I don't think the video quality or display quality is the problem though. The 8k screen itself looks plenty high quality in the Linus video bouncing around this thread. The problem is that their promo material entirely eliminates any sense of the _one_ thing that they bring to the table that makes them special.

They need to throw up a _static_ 3D image that the viewer can easily understand and then move the camera. That's it. That's all they had to do, because literally the one thing that makes this screen special is showing different viewing angles, and they failed wildly.

I have designed lenticular prints in the past and also I'm the person that wrote the vray plugin for rendering CGI to lenticular.

The main thing that everyone wants is a lot of depth, a wow effect. Lenticular technology can only deliver that while your head is static. As soon as you move, you either see stripes move across the image or you need to introduce an unnatural amount of bokeh blur.

The reason for the stripes is that from your eye / camera, different parts of the image have slightly different angles, so slightly different subpixels are visible.

So if they follow your suggestion, they need to ensure that the final video is low quality enough so that you don't see the striping artifacts.

Here's a lenticular print that I had made at 4800dpi, so at a much higher resolution than what a display can hope to achieve

https://www.dropbox.com/s/10nquohksew1fhe/fertig.mts?dl=0

Note the strong blur to hide artifacts, yet you can still see some striping on the background and in the top right corner.

Here's a simulation of the best possible result that one could hope to achieve with 70lpi sheets and 1200dpi effective resolution, which should be close to what this display uses:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/1s69k5gmt1n4i5l/simulation_L.jpg?d...

For anything better than that, they need much more subpixels. 2x the pixels for half the banding width.

Sorry for derailing the thread, but would love to read how you make the lenticular prints.

(Edited) The frog was on the low-res developer device.

The much larger “8k” version introduced half way through https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EA2FQXs4dw has some good tech detail, with the raw pixel mapping shown at 6:30. Calcs seem about right since raw pixel count was stated as 43 million, although it was implied elsewhere they split RGB sub pixels too (which sounds wrong I admit), so maybe 43 million divided by 15? Our eyes are more sensitive to luminance than colour, so maybe they did something there (however, not that I could see from the raw pixel mapping at 6:30).

If they're counting subpixels as separate whole pixels and omitting the fact that the "effective" resolution is much lower because of the 3d layering just so they can say "8k" in their marketing material that's suuuper dishonest.

That's exactly what they are doing. The real resolution is 45x lower.

The frog was on their "4K" device, so the 8K one will only have 30% smaller pixels.

100% / sqrt(2)