LG Shows Off Its 84-inch Ultra-Def 3DTV

[JMcEntegart]

Move over HDTV.

LG Shows Off Its 84-inch Ultra-Def 3DTV : Read more

 

[spookyman]

84" kind of small.

 

[sosofm]

You need a room like movie theatre fot that tv.

 

[rebel1280]

YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! finally going past 1080P! now...can you make a smaller sized like lets say..hmm 24" for my desktop!? I will gladly pay a couple grand for that!

 

[Pyree]

Imagine playing BF3 or Crysis 2 on this screen. Epic!!

 

[Yargnit]

What sort of inputs does this have that even support that resolution? Would a PC outputting over display-port be able to run this at it's native resolution? Otherwise it would take what, 4x HDMI or 2x dual-link DVI? (Not to mention some funky driver tweaking?)

I just want to know if there is even a way to actually output PC games to this thing @ it's native resolution since obviously nothing else can.

 

[djtronika]

displayport 1.2 apparently supports this crazy quad HD resolution.

i agree rebel, i'd like to see this resolution in my dell 30".

 

[Guest]

Actually this is the smartest way to get 1080p in 3D. They are still using their cinema 3D glasses right? Which means the resolution gets halved. So to get this going you input at 1920x1080, let the screen upscale, then send back the image as 1920x1080 which is the half sized passive approach.

And with all 240hz I call BS. Its still only 60hz that is made fluid. 240hz/600hz @ 60hz is still nothing compared to true 120hz.

 

[freggo]

Oh goody; when is my birthday... can I have 'both' please ? 😀

 

[jgutz2006]

Awesome! Maybe the single best thing about this, is that it will help to drive down prices of the other large TV's out there!

 

[alidan]

and even on an 80 inch you would have to sit within 10 feet to even see any more detail than if it was 1080p.

4k good for projectors, and pc monitors, not good for tv.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]Pyree[/nom]Imagine playing BF3 or Crysis 2 on this screen. Epic!![/citation]
Pumping Crysis 2 out to that resolution even with the fastest hardware you can find will probably be an unplayable 3 FPS

 

[dillonpeterliam]

Imagine Avatar on this . . . .

 

[therabiddeer]

[citation][nom]rebel1280[/nom]YESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS! finally going past 1080P! now...can you make a smaller sized like lets say..hmm 24" for my desktop!? I will gladly pay a couple grand for that![/citation]
I doubt you would even notice a difference between 1080p and this new UD at 24". Would be paying a fortune for nothing.

 

[officeguy]

Great, I just bought a 1080p tv. Oh well, another 10 years it should be mainstream and then I will be able to afford it.

 

[noblerabbit]

[citation][nom]Pyree[/nom]Imagine playing BF3 or Crysis 2 on this screen. Epic!![/citation]

Ah yes, nothing like seeing the black level of a DOS error flashing cursor screen in 7,680 x 4,320

 

[the associate]

I was hoping for 1440 or 1600 on a 40-55", not this sick shit o.0
Now I'll need what, two 7970's to run games at a decent fps?

Time for amd and nvidia to catch up, the 7970's suppose to be 4k ready but I'd love to see them bench that res with any modern pc game for example...

 

[soccerdocks]

For all the people who seem to think that going to a higher resolution makes no difference: Have you ever tried playing a game with Anti-Aliasing maxed and then played it with none. If you could notice the difference between those then you would notice the different going to a higher resolution.

 

[tsmatthx2]

AS

 

[tsmatthx2]

Pretty sure my first phone took higher resolution pictures than are being put up to showcase these things.....What kind of ignorant tech moron puts up a picture, with 624 x 351 resolution, in the year 2011-2012? Simply pathetic....I can't even force my phone to go below 6MP....and that's trying to be bad....wtf? I mean really, my parents flip phones does higer resolution than this and they are like 5 years old....holy crap.