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 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.

"I mean, if you wanna break down someone's door, why don't you start with AT&T, for God sakes? They make your amazing phone unusable as a phone!" -- Jon Stewart on Apple and the iPhone

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki