LG to Roll Out 84-inch 3D Ultra Definition TV at CES 2012

25

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

QuadraQ

I love HD TV, but honestly, considering how much work was involved in moving to 720/1080 HD, even higher resolutions are just annoying. I don't want to upgrade my TV every 5 years, and frankly 1080p is more than enough for most screen sizes with normal viewing distances. Higher resolution makes sense for movie screens, but not for home use.

avatar

d3v

It's like a wall of color. Amazing.

avatar

EthicSlave

I find it increasingly difficult to find refresh rates or response times on these new screens each time something new comes out

whats the point of having a system that could push 300 fps when your monitor is sitting at 60Hz or 85Hz or has a 20ms response time lets see here simple math dictates that a 20ms response would equate to 50 screen changes per second these so called 1ms screens do not have 1000Hz refresh rates, can the screen change that much per second hooked up in a expensive lab with a massive ramdac (maybe but who has tested this? I doubt even the monitor manufacturers have tested their screens to even be able to respond this quickly, they just do the math of how fast their led/lcd could change at a physical level and toss in crappy components which cant keep up with that math).

I've taken this to a personal level it bothers me that a consumer cannot go to store buy a product and get expected results.

the closest thing you can look for today is called input lag for lcd/led and guess what, no manufacturer's list input lag (but this is the expected framerate you would get)

the best lcd/led's out there tout 2ms but have input lags ranging from 15-50ms and then when in an actual gaming with complexing pathing the input lags increase to 50-200ms across some monitors

and yes even CRT's have input lag

avatar

DasHellMutt

LED display technologies (NOT LCD with an LED light source) should render most of this moot I would think. The next big issue at these higher resolutions will be input bandwidth. The current connectivity options are a big bottle neck. We'll likely need something much more robust to get to 4K.

avatar

szore

That Asian babe in the picture is pretty hot.

avatar

Nimrod

3840x2160 is not an insanely high resolution. And its even more pathetic when you consider that the screen is 84 inches. 84 inches of pixles and it still can reveal an entire picture from my porly aging DSLR? not impressed

avatar

sbsk2000

May I ask a few questions:

1.  Do you even know the purpose and usage of DSLR cameras?

2.  Do you understand proof-of-concept?

3.  What is the size of your current TV?

4a.  Do you understand that the said resolution is exactly four times the pixel count of current Full HD contents?

4b.  Do you dismiss any 1080p display sizes greater than or equal to 21 inches as being "pathetic" and having inferior screen size-to-pixel ratio?

5.  Who/what will provide you with DSLR-like resolution contents?

6.  What even is the resolution of your current computer monitor?

 

Thanks.

avatar

szore

funny

avatar

ApathyCurve

Nice television, but the rez is a bit low for computing.  I have a 68" 5292x1050 hooked up to my computer right now.  Of course, it's actually three monitors running bezel compensation mode... 

I am truly looking forward to when they start marketing superwide comptuer displays.  The bezels aren't really that big a deal for gaming since you're focused on the center screen 95% of the time, but it would be nice to have a continuous physical screen.  I have seen the future (it's sitting on my desk) and it is superwidescreen.

And for all you superwidescreen naysayers, I say to you this:  I remember the complaints that LCD was a dead-end display technology that was too slow and would never be useful for "serious computing."  I remember the sniffing dismissals of the widescreen form factor as "pointless" and "of very limited use."  Dual screens?  Bah, not useful for anyone but day-traders!  Eyefininty?  No one will ever buy it, and thus no developers will ever support it! 

All those sour grapes have been turned to delicious wine.  So at the risk of mixing my metaphors... you go right ahead and throw that egg up in the air; I'll bet you can catch it with your face. =oP

avatar

sbsk2000

1.  No one (not the author, manufacturer, or the industry) is touting that this, or any other TV, should and will be a replacement for a proper PC monitor. They are options -- very good options -- especially for HTPC use. Still, the particular display being covered in this article is a natural step forward for large, high-res media displays, and certainly a solution you won't have to worry about affording. And please explain to the IT, graphics, and audio professionals of the world how the resolution of a 3840x2160 display is "a bit low for computing" and inferior to the measly-1680-by-puny-1050x3. 

2.  Your poor-man's version of a tri-monitor setup is laughable, if only because you start by misclaiming your monitor size and resolution. Should I tell you that I have a quad-core graphics card? No, because they are two dual-GPU cards in SLI. No, they are not the same difference. And no, your following explanation doesn't count. 

3.  Your I'm-still-hip hindsight wisdom into the future announces your senility. Who says display tech can't and won't progress to the point of mutual convergence?

Don't hurt yourself, pops.

avatar

Nimrod

studies have been done showing that the original for facter of older CRTs is the best for productivity. Theres nothing wrong with widening it a bit, but ultrawide is not what i would call best for computing. it needs to be taller as well.

avatar

EthicSlave

would you beleive I still use a 22'' viewsonic CRT @2048x1536 refresh:N/A or 1920x1440 @ 85Hz (128.52KHz)

and highly tout the old 24'' sony CRT which would provide the best high res to fps/refresh rates but the analog format pretty much peaks out here at 2048X1536

avatar

avenger48

Will this upscale 1080p from HDMI?  If not, the "super resoulution" is pretty pointless.  The only thing I know of that would carry resolutions like that is Display Port.

avatar

digitalninja126

Two things, one how much will it cost? and second when are the first ultra def monitors arriving ( I would like somthing better than 1920X1200 for less then a 1300 dollar 2560X1600)?

avatar

Scatter

Movie theaters are truly becoming the arcades of the 80s. 

I wonder what kind of companies will move into the old theater locations. 

avatar

VoodooChicken

In my area, a six-screen theater became a Bally's Gym, and a 10-screen became some sort of missionary.

avatar

Captain_Steve

They'll be around to show the newest movies first until the movie companies figure out this whole internet thing in a way that doesn't scare them that they're not going to lose a dollar revenue by moving forward.

avatar

Scatter

That's what we thought about arcades until the latest greatest games started being released directly to the home consoles.  It seems as if the studios already have the delivery methods to do this.  The only things standing in their way are figuring out an acceptable price point and the theaters who obviously don't want to become obsolete overnight. 

avatar

someone87

 

While I hardly ever see a movie in the theater (sometimes my wife wants me to go with her, or the entire family is going) there is still something great about the experience, that I don't get in my own theater at home with a projector making a 14' screen, 5.1 surround sound, etc.

That said, I hate paying the 8$ or whatever to see a movie in the theater. Again, hardly ever do it, unless someone (my wife, her fam) want me to go with then.

Like every other for profit industry, so long as the movie theaters keeps paying those who own the rights enough money, and people continue going to the theater  instead of waiting for the DVD release, theaters will live on.

 

avatar

everettehouse

yes, but we are seeing the decline.  and i blame greed.  when was the last time it cost $8 for a movie ticket?  popcorn?  candy?  drink?  all the other junk that is being peddled for gazillions of dollars? 

i also love the movie theater experience.  there is nothing like it.  i wax nostalgic for the days when it was just highway robbery to be taken by my parents to the movies and get a modest amount of snacks and drink for everyone.  now, it is far beyond highway robbery.

so, i will sit at home.  in my clean living room and enjoy our home theater.  it is not imax, but economically, it is far better. 

of course, blu-ray discs have less and less of the extras which were supposed to be the main selling points.  netflix is about to lose another customer because so many of the discs that we receive now won't allow us to view the extras.  they are "rental only" discs.  greed.  disgusting greed.

avatar

Keith E. Whisman

sounds like one outstanding computer monitor.

avatar

TommM

I'll take two, please.  :D

avatar

israel09

Insert "Imagine porn on that thing" comment

avatar

avenger48

I hate to say it, but if you have the money to buy one of these, you probably don't need to watch porn.

avatar

shommy2002

haha... but it has to be filmed in super high def... rather just do the real thing

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.