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

3840x2160
By Breathless on 12/29/2011 9:38:09 AM , Rating: 2
Is this the first consumer TV to offer such an awesome resolution?




RE: 3840x2160
By A5 on 12/29/2011 9:42:26 AM , Rating: 2
There have been 4K TVs shown at previous CESes. This one probably won't come to market either.


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.


RE: 3840x2160
By Motoman on 12/29/2011 10:04:16 AM , Rating: 1
...exactly what good do you think that resolution's going to do you, when the highest resolution you can get any content in is 1080p?


RE: 3840x2160
By corduroygt on 12/29/2011 10:07:22 AM , Rating: 2
You can do full 1080p 3D with passive glasses, which are much better and easier on the eye than active glasses. However, you don't need 3840x2160 for that, 1920x2160 will be enough.


RE: 3840x2160
By GuinnessKMF on 12/29/2011 11:59:26 AM , Rating: 2
This resolution is easily supported on computers, there are quad full HD recording devices but they're not consumer devices either. I hate to say gaming because it's too obvious but it's simple for developers to scale to these larger resolutions (although textures may be another story). These resolutions have been in use in Medical and Research/Industrial fields.


RE: 3840x2160
By mackx on 12/29/2011 10:42:51 AM , Rating: 2
umm, how about all that old content filmed on film? real res is higher than 1080p. reason to sell us another re-mastered star trek in 10 years time?

or anything done in film to be honest


RE: 3840x2160
By serkol on 12/29/2011 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
- Most upcoming Hollywood blockbusters are being filmed now in 4K on Red cameras.
- All old movies that were shot on real film were digitized to either 2K or 4K.
- Some movie theaters already have 4K projectors (and 4K digital movies for them).

All this content will eventually be on your 4K TV


RE: 3840x2160
By inperfectdarkness on 12/29/2011 10:34:27 AM , Rating: 2
i want one. how much? this is the first consumer-grade tv i've seen that has higher resolution than 30" wqxga monitors.


RE: 3840x2160
By Shig on 12/29/2011 2:28:27 PM , Rating: 2
We're approaching the limits of 2D media, companies realize this and have to push 3D.

With perfect vision, the human eye can only resolve so much detail, and that limit is here. I've heard of 8K production in the works, even sitting in the last row of a movie theater you really can't be seeing a better picture, by laws of physics and biology. Sound has also reached its pinnacle already in bluray, you're usually hearing the uncompressed master audio track while watching a bluray (assuming you have the hardware to maximize that potential).

The question is, what next? What can they economically bring the consumer that elevates media beyond a flat screen? Cheesy puesdo-3D that we currently have is marketing and fluff.


Wheres the content?
By Mitch101 on 12/29/2011 9:37:58 AM , Rating: 2
I think its fantastic the 4K TV's might be showing up soon but you still need 4K content to get the full benefit. Up-scaling can only go so far its not a real replacement for the missing data. Cant wait until 4K and the content to support it hit projectors but I was hoping for 22:9 to replace 16:9. Well there is always the latest ATI graphics cards which support 4K resolutions.




RE: Wheres the content?
By A5 on 12/29/2011 9:43:51 AM , Rating: 2
You probably won't see live 4K content until the end of the decade, but it's possible that there will be a 4K Blu-Ray spec (not necessarily discs that use it, though) within the next few years.


RE: Wheres the content?
By steven975 on 12/29/2011 9:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
4K would be nice, but with most TVs you really wouldn't be able to see the extra resolution.

On a 84-inch TV you would, but on a 40-50" TV, 4K resolution just won't be noticed. Also, I don't see another disc format being released.


RE: Wheres the content?
By Fritzr on 12/29/2011 10:22:17 AM , Rating: 2
Doesn't need to be a completely new format. Just press the disk with a UD definition video and let the video players downgrade the resolution for those low quality HD displays.

The one I would really like to see hit the market is the experimental quad-HD that was demonstrated in Japan a few years ago. They had the important components designed and built. camera, transmitter and TV at 7680x4320

That would make an excellent high end monitor. Say a 40" CAD workstation display or a true 200" cinema display (projector most likely at this size)

It would require 4 of the current generation consumer video cards to drive it, but historically, minor issues like a resolution higher than the cards limits have simply been something for hardware designers to solve. There was a time that video cards were maxed at VGA after all.


RE: Wheres the content?
By mcnabney on 12/31/2011 1:21:56 PM , Rating: 2
100GB 4-layer BluRay discs have existed for about three years now. A 4K 2.5 hour movie with uncompressed audio tracks will fit on that 100GB disc, so they can start production any time. Players that can read those discs need to be made and a cable standard that can support that much data needs to be agreed on. The different manufactures have NOT reached agreement on that yet.
I would point out that 4K will only be usefull for 27"+ monitors and 60"+ televisions. Anything smaller and people just aren't going to sit close enough to benefit from the higher resolution.


RE: Wheres the content?
By TSS on 12/29/11, Rating: 0
RE: Wheres the content?
By serkol on 12/29/2011 11:36:56 AM , Rating: 2
Lots of good movies were/are shot in 4K on Red cameras, like:
- The Social Network
- In a Better World (Denmark)
- Prometheus (upcoming)
- The Hobbit (upcoming)
You can see more at red.com/experience


RE: Wheres the content?
By dethrophes on 12/29/2011 11:37:23 AM , Rating: 2
Its even more complicated than that.

you need dual dvi for this resolution, or the latest HDMI generation, or Display Port I guess.
Newer higher quality, shorter cables for these data rates.
and possibly newer source devices. I.E. Graphics cards, blue ray players.
Maybe even next discs can you fit a 2 hour film at this quality onto a Blueray disc.


LOL @ Ultra Definition...
By Arsynic on 12/29/2011 12:26:47 PM , Rating: 2
Wow. Good job finding content. With these lower profit margins these TV manufacturers are running out of ideas. As if 3D wasn't a dumb gimmick to begin with, now we have Ultra-Definition TVs.

Probably right now Sony is developing Purple-Ray which will "required to take full advantage of your UDTV experience!" That's probably why most BD movies have those stupid black bars at the top and bottom to force us to buy UDTVs.




RE: LOL @ Ultra Definition...
By Jason H on 12/29/2011 6:51:58 PM , Rating: 2
The black bars are not stupid - they are simply the result of displaying the film in its original aspect ratio without stretching or cropping it. Not all movies are the same - those shot in the 1.85:1 aspect ratio virtually fill a 16:9 TV, whereas 2.35:1 movies don't - hence the black bars.


RE: LOL @ Ultra Definition...
By Iketh on 12/29/2011 10:33:51 PM , Rating: 2
The director of a movie controls the aspect ratio based on what he wants his audience to see in a picture. The black bars are a result of this decision. They are not stupid.


Is OLED finally coming?
By Mumrik on 12/31/2011 8:13:11 AM , Rating: 2
55" OLED?

Or is it just an insane prestige project that'll either never see the market or will cost more than a supercar?




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














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