Sharp announces 85-inch Super Hi-Vision TV, 16x the resolution of 1080p

By on May 20, 2011, 8:30 AM

Japanese national TV broadcaster NHK (Japan Broadcasting Corporation) and Sharp have jointly developed an 85-inch LCD compatible with Super Hi-Vision, a next-generation television broadcast format. With approximately 33 megapixels, or 16 times the resolution of HDTV, Super Hi-Vision is touted as being able to offer powerful, life-like image reproduction. NHK began R&D into Super Hi-Vision in 1995 and aims to begin trial broadcasts in 2020.

It's almost like having an IMAX theatre in your home. While most of the information is Japanese, there's a quick video available in English, courtesy of DigInfo TV:

Under the joint development, Sharp's UV2A2 LCD technology was used to create the first direct-view LCD compatible with the unprecedentedly high display performance of Super Hi-Vision. The combination of Sharp's technology and NHK's expertise in Super Hi-Vision results in incredibly detailed images on a giant screen.

Sharp's TV features a Super Hi-Vision-Compatible LCD, a 85-inch screen size (approximately 1.9m x 1.05 m), a resolution of 7,680 (H) x 4,320 (V) pixels, a brightness of 300 cd/m2, a gradation of 10 bits for each RGB color, and a typical refresh rate of 60Hz. The LCD will be shown to the public at NHK's Science & Technology Research Laboratories in Tokyo from May 26, 2011 to May 29, 2011.

The picture above, ladies and gentlemen, is the first of many attempts to make a successor to the HDTV. I still don't own an HDTV as I really don't see what all the hype is about. This Super Hi-Vision technology, while it's a terrible name, I'll admit is a little more intriguing. As long as I can hook it up to whatever computer I have at the time when it's released, I'll probably buy one.




User Comments: 41

Got something to say? Post a comment
1 person liked this | Jibberish18 said:

I still don't own an HDTV as I really don't see what all the hype is about./

And you're writing for a tech blog? Irony at its best.

bioflex said:

oh how i admire large screens, looks really good and i can only hope to have one of these anytime soon.

Guest said:

@Jibberish18 - Hype? Ummm well if you still watching a standard TV u got to be hurting your eyes...that is sooo blurry...HDTV is like putting on glasses if you have bad vision...that much difference...so it's not hype...If you want hype then try the current 3D TV.

freythman freythman said:

Jibberish18 said:

I still don't own an HDTV as I really don't see what all the hype is about./

And you're writing for a tech blog? Irony at its best.

+1

Guest said:

Sorry Gibberish.....I see you were quoting the article...ok...article guy that was directed at you

Guest said:

The screen saver scene with the lady and the tree is very beautiful. OK and the tv is fine :)

Staff
Steve Steve said:

I want one! hell make it two

treetops treetops said:

Dang I wonder how much that sucker costs.

Guest said:

it must be using at least 5 PS3 Cell processors and consumes like 3000 Watts

Guest said:

One of those dreams to never come true.

The technology is not any near to be marketed, its update frequency sucks.

If I ever swap a 240Hz HD TV panel for something else, it will be not less than the same frequency.

By today's standards 60Hz update is from stone age. They badly need to increase the update rate to at least 2 times.

Panasonic has been selling 400Hz panels for 2 years now, these come with a 60Hz panel, oh please,...keep at black & white while you're at it...

We are now living pass compromises in TV quality.

mattfrompa mattfrompa said:

You really get a feel for 33 mega pixels at 360p :P

But seriously, put a high quality HD tv and put the same blu ray on that and a high quality SD tv, or THEN tell me you don't get the hype about HD. It's something that once you make the switch, you'll wonder how you did without.

SO will you be willing to find a card that can output 7,680 x 4,320?

Staff
Jesse Jesse said:

Good question, Treetops. I wonder when they will be available to consumers.

Staff
Jesse Jesse said:

Guest said:

Panasonic has been selling 400Hz panels for 2 years now, these come with a 60Hz panel, oh please,...keep at black & white while you're at it...

We are now living pass compromises in TV quality.

The 400 and 600hz on Plasma TVs is not the same as the 60/120/240hz refresh rates on LCD's.

Guest said:

To be fair going from 480p to 1080p is an incremental improvement, not the massive revolution it's been marketed as over the years. The difference is clearly noticeable, but not massive. There are more significant factors affecting image quality.

stewi0001 stewi0001 said:

Emil, there is a difference trust me (or don't)

I still do not care for the 3D TVs since they probably mess up your vision and it's not great (yet)

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I still won't buy anything from Sharp, period.

p51d007 said:

These 80+ inch tv's are the equivalent of the middle age balding guy who gets a vette.

Hey, it's your money, but I don't get it. Heck, I spend so much time in front of the computer, I just said screw it and put a tv tuner in the computer and keep it in a tiny window, more for the noise value than the picture. If I want to see something on the big screen, I'll go to the movies.

Guest said:

Yes, the refresh rate of 600Hz on a plasma is not equivalent to 240Hz on the LCD. Plasma has an almost instantaneous refresh rate (so even without the "600Hz" marketing spec, no LCD will ever come close).

Panasonic subdivides their plasma display panels into 10 sub-fields. Each sub-field is refreshed at a 60 Hz rate. 10 sub-fields refreshed at 60 Hz (10 x 60 = 600) produces a 600 Hz sub-field drive figure.

Is a 600 Hz sub-field drive better for fast motion? NO. It neither helps nor hurts fast motion on a plasma display panel. Plasma pixels switch at 1 micro-second; thousands of times faster than the fastest LCD response time. Because of this speed difference, a plasma TV operates different than a LCD TV and, therefore, does not produce the motion blur and jitter produced by a LCD display panel. Plasma TVs do NOT need 120 Hz refresh rates to compensate for these motion artifacts because they do not produce these motion artifacts.

This monitor is very nice though. If only they made a SuperAMOLED or a Plasma screen with acceptable power consumption with those specs. LCD/LED need not apply.

Guest said:

Listen to this sony troll,yeah right its using cell from '06,go troling some where alse noob

LinkedKube LinkedKube, TechSpot Project Baby, said:

Man this is going to look cool on my rich ass wall! All kidding aside this is huge.

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

SO will you be willing to find a card that can output 7,680 x 4,320?

I think I can get you an answer to that Matt. I' going to downsample Crysis to that res and see what happens.

Man this is going to look cool on my rich *** wall! All kidding aside this is huge.

send us some screen caps super, although you're going to need Google Earth to take them :p

IAMTHESTIG said:

Wow, that is a lot of pixels! 1080p is pretty sharp, and depending on the quality of the lens and camera used, with 1080p video it is difficult to find flaws in a picture. With a 4320p TV, not much bigger than your average 50" TV... that will be one crisp picture. Only problem now is having a lens and camera that is capable of taking advantage of the 4320p resolution. Then what about gaming? Todays top of the line graphics card would come to a crawl trying to output this resolution (with proportionately sized textures, not upscaling current texture sizes...) at an acceptable framerate.

And I can't believe the writer of this article doesn't see what the advantage of HDTV is... Either you haven't seen proper 1080p video or your blind as a bat. However one of the major problems is people sit too far from their TV. The human eye can't see the detail of 1080p resolutions on a 50" screen beyond about 3 meters or so, and thats with 20/20 vision. There is an optimal viewing distance for each sized and resolution TV. My 37" 1080p optimal distance is almost 2 meters before I can no longer distinguish the crispness of each pixel.

TrekExpert TrekExpert said:

I would love to have 3 of these for surround gaming

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

I would love to have 3 of these for surround gaming

Wow! Just think, then you'd never have to eat or s*** again.......!

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

Wow! Just think, then you'd never have to eat or s*** again.......!

Super high def....multi-monitor....Photo-realistic gaming...3D..I would hazard a guess that the next step in technology is going to be going outside and having a catch with your son.

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

Super high def....multi-monitor....Photo-realistic gaming...3D..I would hazard a guess that the next step in technology is going to be going outside and having a catch with your son.

F*** that, just scan him into the computer....

red1776 red1776, Omnipotent Ruler of the Universe, said:

F*** that, just scan him into the computer....

ROFL! ...and this is my pride and joy...Tron Jr.

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

"I still don't own an HDTV as I really don't see what all the hype is about."

????????????????????????????

captaincranky captaincranky, TechSpot Addict, said:

"I still don't own an HDTV as I really don't see what all the hype is about."

????????????????????????????

And since the world is scheduled to end tomorrow, you may never find out...!

lawfer, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I still don't own an HDTV as I really don't see what all the hype is about.

Wow, this made me facepalm so hard...

H3llion H3llion, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Looks great! Now how much will it cost? :P

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Emil, find a friend with a nicely spec'd 1080P HDTV and bluray player and watch Apocalypto.

Guest said:

I personally experienced an HDTV for several months, then went back to a standard definition. The difference I noticed was negligible, and the money that was spent buying an HDTV would have been much better spent buying 32 extra gigs of RAM.

And I hate to break it to some of you Xbox 360 fans, not many games play at 1080p. The "High Definition" effect is mostly created by the skill of marketers, not screen resolution.

Do not facepalm too hard--I do agree that there are certain resolutions which are un-work/view-able.

But I have to agree with the author--I just do not see what all the hype is about.

Guest said:

Quote:

"I personally experienced an HDTV for several months, then went back to a standard definition. The difference I noticed was negligible, and the money that was spent buying an HDTV would have been much better spent buying 32 extra gigs of RAM.

And I hate to break it to some of you Xbox 360 fans, not many games play at 1080p. The "High Definition" effect is mostly created by the skill of marketers, not screen resolution.

Do not facepalm too hard--I do agree that there are certain resolutions which are un-work/view-able.

But I have to agree with the author--I just do not see what all the hype is about."

My thoughts:

WTF!!! Who are you people?

Tedster Tedster, Techspot old timer....., said:

I have 3 HDTVs and the picture quality isn't really that much greater over standard def at 1080p. I'm sorry, it looks great, but nothing to knock my socks off. DVDs still look fine in high def and yes, I do own a blu-ray. My TVs are plasma and LCD and the plasmas are much better than the LCD.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

In this area I think we'll have to go with the saying "To each his own" because not everyone can agree or feel the same way about any one thing. Some people place greater importance on things like video resolution or fidelity (like me) and some don't care that much about it and place other things/features at greater need. Another thing is not everyone's eyesight is the same. My best friend is pretty much blind without his glasses and doesn't really seem to care much at all whether a show he's watching is in HD or not. He also doesn't care if his games are at 720p or 1080p or even 1920x1200... or even his desktop resolution for that matter.

Personally, I refuse to watch non-HD footage anymore and have started the very slow and expensive (both time and money) process of re-acquiring my important films in HD formats. I do all my handheld video recording on an HD camcorder and when channel surfing I start at 1111 (where my HD channels start.) I would love to see what this set looks like as well as what the source footage is and what it was recorded with (Red I assume.)

Eosystemsinc said:

$$ wonder who has the money to pay for one of those things

Guest said:

it's for nerds who want ultra-clear porno viewing.

Guest said:

I just want the TV model. She is hot.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

I still don't own an HDTV as I really don't see what all the hype is about./

And you're writing for a tech blog? Irony at its best.

+1

It puzzles me why am I reading your article after all... I guess people with vision are understanding are busy doing things, while the rest write stupid articles about it with dull irony.

VitalyT VitalyT said:

Totally overrated!

1. It only benefits going above 1080P on a panel starting from 50" and above.

2. A 4K panel offers perfect quality for up to 100" panel in size.

3. The difference between 4K and 8K on 85" panel is impossible to see, unless with a zooming glass, couple inch from the screen, like that guy on the photo.

I'd rather see 1080P on a Samsung Galaxy Note 3 in the future, is where it is really needed, because 720P for 5.5" screen isn't top-notch.

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.