News Samsung demos 82" quad-HD panel

[CardJoe]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/05...uad-hd-panel/1

Beleaguered Korean corporation Samsung has taken the wrapping off its next-generation quad-HD LCD panel, featuring 120Hz refresh rate and a massive 82" visible screen size.

[proxess]

such a huge screen to watch por... anime!

[Jordan Wise]

thats just ridiculously big. It'd be ace for any RTS though, never having to use a minimap

[HourBeforeDawn]

oh now thats gorgeous ^_^ me wants.....

[Mister_Tad]

I can see that Panny's 150" 2160p plasma would benefit from the increased res, being nearly 4 times the size of this, but surely there are limited benefits to that res on a "mere" 82" display.

Aside from some pretty esoteric AV gear, nothing can output/scale to 2160p anyway.

Putting aside the possibility of using it as a large PC monitor for the particularly well-heeled gamer

I was under the impression that 2560x1600 was the max that dual-link can accomodate, let alone the fact that even tri/quad SLI would struggle with modern games at that obscene res

[samkiller42]

Originally Posted by HourBeforeDawn

oh now thats gorgeous ^_^ me wants.....

QFT
When you read the specs, you hope it has 10 hdmi ports, loads of scarts, a few optical in/out, dvi, display port etc, especially considering that's not a cheap piece of equipment, having said that, it's a Samsung, so it's already £1000 less than any Similar spec Sony/Panasonic.

Sam

[Woodstock]

Originally Posted by samkiller42

QFT
When you read the specs, you hope it has 10 hdmi ports, loads of scarts, a few optical in/out, dvi, display port etc, especially considering that's not a cheap piece of equipment, having said that, it's a Samsung, so it's already £1000 less than any Similar spec Sony/Panasonic.

Sam

if you can afford that screen im sure the 1000 pounds less wouldnt worry you at all

[RotoSequence]

Games? I'd do this.

[mclean007]

Originally Posted by Mister_Tad

I can see that Panny's 150" 2160p plasma would benefit from the increased res, being nearly 4 times the size of this, but surely there are limited benefits to that res on a "mere" 82" display.

Aside from some pretty esoteric AV gear, nothing can output/scale to 2160p anyway.

I was under the impression that 2560x1600 was the max that dual-link can accomodate, let alone the fact that even tri/quad SLI would struggle with modern games at that obscene res

3840x2160 is 2160p so this is the same res as the Panasonic.

A "mere" 82" with 2160p res has about the same dot pitch as a 40/42" 1080p LCD. It annoys me when people say "you'll only see the benefit of 1080p on a TV of size x or larger" - a 40" TV from 4ft has exactly the same perceived size as a 20" from 2ft or a 60" from 6ft. That is, it fills the same portion of your vision and each pixel fills the same portion so appears the same size. So you'd have to sit closer to an 82" 2160p TV to see the benefits than you would to a 150", but sitting at that (closer) distance from a 150" would be as uncomfortable as using a 50" LCD as a normal desktop monitor 18" in front of your nose - not pleasant!

[Mister_Tad]

Originally Posted by mclean007

3840x2160 is 2160p so this is the same res as the Panasonic.

A "mere" 82" with 2160p res has about the same dot pitch as a 40/42" 1080p LCD. It annoys me when people say "you'll only see the benefit of 1080p on a TV of size x or larger" - a 40" TV from 4ft has exactly the same perceived size as a 20" from 2ft or a 60" from 6ft. That is, it fills the same portion of your vision and each pixel fills the same portion so appears the same size. So you'd have to sit closer to an 82" 2160p TV to see the benefits than you would to a 150", but sitting at that (closer) distance from a 150" would be as uncomfortable as using a 50" LCD as a normal desktop monitor 18" in front of your nose - not pleasant!

To see the full benefits of 2160p on an 82" you're going to have to sit pretty close.
The bigger the TV, the bigger the room its likely to sit in, the further away someone is going to be sitting.

For home use, I feel that 2160p is a little bit pointless in anything but a dedicated cinema, where you're likely to have a truly mahoosive screen (ie, the 150" Panny) and sit relatively close to it, as compared to a standard TV.

What I'm saying is, the distance one is likely to be sitting from an 82" TV is unlikely to show the benefits of 2160p (not that there's any content in this res to start with), whereas you're more likely to see it on the 150" Panny, simply due to the fact that a screen like that isn't going to live anywhere but its own dedicated room.

Sitting close to a 150" watching a film is also a lot different to sitting close to a 50" using it as a monitor. I've done both, the former is heavenly, the latter is simply uncomfortable.

[Bauul]

So basically they got 4 normal HD screens and arranged them in a square. So it's 4 times as many pixels, but also 4 times as big, so in terms of pixels per inch it's.... exactly the same. You know, you too can replicate the feeling of watching this screen by taking your normal, old screen, and sitting 4 times as close. Voila! It's not like there's any real input that's any higher than 'full HD' anyway.

Totally pointless if you ask me.

[johnnyboy700]

Yep, pointless but I'd still buy it if I could afford it.

[Mister_X]

I loves me some display overkill... oh yeah

[Primoz]

What about running 4 different FullHD streams side by side at once?

[Mister_Tad]

That's where the pricey backend hardware comes in

[Phil Rhodes]

Good for productivity stuff - can't wait to get After Effects up on one of those!

Not quite as interesting as the field emission displays I saw at the NAB show in Vegas recently, which offer all the advantages of both LCD and CRT with none of the disadvantages:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Field_emission_display

[koola]

Cool, but pointless.

[rls669]

Originally Posted by Mister_Tad

Sitting close to a 150" watching a film is also a lot different to sitting close to a 50" using it as a monitor. I've done both, the former is heavenly, the latter is simply uncomfortable.

I've been thinking of getting a 40-ish inch 1080p for a monitor. I usually sit back about 4-5 feet and my 24" is pretty small at that distance.

[hawky84]

cracking replacement for a projector if the price is right

[Ghys]

120hz

<3 <3 <3