If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Wall Street Journal)   Sharp rolls out Ultra-HDTV at $13,000 price point, a 60-inch 3840x2160 monster with THX sound and hyper-realistic picture. The perfect Here Comes Honey Boo Boo viewing platform, no doubt   (blogs.wsj.com) divider line 83
    More: Cool, THX Sound, THX, price point, price wars  
•       •       •

2940 clicks; posted to Geek » on 16 Dec 2012 at 10:46 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



83 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-12-16 03:44:48 PM
Does it get "Owe, my balls"?
 
2012-12-16 06:29:54 PM
Has Hugh Hefner already ordered one?
 
2012-12-16 06:31:20 PM
Great, my HDTV is now obsolete....

You bastards!
 
2012-12-16 08:04:02 PM
Great. Now we'll need some kind of Ultra High broadcasting method.
 
2012-12-16 08:45:25 PM

fusillade762: Great. Now we'll need some kind of Ultra High broadcasting method.


DOCSIS 3.1 :-)
 
2012-12-16 08:47:18 PM
in 5 years it will be $200.
 
2012-12-16 08:50:01 PM
That reminds me. I have to make a Honey Boo Boo 18th birthday countdown clock.
 
2012-12-16 08:57:19 PM
Ultra-HDTV

Can we get a new acronym? Something with some different letters? 4k is good; not accurate, but it sounds good.
 
2012-12-16 09:02:34 PM

TommyymmoT: That reminds me. I have to make a Honey Boo Boo 18th birthday countdown clock.


You're doing God's work.
 
2012-12-16 09:09:32 PM

Sgygus: Ultra-HDTV

Can we get a new acronym? Something with some different letters? 4k is good; not accurate, but it sounds good.


4KTV or 4K UHDTV is what we call it at the cable company. Testing it right now, and it's pretty slick.
 
2012-12-16 10:48:57 PM
Imagine looking at tranny gape porn on that?

Brontes: Does it get "Owe, my balls"?


Why, how much do you owe your balls?
 
2012-12-16 10:51:53 PM

TommyymmoT: That reminds me. I have to make a Honey Boo Boo 18th birthday countdown clock.


I'd wish for your swift passing, but if anyone were to come out with a porno to extend their 15 minutes it would be that ball of sexy.

Here's hoping this Friday pays off.
 
2012-12-16 10:53:12 PM

queezyweezel: Sgygus: Ultra-HDTV

Can we get a new acronym? Something with some different letters? 4k is good; not accurate, but it sounds good.

4KTV or 4K UHDTV is what we call it at the cable company. Testing it right now, and it's pretty slick.


RHDTV, for Really High Definition TV?

Followed up by RRHDTV, and then RRRHDTV.
 
2012-12-16 11:02:40 PM
the article should have had a side by side comparison with the other 4k products.
 
2012-12-16 11:02:50 PM
13 comments and no one even read the first sentence (including submitter)? Or do you all have dyslexia? It's a $31,000 TV.
 
2012-12-16 11:03:49 PM
Looks like the price has gone up 18K since the link was submitted.
 
2012-12-16 11:04:58 PM

RedPhoenix122: TommyymmoT: That reminds me. I have to make a Honey Boo Boo 18th birthday countdown clock.

You're doing God's work.


Age of consent in Georgia is 16, y'all.
 
2012-12-16 11:05:42 PM
 
2012-12-16 11:07:12 PM
Isn't hyper-realistic picture the thing that's got The Hobbit into a bit of a fix lately as being "distracting"?
 
2012-12-16 11:08:11 PM

LaBlueSkuld: Followed up by RRHDTV, and then RRRHDTV.


I'll wait for LDTV - ludicrous definition television.

Although, my eyes have never seen that many pixels before. I'm not sure they can handle it.
 
2012-12-16 11:11:55 PM

Dinjiin: LaBlueSkuld: Followed up by RRHDTV, and then RRRHDTV.

I'll wait for LDTV - ludicrous definition television.

Although, my eyes have never seen that many pixels before. I'm not sure they can handle it.


24.media.tumblr.com
 
2012-12-16 11:14:32 PM

this name taken: Isn't hyper-realistic picture the thing that's got The Hobbit into a bit of a fix lately as being "distracting"?


It was the frame rate that got the Hobbit into trouble, not the resolution. Just look at IMAX and 70mm film prints, as example. Much higher.

They should have gone with a 30fps frame rate rather than 48fps. Some people start to get wonky when the frame rate goes above 40fps.
 
2012-12-16 11:16:16 PM
I can't imagine why I'd even need to see something on TV that clearly. Sometimes I'll put my glasses on, if it's really good.
 
2012-12-16 11:17:47 PM
23 comments and no one has made the obligatory comment that that is still far below the resolution of his/her computer monitor?

/fark's slipping
 
2012-12-16 11:17:54 PM

Cornelius Dribble: Looks like the price has gone up 18K since the link was submitted.



s13.postimage.org
Demand suddenly skyrocketed. You all saw it!
 
2012-12-16 11:21:33 PM
It's only 60 inches? What kind of bullshiat is that?
 
2012-12-16 11:25:12 PM
The picture is so clear and detailed, you'll swear you're actually suffocating in Mama's thigh folds!
 
2012-12-16 11:25:27 PM

PsyLord: /fark's slipping


I received an immediate reply to my Spaceballs reference. I'd say that Fark is working as a well oiled machine tonight. Well, except maybe for the politics tab. Monkey poo just doesn't have the same viscosity as oil.
 
2012-12-16 11:32:52 PM
60 inch? That's it? I could get a 60 inch TV for about $1000, probably less on craigslist
 
2012-12-16 11:37:11 PM

Dinjiin: They should have gone with a 30fps frame rate rather than 48fps. Some people start to get wonky when the frame rate goes above 40fps.


Saw it at 48fps and it didn't bother me at all nor anyone else. I added it to the list of total bullshiat that reviewers were kicking out about the movie.
 
2012-12-16 11:39:13 PM
So Time Warner et all can pump uncompressed to that TV, right?
 
2012-12-16 11:40:51 PM
Is there a difference between the phrase "price point" and the word "price" or is just something that retail employees do to make themselves seem more important?
 
2012-12-16 11:46:31 PM
Your eyes aren't that good.

Retina displays at arms length is one thing, but 60" and you'll have to be seated at least ten feet back. And I've found that most people can't tell 720 vs 1080 at 15 feet. Same thing about audio systems. As long as you're synchronized you can't improve the sound by pouring money into the system. I figure there's a serious plateau of diminishing returns around the thousand dollar mark.

Now, a 60" 4k computer monitor at just over arms length, that might kick ass.
 
2012-12-16 11:51:38 PM

CatfoodSpork: Is there a difference between the phrase "price point" and the word "price" or is just something that retail employees do to make themselves seem more important?


A price point, in retail, is a threshold at which quality ostensibly improves regardless of brand. e.g. you have plastic brooms at $10 and wood brooms around $20. It's misused in the headline.
 
2012-12-16 11:53:22 PM

gingerjet: I added it to the list of total bullshiat that reviewers were kicking out about the movie.


I've heard that it is a lot like 3D glasses. For many people, no problem. For others, it completely farks with their brains and they get headaches or perception issues.

I've read a few articles that make reference to the "uncanny valley" effect. At 24fps, the brain knows it is all fake and uses a less rigorous method of observing reality. It subconsciously ignores multiple flaws in the movie. At 40+fps, the brain shifts back into thinking-it-is-reality mode, where it picks up on every little detail which is wrong. But the movie isn't reality, so some people's brains register the whole thing as fake looking.
 
2012-12-17 12:02:00 AM

Dinjiin: gingerjet: I added it to the list of total bullshiat that reviewers were kicking out about the movie.

I've heard that it is a lot like 3D glasses. For many people, no problem. For others, it completely farks with their brains and they get headaches or perception issues.


I had a minor headache and blurry vision for almost a day after watching the Hobbit in 3D. I'll still watch Star Trek 2 in 3D, but for most movies it's probably not worth it. Also, the glasses themselves were too tight and that caused a headache during the movie and required me to take them off several times. Theoretically I guess maybe watching a few minutes of it without the glasses could also have contributed to my issues after the movie...

/train of thought
 
2012-12-17 12:31:21 AM
When the price and size drop, I'll likely pick one up and use it to make cool graphics (and play games on it).
 
2012-12-17 12:40:05 AM
Is there any movies or tv broadcasts at this definition currently?
 
xcv
2012-12-17 12:44:12 AM
If you have that kind of money to drop on a TV, are you really going to use the built-in speakers?
 
2012-12-17 12:55:20 AM
So it has high enough resolution for ultra porn?

www.geeksofdoom.com
 
2012-12-17 01:08:40 AM

wildsnowllama: Is there any movies or tv broadcasts at this definition currently?


No, I don't think so. But it would probably make a great computer screen. :)
 
2012-12-17 01:17:10 AM
Believe it or not, this is the cheap UHD TV. Last month, Sony started selling their UHD set at $24,999.
 
2012-12-17 01:19:47 AM
heh, "selling"
 
2012-12-17 01:27:24 AM
I'll keep my lite-brite thank-you very much.
 
2012-12-17 01:39:42 AM
I'm all for high-res panels, if for no other reason than the hopes that we might someday get high-res computer monitors back and/or reasonable-cost projectors... but I don't see the purpose until there's some method to obtain high-res content. This is somewhat bigger than the 2560x1600 panels that have been available for years, but at 60" it's only useful in a handful of computer-display scenarios (where you care about the resolution and will be far enough away to use a 60" screen [and couldn't just use multiple panels and deal with a slight gap]), and there's no way it will be compatible with the DRM and other junk required to actually play back high-res content -- assuming such content ever becomes available to home users -- because there are currently no standards for the local transfer or delivery of such content.

/ Really wishes we could get back to the high DPI we had on CRTs
// Doesn't miss the 22" depth of CRT
 
2012-12-17 01:46:27 AM

profplump: / Really wishes we could get back to the high DPI we had on CRTs
// Doesn't miss the 22" depth of CRT


So, anyway, Samsung and LG developed the slim CRT display in around 2003-2004, neither of which saw the light of day because everyone was buying LCDs instead.
images02.olx.in
 
2012-12-17 01:49:17 AM
cache.gizmodo.com
And here's the LG version of the slim CRT.
 
2012-12-17 01:54:28 AM

LaBlueSkuld: Followed up by RRHDTV, and then RRRHDTV.


Do they show pirated content?
 
2012-12-17 02:08:15 AM
I for one cannot wait to see how well the laggy SD-looking content on Netflix displays on this TV.
 
2012-12-17 02:32:04 AM

RexTalionis: So, anyway, Samsung and LG developed the slim CRT display in around 2003-2004, neither of which saw the light of day because everyone was buying LCDs instead.


I did not know such a thing existed; the last CRT I bought was a 21" RasterOps that I kept until I could afford a 30" LCD panel a good decade later. But that thin CRT is kind of awesome.
 
Displayed 50 of 83 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report