Sony's 84-Inch, 4K TV: $24,999

tvpredictions.com ^ | September 6, 2012 | Phillip Swann

[Las Vegas Dave]

Sony says that 4K TV is the future of television. Well, if it is, it looks like the future will be damn expensive.

The CE company this morning began taking pre-orders on its 84-inch 4K LED TV. The price tag? $24,999.99.

Yes, just one penny short of $25,000 for the first 4K TV which purports to offers a resolution four times greater than today's HDTVs. If you are so inclined, you can drop your pre-order at a SonyStyle store or call 1-866-363-7669.

"From Trinitron to HD, 3D and now 4K, Sony has led the way, innovating TV since 1968," the company said in a press release. "This new model redefines what consumers should expect from their television’s performance."

The company showcased a 4K projector at last January's Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas. This reporter watched a demonstration of the 4K technology and came away impressed but not overwhelmed. The picture seemed to be a slight improvement over 1080p HD video, but certainly not an improvement four times greater.

There have been several movies filmed in 4K over the last few years, but none are currently available on home video. However, Sony could release some 4K movies on Blu-ray disc this December when it's expected to begin shipping the 84-inch 4K TV.

[Las Vegas Dave]

HDTV pings!

Interested in the HDTV ping list?
Please Freepmail me (freepmail works best) if you would like your name added to the HDTV ping list,
(approximately 375+ freepers are currently on the HDTV ping list).
The pinged subjects can be HDTV technology, satellite, cable, OTA HD reception (Over The Air with roof top or indoor antennas), Broadcast specials, Sports, Blu Ray/HDDVD, and any and all subjects relating to HDTV.

Note: if you search Freerepublic using the keyword "HDTV”, you will find most of the past HDTV postings.

LasVegasDave.

[Las Vegas Dave]

FYI.

[oh8eleven]

Sony's 84-Inch, 4K TV: $24,999
Already posted here .......... "Sony’s 84-inch LED TV with 4K resolution costs $24,999, ships in November"

[norwaypinesavage]

"if it is, it looks like the future will be damn expensive."

That's exactly WRONG.

New technology almost always starts very expensive, and then rapidly drops in price. The $10K plus large LED TVs of a few years back can now be had for a few hundred bucks. The author is either very bad at predicting the future, or very bad at observing the past.

[Pollster1]

"if it is, it looks like the future will be damn expensive." That's exactly WRONG.

Agreed. However, the future looks darned silly. I have absolutely no interest in an 84-inch 4K TV. The only reason I upgraded to digital TV (without dish or cable) was to watch the rare major events worth watching, and I didn't need to see the Dems booing God in HD - analog would have been just fine, and I certainly don't want an 84 inch version of that image. Why bother upgrading TV to show higher resolution that serves no purpose?

[perez24]

I don’t know much about technology and a lot of times I can’t tell if I’m watching HD except for sports so I’m asking this out of ignorance.

Is the quality promised by this TV that much better than what’s out right now?

Also, can TV’s ever get to the point that the picture quality is “better” than the cameras being used by the networks and studios?

[MeneMeneTekelUpharsin]

“A select group of SSI recipients will be the first individuals to test out public response to the new television.”, said White House officials.

[AdSimp]

The limiting factor is the resolution of the screen in the back of your eyeballs.

[Never on my watch]

That’s a lot of food stamps.

[Never on my watch]

“A select group of SSI recipients will be the first individuals to test out public response to the new television.”, said White House officials.

You can expect the looters to do their Christmas shopping in early November if Obama loses.

[WMarshal]

Not only will TVs catch up to the current technology of cameras. It will exceed the capability of the human eye. Once the human eye cannot tell the difference then technology advancement will have to target something besides image quality.

There is a new camera technology that captures depth a detail in such a way that a user can change the focal depth of a picture at any time. Perhaps TVs of the future will change the focus of a screen based on the viewer’s point of focus.

[Victor]

"... Why bother upgrading TV to show higher resolution that serves no purpose?...."

Roger that. What used to cost upwards of $10K can now be had for $1300. LG has a smart TV, 60",in 3-D, that directly connects to the Internet and/or all kinds of apps in addition to a TV feed; available at Costco for $1299.

[CaptainAmiigaf]

Television was once a 10inch black and white marvel in a huge furniture quality cabinet. One watched magnificent, informative, distinguished programming. We watched natural, geographic and historically educating programs. Television changed the world and how we saw it.
Today the Television SET is a technological marvel, with resolution so sharp that it is dangerous to sit too close to a set showing a SWORD FIGHT. One could get stabbed.
However, the television PROGRAMMING basically stinks to high heaven. The crap being broadcast isn’t worth the cost of the high tech.

[Pollster1]

Roger that. What used to cost upwards of $10K can now be had for $1300. LG has a smart TV, 60",in 3-D, that directly connects to the Internet and/or all kinds of apps in addition to a TV feed; available at Costco for $1299.

My one TV cost $99. That's as much as it is worth to me (more than I would have liked - I would have preferred keeping my old CRT).

[Inyo-Mono]

Thanks for the ping Dave. As per the article:

The picture seemed to be a slight improvement over 1080p HD video, but certainly not an improvement four times greater

I recently purchased a Blu-Ray copy of Gone With the Wind and it looks better than the way I first saw it in the theater in 1964. I think I'll stick with 1080p.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

You'll need improved encoding techniques with better compression and higher bandwidth pipes to be able to use 4K. From Popular Science last June:

Next January [2013], the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding will finalize a standard known as High Efficiency Video Coding. HEVC will compress files twice as efficiently as the current standard, MPEG-4 AVC, and will allow studios to fit a full-length 4K feature film onto existing media formats, such as Blu-ray discs.

Over the longer term, Internet service providers will need to improve their infrastructure to support 4K streaming. Today, broadband is fast and reliable enough—the average speed in the U.S. is now more than six megabits per second, and fiber connections can be even faster—for Netflix to deliver full-HD movies. Analysts estimate that 4K streaming will demand more than three times current speeds, at least 20 megabits per second on average. But that level of service is coming. South Korea already has a working one-gigabit-per-second fiber-optic network, and Google is currently testing a similar network in Kansas City. When that happens, viewers will not only have brilliant theater-quality screens; they'll have an entire, instant 4K library to go with them.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

That’s a lot of food stamps.

Not to worry. The FCC's new "HD Lifeline" program will ensure that our poor, underserved citizens will be able to enjoy all the glorious 4K 84 Inch LCD pleasure that life has to offer at no expense to themselves.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

If you’re going to shell out $25k for a TV, you might as well splurge and get some remote control panel doors in front of it, like they used in old spy and science fiction movies.

[Nowhere Man]

Agreed. However, the future looks darned silly. I have absolutely no interest in an 84-inch 4K TV. The only reason I upgraded to digital TV (without dish or cable) was to watch the rare major events worth watching, and I didn't need to see the Dems booing God in HD - analog would have been just fine, and I certainly don't want an 84 inch version of that image. Why bother upgrading TV to show higher resolution that serves no purpose?

It's interesting but I have no place for an 84 incher either. Heck, I'm the resident guy here who still uses a 1982 Zenith. B-)