Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

Samsung to Reveal World's Largest Ultra HD TV at CES 2013

Last response: in News comments
Share
November 14, 2012 12:54:28 PM

Put that in to a range of 24"-30" monitors.
Score
10
November 14, 2012 1:04:13 PM

In percentage, it doesent look like like much. IN fact it looks pathertic.
24 inch has full HD, a table has full HD (10 inch), and 85 inches, so times bigger.

So, if we get 1900x8 1080x8 we get 15200x8640. That would be news, and its not even a better image quality considered the size.
Score
-7
November 14, 2012 1:08:22 PM

Why even bother with 4k when 8k is being made?
Score
-7
November 14, 2012 1:27:36 PM

Cats_PawIn percentage, it doesent look like like much. IN fact it looks pathertic.24 inch has full HD, a table has full HD (10 inch), and 85 inches, so times bigger.So, if we get 1900x8 1080x8 we get 15200x8640. That would be news, and its not even a better image quality considered the size.


The issue isn't whether we can cram more pixels into a panel - we sure can (if you are willing to pay for it). THe issue is signal/hardware bandwidth to actually drive that much graphical power without stuttering. The infrastructure doesn't exist - sure some upper end GPU's can probably do it... if you use mutliple display-port connections for a single screen. But consumer level blue-rays, etc? The standard HDMI spec (as it currently is)? No way.
Cats_PawIn percentage, it doesent look like like much. IN fact it looks pathertic.24 inch has full HD, a table has full HD (10 inch), and 85 inches, so times bigger.So, if we get 1900x8 1080x8 we get 15200x8640. That would be news, and its not even a better image quality considered the size.

Score
3
November 14, 2012 1:30:54 PM

Quote:
So, if we get 1900x8 1080x8 we get 15200x8640. That would be news, and its not even a better image quality considered the size.


It's two dimensional. That means 8x8=64 times as many pixels. That would be news!

And you assumption about 64x not being better image quality, that's assuming you're sitting the same distance from it. I can't imagine having an 85" TV in my lap. I'll stick with my 10" for now.
Score
0
November 14, 2012 1:31:59 PM

This is the situation where the whole "4k" display just feels like a marketing ploy. Everyone wants to talk about how many millioins of pixels and super high screen resolutions. When I think of the benefits of 4k, it is on the size of screens we currently use and giving us a 4X increase in pixel density, and not just total pixel count on the screen. Think of the retina display and the increase in pixel count on the same size panel. In an 85" panel, your pixel density is no different than a 1080p 43 inch screen. The only difference in the picture here is that its just bigger, a feature that is going to cost you $19,000.

I suppose it would allow you to do ultra wide angle film shots similar to what an Imax camera does, which is cool, but I really doubt that would ever become the norm just as Imax cameras are only used for very specific scenes.
Score
0
November 14, 2012 1:32:56 PM

Quote:
1929 x 1080 pixels.

1920
just sayin'
Score
8
November 14, 2012 2:29:10 PM

@Cats_Paw:

It's not about the pixel density. It's all about the maximum angle measured between adjacent pixels with your retina as the vertex. You are not going to stand 2 feet from an 85" display, because most of it will be well outside of your high-acuity visual field. You can't even see color outside of a certain angle away from the center of your visual field.

With a SDTV, the recommended viewing distance was 3-5x the screen diagonal size. With Full HD, it's 1.5 - 3x. So the minimum viewing distance for Ultra HD should be about half that, which means 0.75x, or roughly 5'. Anything more than 5' all the way up to 20' (3x) should work well, but you won't even be able to see some of the finer detail at the longer distances.

Personally, when I am watching a movie in Full HD on a 100+ inch screen, pixellation is a complete non-issue. What is far more important at that point is PQ (shadows, gray-scales, etc.), color accuracy, frame timing and associated artifacts, and frankly AUDIO quality. If I can't see the bad guy in the shadows, it doesn't matter that he's rendered with a million pixels. If the video is jerky or has artifacts caused by bad drivers, incompatible timings (23/24/59/60 Hz content vs. display issues), poor post-processing hardware or various other causes, it won't matter to me whether it's Ultra HD or Full HD - or even SD for that matter - because the artifacts and jerkiness will distract me from the content. And if the video is good but the audio is lame, distorted, squeaky, weak, or whatever, then the movie will never provide the immersive you can get at the theater.

Just my 2c. 1080P is plenty for most things.
Score
8
November 14, 2012 2:31:32 PM

Love the progress. 1080P should be cheap when 4K is the new standard. Then 4K marked down when 8K comes out. TV brands are very slowly rolling out new res's because how far can u go? After 8K then what? Really need more than 4k? lol TV will become smart with built-in PC, WIFI, etc to keep consumers interested in buying more TVs. This is one reason Apple not too eager to join the TV market.
Score
0
November 14, 2012 3:31:01 PM

I don't think bigger or more quality can improve B movies or crap programs.
Score
8
November 14, 2012 4:10:22 PM

Here is yet another example of a company that truly innovates vs a company who invents rounded buttons and updates their 3 (!) main products with different size options every few month.

If we had to choose, as a consumer, to keep only one of the to companies, which would it be (keeping in mind that only one of them is actually capable of manufacturing) ?

Score
1
November 14, 2012 4:40:07 PM

jibbsWhy even bother with 4k when 8k is being made?

8K, as cool as it would be, simply has practical issues that will keep it out of the hands of users.

At the ~2' that most people view their computer monitors, 4K resolution would be a retina display on a ~30" monitor, or across a room it would be a retina display on even the biggest of big screen TVs. Keep in mind too that movies use to be made on 32mm film, which then moved to 4K digital because it was considered to be slightly better resolution than 32mm film could provide. So moving to 4K TVs would make movies nearly native to the original format (minus whatever is lost in aspect ratio changes). The only things not shot in 4K/32mm are iMAX movies, which literally are 65mm/8K, and those are few and far between. Shows like the Hobbit are being shot in 5K, but are shot at the higher resolution to make editing easier (pan/zoom/crop/shake becomes possible without loosing quality), but the final product will be in 4K.

So what about high resolution computer screens which would sit closer? Surely they could fit well in a room. And, well, sure... that is possible. But there is another issue at work here. I use a 27" monitor at home, and a 30" monitor at work, and there is a major issue with displays that large: There is an issue of the screen being a different distance between your head and the center, vs your head and the edges of the screen. It makes for a bit of eye strain trying to refocus your eyes all the time in a game (especially if you lean in making the situation worse). It would be difficult to get a physically larger screen to use, unless the screen were concave. You could move to multi-head screens where this is not as much an issue... but then you have the bezel issue.

In short; it is difficult to justify going higher than 720p on a small portable device, or 1080p on a large phone/tablet, or 4K on a large monitor or TV, simply because you cannot see higher pixel density than that without requiring a screen larger than your average house can accommodate. 8K is just not useful for these types of consumer applications. Fun to get excited about... just not useful.
Score
5
November 14, 2012 4:53:54 PM

universal remonsterThis is the situation where the whole "4k" display just feels like a marketing ploy. Everyone wants to talk about how many millioins of pixels and super high screen resolutions. When I think of the benefits of 4k, it is on the size of screens we currently use and giving us a 4X increase in pixel density, and not just total pixel count on the screen. Think of the retina display and the increase in pixel count on the same size panel. In an 85" panel, your pixel density is no different than a 1080p 43 inch screen. The only difference in the picture here is that its just bigger, a feature that is going to cost you $19,000.I suppose it would allow you to do ultra wide angle film shots similar to what an Imax camera does, which is cool, but I really doubt that would ever become the norm just as Imax cameras are only used for very specific scenes.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that it is a marketing ploy, there is a definite need for 4K and other such high resolutions for normal people. For movies... sure, not a lot of difference between the enjoyment of 1080p home theater setup, and a 4K real theater setup. But, there are a great many things other than video that 4K would be useful for. Namely, screen real-estate, and retina capabilities.

I use a 27" monitor that runs at 1920x1200 (it's essentially a tall 1080p), and for working with text I long for the days of my old high end CRT monitor for the sake of text clarity! It is not a size issue as I have no problem reading 10pt font from 2 feet away on printed media. It is a monitor clarity issue in that there are not enough pixels to make clearly defined (and spaced) lettering. For the clearer text alone I will gladly jump on a monitor with higher pixel density!
The other issue is screen real estate. at 1080p you can 'almost' fit 2 web pages across the screen without having to scroll side-to-side... but not quite. With 4K you could easily do 2-3 web pages side-to-side, or applications, or whatever.
Score
2
November 14, 2012 4:57:19 PM

freggoHere is yet another example of a company that truly innovates vs a company who invents rounded buttons and updates their 3 (!) main products with different size options every few month.If we had to choose, as a consumer, to keep only one of the to companies, which would it be (keeping in mind that only one of them is actually capable of manufacturing) ?


Biased question, therefore invalid.
Score
-3
Anonymous
a b Ô Samsung
November 14, 2012 6:09:19 PM

4k is four times the resolution of HD, and 8k is four times that - so why isn't it being called 16k???
Score
-2
November 14, 2012 6:35:23 PM

mgilbert4k is four times the resolution of HD, and 8k is four times that - so why isn't it being called 16k???


the "4k" or "8k" stands for the vertical lines not resolution. So if you double your vertical lines and by default double the horz lines to maintain aspect ratio you quadruple your resolution.

The HD tv marketing is confusing and sucks really bad. the old standard "720" or "1080" stands for horizontal lines. now we're using 4k vertical lines or just a "ultra HD". I wish they would just use megapixel. of-course not too many uneducated consumers would want to buy a 2 mega pixel (1080p) TV when their $100 point and shoot cameras are 14 mega pixel. heck even the brand new 8 mega pixel TV's sound crappy which is probably why they don't advertise this way. I for one am tired of explaining all this crap to everyone and wish they would simplify it like they did camera's.
Score
1
November 14, 2012 6:43:26 PM

I believe my 2560x1440 is good for now (:, on a 27" monitor it looks more crisp anyways.
Score
0
November 14, 2012 7:21:40 PM

I think that 4k will be a noticeable jump in quality for many people. I currently have a 55" 1080p TV which is adequate for me. However, I plan on going to ~70-80" for my next one, at which point 1080p starts to look worse (from my experience looking at them in stores). And I live in an apartment; if I was in a larger place I'd probably want an even larger TV (if it were economically available anyway).
Score
0
November 14, 2012 8:26:16 PM

How many 80" TVs have you seen in stores, gmoney?
Score
0
November 14, 2012 10:28:01 PM

Cats_PawIn percentage, it doesent look like like much. IN fact it looks pathertic.24 inch has full HD, a table has full HD (10 inch), and 85 inches, so times bigger.So, if we get 1900x8 1080x8 we get 15200x8640. That would be news, and its not even a better image quality considered the size.

This is a TV, not a monitor. With this TV, most people at 1,5 m can't distinguish individual pixels. And since most people will sit farther than 1,5 m from this particular TV, what's the point in having a higher resolution?
Score
0
November 14, 2012 10:38:04 PM

jibbsWhy even bother with 4k when 8k is being made?

Because 8K in ridiculous and it's irrelevant for most people. Even 4k is only relevant for very large screens. For example if this screen had a Full HD display sitting 3m from the TV would be enough for people stop resolving individual pixels on the screen. Someone that buys this TV will most likely sit even farther back than 3m, so Full HD would be more than sufficient?
I also find it amusing when someone goes to a movie theater and doesn't realize that most projectors are 2k, but then they get home and complain that their tiny TV doesn't have a higher resolution.
Score
0
November 15, 2012 1:41:13 AM

that would be perfect for my photos.
Score
0
January 3, 2013 1:50:48 PM

I can see 4k being useful for 3D so you get 1080p for each eye. But really this obsession with larger and larger TVs is just weird.
Score
0
!