Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question
Closed

LG's 84-inch Ultra HD TV Hits the UK Priced at £22,500

Last response: in News comments
Share
December 3, 2012 9:13:09 AM

Dear Santa, I have been a good boy....
Score
21
December 3, 2012 9:25:47 AM

'That said, if you do happen to have a spare $22,500 lying around'

Little typo there, should be £ not $. Anyways, I haven't seen any 4k TV's but if anyone has, does it make very large TV's like this 'ok' to watch and not stretched like 1080p?
Score
5
December 3, 2012 9:26:24 AM

I ordered one this morning!
Score
11
December 3, 2012 9:37:02 AM

^^ bastard lol, I literaly only got a 106cm 1080 lg last week
Score
4
December 3, 2012 9:49:37 AM

im waiting for the Ultra HD version of Pacman...
Score
6
December 3, 2012 10:07:34 AM

84-inch? why not smaller? Is pixel density a problem? Sounds like four 42inch 1080p panels glued together :) .
140cm is about the largest TV for home, anything else is for cinemas xD
Score
3
December 3, 2012 10:07:49 AM

Yeah... buy one to show off right now, maybe next year you can buy 4 more for the same price. Until then, enjoy your regular 1080p shows and movies.
Score
5
December 3, 2012 11:31:15 AM

Wow, it got more resolution than my eyes.
Score
5
December 3, 2012 11:38:47 AM

Wow. I really hope displays like this come down in price a bit, looks Awesome though!
Score
2
December 3, 2012 11:38:56 AM

Pointless, unless you have the hardware or a broadcast signal to display an image.
You would be wasting your money like said, might as well wait till the price drops.
Score
6
December 3, 2012 11:56:13 AM

Given that it upscale resolution while logical to do and a good feature as nothing will take advantage of it as of yet there is a downside. Upscaling does not equal the quality of something native to it. Have we not learned anything from HDTV's at all? For quite sometime they were unreasonably expensive and widely unsupported leaving their purchase to being nothing more of a waste. Nowadays you can buy a superior TV that actually is utilized for extreme amount less in cost. HDTV's failed to sell for quite sometime until they became affordable which later convinced media companies to begin to widely support them.
Score
2
December 3, 2012 12:07:15 PM

SuperVeloce84-inch? why not smaller? Is pixel density a problem? Sounds like four 42inch 1080p panels glued together .140cm is about the largest TV for home, anything else is for cinemas xD


EVen at that size (84 inches) you have to sit 1.65 meters from it to not lose the full 4k-experience (longer away and the pixels will blend into each other). So, for the normal 3 meters tv-vewing distance it is way to small!
The benefit is that you now will be able to watch 1080 at about 3 meters distance (or thereabout, think it was even 3.5 meters), wtihout losing any visual acuity. As it is now a 42 inch 1080p tv have same same pixel density as a 84 inch 4k tv and to fully get the benfit of 1080p you have to sit at 1.65 meters for a 42 incher (which you can enjoy normally with a 84 incher).

Problem is, that there is still a lot of lowres sd-content out there. Terestrial channels, cable, websteraming and so on will look just terrible on such a big screen.
Score
-1
December 3, 2012 1:01:01 PM

I'd wait for the 8K TV's that will be the Ultra HD standard. It'll be just like the early adopters of HDTV getting 720 screens when 1080 became the standard.
Score
2
December 3, 2012 2:25:05 PM

velocityg4I'd wait for the 8K TV's that will be the Ultra HD standard. It'll be just like the early adopters of HDTV getting 720 screens when 1080 became the standard.


Exactly!
Score
0
December 3, 2012 3:38:40 PM

velocityg4I'd wait for the 8K TV's that will be the Ultra HD standard. It'll be just like the early adopters of HDTV getting 720 screens when 1080 became the standard.


It is just that 720p really is the standard for high def tv program content.

This may push 1080p to become standard, since it will finally be possible to watch it without losing visual acuity at 3-3.5 meters distance when using a 84 inch monitor.
8 K would be totally useless if you don't have 200 inch monitors or sit with your nose right in front of the screen for a 84 incher.
1.65 meters is the ideal viewing distance for 4k at 84 inch screenssizes now.
Score
1
December 3, 2012 6:47:16 PM

8K will come when 4K has not "Wow!" effect anymore... SO 8K screens will become to the market when 4K are cheap enough for normal customer who is willing to pay "little" extra for better quality. So it takes something like 6-7 years, even it is possible to manufacture those 8K screens even today... I am not sure how long it has been possible to manufacure 4k screens... 4-5 years? and now they are coming to super highend market.
So don't wait 8K ;-)
Allso 8K is more usefull in 100" and bigger screens, so they will newer be cheap... well maybe someday, but it takes time to see 8K 32" screen...
Score
1
December 3, 2012 7:04:41 PM

Wow, a TV that costs as much as a BMW 3 series... who would have thought it was possible? :lol: 
Score
1
December 3, 2012 9:58:17 PM

Does not make an iota of difference if the input is 1080p. Only use right now is hooking it up to your PC, but if you play any action games, prepare for ghosting.

When 2160 res videos start coming out, similar TVs should also cost 1/10th as much.
Score
1
December 4, 2012 1:35:35 AM

zrobbbI ordered one this morning!


Make sure to get an OC'ed 7970 with 6 GB of VRAM if you're going to use that TV as a monitor.
Score
1
Anonymous
January 5, 2013 11:36:35 AM

I wish I can have that one at home, please give it to me Santa, I've never been BAD for my entire life:-).
Score
0
January 8, 2013 4:53:41 AM

Beast! If you have a fortune to spend buy it! But what of 4K content? And bigger panel and bigger screen size needlessly jock up the cost of the TV. Better give Ultra high definition in 42-60 inch models mate!
Score
1
!