LG 4K in stores already?

From $16,999.99 to $12,829.00.
https://www.google.com/shopping/product/14619450110992789601?q=LG%20-%2084LM9600&hl=en&client=safari&rls=en&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.&bvm=bv.1355534169,d.b2I&bpcl=40096503&biw=957&bih=1016&sa=X&ei=l2TrUO2ON6aI2gW1yoG4BA&ved=0CD0Q8wIwAA#ps-sellers

Wonder what the dead pixel policy is on this one ?

Those prices are way out of my price range . I dont care how good 4K is there is no way in hell I would pay that type of money for a tv. But that's just me.

Size is more costly to make than increased resolution. This is the starting price of UHDTV of one of the Chinese brands; .....50">$2,500 USD MSRP .....55"> $3,000 .....65"> $4,000. Expect those prices to be down $1000 each within some months if the prices those sets sell for in China now are an indication.

From what I've read, the industry's best estimate is about 500,000 units will be sold worldwide this year, which is nothing number-wise. That may increase to about 7% of the total world-wide sales by 2016, which, by that time, prices should to be down to around the $2000+ range depending on size and mfr. Native content will still be a problem. So say the experts

Lack of content notwithstanding I applaud this move to higher res for larger panels by manufacturers. I'd personally not buy anything 70" plus unless it was UHD at least and had an outstanding scalar to up convert 1080i or 720p content

^ ^ ^

+1 I will try again. I agree only I would also not nuy anything over 50". I can see pixels at 6 to 7 feet away.

I walked into the Houston Sony store that had their 84" 4K display showing a 4K uncompressed demo. Honestly, I thought it was 1080P until I got less than 3 feet away. At that distance, the small details made it obvious it was a higher resolution. But at normal viewing distances? No, I could tell no difference in the increased resolution.