Sony to release 84 inch 4K LCD TV - massive but thin

Sony to release 84 inch 4K LCD TV - massive but thin.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2012/08/sMsd0q.jpg[/newsimage]Cnet reports that an anonymous source has disclosed to them that Sony will introduce a very high resolution 84-inch LCD TV


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/sony-to-release-84-inch-4k-lcd-tv-massive-but-thin-63431/](http://www.myce.com/news/sony-to-release-84-inch-4k-lcd-tv-massive-but-thin-63431/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

Wake me when it’s < $3,000.

Sharp introduced a 108-inch Aquos LCD TV at CES in 2007. Apparently, it’s only being sold in Japan, it costs 11,000,000 yen (about $110,000), but it only does 1080p resolution.

Sharp just started shipping a 90" panel LC90LE745 1080p in North America.
Price is $10,000.00.
As for the “4k” sets, didn’t think it was that big of a deal until I started watching a bunch of 70" and 80" sets on hd broadcasts. Problem with sets this big is that as the screen grows so grow the pixels. What looks stunning on a 50" screen, sucks big time once you get it up to 80 inches. Diagonal lines get a bit ragged.
With a better image processor and more pixels to work with the end result should be much better.

[QUOTE=olddancer;2651694]Sharp just started shipping a 90" panel LC90LE745 1080p in North America.
Price is $10,000.00.
As for the “4k” sets, didn’t think it was that big of a deal until I started watching a bunch of 70" and 80" sets on hd broadcasts. Problem with sets this big is that as the screen grows so grow the pixels. What looks stunning on a 50" screen, sucks big time once you get it up to 80 inches. Diagonal lines get a bit ragged.
With a better image processor and more pixels to work with the end result should be much better.[/QUOTE]Those pixels are still pretty small even on a larger screen. You just have to sit twice as far away from the TV in order to not see the individual pixals. Ideally you’re supposed to sit at least twice the width of the screen from the TV in order to see the best picture. Also, remember that broadcast TV is only 1080i, which only refreshes 50% of the screen at a time, while 1080p refreshes the entire screen at once. This also makes a difference as you get bigger screen sizes.

I think it’s too early for 4k on tv’s:

  1. I don’t think average TV size is big enough to warrant it yet. I think 70"-80" tv’s are where you start to see a bit of improvement over 1080p? Will it be enough to get people to upgrade? probably not. I know alot of people who only just upgrade to HD sets (or haven’t yet). The HD takeover is still in progress. They’re not going to sell a new format this quickly. Color SD tv was around for decades. You need a big improvement to get people to buy. If the average TV size is less than 80" 4k won’t be a big draw.

  2. There’s nothing to play on it. The best way to watch movies is on bluray. They only do 1080p. Cable TV only does 1080i (and alot more compressed than a bluray). Online services like netflix, xbox marketplace etc… compress the crap out of their HD signals. There’s not distribution system for 4k content (and may not be for a long time).

I think that’s my two big arguments. 4k won’t take off until alot of people have incredibly large tv’s in their homes. Currently most people I know have 40 or 50inch HDTV’s. At some point you just don’t have the room. I think it’s too early for 4k.

Maybe we’ll finally see computer monitors move from their 1080p resolution, which is where they’ve stagnated for a few years.
1080p is NOT good enough for a 24" monitor.

The original article at CNET contained a wrong quote. The correct resolution is 3,840 by 2,160.