LG's New Cinema 3D Smart TVs Have 1mm Bezel

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Guest

Guest
I'd rather have it 4 inches think with 4k resolution then 1mm thick with 1080p. 3D and Thickness is just holding back true picture improvements with the next jump in resolution and hopefully frame rate.
 
G

Guest

Guest
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]I'd rather have it 4 inches think with 4k resolution then 1mm thick with 1080p. 3D and Thickness is just holding back true picture improvements with the next jump in resolution and hopefully frame rate.[/citation]
Maybe to you but others might differ.
 

Gulli

Distinguished
Sep 26, 2008
85
0
18,580
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]I'd rather have it 4 inches think with 4k resolution then 1mm thick with 1080p. 3D and Thickness is just holding back true picture improvements with the next jump in resolution and hopefully frame rate.[/citation]

Why do you want 4k resolution? It's not like you'd see the difference from 12 feet (4 meters) away. HD is fine, unless you have a cinema screen in your living room and have to sit really close to it.
 

joebob2000

Distinguished
Sep 20, 2006
525
0
18,930
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]That gaming split-screen advance sounds pretty incredible, I would love to see it in action.[/citation]

It's the exact same process as 3d only it distinguishes between two people instead of two eyes; they show one frame for Player 1 when their glasses are aligned, then one frame for Player 2, when their glasses are aligned, etc.
 

CaedenV

Distinguished
Jun 14, 2011
532
0
18,960
[citation][nom]stm1185[/nom]I'd rather have it 4 inches think with 4k resolution then 1mm thick with 1080p. 3D and Thickness is just holding back true picture improvements with the next jump in resolution and hopefully frame rate.[/citation]
First, it is 1mm thick on the bevel, loosing bevel thickness is an improvement, though I agree with you about how thick/deep the screen is. Nobody really cares about that. The big picture improvements will come with OLED as LED/LCD tech is nearly as good as it can pratically get (though the high end screen do look pretty damn good).

As for 2K and 4K content I am with you. 16:9 is not wide enough to meet cinema standards without cropping/letterboxing, and for computer viewing it is not quite wide enough to have 2 full pages side-by-side (though it will do many, just not places like Tom's). I think most screens will be 2K when the standard comes out (it's only ~100px wider than 1080p), but there really is no need to go to 4K except for projectors and TVs over 50".
 

warezme

Distinguished
Dec 18, 2006
426
0
18,940
Nice now please make me a similar computer monitor, at least 24" in size, 120Hz, 4ms or less refresh, high contrast, True IPS wide angle views, RGB of at least 90%, and blacks as dark as night. (I can dream, can't I)
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
778
0
18,930
[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]Why do you want 4k resolution? It's not like you'd see the difference from 12 feet (4 meters) away. HD is fine, unless you have a cinema screen in your living room and have to sit really close to it.[/citation]

Not sure if you have seen a 4k display in action.
There "IS" a difference on panels as small as 30" if you have 4k content. Of course if you use it to view images from your PC the difference is very obvious as well.

So how about a 4k screen with NO bezel ? :)

 

husker

Distinguished
Oct 2, 2009
428
0
18,930
For people who think the thickness of either the screen or the bezel is not important, think again. In ten years time this technology will make the materials, manufacturing, storage, and shipping costs all much lower leading to lower overall product price. It will also make much larger screens possible, removing the practical obstruction of weight vs. size/stability. Basically, an entire wall or multiple walls in a room can be giant displays.
 

ricdiculus

Distinguished
Aug 25, 2009
101
0
18,660
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]That gaming split-screen advance sounds pretty incredible, I would love to see it in action.[/citation]

If there is a best buy near you, they most likely have a 24" Sony model on display with a PS3. It works but still suffers from most of the same issues as current gen 3D models (brightness, flicker, etc.)
 

pedro_mann

Distinguished
Feb 23, 2010
48
0
18,580
[citation][nom]Gulli[/nom]Why do you want 4k resolution? It's not like you'd see the difference from 12 feet (4 meters) away. HD is fine, unless you have a cinema screen in your living room and have to sit really close to it.[/citation]
Just for a test, hook a laptop hdmi output into your tv and try to web browse. It is a dismal experience. That is what us HTPC enthusiasts get with a 1080p monitor, barely readable text and you have to hit ctrl+ a bunch of times then it is like browsing on a 640x480 monitor. Just go look at large 30" monitors and tell me what resolution they run at (2560x1600) Now lets jump up to a 55" screen. See where this is going?

The quickest advance will be to the text readability on a computer based source, the pixel density needs to be at least 4k to improve usability, 8k would be even better.

O.K. So how about non-PC sourced feeds? Like your cable box. Have you ever noticed how junky a left to right pan looks when you are watching tv? Part of the problem is cable companies awful compression, but the other problem is because of aliasing. I could see a 4k tv up-sampling and doing some video tricks and truly creating a beautiful picture from a 1080p source.

Let's just try to think outside of the box and enjoy the benefits of evolving technology, instead of being haters.
 

wifiwolf

Distinguished
Feb 19, 2009
73
0
18,580
[citation][nom]husker[/nom]For people who think the thickness of either the screen or the bezel is not important, think again. In ten years time this technology will make the materials, manufacturing, storage, and shipping costs all much lower leading to lower overall product price. It will also make much larger screens possible, removing the practical obstruction of weight vs. size/stability. Basically, an entire wall or multiple walls in a room can be giant displays.[/citation]

Like every year, there will always be a new reason to sell you a mainstream TV at 800$ US or 800€ in EU
 

stevo777

Distinguished
Jan 8, 2008
139
0
18,630
I just wonder if the TV is hard to handle with such a small bezel. Getting it out of the box, and putting it on a table must not be that easy without putting your hands/pressure on the actual screen, which is probably undesirable.
 

Cash091

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2009
39
0
18,580
I think the dual play glasses are a really cool feature, but they are ten years too late! When was the last time any of us have played a split screen game?! Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the idea as I would much rather play multiplayer games with my friends IN MY HOUSE than across the web. Thing is, services like XBox Live and PSN are killing split screen! Hell, Golden Eye 007 made split screen fps's FAMOUS and the latest round didn't even offer it! My buddies and I used to play Red Faction 2 for HOURS and Guerilla also left SC out! The only games I could see this being used on is Halo and COD.
I know that this isnt the main selling point of this TV, but ten years ago people would have ate this up(myself included)!!!
 

ap3x

Distinguished
May 17, 2009
348
0
18,930
[citation][nom]rawful[/nom]That gaming split-screen advance sounds pretty incredible, I would love to see it in action.[/citation]


The new Sony LCD for the PS3 is out now and it does exactly that. It is a 32 inches and the picture quality is not that great but it does what LG is describing. It is pretty amazing.

http://blog.us.playstation.com/2011/06/06/new-3d-display-and-ps3-accessories-debut-at-e3/
 

alidan

Distinguished
Aug 5, 2009
1,681
0
19,730
[citation][nom]pedro_mann[/nom]Just for a test, hook a laptop hdmi output into your tv and try to web browse. It is a dismal experience. That is what us HTPC enthusiasts get with a 1080p monitor, barely readable text and you have to hit ctrl+ a bunch of times then it is like browsing on a 640x480 monitor. Just go look at large 30" monitors and tell me what resolution they run at (2560x1600) Now lets jump up to a 55" screen. See where this is going? The quickest advance will be to the text readability on a computer based source, the pixel density needs to be at least 4k to improve usability, 8k would be even better.O.K. So how about non-PC sourced feeds? Like your cable box. Have you ever noticed how junky a left to right pan looks when you are watching tv? Part of the problem is cable companies awful compression, but the other problem is because of aliasing. I could see a 4k tv up-sampling and doing some video tricks and truly creating a beautiful picture from a 1080p source.Let's just try to think outside of the box and enjoy the benefits of evolving technology, instead of being haters.[/citation]

i have a 1920x1200 monitor and i use it from 3 feet away ot less, its i believe 22 inches big. and for most webpage i already press ctrl+ 3-4 times to make the text more easily readable. 4k in living room would be even smaller than it is now, and impossible to navigate without pressing ctrl + 7-10 times, higher resolution makes this crap smaller, not bigger.

1080p is realistically all you can see at about 8-10 feet away, thats about how far most people who would get a 40inch " screen would sit from it. in fact, you would probably be hard pressed to see the difference from 720 to 1080p at that distance, in fact if you are useing anything less than 50inch at 10 feet it may as well only be 720p. in fact at 10 feet, to make just 2560x1440 worth it, the tv would have to be over 80 inches big, and for full effect would need to be 105 inches.

what needs to happen with monitors is deaper blacks and larger viewing angles, not higher resolutions.

and we have 2560x1600 monitors not because we can, but because in a computer setting, the higher resolution is a viable option, we have the close enough that we can see all the detail. now on the same note, you know how big a 30 inch is? its honestly the biggest i would want a monitor to be that im sitting less than 3 feet from. now tell me you want to sit about 3 teet away from a 55 inch screen to really use that resolution.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.