LG Introduces More Giant 4K TVs

[Guest]

Though it doesn't specify prices, the TVs with screens ranging from 65 to 98-inches, are probably not for the budget-minded.

LG Introduces More Giant 4K TVs : Read more

 

[internetlad]

I don't even know if a 105" tv would fit on my living room wall.

Even if it did I don't think it would look good. It would be like standing inches away from the actor's faces.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

105" may not be good for you, but it would be awesome for me

 

[Parsian]

it's good to see Super Resolution upscaling is making it into real time application. It is a really worthy upscaling technique which tracks evolution of image across multiple frames to construct higher resolution with proper detail scaling. Alternative methods' don't do not interpolate base on temporal information.

 

[yer_momma]

105 inches isn't that much. I used to have a Cinema 1080P projector that shot into a 120" white screen on the wall. It was pretty awesome, especially with 5.1 surround... very much like being in a movie theater. The pixels get pretty big with only 1080p resolution at that size though and standing anywhere near the screen you count clearly see the individual pixels. Doubling 1080p (2k) to 4k resolution would certainly look better but would still be quite blocky at 100+ inches.

Think of it this way, 1080p (2k) is rather mediocre on a 50" TV, so 4K would still be pretty mediocre on a 100" TV with the same PPI.

 

[toastybatch565]

1080p is not 2k. @yer_momma

 

[Avus]

1080p is not 2k. @yer_momma

You are the one on the wrong....
http/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_resolution

http/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/c6/Digital_video_resolutions_%28VCD_to_4K%29.svg/330px-Digital_video_resolutions_%28VCD_to_4K%29.svg.png

 

[photonboy]

If you are CLOSE ENOUGH to really benefit from a 4K than the flaws in most video look pretty horrible.

You can replicate this on a PC as well. Find a crappy Youtube video or other video that looks horrible Fullscreen, then make it about a QUARTER of your screen's width and many of the issues just disappear.

 

[ralanahm]

1080p is close enough to 2k. in fact it is 1.94k.

 

[kritzler]

Hope these are built with the HDMI 2.0 standard, or have the capability to be upgraded through firmware.

 

[NightLight]

i can't believe we are allready referring to 720p, 1080p as "lower resolutions"

 

[falchard]

VP9, the only video codec that shares your personal information.

 

[bin1127]

If you go by the THX recommended distance of 1.5x, 150 inch is only 12.5 feet. very short distance for the 100".

 

[Avus]

I rather hope I have Gbit (or even 10 Gbit) Internet/Ethernet/wireless-LAN before I have anything 4k. A typical 4k movie is range from 100-200GB!! And I am not going back the age of buying videotape/videoCD/DVD from retail store....

 

[somebodyspecial]

He may be right on 2k, but he's wrong on 100in looking bad on 4K. We are talking 8mp and 4x the resolution of 1080p. Are we standing 5ft from the TV and watching a 100+in TV? Most people are at least 8ft from their TV even in a puny apartment you should be close to this. At 6ft+ it should look great. At 12ft with a great rip of 720 (L4.1 ~4000+bitrate total unless DTS add another 1000-1200 depending on 384 or 640 audio comparison) vs 1080 I don't see much difference with 60in. Move in about 3-4 more feet though and I start to want 1080p. I have 20/15 vision (lasik). There is a difference, but it's not like the change from dvd to bluray. The trade off of file size vs. gain in quality isn't worth it for us at 60 (for tv shows, I do some movies in 1080p), but I'm wondering if I will wish I'd went 1080p for everything now that I'm pondering a 70+.

The chart linked below says you'll see 720p tap out at 70in at around 13.5 (which may be ok in a 17-18ft living room). At 75in it says you'll need to be about 14.5+ away with 720p. If that's correct I may be thinking my 720p's are looking like dvds soon...LOL.

Optimal viewing distance for 100in 4K is 6-13ft. I'm guessing 120in would push both numbers out 2ft but not much more based on the chart.
http/theosroundtable.com/andrew-robinson/andrew-robinson-too-close-4ks-effect-on-viewers-viewing-distances/
That image is all over on google, I just picked a place. Like I said, are you sitting at 5ft? How close do you need to be, and how hard is it to watch TV where you have to look left and right to see the whole thing? LOL. Personally I don't want to be closer than 8ft and have no room in the house where that would happen.

 

[ThisIsMe]

@yer_momma

your math is wrong
You aren't doubling 2k res (comes from the 1920 in the 1920x1080 of 1080p) to get 4k res (comes from the 3840 in 3840x2160 of 2160p) even though it might sound that way because of the 2k and 4k marketting terms, but you need to take into account those terms refer to only one of the two dimensions of a rectangular video format. Both dimensions are doubled so that's 2 dimensions times 2 each, or basically quadruple, not double the amount of pixels on the screen since you can basically fit four 1920x1080 boxes inside one 3840x2160 box. So, at 4 times the res I don't think it will look even close to the image quality of your 1080p projector, which btw cannot produce anywhere close to the quality of a modern 1080p tv.

 

[geogan]

@ThisISMe"your 1080p projector, which btw cannot produce anywhere close to the quality of a modern 1080p tv."WTF are you talking about? I really think your piddly little 50" or less 1080P TV cannot produce anywhere close to the IMPACT of a modern 1080P projector on a giant 2.40:1 cinemascope screen. I have both and I can tell you i would NEVER EVER want to watch any movie on the 50" TV. It in no way compares to the big screen projector setup. And a properly setup and calibrated setup will match or exceed the so called image quality of your small television setup.