Sharp's 4k x 2k 64-inch ultra high res monitor

For those of us that have a hard enough time telling the difference between 720 and 1080, let us tell you that once you've seen Sharp's 62-inch 4k x 2k, there's no going back. You know how when you get up close to a 1080 picture you can still start to see the pixels? Well, gazing into this 4096 x 2048 (8.3 megapixels) picture is an experience more reminiscent of sitting by a window, and not by a display. It's kind of hard to capture that level of detail with photos (hell, our camera isn't even 8.3 megapixels), but we sure tried. Check out our high res gallery.

[Matt @ Jan 15th 2007 1:58PM]

holy shit

[netposer @ Jan 15th 2007 2:00PM]

So now TV's are going to be categorized by mega pixels?

[nivz @ Jan 15th 2007 2:08PM]

Wow this thing looks gr8.. And it can be really usefull unlike most of the crap we've been seeing at CES..

[itlnstln @ Jan 15th 2007 2:14PM]

I started to check out the gallery, but then I realized I couldn't truly appreciate the images by looking at them through my 1280x1024 "window." :(

[Craig Sullivan @ Jan 15th 2007 2:22PM]

Awesome.
Just in time for the new season of The Apprentice!

craig

[mike @ Jan 15th 2007 2:25PM]

so in 3 years from now Im going to be hearing about everyone who owns a Quad HD set and how Octo HD is coming out "soon" while the rest of the HD (720p) and Full HD (1080p) users need to upgrade. And at that time, SD users will be a part of a secret society in which everyone believes does not exsist and that SD television use is mearly an urban legend.

[Luis @ Jan 15th 2007 2:43PM]

well without content to watch on these quad and higher sets, it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

How many channels are in HD? maybe 25-40? Most consumers can't get all of these HD channels, as its based on their Service Provider, and what kind of deals they have with channels.

Also, most of these channels are in 720p, or 1080i-none of them are in 1080p, and probably won't be for a LONG TIME. So these newer sets will work if you have some kind of content that supports 4k, but otherwise, you won't get the full benefit.

Also...SD channels look bad on HD sets, will HD look bad on an UltraHD set? Thats something to think about...

[Liam @ Jan 15th 2007 2:27PM]

Could you, in fact, say the detail was very 'sharp'?

[Jeffrey @ Jan 15th 2007 2:32PM]

High Definition TV's are going to be primarily 720p and 1080p (1080i only will fade away). Resolutions higher than 1920x1080 will have specialty applications such as in the medical field for reading MRI's and X-Ray's.

Desktop monitors will also have higher applications but it is likely that 1920x1080 will become the most popular since manufacturing costs should favor this due to the fact that desktop monitors and HDTV's are going to be practically indistinguishable.

Don't forget that HDTV resolutions are designed with specific viewing distances in mind. We simply were not meant to watch TV six inches from our screen.

If an 8 Megapixel 32" screen were placed next to a 1080p (about 2Megapixel) and viewed from the proper 7 to 9 feet away they would look identical.

So the Holy Grail of HDTV is 1080p @ 60FPS (currently film is 24: video is 30). More than that is simply a waste for normal usage.

[DJ @ Jan 15th 2007 2:35PM]

As the owner of a Sony XBR3 running 1080p, I find it amazing how little content is available at that level. Where in the hell is anyone find something to watch at an even HIGHER level???

[Conor @ Jan 15th 2007 2:45PM]

All I want to know is how much of a dent will there be in my bank account.

[Jeffrey @ Jan 15th 2007 2:51PM]

High Resolution screens:
After writing the previous comment, I still believe that 1080p monitors will be the most popular at some point, but I do think it is likely that the resolutions will increase to the point where the eye can no longer discern a difference.

The 8 Megapixel screen is based on the concept of 200 ppi (I'd use "dpi" values but the term is often used incorrectly) being this point of maximum quality for close-in viewing.

I think as prices drop, we'll see a shift to 20" widescreen monitors with resolutions of 4000x2250. (4000pixels = 20" x 200 ppi)

Just as any more than 1080p for HDTV's is overkill, anything higher than the specs listed above would be overkill.

Oh yeah, and OLED's (Organic Light Emitting Diode's) don't need any spaces between the pixels so they would look better on monitors of even the same resolution that were LCD.

[Lonnie McClure @ Jan 16th 2007 11:17PM]

One good reason for "quad HDTV" (3840 x 2160) is that it provides pixel perfect scaling for both 720p (9 pixels per pixel) and 1080i/1080p (4 pixels per pixel). Add some interpolation, and you also improve the apparent visual quality. Run it at the native resolution, and you have a high resolution display for your PC.

A few years from now, when even low end brands are offering 1080p, something new will be needed as another feature point for the high end.

[Anthony @ Jan 15th 2007 3:05PM]

I saw this set at CES last week. It was the highlight of the show in my opinion. I always tell people that HDTV (1080i or 1080p) is just like looking at something through a window. This set removes the window. It is like you are looking directly at the subject of the image. Amazing!

[Wonderboy @ Jan 15th 2007 3:28PM]

What about for HTPC application... you setup a 1080P TV and you end up with a relatively low resolution as far as PCs are concerned. What about hooking one of these bad boys up to a HTPC, setting the resolution to a much better one, and having the PC upscale your HD content to fit the screen.

Granted, I'm not about to pay the required premium to have a better resolution for my standard PC work... but it makes sense, no?

[ki11a-k @ Jan 15th 2007 3:38PM]

give this 1000,000:1 constant ratio and it would be the best picture quality in the world

[Rick Lyon @ Jan 15th 2007 4:16PM]

'It must have 1080p or it's the suxors!' Yea, ok. 1080p is marketing and so is this.

Anyone else see the screen door effect on the first few? I don't like their pixel texture of the screen.

[EdZ @ Jan 15th 2007 6:17PM]

This is the resolution sony's 4k digital cinema projectors run at (above the detail of 35mm film, nearing 75mm). So whilst there IS content that you could showm on this display, you're not going to see it outside of a digital cinema projection booth (even usenet probably couldn't handle an entire movie, they have the bare minimum of compression compared to consumer formats). And no normal PC would be able to play the video file.

[Wolfticket @ Jan 15th 2007 9:40PM]

Lovin' the high res pictures of the higher res screen :)

Also, strictly speaking does a 1920x1200 23-inch screen not have a higher resolution than this, if you're talking pixels per inch.

[Ayle @ Jan 16th 2007 10:30AM]

yes but dont forget that its not the same viewing distance....

[Mark @ Jan 16th 2007 10:37AM]

I want one of these as a computer monitor to replace my Apple 30"...

[Liters @ Jan 16th 2007 12:30PM]

Well kudos to Sharp for getting better coverage (and a better spot in their booth) than Westinghouse.

[eerdepeer @ Jan 17th 2007 12:05PM]

the pics still have a sort of canvas kind of look or is it just me?

[Brandon @ Jan 17th 2007 4:24PM]

Sharp's 4k x 2k 64-inch ultra high res """"monitor"""" Don't get me wrong it can be used as a tv. No point other then to brag.

[Don @ Jan 17th 2007 4:44PM]

At least there is an upper limit to how Ultra-Ultra-Ultra Megapixeled out things need to get:

Roughly 1296 Megapixels for a 180 degree FOV. Only 1287.7 MP to go!

http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

[Jon @ Jan 19th 2007 3:00PM]

We want to deploy these in our ORs. Currently we have 4 Mpix 30 inch displays for X-Rays.

[techwarrior @ Jan 22nd 2007 6:52AM]

sounds incredible

and mark I will take your 30 in apple

jk