Samsung Intros 82" UHDTV - Blu-ray Forum

MRay · 03-05-2008, 02:00 AM

The article doesn't mention the MSRP for this thing, and it may be that the company hasn't arrived at a price yet. Probably though, they didn't want to scare people away with the likely astronomical price for a TV with this resolution.

http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/...eils_82_uhdtv/

But then again, the people for whom this set will be marketed are filthy rich anyway and won't even bat an eye.

Chevypower · 03-10-2008, 02:48 AM

That would be like having an HDTV back in 1990 when all you had was a VHS player. I don't think even the Panavision cameras capture that high resolution yet. Might be good for IMAX transfers?

Blu-ray Fanatic · 03-10-2008, 03:31 AM

This is actually old news. We're just getting a sneak peek at the future but won't come into effect until the year 2015 or so. I wouldn't mind getting one but I'll wait until mine phases out.

Aaron · 03-10-2008, 03:40 AM

3840 x 2160 = Motion sickness

sarnell2 · 03-10-2008, 04:18 AM

the ultimate goal is 7680 x 4320 resolution????

i don't see any hardware being able to handle that any time within the next 10 years

dialog_gvf · 03-10-2008, 05:34 AM

Interesting that they'd unveil it at CeBIT. That's mostly a computer show, isn't it?

Gary

dialog_gvf · 03-10-2008, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarnell2

the ultimate goal is 7680 x 4320 resolution????

i don't see any hardware being able to handle that any time within the next 10 years

Hey, Super-super upconversion.

Sonny · 03-10-2008, 05:39 AM

Im guna be happy with my Panasonic 800/850 series TV's, my names on the first 50'' Best Buy gets in

You definitely need a huge screen for that 'res' or its just a waste, its just the novelty of it you know

Sonny · 03-10-2008, 05:48 AM

I like this "full HD" 1080p "Super HD"?? "Super Duper HD"??? "Super Super Duper HD" ????

d_rob1031 · 03-10-2008, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sonny

I like this "full HD" 1080p "Super HD"?? "Super Duper HD"??? "Super Super Duper HD" ????

Based on your collection of TV's I think you'll be the first here to purchase this set

ground chuck · 03-10-2008, 12:35 PM

that resolution is just ri-donkulous.

Crème Blu-ray · 03-10-2008, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Hey, Super-super upconversion.

No, ultra super up-conversion (U-SUC)

Crème Blu-ray · 03-10-2008, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MRay

The article doesn't mention the MSRP for this thing, and it may be that the company hasn't arrived at a price yet. Probably though, they didn't want to scare people away with the likely astronomical price for a TV with this resolution. ... But then again, the people for whom this set will be marketed are filthy rich anyway and won't even bat an eye.

Given that 56" versions sell for over $40K, I wouldn't be surprised if this one went for over $100K.

This would be a B2B purchase, for things like satellite and medical imaging, trade-show displays, etc. - applications where it's practical to create the source material.

Maximus · 03-10-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dialog_gvf

Interesting that they'd unveil it at CeBIT. That's mostly a computer show, isn't it?

Gary

Well it's the same panel as the Sony 82" QuadHD TV at CES. I guess they didn't want to feel left out so they are showing it publicly at the first possible chance...

Brian Cash · 03-10-2008, 04:37 PM

im happy with my aquos's and Xbr my next purchase for a tv is going to be a 110" screen and a projector

Chevypower · 03-10-2008, 04:40 PM

I could see SHD (2160p) and UHD (4320p) being used in cinemas (as digital cinema doesn't really stick to a digital video standard, but i can't see it being very beneficial to home TVs and projectors.

john_1958 · 03-11-2008, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chevypower

I could see SHD (2160p) and UHD (4320p) being used in cinemas (as digital cinema doesn't really stick to a digital video standard, but i can't see it being very beneficial to home TVs and projectors.

i could see it
anybody that doesn't hates future progress

Chevypower · 03-11-2008, 08:41 PM

Actually i don't hate future progress. I love it, but there are some logical reasons why I don't see UHD on home TVs any time soon.

Cinema is in competition with home video, and will always try to have a reason for you to go to the cinema. So they will always try to be a step ahead.
Another reason is: films are still recorded at 1080p or 2K
(with the best Sony, Panavision, Arriflex etc)

Another reason would be that 35mm/70mm transfers to UHD would likely highlight the grain of the film even more so.

Last of all, I'm not sure that high of a definition is going to be beneficial on the small screen. But that's just my theory until I actually get to see a 50-70 inch displaying a true 4320x7680 @ 48p (which is said to become the next movie frame rate standard).

dobyblue · 03-11-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chevypower

Another reason is: films are still recorded at 1080p or 2K
(with the best Sony, Panavision, Arriflex etc)

Peter Jackson's Crossing the Line was shot at 4K using the Red.

Red can shoot at 4k 24 frames per second with 12-bit colour. That's 4,900 x 2580.

Schweet.

http://www.red.com/

Chevypower · 03-11-2008, 09:27 PM

Yeah those Red cams look nice, supposed to be well priced too. I think 4K is a little higher than SHD?
(sorry forgot about 4K in last post)

03-05-2008, 02:00 AM	#1
MRay Member Member since:Aug 2007	Samsung Intros 82" UHDTV The article doesn't mention the MSRP for this thing, and it may be that the company hasn't arrived at a price yet. Probably though, they didn't want to scare people away with the likely astronomical price for a TV with this resolution. http://www.tomshardware.com/2008/03/...eils_82_uhdtv/ But then again, the people for whom this set will be marketed are filthy rich anyway and won't even bat an eye. Last edited by MRay; 03-05-2008 at 02:02 AM.

03-10-2008, 05:39 AM	#8
Sonny Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Aug 2007 Home Theater Gallery:8 Blu-ray reviews:6 Trading Score:1	Im guna be happy with my Panasonic 800/850 series TV's, my names on the first 50'' Best Buy gets in You definitely need a huge screen for that 'res' or its just a waste, its just the novelty of it you know Last edited by Sonny; 03-10-2008 at 05:44 AM.

03-11-2008, 08:41 PM	#18
Chevypower Special Member Member since:Feb 2008	Actually i don't hate future progress. I love it, but there are some logical reasons why I don't see UHD on home TVs any time soon. Cinema is in competition with home video, and will always try to have a reason for you to go to the cinema. So they will always try to be a step ahead. Another reason is: films are still recorded at 1080p or 2K (with the best Sony, Panavision, Arriflex etc) Another reason would be that 35mm/70mm transfers to UHD would likely highlight the grain of the film even more so. Last of all, I'm not sure that high of a definition is going to be beneficial on the small screen. But that's just my theory until I actually get to see a 50-70 inch displaying a true 4320x7680 @ 48p (which is said to become the next movie frame rate standard). Last edited by Chevypower; 03-11-2008 at 08:47 PM.

Similar Threads
thread	Forum	Thread Starter	Replies	Last Post
THX, Dolby Digital, And DTS Intros!	Home Theater General Discussion	N8DOGG	13	12-21-2009 08:45 PM
UHDTV (ultra high definition tv) rollout planned for 2025	Home Theater General Discussion	erdega79	167	12-20-2009 08:17 PM
Samsung 1600 cannot play "The Mask", "Basic Instinct" (lionsgate film)	Blu-ray Players and Recorders	smartslick	2	11-15-2009 11:55 PM
Best Song Intros/Openings	General Chat	toef	11	12-10-2008 03:54 PM

03-10-2008, 02:48 AM	#2
Chevypower Special Member Member since:Feb 2008	That would be like having an HDTV back in 1990 when all you had was a VHS player. I don't think even the Panavision cameras capture that high resolution yet. Might be good for IMAX transfers?

03-10-2008, 03:31 AM	#3
Blu-ray Fanatic Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Aug 2007 Location:San Antonio Blu-ray reviews:1	This is actually old news. We're just getting a sneak peek at the future but won't come into effect until the year 2015 or so. I wouldn't mind getting one but I'll wait until mine phases out.

03-10-2008, 03:40 AM	#4
Aaron Blu-ray Samurai Member since:Feb 2007 Location:Oklahoma City Home Theater Gallery:3 Blu-ray collection:33 Blu-ray reviews: 2 Trading Score:4	3840 x 2160 = Motion sickness

03-10-2008, 04:18 AM	#5
sarnell2 Active Member Member since:Jun 2007	the ultimate goal is 7680 x 4320 resolution???? i don't see any hardware being able to handle that any time within the next 10 years

03-10-2008, 05:34 AM	#6
dialog_gvf Moderator Member since:Nov 2006 Location:Toronto Blu-ray collection:320	Interesting that they'd unveil it at CeBIT. That's mostly a computer show, isn't it? Gary

03-10-2008, 05:48 AM	#9
Sonny Blu-ray Ninja Member since:Aug 2007 Home Theater Gallery:8 Blu-ray reviews:6 Trading Score:1	I like this "full HD" 1080p "Super HD"?? "Super Duper HD"??? "Super Super Duper HD" ????

03-10-2008, 12:35 PM	#11
ground chuck Power Member Member since:May 2007 Location:Charm City Blu-ray collection:75 Blu-ray reviews:48 Trading Score:18	that resolution is just ri-donkulous.

03-10-2008, 04:37 PM	#15
Brian Cash Special Member Member since:Dec 2007 Location:Chicago Blu-ray collection:13 Blu-ray reviews:2 Trading Score:3	im happy with my aquos's and Xbr my next purchase for a tv is going to be a 110" screen and a projector

03-10-2008, 04:40 PM	#16
Chevypower Special Member Member since:Feb 2008	I could see SHD (2160p) and UHD (4320p) being used in cinemas (as digital cinema doesn't really stick to a digital video standard, but i can't see it being very beneficial to home TVs and projectors.

03-11-2008, 09:27 PM	#20
Chevypower Special Member Member since:Feb 2008	Yeah those Red cams look nice, supposed to be well priced too. I think 4K is a little higher than SHD? (sorry forgot about 4K in last post)

Best Blu-ray Movie Deals