backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Jan 2 at 2:00 PM

Samsung offers little hard details on the 110-inch 4K TV

Samsung has pulled the wraps off a new and very massive 4K UHD TV. The TV measures 110-inches and will likely be seen in the Samsung booth at CES 2014, which kicks off next week. There isn’t much in the way of details on the massive TV at this time.
 
Other than the screen size, we don’t know much else by ways of specs for on Samsung’s latest monster. We do know that the company is striving to provide the ultimate in image quality, and the TV will likely feature the latest in “smart” functionality (perhaps with even some finger gesturing).

 
We will have to wait until next week to hear more details on the TV, including its price. The 85-inch Samsung unit that rolled out earlier this year was $40,000, so the 110” model is likely to approach or even surpass the $50,000 mark.

Sources: Engadget, Samsung tomorrow



Comments     Threshold


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

Impressive
By Dorkyman on 12/30/2013 10:48:09 PM , Rating: 2
I think this is as impressive as heck. A single piece of glass LCD this size?

And 4K is twice the resolution. It has 4x the number of pixels, but resolution is 2x in vertical and horizontal axes.

As for pricing, I'm guessing close to $100K.




RE: Impressive
By Moishe on 1/2/2014 2:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. I have a 120" projector screen @ 1080p and it's nice. Add double the resolution, that'd be beautiful.

Now how to drive UHD movies to that? I don't know.


Poll
By bug77 on 12/30/2013 4:03:58 PM , Rating: 2
Assuming the price has come down and this can be had for under $1,000 (and there is 4k content available, but let's not be picky), those of you that can fit it in the living room please raise your hand.




nice, but still
By ForumMaster on 12/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: nice, but still
By Guspaz on 12/30/2013 10:53:51 AM , Rating: 5
PPI is a meaningless measurement, because it doesn't take viewing distance into account. At the viewing distances you'd use for a 110" screen, 4K is fine.


RE: nice, but still
By retrospooty on 12/30/2013 11:22:19 AM , Rating: 3
Exactly... Phones are held by most people 10-15 inches from their face. No-one watches a TV like that. I am looking forward to 4k TV's becoming the standard and cant wait for mass content to be available. The latest stupid 3D slowed this down by several years while manufacturers re-re-learned that people don't want 3D 24/7


RE: nice, but still
By VoodooChicken on 12/30/2013 12:23:19 PM , Rating: 2
Speak for yourself, a lot of these international markets cannot get enough 3D, even rubbish like The Darkest Hour sells a lot of tickets.


RE: nice, but still
By ClownPuncher on 12/30/2013 12:41:13 PM , Rating: 2
Not at home, though.


RE: nice, but still
By retrospooty on 12/30/2013 1:16:06 PM , Rating: 2
I will let the sales speak for themselves. OEM's have been trying to push 3D TV's for the past 5 years... They are finally catching on that while great in a tech demo at a store or even for a movie once in a while, most people don't want it in their homes. They don't want to wear the awkward glasses and they don't want the effect at home 24/7


RE: nice, but still
By M'n'M on 12/30/2013 2:18:35 PM , Rating: 2
I expect 4K will increase 3D sales, at least for passive 3D, ala LG. The glasses are polarized film and so lightweight and cheap $$s. The drawback has been a halving of horizontal resolution (frankly I don't notice it a normal viewing distances). But if 4K turns into todays HD+ when in 3D mode, who's going to complain ... so long as the added cost is a small fraction of a non-3D TV ... which it could be.

And if you don't want 3D, likely to be most of the time, just turn it off and put down the glasses.


RE: nice, but still
By retrospooty on 12/30/2013 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 2
Yup, that would be fine, so long as its "in addition to" and not "in place of" as it has been. If a 4K TV had 3D and it costed ZERO extra and it was a perfect 4K TV when 3D is turned off I would buy it.


RE: nice, but still
By Jeffk464 on 12/30/2013 2:12:58 PM , Rating: 1
I'm guessing on a 5" phone you really don't notice much difference between 720 and 1080, maybe on a note 3 it starts to show a difference.


RE: nice, but still
By retrospooty on 12/31/2013 7:57:33 AM , Rating: 2
I notice it plain as day. A HUGE difference.


RE: nice, but still
By wifiwolf on 12/31/2013 12:25:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, resolution is fine for the distance but I still understand where he is coming from. Is it so hard to get 4 x 50 inches panels and put them together and make one big panel out of them? The PPI would still be around same or better.


RE: nice, but still
By Kakti on 12/30/2013 2:22:44 PM , Rating: 3
Actually it's very impressive. When manufacturing screens, any small defects result in the screen being cropped and trimmed to "marketable" sizes. So they print a 110" screen, but it has dozens of defects that they need to cut out, ending with a dozen 7" screens.

That's why high PPI is relatively easy to achieve on phones and tablets. Even getting a single perfect 4k 31" screen is very expensive (see IGZO).

Being able to produce a 110" screen in moderate quantities with no flaws is itself quite an achievement.


RE: nice, but still
By EnzoFX on 12/30/2013 3:41:40 PM , Rating: 1
You and your comment are absurd. I think it's pretty idiotic to compare two very different markets.

You completely fail to acknowledge view distance as others have said. So reflect on that for as long as you need to. Secondly, lower yields at such big sizes is the reason we DON'T get such panels in TV's. This is the reason high dpi screens STARTED in phones, and are working their way up. We're barely even starting to see 4k monitors in the consumer space...


Lame.
By piroroadkill on 12/30/13, Rating: -1
RE: Lame.
By bupkus on 12/30/2013 11:12:54 AM , Rating: 2
Introducing the NEW Samsung 4K UHD TV*

*Yawn not included.

Hey, Samsung, I gotta finger gesture for ya. [sneer emoticon]


RE: Lame.
By amanojaku on 12/30/2013 2:08:58 PM , Rating: 1
The Panasonic display is $500,000USD, and is fairly massive. At 11" deep and 1,300 lbs (possibly 2,425 lbs, if I read the manual correctly), there aren't going to be too many places that will want this. I'm sure it's beautiful, but damn.

The Samsung display, being OLED, is probably thinner, and it's definitely lighter. Of course, the screen size is smaller, so there's that, but OLED continues LED's trend of making displays extremely light. My 46" LED is lighter than my retired 32" LCD, and OLED is supposed to be even thinner and lighter.

The Samsung display, being smaller and thinner, is also much cheaper at $150,000. The energy consumption is likely less than half, as well. The goal is to spark interest in OLED, which hasn't happened due to high cost. Remember Sony's 11" OLED at $3,000? If you thought the iPad was expensive, imagine a $3,000 iPad that doesn't even have a touchscreen! People and organizations who buy the gigantic display help push down prices for displays in the 30"-60" range, which is Samsung's goal. It won't make as much money selling these gigantic displays as it would selling 32", 42", 46", 55", and 60" units.


RE: Lame.
By Jeffk464 on 12/30/2013 2:17:37 PM , Rating: 2
They need 60" OLED's under $2000.


RE: Lame.
By amanojaku on 12/30/2013 2:44:45 PM , Rating: 2
They need 'em under $20,000! I can't find prices for 65", but I know 55" are $12K and up.


"Let's face it, we're not changing the world. We're building a product that helps people buy more crap - and watch porn." -- Seagate CEO Bill Watkins














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