Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Television Technology

LG Announces "Super UHD" TV Lineup (digitaltrends.com) 121

An anonymous reader writes: LG Electronics will be showing off a new line of 4K Ultra-HD television sets at CES this week and a 98-inch 8K Super UHD giant. Digital Trends reports: "The UH9500 (screen sizes 55-86 inches) UH8500 (screen sizes 55-75 inches) and UH7700 (screen sizes 49-65 inches) share several traits in common. All will offer what LG is calling HDR Plus, which means all of the sets in this series can process and display High Dynamic Range content from a variety of sources, include LG's Color Prime tech for enhanced color brightness. These sets will also apply processing that aims to improve non-HDR content for an HDR-like experience."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG Announces "Super UHD" TV Lineup

Comments Filter:
  • Web OS 3.0 (Score:5, Informative)

    by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @10:43AM (#51230183)

    Selling spyware as a feature, the sales department should be congratulated. No, the whole industry.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      If you are going to make a claim like that about a niche OS that barely anyone here knows anything about, you need to at least provide a single link to back it up.

      • Re:Web OS 3.0 (Score:5, Informative)

        by NotInHere ( 3654617 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @11:01AM (#51230229)

        Popular news: http://www.tomsguide.com/us/lg... [tomsguide.com]

        Geek news: https://hackaday.com/2013/11/2... [hackaday.com] (also consider the blog entry linked in that story http://doctorbeet.blogspot.co.... [blogspot.co.uk] )

        And this is only about that particular company's products, other smart tvs from other companies spy as well.

        • All those links are about previous versions and the information may or may not apply to the 3.0 version. They may have gotten better about respecting consumer privacy or worse. Nobody knows at this point.

          • by Anonymous Coward

            I spent a fortune on my last LG TV, only to find out I couldn't use the features without being spied on.

            I won't buy another.

          • by penix1 ( 722987 )

            They may have gotten better about respecting consumer privacy or worse. Nobody knows at this point.,

            There is an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"

            Why should anyone trust any corporation that has zero incentive to "do the right thing" in respect to privacy? In fact, they have every incentive to monetize every bit of data they can get on you!

            • There is an old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you! Fool me twice, shame on me!"

              Or - and I'm not making this up - as George W. Bush said:

              Fool me once, shame on ... shame on you. Fool me... You can't get fooled again!

              • by noodler ( 724788 )

                Here is the actual transcript:
                "Fool me once, shame on ... shame on ... you? ... ... ... A fooled man can't get fooled again!"

            • by strstr ( 539330 )

              am I not mistaken that all TVs are vulnerable including Samsung? essentially everything that communicates over the Internet is vulnerable because the Internet is being misused to collect data on and from all citizens. some TV models for example had voice searching and recognition, and all words spoken around the TV were being sent over the internet where intelligence agencies nab it at the fiber optic uplink taps. any files you access or sent were also being intercepted.

              the Internet is the problem not the s

              • by strstr ( 539330 )

                this article says Samsung TV's are doing the same thing as LG; https://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2015/02/samsung_televis.html [schneier.com]

                another article said Vizio TV's do the same thing. http://bgr.com/2015/11/10/vizio-smart-tv-spying/ [bgr.com]

                It's standard for everything, every bit of data, everything your TV does to enable your viewing habits and usage to be monitored and recorded without your consent or knowledge.

                It's like Google's and cellphones and telephone and internet. you cannot stop them from doing it unless you

              • by Anonymous Coward

                the Internet is the problem not the software on our devices

                Dude, you have serious issues if you think any communication tool is the problem.

              • Nope, not mistaken. If a TV is connected to the internet there will be somebody watching what you do with it.

                The alternative is to use a non-smart TV (or to not plug the TV into the network) and use a set-top box instead. But then somebody will watch what you do with the box instead. TiVo started that game early and has released various statistics about TiVo watching over the years. (To the best of my knowledge the company has done a good job of protecting personal information and has only released statisti

        • There's a simple way to prevent it from spying on you. Don't give it access to your wifi network.

          Given the poor penetration of home internet in the U.S., it will be quite some time before TVs require access to the internet.

          I expect home wifi to get worse in the U.S. as people start using their phones as their only access to the internet.

        • Re:Web OS 3.0 (Score:5, Interesting)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 ) <mojo@nOspAm.world3.net> on Sunday January 03, 2016 @10:45PM (#51232943) Homepage Journal

          Firewalls in home routers need to get better. My TV is only able to access YouTube and Netflix, and nothing else. Not even the ad severs for YouTube.

          Consumers need this level of choice now.

    • damn straight Microsoft has to give spyware away. but making your customers purchase it. Genius!!!!

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Selling spyware as a feature, the sales department should be congratulated. No, the whole industry.

      Except WebOS has nothing to do with WebTV.

      webOS is the mobile OS that Palm created to run on its phones as a competitor to Android and iOS. It was developed after PalmSource sold the old PalmOS code to Access Ltd (Japan), while they worked on webOS.

      They released a couple of phones, and you may remember the old HP tablet that was clearanced out running webOS. Palm sold itself to LG and it lives on to power the

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I realize that LG is not in the content business, but they're still making a mistake and wasting their time. UHD was last year, or the year before. Now they're pushing HDR UHD. But, what is there to watch?

    It's hard to find any volume of UHD content. NetFlix has some, Amazon has some, and UltraFlix has a bit. But overall there's very little out there. What's worse is that the majority of the available 4K(UHD) content is crap titles.

    There needs to be more UHD content before they start with the added features

    • no one is going to make HDR content if there aren't any devices to watch it same with HD almost 20 years ago. the first HD TV's came out in the late 90's. the big adoption didn't start until around 2002 or 2003 when they fell to $3000 or so for a 40" unit and in the mid 2000's is when the big push of HD content came out
      • part of that was HDMI, and part of it is that TV's should last you a decade or more, and the TV manufacturers want you to buy a new tv every 3-4 years.

        early HD tv's didn't have HDMI, or only had one HDMI port. so you could watch HD dvd, or HD cable but not both without swapping cables.

        in the early 2000's they finally got wise and adjusted the spec to allow tv's to have more than one hdmi input.

        • My first HDTV was 1080i and only had DVI and component inputs as it was released pre-standards. It also weighed over 100 pounds and had a 36 inch cathode ray tube. What a waste of money. I now wait until standards are well established and a device is cheap. One advantage it had was that no pet could knock it over.
          • CRT with DVI? Wow, I'd want it sort of, connected to a PC.
            CRT HDTV may exist on my continent but if so they must be extremely rare.

      • by Kjella ( 173770 )

        That doesn't even begin to cover the catch-22. You need: 1) capture devices
        2) supporting formats
        3) editing/mastering tools
        4) distribution channels
        5) displays
        6) content

        Looks like we're getting there tho.

      • by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @08:41PM (#51232635)

        ... the first HD TV's came out in the late 90's...

        I'm going to be nit-picky here and point you towards Wikipedia's article on HDTV.

        In 1949, France started its transmissions with an 819 lines system (with 737 active lines). The system was monochrome only, and was used only on VHF for the first French TV channel. It was discontinued in 1983.

        In 1958, the Soviet Union developed ransformator (Russian: , meaning Transformer), the first high-resolution (definition) television system capable of producing an image composed of 1,125 lines of resolution aimed at providing teleconferencing for military command. It was a research project and the system was never deployed by either the military or consumer broadcasting.

        In 1979, the Japanese state broadcaster NHK first developed consumer high-definition television with a 5:3 display aspect ratio.[4] The system, known as Hi-Vision or MUSE after its Multiple sub-Nyquist sampling encoding for encoding the signal, required about twice the bandwidth of the existing NTSC system but provided about four times the resolution (1080i/1125 lines). Satellite test broadcasts started in 1989, with regular testing starting in 1991 and regular broadcasting of BS-9ch commencing on November 25, 1994, which featured commercial and NHK programming.

        These are systems dating back to the start of the Korean War pretty much, and are "high definition" resolutions. Regardless of how popular they were (or were not) they existed, and therefore display devices capable of using them also existed. You can discount the first two if you want because they were military applications or false-starters, but the Japanese system was definitely in the consumer market.

    • People need to remember Henry Ford. You're not going to start moving tons of units until there's a volkspanel that most people can afford.

    • You don't need UHD content. You can fit 6 or more HD shows on an 8k screen. Just the thought of it makes me want to ejaculate the words, "Please dismiss yourself, I am having a private moment with myself."

    • You have to have technology before you'll start to see more than a token amount of content. Few people are going to produce for 4k TVs when they are rare, which they still are these days. The technology has to get in place first, then you'll see more content.

      It's been the same with anything: HDTV, color TV, DirectX 11, etc, etc. When a new tech comes out, there will be a few things to take advantage of it. Demos and the like. However it won't get widely supported until enough consumers have it to make it wo

  • by Opportunist ( 166417 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @11:22AM (#51230279)

    It's great that we can see in much higher detail now that there's nothing on worth watching.

    Wake me when you invent something that makes TV relevant again.

    • I see lots of people saying how useless these things are, but I beg to differ. 8k at 49" would be ~180ppi. These would make excellent high resolution monitors, especially if they start selling even smaller models. Hopefully they start pushing other companies to start making 8k models as well. The only question I have is, how the hell does the cabling for these things work? I seem to recall that the newest hdmi and displayport specs don't even support 5k particularly well.
      • by Zarhan ( 415465 )

        No they don't. TV's typically have 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, so the color resolution is really only a fraction of the advertised resolution. While this is fine for typical video, for workstation use, you want a real monitor with 4:4:4.

  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @11:33AM (#51230309) Journal
    I'm always up for more resolution; but my eyes are bleeding just imagining what fake-HDR effects are going to look like. More dynamic range is useful; but what horrors are they going to invoke when faking data not specified by the source material to get a 'Best Buy Brite(tm)!' effect that 8 out of 10 focus group participants agreed looked brighter and more vivid than the competitor's image under retail conditions?
    • by adolf ( 21054 )

      The answer is "all of them."

      But then I haven't found a TV set yet that couldn't have all of its gee-whiz "enhancements" completely disabled (aside from scaling, but you'll have that)... including, 15 years ago, a big $10k Runco rear-projector which inextricably had Scan Velocity Modulation turned on for its blue gun.

      That was a little harder to turn off, but still not bad: Remove front panel, reach waaay in there with a long pair of foreceps, and uinplug the extra 2-pin connector that was on the blue gun bu

  • Now I can watch Jerry Springer and Bounty Hunters and Sluts and Sausages in glorious 4k+! I feel like George Jetson already.
  • by Blythe Bowman ( 4372095 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @12:08PM (#51230387)
    Comming to a waiting room near you, thete will be one of these 4k+ TVs on the wall, only they will be connected to a cable or even an OTA digital converter box either which is outputting letter boxed SD which somehow still manages to get cropped by the set, or better yet a 4:3 SD Apicture in Strech-O-Vision! Just like I see most HD sets in public spaces today
    • by BaronM ( 122102 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @12:56PM (#51230607)

      Fun fact -- OTA HDTV was for a long time one of the highest (technical) quality sources available. Fairly high-bit-rate MPEG2 can look VERY good, and generally doesn't suffer from the recompression artifacts of a cable or satellite provider working to maximize the number of channels rather than the quality of any particular channel. Yes, a good Blu-ray or stream can provide better quality now, but for a waiting-room situation, OTA HDTV is probably the best bet going.

      Not that there will be anything to watch, but at least your daytime TV will only be crappy due to content.

    • Just like I see most HD sets in public spaces today

      Holy crap where do you live in the small country town in Alabama? I haven't seen a TV stretched to the wrong format in at least 5 years.

  • by The Grim Reefer ( 1162755 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @12:12PM (#51230401)
    The naming for this is getting a little ridiculous. HD I could understand. But then to go to ultra high definition seemed a little silly. Super ultra high definition is a whole lot of silly. I suppose they have to give it some sort of name as most TV's that are being sold as 4K truly aren't. I'm going to stick with my 1080p HD for now. At least until the Extra big ass double plus good venti glorious super ultra high definition televisions are released with 8 billion K resolution. At that point, I'll need to wear a pair of 16 inch telescopes with 750X magnification to truly appreciate the resolution while sitting 10 feet away from it on my couch. Except there won't be any content and everything will have to be unconverted from 1080p blurays that were remastered in 4K.
  • 11K. (Score:5, Funny)

    by jpellino ( 202698 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @01:09PM (#51230683)
    I'm holding out for 11K.
  • I just spent $1710 on a 75" 1080p TV (after rebates and such, NOT on a Black Friday deal).

    TV prices are crashing through the floor and the base models are good enough for almost anyone.

    As usual, the early adopters will cushion the blow for the rest of us.

  • Will they please stop using awful rubbish like the 'sharpness' setting, a setting that does nothing other than make your picture look awful on a digital TV.

    I was looking at a 4k TV in the window of the local TV shop a couple of weeks back, the picture was dreadful, educated guess is that they'd turned sharpness up to full and f'ed up a brightness setting causing the picture to look like horribly over-exposed photo. Manufacturers are plain weird when it comes to what they think looks good.

  • Who needs a 98 inch screen, when you can have a 360 degrees view on an Oculus Rift?

  • I 'cut the cord' with Comcast years ago, because I was tired of paying for >=90% of the channels I never watched, and I was tired of all the recompression delivering a low-quality picture, and never looked back once.

    Are broadcast stations going to upgrade to a UHD signal? If not then really what's the point of this, is it some conspiracy to kill broadcast television completely and lock everyone into paying for TV?
    • by captjc ( 453680 )

      Hell, around me a good portion of the cable networks and local stations have yet to upgrade beyond 480i and most of those that did are at only 720i!

      The point is TVs are a bargain bin commodity right now. So every manufacturer is trying to outdo the rest with bulletpoint features that may or may not ever be used to sell their high-end, high-profit-margin systems.

  • Why isn't anyone asking this?

  • by epyT-R ( 613989 ) on Sunday January 03, 2016 @04:56PM (#51231795)

    I want 4 or 8k in a 23-24" 16:10 display, 30bit color, great black levels and viewing angles, no input lag (less than 1ms), and little to no motion blur.

    The last thing I want is to pay a lot of money to see some shitty reality tv show in bitrate starved 8k instead of bitrate starved 1080i on a 50"+ screen. oh and commercials, the endless commercials...

  • Most (easily better than 50%, more probably more than 75%) of the shows I get from Netflix or the Internet or even from Dish Network is transmitted at no more than 720p. While it might be nice to have a 4K screen, there's no reason to have one at the moment. First step is to get rid of the data caps so the higher quality can be enjoyed for longer than a few hours per month. Then we actually need content provided in 4K resolution. Then we need internet speeds that can deliver 4K resolution. Maybe in a
  • But can it run crysis?
  • 98" 8k TV? I'm not sitting 38" from a 98" TV, heh. A 98" 4k TV doesn't even make sense. When regular HD is already past the line where I can actually see pixels, any resolution above that is pointless. http://isthisretina.com/ [isthisretina.com]

Nothing ever becomes real till it is experienced -- even a proverb is no proverb to you till your life has illustrated it. -- John Keats