Samsung's 82-inch QuadHD LCD: Now with 120Hz

Samsung's stream of 82-inch monsters packing the company's latest technology continues unabated, this time a minor update to the QuadHD behemoth we saw at CES brings so-outdated 120Hz motion processing and LED backlighting to keep blur and judder far, far away. We know what you're thinking, its 3840x2160 resolution is no good unless you can write on it, luckily Samsung also has an 82-inch ultra high definition e-Board in its SID 2008 booth. OLED fans take heart, Samsung has reached economies of scale, hopefully meaning reasonably priced (and longer lasting) thin screens are due sooner instead of later. The Korea Times notes LG's at the show as well, showcasing LCD roll-printing technology to replace the photolithography process that currently births the flat panels on our walls, but we simply can't be bothered with a company that's only the number two LCD manufacturer in the world.

[Via TV Snob]

[Homeboy @ May 18th 2008 1:06PM]

82 inches and vibrates at 120hz, that's what she said.

[finnith @ May 18th 2008 2:14PM]

Everytime there's a woman in the picture, someone makes this kind of joke. I'm part of the "kids who shouldn't be playing M games but are" and I'm still more mature than you guys. Is this what anonymity does to you?

[Arnob @ May 18th 2008 2:30PM]

but there's a woman in the picture...how could you NOT make this kind of joke is the question you should be asking yourself.

[rlynd3 @ May 18th 2008 2:36PM]

pfff... maturity is for 13 year olds!

...Turn 30, get married, have a kid... you'll understand!

[Marcus @ May 20th 2008 5:03PM]

Hahahaha laughed my ass off!

[Rafer @ May 18th 2008 1:07PM]

I'm 82 iches come stand next to me.

[Rafer @ May 18th 2008 1:07PM]

Inches*

[Ray @ May 18th 2008 3:57PM]

well that "joke" backfired on you

[The Dude @ May 18th 2008 1:07PM]

I'd let her sit next to my 82-inch monster. Or on it, rather. Thanks for all of the Korean model pics to go along with these stories, Engadget.

Just saw the author name. Richard LAWLER. :D Seriously dude?

[Richard Lawler @ May 18th 2008 1:17PM]

seriously, I guess?

[Saad Rabia @ May 18th 2008 1:27PM]

What?

[The Dude @ May 18th 2008 1:37PM]

urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=lawl

[Cal @ May 18th 2008 2:26PM]

Never seen that surname before? What about Jerry 'The King' Lawler? (And no I don't like WWE)

[CraigJ @ May 18th 2008 3:08PM]

If you can afford the monitor you can probably afford to pay her to come stand by it whenever you want...

[Saad Rabia @ May 18th 2008 1:15PM]

Hmmm, after this, my 1080 TV is low quality! Companies, easy with the tech explosions and fast evolution.

[happy_penguin @ May 18th 2008 2:03PM]

Their only motivation is to get you to part with more of your hard earned dollars.... er, dirham. Now you must upgrade. :D

[Adam @ May 18th 2008 1:35PM]

1080p what??? :P

[r19578 @ May 19th 2008 3:42AM]

That's way to many

[Hellios @ May 18th 2008 1:43PM]

That's like 4k cinema resolution?

I wonder if any current graphics card can output to that resolution.... I'd love too see this TV in person.

[r3loaded @ May 18th 2008 3:34PM]

Nope, not even with dual-link DVI. It might be theoretically possible if you used two DVI ports, configured dual monitors on the computer, and the screen combined the images together into a seamless display.

More likely, they'll just introduce yet another connection standard to confuse/fleece customers. That is, if and when 4k comes around. Remember, even HD is still in its early days.

[Sean O @ May 18th 2008 10:01PM]

4k came around a long time ago. Dual channel HD-SDI is the connection that is used for it.

[Namarrgon @ May 18th 2008 10:34PM]

IBM's T221 monitor has been doing higher resolutions since 2001 (in only 22" too), and is comfortably driven by modern dual-port dual-link cards. Looks completely awesome too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T221

[Mike @ May 19th 2008 8:58AM]

At what point will any increase in screen resolution have zero value as it'd be limited by the 'resolution' of my eyes/brain?

[IrishGandalf @ May 18th 2008 1:50PM]

imagine blu-ray porn on that bad boy

[Ace b @ May 19th 2008 1:42AM]

Imagine the herpes on said Blu-ray porm

[Ace b @ May 19th 2008 1:43AM]

*Porn.

Damn it

[imacmatt09 @ May 18th 2008 1:53PM]

SD video would look terrible. And HD video would look like SD video... Wow.

[vdogg89 @ May 18th 2008 2:33PM]

sd would look the same...

[imacmatt09 @ May 18th 2008 2:44PM]

No it wouldn't. 640X480 stretched over 3840x2160 would look bad. thats something like 4.5 pixels for every one. It wouldn't look too good.

[AndrewNeo @ May 18th 2008 3:12PM]

You just have to stand waaaaay back.

[KiraXD @ May 18th 2008 4:37PM]

@ andrew

if you sit back far enough to make the difference then having an 82" set is pointless, since it looks like a 32" set anyways.. depending on how far back it takes to get a good picture.

still.. i wonder how awesome (or not awesome) my PS3/360 wold look on this baby.

[Keith @ May 18th 2008 6:46PM]

If you did a bicubic resampling of the SD data, it would look fine. That's why upconverting DVD players are giving Blu Ray players a run for their money so far.

It's nearest-neighbor and bilinear resampling devices that look horrible, and that you are probably used to.

[vdogg89 @ May 18th 2008 11:15PM]

it would look the same because it doesnt matter what the res is on the tv, the pixels would be the same size on this tv or on a regular 1080 tv

[Chris @ May 18th 2008 1:53PM]

Somebody should make speakers that look like Asian girls

[milton359 @ May 18th 2008 1:57PM]

Japan is working on making quad def standard by 2015, problem is you really only notice it at like 60 inches and in tests viewers got sick watching it. Of course this is the same country that got sick watching Babel.

http://www.usatoday.com/life/movies/news/2007-04-26-babel-sickness_N.htm?csp=34

[Matt @ May 18th 2008 1:57PM]

Bah, 3840 x 2160

That's exactly double the height of my current monitor setup (3840 x 1280)
Just get another row of 3 monitors and I already have it

[cit9 @ May 18th 2008 3:15PM]

1280 * 2 = 2560

[Tim @ May 18th 2008 3:20PM]

well it's not exactly double the height of your set; its double the height (in terms of vertical pixel count) of a 1080 by 1920 set, but somewhat less than double that of yours. is the set up you have now between 2 or 3 monitors? thanks

[rlynd3 @ May 19th 2008 1:36AM]

Oh yeah... *my pixels are bigger than your pixels* (4224x1200) :P

...I do enjoy watching an anamorphic movie across all 3 monitors! but the downside is the black frames between the monitors.

[oliverhart77 @ May 18th 2008 2:00PM]

asian hottie sold seperately

[El Taco @ May 18th 2008 2:15PM]

really? That's a big turn-off

[Engadgetluvsappl @ May 18th 2008 2:25PM]

It won't be so hot when she's shitting all over you.

[CraigJ @ May 18th 2008 10:55PM]

He said Asian hottie, not German hottie...

[andres @ May 19th 2008 7:11PM]

@engadgetluvsappl
i beg to differ

[polvadis @ May 18th 2008 2:41PM]

When I bought my 40" Bravia I thought it was huge. Now... not so much.

[LongshotX @ May 18th 2008 2:49PM]

How about releasing a low cost 32 LCD HDTV for less than $400? is that too much to ask. What am I going to do with an 82 inch HDTV?

[happy_penguin @ May 18th 2008 2:55PM]

Stare at it all googly eyed and drool.

[Ohaki @ Jun 17th 2008 12:29AM]

You watch it!!!

[Ohaki @ May 18th 2008 4:31PM]

If you were packin 82 inces of vibrating meat, you don't go around announcing it. I've seen what happens when a person does.

I just gotta say that i can fit almost NINE of my TV's in here; that's impressive (even without the other features)...

[NineT9 @ May 18th 2008 5:33PM]

"but we simply can't be bothered with a company that's only the number two LCD manufacturer in the world."

So who's the #1 LCD Manufacture?