TVLogic debuts 56-inch LUM-560W 4K x 2K LCD a few years ahead of time
By Darren Murph 
posted April 15th 2010 11:31AM
posted April 15th 2010 11:31AM
posted April 15th 2010 11:31AM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
I think this would finally satisfy me as a proper computer monitor.
@harpy
I wonder what card will be able to support a 2K res though...especially while gaming...
@harpy Make it touchscreen. And mount it on a drafting table.
@abedinthehouse
With current gen cards, you'd might need a dual gpu/dual card setup, maybe future cards as well since games will probably also increasingly demanding. It might be a stretch, but it might work. I have a laptop with a 5870m that can play most games on high/very high settings at 1080p without AA, so I'm guessing two desktop 5870s should be able to handle this resolution, especially if you get the 2gb cards.
@abedinthehouse Good point. NVidia's GTX275 tops out at 2560x1600...
@CRA1G
The touchscreen would be the second horizontal monitor, set up as my digital touchscreen computer desk. Just have a good glass surface that has a lip over the side so I can spill drinks all over without fear of screwing up the screen and I'd be set. :)
@harpy
I wonder what kind of card studios use to watch their 2K digital content.
@abedinthehouse ATI Eyefinity?!
The monitor is about 8.3mp. I've seen videos and benchmarks of the top of the line Eyefinity card running over 12mp multi-monitor set ups on modern games with the settings up pretty high.
I expect you can control sections of the monitor with different DVI-D cables much like the IBM T221, so the computer would see the one monitor as if it was a multi-monitor set up.
Talking of the IBM T221 (a 3840 x 2400 res 22" monitor), I'm surprised we haven't seen more monitors with this kind of resolution sooner, considering it was released around 2001. I guess there's just not the demand.
@abedinthehouse i think you need a quaddro or firepro card. this would be great for CAD drawings that are usually too big
@harpy
Will they accept a check?
well that kinda rocks. except the bezel =/
@Duckman
On the subjects of rocks, a rock is what knocks you out after you hear the price.
@schmidt1985
lol yeah I'll bet the choice is between that new Ferrarri I have been wanting or this tv...
@Duckman Shipping in June 2010. $65995
@schmidt1985
holy crap.... could I borrow that rock you were talking about?
@Duckman I think you may be missing the point of this monitor if you're bothering to bring up the bezel.
I, for one, love the "totally corporate" bezel. Just my $0.02
@paper1337
Agreed. It's fairly small, it's dark in color and totally unobtrusive.
@paper1337
Very much agreed.
Who told manufactures that glossy bezels were the way to go?
@paper1337 I'm with you guys
@paper1337
*sigh* Sad normal people... you know so little about good design. It's obvious the engineers behind making this tv also gave a whack at trying to house it. Purely function, no form whatsoever... that is, beyond a brick. But if you're into bricks, then that's cool with me. I know they build stuff with 'em.
@pallen33
Or maybe we like simple non-distracting bezels that don't take up unnecessary space. The last thing I want is some reflective bezel that reflects any light source (especially annoying when watching movies in a dark viewing environment). This bezel is reasonably small and a matte black, directing your attention to the picture itself.
I want one for image editing! :)
I could edit them in 100% pixel accuracy, without ever zooming out.
Though I how 4k resolution jumpts down screen size a bit. 42" would be more practical for computer purposes.
@HYBRiS
Get a IBM T221? Even though it's been discontinued (it was released in 2001), you can still find them around. 22" big, 3840 x 2400 res and way cheaper than this, not to say it's cheap.
So the bezel is the only negative?!? Really?
Not the fact that no current standard video source can come close to hitting that resolution and thus if used as a TV it will be relegated to lowly 1080 res. No? You guys don't see THAT as a rather big negative?
Don't get me wrong, this would probably make an awesome computer monitor or specialty screen (like medical purposes or trade show display), but beyond those cases, it's way overkill if someone thought to use it as a television.
@Hazdaz
I don't think this is designed to be a TV screen for general purpose viewing.
It is also a fact that viewing a 40inch 1080p TV from 3 meters away is about the limit of the (20/20) human eye, so higher res should be used only only on huge TV's... Or ones intended to be viewed somewhere other then the livingroom...
This monitor is a much better idea than EYEFINITY monitors bolted together.
I don't mind the bezel at all...you guys don't think a top end ATI or NVidia card could do 4k resolution? Not even a Fermi?
@DoctarPeppar
This screen is the equivalent of rendering 4 current screens at once. So maybe with multiple cards if you want acceptable frame rates at a high quality setting.
Shipping in June 2010. $65995
does dvi even support a resolution that high, how would you connect to a computer
"My God! Its ALIVE!"
I want this. But probably not as much as Gabe Newell so he can play WoW on it.
with this being quad HD and it having 4 of each port.... it would be safe to say this thing SHOULD (not saying that it will) be able display four 1080 signals up at the same time, in some kind of sexy full res quad video display.
this is the reason why i was born!!! i must have it before i die.
All I see is an amazing computer monitor. Hmm... what about a dual monitor setup? Or even better yet, a duel monitor setup...
This does make for a great PC monitor but you've got to find a way to stay at least 15 feet from it or your eyes will be gone. I think it's overkill to consider it for such use. Get a 27" or 30" Dell monitor and rock'on
@hero785
I'm not sure what you're basing that claim on, but I think it is flawed. This TV is equivalent to having four 28 inch 1920x1080 monitors in a rectangular setup without the bezel between monitors. If I was standing 15 feet back from a 28" monitor, I would not be able to read anything on screen since it would have the equivalent pixel pitch of a large computer monitor and not of a large TV.
@crayjay
Dude I meant for gaming. There's no way you are going to be sitting 5-6" feet away from this and game on it. Reading and what not is fine but not gaming, it will kill your eyes. That's what I meant in that comment!
For the love of god Engadget, stop being such raging RED fanboys. The Red One is neither the only nor the best 4K camera on the market. Until they started doing the M-X upgrades, which costs you a whopping $6000 (killing the sub-$20,000 price point that made the Red One such a big deal) and has a 9 month waiting list, the camera was a 4K grainy piece of crap that functionally topped out at like 400 ASA. Sure it was 4K, and the super35 sensor meant you could use PL lenses and get a very pretty depth of field, but all that being said, people really need to realize, when it comes to RED, cheap is both a price and a value proposition. Until you actually get experience with the high end HD Cinema cameras out there, please stop voicing opinions. You're just showing yourselves as uneducated and spreading bad information.
As for these monitors, the only thing that makes me sad is the 1500:1 contrast ratio. Then again I don't suppose that matters quite as much in the caves most editors inhabit, but when you have Penelope Delta cranking out 16 Bit color from the chip to a 12-bit HD-SDI and a 13-14 stop latitude, 1500:1 wouldn't do it justice. It's a nice first step though.
if it is not 3d then it is not awesome.
For interfacing this, you'd likely use either two dual-link DVI connections, or maybe a single DisplayPort 1.2 connection.
As for cards to drive it... the single DisplayPort route may be able to be driven by either an nVidia or ATI card, and games nowadays target weaker GPUs than desktops, hence why ATI can get away with gimmicks like Eyefinity without killing performance. Dual DL-DVI (actually, at least one DL-DVI over DisplayPort, Eyefinity apparently requires that) would require an Eyefinity card to be addressed as one monitor under Vista or 7.
The panel's almost certainly a Chi Mei Optoelectronics panel that's been around for a couple years. That contrast ratio isn't bad for an IPS panel, and TN contrast ratios are usually horribly overinflated.
I've actually got a T221, so I'm somewhat familiar with this. (Running a T221 as two 1920x2400 displays on single-link DVI at 33 Hz right now. Don't have the converter box to use dual-link DVI to drive it at 48 Hz, the maximum.)
And, monitors of this resolution are very expensive to build, and to work properly, have historically required special graphics cards. Combine that with the fact that it's a choice of insanely huge (this,) or hard to read (T221,) and resolution-independent UIs haven't really taken off (Windows 7 is changing that,) and ultra high resolution displays just haven't taken off.
As for price... the original IBM T220 was $18,000 at launch, and the T221 fell to $9000 shortly after launch. Variants fell below $4000, IIRC, but the best model was always $9000 until it was discontinued. (Granted, that best model kept changing. The best model in 2002, a 9503-DG1 with a Matrox Parhelia HR256 in the box, was replaced by the 9503-DG3 which came with no graphics card, but was more flexible, and then that was supplemented with the 9503-DG5 (but the DG3 was still in production as a lower-end display) which was EXTREMELY flexible, and had a way to use dual-link DVI signals.) DG3s that were a little worse quality were rebadged as Viewsonics, and those were the ones that were the cheapest.
In 2007, Toshiba announced a TN display of the same size and resolution (22.2" 3840x2400) at $18,000, although they failed to release it. The contrast was worse than the T221 (300:1 instead of 400:1,), brightness was the same (235 cd/m^2) and color accuracy and viewing angle were obviously going to be worse, leaving refresh rate (60 Hz instead of 48 Hz) and response time (not stated, but I fully expect it to be faster than the T221's horrendously slow 62 ms response time) as the only advantages over a (at the time) $6000 old stock 9503-DG5.
As for the CMO 56" panels, the cheapest display using one, IIRC, is a Westinghouse for $40,000.
I've seen a £60,000 TV in Harrods over here in UK (£60,000 is around $100,000) - it was a Panasonic I think, 60". Very thick.
If made by Apple, it'd cost $1,000,000, it'd feature a super-shiny-glossy-reflecty screen, would be completely enclosed, including a battery, no buttons and only one input: a super special, 100% proprietary, Apple 4K micro HDMI input and would definitely boast multitouch support. Also, no warranty, you'd just have to buy a new one when damaged. Oh, did I forget to mention a 100% alluminium bezel with the coolest bitten apple at the back that glows?
Still, Engadget would get a pre-release model for unboxing and reviewing the minute it goes on sale. Still Engadget would rationalise the price as being "adequate". Still Engadget would bash other manufacturers of, TRUE, high-end, professional, equipment for lacking multitouch support.
"you'll probably need a nice archive of raw RED footage before you genuinely care about either" ... or some scanned pictures to display (medical X-rays)
For a 16:9 display that has 1080 lines of resolution, a person with 20/20 (corrected or otherwise) vision would need to sit at 1.5X the screen's width. To double the line resolution and to expect the viewer to still be able to resolve each line they would need to be 0.75X screen width.
Now, on a 56" 16:9 4Kx2K display you are talking a viewing distance of 24.4 inches! The funny think is that I could do this if it were my main desktop monitor, but considering most folks sit >1.5X screen width they are already not resolving 1080 lines (e.g. 1080P) so they certainly are going to see a lot less under this market hype of a lead boat.
Ooh, barely more resolution than was available 10 years ago. Whoopee.
On a side note - I just upgraded my 15" Thinkpad to a 2048 x 1056 screen (Engadget *and* Gizmodo side by side looks sweet) using a screen from 2002.
http://www.computersolutions.cn/blog/2010/05/t60-screen-upgrade-they-just-dont-make-things-like-they-used-to/
As noted above, the T21 etc did this years ago.
There were also 4096 x 4096 screens available in the past, main issue is that all the controllers for these are non-existent for purchase / special application ones.
I've been looking to make a 15" QXGA out of what I have, but pretty much the only LCD controllers that support more than 1920x1200 (WUXGA+) are older ones. I have sourced some, but they're not cheap. Meh..