Samsung Ultra HDTV - ComputerTV at CES 2009

[Michael1Jackson11]

when they will sel it

[ulkord]

that is not UHDV

UHDV is 7680 × 4320 Pixel

[Shippingshit]

Not Ultra HD, sorry.

[hiphoper19881988]

this isnt UltraHDV!

UHDV is 16 times bigger than 1080i

[point6000x]

im muploading an UHDV video.. 1 frame 63 MB

[AWarlordsView]

did you read that on wiki? =/

[hiphoper19881988]

xD

yes

[AWarlordsView]

ya ive heard that ultra hd wont come out for another 14 years this one has the possibility to come out within 5 i hope. ah who am i kidding thing will probably cost $4000 for a 32" 8(

[Assyrian4lyf3]

No it is not, what is your source?

Check wikipedia first, they are also saying that its 4 times not 16

you even spell Ultra HDTV wrong. your missing the 'T'

[Mflyingspacemonkey]

I wouldn't be suprised in a few years time there will be bluray players that supports ultra hd so we might be getting ultra hd tvs on the market sooner than you think.

[nylecrane2k7]

@Mflyingspacemonkey They might not even make Ultra HD for consumer use as it is said to cause nausea.

[galaxiedance]

@nylecrane2k7 Just think of Porn !!! Nausea? :) hehe.. crazy.. but I can imagine some people having problems... would be wicked to see though... it's like watching a Glossy Photo that moves.

[Z3RO0RD1E]

I think this TV makes up for all the sucky cell phones that Samsung makes.

[mrahmadaziz424]

@Z3RO0RD1E samsung galaxy s now is the iphone4 killer!!!

[KASHYAP18IIIT]

This isn't ultra HD. This is QuadHD.

[patrickmanning94]

my ball sack is overweight!

[delumo]

what the fuck is the point in buying lcd tvs nowadays, for instance i went to bestbuy 2months ago and bought supposedly one of the best tvs out now, but whats this shit a fucking tv thats a thousand times better, buying lcd tv is like if you would spend 200 bucks on jordans in a sense

[malimilan]

I thought Ultra HD is 7680x4320. Well that's just the video format, maybe they can't make that kind of display yet. Japanese are working on it so they can use the format to broadcast the 2016. Olimpics :)

[kiefer23]

Lol so they expect us all to buy a mega expensive 7680x4320 TV set to watch their olympics? Maybe if they sell it dirt cheap then yeah ;)

[geniusofone]

No.

Actually it is a cunning ploy to ensure nobody else can watch them lose face and obtain almost no medals as usual.

[kiefer23]

Hahaha probably.

[ereval1983]

Че пишут не понятно но самсунг рулиииит!!!!!!!!!!!!

[poofly02]

love u samsung...

[xxAlucarDraculax]

That type of resolution would only benefit those big sized tvs like... possibly 55"+

[anubis1010]

Quad HD won't hit the streets till 2012-2015 the way TV's are going right now.

[t3hsniper]

...The human eye i bet wont even notice the difference until its in huge tv's...

[Brucey69]

prolly not ganna be seeing this for another 5 years. Since TV is barely upgrading to HD!

[tsubodzuka]

Haha oh man outro music out of no where, scared the living daylights out of me since i had to turn up my volume to hear Albert.

[siciliano29]

Haven't we already gotten pretty close to what the human eye is able to see with 1080p? Here's an interesting question: at what resolution are we looking at the world through our eyes? ;)

[gnuojoung]

It's not really the resolution, but the size of each pixel. It could be 1080 but at 20", so the pixels would be smaller than pixels from a 40", roughly double in size. The pixel would have to be about half the width of a human hair to be the smallest the human eye can see.

[winteryeti]

i would like to see it myself ;)

[bassdemon16]

Your video's have such long intro's and outro's :/

[buckamoona]

damn u guy ur into./outro make up over half of the video, to make matters worse the sound is like 10x louder for the intro/outro

[ToricoUK]

don't you just love the future

[fifteendollarbill]

i know right, lol

[NoctheniK]

That's what she said.

[KD44G]

AH THE SOUND, TOO LOUD

[oneeyedgeek]

Damn! I see something like this and I just want to run out and buy one! But even if they were available right now, there's no way I could afford one :(

[brianl9944]

and the price is?

[luis61961944]

to much to said it on youtube

[cod4ever234]

Theres only like 15-20 seconds of actual video...

[DrZarkloff]

I wonder how much money?

[BOAZfilms]

niggershit

[lendrahcir]

I'm going to guess too much.

[foxwuj]

no way not any time soon, i bet ya it will come out very soon i mean like in a year or 2... may be for commercial use first then the general consumer. hey its technology, i brought my hd flat screen like 2 year or so now come the 1/4 inch thick flat screen hdtv even wireless so no cable need to connect to ur hdtv box u put tv any where all u need is a power source. and my 1.5 years old 8800gt is out of date already.

[liascm]

thats how technology goes, i have just got the gtx 295, that will prob be out of date next year and will look the same as how the 9800gx2 does, a "failed" invention

[NoxeN2008]

man i want one!

[nani1962]

i feel sorry for all those you bought 1080p tv's now there's a new one good for me maybe 1080p tv's will drop price :D

[Luky1Jay]

I doubt they will manufacture these untill 2010. And even then, noone would buy because of the massive price range they will have.

[parkourpeter112]

:O 25 seconds of footage out of a 1:07 video is ridiculous.

The screen, however, is amazing

[moffe247]

Panasonic (or Pioneer) Had, what the called a 4K TV, whick had a resolution of 4680 x 4320. And it was 150 inches!

[jgskpx0389]

HD?

[moffe247]

What do you mean, "HD"?

[jgskpx0389]

i mean was that product giving High definition?

[moffe247]

WTF?

HD is 1080P (or 720P)

This TV is 4320P. It's almost 10 times as good as a "normal" HD TV

[jgskpx0389]

i wasn't talking about THIS god... please read it i was replying to some other guy

[moffe247]

well you replied to me...

[jgskpx0389]

o snap my bad i thought i was commenting on other video. was running like 5 tabs and looks like i replied on wrong tab XD

[ZoolTool]

It's 2160p. So it is 4 times as good as 1080p and 9 times as good as 720p.

[zurikaten]

holy fucking shit :O id like to play crysis warhead on that one (a) with that high resolution ofcourse

[0dxd0]

crysis on that woah good luck...u gona need like 2 295 lolz

[zurikaten]

haha yea i know but still it would be amazing :D

[0dxd0]

yup it would be spectacular

[liascm]

2 gtx 295 wouldnt be enough, you would get like 1 fps with this game on this resoultion, think about it, with a resouliion of 2560x1600, you only get like 4 fps with the best cards like gtx 295, this resoultion is like twice that which means the game will just crash, even with 2 gtx 295, your gonna nee dlike 20 for this tv for no motherboard can hold this and its only quad sli ready

[zurikaten]

Then obiously u dont know much about the 295, It gets 40-50 AVEREGE fps on very high at 1920 by 1200 (or 1600 cant remember). It has 1760mb something in Ram. And would easily handle crysis warhead on 2560x1600, not sure about double that resolution, SINCE no card can run more than 2560x1600. Go watch some benchmarks on the 295 before u post.

[liascm]

i have and ive got this card,it can no way run crysis at this screen resoution, even if it was competele with this resolution, no card on this lanet can run crysis at everything high and this resolution, you will get like 10fps

[zurikaten]

Dude the difference from 1920 by 1080 to 2560x 1600 aint that huge, from 52averege to 10fps max is ridiculus, if that would be a prob mount another one and it will prob go smooth, unless ur CPU is bottleneck.

[liascm]

my cpu is at 4.0ghz

[zurikaten]

That aint saying much u know, if u have a P4 on 4.0ghz its still crap, if u have an i7 on 4.0ghz its uber

[liascm]

its quad core overclocked to 4.0ghz, its the QX6700

[zurikaten]

Then u shouldent have a bottleneck, i still dont belive the 295 gets 10fps on 2560x1600, upload a vid to prove it.

[liascm]

i dont play crysis but know how powerfull your computer needs to be to run it, i personally have not witnessed this "10 fps" but i saw this benchmark on a video i was watching on youtube so i am just saying what that guy put up, but fsx does get really bad performance in fsx

[zurikaten]

got link to his benchmark? :)

[liascm]

i achieve very low fps in fsx with this video card

[xxAlucarDraculax]

4 times the resolution IS a difference... 720p ->1080p is about twice the resolution alone. That 1600p picture would only benefit large sets such as 55"+ maybe even close to like 65"+

[MrJeff]

4K x 2K resolution :D i want one