Sharp unveils big ass 90 inch LED TV. - Polidicks

[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;36461014]Well, give me some examples of the use for more than 1920x1080 pixels, and don't include regular computers. Not many devices nor material will be supporting more.[/QUOTE] Better image quality any kind of display?

I don't see a purpose for a television this large.

[QUOTE=AGMadsAG;36461014]Well, give me some examples of the use for more than 1920x1080 pixels, and don't include regular computers. Not many devices nor material will be supporting more.[/QUOTE] Retina displays. An iPad 3 with a 9" screen has more pixels than this 90" TV.

that's a workman's hernia waiting to happen.

I misread the title as "Sharp unveils big ass on 90 inch LED TV" God damn, that is one huge LED TV.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36461166]I don't see a purpose for a television this large.[/QUOTE] Home theatre.

[QUOTE=redBadger;36461166]I don't see a purpose for a television this large.[/QUOTE] Just to show off. "Haha, I have more money and a bigger TV than you losers!"

Imagine this shit in 3D with surround sound.

Okay, so we have physically large TV's, and large resolutions... ...But what's the point of such large resolutions if programs/games aren't make for those resolutions?

Even at 1920x1080, a TV that large would probably look worse than a 43". And until we use much higher resolutions I see no point. 1920x1080 media already takes up a lot of space and bandwidth. Blu-Rays are nice but we'd have to come up with something like.. Indigo-Rays, that holds twice as much as Blu-Rays

So you have to be far to get optimal view. But the further you get, the smaller the TV will look like. :v:

I'd rather just buy a 150" plasma. [IMG]http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/4/2011/11/xlarge_a22569f6fb5ef0bc4fd40b7d6cd44f45.jpg[/IMG]

[QUOTE=DamagePoint;36461199]Retina displays. An iPad 3 with a 9" screen has more pixels than this 90" TV.[/QUOTE] I know, but are you going to use your TV as a ebook reader or browser? I would like to know where you could make use of the extra pixels.

[QUOTE=TheTalon;36465646]Even at 1920x1080, a TV that large would probably look worse than a 43". And until we use much higher resolutions I see no point. 1920x1080 media already takes up a lot of space and bandwidth. Blu-Rays are nice but we'd have to come up with something like.. Indigo-Rays, that holds twice as much as Blu-Rays[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/Pioneer-Produces-500GB-Blu-ray-Disc[/url] Unless you meant that, or something.

[QUOTE=SgtTupelo;36468989][url]http://www.trustedreviews.com/news/Pioneer-Produces-500GB-Blu-ray-Disc[/url] Unless you meant that, or something.[/QUOTE] I think he means that we do what we did when switching from DVD, it's basically the exact same technology but with a different colored laser since it allows more accurate and precise data encoding (iirc DVDs are red, Blu-Rays are named because they used a blue laser)

Dammit if we want movies at a higher resolution we're gonna have to switch to flash drives or something because physical memory storage isn't gonna last long.

[QUOTE=Quark:;36460860]i have never heard the plural form of [i]clitoris[/i] before you've expanded my vocabulary sir[/QUOTE] It's wrong, people need to learn that you can't just end a word with I because it sounds Latin. [editline]24th June 2012[/editline] [QUOTE=NuclearJesus;36457179]Can you imagine watching porn on that thing? [I][B]Clitori[/B][/I] the size of fucking cats, man.[/QUOTE] The correct plural is either clitorises or clitorides

if you honestly want to view media at that size you should probably get a projector

holy fuck it's $10K

The TV that I will never get to look at in person.

Unless you are running a cinema, I don't find a super large screen TV practical for home audience.