Ok so the 8K the should have over 8 million pixels per screen
The plus should have about 3.5milliin pixels per screen
So one would expect over double the amount of pixels for the 8K, yet you’re only counting an extra 30%. Where have they all gone? That’s pretty damning.
Going by:
2560÷3840=0.66=1440÷2160
That the 5k if panel size was equal would have 66% less pixels than the 8k in terms of ppi… I am only going by pixels.
At estimated 30% count more we get
2560×1.30=3328. At a loss of 542
1440×1.30=1872. At a loss of 198
i was thinking along the way how the display might have come into existence
if you start with a 4k rgb lcd @60hz (like in the pimax 4k hmd) and ask the manufacturer for the same display @90hz you will get a “no way” but if you get creative and the limit is about the number of subpixel you can hande at 60hz there might be the option to reduce the number of subpixel (the pentile way) to get 90hz and you can still call it 4k (the tv and mobile phone people do that trickery all the time so its no legal problem, there are loads of 4k tv’s with a “lesser” subpixel count)
so maybe thats the “custom” in the type of lcd used, less subpixel with higher refresh?
@SweViver I guess that your 6D and the Macro Extension Tube could solve the problem with just one single shot on a white background, focusing with Live View at 10X. Would you have time for that?
Duuude …you’re having a probably uncharacteristic bad maths day! 
Firstly 0.66 means 5K should have 34% less than 8K.
Secondly it would mean 8K would have 50% more than 5K.
Thirdly that’s irrelevant as only one dimension. Should be an extra 50% squared because it’s 2 dimensions which is 1.5squared which is 2.25 so an extra 125% pixels (or multiplier of 2.25). So an extra 30% as counted by Geoff in two dimensions (eg by area) is REALLY low!!!
I know it’s kinda hard to believe. I may have to do my own pixel counting…
The 8k being 100% & 5k having 66% of the 8k.
Now if you take into consideration 9% improved sharpness from smaller panel size we could estimate that the 5k+ being closer to 70% meaning the 8k would have 30%. Now for buddy estimating it at 30% more pixels would mean that it’s “missing” the other 30%.
So maybe the math a bit off as it now shows that 30% would be likely the correct difference with the 5k having 33.4% less than the 8k.
Lolwut facepalm.
I’m not gonna be your maths teacher mate 
Re read. Found the error & now it matches up nicely.
30% less pixels on the 5k+ makes sense as the 5k would have 33.4% less.
The 8k is missing 20% pixels less than should.
So it is a real 4k panel just not a high quality 4k panel. But perhaps high quality for a mobile display.
Mate, you’ve lost me. I haven’t figured out what you’re trying to say, so perhaps you could expand on it a bit? Often formulating the details helps us understand if we make mistakes.
I was kind of deliberately being pessimistic, on most of my counts i made it 50%, some are harder because of the obvious blurring which I am attributing to the upscaling, so i would rather put up a pessimistic number and have people call me out saying “i make it more like 50%” - my main point is that this claim that its G/RB and therefore half the pixels it should be I don’t think stacks up to scrutiny.
The 8k would have around 150% the pixels of the standard 5k.
2560×1.5= 3840
1440×1.5= 2160
@geoffvader counted estmated +30% on the 8k compared to 5k+.
2560×1.3= 3328
1440×1.3= 1872
The 5k+ though has +9% improved sharpness so if we treat this as +9% in resolution to simulate a smaller panel
2560×1.09= 2790.4 (rnd to 2790)
1440×1.09= 1569.6 (rnd to 1560)
The 8k would have 137.6% more pixels or the 5k+ would have 72.4% of the resolution/pixels.
So if Geof calculated 30% more pixels on the 8k vs the 5k+ then would that not mean it’s only missing 7.6% of the pixels needed due to higher ppi?
Example using our simulated increased in ppi the 5k+ is:
2790*1560. Multiply this by 1.3 (130%)
2790×1.3 = 3621 ÷ 3840 = 94.3%
1570×1.3 = 2041 ÷ 2160 = 94.5%
This is just pixel to pixel no subpixel.
(Truth first batching was first thing in the morning no 
yet)
It should be 2.25x the number of pixels in any given area.
If you’re only getting 1.3x that’s almost half what it should be.
no its 2560 x 1.5 x 1440 x 1.5 = 3840 x 2160 = 2560 x 1440 x 2.25 = 8294400
so its 2.25 more pixels
Good on you for having the patience to teach basic maths on a forum. Must have a lot of time on your hands haha.
Mate… you’re still persisting with this ‘maths’. Read what I wrote please and save yourself some embarrassment
also the stuff about the 9% way off imho
the claim was that the 5k+ display has a 9% higher pixel density, so its completely off to assume more pixels somehow, the number of pixels is still 2560x1440
the only thing would be to say the 8k is not using 20% of its resolution, so you have to substract that amount of resolution
and the 5k+ its the same 20% but the 9% better ppi is making that value smaller (its not like you could just make it 20% - 9% the wasted area and a higher ppi are not the same)
Which is 150% per axis. Combined yes 225% on same sized panels.
Now if we go with idea of 9% res increase on 5k+ vs 5k then this changes.
2790*1560 = 435200 (to simulate increased ppi density)
(3840×2160)÷(2790×1560) = 1.91
To compare the 8k to the 5k+ you need to take this into consideration. If 5k & 8k panels were the same size the 5k+ being smaller has a highter ppi which would use more native resolution from the 25601440 in the viewport vs the orig 5k. So you need to consider the viewable resolution is higher on the 5k+ & would be equivalent to a higher resolution than the 5k’s 25601440(lower ppi).
Double facepalm. I’m out.
It’s not hard 8k vs 5k
8k on X axis is 150% longer & 150% taller on the Y axis.
8k has 225% more density (area X×Y) than the 5k.
The 5k+ however has an increased ppi vs the 5k. To compare this to the 8k we need to know how this ppi would translate in a panel.the same size - ie if 5k & 8k panels are 5" & the 5k+ is 4.5" them we need to see what the resolution would need to be at 5" with that ppi.