Slashdot Mirror
LG's 84-inch 3840 x 2160 Television Doesn't Come Cheap: $17,000
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.
From wikipedia: "The name 4K is derived from the horizontal resolution, which is approximately 4,000 pixels."
Let me be the first to welcome the LG marketing department to the thread.
Keep up the good work guys!
...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...
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...
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!
An 84 inch television is a massive waste of wall space, and of life.
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.
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.
If I'm reading this correctly, the TV doesn't actually support anything higher than a 1920x1080 ("1080p") signal input. So while it might in fact have a 3840x2160 panel, that panel is absolutely worthless, since it has to upscale everything that's being displayed.
That is not the comprehensive list of video inputs though, the LAN being one which would handle any resolution we have currently. I'm surprised the thing has VGA and no DVI, what an oversight!