Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.
Samsung demos 82-inch 2160p HDTV
tgdaily.com — And you thought your 1080p TV is great!
PeterNorton- 1447 diggs
- digg it
- kirk89, on 05/19/2008, -3/+120Still not big enough!
- meamog, on 05/19/2008, -7/+69that's what she said.
- macbookhair, on 05/19/2008, -6/+4expected/10
- WaveRunningNakd, on 05/19/2008, -43/+9"That's what SHE said!"
(couldn't resist)- Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -12/+3interesting how this comment is dugg down despite being almost identical to the comment made in the same minute which has been dugg up.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 05/19/2008, -2/+10It's dugg down BECAUSE it's a dupe. We don't need to see it more than once.
- Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -7/+2I know its a dupe but still its not like he copied the comment, so the comment is obviously as valid as the prior one.
- piesforyou, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3"I know its a dupe but still its not like he copied the comment"
nice contradiction there. - Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4umm , dupe means duplicate, yes the comment is a duplicate of the first . to copy in the context that I was referring means looking at someones comment and passing off as ones own.
both comments were essentially made at the same time.
- Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -12/+3interesting how this comment is dugg down despite being almost identical to the comment made in the same minute which has been dugg up.
- androothebear, on 05/19/2008, -16/+7the funny thing is i was going to reply with that exact same thing....
:-( - omgbanana, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/518M4619F3L. ...
- DaHuuuuuudge, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2To me, anything lower then UHDTV is like an Etch-A-Sketch.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uhdtv
- meamog, on 05/19/2008, -7/+69that's what she said.
- Surferess, on 05/19/2008, -18/+6It is plenty big for me. After all, who actually has a wall spot larger than that?
- UtopiaInTheSky, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8Umm, lots of people?
- Conwaysb0718, on 05/19/2008, -4/+12people who live in houses?
- dOOBiEx213, on 05/19/2008, -29/+2Fail.
- shadowblade989, on 05/19/2008, -6/+69Do want!
- NaCl, on 05/19/2008, -1/+32That's it! It's time to start buying lottery tickets.
- falkonv7l, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2My wallet can't keep up with all this HD biz, I think I will get a bike.
- intangible, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2Bicycle hopefully, because a motorcycle is a money pit (but I still love it).
- falkonv7l, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2My wallet can't keep up with all this HD biz, I think I will get a bike.
- Omek, on 05/19/2008, -1/+18Holy crap... I think my TV takes up a small corner section of that.
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -0/+560,000 square foot house, not included.
- mintblogger, on 05/19/2008, -8/+18And what's the price, of this monster?
- iRelinquish, on 05/19/2008, -4/+14if you read the article it would have told you they haven't set one yet. But a 2160p tv of 52" costed around 40,000 so they wouldn't think about buying this unless they won the lottery : )
- twiztidsinz, on 05/19/2008, -4/+34dugg for epic, use of coma.
- Sornos, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2Your, soul.
- skidme, on 05/19/2008, -1/+28Dugg for? misspelling comma.
- macbookhair, on 05/19/2008, -0/+8Dugg for random placement of question mark and sentence fragment.
- piesforyou, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11Guys guys guys, you've got it all wrong, you're meant to be burying not digging!
- burketo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4dugg for stating the obvious.
- sleepwalkers, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3I didn't know a coma could be epic.
- nard3456, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5a bajillion dollars
- Homerr, on 05/19/2008, -6/+15I'm an architect drawing a media room right now and the client is prepared to spend up to $70k on one of these screens, although he is hoping to get something around 100" in about 6 months. Yep, he's rich and a technology geek.
- 11up, on 05/19/2008, -12/+3Isn't there somewhere else that money could be better spent? I'm not against people spending a bit of money to get nice stuff, but when you're talking spending $70,000 instead of maybe $4000 for a high-end consumer level TV which would be more than good enough, I've gotta question your morality.
That amount of money could do immeasurable amounts of good for hundreds of people, yet it's being put towards one person's greed.- MiDri, on 05/19/2008, -0/+16Before he knows if he can donate to the poor starving orphans of zambogwidonlanka he must see them in 2160p, because seriously, real life just is not real enough for some of us.
- dinostabOMG, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Upsampled from the SDTV resolution at which the footage for those advertisements is shot, of course.
- banmaster, on 05/19/2008, -2/+9Hell, whats wrong with a high-end projector?? (rear projected if necessary).
Idiots wasting money really pisses me off.- kday, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Ummmm, it's wayyyyyyy more expensive and only about 1080p? You have no idea what high end is, do you?
http://www.projectorcentral.com/Runco-Signature_Ci ...
An old friend's father has one of these projectors in his $25 million dollar house in Santa Barbara. That is the cheap part of his home theater. His speakers, amps, subs, etc are worth a ton more than the projector. I don't know exactly how much he spent on his home theater, but i know it's around a million.
You people really have no clue how much you can spend on a home theater. To very rich American's who love home theaters, $70,000 for a 2160p TV is probably a bargain (Although there is no media that i know of that can play in that resolution). - praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -0/+1I apologize, kday. I'll go about my business as a lowly peon.
- kday, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Ummmm, it's wayyyyyyy more expensive and only about 1080p? You have no idea what high end is, do you?
- cheezintern, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3If nobody buys this stuff when it comes out as brand new technology, how is the company gonna make money? Why should they bother researching, designing and producing high tech products if the morality police is gonna bark at people who are willing to spend large sums to support the development?
- warriorscot, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3***** other people, you have that kind of money by either hard work or luck you should get the stuff you want, the money eventually finds its way to other people less well off (the people that make the thing).
I personally think you should live your life for yourself as best as your able you only get one swing at the mortal coil so make it good. We also don't need to do good for hundreds of people in an overpopulated world you need to be greedy selfish and immoral sometimes otherwise you will lose out to someone else as we need to either get our act together globally or shed a couple billion people.
- MiDri, on 05/19/2008, -0/+16Before he knows if he can donate to the poor starving orphans of zambogwidonlanka he must see them in 2160p, because seriously, real life just is not real enough for some of us.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11It would be a waste. There's almost nothing you could hook to it that would supply a 2160p signal.
- nephilimx, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4imax camera man
- machocheese34, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12you could have 4 1080p movies playing at the same time
- dezertrat, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3back to the future style
- freqk, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1...today
- SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1Even a fairly cheap video card can drive the screen at that resolution.
- bill0001, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3get the panasonic professional series 103 incher.
- Stevanoski, on 05/23/2008, -1/+1You're an architec, lolololol, well, may in the sense george Kanstanza on the Seinfelds was an architec. Good one, lololol
- 11up, on 05/19/2008, -12/+3Isn't there somewhere else that money could be better spent? I'm not against people spending a bit of money to get nice stuff, but when you're talking spending $70,000 instead of maybe $4000 for a high-end consumer level TV which would be more than good enough, I've gotta question your morality.
- oduska, on 05/19/2008, -7/+18Too bad I don't even have a 1080p TV...
- po43292, on 05/19/2008, -2/+16Most people don't.
- willskillz, on 05/19/2008, -3/+2L :)
- TotalDouche, on 05/19/2008, -20/+3Kinda gay if you think about it. You'd have to sit like 50 feet from it in order to get the full effect of the high resolution.
- Alix7, on 05/19/2008, -2/+4And?
- XIUgraag, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Personal... Cinema... AWESOME!
- CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2actually its optimal viewing distance would only be 15-25 feet away, if not less thats not tooo absurd. all things considered.
- Tahiri, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5You're a douche for using gay as an insult
- okaroleo, on 05/19/2008, -14/+3EEEEEPPPIIIICCC... WIN!
- OC73, on 05/19/2008, -8/+15Great for porno.
- onionlayer, on 05/19/2008, -5/+28I find life size vaginas intimidating enough thank you.
- gak001, on 05/19/2008, -1/+21Life-size? At 82-inches that sumbitch is going to be big enough to birth you today.
- seanshady, on 05/19/2008, -3/+24no porn needs to be in that resolution.
There some things best not seen in that much detail- csuftech, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7Second that!
- venuspcs, on 05/19/2008, -2/+8Who the ***** wants to watch a 6 foot pussy being ramrodded by a 9 foot long and 2 foot wide piece of salami?
- OC73, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4Who doesn't?
- macbookhair, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1I would love to see that.
- burketo, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4mom?
- onionlayer, on 05/19/2008, -5/+28I find life size vaginas intimidating enough thank you.
- iRelinquish, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11that makes for one extremely complex game of Galaga!
- Providence, on 05/19/2008, -0/+802160p...Great, here we go again!
- CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -0/+17nope we're staying at 1080p for a long while. WAY too much money invested in 1080p by companies and consumers to abandon it any time soon. Yea industries will advance beyond 1080p but for the household 1080p has 10 good years left at least.
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -7/+3The U.S. will pass a new law requiring all TV stations to
broadcast in 2160p,
and all 1080p HDTVs will become useless,
unless you buy a down-converter to shrink the picture...- KMartSheriff, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1You'd have to be an idiot if you think this is anything more than a technical exercise. Of course one day it will be mainstream, but not in 10 years at least.
- Lateralis1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4TV broadcasts are only in 1080i for the near future at least. There's no way 2160p will become a standard anytime soon.
- LeeSoong, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1That's the same thing they said the first time the law was passed forcing all TV networks to switch over to digital broadcasts...
- SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1There's no reason why they wouldn't develop "upscaling" blu-ray players like they did for standard DVD's. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would allow owners to take better advantage of the resolution. In fact, for larger home theater screens, I think don't think the bump to 2160 is overkill at all. Even at the current 1080p, unless I stand WAY back, I often find myself thinking the picture quality could be a little better.
- CodeCobalt, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1you know what your right. Its not like Samsung, Sony, Disney, Paramount, and several other companies invested billions upon billions of dollars into 1080p, blu-ray etc. And they definitely don't want to make their money back, instead they just wanna invest more billions for a new technology and forget about the time and money they lost in blu-ray.
oh wait, no the companies haven't even broke even from selling blu-ray and 1080p technology.
oh and thats why our cable companies are refusing to increase their bandwidth for more 1080i programming. they're simply waiting for 2160p.... oh.. wrong again. - SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1@codecobalt
I don't think you understand how upscaling actually works. I'll leave it to you to spend 5 minutes on wikipedia so you can see the error in your reasoning.
- CodeCobalt, on 05/20/2008, -1/+1you know what your right. Its not like Samsung, Sony, Disney, Paramount, and several other companies invested billions upon billions of dollars into 1080p, blu-ray etc. And they definitely don't want to make their money back, instead they just wanna invest more billions for a new technology and forget about the time and money they lost in blu-ray.
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -7/+3The U.S. will pass a new law requiring all TV stations to
- CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -0/+17nope we're staying at 1080p for a long while. WAY too much money invested in 1080p by companies and consumers to abandon it any time soon. Yea industries will advance beyond 1080p but for the household 1080p has 10 good years left at least.
- svensksvamp, on 05/19/2008, -8/+3It's not about the size. It's how you use it.
- AwsmGy, on 05/19/2008, -6/+49When will there be 2160p porn to match?
- hinmanj, on 05/19/2008, -0/+26Are you sure... you want that?
- endlessoul, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2That would have higher resolution than real life.
- jpowlus, on 05/19/2008, -1/+105All that 2160p content will look AWESOME on there...
- SillyRabbits, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1There's always upscaling of blu-ray...
- faizal5k, on 05/19/2008, -6/+6site down...same article @ gizmodo:
http://gizmodo.com/342997/concept-samsung-82+inch- ... - chris4404, on 05/19/2008, -1/+7Would this be 4K then?
- Broccoli, on 05/19/2008, -8/+1no 4k has 4000 lines of resolution. so its only about half of 4k.
- paulvq, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6Yes, this is 4k. 1080p is just about 2K
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolu ... - Supafly, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9Actually this is 4K, the specs for this monitor state 3820x2160.
4096x2160 (4K)
2048x1080 (2K)
1920x1080 (1080p)
This TV should be able to handle 4k with a slight pull down (Similar to 1388x768 HDTVs supporting 720p).- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4meh,
I'll wait 2 more years for the 120"
16,384 x 8,640 XHDTV to come out, for $ 1,195.
OLED and as thin as the MacBook Air, too...- DaHuuuuuudge, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Xtreme High Definition?
- LeeSoong, on 05/20/2008, -0/+3The first show broadcast in XHDTV
will be: '' Wormhole Xtreme ! "
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4meh,
- holiday, on 05/19/2008, -7/+5i'd hit that!
- 11up, on 05/19/2008, -7/+4I don't even have an HDTV letalone this beast. Holy crap!
- macbookhair, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1noob.
- theMADone, on 05/19/2008, -0/+82imagine the size of the box that thing would come in, one hell of a cardboard fort could be built here.
- InitialDMP5, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7as long as all you plan to do is stand, and you would have to have a depth less then 5 inches...It could make quite the handsome roof...
- fxspec06, on 05/19/2008, -1/+5that would make a great cat toy
- Coolmatt49, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10Just throw the TV away, keep the box, and use your IMAGINATION to have fun!
- praisethelard, on 06/06/2008, -1/+6Imaginaaationn *rainbow*
- GlassAgate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2If anyone decides to throw away their
TV away, I'll take it.
- GlassAgate, on 05/20/2008, -0/+2If you were to somehow get a large number
of the boxes, along with giant cubic boxes,
you could make up a system of trenches and
pits.
- InitialDMP5, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7as long as all you plan to do is stand, and you would have to have a depth less then 5 inches...It could make quite the handsome roof...
- jollins, on 05/19/2008, -6/+3This makes me wonder... Will we still call our current HD sets (those with 1080 and 720 rez) "high definition" in a few years once they are common in households and the 2160p sets start showing up in stores?
- MiDri, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Yes, because content is still playing catchup to 720p... Sure we might have 2160p tvs in the future, however; our content will still be struggling to brake that bandwidth barrier.
Man Oh man, could you imagen though? B flicks in 2160p? The movies will seem exponentially more crappy! - tschau, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2It's going to be a loooong time before 2160p becomes anything other than a novelty for technophiles, since most people can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p content. I wonder how big the screen has to be to tell the difference between 1080 and 2160.
- LeeSoong, on 05/19/2008, -1/+2But will YouTube videos look any better on 2160p ?
- MiDri, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Yes, because content is still playing catchup to 720p... Sure we might have 2160p tvs in the future, however; our content will still be struggling to brake that bandwidth barrier.
- Farmer77, on 05/19/2008, -4/+5That resolution is higher than the resolution on my monitor...
- greenlight2001, on 05/19/2008, -3/+62Man, vagina is gonna look disgusting on that thing... disgustingly awesome!
- Labourer, on 05/19/2008, -0/+10not to mention the feelings of inadequacy
- bwdd, on 05/19/2008, -5/+1three porn jokes and counting.
- greenlight2001, on 05/19/2008, -0/+12I wasn't making a joke, I was being serious.
- JNudda, on 05/19/2008, -0/+13Good thing you put a comma after "man"...
- dougerdo, on 05/19/2008, -6/+3Damn. I like my 50 LG in all but this puts it to shame.
- reqage, on 05/19/2008, -4/+39Does the TV come with the girl?
- lazersailer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+18more importantly, does the girl come with the TV?
- fxspec06, on 05/19/2008, -0/+18if you have 40k to spend on that tv, why not go all out and grab a hooker too
- Jalh, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1*****
- DaHuuuuuudge, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Comment of the year.
- lazersailer, on 05/19/2008, -1/+18more importantly, does the girl come with the TV?
- aaron117, on 05/19/2008, -9/+9But will it blend?
- Reedan, on 05/19/2008, -3/+1Yes
- HHP2K, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7That would be about as heartbreaking (Or more satisfying?) than the iPhone episode.
And you'd need a truly massive BlendTec Blender. Think of the possibilities once you're done with the screen!- SkippyDoorknob, on 05/19/2008, -0/+1You would need one of those industrial shredders that you can put a car into.
- tcpip4lyfe, on 05/19/2008, -0/+32160p dust....don't breath this!
- Andyschism, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7If you notice down in the bottom right hand corner:
http://gizmodo.com/photogallery/samsung82/10004536 ...
No pictures please :P. - Zippo, on 05/19/2008, -4/+3Dude, I've been to that bridge... Rainbow Bridge in Odaiba.
- Zippo, on 05/20/2008, -1/+2Why the digg down? It's not like I'm lying.
- OJdidntdoIT, on 05/19/2008, -10/+2My projector gets over 100 inches of pure HD.
My wife gets over 10 inches of pure pleasure.- Aerandir, on 05/19/2008, -1/+110 Inches? Amateur.
- broevol, on 05/19/2008, -0/+11she uses dildo's too, huh?
- MrMoralee, on 06/06/2008, -0/+0owned.
- Muligan21, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1Bah.. Like this is going to do me any good. I finally got a 1080p LG HD TV and i'm more than happy with it. How great of quality do you really need? I would rather invest in a Bose system now but heck, I need to be able to pay for me gas now.
That would be nice in our Theatre. All 10 of our movie screens have stains, puke, pop or something on them.- UtopiaInTheSky, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3So rather than develop new technologies, you'd prefer we sit back and say "Well that's good enough, we can stop now"? You're a disappointment to Digg.
- kday, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2BOSE is crap. All marketing, no quality. They used to be better before they were a big name.
- androothebear, on 05/19/2008, -9/+2but will it blend?
- theMADone, on 05/19/2008, -0/+6only if u have a feckin huge blender mate.
- Shuk, on 05/19/2008, -1/+11How high will the resolution go until the human eye can't tell the difference?
- colincornaby, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3We're already there at 1080p... something like 2160p would be more useful for movie theaters.
- sphigel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1saying what you said without talking about a specific size is completely pointless.
- colincornaby, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1Mentioning screen sizes would be pointless in since there really isn't anything in the range that a consumer would be looking at that would really need 2160p. For the average viewing distances, 1080p offers the best visual quality we can process for up to 70" tv's. For that rare consumer that is buying over 70", 2160p is still overkill.
- sphigel, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1saying what you said without talking about a specific size is completely pointless.
- CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -1/+12Yea we are pretty close to there with 1080p. In the article it states they couldn't really notice a difference in quality from a good 1080p set and the 2160p. As colin said, its basically for theatre's or VERY large screens in general. The larger a screen the more lines of information it needs otherwise it becomes pixelated.
- Tahiri, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3About 70 times the amount this monitor has actually
- macbookhair, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4You typing from your nintendo DS?
- dinostabOMG, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4There are a lot of variables involved - some people are saying we're already close, but I suppose that depends on things like where you are in relation to the TV, the ambient light, the type of compression, the construction of the display, the resolution of the footage, etc.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 05/19/2008, -2/+5Leela: Fry, you're wasting your life sitting in front of that TV. You need to get out and see the world.
Fry: But this is HDTV. It's got better resolution than the real world.
- colincornaby, on 05/19/2008, -3/+3We're already there at 1080p... something like 2160p would be more useful for movie theaters.
- deddoc, on 05/19/2008, -2/+12But this is HDTV. It's got better resolution than the real world.
- Kennerk, on 05/19/2008, -1/+3and the speakers go up to 11, just in case
- Rainemaker, on 05/19/2008, -3/+4Sick TV. Seriously though, can some physician chime in about the human eye's ability to discern the difference between 1080 and 2160? Is there an upper limit?
I'm pretty sure after blowing 5 digits on a home theater, my 2 eyeballs are my ***** components in my setup. Chain's strength vis-a-vis weakest link and all that.- leftler, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4According to http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolut ... 576 Megapixels, that is without looking left or right. FTA this screen is 8.3, we still have a way to go.
- itsgotyou, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Oh great. I just squandered $42 on this camera.
http://www.vronline.net/?p=35
Should've bought the 0.0005 terapixel model. - SealandRes1, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3But that's 576 mega pixels for your whole field of vision, it's more relevant to determine the number of pixels per area.
- itsgotyou, on 05/19/2008, -0/+5Oh great. I just squandered $42 on this camera.
- CodeCobalt, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3theres no real way to compare a human eye to a cameras megapixels, or 1080p. Theres a large mathematical equation and an explanation of the equation here http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=200704 ...
But if you just want the answer, we're capable of taking in around 576 Megapixels. But in reality the number is MUCH lower than that, as our eyes tend to focus on specific things more than take in a whole image simultaneously.
this guy explains it VERY well http://photography.learnhub.com/lesson/page/1015-s ... - onlyclave, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1The human eye can resolve detail as small as 1 arc second. What that means is that at 1080p you cannot see the pixel structure after you move back 1.5 times the screen width.
Resolutions that high sound really cool but they don't mean anything unless the intrapicture contrast ratio exceeds 800:1.
There are 720p plasmas currently that have a better picture than the panel in the article does.
- leftler, on 05/19/2008, -0/+4According to http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolut ... 576 Megapixels, that is without looking left or right. FTA this screen is 8.3, we still have a way to go.
- SSCrow, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2Thats awesome and all but Theaters project at 4096 × 1714.
So thats a lot of detail for a small surface area. - camaroz06, on 05/19/2008, -6/+2I wonder how long 1080 will be the standard...its going to be funny to hand my current TV down to my future kids rooms...60inch 1080p SXRD. All I had was a 13inch black and white with bunny ears handed down to me from our kitchen when I was young.
- snareguy17, on 05/19/2008, -1/+17Gonna go get one for my bathroom.
- SkippyDoorknob, on 05/19/2008, -0/+2Or one for the backseat of the minivan that flips down from the roof
- lukeduke, on 05/19/2008, -2/+30Would my super nintendo hook up to that?
- Tahiri, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I'd laugh if it had composite inputs, let alone RF/coaxial
- MagicBobert, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1Here that? That's the point whizzing past you.
- Tahiri, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4I'd laugh if it had composite inputs, let alone RF/coaxial
- dOOBiEx213, on 05/19/2008, -1/+10It's been hard enough trying to convince consumers HDTV is the way to go (most people are retarded or blind and can't tell the difference.) As of now, this is unrealistic for personal use - what would you watch in it? Cable companies are already skimping out on their bandwidth, when it comes to HD channels. I, for one, will not hold my breath to own one of this babies anytime soon :( .
- BlueSkyfish, on 05/19/2008, -2/+3Its not that they can't tell the difference, its that the don't want to spend $2000 on a new TV with a marginally better picture when their old one works just fine. Especially now that the economy is getting worse.
- Tahiri, on 05/19/2008, -2/+2Um HD isn't marginally better, it's exponentially better. There's a huge difference switching from 480i to 480p, the jump to 720p and 1080p is HUGE
- synys73r, on 05/19/2008, -0/+3Thats the power of Korea baby
- harrisbradley, on 05/19/2008, -4/+2Hopefully this pushes the 1080i/p's down in price. I believe it will
- KomaSutra, on 05/19/2008, -8/+0Figures, two months after I buy my 70 inch plasma they just have to come out with something bigger. that really ticks me off.
http://www.iurlz.com/datools - aimhelix, on 05/19/2008, -1/+16Time to upgrade my VHS.
- guyincognitoo, on 05/19/2008, -1/+1Super VHS is the way to go.
- mrgodai, on 05/19/2008, -0/+9"....such as the oil and gas industries"
they need enough spaces to show all the zeros in the profit? - chasealicious11, on 05/19/2008, -1/+4compensation?
- CaviMike, on 05/19/2008, -5/+2Pointless.
- DDBdestroyer, on 05/19/2008, -2/+1exactly - 2160P will only be useful for MASSIVE screens - 82-inch is still plenty for 1080P - its like putting 1080P onto a 17inch monitor - ummm excuse me... i think not.... no point.... go aaway
- MuffinFlavored, on 05/19/2008, -6/+1I am just ordering my 1080p last night...
- iamgreg007, on 05/19/2008, -1/+25When are they just going to beam HD into my brain?!
- venuspcs, on 05/19/2008, -0/+7You can't handle the truth!
- solid12345, on 05/20/2008, -0/+1What good would it be, all my dreams seem to be blurry and low-res.
-
Show 51 - 81 of 81 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2008 —
Content posted by
