Sharp presents 4096 x 2160 consumer LCD TV screen

Oct 06, 2010

In a high definition world, 1080p has been the latest standard for LCD screens. All of that is quickly changing thanks to Sharp Corporation's newest LCD prototype that boasts a whopping four-times higher resolution display than the standard full HD.

With a resolution of 4096 x 2160, the 64-inch display was designed to meet the changing needs of the motion picture industry. Studios are changing from film to digital media, so it makes sense for resolutions to change, also.

A company spokesperson says this is the first time an LCD has been produced with a resolution this high. The previous version, unveiled last year in Yokohama, Japan, measured only 56 inches with a lower resolution of 3840p x 2160p.

The prototype was on display this week at the CEATEC expo in Chiba, Japan.

Back in January, Panasonic presented a 150-inch, 11 feet-wide, 4,096 x 2,160 resolution plasma TV at the . Though it's creation, much like Sharp's latest consumer LCD, remain concept designs that won't soon be found in stores.

Explore further: Tech review: Galaxy Tab 4 blends in with the crowd

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Samsung Develops First 70-inch LCD TV Panel

Aug 21, 2006

Samsung Electronics has developed the first 70-inch LCD panel for use in the consumer TV market. Currently, the largest LCD TV screen size is 65 inches. The company will unveil its 70-inch LCD HDTV at the ...

Sharp Introduces 65V-inch LCD Monitor

Feb 17, 2006

Sharp will introduce into the Japanese market the PN-655 LCD Monitor made at the Kameyama Plant, which uses a 65V-inch full-spec high-definition LCD panel (resolution of 1,920x1,080 pixels).

Recommended for you

Google Glass: Paramedics' next tool

4 hours ago

While Google Glass' potential as a consumer device remains to be seen, Lauren Rubinson-Morris is excited about its possibilities in her workplace.

SR Labs research to expose BadUSB next week in Vegas

Jul 31, 2014

A Berlin-based security research and consulting company will reveal how USB devices can do damage that can conduct two-way malice, from computer to USB or from USB to computer, and can survive traditional ...

3D TV may be the victim of negative preconceptions

Jul 31, 2014

An academic from Newcastle University, UK, has led a lab-based research, involving 433 viewers of ages from 4 to 82 years, in which participants were asked to watch Toy Story in either 2D or 3D (S3D) and report on their viewing ...

Microsoft unveils Xbox in China as it faces probe

Jul 30, 2014

Microsoft on Wednesday unveiled its Xbox game console in China, the first to enter the market after an official ban 14 years ago, even as it faces a Chinese government probe over business practices.

User comments : 7

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

jamey
not rated yet Oct 06, 2010
And now, in addition to 4:3, 16:9, and 16:10, we add 256:135. *WHY*? Why this incessant need for larger and larger aspect ratios? Will we soon have a screen with a 3:1 ratio? 4:1 ratio?
Graeme
not rated yet Oct 06, 2010
These sort of resolutions would make more sense for a computer monitor. But we need to go back to a more square aspect ration. The human field of view is not a letter box slot, but more like a circle. The manufacturers seem to be targeting the movie market.
dan42day
1 / 5 (1) Oct 07, 2010
Open your eyes Graeme, our field of view, including peripheral vision is wider by at least a 2:1 ratio. even slightly more if your roll your eyes side to side and up and down without moving your head.
jamey
not rated yet Oct 07, 2010
But we can't *make* a monitor exactly match and fill the full field of view - as not everyone has the same field of view. So raising the aspect ratio doesn't do that much good, really - I mean, who sits so close to their screen that they see *NOTHING* else but screen? I've got a 16x10 screen - and it's really really nice - but I can't honestly see a need to have it even *WIDER* without getting taller.
rgwalther
not rated yet Oct 10, 2010
Higher source resolution improves quality. For nearly a century movie 'purists' have claimed that the small dots on movie film were 'artistic effects' not processing defects from chemical limitations.
When I view the world, I do not 'yet' see dots. I do not see the world in 640x480, nor 720x480, nor 1280x720, nor 1920x1080, nor 2560x1440, nor 4096x2160. At some point (relatively soon) the resolution will exceed my human capacity to determine.
As computers become faster than your ability to comprehend, additional speed increases are transparent. More information is transmitted whether comprehended or not.
jamey
not rated yet Oct 10, 2010
You're missing the point, rgwalther - it's not about resolution, but *aspect ratio*, aka how wide the screen is versus how tall it is. This new format has an aspect ratio of 1.9, vs. the 1.8 of 16:9, and the 1.33 of traditional analog TV.

I know why the movie makers keep upping the aspect ratio of the movies - it forces the adaptation of the films to video formats to use the black bars that so many find annoying. But my point remains - nobody sits so the screen fills their *ENTIRE* field of view, so why keep raising the aspect ratio?
a_n_k_u_r
not rated yet Oct 17, 2010
Very good Sharp! Keep pushing the envelop. In next 10 years we will have Ultra HD with 3D! Wow!