84-Inch LG UHDTV Ready to Sell, 3,840 x 2,160 Resolution

[rajeesh]

For those who felt that Samsung's 75-inch ES9000 was a massive and powerful piece of work, we have something that will totally blow it out of the water: LG's 85-inch UHDTV.

UHDTV stands for the native resolution of 3,840 x 2,160 pixels. It is not quite 4K, but close enough that people won't know the difference.


Verily, the human eye is more than comfortable with even the 1,920 x 1,080 pixels resolutions. That is, after all, what is called Full High Definition.

Still, LG wanted to go above and beyond the normal limits of display technologies, so it created this monster of a TV and demonstrated it during CES 2012.

That's not what we are going to talk about here of course. Instead, we'll focus on the fact that LG is going to soon sell it.

The press release that proves it is right here, although it's not easy to make heads or tails of without knowing the language. Fortunately. Google Translate takes care of that, although the language conversion is anything but perfect.

One of the relevant bits is that LG's creation has a diagonal of 84 inches (213 cm) and the ability to play glasses-free full 1080p 3D video via LG FPR Cinema 3D technology (with passive glasses).

Another feature is the 2.2-channel sound system built into it, for 3D surround effects, although we assume it's actually 22.2-channel and that one of the 2's got lost in translation in a most literal fashion.

Orders or pre-orders will be possible to book within one or two weeks from now, with shipments scheduled to commence in August, though limited quantities should already be available.

Unfortunately, we can't tell for sure what the price will be. We know it will be enormous, but the translated press release we linked to above is more confusing than helpful. Korean won are mentioned a couple of times, but it's either too large a sum or too small. Hopefully, LG will make an announcement in English soon.






http://news.softpedia.com/news/84-Inch-LG-UHDTV-Ready-to-Sell-3-840-x-2-160-Resolution-282257.shtml

[ck_kent]

Nice! But Panasonic already has a 152" 4K 3D Plasma.

[implague]

thats bigger than my bed

[Pedrito]

thats bigger than my bed

:lmao:

[calguyhunk]

I've always wondered 'bout getting a (now suddenly) humble 2560X1440 40"-52" television. You can't get that, though that'll be a pretty big market ;)

I will obviously find it very hard to afford something like that right now, but I'd be comforted by the knowledge that with time as and when the prices normalize, at least I can have one someday :)

But these things are ridiculous. They probably cost as much as my car :think:

[DKT27]

I still prefer staying away from big TVs as whenever I watch them, I only see big pixel blocks. Dunno if it's my eye or the TV channel not having full HD mode.

[calguyhunk]

I still prefer staying away from big TVs as whenever I watch them, I only see big pixel blocks. Dunno if it's my eye or the TV channel not having full HD mode.

Happens on non-HD video through co-axial cable (from the Desi good-for-nothing annoying cablewallas) :angry: Terrible. Looks like VHS tapes from the 80's :nono:

Try watching a DVD/Blu-Ray/HD DTH and you'll know the difference.

[DKT27]

Happens on non-HD video through co-axial cable (from the Desi good-for-nothing annoying cablewallas) :angry: Terrible. Looks like VHS tapes from the 80's :nono:

Try watching a DVD/Blu-Ray/HD DTH and you'll know the difference.

What's wrong with co-axial cable? Sorry I don't know much about things I'm not aware of. :P Try comparing them to 2 wire un-twisted telephone lines. :D

Well, I've seen it on couple of houses so far, both the times I saw them having hathway set top box. The last time I saw, I felt it should have been better as channels like Star Plus have switched to HD by now (or do they have a different channel for that? [i hate star plus and any serials for that matter :P ]).

Imagine this happening to a 32 and 42 inch TV I saw. What will happen to 85 inch TV is simply unbelievable. Even if we don't blame the TV, our resources are not ready for that monster. Really, if I wanted to have 85 inch something to watch on I'd rather have a white curtain to watch via projector. And if I really wanted to watch a blu-ray or DVD, I'd get an simple monitor of that size (if it works that way).

[calguyhunk]

What's wrong with co-axial cable? :P

Everything. They are the bane of home entertainment in India :nono:

... 2 wire un-twisted telephone lines. :D

Respect, man :angry: You're talking 'bout my BSNL broadband line :P

Well, I've seen it on couple of houses so far, both the times I saw them having hathway set top box. The last time I saw, I felt it should have been better as channels like Star Plus have switched to HD by now (or do they have a different channel for that? [i hate star plus and any serials for that matter]

Yes, HD channels are separate. The programming sucked because that is a standard definition set-top box showing standard definition 4:3 480i (640X480 interlaced) video. Which is downright unwatchable on anything more than a 21"-25" TV at most :(

our resources are not ready for that monster....

Yes they are. You just have to pay more for the privilege :rant:

An HD DTH box from Dish, Tata Sky etc. costs roughly 3 times that of an SD box. Also, the monthly outgo for the HD channels are significantly higher, which is why, you shouldn't buy more than a 1366x768 26" TV unless you can throw the extra cash all around :nono:

[DKT27]

You think so? Even the channels which are specifically HD?

Cause from a year I'm waiting for a cheap 26-32 inch full HD TV but bloody good TV makers are not bringing them. :( All I see is half HD ones. When I invest in something, I like to use it for atleast 5 years.

[calguyhunk]

You think so? Even the channels which are specifically HD?

HD channels obviously will look gr8 but a lot will also depend on what technology your cable/DTH company will use to encode them or how much they will actually be compressed. As you know, the more the compression, the lesser the quality. Without any standard/guideline, I'm guessing Indian cable and DTH companies will go with a very high compression ratio so as to carry more data without upgrading their network/hardware, thereby nullifying much of the 'HD' video feel :dunno:

Cause from a year I'm waiting for a cheap 26-32 inch full HD TV but bloody good TV makers are not bringing them. :( All I see is half HD ones. When I invest in something, I like to use it for atleast 5 years.

At 26" your eyes won't know the difference between 720p (768 actually ;)) and 1080p. It's a marketing gimmick. At 32", yes, it'll make a difference especially if you sit very close to your TV in your cramped Mumbai apartment. :P

Basically, depending on your budget, 26" 1366x768 or 32" 1920x1080 is the way to go. But even more important are low refresh rates (2/3 ms for black to black and 5/6 ms for grey to grey) and a high native contrast ratio (30,000:1 or thereabouts).

There is a Cnet article I read a few months back 'bout resolutions of flat panel displays that I'm sure you'll find useful. A bit of techno-babble, but once you cut through that, you'll prolly find it enlightening I think :D

Here's the link :)

[DKT27]

I see. I believe the specs were decided long time ago. Even now, there is TRAI to look after things, sadly, not as good as it should, but atleast there's a authority.

I just don't want to get something half as good when I know I can get better. Even 32 inch TV, Samsung doesn't come under 40K for full HD. The max I can think about is is Rs. 30K. And forget about getting any proper specs either, that ms and actual contrast ratio.

[majithia23]

let me too drop in the conversation :)

-- the first thing is the difference between Full HD and HD Ready resolutions and its just 1.5 times ! so to translate this mathematical difference into a perceptible difference , you either need to sit very close to the screen or you need a big screen .

so by big , it settles at atleast 40" size , that is a screen of 40 inches and above will show up any appreciable differences when viewed from a comfortable viewing distance .

less than 40" , does not make a BIG difference . so at 32" or 34" , you can safely go for 720p screens ;)

-- know your preferences . Plasma or LCD . plenty of discussion points . and from what i have researched and know , neither of them is the best or a perfect Video medium . both have their + and - . usually at sizes above 40" Plasmas are preferred and they in fact are meant to perform at sizes above 40" .

be aware of LED panels . they are simply LCD panels with the source of light used to light up the images being from the LEDs . they can be border or full frame .

-- know the latest technologies coming up . Screen refresh rates , Motion Enhancements , Response times , Enhanced Black , Contrast Ratios , 24P Frame enabled , 3D , etc etc ....

-- research your use , connectivity options required , extra features required ( like smart apps ..) , etc etc

-- and your personal level of Geekness and Satisfaction .

now -

as i said , the picture quality of HD and Full HD makes quite a difference when viewed at sizes 40" and above , and yes it sure does .

i have the Tata SKY HD box with me from the last 1 year now , and believe me its a totally different TV experience ! :)

although you have to pay a lil extra premium for the HD services but considering the level of entertainment and satisfaction that comes with it , it literally does not hurt to pay that extra .

advantages --

> superb picture clarity

> cinematic sound . Dolby .

> Advertisement Free Transmission . YES , there are hardly ever any Ads on HD Channels !

> Because the signal is transferred via HDMI cables , so even the non HD channels look far far better as compared to when watching the same non HD channel on non HD box . ! ;)

so if you have the moolah and do appreciate quality , i say it wouldnt harm to invest in HD Set Top Boxes . ;)

[calguyhunk]

...there is TRAI to look after things, sadly, not as good as it should, but atleast there's a authI seeority.

TRAI is an embarrassment. Rather than being a regulator, they just pander to the corporates, helping them cartelize the phone/cable/satellite rates :angry:

I just don't want to get something half as good when I know I can get better. Even 32 inch TV, Samsung doesn't come under 40K for full HD. The max I can think about is is Rs. 30K. And forget about getting any proper specs either, that ms and actual contrast ratio.

Samsung 32" 1080p for 29,000 :D

^ Available in Mumbai. Local retail outlets and even chain stores (Vijay Sales etc.) might sell cheaper ;)

[DKT27]

I do watch it from a little near. My cheap 3 years old LCD monitor has more pixels than all those half HD ones so I expect better that higher price (I know, not so much comparable but you get my point).

HD connections, if expensive, is not something I can look forward to. I have become quite concious about video and audio quality throughout the years, I have to deal with middle paths.

@calguyhunk: That's Panasonic? :) (Maybe a wrong link?). Never visited Vijay Sales, I don't have good impression of them after I see ads of 5-10 years old obsolete models on Sunday newspapers. :P

[rudrax]

Nice! But Panasonic already has a 152" 4K 3D Plasma.

No need to go to the theater..This is something like theater in home..Home-Theater :lol:

[rudrax]

Nice! But Panasonic already has a 152" 4K 3D Plasma.

No need to go to the theater..This is something like theater in home..Home-Theater :lol:

[calguyhunk]

@calguyhunk: That's Panasonic? :) (Maybe a wrong link?).

:frusty: :chair: :P

Correct link for sure :D

[DKT27]

@calguyhunk: That's Panasonic? :) (Maybe a wrong link?).

:frusty: :chair: :P

Correct link for sure :D

Thanks. After your post, I was looking on it too. :) It seems it doesn't exist on the website anymore. Will keep it in mind when I think I need it. ;)

Did want it for watching matches though. :P