And Suddenly, 1080p Doesn’t Look So Hot Any More

We’re nearly six years into the first true generation of high definition video games, and still, few titles can manage to run at the “maximum” 1080p (1920×1080) resolution. Spare a thought for the games of the future, then, as this 85-inch Sharp TV has a 7680 x 4320 display. Madness. [Dvice]

Top photo via darkhorse_loga/Gigazine

Discuss

(17 Comments)
  • [–]

    Dr_Stef

    Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 8:52 AM

    Madness?..
    this.. IS.. SHARPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!

    • [–]

      Nic

      Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 9:31 AM

      Waaayyy Sharpa.

    • [–]

      Anon

      Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 9:33 AM

      You sir,
      Made me laugh, A lot. Well done.

    • [–]

      Ad

      Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 4:23 PM

      That’s worth at least 3 internets.

  • [–]

    Emanance

    Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 8:54 AM

    I can’t even imagine what the bit rate for full motion video on this bad boy must be!?

    • [–]

      Mike

      Monday, May 23, 2011 at 8:42 PM

      Well if Blue-ray at 1920×1080 is 54mbit, then this screen being 4x higher, 4x wider, is 16x the pixels, so roughly 864mbit/s. Not sure you’d be streaming media over wireless to it :)

  • [–]

    Valor

    Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 9:02 AM

    Why not just stop doing this & spend hundreds of millions into R&D to get the highest physically possible resolution to per centimeter instead of releasing this constant stream of televisions that will be replaced in a few years. It’s destructive to the world and it’s consumers! STOP IT INDUSTRY, STOP IT NOW!

    • [–]

      Stick

      Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 9:32 AM

      Industry gimme tech. GO INDUSTRY GO!!

  • [–]

    Dark_Templar

    Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 9:09 AM

    I didn’t think the human eye could perceive any increase in resolution above 1920*1080?

    • [–]

      Hieronimus

      Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 11:06 AM

      I imagine the bigger the screen is, the more visible the easier it is to discern individual pixels. 85″ is certainly bigger than most TVs on the market, but I didn’t think it would justify that resolution.

    • [–]

      Jordaan

      Sunday, May 22, 2011 at 7:10 AM

      On a 42″ panel at 1080p, the average human eye douln’t see higher detail at 10 feet away. Gamers and other “adapted” viewers can bump that number up to 15ft. However, that resolution of the human eye is TECHNICALLY ~576MP, however, the maximum resolution that can be focused I a highly debated topic, but is generally agreed to be, on the average person, between 50 and 180MP

  • [–]

    N0NEoftheAB0VE

    Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 9:30 AM

    Oh frak – don’t anybody tell Digital Foundry

    • [–]

      James Mac

      Sunday, May 22, 2011 at 2:34 PM

      Ooohhh, what a good idea.

      *starts typing email*

  • [–]

    Crab Nicholson

    Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 4:33 PM

    You’ve been able to get monitors at at least 5120×3200 for years now, 1080p hasn’t been “maximum” for a long time.

    • [–]

      Mad Danny

      Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 6:33 PM

      Heck, even when 1080p *was* considered “maximum” it still lost out to all the 1200p monitors!

  • [–]

    chris

    Saturday, May 21, 2011 at 7:15 PM

    didn’t samsung have their 85″ version of the exact same thing on display at ces or something like that last year?!? pretty sure they did…

    anyhow, quad-CF 6990 and you just MIGHT be able to play a game at that res :)

  • [–]

    solypsis

    Sunday, May 22, 2011 at 3:50 PM

    doh! 1080p tvs were getting cheap, now i have to wait a few years more to upgrade!??

Join The Discussion