http://www.gearfuse.com/westinghouse-quad-hdtv-gives-you-2160p-but-why/ Technology, Science, Culture. Tue, 07 Feb 2012 19:49:06 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.2 http://www.gearfuse.com/westinghouse-quad-hdtv-gives-you-2160p-but-why/comment-page-1/#comment-236575 Cha Lhi Boi Mon, 04 Jan 2010 10:13:35 +0000 http://www.gearfuse.com/westinghouse-quad-hdtv-gives-you-2160p-but-why/#comment-236575 No way!! get the Philips 56" 3D QFHD TV for $25,000! Once again, Sony makes an inferior and overpriced gadget. And Nik Gomez, it's true you can't get 3940x2160p yet, but you can do a lot better than 1920x1080. Apple computers, and probably some PCs, can stream 2560x1600. Maybe you mean that 1920x1080p is the best possible for movies and television from bigbrand entertainment companies. But downloads and streaming to your computer are the way of the future; the days of TV and movie discs are numbered. So, if I had a ****load of $$$, a Philips 3D QFHD TV would be top on my list. No way!! get the Philips 56″ 3D QFHD TV for $25,000! Once again, Sony makes an inferior and overpriced gadget. And Nik Gomez, it’s true you can’t get 3940x2160p yet, but you can do a lot better than 1920×1080. Apple computers, and probably some PCs, can stream 2560×1600. Maybe you mean that 1920x1080p is the best possible for movies and television from bigbrand entertainment companies. But downloads and streaming to your computer are the way of the future; the days of TV and movie discs are numbered. So, if I had a ****load of $$$, a Philips 3D QFHD TV would be top on my list.

]]> http://www.gearfuse.com/westinghouse-quad-hdtv-gives-you-2160p-but-why/comment-page-1/#comment-236193 Daniel Sat, 02 Jan 2010 00:13:35 +0000 http://www.gearfuse.com/westinghouse-quad-hdtv-gives-you-2160p-but-why/#comment-236193 The smallest 1080p screen in 2006 was 7" I can hardly grasp what it is now. This means AT LEAST the smallest 2160p screen could be 14", that's rediculous to me, I can't imagine what a movie like Avatar playing in true 2160p would look like on that type of screen. Obviously you come into issues with the power need to run that, plus that's so small i think you need to start with like a 40" screen 2160p, now a VIZIO 23" 1080p RAZOR LED HDTV is like $200+, so now it'd only be logical to think a 2160p screen would be at least 4x more expensive, so $800+ now it's new so of course they can raise the price plus it'll probably have things like 240sps, Wi-Fi, netflix streaming, and etc.. so I can see a REALISTIC price for a new product like $4,000 even though that's not worth all the money their asking, it's realistic for a new technology like that. I think 300% profit is reasonable, that's why i say $4000. The smallest 1080p screen in 2006 was 7″ I can hardly grasp what it is now. This means AT LEAST the smallest 2160p screen could be 14″, that’s rediculous to me, I can’t imagine what a movie like Avatar playing in true 2160p would look like on that type of screen. Obviously you come into issues with the power need to run that, plus that’s so small i think you need to start with like a 40″ screen 2160p, now a VIZIO 23″ 1080p RAZOR LED HDTV is like $200+, so now it’d only be logical to think a 2160p screen would be at least 4x more expensive, so $800+ now it’s new so of course they can raise the price plus it’ll probably have things like 240sps, Wi-Fi, netflix streaming, and etc.. so I can see a REALISTIC price for a new product like $4,000 even though that’s not worth all the money their asking, it’s realistic for a new technology like that. I think 300% profit is reasonable, that’s why i say $4000.

]]>