backtop


Print 92 comment(s) - last by konnor.. on Apr 21 at 9:51 AM

Sony's 4K TVs get priced

Sony has announced the official price and availability for its new XBR 4K Ultra HD LED TVs. The line includes the XBR-55X900A and the XBR-65X900A, which have screen sizes of 55-inches and 65-inches respectively. While some other manufacturers have offered ultra HD television sets at prices ranging all the way up to $20,000 or more, Sony is actually offering “reasonable” prices, at least comparatively.

The 55-inch TV will sell for $4,995 with the 65-inch version going for $6,999. Both TVs will be available for pre-order on April 21, but the final shipping date is unannounced. Along with pricing and launch information for the TVs Sony is also unveiled its 4K Media Player called the FMP-X1. This device will deliver movies and video shorts in 4K resolution for $699. The media player will be available later this summer.


55" XBR-55X900A
 
The media streamer itself will come bundled with 10 feature-length films and users will be given access to a fee-based distribution service offering a library of titles from Sony Pictures Entertainment and other production studios. The films that are included with the purchase include Bad Teacher, Battle: Los Angeles, The Bridge on the River Kwai, The Karate Kid (2010), Salt, Taxi Driver, That's My Boy, The Amazing Spider-Man, The Other Guys and Total Recall (2012).

FMP-X1 4K Media Player

Sources: Sony [1], [2]



Comments     Threshold


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

RE: Dear computer monitors
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2013 10:56:10 AM , Rating: 3
In reality, very few gamers are gaming on more than one monitor. Even if they have 2-3 monitors. You don't design for only a few percentage of the marketplace.

I'm still running a 1680x1050 panel. Why? Because it works and lets me run all the details better than if I was at 1080p. But I also run an HDMI cable to my 50" plasma for if I want to game on the big screen and in 1080p.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By BRB29 on 4/8/2013 11:09:17 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, i know very few gamers do but the fact is that it's possible and has been done by a few thousand people at the very least.

Wait...how does 1680x1050 give you more details than 1920x1080? Or do you mean that zoomed in effect that it has because of lower res. If that's the case, run a bigger monitor on the higher res.

This is a new standard and i welcome it. Is it overkill for our current mainstream hardware to make use of it. Yes, a little. But the point is, I want to buy a TV/monitor that has a standard lasting me 5+ years. I can buy my other hardware to keep up with games but I don't feel like buying a new TV every other year.

The Ipad4 can run Infinity Blade II beautifully at its retina high res and sips power. The hardware driving these have 20x the power envelope to work in, they will figure it out.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2013 11:25:30 AM , Rating: 2
Less pixels = easier to run the game at the highest detail settings.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By BRB29 on 4/8/2013 11:36:40 AM , Rating: 3
Then you have to run AA to get rid of the jaggies. You take a hit in performance.

Do you not want to enjoy high details and no detectable jaggies? The fact that your GPU has to blur out diagonal lines to make it look better on a low res screen should tell you that screens are really the bottleneck in graphics.

I don't care how high your graphics settings is on a low res screen, it will still look bad. The difference between 480p and 1080p was night and day but it's still not good enough for a 24" monitor, let alone a 50" TV. 4k and 8k is the near future.

Maybe at 8k res, it will stay around for 20+ years before we start getting into holographics.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By mcnabney on 4/8/2013 12:13:37 PM , Rating: 2
8K will never go anywhere besides iMAX-like screens. The required viewing angle to see that much detail almost completely fills your vision - over 100 degrees.

Do you sit in the front row at movie theaters? Of course you don't. People prefer a video image that is between 30-60 degrees. Going beyond 60 is uncomfortable and difficult for your eyes and head to move enough to see everything. Your eyes would also have to constantly change focus since the sides of the screen would be much farther away than the center.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By kmmatney on 4/8/2013 12:20:29 PM , Rating: 1
'I don't care how high your graphics settings is on a low res screen, it will still look bad."

Sorry - it doesn't look bad. You'd hardly tell the difference in most games, and it plays much smoother.

As someone who has 1920 x 1200, 1920 x 1080, and 1680 x 1050 gaming machines at the house, I agree that 1680 x 1050 is a very good resolution, and for a given video card it can "play" much better than a higher res screen. It's really a nice sweet spot. The larger pixels do not look bad at all while playing games, and the aspect ratio of a 22" 1680 monitor make it almost the same size as a 1080p 23" display.

My personal monitor is a 1920 x 1200 Soyo Topaz, but I often have to dial down the settings to 1680 x 1050 to get the frame rate I want. For a budget gamer, a 22" 1680 x 1050 monitor is a perfect match,


RE: Dear computer monitors
By inighthawki on 4/8/2013 5:44:34 PM , Rating: 2
I agree. For a long time I had a 1680x1050 monitor and it was perfectly fine. In fact most time I never turned on AA because I rarely, if ever, noticed the jaggies while playing. Sure if I stop what I'm doing and just stare at the screen trying to "appreciate the image quality" I'll notice. But when actively playing the game, it's typically unnoticeable in most scenarios.

I game now on a 1920x1200 display which is great, but it doesn't bother me. I think AA was a serious problem back in the 1024x768 and lower days, but these days anyone who complains that 1080 provides too many jaggies either has a huge monitor so there's poor DPI or they're just being spoiled and nitpicking. I would bet money that 99% of people wouldn't even notice.

It's the same concept with audiophiles. There's a couple percent of people that will spend hundreds or thousands on a good pair of headphones or sound setup, but the $50 headphones at newegg on sale are good enough for almost everyone else.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By FITCamaro on 4/8/2013 12:25:40 PM , Rating: 2
Only if I care enough about the jaggies. Which I don't. Besides most modern cards can run 4x AA with hardly any performance penalty.

I have no problem playing games on my 22" monitor. And with my system, it runs just fine on my TV too.

I figure my 7850 should last another 2-3 years.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By MrBlastman on 4/8/2013 12:45:59 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do you not want to enjoy high details and no detectable jaggies? The fact that your GPU has to blur out diagonal lines to make it look better on a low res screen should tell you that screens are really the bottleneck in graphics.


I still play Atari 2600 games. Jaggies? What jaggies. :)

We have bigger things to worry about with games these days than graphics. Gameplay needs to take priority right now as there is a huge lack of it in most releases.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By TakinYourPoints on 4/9/2013 1:16:57 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Then you have to run AA to get rid of the jaggies. You take a hit in performance.


Jaggies are the product of pixel density, not resolution.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 10:25:36 AM , Rating: 2
pixel density is a product of resolution over a surface area.

On low res screen, you will always get jaggies playing 3D games unless you turn up AA. The only way you won't see it is when you stand far enough away. Then it's like playing on your phone.

Either way, you come to the conclusion that resolution must increase for the bigger screens like monitors and TVs.

I agree with you that 1080p and 2320p is undetectable by my eyes on a 4" smartphone. But I can definitely tell the jaggies even on my 1080p 23" and 27" monitor even sitting 3-4 ft away.
AA and all its derivatives all pretty much a bandaid to fix one of the low res issues.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By random2 on 4/9/2013 3:57:22 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe people will finally catch on and start sitting at the recommended distances for watching HD content. Always amazes me when I see people with a HD projector and screen of say 80 inches and the seating is 25 feet away. Or with their chairs 15 feet from their 46 inch TVs.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By BRB29 on 4/9/2013 10:33:01 AM , Rating: 2
Your logic is flawed. People didn't buy bigger TVs, 3DTVs, elaborate sound systems to sit further from the set. They bought it to feel more immersed in the media. By your logic, I should just my laptop and it put closer to my face instead of buying an 80 in TV.

I welcome 8k res so I can enjoy my 80" TV more. I prefer 7.1 surround sound. I look forward to a better home theater experience.

If you want to pay money for a bigger screen just to sit further then it defeats the purpose of buying the bigger screen. I would rather just sit closer since my eyes have an easier time focusing on things 6 feet away rather than 25 feet away.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By inighthawki on 4/8/2013 11:30:10 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Ipad4 can run Infinity Blade II beautifully at its retina high res and sips power. The hardware driving these have 20x the power envelope to work in, they will figure it out.


not only does it not "sip" power, but a 4k display is over 2x as many pixels as a retina display.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By BRB29 on 4/8/2013 11:38:53 AM , Rating: 1
You completely missed the point. I think you just see ipad and started hating.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By inighthawki on 4/8/2013 5:34:22 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not even sure how you got that from my statement. I was simply stating that although the ipad can run that at retina quality, that's still less than half the resolution of a 4k display. What does that have to do with hating on the ipad? I'm so confused how you jumped to that conclusion.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By mcnabney on 4/8/2013 12:17:09 PM , Rating: 2
Actual data

720p is about 1MP
1080p is about 2MP
iPad Retina is about 3MP
2560x1600 is about 4MP
4K is about 8MP


RE: Dear computer monitors
By BRB29 on 4/8/2013 1:24:53 PM , Rating: 1
OMG, the point is if a little chip on the ipad can push 3MP at under 8W, then a graphics card running 70-250 watts can easily push a 4K screen without much problem. 70-250W is what a desktop mid-high end discrete graphics card will use.

There are a GPUs that are already capable of pushing the latest titles on 3X1080p or 2x1600p

You clearly did not even read the previous posts.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By EnzoFX on 4/8/2013 3:03:51 PM , Rating: 2
Ugh. I think it's pretty clear that mass production of cheap components is what wins. This is why most people only have 1080p these days and probably a TN panel on their monitors. It's like we're in a lame middle point, or maybe even saturation, at least when it comes to gaming. As far as monitors go, if you're talking the same 30" or less sizes, what's the great benefit for games? I mean of course there's a difference, I'm just saying the real driving force for 4k will be big TV's, industrial applications for monitors, or people that just want more things to fit on their screen. Why does everything have to be measured around games? They are hardly the target market for everything.

I guess I think of games as not being a big deal at all. Why would you buy a 30" 2560x1600 res monitor, just to watch 1080p movies at 5' away? Similarly, a 4k monitor, just for games that will definitely not run natively at that res. You speak of the iPad Retina handling high res, and sure that will translate to 4K gaming, but at that res, you do lose detail and complexity. Either that or you design around a lower res, and upscale. I doubt any complex (not casual) game runs natively 1080p on either the 360 or PS3.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By EnzoFX on 4/8/2013 3:09:15 PM , Rating: 2
To put it another way, every time I upgraded monitors, to bigger and higher res, it was to gain benefit in productivity/desktop use. It most definitely as not dictated to wanting games to look better. The best way to make games look better, is a heftier GPU. I see these being adopted by businesses/industrial applications quite easily, and thank goodness, it'll drive the cost down for us. I do not see these going down due to gamers lol. Games first have to be designed for 4K that won't come quite a while after it has widely become adopted, as it was with 1080p.


RE: Dear computer monitors
By Reclaimer77 on 4/8/2013 10:37:21 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
OMG, the point is if a little chip on the ipad can push 3MP at under 8W, then a graphics card running 70-250 watts can easily push a 4K screen without much problem.


Man you are just coming off really poorly here. There's so much wrong with this comparison, I don't even know where to start.

And no, only like the top 1% of PC's in the world could run 4k games at acceptable framerates.

quote:
You clearly did not even read the previous posts.


I did, they were wrong too. Embarrassingly so.


By TakinYourPoints on 4/9/2013 1:15:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
OMG, the point is if a little chip on the ipad can push 3MP at under 8W, then a graphics card running 70-250 watts can easily push a 4K screen without much problem. 70-250W is what a desktop mid-high end discrete graphics card will use.

There are a GPUs that are already capable of pushing the latest titles on 3X1080p or 2x1600p


The problem is the difference in display size. You can cut a LOT of corners when optimizing for a 10" screen and get away with it.

For example, 2K Games is porting X-Com Enemy Unknown to the iPad: http://youtu.be/TQt8xQqy95k

It looks to be completely faithful to the Windows version. However, they're going to cut a lot of corners to make a game that is about 15GB on Windows fit within 2GB on the iPad. Texture detail, mesh detail, audio compression, all sorts of things. In the video it looks great on the 10" or 8" iPad screen, but if you use AirPlay or HDMI to output to a TV it just won't look the same as the PC version.

The same applies to something like Real Racing HD, looks amazing on the iPad, anti-aliasing, 60fps, higher resolution than most desktop monitors, etc etc. Display it on a 24" or 60" and the compromises made for mobile are clear.

Valve recently got DOTA 2 running on an iPad and they'll probably release it in a year (I think just to spectate games, not to play with). I GUARANTEE that if you blew it up to a desktop monitor or HDTV size, the differences in image quality would be huge.

Mobile devices can crank out amazing visuals at ridiculously high resolutions but they cut as many corners as possible in order to get there, and limited display size is how they do it.

You can't compare the requirements of a desktop GPU with a mobile GPU, no matter what resolution we're talking about.


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007

Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"?
Did You Partake in "Black Friday/Thursday"? 





0 Comments












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