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

[Travis Beane]

Now why is it we were promised bezels like those on monitors, but we haven't received them, while I see a variety of large LCD and plasma televisions with ultra thin bezels. I stopped using a multi monitor setup for gaming because of the bezels alone. Don't tell me the market isn't there, because setting my rig up for multimonitor gaming cost just as much as it did to build the rig in the first place. I'm pissed off. I want a ultra high resolution option that doesn't involve several projectors or several 50" plasmas. I can only budget so much. Peripheral vision is lovely when playing either a racing or FPS game.
[citation][nom]caedenv[/nom]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".[/citation]
I run 2048x1152 monitors, perfect for running two screens side by side at 16:9. Quite useful actually. Samsung Syncmaster 2343. They are no longer in production in favor of 1920x1080.

 

[belardo]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]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 ~~ now tell me you want to sit about 3 teet away from a 55 inch screen to really use that resolution.[/citation]
A - You don't know what you have? 1920x1200 monitors are usually 24~27" screens. Do you know how to tell what your res is or what kind of monitor you have?

B - You have eyesight problems... I have a 24" 1920x1200, which nobody makes anymore - they do 1920x1080. Higher res may make text smaller, but fonts can be made bigger making them crisper. You are ZOOMING in 3-4x to read, again - shows you need glasses or your eyes are that far gone. All my pages are in 100% mode.

C - you cannot SIT only 3 feet away from a 55" display. Even todays largest 70+" displays only do 1920x1080 which is not high enough res for such a screen. At 60+ inches, higher res than 1080 is needed... still looks great, better than SD-TV.

 

[the associate]

[citation][nom]alidan[/nom]tell me you want to sit about 3 teet away from a 55 inch screen to really use that resolution.[/citation]


I sit 2 feet from a 40" kdl40ex50 so personally I would love a large screen with higher resolution, I agree with deeper blacks obviously, and realize I'm not much of a common case, but higher resolutions, glasses free 3d and oled themselves have already been held back enough as it is. All their milking of for this year is almost non existent bezels and super thin screens, shit we've been whining for since eyefinity came out. And besides like belardo said, you can increase the font. I don't see what the problem is since those piece of crap 1st gen plasmas were thousands and thousands of dollars and people still bought them.

Actually the only problem would be that my 2 6870's would need to be upgraded much sooner if I switched to 2560 x 1440 or 1600 o.0

 

[mkrijt]

This is beautifull!!

*Want one, even though it is LG...

 

[tinnerdxp]

Keep it HD, 1mm bezel, get rid of 3D and make it affordable...

 

[torque79]

As much as we'd all love to clamor for higher resolution tvs, I believe the tech is held back on purpose because broadcasters and streaming content providers want to slowly drag their feet improving network infrastructure for higher profit. You can see it happening already with ISP's wanting to charge for the amount of bandwidth consumption instead of paying for available speed. If ISP's are already claiming that it costs too much for this pricing model anymore, imagine what happens when you introduce double or triple current video resolutions and the necessary bandwidth to stream that. If what they say is true, then higher res video streaming will not be possible until there are significant advances in bandwidth, compression, etc beyond what is currently available.

I believe drastic bandwidth improvements are currently easily achievable though, so I don't buy ANY of what these greedy profit mongering ISP's are pushing. If I were willing to pay $100 a month I could get 100mbit to my house right now, and 1080p HD streaming already works well with my 10mbit connection (though with more compression than I want and no lossless audio).