Sharp launches its first 70inch TV with 8K panel: LV-70X500E

#5539433

chispy

2018-04-20 20:28

At a low price of €11.199. 😕 Hefty price for sure but i am most worried as there is no 8K content available.

#5539434

Embra

2018-04-20 20:34

Sharp used to be somewhat cutting edge on panels. All I see here in the States as far as Sharp TV's are very cheap low end stuff. Didn't they get taken over/Bought out a while ago?? Well, at least one can say they have a 8K TV .... haha

#5539436

Ricepudding

2018-04-20 20:56

As lovely as this is... it also makes me worry about the next Generation of consoles, They might be gunning for this instead of being able to do a 60fps on 4k... guess time will tell anyway. Lovely TV, though like when 4k First came out, is there any real point to getting something like this early? With totally no Media beyond Raw Red film that can show this thing off. TV is still mostly 720p or 1080p, now we got 8k coming out, TV providers need to step up their game...Guess Netflix might make 8k TV shows soon enough with their endless money mind you

#5539438

Denial

2018-04-20 21:13

Ricepudding:

As lovely as this is... it also makes me worry about the next Generation of consoles, They might be gunning for this instead of being able to do a 60fps on 4k... guess time will tell anyway. Lovely TV, though like when 4k First came out, is there any real point to getting something like this early? With totally no Media beyond Raw Red film that can show this thing off. TV is still mostly 720p or 1080p, now we got 8k coming out, TV providers need to step up their game...Guess Netflix might make 8k TV shows soon enough with their endless money mind you

If the next generation of consoles can do 30fps at 8K they can definitely do 60fps at 4K... 8K is 4x the resolution of 4K.

#5539459

Ricepudding

2018-04-20 23:22

Denial:

If the next generation of consoles can do 30fps at 8K they can definitely do 60fps at 4K... 8K is 4x the resolution of 4K.

I meant more in a way of what they normally do and force players into a certain resolutions, like Forced 4k 30 or 1080p 60fps, or what i often see atm dynamic resolution at 30fps

#5539473

fry178

2018-04-21 00:55

Lol at ppl still talking about no content. It the same as before when HD/fhd sets came out and no signal (cable etc) would support it, the tv upscales it. Or what do all those ppl do that have supersport/hyper cars with +800hp that dont own a race track? They just drive it on regular streets and it doesn't impact the quality nor the capabilities of the car... Its just a matter of knowing HOW to upscale non native content, which most tv companies dont, as they dont do anything similar on the professional side. Given that below 3 to 4 ft even a UHD panel at 70 will have visible pixels (i like to sit close), it does make sense to go 8k, but a 80in screen or bigger would have made more sense.

#5539483

nevcairiel

2018-04-21 01:43

fry178:

Or what do all those ppl do that have supersport/hyper cars with +800hp that dont own a race track? They just drive it on regular streets and it doesn't impact the quality nor the capabilities of the car...

And yet its then easy to argue that you don't need to buy that if you're not going to use it fully. Sure, it can drive on a street, but so can much cheaper cars as well. Not to mention that the tech specs of that screen are actually quite weak, outside of the resolution of course.

#5539493

fry178

2018-04-21 03:14

Oh, sure you can use it fully, just not in every country. and even in countries with speed limits, as long as you dont produce wheel spin, most dont have limits on acceleration 😀 yeah, that tv isnt really one i would consider for image quality (outside the higher res).

#5539495

Exige245

2018-04-21 03:36

Embra:

Sharp used to be somewhat cutting edge on panels. All I see here in the States as far as Sharp TV's are very cheap low end stuff. Didn't they get taken over/Bought out a while ago?? Well, at least one can say they have a 8K TV .... haha

I was thinking the exact same thing. I've heard Sharp is an OEM panel manufacturer now for other companies. I'm not sure if that's true or not offhand, and I haven't bothered to do my google research lol...but yes I agree- the only Sharp TV's I've seen here in the states are pure trash. Even in the low-end spectrum, their colors are washed out with poor edge lighting and low brightness- they're easily beat by most any other brand in the low end segment imo

#5539539

0blivious

2018-04-21 09:04

By the time this pricey TV is useful (available 8K content), there will be much better TVs that sell for less. I like that we're scaling up though.

#5539541

Hilbert Hagedoorn

Administrator

2018-04-21 09:10

0blivious:

By the time this pricey TV is useful (available 8K content), there will be much better TVs that sell for less. I like that we're scaling up though.

I don't think 8K UHDTVs make any consumer sense. Even at 70 inches and a normal viewing distance, you just cannot see the different pixel density over Ultra HD.

#5539550

C-Power

2018-04-21 10:15

Exactly, the jump from 1080 to 4K is a definite improvement you can actually see in consumer sized TV's - 8K makes no sense unless you have a TV of 100+ inches or so. And even then it's debatable. But hey, most consumers don't even realise they're watching upscaled content on their 4K TV's, so I guess they just buy the next big "8K" thing as well, more/bigger is always better right.... 😀

#5539607

alanm

2018-04-21 16:56

GRaFkiyv:

€11K for 60Hz ? 😀

What sort of gaming hardware/GPU do you think could run 8k @ 60hz let alone higher over the next 5 years? Remember, 8k is same as running 4x 4k screens. You can barely find a 4k screen running anything higher than 60hz today. €11K for a 70" 8k 60hz TV sounds about right for the highly exclusive niche market its intended for today.

#5539657

chispy

2018-04-21 20:05

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

I don't think 8K UHDTVs make any consumer sense. Even at 70 inches and a normal viewing distance, you just cannot see the different pixel density over Ultra HD.

+1 I completely agree with you Boss , you just cannot see the pixel density sitting at normal distances it is absolutely correct. Here is a very handy tool made by rtings wish might be helpful when buying a TV in regards to Size to Distance ratio and also a very good read about it. TV size to distance calculator: https://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-size/size-to-distance-relationship For the people that like to sit close to a big tv , that's a big no no ( red flag lol , you are doing it wrong 😀 ) , use the link to the tool provided here to check your recommended and optimal distance. Again , native 8K content it's a huge problem right now , there is almost 0 , zero , nada , nilch , cero real 8K native content available. Upscaling to 8K it's not an argument , i can tell you right now that it won't look pretty or good and as sharp as native / true 8k content ( same as 4K when non-native 4k content it's upscaled on my 4K TV it looks like crap 😏) , so , i just cannot imagine anyone spending €11.199 to watch upscaled 8k content in my opinion. I know i would not 😉 Kind regards: Chispy

#5539695

chispy

2018-04-21 22:02

airbud7:

Cool link chispy http://i.rtings.com/images/optimal-viewing-distance-television-graph-size.png The limit to which you can increase the angular resolution by stepping back depends on your visual acuity. At some point, your eyes are not good enough to distinguish all the details. Studies show that someone with 20/20 vision (or 6/6 in Europe) can distinguish something 1/60 of a degree apart. This means 60 pixels per degree or 32 degrees for a 1080p television. 4k UHD TVs double that to 64 degrees. Keep in mind that you can see a single pixel from further away (depending on its contrast with the rest of the picture). For 4k, this distance is often too close for most people. This is because 1080p was designed around the field of view logic above. It is the cutting point at which both the optimal field of view and 60 pixels per degree meet. For lower resolutions, it meant sitting a bit further than preferable to not notice the pixels, 4k resolutions and higher give you a lot more freedom. Because of this, visual acuity isn't really the best way to find the right distance anymore, and it should instead be used as a way to figure out the closest point you can sit to a TV without hitting its resolution limitation.

Great information , thank you for airbud7 !

#5539702

scatman839

2018-04-21 22:28

"videos are limited to 4K." and "no such devices support this" so what you're getting is a 12 grand high resolution picture viewer this thing is technically brilliant and functionally pointless

#5539748

Venix

2018-04-22 04:06

I have a feeling we will be here in 5 or so years talking about how useless the 80 inch 12k or 16k tv is for the price point 😛

#5539751

Valken

2018-04-22 04:25

When 8K OLED and Ampere SLI becomes reasonable in price, 8K would be the way to go. Technology marches on and I see 8K TV or monitors more useful than 4K mobiles. I mean 6" at 4K is just crazy to pick out details, even a 12" tablet yet tons of people still buy these devices.

#5539752

fry178

2018-04-22 04:39

Lots of ppl might need to update their info: All hd/fhd/qhd/uhd tvs will always upscale lower res signals. All sony/lg uhd tvs that arent low end, are all 100/120 hz panels, mote thru software. One of the main reasons for higher res is to get closer (getting more immersed) without being able to see pixels. For 1080p recommend min distance is 3 times the screen height. At 4k its half that, about 5ft for a 70in. So even at 8k, its "still" 3ft. Even without that, it will still be able to show a bit more detail when viewing 4k content, as the panel wont be the "bottleneck". I was demoing a 1080p next to a uhd (65in) running a 1080p signal, the uhd allowed to be able to read signs from shops on a street, when the fhd set could not. So for larger screens and/or sitting close, 8k does make sense (on the screen).

#5539753

chispy

2018-04-22 05:57

fry178:

Lots of ppl might need to update their info: All hd/fhd/qhd/uhd tvs will always upscale lower res signals. All sony/lg uhd tvs that arent low end, are all 100/120 hz panels, mote thru software. One of the main reasons for higher res is to get closer (getting more immersed) without being able to see pixels. For 1080p recommend min distance is 3 times the screen height. At 4k its half that, about 5ft for a 70in. So even at 8k, its "still" 3ft. Even without that, it will still be able to show a bit more detail when viewing 4k content, as the panel wont be the "bottleneck". I was demoing a 1080p next to a uhd (65in) running a 1080p signal, the uhd allowed to be able to read signs from shops on a street, when the fhd set could not. So for larger screens and/or sitting close, 8k does make sense (on the screen).

Care to share links to prove all this information ? Maybe i can learn a thing or two. Thank you 😀