Slashdot Mirror
LG Announces "Super UHD" TV Lineup (digitaltrends.com)
An anonymous reader writes: LG Electronics will be showing off a new line of 4K Ultra-HD television sets at CES this week and a 98-inch 8K Super UHD giant. Digital Trends reports: "The UH9500 (screen sizes 55-86 inches) UH8500 (screen sizes 55-75 inches) and UH7700 (screen sizes 49-65 inches) share several traits in common. All will offer what LG is calling HDR Plus, which means all of the sets in this series can process and display High Dynamic Range content from a variety of sources, include LG's Color Prime tech for enhanced color brightness. These sets will also apply processing that aims to improve non-HDR content for an HDR-like experience."
Selling spyware as a feature, the sales department should be congratulated. No, the whole industry.
in any direction, this is 4K resolution :/
I realize that LG is not in the content business, but they're still making a mistake and wasting their time. UHD was last year, or the year before. Now they're pushing HDR UHD. But, what is there to watch?
It's hard to find any volume of UHD content. NetFlix has some, Amazon has some, and UltraFlix has a bit. But overall there's very little out there. What's worse is that the majority of the available 4K(UHD) content is crap titles.
There needs to be more UHD content before they start with the added features like HDR and next year perhaps 3D or some equally undesirable feature to boost set price. Build a basic TV/display. Now spyware, no pathetic apps that will never be upgraded, no curved screens or HDR crap. Just build a big beautiful display and get the content ball rolling.
I love my 70" 4K screen. But having exhausted the Amazon content I'm stuck with whatever crap NetFlix dribbles out, usually NetFlix Originals of questionable quality. I want recent A rated movies in 4K dammit!
It's great that we can see in much higher detail now that there's nothing on worth watching.
Wake me when you invent something that makes TV relevant again.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I spent a fortune on my last LG TV, only to find out I couldn't use the features without being spied on.
I won't buy another.
I'm always up for more resolution; but my eyes are bleeding just imagining what fake-HDR effects are going to look like. More dynamic range is useful; but what horrors are they going to invoke when faking data not specified by the source material to get a 'Best Buy Brite(tm)!' effect that 8 out of 10 focus group participants agreed looked brighter and more vivid than the competitor's image under retail conditions?
In other news, Sony announces SuperDuper Ultra Mega HDTV, now with DoublePlus.
Picture quality so good, it's better than reality.
Porn?
I saw HD porn once. Bleech!
Some things are better left to the imagination!
I'll leave this link here, you know, for science: https://www.reddit.com/r/60fps...
Better temporal resolution all the way.
That's 7680x4320, right? 4320 / 480 = 9, which means... won't our old 480i content fit better on the screen?
Now I can watch Jerry Springer and Bounty Hunters and Sluts and Sausages in glorious 4k+! I feel like George Jetson already.
It's great that we can see in much higher detail now that there's nothing on worth watching.
Wake me when you invent something that makes TV relevant again.
It has for multiple generations been fairly common to claim that the quality of entertainment is getting worse as one is getting older. As for making TV relevant again, for me Netflix and similar have done that. I almost never watch linear TV anymore (and especially not ad based), but finding something to watch (or binge) on Netflix works for me (and relevant for this story, they are gearing up on UHD quality). And unlike you I find many recent movies and TV shows coming out worth watching, some of them made by Netflix themselves. Even Syfy channel is showing promise again with The Expanse (not Netflix but online).
Comming to a waiting room near you, thete will be one of these 4k+ TVs on the wall, only they will be connected to a cable or even an OTA digital converter box either which is outputting letter boxed SD which somehow still manages to get cropped by the set, or better yet a 4:3 SD Apicture in Strech-O-Vision! Just like I see most HD sets in public spaces today
Comming to a waiting room near you, thete will be one of these 4k+ TVs on the wall, only they will be connected to a cable or even an OTA converter box either which is outputting letter boxed SD that somehow still manages to get cropped by the set, or better yet a 4:3 SD picture in Strech-O-Vision! Just like I see most HD sets in public spaces today!
nice story
The naming for this is getting a little ridiculous. HD I could understand. But then to go to ultra high definition seemed a little silly. Super ultra high definition is a whole lot of silly. I suppose they have to give it some sort of name as most TV's that are being sold as 4K truly aren't. I'm going to stick with my 1080p HD for now. At least until the Extra big ass double plus good venti glorious super ultra high definition televisions are released with 8 billion K resolution. At that point, I'll need to wear a pair of 16 inch telescopes with 750X magnification to truly appreciate the resolution while sitting 10 feet away from it on my couch. Except there won't be any content and everything will have to be unconverted from 1080p blurays that were remastered in 4K.
In other news, Sony announces SuperDuper Ultra Mega HDTV, now with DoublePlus.
Picture quality so good, it's better than reality.
4K or UHD TVs already produce a picture that is better than real life. The images are razor sharp, the color and saturation is typically pushed beyond the levels of reality making a positively delicious picture. It is absolutely compelling.
What kind of bandwidth does it take to stream 8k content at 60+fps? How much horsepower does it take to decode a video file that large?
Playing a 1080 compressed dvd rip looks like it only uses ~10% of my cpu in wmp, or 25-30% in vlc. But with those numbers it looks like it wouldn't even be practical to view 8k without a significant pc upgrade.
Misread that as "pony" for a second.
I see lots of people saying how useless these things are, but I beg to differ. 8k at 49" would be ~180ppi. These would make excellent high resolution monitors, especially if they start selling even smaller models. Hopefully they start pushing other companies to start making 8k models as well. The only question I have is, how the hell does the cabling for these things work? I seem to recall that the newest hdmi and displayport specs don't even support 5k particularly well.
Hey, whatever you're into ...
-=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
I'm holding out for 11K.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
It will be easier to integrate such displays into the viewer. VR goes mainstream this year, and AR and light field will soon follow. 30 years from now external displays will have gone the way of the printed newspaper and the payphone.
I just spent $1710 on a 75" 1080p TV (after rebates and such, NOT on a Black Friday deal).
TV prices are crashing through the floor and the base models are good enough for almost anyone.
As usual, the early adopters will cushion the blow for the rest of us.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Is LG abandoning OLED panels? I believe the "new" technology is a type of LCD panel.
No they don't. TV's typically have 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, so the color resolution is really only a fraction of the advertised resolution. While this is fine for typical video, for workstation use, you want a real monitor with 4:4:4.
Will they please stop using awful rubbish like the 'sharpness' setting, a setting that does nothing other than make your picture look awful on a digital TV.
I was looking at a 4k TV in the window of the local TV shop a couple of weeks back, the picture was dreadful, educated guess is that they'd turned sharpness up to full and f'ed up a brightness setting causing the picture to look like horribly over-exposed photo. Manufacturers are plain weird when it comes to what they think looks good.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Who needs a 98 inch screen, when you can have a 360 degrees view on an Oculus Rift?
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
I 'cut the cord' with Comcast years ago, because I was tired of paying for >=90% of the channels I never watched, and I was tired of all the recompression delivering a low-quality picture, and never looked back once.
Are broadcast stations going to upgrade to a UHD signal? If not then really what's the point of this, is it some conspiracy to kill broadcast television completely and lock everyone into paying for TV?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
By your own definition, half of American households CAN afford an $1,800 TV.
But, if you're not there yet, and you only wish to spend $500 on a TV, then perhaps you should look at the Sceptre U508CV-UMK 50-Inch Glass 4K Ultra HD 120Hz LED TV or you could get a VIZIO M43-C1 43-Inch 4K Ultra HD Smart LED TV for $550.
Although not 70 inchers, they are still large TVs at 50 or 43 inches. You can also console yourself with the fact that your income level probably doesn't get you a house large enough to properly fit a TV as large as 70 inches, so the 50 is probably a better fit for you all round.
http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/size-to-distance-relationship
For an 8K native picture even with a 98" screen you need to be sitting less than 2m away to take full advantage of it. I am using a 48" 4K TV as my primary monitor, and since you need to be sitting very close, 4K actually makes for a better monitor than a living room TV. You simply can't tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p with a 55" TV sitting back on your sofa unless you have superhuman resolution.
Why isn't anyone asking this?
I want 4 or 8k in a 23-24" 16:10 display, 30bit color, great black levels and viewing angles, no input lag (less than 1ms), and little to no motion blur.
The last thing I want is to pay a lot of money to see some shitty reality tv show in bitrate starved 8k instead of bitrate starved 1080i on a 50"+ screen. oh and commercials, the endless commercials...
>>. You simply can't tell the difference between 1080p and 2160p with a 55" TV sitting back on your sofa unless you have superhuman resolution.
I really wouldn't call it superhuman resolution.
Remember that the chart you link to, while a reference I myself also use when explaining "HD" and "4K" to people, is still just a generalization in the same way that 20/20 vision (6/6 for the world outside of the US) is just a generalization for "perfect" vision -- which the math in the chart is based upon. In reality, 20/20 is just a standard value for "normal" vision; "you have the acuity to see at 20 feet what a person should be able to see at 20 feet" as determined by the ophthalmologic standards body. (Typically it is being able to differentiate lines separated by a given visual angle, yada yada.)
First, young people especially often have significantly better vision. While that may not apply to you, even in my ripe old 40s, I have a corrected visual acuity greater than 20/15 vision; essentially, the distances in that chart can be 33% farther away. In practice, I have found it can be even farther, but highly dependent on the quality and content of the samples.
I wrote up an A/B/C double-blind testing app one weekend and sat down with some friends to sample 720/1080/2160P content of the same material to see whether we could actually distinguish the differences. Out of the seven of us, I and two others could easily identify most (but not all) of the 4k clips, at nearly twice the "maximal" distance recommended by that chart; in contrast, some of the others couldn't pick out the 4K clip correctly as against the 1080P clip with any statistical significance, even within the recommended distances. 720P content was more easily IDed as "worse."
I also believe that there is a motion vs. still-image factor going on, as I found it much more difficult to distinguish 1080P and 4K content at far distances when the image was paused, while differentiating them much more readily while they were moving. But the takeaway is that, again, that chart is just a decent "average" reference.
... product, and while LG might be big enough of a company to bet on many horses - so also "8k" - they have recently invested 8 billions into a new OLED factory, and that's where the really significant new products will come from.
Yes, those code values are also 10 bits in size, but they mean something very different from "wide gamut" (which is more the territory of the upcoming BT recommendation 2020 colorspace).
'...they mean something very different from "wide gamut" (which is more the territory of the upcoming BT recommendation 2020 colorspace).'
"Wide gamut" could not have meant BT.2020 any earlier than 2012-08-23. Prior to that date (and, I argue, after that date), "wide gamut" meant "anything wider than sRGB". This includes things like Adobe RGB, ProPhoto RGB, and Adobe Wide Gamut RGB, all of which predate BT.2020 by many, many years.
To avoid confusion, you can use the "UHDTV colorspace" moniker for BT.2020.
It seems that closely related models support 4:4:4 @60Hz. Does this change your view of this for use as a monitor?
You have to have technology before you'll start to see more than a token amount of content. Few people are going to produce for 4k TVs when they are rare, which they still are these days. The technology has to get in place first, then you'll see more content.
It's been the same with anything: HDTV, color TV, DirectX 11, etc, etc. When a new tech comes out, there will be a few things to take advantage of it. Demos and the like. However it won't get widely supported until enough consumers have it to make it worth while. Right now, there aren't a lot of 4k TVs out there, and lower rez TVs are still widely sold. Even in houses that have 4k TVs, they often don't have a source that'll do 4k. So content is scarce. Check back in 5 years, I bet there's a good deal more.
If it's like recent LG HD TVs, I hope it's not designed with "global dimming" aka "automatic brightness limiting" that you can't turn off. HOW DAMN ANNOYING IT IS!!!
I'm not all that excited about 8k, but this should force equipment onto newer standards that support more bandwidth. 4k at 120Hz would be nice. Right now it requires DP1.3. I wonder if TVs will start using DP or if newer HDMI standards will come out.
Give me 4k @ 120Hz with some form of adaptive sync for gaming and I'll die a happy man.
Most (easily better than 50%, more probably more than 75%) of the shows I get from Netflix or the Internet or even from Dish Network is transmitted at no more than 720p. While it might be nice to have a 4K screen, there's no reason to have one at the moment. First step is to get rid of the data caps so the higher quality can be enjoyed for longer than a few hours per month. Then we actually need content provided in 4K resolution. Then we need internet speeds that can deliver 4K resolution. Maybe in a year or two.
The NSA: The only part of the US government that actually listens.
From what I've read, TVs not designed primarily for monitor use have poor color accuracy and an inferior gamut. This may be changing, but if you're doing critical color work you need to check carefully.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
But can it run crysis?
- Dan
Why?
- Dan
98" 8k TV? I'm not sitting 38" from a 98" TV, heh. A 98" 4k TV doesn't even make sense. When regular HD is already past the line where I can actually see pixels, any resolution above that is pointless. http://isthisretina.com/
Interesting test!
What display did you use?
Also, a display may mess with the picture with sharpening algo's and whatnot. 4k can be made to look sharper from a distance even when you don't actually see the actual pixels (by adding a relatively lower res sharpening filter). Did your test exclude such thigs explicitly?
Movement is definitely a factor in seeing sharp, as is contrast.