Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

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

By - Source: TechRadar | B 21 comments

TV boasts four times the resolution of standard full HD displays.

Back in October, we went eyes-on with LG's 84-inch Ultra HD Cinema 3D Smart TV, which boasts a rather impressive resolution of 3840 x 2160 (that's four times greater than standard full HD displays). This week, LG has announced that the television set is now available in the United Kingdom.

 

Of course, a TV like this doesn't come cheap. The TV went on sale a few weeks ago in the United States with a eye-popping $20,000 price tag. Unfortunately, though consumers in the UK are used to getting the short end of the stick when it comes to price conversion, LG really hasn't done UK shoppers any favors. According to TechRadar, the TV will retail for £22,500. In case you were wondering, that translates to just over $36,000. I know.

That said, if you do happen to have a spare $22,500 lying around, from what we saw, the display was exceptionally vivid, minor details were enhanced, and the scale was simply immersing. From the demo material, colors popped, perhaps boosted by LG's Triple XD Engine Dynamic Color Enhancer. Other features include a Resolution Upscaler, which enhances lower resolution content (basically everything available right now) as well as the increasingly common TruMotion 240Hz technology.

While we weren't personally able to view the sets in 3D, the TV features LG's Cinema 3D technology and includes six pairs of 3D glasses. LG's Cinema 3D includes a Depth Controller, 3D Sound Zooming, and 2D to 3D Conversion. At such a high resolution, though, we found the clarity itself to be immersive enough without the need for 3D.

So, who wants to amend their letter to the man in the big red suit?

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback          

Display 21 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 21 Hide
    drwho1 , December 3, 2012 9:13 AM
    Dear Santa, I have been a good boy....
  • 11 Hide
    zrobbb , December 3, 2012 9:26 AM
    I ordered one this morning!
Other Comments
  • 21 Hide
    drwho1 , December 3, 2012 9:13 AM
    Dear Santa, I have been a good boy....
  • 5 Hide
    blubbey , December 3, 2012 9:25 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?
  • 11 Hide
    zrobbb , December 3, 2012 9:26 AM
    I ordered one this morning!
  • 4 Hide
    Teeroy32 , December 3, 2012 9:37 AM
    ^^ bastard lol, I literaly only got a 106cm 1080 lg last week
  • 6 Hide
    SirRaulo , December 3, 2012 9:49 AM
    im waiting for the Ultra HD version of Pacman...
  • 3 Hide
    SuperVeloce , December 3, 2012 10:07 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
  • 5 Hide
    mrmaia , December 3, 2012 10:07 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.
  • 5 Hide
    digiex , December 3, 2012 11:31 AM
    Wow, it got more resolution than my eyes.
  • 2 Hide
    milkshakez7z , December 3, 2012 11:38 AM
    Wow. I really hope displays like this come down in price a bit, looks Awesome though!
  • 6 Hide
    weaselman , December 3, 2012 11:38 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.
  • 2 Hide
    NuclearShadow , December 3, 2012 11:56 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.
  • -1 Hide
    in_the_loop , December 3, 2012 12:07 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.
  • 2 Hide
    velocityg4 , December 3, 2012 1:01 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.
  • 0 Hide
    dimar , December 3, 2012 2:25 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!
  • 1 Hide
    in_the_loop , December 3, 2012 3:38 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.
  • 1 Hide
    hannibal , December 3, 2012 6:47 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...
  • 1 Hide
    g-unit1111 , December 3, 2012 7:04 PM
    Wow, a TV that costs as much as a BMW 3 series... who would have thought it was possible? :lol: 
  • 1 Hide
    falchard , December 3, 2012 9:58 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.
  • 1 Hide
    A Bad Day , December 4, 2012 1:35 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.
  • 0 Hide
    Anonymous , January 5, 2013 11:36 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:-).
Display more comments