Samsung unleashes ultra-sharp 2160p HDTV

Where can i get this? first?

where can u get 2160p content?

I want one, How much ????

Originally posted by chaos_zzz:

---

where can u get 2160p content?

---

Thats the question i want to know.......

where can I get that girl?

That's nothing. There is already a 4320p (7680x4320) TV made in Japan, but isn't supposed to come out to consumers till 2015, so they say.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/14/33-me...e-on-the-air-in

Though this will only be useful when you have a source of 4320p since no movies are shot at that high of a resolution, yet.

Finding content for this monster won't be hard all movies for the last several years have been shipping to specialised theaters in 4K format.

Most big movies in the last 25 years should be available in 4K.

Only question is when will this technology be commercialised.

With broadcast equipment now all upgraded to digital it should be much easier improving it so once we have 1080p settled transition from 1080p to 1440p and 2160p won't be hard.

The Japanese want 4320p TV's on shelves within the next 7 years.

I wonder if they still plan to bring 1440p HDTV's to shelves by the 2010-2011 period.

Now all we need is for Pioneer to release something similar in their 2nd generation KURO line of TVs, with insane black levels. =) Too bad though... I hear they may be exiting the HDTV market soon, and returning more to their roots in audio.

My 44" 1080p set (phillips w/ambilight) is still blowing my mind on occasion when I watch HD content. I can only imagine that the higher resolutions will be stellar. BUT!... people raise a good point when the ask where one can get any content with that resolution? Downloading it would take FOREVER right now. Maybe when fiber-optics become the norm it will be more feaseable... but even Blu-Ray Discs don't currently exceed 1080p. Its going to be a few years at least until this technology is in households.

The tech wars are going to kill us financially. As soon as we buy 2X,a year later 4x is announced and so forth.

doesn't bother me.
720p looks very good on a 32" screen, and i don't have room for anything bigger.

Quote:

---

Maybe when fiber-optics become the norm it will be more feaseable... but even Blu-Ray Discs don't currently exceed 1080p. Its going to be a few years at least until this technology is in households.

---

This my friend is when the whole Light crystal/ulra violet disc formate war will come into play! Both of these formates can already hold over 1Tb on a disc!

Just a quick question aswell, with gaming consols, especiallt the ps3 (as they have said it will last 10 years) will they be able to support these new formates? Or will we have to wait for 8th gen gaming consoles to support them?

Originally posted by iluvendo:

---

The tech wars are going to kill us financially. As soon as we buy 2X,a year later 4x is announced and so forth.

---

My wallet agrees with you.

Imagine the p0rn.

Quote:

---

Quote:

---

Maybe when fiber-optics become the norm it will be more feaseable... but even Blu-Ray Discs don't currently exceed 1080p. Its going to be a few years at least until this technology is in households.

---

This my friend is when the whole Light crystal/ulra violet disc formate war will come into play! Both of these formates can already hold over 1Tb on a disc!

Just a quick question aswell, with gaming consols, especiallt the ps3 (as they have said it will last 10 years) will they be able to support these new formates? Or will we have to wait for 8th gen gaming consoles to support them?

---

HVD's can hold upto 4 terabytes of data already!

There's no way in hell the PS3 or any console for a long time will be able to push out 2160p.

A few games on the current generation of consoles can't push out 720p which is less than an eigth of the resolution of 2160p.

It will probably be the generation after the next(PS5 etc) before support for extreme resolutions comes in since it'll be extremely computer intensive and expensive.

First they need to get 1080p working properly on consoles though.

In a couple of years though when Diplayport V2 comes out you should be able to use one of these 2160p monitors with a high end GPU so it might only be a few years away from PC gaming but I doubt we'll see it within 10 years on console gaming.

This tv is several years down the way. But why all this damn resolution. Seriously what else do we need to see! Why isn't 1080p enough already. This tv probably shows you molecules.

Wow, I don't plan on ever owning a TV over 50" anyway. I can't imagine what an 85" TV would cost. Or where it would go in my house :P

it could BE the roof :-)

I thought the benefit of 1080p could only be seen at a distance of 10 feet or closer? Are people going to sit with their noses pressed against the screen to see the difference of 2160p?

It's interesting that this technology is already possible but creating any resolution higher than 1080p just isn't necessary for home theater/personal use. There are many other ways to improve current high-def tv's than simply increasing the resolution.

To say that these extreme resolutions are not worth it will probably turn out just like those that said 480i was 'good enough'. I don't think you would find any true TV or movie fan that wouldn't salivate over a decent HDTV. The main thing is for content to catch up. Like it or not, the TV show 'LOST' demontrates great picture quality, where some shows like CSI has lots of break during fast motion (just watch the credits). Lets face it, even the worst HDTV available today would have looked state of the art back in 1999!!

Seriously though...just like light microscopes are inherently limited in their resolving power due to the wavelengths of visible light, so too at some point we're all going to look at an insane res tv and just blink and squint trying to decide if some then current pr0nstar's boobs...well you get the idea. I'm not one of those people that says we'll never need more than 64K RAM, but human vision does have its limits...Hell, I know my vision used to be better than it is now, so 10-15 years from now when we have 19200x10800 res screens or holodecks or whatever...(That's 20,736,000 friggin pixels). Anyway, my point is that from a 'human' perspective, the rate at which we are increasing our display resolutions will hit a practicality usefulness-wall pretty rapidly, thereby becoming practically useless... IMHO.

Cheers to all my AfterDawn mates =)

Originally posted by mack786:

---

HVD's can hold upto 4 terabytes of data already!

There's no way in hell the PS3 or any console for a long time will be able to push out 2160p.

A few games on the current generation of consoles can't push out 720p which is less than an eigth of the resolution of 2160p.

It will probably be the generation after the next(PS5 etc) before support for extreme resolutions comes in since it'll be extremely computer intensive and expensive.

First they need to get 1080p working properly on consoles though.

In a couple of years though when Diplayport V2 comes out you should be able to use one of these 2160p monitors with a high end GPU so it might only be a few years away from PC gaming but I doubt we'll see it within 10 years on console gaming.

---

The PS3 is fully capable of playing 1080p content. Have you forgotton that it's a fully capable Blu-ray player? The PS3 is also the highest featured Blu-ray player on the market today (Profile 2.0/BD Live, Dolby True HD/DTS-HD decoding, DivX HD, upgradable Hard Disk Drive etc.).

I don't see why the PS3 wouldn't be able to play 2160p content. The recommendation for 1080p content is a dual core processor. The Cell CPU used in the PS3 has 8 cores (6 of which are accessible). I am sure that if media was developed in 2160p format then the PS3 could handle it.

The reason some games are released as 720p (instead of 1080p) is likely due to the fact of game design and production being far more complex than film production. I think developers need some time to become familiar with programming for the PS3. Remember early PS2 games compared to later games? Same goes for any gaming console. The first releases are usually where game designers are finding their feet with a console.

Back to topic, I am sure that 2160p will look very impressive but I tend to agree that we don't need it yet. 1080p hasn't even been given a chance to really hit the mainstream yet. If companies like Samsung release new technology too early, I have a feeling that it will scare off potential Blu-ray consumers that are already sitting on the fence as new technology can seem daunting enough as it is.

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

The PS3 is fully capable of playing 1080p content. Have you forgotton that it's a fully capable Blu-ray player? The PS3 is also the highest featured Blu-ray player on the market today (Profile 2.0/BD Live, Dolby True HD/DTS-HD decoding, DivX HD, upgradable Hard Disk Drive etc.).

I don't see why the PS3 wouldn't be able to play 2160p content. The recommendation for 1080p content is a dual core processor. The Cell CPU used in the PS3 has 8 cores (6 of which are accessible). I am sure that if media was developed in 2160p format then the PS3 could handle it.

---

There is a reason right off the bat that I can think of that prevents 2160p content on the PS3 becoming a reality.

1080p content has a pretty small footprint going off the top of my head it's actually around 125MB/s.

2160p content would be at least half a GB/s.

There is no way any blu-ray technology at the moment can shift even close to that much data on the fly.

Not only that but the PS3 itself wouldn't be able to process so much information on the fly.

The Cell is not an 8 core processor it is a 1 core processor with 8 DSP's, it is far from a traditional multi core processor and can't effectively be used as one either because of the way it operates and executes instructions in a stringent order.

Multi core processors can work independantly of one another and carry their own data path in any order they want.

To put it short the cell is good at some things but generally in the wider respect it is pretty terrible due to some severely limiting issues.

Quote:

---

The reason some games are released as 720p (instead of 1080p) is likely due to the fact of game design and production being far more complex than film production. I think developers need some time to become familiar with programming for the PS3. Remember early PS2 games compared to later games? Same goes for any gaming console. The first releases are usually where game designers are finding their feet with a console.

---

It doesn't work that way if you want to increase the resolution of a game as long as you have the power it's practically second nature giving it a higher resolution.

Do you think developers struggle between 10 to 15 different resolutions and getting them all to work right on the PC?

The simple reason is there really isn't that much power to go around that you take liberties in other areas for increased resolution.

Only games with little dynamic content on the screen(ie racing games and strict camera controlled games with static environments) will be able to deploy 1080p.

While more and more games will go towards 1080p eventually in the end it's likely less than 10% of games on this generation of consoles will be 1080p.

In fact there are a handful of games that don't have the extra resources to even do 720p.

Quote:

---

Back to topic, I am sure that 2160p will look very impressive but I tend to agree that we don't need it yet. 1080p hasn't even been given a chance to really hit the mainstream yet. If companies like Samsung release new technology too early, I have a feeling that it will scare off potential Blu-ray consumers that are already sitting on the fence as new technology can seem daunting enough as it is.

---

I work with computer graphics and I've had a IBM T221 at my desk for a while.

The monitor was so damn sharp computer graphics looked like paintings and e books looked like actual books.

Of course a TV is different to a monitor.

A monitor is more about PPI than screen size but when these extremely high resolution monitors do come along they'll bring about a dare I say bigger change than HDTV has bought about with SD in it's wake.

There is a place and time for this technology and with my experiences I'd rather it be sooner than later.

Originally posted by mack786:

---

Originally posted by Ryu77:

---

The PS3 is fully capable of playing 1080p content. Have you forgotton that it's a fully capable Blu-ray player? The PS3 is also the highest featured Blu-ray player on the market today (Profile 2.0/BD Live, Dolby True HD/DTS-HD decoding, DivX HD, upgradable Hard Disk Drive etc.).

I don't see why the PS3 wouldn't be able to play 2160p content. The recommendation for 1080p content is a dual core processor. The Cell CPU used in the PS3 has 8 cores (6 of which are accessible). I am sure that if media was developed in 2160p format then the PS3 could handle it.

---

There is a reason right off the bat that I can think of that prevents 2160p content on the PS3 becoming a reality.

1080p content has a pretty small footprint going off the top of my head it's actually around 125MB/s.

2160p content would be at least half a GB/s.

There is no way any blu-ray technology at the moment can shift even close to that much data on the fly.

Not only that but the PS3 itself wouldn't be able to process so much information on the fly.

The Cell is not an 8 core processor it is a 1 core processor with 8 DSP's, it is far from a traditional multi core processor and can't effectively be used as one either because of the way it operates and executes instructions in a stringent order.

Multi core processors can work independantly of one another and carry their own data path in any order they want.

To put it short the cell is good at some things but generally in the wider respect it is pretty terrible due to some severely limiting issues.

Quote:

---

The reason some games are released as 720p (instead of 1080p) is likely due to the fact of game design and production being far more complex than film production. I think developers need some time to become familiar with programming for the PS3. Remember early PS2 games compared to later games? Same goes for any gaming console. The first releases are usually where game designers are finding their feet with a console.

---

It doesn't work that way if you want to increase the resolution of a game as long as you have the power it's practically second nature giving it a higher resolution.

Do you think developers struggle between 10 to 15 different resolutions and getting them all to work right on the PC?

The simple reason is there really isn't that much power to go around that you take liberties in other areas for increased resolution.

Only games with little dynamic content on the screen(ie racing games and strict camera controlled games with static environments) will be able to deploy 1080p.

While more and more games will go towards 1080p eventually in the end it's likely less than 10% of games on this generation of consoles will be 1080p.

In fact there are a handful of games that don't have the extra resources to even do 720p.

Quote:

---

Back to topic, I am sure that 2160p will look very impressive but I tend to agree that we don't need it yet. 1080p hasn't even been given a chance to really hit the mainstream yet. If companies like Samsung release new technology too early, I have a feeling that it will scare off potential Blu-ray consumers that are already sitting on the fence as new technology can seem daunting enough as it is.

---

I work with computer graphics and I've had a IBM T221 at my desk for a while.

The monitor was so damn sharp computer graphics looked like paintings and e books looked like actual books.

Of course a TV is different to a monitor.

A monitor is more about PPI than screen size but when these extremely high resolution monitors do come along they'll bring about a dare I say bigger change than HDTV has bought about with SD in it's wake.

There is a place and time for this technology and with my experiences I'd rather it be sooner than later.

---

Yeah, so there. LOL. So when do we get the 2160P patch, SONY? LOL....... good post above. ...~~~

Originally posted by mack786:

---

There is a reason right off the bat that I can think of that prevents 2160p content on the PS3 becoming a reality.

1080p content has a pretty small footprint going off the top of my head it's actually around 125MB/s.

---

Max bitrate for Blu-ray discs (Video+Audio+Subtitles) is 48Mbs, and you are saying that it's a small footprint?? DVD's peak at 10.08Mbs.

Originally posted by mack786:

---

2160p content would be at least half a GB/s.

---

I doubt it. There is no way that 2160p content would need such extremely high data transfer demands. Something around 150Mbs would be more realistic.

Originally posted by mack786:

---

There is no way any blu-ray technology at the moment can shift even close to that much data on the fly.

---

Yes, you are right. However, Blu-ray discs were designed with 1080p media in mind. If higher resolutions did take off then alternate media would need to be considered.

Originally posted by mack786:

---

Not only that but the PS3 itself wouldn't be able to process so much information on the fly.

---

I'm not so sure about that. Below is the PS3's system bandwidth.

- Main RAM: 25.6GB/s
- VRAM: 22.4GB/s
- RSX: 20GB/s (write) + 15GB/s (read)
- SB: 2.5GB/s (write) + 2.5GB/s (read)

http://playstation.about.com/od/ps3/a/PS3SpecsDetails_3.htm

I think the bottleneck would be the media the content is put on rather than system performance itself.

Originally posted by mack786:

---

The Cell is not an 8 core processor it is a 1 core processor with 8 DSP's, it is far from a traditional multi core processor and can't effectively be used as one either because of the way it operates and executes instructions in a stringent order.

Multi core processors can work independantly of one another and carry their own data path in any order they want.

To put it short the cell is good at some things but generally in the wider respect it is pretty terrible due to some severely limiting issues.

---

Yes, you are right. I shouldn't have termed it "cores" as in real terms the Cell CPU isn't constructed in the same fashion as a Quad Core CPU. However, it certainly has unique power that is was specifically designed for. It is very hard to compare a traditional Quad Core against the Cell as they have different infrastructure.

Originally posted by mack786:

---

It doesn't work that way if you want to increase the resolution of a game as long as you have the power it's practically second nature giving it a higher resolution.

Do you think developers struggle between 10 to 15 different resolutions and getting them all to work right on the PC?

The simple reason is there really isn't that much power to go around that you take liberties in other areas for increased resolution.

Only games with little dynamic content on the screen(ie racing games and strict camera controlled games with static environments) will be able to deploy 1080p.

While more and more games will go towards 1080p eventually in the end it's likely less than 10% of games on this generation of consoles will be 1080p.

In fact there are a handful of games that don't have the extra resources to even do 720p.

---

Fair point. I will assume that you do have the right credentials and I will take your word for it. I don't really know that much about game design. My main focus is video and audio encoding/authoring etc.

Just a question though, how many games on the PC have an option to output 1080p (1920 x 1080)?

Originally posted by mack786:

---

I work with computer graphics and I've had a IBM T221 at my desk for a while.

The monitor was so damn sharp computer graphics looked like paintings and e books looked like actual books.

Of course a TV is different to a monitor.

A monitor is more about PPI than screen size but when these extremely high resolution monitors do come along they'll bring about a dare I say bigger change than HDTV has bought about with SD in it's wake.

There is a place and time for this technology and with my experiences I'd rather it be sooner than later.

---

Yes, I am also one that appreciates new technology. However, as I said earlier a 2160p TV is a little premature as 1080p hasn't been given enough chance to penetrate the mainstream market effectively. I think this will scare off a lot of consumers that are already feeling the "as soon as I buy something it's outdated" bug.

I am definitely looking forward to this technology but I would like to see it held back for a little while and refined some more. At the end of the day, it can't really serve any purpose until media is released to the public in this format.

Also, DTV broadcasts are designed for 1080p TV's. Are they seriously going to overhaul the entire DTV network? Many people have just switched over to digital...


PS: @supertape, unless you have the ability to join into the conversation at the level it's being discussed then I suggest you stay out of the conversation between mack786 and I.

PS: @supertape, unless you have the ability to join into the conversation at the level it's being discussed then I suggest you stay out of the conversation between mack786 and I.

---

Wow, what a rude person. I tell someone they have a nice post, then make a joke about sony with a patch, and I get verbally bitch slapped by someone who I didn't even point the comment at? Wow. Very nice of you. In the future keep my name out of your posts.

I believe HDMI cables are maxed out at 1080p. So they must of created some sort of Ultra HDMI. PS4 FTW!!!

Originally posted by supertape:

---

Wow, what a rude person. I tell someone they have a nice post, then make a joke about sony with a patch, and I get verbally bitch slapped by someone who I didn't even point the comment at? Wow. Very nice of you. In the future keep my name out of your posts.

---

You quoted the conversation between mack786 and I, so how does it not involve me?

Since you jumped in after his reply before I had a chance to respond, you basically made it sound like mack786 had good points and I did not. You are obviously anti Sony and you have every right to your own opinion. However, I still stand by my comment that if you can not contribute to the conversation that mack786 and I were having at the level that it's being discussed then I will consider it nothing more than a Childish stab at Sony with nothing solid to even back that opinion from.

If you bothered to even read the content that mack786 and I were discussing, you would see that I have kept an open mind and I didn't hesitate in pointing out when mack786 had made some good points.

Originally posted by samshizze:

---

I believe HDMI cables are maxed out at 1080p. So they must of created some sort of Ultra HDMI. PS4 FTW!!!

---

HDMI v1.3 supports up to 2560 x 1600 (1600p)... But yes, still not enough for 2160p.

I said "good post" and was referring to the quoted part (yours) and the original. Both sides good. And the patch stab at sony was a joke at all of there patches. I love sony and have a ps3, hdtv, etc. Sorry you took it the wrong way. That's the thing about typing, you don't get the personality behind the post. If you don't understand you should probably not be quick to leave such an insensitive response? See your local psychologist.

BACK ON TOPIC OR IM LOCKING IT.

How far can better viewing go, I mean the eye can see only so much, I mean when you watch like a bluray now which is about as clear as clear can get, I think the rest is to keep consumers dupped that the viewing is better with all this extra bigger numbers crap.

ummm.. I think this part of the article may be wrong, at least in some fashion...

quoted:
"It is however, lower quality then the upcoming 4k standard which has a 4096x1716 working resolution."

Is there some other reason "maybe color resolution" why 4k standard is higher when 4k yields a picture quality a little above 7Mp & 2160p yields 8.85Mp.

I am probably wrong in the way I calculate megapixel resolution but even so, the numbers show a higher resolution for 2160p....

2160p...
3840x2160=8,829,440pixels/frame

4k
4096x1716=7,028,736pixels/frame

From what i see here, 2160p is sharper/better than 4k.. if someone here see's what im saying here as wrong, could you please tell me why??


If the argument is that, for a 20:8 screen ratio recorded movie, it is higher then I would beg to differ. Almost all HDTV's are 16:9 and most material that would come out would likely come out in 16:9 to make the most of it.

Already, 16:9 means bars on the right & left to sub for 4:3 ratio shows of old and on top & bottom to display a full width 20:8 movie. Movie theatres should still push 20:8 but to the sides of the screen simply add detail that won't spoil the movie if it has to be cut away to fit a 16:9 aspect ratio later, when it goes to disc for our home HD viewing. This is enough to get people to want to see it on the big screen yet still be able to appreciate & understand the movie at home on a 16:9 display without wasted rez space for those black bars.