backtop


Print 62 comment(s) - last by B2I.. on Aug 17 at 11:03 AM


  (Source: OLED Lab)
The set does not have 4K display technology

A curved TV is not for everyone, but two top South Korean electronics conglomerates are betting some customers will shell out a whole lot of cash for a glorified tech demo of the potential of OLED (organic light emitting diodes).

I. Samsung Strikes Back

You may recall that in OLED's infancy, one key selling point bandied about was the ability to make flexible displays.  But most early OLED panels were rigid traditional form factors -- either acting as device displays or as small television sets.

Both Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930) and LG Electronics, Inc. (KSC:066570)  -- the first and second place display sellers worldwide, according to Display Search's March 2013 numbers -- are racing to ramp up production of large OLED TVs and they're offering up early product in a unique curved form factor.

Samsung's unit (the KN55S9C) was late to the game, finally shipping this week.  Customers can order the set from Samsung.com, which is advisable as some resellers are reportedly tacking on thousands to the price.
Samsung curved OLED
Samsung's curved OLED is finally shipping, at a competitive price point.

However, compared to LG's entrant -- which began shipping in limited quantities in May -- the Samsung set is a "bargain".  A 55-inch OLED panel retails for $8,999.99 USD.  By contrast the 55-inch LG set (EA9800) was priced at $14,999.99 USD when it finally hit U.S. retailers such as Best Buy Comp., Inc. (BBYin July, having first shipped in limited quantities in South Korea.

“Better than expected yields" allowed Samsung to undercut LG.  But is there more to the $6,000 USD price disparity?

II. LG Set is Pricier, but Technologically Superior

There is indeed.  The LG set is thinner -- 4.3 mm compared to a "bulky" 12.5 mm for the Samsung set.  It's also lighter.  Samsung's set weighs 32.8 kg (72.3 lb) versus 17.2 kg (37.9 lb) for the LG set.  The LG set's thin and light form factors comes thanks to carbon-fiber body design, but that technology also bumps the unit's price.  

LG's set is thinner, lighter, uses less power, and has less parts.

The disparity doesn't stop there. The LG set also boasts a lower TDP (265 watts vs. 295 watts for the Samsung).  The LG set also is reportedly a much more optimized design [source] with only about a third as many parts, which could spell trouble for Samsung given its past issues with component failures.  About the only win for Samsung is that its display is slightly more sharply curved (4,500R compared to 5,000R). 

However, the Samsung set does boast "SmartTV" technology, including a quad-core ARM processor and eye-aware interaction.

Both OLED panels promise vivid colors and brightness, on top of the unique gimmick of the curved shape.  A major letdown, though, is the lack of 4K display technology in both units -- the latest in high resolution video/content, which roughly quadruples the screen resolution of the 1920x1080 pixel resolution found in the curved units.

U.S. customers are finally getting their first taste of big-screen OLED and curved display technology, which is also expected to hit the smartphone market as early as this holiday season.  The only thing that remains to be seen is whether customers pay substantially (67%) more for the better set (the LG EA9800) or go with the cheaper, but less endowed options (the KN55S9C).

A final note is that the LG unit's prices have trickled down to $13,500 USD in South Korea, and may soon dip to those levels in the U.S. as well.  That's just one more factor to consider if you're contemplating this very pricey purchase.

Source: The Verge



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

4K is stupid in a TV
By hubb1e on 8/13/2013 2:53:51 PM , Rating: 5
4K is stupid in a TV, especially a 55" TV. The human eye cannot resolve that much detail at normal sitting distances. 1080p is already retina quality if the user isn't sitting a few feet from the TV.

Not only that, but there's no 4K content and not even a way to distribute it. 4K only makes sense on extremely large TVs in small spaces, and in projection home theaters but even then there's no actual content for it.




RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By haukionkannel on 8/13/2013 3:07:52 PM , Rating: 2
I would not say so... 55" and bigger would be much better with 4K or 8K resolution. It does not actually matter if you see or do not see individual pixels. I don't see individial pixels in normal iPad, but still the retina version seems so much sharper and easier to read the text! I am waiting for these really a lot, but have to wait for cheaper prices...


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Solandri on 8/14/2013 3:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
For anyone who thinks 4k TV will be a significant improvement, here's a quick and what should be an easy question for you:

Of the four major networks - ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC - two broadcast in 720p, two broadcast in 1080i (which any modern TV deinterlaces to 1080p). Off the top of your head (no googling), which ones use which broadcast resolution?

If the pixels on a 1080p screen aren't small enough and 1080p generates a sharper picture than 720p, surely you can tell the difference between a 1920x1080 picture and a 1280x720 picture (44% the pixels) displayed on that screen?


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 6:20:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
For anyone who thinks 4k TV will be a significant improvement


Uhh it's not a matter of opinion. Of course 4K will offer a significant improvement over 1080P. Especially when it comes to viewing distances and larger screens.

I can't answer your little thought exercise about the networks however, as I don't have HD cable service. Most of the content is upscaled anyway, not true HD source material.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Paj on 8/16/2013 10:18:14 AM , Rating: 2
For your average home TV it wont make much difference, if any - the eye isnt sensitive enough to resolve that level of detail on anything other than truly gargantuan screens.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Considering the average viewing distance is 9-12 feet, you'd need an 80-90 inch 4K screen before the extra resolution gave any appreciable benefit over a similarly sized 1080 screen.

If you're lucky to have a home cinema or something, then 4K makes sense. On screens smaller than around 60 inches, it's more of a marketing gimmick.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Moishe on 8/16/2013 1:06:28 PM , Rating: 2
You're right.

I have a HT with 1080p. The screen is 120" and the viewing distance is about 10 feet. I'd notice the difference between 4K and 1080p.

Now, in my living room, I think I have an average setup. 47" 1080p @ 10 feet. It'd be a waste for me in that instance, and I think that 42"-55" @ 10ft is probably the "normal" range for the average consumer household.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By edge929 on 8/13/2013 3:28:40 PM , Rating: 2
Little 4k content? Yes. None? Not quite.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_nr_n_0?rh=n%3A26253...


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By gevorg on 8/13/2013 4:16:19 PM , Rating: 1
Many of those movies are upsampled from pre-4K and even pre-HD days. If the movie was not shot in 4K or HD, there nothing much you can do about it, even if you upsample it to 8K. Case in point: Ghostbusters (1984) in 4K, LOL.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 8/13/2013 4:39:24 PM , Rating: 2
That's almost true, and likely true in many cases, but certain film formats (wide screen and 70mm) have >4k resolution, and would benefit from a new 4k or greater transfer. In fact, formats like Todd-AO are closer to 7k and 70mm widescreen is more than 9k. So in theory we'd want a 12k format to completely replace all film formats in the home.

Wake me when that happens!


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By tecknurd on 8/13/13, Rating: 0
RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Darkefire on 8/13/2013 4:45:40 PM , Rating: 5
They didn't upsample from anything, they just rescanned the 35mm film at 4K resolutions. How exactly do you think they've been releasing HD versions of films and television series from 40+ years ago? Magic?


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Mitch101 on 8/13/2013 4:50:11 PM , Rating: 2
Announcing: Sony’s First All 4K Ultra HD Media Player and Content Download Service
http://store.sony.com/p/4K-Media-Server/en/p/FMPX1


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By MikeDiction on 8/13/2013 5:26:52 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Case in point: Ghostbusters (1984) in 4K, LOL.


LOL totally owned that guy! But wait, what digital resolution was Ghostbusters filmed at?


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By BRB29 on 8/14/2013 9:05:10 AM , Rating: 1
it was filmed in using...film. It can be converted to 4k easily. They've been doing this for 1080p of old movies for years.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 6:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many of those movies are upsampled from pre-4K and even pre-HD days. If the movie was not shot in 4K or HD, there nothing much you can do about it, even if you upsample it to 8K. Case in point: Ghostbusters (1984) in 4K, LOL.


Wow I'm kinda embarrassed for you that you posted this. 35mm film can resolve about 4K of horizontal resolution, in most cases. Even movies made decades long ago can have astonishing transfers to today's standards of HD.

Pre HD? Movies have been shot in "HD" before HD was even a consumer thing.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Calin on 8/14/2013 3:26:16 AM , Rating: 2
I think original Star Wars movies were digitized from film at some of 4,000 by 6,000 pixels, in preparation for launch of Episodes 4, 5 and 6. While that might have been overkill, I'd say film (as in film) has enough resolution to be digitized to 4K resolution (roughly 8 MPixels).


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By therealnickdanger on 8/15/2013 8:56:14 AM , Rating: 2
Film elements of Star Wars, Empire, and Jedi were scanned and then digitally restored (contrast, color, scratch removal, grain reduction, etc.) with new effects added as part of the Special Editions of the late 90s. New masters were created from this and have served as the backbone of all changes and releases since. But the truth is that there have been SO MANY changes since the theatrical releases (1977-1983) of all three movies that who knows if or when we'll EVER get the original, uncut theatrical versions.

I'm hoping that now that Disney is in control - and not Lucas - we'll finally get the originals released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_changes_in_St...


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Reclaimer77 on 8/15/2013 3:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
I, as well as others, would pay untold amounts for the original uncut theatrical versions of the original trilogy. I hope Disney knows that, and acts accordingly.

I don't know what compelled Lucas to lie and cheat millions of fans out of the original versions. I don't understand! What is wrong with him?


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 5:41:29 PM , Rating: 2
"4K is stupid in a TV, especially a 55" TV. The human eye cannot resolve that much detail at normal sitting distances. 1080p is already retina quality if the user isn't sitting a few feet from the TV."

Totally disagree. You might want to have your eyes checked. That and when you plug in your PC to a 1080p 55 incher is looks beyond aweful. You keep your mediocre prefs to yourself. I want 4k bad... ;)

Agreed about the content, but it will come. It takes time.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 8:16:45 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why people make those claims when it's so easy to disprove. The human eye can resolve images that humanity would be hard pressed to duplicate on a TV set with current technology.

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolut...

Kinda lengthy, but to break it down, the human eye/brain combination can resolve about 570 megapixels. And that's conservative. It wouldn't even break a sweat viewing 4K media.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 9:05:04 PM , Rating: 3
Yup, 4k is long overdue if you ask me. We lost 3 years at least while TV makers wasted time fig fig ring out that no one wants 3D. Ugh...


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 9:06:52 PM , Rating: 2
Figuring... Stupid autocorrect.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 9:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh indeed. Between price-fixing panels to keep the prices high, and this worthless 3D gimmick which kept them even higher, the industry was really set back.

I'm just hoping we even get OLED TV's at the kind of volumes LCD's required to bring the costs down. We might not, and that's the scary thing.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By chuckus on 8/14/2013 1:32:51 PM , Rating: 2
"fig fig ring" - Good band name.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By jRaskell on 8/14/2013 10:17:05 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Kinda lengthy, but to break it down, the human eye/brain combination can resolve about 570 megapixels. And that's conservative. It wouldn't even break a sweat viewing 4K media.


Your inference there is a bit misleading, as that 570mp claim is for the human eye's entire field of view. The article also appears to be oblivious to the fact that the human eye's ability to resolve detail is not consistent throughout it's entire field of view.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/vision/...

That article shows that rod density in the eye drops off significantly past +/- 40º.

That being said, I think the article still strongly supports 4k displays and I personally look forward to upgrading in the next few years when prices come down and available content goes up.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Reclaimer77 on 8/14/2013 12:31:39 PM , Rating: 2
Look I don't know, I don't have an intimate knowledge of the human eye. A lot of this stuff is over my head.

However I can't find any evidence in the OP's claim that the eye cannot distinguish 4k resolutions. Which was my entire point.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Ktracho on 8/13/2013 8:13:11 PM , Rating: 1
No one seems to remember that it used to be that the best laser printers could only print at 300 DPI. (I printed my thesis at this resolution, then photocopied it with a slight reduction onto cotton paper for improved visual quality.) You could see the pixels at that resolution, but at 600 DPI, you had to look very closely to see the individual pixels, because it was very close to the resolution the human eye can see. So why do laser printers now a days print at 1200 DPI, and why are professionally printed books printed at 2400 DPI? It just looks sharper, even though it's beyond what the human eye can see. Same thing goes for TVs, and you could make the same argument as to why CD sound quality is not good enough.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By HostileEffect on 8/13/2013 10:25:30 PM , Rating: 2
I can see the individual pixels on both of my 40"+ displays 1080P and it does get old. Just because YOU can't see a difference doesn't mean other people can't. I'm getting 4K when I can afford it.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By althaz on 8/13/2013 11:38:12 PM , Rating: 2
You are 100% wrong on everything - except that there is (basically) no content available.

I have a 51" TV that's about 4m away at 1080p and it's a long way short of the clarity and sharpness (better colours and contrast though) of the screen of my Surface Pro (1080p and 10.6").

I still wouldn't buy a 4k TV because of the lack of content and because I don't actually watch all that much TV, but it's pretty moronic to spout off about how stupid it is without doing any research.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By HostileEffect on 8/14/2013 8:14:30 AM , Rating: 2
The possibilities in photoshop alone on a 4K tv... I also like all my movies in native blu-ray, even though its 1080P, it would still look purdy...


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By BRB29 on 8/14/2013 9:11:33 AM , Rating: 1
I've always thought color accuracy was more important than resolution for photoshop. You simply cannot do photoshop if the colors are not displayed right. I have yet seen a TV worthy for photoshop in a reasonable price range.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By Solandri on 8/14/2013 3:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I have a 51" TV that's about 4m away at 1080p and it's a long way short of the clarity and sharpness (better colours and contrast though) of the screen of my Surface Pro (1080p and 10.6").

A 51" 1080p TV at 4m away has the same angular resolution as a 10.6" 1080p screen at 83 cm. So unless you're in the habit of using your Surface Pro with your arms fully extended, the TV is actually sharper (the pixels on the TV are smaller to your eye).


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By tastyratz on 8/14/2013 3:08:14 PM , Rating: 2
Couldn't be more wrong.

20/20 vision CAN resolve greater than 1080p at less than 55 inches, other display quality factors just take priority. I find 1080p quite soft on my 58 and find 4k exciting.

Also,
Most new theater movies are not shot at low resolutions like 1080p, so we are SCALING digital features while a 4k movie can be delivered at NATIVE resolution. MANY new movies are shot at 4k right at the camera and can produce astonishing effects.

Plenty of 4k content already exists but needs to be distributed... but why distribute content with no way to play it?


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By espaghetti on 8/14/2013 10:07:32 PM , Rating: 2
It's nearly the same argument we heard when blu ray came out.
Just take the improvement and let the bleeding edge people eat the initial high price and let it go. If they can make it affordable at some point then we all win.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By EricMartello on 8/17/2013 3:58:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
4K is stupid in a TV, especially a 55" TV. The human eye cannot resolve that much detail at normal sitting distances. 1080p is already retina quality if the user isn't sitting a few feet from the TV.


This place is no longer a tech site if such a moronic comment managed to get upvoted at all...idiots have been saying the same old sh1t since the early days of HDTV and perhaps before:

"You won't see the difference between VHS and SVHS! It's just a gimmick"

"CDs barely sound better than LPs. Don't buy into the hype."

"You won't even notice the difference between regular and HDTV if you have cable. You'd need a 50" TV for it to matter and most people have 19" TVs or smaller..."

'Retina quality' is not a measurement of any kind; it's apple marketing BS that is designed to sell tech crap to people who are really dumb. The improved resolution you will get with 4K video will allow for finer detail on larger screens. 1080P is not nearly "the limit" for human visual acuity on a 50-55" screen.

quote:
Not only that, but there's no 4K content and not even a way to distribute it. 4K only makes sense on extremely large TVs in small spaces, and in projection home theaters but even then there's no actual content for it.


OH NO! Are you saying that there's no content for a format that isn't supported by most TVs on the market? WHAT A SURPRISE! I guess that means there is no way they will be able to produce 4K content in the future...because if it's not available now then it won't ever be.


RE: 4K is stupid in a TV
By B2I on 8/17/2013 11:00:53 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the curved screen will make 4k desirable. The curvature will encourage sitting much closer to get the "surround" effect. this means those 1080X1920 pixels will start to show up to young people or anyone with acute close vision. If they can get the price point down to around $3k for a 60-70"er with 10 bit color depth --and-- media becomes available,they'll sell like cold beer on a summer day.


How many?
By OnyxNite on 8/13/2013 1:34:40 PM , Rating: 2
So how many 5,000R curved displays do I need to complete the circle around me?




RE: How many?
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 2:18:39 PM , Rating: 2
Awesome... One of these platform deals in the middle and it's almost a holodeck.

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://news.bb...


RE: How many?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 2:24:25 PM , Rating: 2
Well minus Quark's holo-hookers :P


RE: How many?
By Flunk on 8/13/2013 2:52:56 PM , Rating: 2
If that's all you want you don't need to spend $36,000+.


RE: How many?
By retrospooty on 8/13/2013 3:02:18 PM , Rating: 2
Ya, but there are a few risks and other drawbacks to the other option. hehe. There would be no potential criminal penalties, time and effort spent on finding it, diseases, or... smells.


RE: How many?
By CrasHxxx on 8/14/2013 10:07:21 AM , Rating: 2
But that is what makes the other option so much more fun.


RE: How many?
By ceauke on 8/14/2013 8:10:44 AM , Rating: 2
Good question!
I couldn't find the wiki entry on how curvature is measured in R units. What does it mean?

Also, it seems like if you use lots of these monitors, you'll get a TUBE at best. Shouldn't they be bent on two axes so that you end up wih a BALL? These seem to bend left to right and not top to bottom.


4K Isn't Ready
By Reclaimer77 on 8/13/2013 2:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Great article Jason.

However 4K isn't ready for prime time, there's not even any readily available 4K content for consumers out there without jumping through hoops.

Plus making these sets 4K would have priced them FAR out of whatever limited market they have.

I'm stoked we finally have OLED sets in the wild, available for purchase. It's been such a long wait! The prices should come down fairly quickly. Hell I remember seeing LCD TV's at Circuit City and Best Buy years ago for $11,000+.




RE: 4K Isn't Ready
By edge929 on 8/13/2013 3:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
1080p/Blu-ray started out the same way, as did 480p/DVD and all other formats before it. My 2 year old will regard 1080p like I regard black and white TV.


RE: 4K Isn't Ready
By bsd228 on 8/13/2013 6:07:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
However 4K isn't ready for prime time, there's not even any readily available 4K content for consumers out there without jumping through hoops.


I already have a nearly unlimited supply of my own content.


RE: 4K Isn't Ready
By hpglow on 8/14/2013 12:35:17 AM , Rating: 2
No one wants to see your endless footage of you jerking off in a robot costume. Not that you said you would share.


Why the curve?
By adrift02 on 8/13/2013 4:09:00 PM , Rating: 3
What's the point of the curved design? Wouldn't that limit viewing angles? I could see it making sense as a monitor, but not a TV.




RE: Why the curve?
By aliasfox on 8/13/2013 4:45:41 PM , Rating: 2
I can see it making sense if the TV is gigantic - greater than 6' across, for example - but even then, it would be a niche market of people who would want to put such a large TV in their home and then sit close enough where the curvature would be of benefit.


Here's Hoping
By aliasfox on 8/13/2013 4:00:14 PM , Rating: 2
Here's hoping that my parents' 2009 Samsung 46" LCD croaks around 2016. By then, I should be able to pass them my 60" Aquos and hang a 40 lbs, 4k flat 60" OLED on my wall for ~$2k...




By piroroadkill on 8/13/2013 6:56:53 PM , Rating: 2
It needs to be wall-consuming to make sense, à la IMAX.

At this size, it's pure, pure gimmick. Ugly gimmick.




It's not about 4k with OLED...
By BansheeX on 8/13/2013 7:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
LCDs have problems that OLED resolves. No backlight means truly deep blacks and no backlight bleed issues that have plagued LCD forever. Ghosting from pixel response times and poor viewing angles are gone, too.

4k is gimmicky because adding pixels, for lack of any real image quality improvements, is all LCD can do anymore. But screen size and viewing distance render it meaningless. An LCD set with 3D and 4k will still look like trash next to an OLED set.




By shmmy on 8/13/2013 9:02:38 PM , Rating: 2
The TV's main point is that its Curved OLED. 4K is just a bonus much like the 3D TV nonsense a few years ago. I know a few people with high end TV's (Samsung 9000 and 55D8000) and neither of them use 3D on a regular basis, if at all. Simple fact though is that the 3D TVs still look better then most 2D TVs, due to the upgraded parts manufacturers put inside them. 4K is similar. You get a great 1080P TV and later you can use 4k if needed. The people buying this stuff piss away thousands of dollars on stuff all the time so price is not relevant at this bracket.

I know there are many cable companies around the US. I have Verizon Fios and I know for a fact they dont even broadcast at 1080P. 1080P has been around for a long time now. I have little hope of them broadcasting 4k any time soon. If so it will be very limited since the broadcasters have almost no reason to do so. When HD came out it gave them a chance to get a new sponsor "HD brought to you by x company" Well with 4k they dont really get a new sponsor since they already probably have an HD sponsor. So really 4k would just be a very expensive tech demo that a company like Sony would have to "donate" equipment for.

As a PC display it would be pretty sweet though! :D




By GlobleWarmingisbunk on 8/13/2013 11:51:10 PM , Rating: 2
I just wanted to make sure that the people who are calling 4k a gimmick have seen the Sony XBR 4k at their local Best Buy.

If you haven't than Why Are You Talking?

I love the Sony XBR 4k and it is most certainly not a gimmick. ( I have seen 4k with my own eyes)

And you may not know this but Sony has been shooting some of its movies in 4k then down converting it for Blu-Ray. Remember Sony has 4k Theaters all over the world.

Also, I would not say that no one wanted 3D. I love my 3D LG tv. I watch 3D movies all the time...Just finished watching G.I Joe: Retaliation in 3D. Do most people care, no, but that doesn't mean that there isn't a market, and people that are in that market like me want to see 3D in every tv -including 4k, OLED. To say that we would have 4k, OLED...ect if tv manufactures didn't mess around with 3D is a fallacy. Tv manufactures don't have only one R&D team that finishes one project and then moves on, they have many. These companies have been working on this stuff for years and now it is finally here. Now we just have to wait for the price to drop. Just like 3D.




Black & white 480i for life yo!
By Phlip77 on 8/14/2013 1:02:30 PM , Rating: 2
That is all




Just the next step
By B2I on 8/17/2013 11:03:57 AM , Rating: 2
I believe the curved screen will make 4k desirable. The curvature will encourage sitting much closer to get the "surround" effect. this means those 1080X1920 pixels will start to show up to young people or anyone with acute close vision. If they can get the price point down to around $3k for a 60-70"er with 10 bit color depth --and-- media becomes available,they'll sell like cold beer on a summer day.




Finally
By DukeN on 8/13/13, Rating: 0
samuel1chandel
By samuel1c.handel on 8/13/13, Rating: -1
RE: samuel1chandel
By menting on 8/13/2013 6:08:34 PM , Rating: 3
i hope you get shot on your way home from spamming the whole day.


RE: samuel1chandel
By half_duplex on 8/14/2013 9:36:17 AM , Rating: 3
It wouldn't surprise me if they did get shot with all of the money they are bring in working from their laptop at home.


RE: samuel1chandel
By raphd on 8/13/2013 10:26:59 PM , Rating: 2
spam is like AIDS, since you gave me spam. I hope you get aids.


"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders." -- Michael Dell, after being asked what to do with Apple Computer in 1997














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki