Sony's New SimulView Display Rocks 4K Resolution On An 84" Screen
See Full ImageThe original SimulView PlayStation Display allowed you to enjoy split-screen entertainment without actually having to split the screen. Nifty technology, but it was only available in a 24" package.
Well, Sony has gone above and beyond by not only making a much bigger screen but also increasing the resolution to totally epic proportions. The amazing new SimulView Display will be a ridiculous 84" and support 3D. Oh, but that's not the fun part: It'll also ditch that paltry 1080p resolution for 4K resolution (3,840 x 2,160).
I'm not really sure, but I think that's more real than real. The TV will also come packed with a 50W front-facing, 2-way, 10-unit speaker system featuring S-Force Front Surround 3D that simulates 5.1 sound, plus a fresh XCA8-4K chip that upscales high-definition. There's no knowing how much Sony will charge for this bad boy when it becomes available at the end of this year, but if you want it, we suggest you start saving your pennies.
The PlayStation world is gonna look even more amazing in the next generation...prepare yourself.
Tags: sony simulview tv, 4k resolution tv, simulview 4k resolution, sony tv
8/29/2012 8:47:19 PM Ben Dutka
Put this on your webpage or blog:
Email this to a friend
Follow PSX Extreme on Twitter
Comments (64 posts)
Yukian
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 9:18:41 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
homura
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 9:42:59 PM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
bebestorm
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 9:51:30 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 9:54:26 PM
Reply
Also will the 4k makes it's way to the DLP rear projection TV's?
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 8/29/2012 9:56:52 PM
1 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:07:28 PM
0 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 4:43:53 PM
0 up, 0 down
iwillbetheone
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 10:09:06 PM
Reply
It's long rumoured to be in th price range of $30000. Here is a link with that rumour:-
0 up, 0 down
iwillbetheone
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 10:09:21 PM
0 up, 0 down
fatelementality
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 10:29:37 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
kraygen
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 4:37:37 AM
0 up, 0 down
fatelementality
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 5:49:45 AM
0 up, 0 down
556pineapple
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 10:38:06 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 10:39:44 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 10:58:27 PM
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:42:03 PM
The mitsubishi tv's have 16 speakers in them to accomplish this. Now I'm not tech freak on this stuff, I just know by experience. I didn't think it would work that great but a local company here has a booth set up with those Mitsubishi tv's and I wanted to try it out. It really does work as well as my surround set up, minus the speakers, wires, and receiver.
0 up, 0 down
BikerSaint
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 11:20:31 AM
Thanks for the 411. I guess I shouldn't have used the word fake, so my bad.
FYI, I have a 10 double-cube Bose Lifestyle Surround sound system that's only 5.1, with adjustable sub woofer, bouncing off different 20 areas of my living room right now(plus my Sony stereo surround headset, lol)
But I'm far from being that tech-savvy too, and this inquiring mind was a bit boggled over the the differences of Sony not going to 7.1 vs the 5.1 they're going to use now.
So, is this new Sony HDTV surround similar to a(or like) built-in sound bar & if so, how good is an actual sound bar?(I once heard a $800 Yamaha stand-alone sound bar that seemed to sound pretty decent).
Last edited by BikerSaint on 8/30/2012 11:23:27 AM
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 3:19:12 PM
Oh your fine. I know it sounds like it wouldn't work like it does, I thought the same thing... Until I went and heard one. It works well. I'm not tech savvy really, just know basics, which is why I wanted to hear this surround set up built in to these tv's. If I hadn't heard it myself I would probably have said the same thing you did. ;)
Your setup sounds nice, I got my surround set up back in 2006 maybe even earlier, it's 5.1, but no HD. It's a Sony set up, and it works awesome for me. But I've been itching to get a 7.1 set up. We'll see.
Also I can't say how the speakers are set up on this Sony tv. The mitsubishi tv I seen (and heard) had 16 speakers in a row (as a bar would) below the viewing screen. It sounded crisp, clear and gave a sense of surround. It was nice. The question is do I prefer that over a receiver, sub and surround speakers. I don't know that I prefer it but if it came as an option to the tv I was buying, that's a big plus.
Last edited by bigrailer19 on 8/30/2012 3:27:59 PM
0 up, 0 down
Killa Tequilla
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:04:40 PM
Reply
I hope this is Crystal LED.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:05:44 PM
Reply
1) I have a pretty decent sized home and I don't have a room in which this behemoth could be mounted and watched from an appropriate viewing distance. At best I might be able to get clost and put two seats close to the right distance, but the room would be devoid of furniture apart from that. In other words, this type of screen is not going to be appearing in a living room near you any time soon.
2) Film resolution at a typical cinema production is not far of 4K resolution. 4K resolution isn't even the standard in cinema projection systems yet. So I can't even begin to believe that this will have much more than negligible content.
3) At a typical viewing distance (i.e. the distance from the screen that you need to be to take in the entire picture without turning your head), the eye is incapable of resolving beyond a resolution similar to 1080p. If you were creating a wall display for displaying multiple 1080 feeds and some other information for multiple viewers watching different feeds, then perhaps. But other than that this is nothing more than huge overkill.
Yeah, I know people will criticize this comment because it sounds so against progress. It's not being against progress it's simple reality. The human retina has a certain number of receptors on it, the angle and distances can be calculated to determine how many pixels and at what distance they can be seen. People can argue with that all they like but there's really very little point.
If you go to the movies and a 4K projection system you will notice the difference if you set close to the screen, but you'll have to tilt your head constantly during the movie and turn your head to see what's going on since you're too close to take in the entire screen.
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:09:16 PM
1 up, 0 down
homura
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 3:44:09 AM
0 up, 0 down
kraygen
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 4:39:13 AM
1 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 11:34:38 AM
Actually, if you have a moderate sized 1080p screen and go right up to it, the image is not blurry it's pixelated because you can see the individual pixels. the point about view distance is not whether you can distinguish a difference between 1080p and 2160p at 1 foot from the screen, but whether you can distinguish a difference at a normal viewing distance. If your eye is incapable of resolving individual pixels on the screen beyond a certain resolution at the normal comfortable viewing distance, why do you want or need a higher resolution? It's a pointless quadrupling of the image data.
Kraygen, upscaling adds no detail to the image. a 1080p image upscaled to 2160p (4K) would be every bit as blurry as a DVD upscaled to 1080p is if you look closely at the screen. Upscaling is pointless in any respect since your eye can't see the difference. All it will do is make the image more acceptable to someone standing a few feet from the monster screen. However at that distance you can't view the entire screen anyway, so what difference does it make?
0 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 5:43:14 PM
Have you had a look at Apple's retina display? Put it side by side with another macbook pro (retina and non-retina) and tell me you don't see a difference.
Image looks sharper but also because of the huge increase in pixels, contrasts are much better. The latter is what makes the biggest difference I think.
Anyway at 30k$ for a TV... They made sure I won't get one for a while but I think the higher the resolution, the better. You can put more things on screen and browsing the web on the TV will be much better.
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/30/2012 5:46:30 PM
1 up, 0 down
Rogueagent01
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 5:45:21 PM
However your science means absolutely nothing to the business world. They still sell 1080p 13" displays which if you look at the science is completely pointless. But they see it as a "feature" in which they can charge more money. Business has never cared whether it makes sense or if science backs it up, if they can charge for it and there happens to be any demand someone will sell it. Look at almost any industry and you can usually find something that makes no sense or just goes against what science would dictate as acceptable.
0 up, 0 down
homura
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 6:51:58 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvtG4KD-A4Q
it is going to be expensive.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, August 31, 2012 @ 11:19:12 AM
Do you have any idea how bad "However your science means absolutely nothing" sounds?
I states my 'opinion' based on objective science. It's not my science, it's simple science. When we start getting into discussions where science is dismissed as 'your science' as if to disown or discount the information, I tend to check out of the discussion because that tells me people are no longer discussing in a rational manner but leaning on opinion over fact.
I understand your point, but as I said to Beamboom, I'm departing this topic now.
One last thing. I find it incredibly amusing that people are blindly saying how 4K will be great vs 1080p. I say this because when 1080p came along similar (sometimes the same) groups were saying that 1080p was completely unnecessary and upscaled DVD was as good as BluRay. Science being science, it showed that there was an appreciable benefit to 1080p resolution at a normal viewing distance and that upscaled DVD was still DVD quality at 1080p since no additional detail can be added by a scaler. There were years of argument that BluRay was overkill because it just wasn't needed. Almost all of that discussion was preceded by qualifiers like "However your science means absolutely nothing". Now here we are in the opposite situation. 4K really is overkill, and that's all I am saying, and I am hearing the same thing "However your science means absolutely nothing".
Funny.
0 up, 0 down
DemonNeno
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:06:39 PM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 4:46:50 PM
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:12:07 PM
Reply
Makes ya wish you were rich doesn't it?
2 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 3:20:30 AM
0 up, 0 down
gumbi
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:34:32 PM
Reply
Even if I had the money, I wouldn't buy this. It's just too damn big for a TV. Moving it, mounting it, it would just be a nightmare. Besides, for a fraction of the price you could get a nice HD Home Theater projector and high gain screen that could pump out a beautiful 120" 1080p picture. AND you can roll up the screen when you're done.
This is silly. Stop wasting time and resources on unnecessarily gigantic TV's and bring some practical products to the table...
0 up, 0 down
LimitedVertigo
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 11:55:26 PM
3 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 4:45:52 PM
Last edited by AcHiLLiA on 8/30/2012 4:48:20 PM
0 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 5:52:03 PM
If I had the money I would get one even for my tiny apartment LOL man my dream is to have a TV that fills a whole wall :D :D But I don't want a projector since it's a pain if I want to play during the day (plus I prefer the image a tv gives)
1 up, 0 down
Coffeya
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 12:05:57 AM
Reply
But there is one problem, why the hell 84inches? First too small and now too big, wth sony?!
0 up, 0 down
WorldEndsWithMe
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 12:18:46 AM
0 up, 0 down
Sunni_Boi
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 1:04:32 AM
0 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 5:53:10 PM
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 12:41:42 AM
Reply
It seems the PS4 will be just as prepared for the next decade as the PS3 were prepared for its decade.
Very good.
As for a TV this size and rez: Will I get one? Of course I will, once it becomes the new standard and the price that follows with that.
I've always wanted a projector for my movies and gaming. Now I can save those cash.
0 up, 0 down
Lawless SXE
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 2:17:02 AM
Reply
That being said, that is ridiculously big. I mean... mindbogglingly big. Cool as though. Size out of the way. 4K resolution? How long is it going to take for that to become the standard? It feels as though it's only been a couple of years since HDTVs really became prevalent, while Blu-Ray is still far from ubiquitous here in Australia. If this is an indication of Sony's goals for the PS4...
It will absolutely set the bar, but it still needs to have tech specs far beyond what we are currently expecting. It'll need to be a monstrous piece of kit and to be honest, I'm ok with that. Bring it Sony! I'll get it when I can :)
0 up, 0 down
kraygen
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 4:40:51 AM
Reply
No matter to me though, love to have one, but money always gets involved and so maybe 5-10 years from now.
0 up, 0 down
___________
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 8:04:50 AM
Reply
obviously they will come down as the tech gets better and cheaper to make, but dont expect these to be where current TV prices are now for a long, long, LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG time!
natural progression, if anything 4K is LONG overdue!
1 up, 0 down
Solid Fantasy
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 8:10:22 AM
Reply
0 up, 0 down
SmokeyPSD
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 9:07:42 AM
Reply
It's just a question of when.
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 11:41:47 AM
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 1:47:53 PM
According to the documentaries and discussions I've heard about this (I am a BBC Radio 4 addict, I subscribe to all their science and technology programs) the ones who have seen and tested screens with this resolution all say that the sharpness and clarity gained at this resolution really is an astonishing sight.
And it's not like the digital cinema picture is *that* razor sharp when looked at close range. Not by a long shot. So this is *not* a resolution only suitable for theatres.
But one could ask, would we see much difference if it was, say, 3.5 or 3.8k resolution? Maybe not, even *probably* we would not, but it is wise of the industry to settle for one resolution across the board. It's much more forward thinking.
So yeah - I'm ready. Ready as can be. Sometime just a few years from now there will be affordable 4k TVs. And when they arrive, I already got the PS4 up and ready to pump top quality pictures onto it.
This is how I want it. Luvin' it!
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/30/2012 1:57:30 PM
2 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 3:44:39 PM
0 up, 0 down
AcHiLLiA
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 4:51:23 PM
0 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 5:56:37 PM
The effective resolution of 35mm film is about 4000x2000
Although quality gets reduced by the projector, it is still better than 1080p.
Last edited by Neo_Aeon666 on 8/30/2012 6:00:50 PM
0 up, 0 down
Neo_Aeon666
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 6:09:19 PM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 11:45:26 PM
0 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Friday, August 31, 2012 @ 1:06:26 AM
Today 1080p is what we buy. But there was a time, not too long ago, when true HD were only for the rich'n'famous too. There even was a time when few saw the use of super-large TVs of 40-50", cause the analogue TV signals at that time became blurry on so large screens.
There was even a time where they didn't really see the need for colour TV transmissions, cause most cameras were only b/w anyway. See the pattern here?
The major mistake that most consumers do is to judge an upcoming advance based on what is reality today.
So *today* we all will enjoy our 1080p screens for a good while longer. But Sony can't think like that, not when they are about to make a product that is supposed to stay relevant on the market for close to a DECADE.
(All the large cinemas here in Oslo are equipped with 4k digital projectors today)
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/31/2012 1:11:47 AM
0 up, 0 down
Highlander
Friday, August 31, 2012 @ 11:10:31 AM
"There was even a time where they didn't really see the need for colour TV transmissions, cause most cameras were only b/w anyway. See the pattern here?"
No, I don't "see the pattern" because we're not talking about color vs monochrome. We're talking about resolution. Resolution is a real tangible thing, so is the resolution perceived by the eye. Whether consumers can be led by the nose or not is not the question. Can consumers be persuaded to by 4K TVs whether they need them or not? Of course they can, bigger is better. I'm not arguing with that. All I am saying is that 4K is overkill in the home simply because we can't perceive any difference between 1080p and 4K at a normal viewing distance. I maintain that 4K in the home is absolutely overkill when cinema projection systems are still standardized on 1080p and only now starting to move to 4K systems.
Cinema screens the size of a building might usefully benefit from the extra resolution, but a normal sized HDTV in a normal sized home? No. It's preposterous to make any argument that this is somehow like the development of color vs monochrome. This isn't a case of technology advancing the art in a useful manner, it's en example of having a bigger pixel count than the next guy. If they want to bring a real advance, how about 1080p in 3D without glasses or viewing restrictions? 4K is pointless outside video wall installations or cinemas.
0 up, 0 down
SmokeyPSD
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 9:14:45 AM
Reply
1 up, 0 down
Beamboom
Thursday, August 30, 2012 @ 1:52:31 PM
But this bodes well for an *excellent* framerate at full HD. And that, to me, is really all I want from it when it comes to gaming resolutions.
Last edited by Beamboom on 8/30/2012 1:55:06 PM
0 up, 0 down
bigrailer19
Reply
Wednesday, August 29, 2012 @ 9:17:24 PM