backtop


Print 27 comment(s) - last by mcnabney.. on Dec 31 at 1:21 PM


LG 3D UD TV  (Source: koreaittimes.com)
The 84-inch 3D Ultra-Definition TV is expected to present the best 3D viewing experience yet

LG is preparing to blow the competition away come January when it reveals its new 3D Ultra Definition (UD) TV.

LG's 3D UD TV, which will make an appearance at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in January 2012, is an 84-inch master of entertainment with 8 million pixels, a Slim and Narrow Bezel Design, 3840x2160 resolution, 3D Depth Control (to control the 3D effect) and 3D Sound Zooming for a whole new audio experience.

LG will also offer its Smart TV ecosystem where users can choose 3D movies as well as over 1,200 apps. Users can maneuver the Smart TV apps and movies via LG's Magic Remote, which is capable of recognizing Magic Gesture, Voice Recognition, Point and Wheel gestures.

"LG is pushing the limits of home entertainment innovation with this 3D UD TV," said Havis Kwon, President and CEO of LG Electronics Home Entertainment Company. "We are bringing together all our Smart TV and 3D knowledge in the 3D UD TV in order to demonstrate to the CES audience that LG is committed to being the world's leading brand for immersive home entertainment in 2012 and beyond."

LG will also unveil its 55-inch OLED TV at CES 2012.

Sources: Korea IT Times, Tech Crunch



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: 3840x2160
By tastyratz on 12/29/2011 10:08:30 AM , Rating: 2
truth in part
3d is not selling new tv's like mad as manufacturers were betting on. While it's cool, there was no REAL reason to upgrade.
4k gives consumers a tangible reason to upgrade their high end tv's with greater profit margins. I think we will start seeing 4k tv's in less than 5 years at consumer pricing.

Content will follow, probably in a bluray format only... I don't se broadcast 4k anytime soon on current infrastructure and that would be MANY years away.

I have a 60 in plasma, and I think 1080p is fuzzy. I am a lot more discerning than your standard consumer, but I think 1080p shines on a 50 but just wont cut it at 57 and up. 4k is probably overkill, but it is also the next evolutionary step. I expect a direct jump to 4k instead of 2k on the way.


RE: 3840x2160
By GuinnessKMF on 12/29/2011 12:05:21 PM , Rating: 2
There is a "natural" step inbetween that has been used by some manufacturers; (Wide) Quad HD, (W)QHD is 2560x1440, The TV in the article is considered Quad Full HD, (W)QFHD.

This is available for 27" monitors right now.


RE: 3840x2160
By tastyratz on 12/29/2011 1:20:24 PM , Rating: 2
Natural step for computer usage as another size exists, but not entirely for content. Since things now are often filmed/remastered/etc in 4k, the most logical step would be directly jumping to native resolution. Any less and the specification is destined to be nothing more than transitional and ALWAYS scaled.


RE: 3840x2160
By mcnabney on 12/31/2011 12:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
To be most accurate, the 35mm film that has been used in the movie industry for almost a century has a maximum scannable resolution of about 4K (7-9 megapixels). That means that content released at 4K resolutions are as good as they are going to get. Scanning at higher resolutions just yields noise. So 4K will be a long term plateau of video resolution. The industry should get their quickly so that the consumer will have confidence in buying content on that format since it will be as good as it can get until new content is created using higher resolutions at some future date, which seems unlikely. A very large screen is required to discern resolution higher than 4K.


RE: 3840x2160
By fleshconsumed on 12/29/2011 12:44:07 PM , Rating: 2
Depends on a situation such as viewers eyesight and seating distance. Personally I can't see individual pixels on a 1080p 55" screen at normal seating distance. I'm not sure about 84", but I doubt it's that much more noticeable, keep in mind that seating distance is going to be farther away with 84" screen.


RE: 3840x2160
By B3an on 12/30/2011 12:05:43 AM , Rating: 2
Even if you cant see individual pixels you can still often see an increase in picture quality and sharpness with increased resolution.
I'd like a TV with around 7000x4200 pixels thats 80+ inch... but, have it only about 4 foot away. Because with that res it will be as clear as reality.


"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home














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