Samsung's Monster Smart TV Arrives in August for $10K

[Guest]

Most important, its a Samsung product. It took three months for them to replace a defective $70 toner cartridge. Three years after Seagate fixed an issue in their HDD firmware that was causing the drive to permanently lock up, Samsung was still shipping their HDDs with defective firmware. No way am I going to spend $10K on a TV from Samsung.

 

[gm0n3y]

The 0.31" bezel is nice, but as others have mentioned, anything over 70" that is 1080p isn't really worth it. I've compared one of the 80" TVs at Costco against the same model in a ~60" and the 80 does look a little worse. If this was $2k then I think it would be worth it, but considering that cheaper, larger TVs have been available for at least 6 months this is a rip off.

I too am going to wait for 2/4k resolution before upgrading my current 55". I'd love something in the 75-90" range. I'd love OLED too, but it may be a few years before we see a 4k OLED TV at a reasonable price (< $3000).

Of course we're going to need to start getting media in higher resolutions before 4k is really worth it (except for hooking up to a PC for gaming!), but hardware support has to come before the media will catch up.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]randomoneh[/nom]Both of you have very bad understanding of how this works.Your example - 40 degrees horizontally. When this TV is occupying 40 degrees of your field of view horizontally, you are standing 7.48 ft away from it. At that point, it has angular resolution (what really matters) of 46 pixels per degree.At usual distance of 9 ft, it has angular resolution of 55.34 pixels per degree. Which isn't bad, but could be better. For example, when angular resolution (number of pixels per degree of person's field of view) is ~ 35 or higher, viewer usually can't see pixel grid / pixelation on images. On the other side, angular resolution of ~200 pixels per degree is limit for most of healthy individuals (NHK study), meaning image quality is matching the limit of viewer's eye and is as good as it can be concerning resolution and viewing distance.Benefit is, of course, non-linear. You'll benefit most with angular resolution up to ~100 pixels per degree. And then up to 200 ppd, quality will rise slowly.At usual distance of 9 ft, it has angular resolution of 55.34 pixels per degree. Which isn't bad, but could be better. For example, when angular resolution (number of pixels per degree of person's field of view) is ~ 35 or higher, viewer usually can't see pixel grid / pixelation on images. On the other side, angular resolution of ~200 pixels per degree is limit for most of healthy individuals, meaning image quality is matching the limit of viewer's eye and is as good as it can be concerning resolution and viewing distance.Benefit is, of course, non-linear. You'll benefit most with angular resolution up to ~100 pixels per degree. And then up to 200 ppd, quality will rise slowly.Anything more clear to you two?[/citation]

actually you are going over my head abit with that.

here is what i understand,

the human eye can only see about 300dpi of detail. yes i know that that a general statement and depends on the distance and such, but its a good starting off point.

at a reasonable viewing distance, say a living room, im guessing the tv is at a wall, and where you sit is against another, or close to that. now i got out a measure's tape to get these distances, based on my bedroom and not living room viewing distance. my head is a good 33 inches away from screen on average, sitting there at the computer, when watching something, i am 7 to 9 feet away, depending how im laying on my bed. and this is my fairly small bedroom, i'm assuming most people living room, you are a good 10 feet away minimum, with ours its anywhere from 10 feet to 20 feet.

from what i know, and this was from me looking this crap up a long long time ago, out 48 inch tv at almost any comfortable viewing distance you would be had pressed to see the difference between 1080p and 720p, now if i want to sit 5 feet away from it, than yea, can see the difference fairly easily, but that is the problem again, how close you have to sit to a tv of even that size to see anything above 1080p

im almost willing to bet money that if you had 2 identical looking tvs, but one was set to 720p and one was set to 1080 and you set people down at a reasonable in home distance, and asked them which was which, they would be hard pressed to say.

the point im making is that the quality of the tv has hit an area where you do not need better for most circumstances. sure a projector because you can get that thing to display a massive image, and sure a retardedly large tv because than you can see the advantage of more pixles, or a computer screen because we are less than 3 feet away from it if you are sitting comfortably away.

what you wrote, the reason it went over my head the way it did was because it was all text... do you know a site i can go to where it will explain what you are talking about better? i would really live to learn more about this.

 

[Guest]

Most people posting in this comment section are stupid. Some are smart, but the rest, are just idiots.

 

[applegetsmelaid]

randomoneh :

Both of you have very bad understanding of how this works.Your example - 40 degrees horizontally. When this TV is occupying 40 degrees of your field of view horizontally, you are standing 7.48 ft away from it. At that point, it has angular resolution (what really matters) of 46 pixels per degree.At usual distance of 9 ft, it has angular resolution of 55.34 pixels per degree. Which isn't bad, but could be better. For example, when angular resolution (number of pixels per degree of person's field of view) is ~ 35 or higher, viewer usually can't see pixel grid / pixelation on images. On the other side, angular resolution of ~200 pixels per degree is limit for most of healthy individuals (NHK study), meaning image quality is matching the limit of viewer's eye and is as good as it can be concerning resolution and viewing distance.Benefit is, of course, non-linear. You'll benefit most with angular resolution up to ~100 pixels per degree. And then up to 200 ppd, quality will rise slowly.At usual distance of 9 ft, it has angular resolution of 55.34 pixels per degree. Which isn't bad, but could be better. For example, when angular resolution (number of pixels per degree of person's field of view) is ~ 35 or higher, viewer usually can't see pixel grid / pixelation on images. On the other side, angular resolution of ~200 pixels per degree is limit for most of healthy individuals, meaning image quality is matching the limit of viewer's eye and is as good as it can be concerning resolution and viewing distance.Benefit is, of course, non-linear. You'll benefit most with angular resolution up to ~100 pixels per degree. And then up to 200 ppd, quality will rise slowly.Anything more clear to you two?




actually you are going over my head abit with that.

here is what i understand,

the human eye can only see about 300dpi of detail. yes i know that that a general statement and depends on the distance and such, but its a good starting off point.

at a reasonable viewing distance, say a living room, im guessing the tv is at a wall, and where you sit is against another, or close to that. now i got out a measure's tape to get these distances, based on my bedroom and not living room viewing distance. my head is a good 33 inches away from screen on average, sitting there at the computer, when watching something, i am 7 to 9 feet away, depending how im laying on my bed. and this is my fairly small bedroom, i'm assuming most people living room, you are a good 10 feet away minimum, with ours its anywhere from 10 feet to 20 feet.

from what i know, and this was from me looking this crap up a long long time ago, out 48 inch tv at almost any comfortable viewing distance you would be had pressed to see the difference between 1080p and 720p, now if i want to sit 5 feet away from it, than yea, can see the difference fairly easily, but that is the problem again, how close you have to sit to a tv of even that size to see anything above 1080p

im almost willing to bet money that if you had 2 identical looking tvs, but one was set to 720p and one was set to 1080 and you set people down at a reasonable in home distance, and asked them which was which, they would be hard pressed to say.

the point im making is that the quality of the tv has hit an area where you do not need better for most circumstances. sure a projector because you can get that thing to display a massive image, and sure a retardedly large tv because than you can see the advantage of more pixles, or a computer screen because we are less than 3 feet away from it if you are sitting comfortably away.

what you wrote, the reason it went over my head the way it did was because it was all text... do you know a site i can go to where it will explain what you are talking about better? i would really live to learn more about this.

Everyone has it wrong! You see, the answer dates back to ancient Atlantis, when humans openly interacted with Aliens from the Canis Major Dwarf Galaxy. This is when they first introduced us to the HDTV. However, in that time the primary connector was serial based, similar to today's SDI video connector. You see, great picture is only possible because of sychronization packets. A synchronization packet (commonly known as the timing reference signal or TRS) occurs immediately before the first active sample on every line, and immediately after the last active sample (and before the start of the horizontal blanking region). The synchronization packet consists of four 10-bit words, the first three words are always the same—0x3FF, 0, 0; the fourth consists of 3 flag bits, along with an error correcting code. As a result, there are 8 different synchronization packets possible.

In the HD-SDI and dual link interfaces, synchronization packets must occur simultaneously in both the Y and C datastreams. (Some delay between the two cables in a dual link interface is permissible; equipment which supports dual link is expected to buffer the leading link in order to allow the other link to catch up). In SD-SDI and enhanced definition interfaces, there is only one datastream, and thus only one synchronization packet at a time. Other than the issue of how many packets appear, their format is the same in all versions of the serial-digital interface.

The flags bits found in the fourth word (commonly known as the XYZ word) are known as H, F, and V. The H bit indicates the start of horizontal blank; and synchronization bits immediately preceding the horizontal blanking region must have H set to one. Such packets are commonly referred to as End of Active Video, or EAV packets. Likewise, the packet appearing immediately before the start of the active video has H set to 0; this is the Start of Active Video or SAV packet.

Likewise, the V bit is used to indicate the start of the vertical blanking region; an EAV packet with V=1 indicates the following line (lines are deemed to start at EAV) is part of the vertical interval, an EAV packet with V=0 indicates the following line is part of the active picture.

The F bit is used in interlaced and segmented-frame formats to indicate whether the line comes from the first or second field (or segment). In progressive scan formats, the F bit is always set to zero.

This is why you shouldn't smoke crack folks.