the screen.

    Average human eye visual acuity is about 1 arc minute(20/20 vison). The people with the best eyes can go down to about 0.4 arc minutes, but you would have to have like 1 in a billion vision to get down that low.

    At 2.5 feet, which is a common desktop viewing distance. An average person can resolve about 115 ppi. And someone with the very best vision on the planet can see about 300.

    A 1080p 16:9 27" screen has about ~82 ppi. So thats not enough to meed the 2.5 requirement for the average person at 2.5 inch.

    A 4k 2160p 16:9 27" screen would double that to 164ppi. So that covers the average 20/20 person at 2.5 foot. Its 40% better then you need at that distance. But it doesnt cover the truely exceptional eyesight case. Id say this covers 99%+ of the population of the earth tho.

    The people with truely exceptional vision could make use of a 8k desktop screen. But almost no one would be able to tell the difference between a 4k and 8k desktop monitor at normal viewing distances.

    Now lets get back to the real world. In the real world, the best of the best graphics cards can barely do 4k. So, who cares about 8k at this point.

    And to get back to even more reality.....8k is bigger then 4k so it must be better...im sure all the ifans will love it and scoop it up.

    Edited for language by moderators

    that is all assuming that you only use 27 inch...
    personally i wouldn't get a 4k monitor under 40 inches, and may even than require 48 inches to keep the exact same ppi i currently have.

    i personally see no value at all in making crap sharper, its a waste of resources and space i would rather use elsewhere.

    what i want a 4k for is productivity,

    8k, while it may be overkill, just imagine a 80~ inch display all at around 100 ppi where every inch is useable realestate and there is no upscaled anything.

    personally, i plan on an oculus rift for games, a 1080p window (or monitor) for games where or is not supported or possible. a 4k monitor at 48 inches for normal use and possibly a 60-80 inch 4k (when price comes down) for watching multimedia at a distance.
    Reply
  • socalboomer
    LOL - the same arguments were made (for and against) back when Retina came out. Then 4K.
    Reply
  • InvalidError
    15625569 said:
    LOL - the same arguments were made (for and against) back when Retina came out. Then 4K.
    Back when Retina first came along, most mobile devices had display densities in the 100-200ppi range. The move from 200ppi to ~300ppi was a noticeable improvement but how much of a qualitative improvement tag would you put on it? You have 2.25X as much pixel density but qualitatively speaking, graphics and text look maybe 20% better. For most people, going beyond that is not going to be worth the cost or effort.

    4k on displays below 30" already takes us pretty deep on the diminishing return curve since people usually sit 2-3X as far away from their desktop display as they do on their mobile.
    Reply
  • turkey3_scratch
    For one thing, graphics cards. What on earth can even push 8K? That's the equivalent of 4 4K monitors. Apple's iMacs will have to have 4-way Titan SLI to run this thing, and you know that's not going to happen. 4K is not even yet mainstream so why jump into 8K so quickly? The OS better be optimized to scale text well.
    Reply
  • CaptainTom
    If this happens, I will straight up wait for a $1000 8K OLED (Or equivalent) display.
    Reply