×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LG's 84-inch 3840 x 2160 Television Doesn't Come Cheap: $17,000

Unknown Lamer posted about a year and a half ago | from the pixels-worth-more-than-latinum dept.

Displays 152

An anonymous reader writes "LG held a big launch party today for its highly anticipated 84-inch Ultra HD TV. The launch was held at Video & Audio Center in the L.A. area, which sold six sets within two hours. The MSRP had been set at $19,999 but we now know the street price: $16,999. 'My wife would rather I waited,' said one of the buyers." The article claims a couple of times that "Ultra HD 4K" has ~4000 vertical lines of resolution, but that's not true: the (unimplemented?) 8K spec is the one with 4320 lines of resolution confusingly enough. In any case, that's a lot of pixels. Maybe this means we'll finally see computer monitors break through the "HDTVs are the dominant consumers of LCD panels" barrier of 1920x1080.

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

152 comments

Confused WTF!! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774743)

The article claims a couple of times that "Ultra HD 4K" has ~4000 vertical lines of resolution, but that's not true: the (unimplemented?) 8K spec is the one with 4320 lines of resolution confusingly enough

How is that confusing? 4K means 4 Megapixels, 8K means 8 Megapixels.
How does one go from 4 megapixels to 4000 lines?
1080p displays are technically 2K displays, noone says they should have 2000 lines

Re:Confused WTF!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774755)

correction: its 2K=2,4K=8,8K=32MP, forgot about the exponential growth :)

Re:Confused WTF!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774759)

Prepare to be corrected into oblivion. I'd do it myself, but I can't decide which of your asinine statements to make fun of first.

Re:Confused WTF!! (5, Informative)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774863)

It's not 4 megapixels and no, 4k doesn't mean 4 mega for whatever reason you think that made sense.

It of course mean ~4000 but the difference is that it's columns rather than lines, so it would be 2160p so to speak to go with that name.

So it's neither of 4000 lines or 4 million pixels, it's 3840 columns. And 2160 lines.

How does one go from 4 megapixels to 4000 lines?

You tell us. Noone has made that claim. You just misunderstood it.

p isn't k and you never got the point for the explaination. As said, it's not 4 megapixels. It's 4k and it make sense to interpret that as 4 kilo and people are used to counting lines from 720p and 1080p.

And correct, no one say 1080p displays should have 2000 lines. Because the spec call for 1080 lines...

Or k could mean "factor" or "resolution of 1080p" (1)

aliquis (678370) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775627)

Since 3840x2160 is 4 times as much as 1920x1080.

I don't know why the name was picked and I don't even know which one came first. I'm quite sure there was a 4k display at CeBit '99.

Re:Or k could mean "factor" or "resolution of 1080 (1)

tokencode (1952944) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776309)

4k or 8k refers to the horizontal pixel count, approximately 4,000 or 8,000 respectively.

Re:Confused WTF!! (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775293)

since when is 8294400 equal to 4 million? 4k means "about 4 thousand lines vertically, cos it sounds way better than 2160p", 8k means "no relation to the resolution of the screen at all, it's just twice as good, honest"

Re:Confused WTF!! (1)

Aqualung812 (959532) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776231)

I was doing some research on this, and it turns out you have the most accurate comment on /. right now regarding this subject!

Re:Confused WTF!! (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775299)

How does one go from 4 megapixels to 4000 lines?

Well... every other TV in the store is labelled according to the number of lines it has.

It is ~4,000 lines (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774757)

From wikipedia [wikipedia.org]: "The name 4K is derived from the horizontal resolution, which is approximately 4,000 pixels."

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (3, Insightful)

Osty (16825) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774983)

That's not normally how "lines" is interpreted. A "line" is generally expected to be the same as a "row". Each line is 4000 pixels long (well, actually 3840 pixels), but there are only 2000 (really 2160) rows. 4000 refers to the columns. I guess we could start referring to 1080p as 2K, 720p as 1.5K, and 480p as 1K, but since we already have the row-based naming convention it seems silly not to call this 2160p.

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (2)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775297)

Last I checked, a line was a straight thing, with ends that went in any direction it liked.

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776199)

He's talking about the contextual meaning. In the context of video displays, 'lines' go from left to right, as that's the way CRTs TVs scan, one horizontal line at a time.

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776221)

Or, I should say for clarity, a single 'line' goes from left to right, and the 'lines' are stacked vertically. So the number of 'lines' gives the vertical resolution.

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775331)

Indeed. "Lines" comes from "scan lines". Cathode ray tubes used in TVs and monitors literally scan the picture one line at a time. The electron beam scans across horizontally, moves down a line and scans again. You could vary the horizontal resolution just by changing the frequency at which the brightness modulates in the signal sent to the monitor, but in older units the vertical resolution was fixed. This was why the graphics modes in early home computers all had the same vertical resolution.

"n lines" always meant n pixels vertically.

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775381)

It's a simplified naming convention. 4K doesn't refer to one specific size. It could be 3840x2160, 4096x2160, 4096x2400, or other possible sizes.

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775863)

AKA faux-k. 4k is a digital cinema spec although not all aspects are 4096 pixels wide. The LG is a QuadHD display, which is another shit marketing term since HD is specified by resolution and not pixel count. Hence DoubleHD, HDx2 or 2160P would be more accurate.

Re:It is ~4,000 lines (1)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#41777187)

The LG is a QuadHD display, which is another shit marketing term since HD is specified by resolution and not pixel count.

Well, QHD was already taken by quarter HD = 960x540, nobody calls that half HD to make it sound bigger so I doubt you can blame marketing for that one. When comparing sizes for consumers then QuadHD = like 4 FullHD screens makes far more sense.

the 3D is amazing! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774767)

Saw this live here in Australia at the windows 8 Harvey Norman launch.
I'm not kidding you, a butterfly nearly landed on my nose, the 3D is that immersive. LG and passive specs will dominate the 3D home market in a decades time when 4k becomes cheap enough. I've owned a 55" active shutter samsung for 2 years now, the LG blows it out of the water.

Note, LG needed 4k to be able to produce full HD passive glasses 3D

and people wonder why america is tanking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774805)

who the fuck needs this shit....so you can not only see the hair one same fags ass, but his penis's molecules?

no really and 3d is for morons....and hollywood control freaks.

Re:and people wonder why america is tanking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774819)

You surely mean Australia and not America?

Re:and people wonder why america is tanking (0)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774869)

You surely mean Australia and not America?

Ssshhhh, he was proving his point. Nothing better than morons calling morons morons.

Re:and people wonder why america is tanking (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774911)

What do you mean? People buying shit they don't need is exactly what keeps the economy growing. It creates jobs. If people bought stuff they needed, there wouldn't be many jobs would there? Does anyone need Halloween customers for dogs? No, but it gives people jobs.

3D is very useful. I use 3D to look at 3D models of large molecules on a large screen. It's easier to see the details when they are big.

Consumer grade 3D and HDTV are bringing down the cost of professional stuff and improving it. Have you seen old scientific 3D glasses? You still need to buy an expensive Nvidia Quadro card, but now you can use cheap 3D monitors and cheap and comfortable 3D glasses. A consumer grade GeForce card should be able to handle the professional 3D, but NVIDIA doesn't enable that in the drivers.

Re:and people wonder why america is tanking (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41777109)

What do you mean? People buying shit they don't need is exactly what keeps the economy growing. It creates jobs. If people bought stuff they needed, there wouldn't be many jobs would there? Does anyone need Halloween customers for dogs? No, but it gives people jobs.

Or, alternatively, the time and resources wasted on making Halloween customers (?costumes?) for dogs could be put to better use. Just a thought.

Re:and people wonder why america is tanking (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775405)

Nice of you to keep Gerry Harvey company. He must've been getting lonely there before you showed up.

Re:the 3D is amazing! (5, Funny)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774815)

Let me be the first to welcome the LG marketing department to the thread.
Keep up the good work guys!

Re:the 3D is amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774849)

The butterfly was a dead giveaway, otherwise he was doing pretty good I say.

Re:the 3D is amazing! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775217)

Let me be the first to welcome the LG marketing department to the thread.
Keep up the good work guys!

Aaaw, nope, just a genuinely amazed average consumer!, really. gotta create myself an account here sometime
Dean

Re:the 3D is amazing! (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774855)

While it's true passive 3D requires 2x horizontal lines to get the same resolution, that is so far from the reason 3D has failed in the home market it's barely even worth mentioning...

Re:the 3D is amazing! (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about a year and a half ago | (#41777061)

3D doesn't add that much for TV's. 3d works best when the TV takes you entire field of vision. Most TV's are placed 8-12 feet away from the viewer, so they get a smaller field of vision, and 3d isn't as immersive.

Also people don't watch TV as intensely as they do a movie. When watching TV you are more often than not distracted, doing other things, talking to other people. Getting up... 3d with glasses doesn't allow normal TV viewing habits.

Re:the 3D is amazing! (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774881)

Saw this live here in Australia at the windows 8 Harvey Norman launch.
I'm not kidding you, a butterfly nearly landed on my nose

I'm afraid the caterers went foraging for their own mushrooms to meet budget. Sorry 'bout that, and your shoes are waiting for you down at the station, along with the platapus you tried to staple them to while going on about the new LG gear.

I'm going to need to upgrade.... (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774811)

My living room. I don't think I have 84" of wall space.

Re:I'm going to need to upgrade.... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774875)

Then you have a really small living room. 84" is big for a TV, but not for a wall. In portrait mode you'll be able to mount it to a regular door.

Re:I'm going to need to upgrade.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774905)

In portrait mode it would be (assuming 16:9 aspect ratio) about 41.2 inches wide, which is quite a bit wider than most doors.

Re:I'm going to need to upgrade.... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41776001)

Remember, we have a lot of really fat people here in America. His doors might be wider.

Great in demos, but... (5, Informative)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774817)

...for average use in the home 1920x1080 (1080p) *resolution* is not the problem for a ~60-70" TV (still considered high end!) from 10' away. The limiting factor for quality is still the encoding rate for anything less than BD bitrates. So, for anything other than physical media 4K is not even remotely practical, and even for physical media it's such a diminishing return few consumers will care. Combine that with the fact physical media is in decline and I don't see 4K adoption any time soon...

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774867)

Is there any content in such high resolution available?

Regular blu-ray is 720p or 1080p. And I'm not aware of higher-resolution physical media.

The only source of such high-res content I can think of is cinema-type media, and I don't think those media are so easily accessible by consumers.

Re:Great in demos, but... (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775087)

There really isn't anything displayable on a TV with available hardware that I know of - probably the closest a consumer could get is something decoded on a PC with mulit-monitor and/or special hardware.

And what's even more telling is that most digital theater projectors in use are still 2K (2048x1080) - and in fact a lot of (new and old) movies are still digitized at 2K, so there may not even be 4K sources for most current movies anyway.

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775113)

Too lazy to search but I do expect that the higher-end video cards have no problems decoding such resolution. And modern quad-plus-core processors are commonplace nowadays. At least nothing someone who is happy to put down $17k for a TV won't be able to afford.

The problem will be the content itself... maybe 2K is just good enough? Or at 4k the file sizes become prohibitively large?

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775205)

With multiple video cards, maybe.... (this would basically be displaying 4 1920x1080 screens). Possible but seriously not mainstream.

But yes, why bother without the content. A BD averages 25-30Mbps. Multiply by 4 and that's over 100Mbps. That's 90GB for a 2 hour movie. Gets to be pretty large... [also compare with the highest end 1080p streaming from a service like VUDU of up to ~9Mbps or 8GB for 2h. Would be 36Mbps / 32GB for a 4K movie, which is way beyond most people's home Internet connection, or even if it isn't providers like Comcast will throttle them after about 3 movies a month]

Re:Great in demos, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775241)

For people with that kind of cash though spending thousands a month on Internet shouldn't be a problem. Worse case senario they get 10 consumer grade connections.

Re:Great in demos, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41776127)

I bough an Radeon 6670 that can drive 4 displays with resolution of 2560x1600 each for 80€. Sounds pretty mainstream to me.

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776539)

A properly encoded movie (not low compression like MPEG) is more like 5-10 GB for a 1080p movie. So 20-40 GB for a 4k resolution. A lot but not too bad.

Oh and not everyone lives with those silly restrictions on Internet... in HKG many homes can get up to 1,000 Mbit nowadays. So 20-40 GB is no problem, a minute or two downloading on that speed. It's the availability of content that's probably the biggest issue.

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

Rockoon (1252108) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775423)

Too lazy to search but I do expect that the higher-end video cards have no problems decoding such resolution.

The problem isnt the processing of that number of pixels, its getting content that uses it. For instance, HDMI 1.2 and earlier support a maximum resolution of 1920x1200 at 60 FPS

HDMI 1.3 (June, 2006) maxes out at 2560x1600 at 75 FPS, and HDMI 1.4 (May, 2009) maxes out at 4096x2160 at 24 FPS. Note that the signal rate of both 1.3 and 1.4 are exactly the same, so all that changed was supporting more pixels at the expense of a lesser frame rate.

The television under discussion supports up to 3840 x 2160, which is shy of the max HDMI 1.4 resolution and well over the max HDMI 1.3 resolution. The HDMI 1.4 specification wasnt even finalized until 2009, so nobody was even considering producing more than 1600p before then, so good luck finding > 1600p content.

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775273)

There really isn't anything displayable on a TV with available hardware that I know of - probably the closest a consumer could get is something decoded on a PC with mulit-monitor and/or special hardware.

And what's even more telling is that most digital theater projectors in use are still 2K (2048x1080) - and in fact a lot of (new and old) movies are still digitized at 2K, so there may not even be 4K sources for most current movies anyway.

A lot of blockbusters say "filmed [sic] in 8K" on the posters. True but misleading if your cinemas are 3K or 4K, though a multiplex in a city hear us has 8K on its premier screen and there is not too much difference objectively

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775397)

You tube has some stuff and there are some PC games that out put that high. . I guess he 17k price tag means you can afford all the movie making stuff too. So you can also buy a home 4k camera and make your own.

Re:Great in demos, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775677)

YouTube offers up 4K and 8K videos... but many smaller devices will have trouble playing back the 8K as its a pretty large amount of data

Re:Great in demos, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775089)

The (real) next gen consoles will help spur on the adoption.

Re:Great in demos, but... (2)

Dahamma (304068) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775139)

Maybe, but IMO I just don't see that happening. Even if Sony supports 4K output on their "PS4", why would game developers bother with it when most customers can't tell (or even display) the difference and the alternative is 4X more pixel processing to improve the display on the millions of 1080p TVs already out there.

It feels a bit like 9.1/11.1 audio (or honestly maybe even 7.1) - it has already hit such a diminishing return the vast majority of consumers just don't care.

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

ciderbrew (1860166) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775421)

I agree with that and it makes me sad. On a PC people would go for the extra. In the future, consoles are still holding back future PCs. :(

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

Paradise Pete (33184) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775245)

The (real) next gen consoles will help spur on the adoption.

There won't be any real next gen consoles. As hand-held computers become good enough, especially the tablets, all you need is a couple of wireless controllers and a TV set.
The life cycle of console is *way* too long, and they'd be obsolete much too quickly.

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

BeanThere (28381) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775225)

I think that if it can become more common in consumer video recording devices, I can imagine that a lot of people would like to have that kind of resolution for recording personal events ... e.g. weddings, childbirth, etc.

Oh, and not to mention Ultra HD porn.

Re:Great in demos, but... (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#41777251)

Oh, and not to mention Ultra HD porn.

No thanks, it will become even more like visiting a clinic specialising in bad skin ailments.

Re:Great in demos, but... (1)

beelsebob (529313) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775355)

Indeed, 20/20 vision dictates that at 10 feet we can see things 0.875mm apart. That means that 1080p is enough for anything up to a TV 1680mm by 945mm – that's 1927.5mm diagonal, 75 inches. Given that the ideal angle from corner to corner (according to the THX spec) for a screen is 36 wide, and at 10 feet, a 75" screen makes a 34.7 angle, we're already pretty much "there" – there's really no reason to double resolution at this point, other than epenis waving.

Re:Great in demos, but... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41776883)

Dumb cunt confuses pixels with cycles, reaches erroneous conclusion; film at 11.

Factor of two, dumbass. Factor of motherfucking two.

Re:Great in demos, but... (2)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776699)

No, you don't really need anything above 1080p for TV or movie content unless you have a giant front projection screen. But I would really like higher pixel density on my monitor, so I hope that Ultra-HD becomes mainstream for that reason. (Some video cards – and Intel's newest integrated GPUs – already support this resolution, so that's a good start.)

Dilution of UltraHD brand already started. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774823)

The dilution of the UltraHD brand has already started, it is supposed to be 7680 × 4320.
I've been waiting for this since I have actually seen it work, it is quite amazing to watch TV at this resolution.

And anyone who says your eyes cannot resolve that kind of resolution are full of shit.

Re:Dilution of UltraHD brand already started. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774859)

Oh and the 7680 x 4320 resolution was already implemented and shown of at the International Broadcasting Conference 5 years ago.

They had:
- a projection system (two projectors, one for red/blue the other for green, now they use a single projector) that was able to go that high
- a camera.
- They had a broadcast street (realtime components), including:
    * compression/decompression,
    * scaling for lower resolutions,
    * broadcasting over satellite links (between London and Amsterdam)
    * Over UDP/IP on top of fibre (uncompressed and compressed).

Re:Dilution of UltraHD brand already started. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41774861)

In a typical livingroom, nope.

Going to replace my windows (5, Insightful)

kbob88 (951258) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774883)

I can see people eventually using these as 'windows' on interior walls. Now we just need 4K video feeds from scenic locations like Yosemite Valley and we can all enjoy the view!

Re:Going to replace my windows (2)

Osty (16825) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774925)

It's been done. [rationalcraft.com] The problem is 3D tracking. To be convincing windows you need to have parallax movement of the images, but because the monitors aren't actually far away it can only work for one person at a time. If you don't have parallax movement, you may as well just mount it as a "digital painting" rather than a faux window.

Re:Going to replace my windows (1)

EmperorArthur (1113223) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775073)

See this: http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/12/07/12/2225233/mit-develops-holographic-glasses-free-3d-tv [slashdot.org]
They're working on fixing that very issue.

From what I understand, it's using 3 LCD displays at 360 Hz to produce a screen that acts like a window.

As the cost of high refresh rate displays decreases, I expect this to go from the early research stages to something fantastically expensive. Sort of like the TV this page is about.

Go outside (5, Insightful)

boundary (1226600) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774919)

An 84 inch television is a massive waste of wall space, and of life.

Re:Go outside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775107)

Keep up that attitude and you'll quickly be one of the old folks condemning society in a decade.

Digital/Virtual reality in some ways already supplants the meatspace world, in another decade or two there will be few reasons to "go outside". Sad? No, just another step further.

Re:Go outside (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41776595)

No, Sarah Palin is a waste of life.

Economics at work (2)

udachny (2454394) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774929)

17000 is expensive, but not excessive for a new piece of technology like that. 17000 today is dramatically less purchasing power than 25000 14 years ago for a medium sized plasma screen and people bought those, probably mostly companies bought them and the wealthier individuals.

This is another case in point for supply side economy (which is what all economy is). A company makes a product, which is expensive because the costs are high and few products are made and the production line is new and it's not fully automated probably. If people buy it at 17000 for a while, the market will signal the company that it is on the right track, as it figures out more efficiencies to push the prices down (and covers some of the upfront capital costs). If it's a good product that people are interested in, the market will provide this information to the manufacturer and prices will come down and more people will be able to buy.

That's what 'trickle down economics' means, not that rich people are supposed to shed money left right and centre and that somehow would make it into the hands of others. Making things and making more things and eventually lowering prices for things because of market buying at current prices and providing information that more of those things are needed, more competition enters the market, prices go down because of competition.

We'll see in 3 years whether this product is a success or not.

post-1080 available for 15 years... (3, Informative)

The Master Control P (655590) | about a year and a half ago | (#41774933)

Screens past 1920x1080 have been available for a while. Hell, you can get CRTs from the late 1990s that go past that (though they were the high end).

It really baffles me why, after the resolutions of screens improving so much from the first composite video text monitors up to HD, they just... goddamn stopped. I want my 4K VR goggles from Snow Crash damnit! As it is, I settle for 2560x1600 @ 30". It's potentially problematic, in that I now find 1920x1080 (or God forbid 1280x1024) unspeakably cramped. What do you mean, I can't open two consoles, a web browser, a circuit layout program and irc all at once?

And just to get it out of the way, Obligatory XKCD [xkcd.com].

Re:post-1080 available for 15 years... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775699)

Screens past 1920x1080 have been available for a while

They are not available in laptops. I've still got some 'old' Dell and HP laptops at work with 1920x1200 which have noticeably more screen space that the limited 1920x1080 crap that you can only buy today. I am simply not going to buy a laptop until this screen size problem is resolved.

Re:post-1080 available for 15 years... (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775825)

The IBM T220 came out in 2001 and had 3840x2400 pixels, so yes, larger resolutions have been available for some time already.

Re:post-1080 available for 15 years... (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year and a half ago | (#41777115)

Because improving the resolution of an LCD is not like improving the resolution of a CRT, and there is a lot of price pressure.

To make a CRT support higher resolutions you need use better components capable of supporting high frequencies. You can go way beyond anything a computer can display, it is merely a question of cost. For LCDs you have to re-tool your factory to produce higher pixel densities, shrink the transistors and so forth.

Another problem is that operating systems don't scale well. Apple avoided that by simply doubling every pixel, but it created a rather extreme jump in resolution that didn't actually bring any extra usable space on screen. In fact most Ultrabooks come with higher usable resolution screens than a Retina MacBook, the MacBook just looks very nice.

So far there has been little demand for higher than 1920x1200 in computer monitors. Apple managed to make it a selling point that the average consumer is interested in. Hopefully once Google joins in next week we will start to see more interest. 4k is where it is going to have to go, in order to allow computers to scale to exactly twice 1920x1080 (and yes, Windows looks good at that resolution too).

More money than sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775001)

Crap content seen at the highest possible resolution - justification 'waaaaah, wanit now!!!!!!!!!'

Dollars not money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775417)

More dollars than sense. See the play on the word sense?

Computer monitors already broke 1920x1080 (5, Interesting)

subreality (157447) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775013)

2560x1440 is already widely available in 27" IPS monitors for $400 (ebay imports) to $800 (brand name). So what are you complaining about? There's no 1080p barrier. Just be willing to spend more if you want nicer stuff.

Re:Computer monitors already broke 1920x1080 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775121)

I have one, too. It is great, but not the next step in DPI we are waiting for. It is just more pixels on a proportionally larger surface.

Re:Computer monitors already broke 1920x1080 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775623)

It should be easier to make a 27" than a 10" so why do they cost so much compared to ipad ?

Re:Computer monitors already broke 1920x1080 (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775925)

Not only are they available, but they've been available for like 5 years or more. The poster is an idiot, and the editor is an idiot by proxy.

Still cheaper than early flatscreens (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775039)

The first large-ish (over 40") plasma TV I ever saw was a very early Pioneer model that was on display a the now-defunct "LaserLand" home theater store. It was hung on the wall within a roped-off area and had a price tag that said $45,000. That was in 1998. A few years later you could get a plasma TV for a tenth that price at Costco. Now we think a 4K resolution 84" display is high priced at a mere $17k? I'm being serious here, I'm surprised it's that cheap, honestly.

Overhyped much? (1)

dabadab (126782) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775071)

Is it just me, or does this thing really looks like four fullHD 42" panels put together in a single frame? Granted, it needs some new electronics to control it, but it does not strike me as something revolutionary, just an application of existing technology.

Suddenly the Retina MacBooks seem cheap. (1)

Shag (3737) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775189)

Sure, they're only 2880x1800 or whatever, but hey, I could build a frickin' Beowulf cluster of 'em for the cost of this TV!

On a more serious note, a hypothetical future 21.5" panel (the smallest size used by the most popular desktops right now) with a "Retina" display (say, 200px) would be able to handle this kind of resolution natively. C'mon, panel manufacturers, get the yields up already, so we can have 'em by the time there's any content worth mentioning? /I'd also settle for a 4K projector I could hook a laptop to... oh, and a laptop with the video guts to drive it. I have a sneaky feeling my 2009-vintage one is lacking.

Re:Suddenly the Retina MacBooks seem cheap. (1)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775553)

The first 50" plasma cost about the same as this thing. The first flat panel TVs sold for even more, and those were tiny by today's standards. History's lesson is that this sort of tech will come down in price fast; I expect that in a few years you can get a similar set for $4000 or so.

$uckerz (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775487)

stupid suckers and they're money are easily parted. I read that the new ipad has a clearer display than top of the line HD TV's. These retards aren't opening up home cinemas to make money from the display, they're often buying on credit - once you lower the IQ of the general population enough, it makes it awfully hard to resist the case for removing people from their money.

1080p Barrier (1)

MachineShedFred (621896) | about a year and a half ago | (#41775945)

Yeah, that 1920x1080 barrier is really annoying. Can't wait to get higher resolution in a display.

  - Posted from a 2560 x 1440 27" display that is 3 years old, with the web browser window sized to 1920x1080.

Re:1080p Barrier (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year and a half ago | (#41777065)

Why is you web browser sized so wide? My display is 1680 and I only use 2/3 of the width for this. I suppose if you go to jumbo fonts it might be OK, but then resolution is not what you need.

No, $17,000 is cheap... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41775989)

http://www.costco.co.uk/view/product/uk_catalog/cos_1,cos_1.1,cos_1.1.1/142976

A product built for Rappers (2)

gelfling (6534) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776237)

Now that Maybach is going out of business, any self respecting wannabe is going to have to get 12 of these for his house.

And in the Real World (1)

speedlaw (878924) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776287)

The price will come down quickly. A significant percentage of the population, after the price drop, will still feed it SD and rave about how wonderful it looks.

40inch (1)

Dunge (922521) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776293)

Question is, will a 40-inch 3840 x 2160 will be more expensive (more pixel density, harder to manufacture), or cheaper as per current tv-pricing logic?

Fundamental problem: (1)

OldSport (2677879) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776423)

TV sucks no matter what resolution and size you watch it in.

Re:Fundamental problem: (1)

Westwood0720 (2688917) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776869)

TV sucks no matter what resolution and size you watch it in.

Yep! High resolution political ads and karaoke contests! wooohoooo!

Not expensive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#41776633)

I bought my first 60" LG in 2000. It also cost 16k (wholesale however) so I'm no really suprised at this pricing.

Get the price down and it'll make a good monitor (1)

JDG1980 (2438906) | about a year and a half ago | (#41776821)

I don't see any real need for Ultra-HD for TV or movie content, except for wealthy videophiles; unless you have a massive front-projection screen, it's not going to make much of a visible difference. (And even then, 1080p at a good bitrate is more than adequate for the average home theater setup.)

But it's really time that the average pixel density on monitors went up, and the prevalence of Ultra-HD would be a good thing for this reason. I currently use a 32" 1080p HDTV as my PC monitor, and it works well, but at a monitor viewing distance you can see the pixels, and text is less than razor-sharp. If I could get 4x the pixels in the same size (and set the Windows 7 DPI to 200% so that the text isn't too tiny to read), it would be a near-perfect monitor.

I would not be surprised if Apple chooses 3840x2160 for its Retina Display resolution on desktop Macs. It has a couple of advantages: there are already existing video cards (including newer Intel integrated GPUs) that support it, and it would be easier to convince panel factories to gear up for production when they think there might be a wider market (Ultra-HDTV) for their products as well.

And the content doesn't come at all (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | about a year and a half ago | (#41777041)

LG's 84-inch 3840 x 2160 Television Doesn't Come Cheap: $17,000

Not even with Bluray.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...