or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Official 70"+ LCD thread
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Official 70"+ LCD thread - Page 36

post #1051 of 1421
I use a Lumagen Radiance vp. The consensus of owners on the Lumagen forum is that a reasonably good 480i DVD will look like average cable 720P or thereabouts. It provides a big improvement on a 65" screen.
post #1052 of 1421
My track record on predictions here dating back a decade is pretty freaking amazing. I will also add I am aware of the real cost of things, I have a master's and bachelor's from a world-class university, I've never been to Bangalore, I've started 3 companies and non-profit.

That said, while I am often discussing on Quora how capable Apple is of pretty much doing whatever it wants to do, it's well understood that LG is not in any way capable of producing large-screen OLED in any quantity next year -- let alone Apple quantity. And since this is the 70+ inch threat, if we could get a guage on how big the 8G glass that Samsung might use, we can even pretty much tell you how big their OLED TV might be should they actually decide to produce one anytime soon.

For what it's worth, Apple's entry into the TV market is anything but a given, but should it occur, the sizes to look for are probably 46 / 55 / 60. The mainstream TV is 46, anything smaller seems pointless for Apple to mess with and unlikely to sell for anything decent price-wise anyway. Exactly what other size would complement it depends on the partner, but we at least know there exists a mainstream market at 55 and 60 for Apple to carve a piece out of. Apple is freaking amazing, but they can't, for example, create space in homes for 70-inch TVs (that said, if Apple enters TV, eventually they might well add a 70-inch model, but it'll have the same relatively small share of Apple's TV market that 70s have now of the total market, perhaps a bit larger in Apple-dom, but again, Apple doesn't give you a bigger family room just by being Apple).

I am noticing that Sharp sells 60" sets for $1400-2200 at Costco and big boxes while Samsung and Sony have sets that range up to $3000+. While I get that newer panels might cost a bit more to make, I can't really believe that the manufacturing cost of a 60" high-end set differs from a 60" low-end set by more than $100-200 max. Anyone have any insight on that?
post #1053 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post


Ken, all else being equal, you'd be better with no scaling. All else is not equal if your display has more pixels.

We went through this debate about 5 years ago at AVS. The people who believe you can't get benefit from upconverting are wrong. They were proved wrong then and they are wrong now.

The people who believe you will need a really big screen to benefit from 4k x 2k are correct, of course. We went through debate 5+ years ago, too. Heck, I'm still not sure most people need 1080p on a 50" -- depending on viewing distance of course.

The reality is that if you make a really big LCD or plasma with giant pixels, it's going to suck. This is pretty easy to see if you ever get a chance to be near the Panasonic 103" plasma or one of the few Sharp 100+" LCDs that ever got made. Whether there's a market for 85" or 92" TVs is another matter, but if someone decides to produce them, they are very very likely to make them with 4k x 2k resolution even though there won't be any source material for them. It's also pretty likely that 4k x 2k will creep down and become a selling feature in the 70+" class over the next couple of years.

And it will look better than the comparable 2k x 1k displays when displays 2k x 1k sources. People who don't get this need to go do their own research. I'm really not going to spend the time running a lesson here. But if you have 4 pixels instead of 1, you can create intermediate shades to smooth out lines, color gradients, etc. And even doing algorithmically, you can make the source look better than it is. If you don't believe this, upscale a DVD. It's proof of the very same concept.

Yup, the logic is there. I can see the issues with significantly larger pixels as screen sizes grow. I forgot about that and I do remember those discussions.
post #1054 of 1421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
The people who believe you will need a really big screen to benefit from 4k x 2k are correct, of course. We went through debate 5+ years ago, too. Heck, I'm still not sure most people need 1080p on a 50" -- depending on viewing distance of course.

The reality is that if you make a really big LCD or plasma with giant pixels, it's going to suck. This is pretty easy to see if you ever get a chance to be near the Panasonic 103" plasma or one of the few Sharp 100+" LCDs that ever got made. Whether there's a market for 85" or 92" TVs is another matter, but if someone decides to produce them, they are very very likely to make them with 4k x 2k resolution even though there won't be any source material for them. It's also pretty likely that 4k x 2k will creep down and become a selling feature in the 70+" class over the next couple of years.

And it will look better than the comparable 2k x 1k displays when displays 2k x 1k sources. People who don't get this need to go do their own research. I'm really not going to spend the time running a lesson here. But if you have 4 pixels instead of 1, you can create intermediate shades to smooth out lines, color gradients, etc. And even doing algorithmically, you can make the source look better than it is. If you don't believe this, upscale a DVD. It's proof of the very same concept.
As I said above it depends on the viewing conditions and content. For the traditional TV viewing conditions where the minimum distance is 3-4 picture heights the current 2K system is adapted to the maximum resolution of human vision. In particular it is impossible to see pixels then at reasonable filling factors. If one gets closer to the display then obviously pixel structure shows up but this is not the standard TV viewing conditions for which the system is designed for.

Comparison using DVD is not valid. DVD was created for a system which is not utilizing full capabilities of human vision. Proper comparison would be with Blue Ray upconverted to 4K and watched at the viewing distance of 3-4 pic height, 30 deg of visual field occupied. The principles say that there would unnoticeable difference comparing to the Blue Ray on 2K display providing that the display technology is same. Theoretically pics on 4K could be worse since upconversion is a process in which original picture information is modified. Thus, systems beyond 2K will make sense only if viewing conditions beyond the standard ones are considered. That will in general assume closer viewing distance. Japanese target somewhere in the range of 60 deg visual field occupied with the 8K system, this make sense but the question is if people will like it.
post #1055 of 1421
Or assume larger/ huge display, isn't it irkuck
post #1056 of 1421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Or assume larger/ huge display, isn't it irkuck

Yeah, though @ 3-4 x picture height distance all displays look same .
post #1057 of 1421
Just as energy and mass is interchangeable, distance and size is interchangeable

My point is those developing 4k/8k is betting on huge displays adoption.
post #1058 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by irkuck View Post

As I said above it depends on the viewing conditions and content. For the traditional TV viewing conditions where the minimum distance is 3-4 picture heights the current 2K system is adapted to the maximum resolution of human vision. In particular it is impossible to see pixels then at reasonable filling factors. If one gets closer to the display then obviously pixel structure shows up but this is not the standard TV viewing conditions for which the system is designed for.

Comparison using DVD is not valid. DVD was created for a system which is not utilizing full capabilities of human vision. Proper comparison would be with Blue Ray upconverted to 4K and watched at the viewing distance of 3-4 pic height, 30 deg of visual field occupied. The principles say that there would unnoticeable difference comparing to the Blue Ray on 2K display providing that the display technology is same. Theoretically pics on 4K could be worse since upconversion is a process in which original picture information is modified. Thus, systems beyond 2K will make sense only if viewing conditions beyond the standard ones are considered. That will in general assume closer viewing distance. Japanese target somewhere in the range of 60 deg visual field occupied with the 8K system, this make sense but the question is if people will like it.

My point has nothing to do with seeing pixel structure and everything to do with the valid fact that merely upconverting will allow for smoother curves and gradients.

The principles do not invalidate this truth so long as the screen is large.

Never mind the fact that giant pixels have their own technological issues that smaller pixels won't have.
post #1059 of 1421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

My point has nothing to do with seeing pixel structure and everything to do with the valid fact that merely upconverting will allow for smoother curves and gradients. The principles do not invalidate this truth so long as the screen is large.
Never mind the fact that giant pixels have their own technological issues that smaller pixels won't have.

When talking about the TV viewing conditions 3-4 x pic height and properly prepared TV content there is no need for smoothing. The content itself is already optimized and visual system do not have resolution to go beyond what is prepared. Good comparison is with computer monitors: viewing conditions are different, about 1 pic height. Moreover, content can be generated violating smoothness conditions. Then higher res is needed.

Thus when talking about the need for res higher than 2K one should have in mind that either TV viewing conditions are changed to less than 3-4 pic heights and/or non-TV content is presented. This reminds situation in the audio area. Sampling of sound at 16-bit and 44 kHz is fully sufficient for human hearing and this is why it is used in CD's. There was a drive in the industry to introduce new 'better' superaaudio system with 24-bit sampling at 96 kHz claiming better smoothness and precision. But nobody could hear any difference compariong to CD and the system died.


Quote:
Originally Posted by specuvestor View Post

Just as energy and mass is interchangeable, distance and size is interchangeable
My point is those developing 4k/8k is betting on huge displays adoption.

Definitely so, either bigger displays or closer viewing distance. One can also imagine nonflat curved displays surrounding the user.
post #1060 of 1421
You've made my point. 24/96 didn't die because no one could hear the difference. It died because not enough people cared and a differently compelling sound format came out and took over the market at the time: mp3.

Similarly, streaming at middling bitrates is a strong impediment to even getting BluRay to have the depth of success of DVD.

But the notion that people can't tell the difference between an upscaled BluRay on a 100" screen at 4k x 2k and 1920 x 1080 of the same size screen is patently absurd. I'm really done debating this; you are entitled to spout pseudo-science and be wrong. Until and unless someone ships a very large TV with extra pixels, this is academic anyway.
post #1061 of 1421
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

You've made my point. 24/96 didn't die because no one could hear the difference. It died because not enough people cared and a differently compelling sound format came out and took over the market at the time: mp3.

I think in blind tests people could not tell 16/44 from 24/96.
mp3 shows that mass public prefers convenience over ultimate quality.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

Similarly, streaming at middling bitrates is a strong impediment to even getting BluRay to have the depth of success of DVD.

Same as above. BR though may still survive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

But the notion that people can't tell the difference between an upscaled BluRay on a 100" screen at 4k x 2k and 1920 x 1080 of the same size screen is patently absurd. I'm really done debating this; you are entitled to spout pseudo-science and be wrong. Until and unless someone ships a very large TV with extra pixels, this is academic anyway.

Largesse is not an absolute notion. All depends rather on the viewing distance relative to the pic size. If the viewing distance is smaller, there may be a need for more pixels. You seem not to believe human visual res is limited and for the TV viewing 2K corresponds to max res.
post #1062 of 1421
I believe human's have limited visual perception. I don't believe that HD resolution on a 100" screen is somehow the maximum resolution humans can perceive. The fact that there are numerous 4k digital cinema projectors suggests that I'm not the only one suffering from this "delusion".

And, yes, consumers prefer convenience over quality. No one is going to argue: mp3 killed off all other sound formats (although of course you can still buy CDs). Streaming video will do the same someday (although we hope we can still buy BluRays).
post #1063 of 1421
I understand that the reason that the Japanese invented HD was because they have very smalll homes and therefore they have very short viewing distances. When they got bigger displays SD content appeared too grainy. So the solution was to increase the resolution of the displays and of the source content to eliminate the grainy images.

Also upscaling SD content helped to eliminate the grainess however the images were soft since early some upscaling methods were as simple line doubling.
The TV networks now use standalone hardware based upscalers costing thousands of $ which is why the SD content on their HD channels appears much better then when we use our TV to upscale a DVD to 720p or 1080p. Each year the upscaling algorithim used in the TVs video chips get better which is why I also have the opinion that 720p or 1080p source content displayed on a 4K display will lookenough better then when displayed on a 2K display of the same screen size and to justify the purchae of 4K TVs
post #1064 of 1421
Hey Guys, I am a little hesitant to post this since I don't have too much information, but thought you might like to know it anyway. The place I work at recently set up two new Sharp SKUs. One is the LC70LE632U and the other is LC80LE632U. MSRP for the 80" is currently set at $5500. I assume these will be similar to the LC60LE632U, and be non-Quattron models.
post #1065 of 1421
Thanks for info. $5k make sense for Sharp at 80" size.
post #1066 of 1421
DAMN 80" FLAT PANEL!!!


I can't wait to check that thing out
post #1067 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj1319 View Post

Hey Guys, I am a little hesitant to post this since I don't have too much information, but thought you might like to know it anyway. The place I work at recently set up two new Sharp SKUs. One is the LC70LE632U and the other is LC80LE632U. MSRP for the 80" is currently set at $5500. I assume these will be similar to the LC60LE632U, and be non-Quattron models.

Re-posted from the Avid Home Theater blog:
Sharp will shortly be debuting two new, large and affordable flat panel TVs. The LC80LE632U and LC70LE632U are 1080P 120Hz TV's but don't appear to be 3D ready. The MAP on the 80″ looks to be $4999.99 and the 70″ $2799.99 making them extremely affordable for their size.

The 80″ may be a good alternative to inexpensive front projection especially in applications where there is a lot of ambient light.

When considering that the next closest flat panel above 80″ is the Panasonic Pro Plasma which costs significantly more than twice the price, we're excited about this TV.

I'm sure we'll see 3D versions at some point but as these two new TVs are still about 30 days from shipping it could be a bit of a wait.

....
post #1068 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj1319 View Post

Hey Guys, I am a little hesitant to post this since I don't have too much information, but thought you might like to know it anyway. The place I work at recently set up two new Sharp SKUs. One is the LC70LE632U and the other is LC80LE632U. MSRP for the 80" is currently set at $5500. I assume these will be similar to the LC60LE632U, and be non-Quattron models.

An 80" display. Sheeze, I was just getting use to the idea of a 70"
.
post #1069 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimP View Post

An 80" display. Sheeze, I was just getting use to the idea of a 70"
.

Me too, now I wanna wait for the 80"! Too bad it's not 3D though. I'm sure they will release a 3D version too later on but it will be atleast another $1,000 more.
post #1070 of 1421
I look forward to someone explaining how Sharp could make an 80" LCD and sell it for only $5000 when there is no Sharp substrate that cuts evenly into 80s. Should this materialize -- and it's a big if -- it would render all claims about the "magic" of making 6 displays of 70-inches at a time as somehow essential to their low price all but invalid.

Color me skeptical but intrigued. But just in case, I'll serve the crow.
post #1071 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post

I look forward to someone explaining how Sharp could make an 80" LCD and sell it for only $5000 when there is no Sharp substrate that cuts evenly into 80s. Should this materialize -- and it's a big if -- it would render all claims about the "magic" of making 6 displays of 70-inches at a time as somehow essential to their low price all but invalid.

Color me skeptical but intrigued. But just in case, I'll serve the crow.

Have to agree and also say this is like the space race of the 50's as of late. I am hard pressed to believe a low cost (if you can call 5k) 80 inch panel will look even remotely good pq wise. Bigger is NOT always better.......
post #1072 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by cj1319 View Post
Hey Guys, I am a little hesitant to post this since I don't have too much information, but thought you might like to know it anyway. The place I work at recently set up two new Sharp SKUs. One is the LC70LE632U and the other is LC80LE632U. MSRP for the 80" is currently set at $5500. I assume these will be similar to the LC60LE632U, and be non-Quattron models.
Yep, I now see a Sharp LC-80LE632U listed as coming soon !!
post #1073 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Plasma

Yep, I now see a Sharp LC-80LE632U listed as coming soon !!
Coming soon? surely you know more ;-)
post #1074 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cleveland Plasma View Post

Yep, I now see a Sharp LC-80LE632U listed as coming soon !!

It looks to me that Sharp is aiming to fill the gap of all those RPTV owners that may now be in a large replacement cycle. Pretty friggin smart and amazing that they can churn out monstrous glass in volume in both high end and low end product lines.

I believe the normal 732 and 632 series have semi matte glass whereas the Elite will be gloss - perhaps the Corning Plant adjacent to Saiki has the ability to do both semi and gloss as an option layer for selective runs.

Amazing that they could produce 80" cuts at those prices. Just shocked that Sharp is kicking ass with all these Giant panels this year. Still hard to believe a 80" is coming but perhaps next year if I finish my basement for a HT area if I can manuever it down there as 70" is my reasonable limit for sanity and the Wife - she'd kick my butt if I put an 80" with a 9' viewing distance upstairs - though video gaming would be truly wild on a panel that large.

Just as an afterthought --- I also wonder if these budget panels substrates can't be built in Mexico - it's the only Plant where they actually used to build the budget 65" Sharps - their glass didn't come from K1/K2 or Saiki and I wonder if the Baja Tech Zone they built for the budget lines is churning out the 632's and now the budget non-Quattrons in Mexico - in 70/80" size. The pricing formula would make sense - I don't actually know the motherglass size in Mexico but it was dedicated to churn out the old budget 65" D64 units and it may have been large enough to do these also. Just a thought as to how they could do these so cheap.
post #1075 of 1421
hmmm lets say street is $4800 and then you combine this with say a Radiance scaler at another $2k. then you have an 80 inch almost Elite
post #1076 of 1421
My thoughts are along the lines of what Rogo said a while back about Sharp putting out budget 70" and now 80" sets and also a limited edition top of the line set but.....Where are the midrange 70" panels....lets say something to compete with the likes of the the 65HX929? The Elite is too much for me and the other 70" sets are a little to basic. They need more midrange large panels !
post #1077 of 1421
One thing I've noticed from down here in the Electronics retail trenches--two or three years ago we couldn't give away anything bigger than about 52", most buyers were still looking for their first HD set and sticker shock and spousal acceptance usually ruled out the bigger sets.

Today we are, as Westa surmised, seeing a lot of folks who bought into HD back in 01 or 02 with 60+ inch rptvs priced at or around 3k. The spousal acceptance battle has already been fought and prices for similarly sized flat panels are the same or even a bit less than what was paid for that huge box dominating their family room. The old one may be dying or it's just way dimmer and softer looking than that shiny new LED.

As for a dearth of "midline" models I'd agree from an enthusiast's standpoint that there should be more choice. Whether this makes sense for marketing to the average real world buyer is another question.
post #1078 of 1421
Steve, I know you sell TVs for a living so I don't wish to state this in a way that implies you are not fully grasping this: Everyone but Sharp satisfies the mid-range of the market very nicely at this point.

Samsung has such an assortment of product I doubt anyone here could come close to correct identifying all the product lines and their differences. They hit about 11 price points and have feature differentiation (and some performance differentiation). The flaw with Samsung is none of their TVs are great, picture-quality wise.

Panasonic has a three-tiered product line for quite some time now. It does the trick quite well. And, in fact, Panasonic makes a lot of extra margin selling GT models to people that aren't even videophiles. Is the ST still the bread and butter? Yes (especially because there are also warehouse club variants of it). But there's a tiered line.

Sony is like Samsung, there's a chicken for every pot. Again, like Samsung, overlapping chickens. NX720 vs. HX729? Please Sony, that stuff makes no sense at all.

Sharp is weird. At 60" there is really cheap (sub $1500 63x series), pretty cheap (around $2000 edge-lit 83x series) and Elite ($5500). The 83x series is not an enthusiast product. It's basic a "this is not a bargain basement product". Samsung sells a 60" product at $3500 MSRP or so. Sony does one over $3000. Sharp basically has nothing over $2500.

At 70" it's worse. There is essentially $3k, $3500 (same thing with 3-D), $8000. I know we've done this conversation before, but the notion that they wouldn't make money with a model in between flies in the face of everything everyone else does in consumer electronics. And quite frankly, Sharp's track record puts them in no position to claim they know what they are talking about.

I can understand why they didn't go after Samsung and Sony with a 60" in the middle; quite frankly they don't currently have the brand to compete there. (Maybe that will change again over time). At 70", they have 5 freaking inches that no one else has (arguably 10" since Sony still isn't shipping 65s and Samsung's commitment to that size really seems very very tepid and LG, well, Lost and Gone is hard to find in many retailers outside of the bargain aisle). There is just no reason not to be putting the pedal down.

They have the panels. They can clearly do a de-featured version of the Elite. In fact, you could do a pretty quick sensitivity analysis to show that even if they cannibalized 90% of Elite sales -- which they wouldn't -- they'd make more money under every realistic scenario with a $5000 variant of the 70". If one wanted an example of what I'd do, features wise, here goes:

1) Don't use the Elite front filter system on the "935". Make that Elite unique
2) Use the local dimming system
3) Don't use the Aquomotion at 720 (which I think is what they're doing, someone can remind me), but perhaps pick it up from the 240 and go to 480.
4) Don't claim any other improvements to the 735

MSRP, 734: $3000, 735: $3500, 935: $5000. Incremental manufacturing cost would be on the order of $100, worst cast it's $200 (and it isn't $200, but I'm going to let people have fun with their own margin numbers).
post #1079 of 1421
Quote:
Originally Posted by rogo View Post
Steve, I know you sell TVs for a living so I don't wish to state this in a way that implies you are not fully grasping this: Everyone but Sharp satisfies the mid-range of the market very nicely at this point.

Samsung has such an assortment of product I doubt anyone here could come close to correct identifying all the product lines and their differences. They hit about 11 price points and have feature differentiation (and some performance differentiation). The flaw with Samsung is none of their TVs are great, picture-quality wise.

Panasonic has a three-tiered product line for quite some time now. It does the trick quite well. And, in fact, Panasonic makes a lot of extra margin selling GT models to people that aren't even videophiles. Is the ST still the bread and butter? Yes (especially because there are also warehouse club variants of it). But there's a tiered line.

Sony is like Samsung, there's a chicken for every pot. Again, like Samsung, overlapping chickens. NX720 vs. HX729? Please Sony, that stuff makes no sense at all.

Sharp is weird. At 60" there is really cheap (sub $1500 63x series), pretty cheap (around $2000 edge-lit 83x series) and Elite ($5500). The 83x series is not an enthusiast product. It's basic a "this is not a bargain basement product". Samsung sells a 60" product at $3500 MSRP or so. Sony does one over $3000. Sharp basically has nothing over $2500.

At 70" it's worse. There is essentially $3k, $3500 (same thing with 3-D), $8000. I know we've done this conversation before, but the notion that they wouldn't make money with a model in between flies in the face of everything everyone else does in consumer electronics. And quite frankly, Sharp's track record puts them in no position to claim they know what they are talking about.

I can understand why they didn't go after Samsung and Sony with a 60" in the middle; quite frankly they don't currently have the brand to compete there. (Maybe that will change again over time). At 70", they have 5 freaking inches that no one else has (arguably 10" since Sony still isn't shipping 65s and Samsung's commitment to that size really seems very very tepid and LG, well, Lost and Gone is hard to find in many retailers outside of the bargain aisle). There is just no reason not to be putting the pedal down.

They have the panels. They can clearly do a de-featured version of the Elite. In fact, you could do a pretty quick sensitivity analysis to show that even if they cannibalized 90% of Elite sales -- which they wouldn't -- they'd make more money under every realistic scenario with a $5000 variant of the 70". If one wanted an example of what I'd do, features wise, here goes:

1) Don't use the Elite front filter system on the "935". Make that Elite unique
2) Use the local dimming system
3) Don't use the Aquomotion at 720 (which I think is what they're doing, someone can remind me), but perhaps pick it up from the 240 and go to 480.
4) Don't claim any other improvements to the 735

MSRP, 734: $3000, 735: $3500, 935: $5000. Incremental manufacturing cost would be on the order of $100, worst cast it's $200 (and it isn't $200, but I'm going to let people have fun with their own margin numbers).
I'm afraid you make way to much sense and that past has shown that common sense often does not prevail.
post #1080 of 1421
I say we reserve our judgement on Sharp's strategy and see if the 9xx will be out by Christmas. Nobody expected an 80" this year either.

Nonetheless back to why this thread was created: anyone still arguing no market for huge size TV or we still waiting for the sales verdict? 2m sets or 1% market for 12 months will still be the desired target.

PS looks like panny 85" will be below $8.5k soon. As discussed Sharp has determined the price range of huge size TV.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: LCD Flat Panel Displays
AVS › AVS Forum › Display Devices › LCD Flat Panel Displays › Official 70"+ LCD thread