Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Panasonic Unleashes Glasses-Free 3D 103-inch 4K HDTV

By - Source: Dvice | B 47 comments

Who needs 84 inches when you can have 103!

While television titans Sony and LG have been busy launching their own 84-inch 4K HDTVs, Panasonic unveiled its own monstrosity at this year's IFA in Berlin, Germany. Measuring in at a massive 103-inches, the plasma HDTV claims to be the world's largest glasses-free 3D display. Along with most of the other new displays on the IFA floor, this display features a 4K (3840 x 2160) resolution.

Unlike LG's 84-inch display that can be purchased for $22,000, the Panasonic one is still in its prototype stages with no information on a potential release date or price range. Which isn't too bad, considering the price tag certainly won't be wallet friendly by any means. Luckily for those of us with smaller display needs and smaller wallets, Panasonic also has several 20-inch 4K displays in its IFA showroom.

On the other hand, for anybody who thinks 103" of ultra-definition viewing isn't enough, Panasonic also has a demonstration of its 145-inch 8K "Super Hi-Vision" TV. With a massive resolution of 7,680 x 4,320, the TV features an image quality that trumps regular HD 16 times. As beautiful as all of these new 4K displays may be, sadly, it will still be quite some time before they reach more affordable prices.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Discuss
Display all 47 comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 11 Hide
    lassik , September 5, 2012 3:27 PM
    I think I'm more interested in the 20-inch 4K displays, they would make one fantastic monitor!
  • 10 Hide
    Anonymous , September 5, 2012 3:12 PM
    Well - to be fair: The pixel count for the whole screen IS indeed quadrupled: From 2,073,600 pixels (1,920 x 1,080) to 8,294,400 pixels (3840 x 2160).

    But the 4K refers to the horizontal resolution of the screen, so you're right too in a way. ;) 
Other Comments
  • -9 Hide
    bak0n , September 5, 2012 3:07 PM
    Why is is called 4k and not 2160i or P. They trying to fool people into thinking the pixels are 4x that of a 1080p and not double the pixel count?
  • 6 Hide
    nukemaster , September 5, 2012 3:08 PM
    marketing :) 
  • 2 Hide
    3r0s4nn1n , September 5, 2012 3:11 PM
    It is called 4k because 1080P can fit 4x in this type of screen
  • 3 Hide
    Anonymous , September 5, 2012 3:11 PM
    technically the 4k displays DO have 4x the pixel count of a 1080p... do the math.

    1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600

    3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400

    not saying that has anything to do with the naming, but don't get it twisted.
  • 0 Hide
    innocent bystander , September 5, 2012 3:12 PM
    Quote:
    They trying to fool people into thinking the pixels are 4x that of a 1080p and not double the pixel count?


    ~8MP vs. ~2MP.

    That IS 4x the pixel count. Time to go back to school.

    IB
  • 10 Hide
    Anonymous , September 5, 2012 3:12 PM
    Well - to be fair: The pixel count for the whole screen IS indeed quadrupled: From 2,073,600 pixels (1,920 x 1,080) to 8,294,400 pixels (3840 x 2160).

    But the 4K refers to the horizontal resolution of the screen, so you're right too in a way. ;) 
  • 3 Hide
    dennisburke , September 5, 2012 3:14 PM
    As the title mentions "...Glasses-Free 3D...". How does that look and work?
  • 0 Hide
    fazers_on_stun , September 5, 2012 3:20 PM
    Yowsa Wowsa, my guess the price will be over 4K too - maybe $104K :) .
  • 2 Hide
    hellfire24 , September 5, 2012 3:26 PM
    tooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo expensive :/ 
  • 11 Hide
    lassik , September 5, 2012 3:27 PM
    I think I'm more interested in the 20-inch 4K displays, they would make one fantastic monitor!
  • 6 Hide
    tmshdw , September 5, 2012 3:38 PM
    whats amazing here is not the size or the resolution but the 'glasses free' 3d.

    Howze the 3d look? Visible from all angles? Thats what I want to hear about...
  • 5 Hide
    LukeCWM , September 5, 2012 3:40 PM
    Earlier this year on a news article covering a prototype 4k TV, I posted a comment saying I am looking forward to having a 4k OLED computer monitor. I got down-voted pretty hard. I wonder what will happen this time...
  • 0 Hide
    fuzzion , September 5, 2012 3:52 PM
    Porn would be awesome. I think its time to ditch my gf.
  • 3 Hide
    slabbo , September 5, 2012 3:56 PM
    that 8k one makes me drool. too bad there won't be any TV programming to even take advantage of that.
  • 7 Hide
    LukeCWM , September 5, 2012 4:02 PM
    For the record, 4k does not mean "4x 1080p". It means approximately 4,000 horizontal pixels.

    Up to the present, we've always measured resolution in shorthand by the number of vertical pixels, e.g. 720p, 1080i, 1080p. But the true number of vertical pixels changes based on aspect ratio: if a movie is 16:9, it truly can have 1080 vertical pixels, but if it is 2.35:1 or a different aspect ratio, it can still be 1920 pixels horizontally, but it is no longer 1080 vertical pixels.

    To avoid confusion over aspect ratios incorrectly representing resolutions, the decision has been made to switch to tracking the horizontal resolution. Also, they decided to round it for convenience. Next-gen is 4k, followed by 8k. Current, by the same system, is 2k. Each time, they are doubling the width (and height follows suit), which results in 4x the resolution per step-up.

    What I don't know is if we'll always use numbers under the rounded figure, like 1920 under 2k or 7680 under 8k. Some have attempted to establish exactly 4,000 pixels horizontal, and others 4,096 pixels horizontal. It probably doesn't make that big of a difference visually, but as resolutions increase, our specifications stray further and further from the actual measurements, just like selling hard drives listing the capacity assuming a TB is 1,000,000,000,000 bytes, rather than the actual space which comes out less, since our computers see each TB as 1,099,511,627,776. Not a big deal with the old MB hard drives, but when we start seeing petabyte and exabyte arrays it is increasingly deceiving, since the rounding errors are compounded with each larger prefix.
  • 1 Hide
    CaedenV , September 5, 2012 4:07 PM
    slabbothat 8k one makes me drool. too bad there won't be any TV programming to even take advantage of that.

    you could watch the Hobbit which is shot at native 4K to your hearts content.... and then you can purchase all your favorite films all over again as they are upscaled and cleaned up again for this new standard. Sadly TV shows shot in SD or early HD will have a hard time looking good on these new displays... Film upscales well as it is analogue (rough equivilant to somewhere between 4K and 8K from what I understand), and newer movies (after Phantom Menace I believe) started shooting in 4K. But everything from TV, and all movies shot in that awkward time between digital and 4K digital will have a rough time transitioning, and when 8K hits simply nothing will look quite right on it.
  • 0 Hide
    LukeCWM , September 5, 2012 4:24 PM
    caedenvyou could watch the Hobbit which is shot at native 4K to your hearts content.... and then you can purchase all your favorite films all over again as they are upscaled and cleaned up again for this new standard. Sadly TV shows shot in SD or early HD will have a hard time looking good on these new displays... Film upscales well as it is analogue (rough equivilant to somewhere between 4K and 8K from what I understand), and newer movies (after Phantom Menace I believe) started shooting in 4K. But everything from TV, and all movies shot in that awkward time between digital and 4K digital will have a rough time transitioning, and when 8K hits simply nothing will look quite right on it.


    If you are up-scaling from 1080p to 4k, it should look great, just each pixel of content is represented by four pixels of the TV. It wouldn't be any worse than 1080p, certainly. Unlike uneven resolution multipliers, you don't have to try to represent an image across pixel numbers that don't line up. Same with 4k into 8k.

    I'm no expert on image processing, but if they develop (or already have??) some system of guessing what pixels should come between pixels, or can shade pixels like anti-aliasing, potentially 1080p could could better on a 4k or 8k screen than it does on a 1080p screen.
  • 3 Hide
    LukeCWM , September 5, 2012 4:25 PM
    caedenvyou could watch the Hobbit which is shot at native 4K to your hearts content.... and then you can purchase all your favorite films all over again as they are upscaled and cleaned up again for this new standard. Sadly TV shows shot in SD or early HD will have a hard time looking good on these new displays... Film upscales well as it is analogue (rough equivilant to somewhere between 4K and 8K from what I understand), and newer movies (after Phantom Menace I believe) started shooting in 4K. But everything from TV, and all movies shot in that awkward time between digital and 4K digital will have a rough time transitioning, and when 8K hits simply nothing will look quite right on it.


    Alternatively, we could just use the 8k screen to simultaneously watch all three Lord of the Rings movies and the first Hobbit movie, all in 4k. =D
  • 2 Hide
    TeraMedia , September 5, 2012 4:41 PM
    That 12' diag, 6' high 8k screen sounds impressive. I'm interested in how they did glasses-free 3D and how well it works, because it will eventually trickle down to the mainstream consumer market that most of us can afford. Tuan, any info on the underlying technology?
  • 2 Hide
    Vladislaus , September 5, 2012 4:43 PM
    BigMack70Lol math fail... (3840 x 2160)/(1920 x 1080) = 4There are exactly 4x the pixels of 1080p.

    The 4 in 4K has nothing to do with UHDTV being 4 times bigger than Full HD. It has to do with the number of horizontal pixels which are almost 4000, hence 4K. Also the 4K resolution has appeared in movie theaters prior to TVs, and usually have 4096 horizontal pixels. 4K is the successor of 2K that has 2048 horizontal pixels.
Display more comments