What is Digg?Sponsored by NerdyShirts.com
Buy Nerdy Hoodies - Nerd to Live view!
nerdyshirts.com - Stay with these Nerdy Video Game & Movie Hoodies
65 Comments
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Skip the TV. I'll just take a dinner date with that Taiwanese woman standing next to it.
- grantgorgen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+25 words: Can It Play Duck Hunt?
- cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Ohh, more then $20,000. Sharp has a new 65" Aquos hitting the market at a list of $25,000, and it's a standard 1920x1080 panel.
This one is much more advanced, and will likely be priced at over $35,000 dispite the smaller size.
"They will be perfect for ultra high-end multi-functional home entertainment systems" says the article. Yea, only for the obscenely rich. - scthk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@StealthTomoato
1920 x 1080 = 2073600 Pixels
3840 x 2160 = 8294400 Pixels
8294400 / 2073600 = 4
Sorry if you were being sarcastic. - geminitojanus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"Just imagine the DRM that would probably ship with the next-next-gen SHD-DVD or S-BlueRay! AACS2, which REQUIRES a heat camera on the front of the TV to count the number of people watching, which then increases the licensing fee (you have to give them your credit card number before you can watch a disc) based on the number of people watching. Also, you have to biometrically identify yourself on the TV's built-in retinal scanner to prove that you aren't borrowing the disc from someone else. You think I'm joking. :)"
Yeah, it'll have all of that. And some clever hacker will figure out how to disable the system with a permanant marker. Or simply circumvent the system with a bag of ice, two paperclips, an RFID-tag remover (built from a disposable camera), and a piece of latex. - streetstealth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Just imagine the DRM that would probably ship with the next-next-gen SHD-DVD or S-BlueRay!
AACS2, which REQUIRES a heat camera on the front of the TV to count the number of people watching, which then increases the licensing fee (you have to give them your credit card number before you can watch a disc) based on the number of people watching.
Also, you have to biometrically identify yourself on the TV's built-in retinal scanner to prove that you aren't borrowing the disc from someone else.
You think I'm joking. :) - biffen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1 "Great - but who wants to watch fractals all day?"
This guy right here. Thats who. - Gerz1219, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You'll know it's overkill when the resolution is higher than any content which will ever be made available for it.
I suppose at some point in the future it'll be cool for playing games or watching multiple HD windows, although the latter application is completely useless in my opinion. - dwhitbeck, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The most advanced way to watch crap.
- fletchowns, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1+digg for the hot chick in the picture of it
- zeeneo, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i find it crazy how people got motion sickness from UHDV because it felt so real. i guess it was like looking out a window. what if you plugged up a xbox 360 to one of these screens?
- Mutifus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Great - but who wants to watch fractals all day?
- olegk, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0High res monitors have been around for many years. IBM T221 is 3840x2400 = 9.2 megapixels. It's not that expensive either - $7000.
- leszek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0it has not only a resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels
but also 8.29 million pixels!
isn't it a little bit redundant ? - lax01, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Amazing...awesomely amazing
- dickyducky, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0most "advanced"....?
okay, your not the best/biggest - AngryPenguin47, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"since when did Macgyver become a Hacker? :P"
are you kidding? MacGyver was the FIRST hacker! DUH. - chmilar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Eccles:
The Sunnybrook link is very old. They now have a 37" 1080p display with 200,000:1 contrast. Check it out at www.brightsidetech.com
I've seen the 37", and it is indeed impressive. It is also impressively expensive! - jo42, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Gimme...
- Flyinace2000, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Can you imagine use this for photos. Being able to see 1:1 representations of your images! (as long as they are under 8mp)
Very cool - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Quad Full High Definition (QFHD) with a resolution of 3840 x 2160 pixels and an astonishing 8.29 million pixels."
wow, i wonder how much one of those will cost? - aonaran, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I'm still waiting for 4320p
Why?? because it's an even multiple of 1080, 720 and 480 therefore there's no weirdness in scaling one of the standard resolutions to fit into the monitor's native res. You should get nice clean sharp pictures regardless of which of those resolutions is used. - SweetsGreen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Too bad most LCD's look like crap in thier non-naitive resolution....
This thing would pretty much be useless for watching TV......
But Counter-Strike on the other hand. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0^^
very true, the word is out on real world performance - guitardvark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0ahahahah quad HDTV??? are you joking? today's sattelite and cable providers only give you 10 regular hd channels max
- nosoup4u, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I saw this during all of the CES coverage. Made mostly for the medical field, at least to start with. still very cool.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0How will we know when it's overkill?
- NoWe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0*drools*
- Permanent4, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Westinghouse showed off the same TV at CES last January.
http://ces.engadget.com/2006/01/07/westinghouses-56-inch-4x-1080p-lcd/
They said they could get it out there at a price of about $10,000. Some rich football fan with NFL Sunday Ticket would probably rig it up to watch four games at once... - cbreaker, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0I highly doubt it would be sold for less then $30,000, dispite what their marketing people say right now.
- JohnFrost, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Sweet HDTV with great resolution and all .... BUT ........ Check out this Ultimate Gaming/Video editing 'HDR HDTV' http://www.brightsidetech.com/ ----> definitely more expensive but ones this beauty hits Nationwide production to retail stores I'll snatch it right off the shelf.
- cliffosj, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0This isn't really that amazing considering how big the screen is. If it had such a high resolution in a 20 inch screen then yer i'd be impressed. Another thing, what interface is this going to use does it even support using it's maximum resolution? Considering, a single link DVI cable and connection supports a 1920x1080 image, and a dual link cable/connection supports up to a 2048x1536 image. I reckon it will just be upscaled and that's never as good as native.
- Xcalibur, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0It's certainly not the higest ever achieved, and this is old news about the Chi Mei panel. It's been known to exist for almost a year now. Westinghouse is planning a Q3 launch of a tv using this panel.
- I8PP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Does -anything- (worthwhile) support this? The UK barely has 720p/i, and I presume it's the same in most of the world apart from the US and Japan. Spruce Goose.
- Urusai, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rather than larger single panels, they need a way to seamlessly link individual panels to an arbitrary size. That would be much cheaper and allow for arbitrary sizing.
- oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Now, if this was a CRT that could display 2160i that would be nice, since a CRT would also display your 640/720/1080 content just fine."
NO!!!!!!! Interlaced formats must die! Interlacing was a hack to accomodate a lack of bandwidth in analog transmission technology in the 1930's. Every modern display device is inherently progressive scan. Even the lowly CRT has been progressive scan for displays for over a decade.
Existing interlaced content should be converted ONCE at the SOURCE and then for all time stay progressive scan. Why inflict this travesty on every display owner when it is completely unnecessary. If bandwidth is really such a concern, switch to a better codec, don't degrade my viewing experience.
And for God's sake, stop demanding interlacing. The suits don't know any better and may leave it in as a "feature". - Nyfeh, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Why the hell would they use a fractal to show it off? Throw in a landscape or something... Times Square at night...
- I8PP, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Rather than larger single panels, they need a way to seamlessly link individual panels to an arbitrary size. That would be much cheaper and allow for arbitrary sizing."
Yeah, I wanna see modular monitors too. Even if they weren't seemless then a 3x3 or othe odd numbered grid will look good - RiotActing, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Dumb... there is nothing that can display that natively... they cant even do 1080p at 60fps! Dumb Dumb Dumb...
- xeigen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"But Counter-Strike on the other hand."
Correct me if I'm wrong but there aren't any graphics cards out that that can do 3840 x 2160. - oepapel, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"OK. So what video signal suports it?"
DVI. A Dual-Dual-Link DVI card could drive this. The NVIDIA GeForce 6800 Ultra DDL is a video card that can drive 2 Apple Cinema Displays (2560x1600) and exists today in the G5 towers from Apple that have been shipping for months. - nashdawg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0aonaran,
So your waiting for the 4320/7680 monster for perfect scaling of the major formats 480,720,1080. I like your thinking. - JimXugle, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Doom 3.
Now... Can I buy Nvidia Products in Bulk? - SUPERTOY, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Correct me if I'm wrong but there aren't any graphics cards out that can do 3840 x 2160."
Im sure the Nvidia Quad SLI could do it, but not at a stable frame-rate anyways . . . The real problen would be finding a game that would take advantage of it. Hell, does anybody body know any other game besides the new Auto Assault and that old Quake game that will run 1920x natively? - tedlee10, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow. 1.4 Gigabytes a second.
That's 84 Gigs a minute
2.5 Terabytes for half an hours content!
5 Terabytes for 1 hours worth of full definition content!! - Cyberdactyl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"Hell, does anybody body know any other game besides the new Auto Assault and that old Quake game that will run 1920x natively?"
No. . .If you don't consider games after 2004!!! - perre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Two of Apple's HD Cinema Displays (both are HDTV capable) are larger than the nearest one quoted here (and in the original article). 56" is still fantastically impressive, but it sets the leap at a little over 2x, not 4x.
56" Quad HDTV: 3840 x 2160 = 8,294,400
30" HD Cinema Display: 2560 x 1600 = 4,096,000
23" HD Cinema Display: 1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000
8,294,400 / 4,096,000 = 2.04 - degree, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i have one of those aquos tvs and its insane...
I imagine that staring at something with such high resolution will eventually make your eyes kill you. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Portuguese / Brazilian: http://www.htk.com.br/noticia.php?noticia=137
- usermike2098, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0i bet sony'll say the ps3 supports that
-
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is