Eyes-on: LG's First Ultra HD TV Set; On Sale Now for $17,000

Status
Not open for further replies.

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
Absurdly expensive, but I don't care. I'm just happy these are coming to market. As volume grows and competition increases, prices will come down so I can someday own a 4k TV. And I can't wait! :)
 

SneakySnake

Distinguished
Jan 28, 2009
451
0
18,780
Absolutely useless tech in a TV, there's hardly any 1080p content outside of Blu-Ray these days, let alone 4K.

Give me a 27" or 32" 4K monitor for my computer and I'll be pleased not a freaking 84" TV that has to upscale everything to look decent. An 84" 1080p TV would look identical in quality to this if your both watching a blu-ray
 

dimar

Distinguished
Mar 30, 2009
1,035
60
19,360
If the panel could really support 240Hz refresh rate, it could be nice for gaming using Quad SLI or similar setup. But it's probably one of those fake motion tech...
 
Wow 3D Vision or Eyefinity for $51K + cost of PC. So for now 4K (Ultra High-Definition) with nothing to watch, no media, and by the time 4K is available in the US you'll need a new TV (or two). Not to mention WiFi for 4K streams?? Currently 1080p just made its way and still finding all HD content is tough enough; Verizon FiOS is capped at 1080i. Further, comparing an up-sampled DVD vs Blu-Ray still looks bad, so I assume it'll be the same up-sampling Blu-Ray (1080p) to 4K.

So IMO this is for those with more money than common sense.
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
My guess is that 4K is being pushed by George Lucas, so he can sell us the Star Wars Trilogies yet again on hyper HD BluRays...

Because, while computer geeks have been wanting this for years, it takes Hollywood and Apple to push higher resolution technology.

Makes me feel dirty inside...
 

fil1p

Distinguished
Nov 29, 2010
944
0
19,360
Wow the price is really high. I agree though, competition will bring it down eventually. Imagine if someone bought one and it had a dead pixel... :O
 

jacobdrj

Distinguished
Jan 20, 2005
1,475
0
19,310
[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Here goes man creating technology looking for a problem.[/citation]
The problem is legit: 1080p may be fine for the masses, but there is a very real niche who wants more...
I. Want. More.

Price will come down in due time. Give it, oh say, 7 years...
 

wemakeourfuture

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2011
601
0
18,980
[citation][nom]SneakySnake[/nom]Absolutely useless tech in a TV, there's hardly any 1080p content outside of Blu-Ray these days, let alone 4K. Give me a 27" or 32" 4K monitor for my computer and I'll be pleased not a freaking 84" TV that has to upscale everything to look decent. An 84" 1080p TV would look identical in quality to this if your both watching a blu-ray[/citation]

Cameras have already come out with 2K4K video recording. Most HD tv channels are 720p or 1080i. Not much are 1080p. I suspect TV will skip 1080p and go straight to 2K4K when the hardware is cheap, which will be a huge difference from 720p channels.

An 84" on 720p is three times less ppi then an 84" on 2K4K.
 

Vorador2

Distinguished
Jun 26, 2007
472
12
18,785
Come on, if Samsung can cram 2560x1600 pixels on a 10" panel for a powerful tablet and ask 400$ for the entire thing, where is my 4K 24~27" TV for a reasonable asking price?
 

ushyperion

Honorable
Oct 2, 2012
32
0
10,530
impressive resolution of 3840 x 2160, which is four times greater than standard full HD displays

How is this 4 times greater?
FULL HD = 1920x1080
1920 x 4 = 7680
1080 x 4 = 4320

however
1920 x 2 = 3840
1080 x 2 = 2160

So it is 2 times greater, not 4!!!!
 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels
3840x2160=8,294,400 pixels
8,294,400/2,073,600=4

So yes, think of it as 4x the size.

If the width is x2 and the height is x2, that makes it x4 the size.

 

LukeCWM

Distinguished
Oct 5, 2011
146
0
18,680
And I'm quite fed up with people saying this TV is a waste of time or money since we don't have content. Not a single invention in history has had widespread adoption at the point it was invented. Somebody has to push the boundaries of what is expected in order to advance.

And you better believe the film/TV industries aren't going to develop ways to distribute 4k media if there aren't any displays for it. I'm glad someone is taking the first step!

I get it. You and I both don't have money for the initial designs. Few people do. I'm glad I'm not bearing the cost of purchasing the initial designs, and I'm equally glad I'm not bearing the cost of creating the initial designs. But be grateful that someone is, because that is what it takes for it to be economical for the consumer (you and me) to purchase down the road.
 

wemakeourfuture

Distinguished
Dec 20, 2011
601
0
18,980
[citation][nom]ushyperion[/nom]How is this 4 times greater?FULL HD = 1920x10801920 x 4 = 76801080 x 4 = 4320however1920 x 2 = 38401080 x 2 = 2160So it is 2 times greater, not 4!!!![/citation]

Total Number of Pixels is 4 times more:

1080p: 1920 x 1080 = 2073600 pixels
2K4K: 3840 x 2160 = 8294400 pixels

twice the ppi means 4x number of more pixels in the square inch

 
Status
Not open for further replies.