Why bother, too heavy and thick and at that price stupid....no wonder they are struggling!!!!
20.6.2012 06:21 #1
6 feet diagonally and 8 feet wide??? Pythagoras is spinning in his grave.
20.6.2012 06:50 #2
Sharp has definitely lost their way, they should go back to the table revising their BDP and start innovating for the future that doesn't involve massive size TV's. It's like they are trying to cater to corporation and government rather than home users. Yes it's impress to go 90" and likely be the first to do it as 3D LED, but still, being bigger is not necessarily better. I wanted to get a TV in their 40" line up, but they fail in specs compared to 56" - higher and quite honestly those sizes are too big for my dwelling unless I stick in the basement; I'm sure most places are similar (condo's, small housing units, apartments). Get back on board Sharp or sink and fail to bleh Sony.
20.6.2012 08:47 #3
Originally posted by KillerBug: 6 feet diagonally and 8 feet wide??? Pythagoras is spinning in his grave. LOLzz!
20.6.2012 09:06 #4
if theyre going to produce something like that why not just put 4 legs on it and turn it into a multimedia table.... more use than anything else
20.6.2012 09:46 #5
90-inch and only HD.
No thanks.
20.6.2012 14:19 #6
Originally posted by Insomniu: 90-inch and only HD.
No thanks. Yeah cos 4k is going to mean so much to so many......well the numbers/spec obsessed perhaps but almost nobody in the real world.
20.6.2012 14:38 #7
I wish I could afford it...Although, don't really need it at this point. I have their 60 inch, I'm a satisfied customer...
20.6.2012 17:52 #8
Yeah, I'm wondering where the higher def monitors/TV's are...
at 90" it would make sense hang this on the wall and call it a virtual window...
But it NEEDS to be higher def
20.6.2012 18:56 #9
So, what would you display on those super higher that HD resolution screens right now? By the time they actually come up with 4K video material mainstream, today's technology will be obsolete, you'll probably be able to roll your TV like a poster, slap it on the wall like paint.
They do work on 4K TV, except right now would be an utterly useless expense, without video material.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aE4argZMnsw&feature=related
20.6.2012 19:49 #10
Originally posted by KillerBug: 6 feet diagonally and 8 feet wide??? Pythagoras is spinning in his grave. killer,you are a credit to dyslexics everywhere.LOL
20.6.2012 20:21 #11
Well, if you thought of it as a "Window" instead of a TV, you could always play a standard video on the entire window, or, you could display a native HD res video surrounded by a 4k view of something else.
A picture on one side and video on the other.
Two videos at the same time.
Video and computer screen at the same time.
Eventually, video will catch up. Until then I kinda like the idea of my "Video Wall" being able to be used like a virtual window.
Can't do that with current displays due to the resolution limitations.
21.6.2012 12:48 #12
Originally posted by aldan: Originally posted by KillerBug: 6 feet diagonally and 8 feet wide??? Pythagoras is spinning in his grave. killer,you are a credit to dyslexics everywhere.LOL They changed the article, it was the way I wrote it.
Btw...4k really would make a difference on something this size, you would never see the difference on a 32" but you would on a 90"...assuming you had a 4k input.
21.6.2012 13:05 #13
I think for the price you would be better off going with a projector. At least it would be a lot more easier to move around and setup. I would not want to try and move that through a house to where it needs to be. It's not so much the weight but the sheer size that may make it impossible for some people to get it to where it needs to be.
21.6.2012 17:00 #14
[img][/img]Originally posted by Mr_Bill06: I think for the price you would be better off going with a projector. At least it would be a lot more easier to move around and setup. I would not want to try and move that through a house to where it needs to be. It's not so much the weight but the sheer size that may make it impossible for some people to get it to where it needs to be. Projected images tend to look like crap. Anyway, it really isn't so big to be difficult to move; two people can move it easily enough.
22.6.2012 07:53 #15
Originally posted by KillerBug: [img][/img]Originally posted by Mr_Bill06: I think for the price you would be better off going with a projector. At least it would be a lot more easier to move around and setup. I would not want to try and move that through a house to where it needs to be. It's not so much the weight but the sheer size that may make it impossible for some people to get it to where it needs to be. Projected images tend to look like crap. Anyway, it really isn't so big to be difficult to move; two people can move it easily enough. For 11K you can definitely get a projector & screen combo that will address enough of the 'crap factor' that will be better than affording the bullshit of fumbling around with 114lb wall slab.
Once you pay for the 3D conversion kit to go with the useless glasses they give you, the 200lb mounting kit, then the $6000 for the 4 Teamsters to come in reinforce your family room wall studs because this behemoth bowed them out 10 inches...
I fail to see the difference between a really good projected image at 1080 & shiny glassed in 720 in a dimmed room. Other than i can eat a steak once in a while with the projected image & I might have to knock granny in the head for ramen for this TV.
22.6.2012 12:11 #16
Originally posted by LordRuss: Originally posted by KillerBug: [img][/img]Originally posted by Mr_Bill06: I think for the price you would be better off going with a projector. At least it would be a lot more easier to move around and setup. I would not want to try and move that through a house to where it needs to be. It's not so much the weight but the sheer size that may make it impossible for some people to get it to where it needs to be. Projected images tend to look like crap. Anyway, it really isn't so big to be difficult to move; two people can move it easily enough. For 11K you can definitely get a projector & screen combo that will address enough of the 'crap factor' that will be better than affording the bullshit of fumbling around with 114lb wall slab.
Once you pay for the 3D conversion kit to go with the useless glasses they give you, the 200lb mounting kit, then the $6000 for the 4 Teamsters to come in reinforce your family room wall studs because this behemoth bowed them out 10 inches...
I fail to see the difference between a really good projected image at 1080 & shiny glassed in 720 in a dimmed room. Other than i can eat a steak once in a while with the projected image & I might have to knock granny in the head for ramen for this TV. You said it yourself...in a dimmed room. LED looks good in bright light. I'm not saying this tv is worth the money of course...but if you are one of those people who make ten times the price of this tv per day without lifting a finger, why comprise? Also, I can easily see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 40"...I don't even have to try, it only takes a glance. I assume it is the same with a giant like this and 4k.
24.6.2012 04:07 #17
Originally posted by KillerBug: I'm not saying this tv is worth the money of course...but if you are one of those people who make ten times the price of this tv per day without lifting a finger, why comprise? Also, I can easily see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 40"...I don't even have to try, it only takes a glance. I assume it is the same with a giant like this and 4k. Sure, sure... not starting an argument here at all. I've got eons of AV skills & just started blathering...
It's like your retort said, a guy that has this much to shell out for this lack luster TV is obviously going to put it in the 'kids room' because even the untrained eye could tell the picture difference on a TV 1/4th the size.
I would venture a guess that the same guy forking this much for the kids probably also has some other inadequacy issues as well.
24.6.2012 11:37 #18
Originally posted by LordRuss: Originally posted by KillerBug: I'm not saying this tv is worth the money of course...but if you are one of those people who make ten times the price of this tv per day without lifting a finger, why comprise? Also, I can easily see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 40"...I don't even have to try, it only takes a glance. I assume it is the same with a giant like this and 4k. Sure, sure... not starting an argument here at all. I've got eons of AV skills & just started blathering...
It's like your retort said, a guy that has this much to shell out for this lack luster TV is obviously going to put it in the 'kids room' because even the untrained eye could tell the picture difference on a TV 1/4th the size.
I would venture a guess that the same guy forking this much for the kids probably also has some other inadequacy issues as well. Nah, this is for the shoe closet...maybe the pantry.
24.6.2012 12:08 #19
just rich guy thats trying to compete with the jones's next door would probably buy this cause the neighbours got a 67 inch tv and he wants his tv to be bigger.
25.6.2012 09:52 #20
penis envy?
25.6.2012 20:40 #21
Originally posted by KillerBug: Also, I can easily see the difference between 720 and 1080 on a 40"...I don't even have to try, it only takes a glance.
are you serious? you must be alien then.
i don't think difference between 720p and 1080p becomes even apparent unless the TV is 50" or higher, forget about instantly identifying the difference.
27.6.2012 07:03 #22
Originally posted by mukhis: i don't think difference between 720p and 1080p becomes even apparent unless the TV is 50" or higher, forget about instantly identifying the difference. So you're saying you can't tell the difference on your computer monitor if your changed between the 2 resolutions even though it a smaller screen?
To a trained eye the subtleties are apparent, to another, not so much so. Similar to why a $1200 sound system is too much money when to others it wouldn't buy one speaker.
27.6.2012 10:30 #23
Originally posted by LordRuss: So you're saying you can't tell the difference on your computer monitor if your changed between the 2 resolutions even though it a smaller screen?
To a trained eye the subtleties are apparent, to another, not so much so. Similar to why a $1200 sound system is too much money when to others it wouldn't buy one speaker.
in a computer monitor like 17" laptop that i have, the difference is virtually zero no matter how trained my eyes are. yes, there is a difference but you have to hunt it down, you can't just say. "oh ya, every time i watch 720p/1080p files for the same video, i immediately see the difference." basically, you have to TRY to find the difference. the resolution difference becomes significant only when you use a large monitor and sit very close to it. in practice, you may have to sit too close to be uncomfortable to see the difference.
consider the difference between DVD/DVDrip (480i, sort of) and BD/BD1080rip. is there a difference we see? the answer is yes. why? because it is not only the resolution, but also the source difference that matters. i remember when i used to use upscaled DVD player, i could not tell the difference at all between original resolution and upscaled one.
27.6.2012 23:50 #24
I'm happy with my 31" TV I bought back in 1987 that still works fine.If it quits I'll either buy me a new one or just shut off my cable.Not a whole lot worth watching these days.
28.6.2012 07:11 #25
Originally posted by mukhis: consider the difference between DVD/DVDrip (480i, sort of) and BD/BD1080rip. is there a difference we see? the answer is yes. You should have stopped right there, simply because the statement was overkill from from the start. 480 to 720 is more than enough to see a difference. Obviously the next step is observable.
Again, to use another anecdotal example, if you can't tell the difference between a Swisher Sweet cigar or a fine Cohiba Lancero at $20-25 then you won't care for the cheaper purchase.
It becomes AGAIN what your TRAINED eyes, ears, mind have become accustomed to. Garbage blinking eyed bullshit animation like that of the mid 70s thru the 80s that supposedly passed as entertainment was great for kids under the age of 4, but anime out of Japan with an R rating certainly maintains a healthy adult crowd with no problem.
Just because you can't immediately see, smell, sense, taste it doesn't mean the rest of the planet shares your sentiment. What is it, some 3% of the populace can't take part in the 3D movie presentations being made. Are you going to tell me that that technology is a waste & can't be reedily seen too?
28.6.2012 10:49 #26
I think we're comparing apples and oranges...looking at a laptop screen from not more than 2 feet away is not the same experience as looking at a big screen from 10-15 feet away.The closer you get, the imperfections will become visible.
A lot of this HD resolution mambo-jumbo means not much for a lot of Average Joes, but it does make a greater difference on paper, for people that like to play with numbers.
I bet many of the so proclaimed experts, in a blind study, would have a hard time telling the difference between 720p/1080p on an average screen size from the proper distance(If you're gonna be breathing close enough to the screen that you would fog it, sure, you'll notice the extra hair line...).
Is there a difference? Of course, the numbers are there, even a monkey would probably tell you there's a difference between 720P/1080p. Now, DOES it make difference? For the greater majority, probably not.
28.6.2012 12:37 #27
Originally posted by LordRuss: Just because you can't immediately see, smell, sense, taste it doesn't mean the rest of the planet shares your sentiment. What is it, some 3% of the populace can't take part in the 3D movie presentations being made. Are you going to tell me that that technology is a waste & can't be reedily seen too?
and just because "you" (and some selected others) can FEEL it well, it does not necessarily imply that everybody has to feel the same way. it is a well-established fact that resolution theory works with screen size and distance from the screen. a human eye does NOT see less than ~60 micron object, you wanna argue? ok, publish your paper to prove it.
um-ah, 3D? well, i love 3D, and to the best of my belief, nobody denies that 3D works. it's just the technology that is not well accepted. yes, i repeat, it is NOT well accepted.
reasons:
# you have to buy too expensive hardware/software
# you have to wear a pair of stupid, expensive, painful glasses
# most 3Ds in the market are fake as of now
28.6.2012 12:40 #28
Originally posted by cyprusrom: I bet many of the so proclaimed experts, in a blind study, would have a hard time telling the difference between 720p/1080p on an average screen size from the proper distance(If you're gonna be breathing close enough to the screen that you would fog it, sure, you'll notice the extra hair line...).
Is there a difference? Of course, the numbers are there, even a monkey would probably tell you there's a difference between 720P/1080p. Now, DOES it make difference? For the greater majority, probably not.
couldn't agree more. i also do agree there are differences but more often than not, we won't be surprised by that.
28.6.2012 12:44 #29
Originally posted by mukhis: ok, publish your paper to prove it. 100awg Kodachrome film as apposed to 400awg echtochrome film. Simple. Kodak has done the tests for me & the frame size is virtually the EXACT plenum as that of most expert filming apparatus used in today's still & motion capture devices. Yes, I was & am a professional photographer, so let's not start splitting those hairs.
The resolution of the silver halide in the 100 Kodachrome is fine enough grain that when blown up will still maintain proper enough resolution that you can't see the particles. The 400 however, you'll start seeing it. That's why in several of the older movies you'll see a deeper 'grain' in scenes where the heros are in a cave with the torches going & nothing else but that available light.
To bury that hatchet deeper, do this with your 720 & 1080 analogy. Use it with the flames. Filmed with todays HD equipment & played back on one of the 2 HD monitors. I don't care, big or small, you'll see it in a heart beat with an untrained eye - an immediate difference.
There's your published. Started back in 1985, Japan. I saw the white papers AT the NAB 1996. Thus endith the lesson.
28.6.2012 15:53 #30
Originally posted by LordRuss: Yes, I was & am a professional photographer, so let's not start splitting those hairs.
O_o got you now...the avg people don't have a photographer's eye, therefore, for most of them, resolution difference may not matter. a scientist (like me) may see lot of things but avg folks would not care.
why do you think larger HDTVs were not available at 720p? because for large screens, difference becomes apparent. now-a-days, even the small screen TVs are available with 1080p, not because at those sizes, you see difference, but because the cost difference between 720p and 1080p has become trivial.
1.7.2012 23:51 #31
