Sharp's 80-inch Aquos LED LCD TV Will Cost $5,500
It's another "world's largest," this time an 80-inch LED-lit LCD Smart TV from Sharp.
Tuesday Sharp revealed plans to launch an 80-inch AQUOS LED LCD TV here in the States next month. Listed as the LC-80LE632U, Sharp claims that it will be the "world's largest" commercially available LED-lit LCD TV on the market to date, and will be backed by an equally large pricetag: a credit-haunting $5,500 USD.
"Our 80-inch AQUOS TV delivers more than double the screen area of a 55-inch TV, for an amazing viewing experience," said John Herrington, president, Sharp Electronics Marketing Company of America. "It's truly like nothing else on the market. Consumers want bigger flat panel TVs for deeper, more immersive viewing experiences and that's exactly what Sharp's delivering here."
Sharp said the upcoming 80-inch AQUOS TV will actually be a Full HD 1080p (1920 x 1080) Smart TV, and will come equipped with built-in Wi-Fi connectivity and access to apps like Netflix, CinemaNow and VUDU. It will also include Sharp's exclusive AQUOS Advantage LIVE online support which allows tech support to remotely connect to the TV through the Internet to assist with TV setup, troubleshoot and optimize the picture quality. Creepy.
Tuesday's announcement also revealed that the 80-inch monster will sport an X-Gen LCD panel with 10-bit processing which was designed with advanced pixel control to minimize light leakage, and a wider aperture to let more light through. Other features will include a dynamic contrast ratio of 6,000,000:1, 120Hz Fine Motion Enhanced support for improved fast motion picture quality, two USB ports, and a game mode (Vyper Drive) that supposedly eliminates perceptible lag between video game consoles and the TV display.
As reported earlier, the AQUOS line features Sharp's "innovative" Quattron quad-pixel technology which essentially adds a fourth color to the typical red-blue-green lineup: yellow. "When combined with Sharp's 1080p X-Gen LCD panel, the displays offer dramatic reduction in energy consumption compared with conventional CCFL LCD TVs," Sharp said. "These technologies work in tandem to optimize picture quality and contrast ratios while reducing energy use."
It's magnormous. It's viewmongous. It's spectacularge. It's Sharp's 80-inch AQUOS LED LCD TV for a spooky $5,500 USD, coming to a store near you in early October, just in time to watch HD splatter movies on Halloween.
- Rugged Asus Android Tablet is Splash, Dust-Resistant
- Volkswagen CEO Gets Upset Over Hyundai Build Quality
- Jet Airliner Concept Inspired by the Bar Tailed Godwit
- Magnetic Cello Ditches Bow & Strings for Magnet & Coil
- Akoya Recreational Plane Offers Endless Possibilities
- Microsoft Files Patent For 1.4 Gigapixel Camera
- Amazon Scores Deal With Major Magazines for New Tablet
- Minecraft Coming to Android Devices This Week
- Swimsuit Models Take the Wheel in Next Need For Speed
- Amazon Announces Three New Ultra-cheap Kindles
- Amazon Makes $199 Android-based Kindle Fire Tablet
- How to Force the Update to Windows Phone Mango
- This Portable Mini-Router Shares a 3G Connection
- Report: "Better" Amazon Tablet Coming in January
- Mercedes Celebrates 125 Years With F125 Concept
- Homemade Robotic Tank Fires 1000 Rounds Per Minute
- Wireless Network Can Track Your In-House Movements
- OnStar Changes its Mind About Tracking Vehicles
- Rumor: Apple to Discontinue iPod Classic and Shuffle
Now that a small TV
I though we had discussion on how really large tv with 1080p picture quality = really large pixel before. This is another one of such example, so only to be watched from a distance away.
Hey, I've had a Sharp LED-LCD TV for two years and except for the built-in speakers, which suck big time, the TV is fabulous, or fantabulous? Anyway, it's not quattron, whether that matters or not, but Sharp builds a nice TV, IMO, and $5.5K for a TV this size is not out of line. . .but too much for my pocketbook, though.
ummm i guess i could use it as a wall or something
I though we had discussion on how really large tv with 1080p picture quality = really large pixel before. This is another one of such example, so only to be watched from a distance away.
good for you now shut it and go back to watching your 30" LCD TV
I don't think $5500 , imagine what this would have cost just 3 or 4 years ago, I paid nearly $4000 for my 50 Pioneer Elite , of course, 50" could be had fo less but the Pioneer elite was the top of the line.
"so only to be watched from a distance away."
The thing is, people I know that have TVs under ~30" use them in close quarters like in bedrooms. People I know with big TVs, like 50"+ are putting them at a distance like in their living rooms.
I don't think it is necessarily to remind people that an 80" TV is not likely the right TV to stick on their nightstand, four feet from their bed, just like I don't think we need to tell people that sticking a 13" TV 25 feet from their couch will be pretty useless.
"It will also include Sharp's exclusive AQUOS Advantage LIVE online support which allows tech support to remotely connect to the TV through the Internet to assist with TV setup, troubleshoot and optimize the picture quality. Creepy"
I don't think that's creepy at all, a lot of consumers don't have a clue on how to setup their TV's properly, this could actually benefit the consumer experience, specially when other manufacturers add the same functionality to their TV's.
As for the price tag that is to be expected for a new TV like that, in just a few short years (about 5) TV's this large will be more common and the price would have dropped to a more reasonable 2K range.
Sorry Sharp; not upgrading my LG 55" 1080p TV until you increase the resolution to 8k.
I did the math on pixel size-- 80" and 1080p would work out to 0.85 mm2. I pretty sure this will be perfectly acceptable from any normal viewing distance. For comparison 55" would be .40 and 30" .12.
Granted, most likely your 30" is only 720p, so those pixels are more like 0.27 mm2.
The iPhone 4 is at .006 mm2. Scaling that up to an 80" diagonal would require something like 23000x13000 resolution.
Converting the 5,500$ to Indian Rupees works out to like 2,47,500 Rs. and that is not the most expensive around here all though you don't see TV's like those here lol very often.
But I loved the Aqous ones before this the 42 was.... picture perfect. SO this ought to be better since the timing have changed to 120 now...... will look forward to it's availability here.
imagine the size of the box!
kind of pointless, even @ 55" you get to see the low pixel density. But then again, this beats any 1080p projector hands down when it comes to contrast.
How would this perform as a PC Monitor? I currently sit about 4-5ft from my 60" Plasma and that's great without noticing any pixels...but 1080p on an 80"?
I saw what I think was a 80" DLP HDTV at Fry's. Wow... crazy big. I wish my house was big enough to accommodate such a beast. A 6 foot tall vag could be a little creepy though.
I'd rather get a nice projector and save the extra money for video games and whatever else.
A 6 foot tall vag could be a little creepy though.
LOL!!!
Whats the deal with restating over and over its a $5000 TV with crazy adjectives??? Does the author not remember TV prices from just a few years back or better yet 5 years or more? My first 37" was $2200(with tax and a warranty I am glad I got!) and not the most expensive model either. To me this sounds like a deal if you have the room to fit it in. Anyhow I hope this helps bring down the more reasonably sized TV's prices.
80 inches! WOW! Too bad I can't afford one.
On the other hand don't get too excited about the Quattron quad-pixel technology. According to several well known consumer oriented publications the yellow is not part of the International film and tv standards. Consider it an advertising gimmick.
$5500 to watch absolute crap on tv sound like a pretty good deal.
kind of pointless, even @ 55" you get to see the low pixel density. But then again, this beats any 1080p projector hands down when it comes to contrast.
I do agree. I have a Mitsubishi HC3800 with excellent gamut and 4000:1 contrast at about 100" in my room (limited by the ceiling, haha), which is superb, but I have been somewhat jealous of the blacks produced by some high end TVs, especially the newer full LEDs. MY WORD, talk about rich blacks!! (but it's not 100" and I can't get it for $850, like I did my projector)
How the hell would you get it home? I had a tough enough time getting my 55" in a van...lol
Need moar pixel density. My 55" is adequate, but an 80" (or even a 70") would be awesome. It should really be "Quad HD" or whatever its called (7680x4320). Sure there's no current programming for it, but still, I don't want giant pixels.
Pixel density at that size isn't the only problem. The real problem is motion blur/motion artifacts. I've seen problems with one of their 46" inch sets with this issue at 120Hz. Keep in mind, the larger the set, the more distance an object has to travel across the screen. So, if an object has to go across the screen on an 80" set, it will be traveling twice as fast per inch of screen as it would on a 40" set. At the very least, 240Hz should be a bare minimum for this screen size.
80 inches! WOW! Too bad I can't afford one. On the other hand don't get too excited about the Quattron quad-pixel technology. According to several well known consumer oriented publications the yellow is not part of the International film and tv standards. Consider it an advertising gimmick.
very TRUE , and like most new tech they compeletely forget to mention that the SOURCE media has to use and support the technology for it to actually make a damn bit of diference. becasue you can't add color that is not there already
Pixel density at that size isn't the only problem. The real problem is motion blur/motion artifacts. I've seen problems with one of their 46" inch sets with this issue at 120Hz. Keep in mind, the larger the set, the more distance an object has to travel across the screen. So, if an object has to go across the screen on an 80" set, it will be traveling twice as fast per inch of screen as it would on a 40" set. At the very least, 240Hz should be a bare minimum for this screen size.
that funny i got a 42 inch LG , that is at 60 hz and i have no issue with motion blur or ghosting. even in video games i get a great exprience ??? talking about you saying you had issue on a 46 at 120 granted a 46 is a bit larger than a 42 but not by much , maybe it's soemthgin with the brand ???
Holy crap, I don't even know if this will fit in my house...
I did the math on pixel size-- 80" and 1080p would work out to 0.85 mm2.
.The iPhone 4 is at .006 mm2. Scaling that up to an 80" diagonal would require something like 23000x13000 resolution.
congratulations you have just invented my perfect television. 12,960p. I'm not upgrading until they make one.
that funny i got a 42 inch LG , that is at 60 hz and i have no issue with motion blur or ghosting. even in video games i get a great exprience ??? talking about you saying you had issue on a 46 at 120 granted a 46 is a bit larger than a 42 but not by much , maybe it's soemthgin with the brand ???
It's possible that a brand might make a difference. Sometimes, manufacturers can fudge numbers--who knows. But, the 46" was a Sharp, so this 80" is the same brand. I have a 480Hz 55" Vizio that I bought after I returned the 46" Sharp model and the Vizio is great.
Well I just purchase a 70" 3D TV & I can't figure out why so many people have all these compliants about it. My Sharp works just great & I had no problem installing it. So, all u people suck it up & just get one.
hmmmmm