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 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.


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














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