Makes me more and more sure 4K PJs and screens will be eclipsed by cheaper "wallpaper" video only "TV" screens....
Donning asbestos underpants now...
Donning asbestos underpants now...
Agreed.chebby said:Ok, hands up (not gel obviously) all those who really have room for a 34ft long telly.
I doubt even gel will be able to make his parents move to a sufficiently larger (and much taller*) house.
It's all got a bit stupid (unless you live in a baronial hall or a very large barn conversion).
* At least 19ft ceilings if it's 16:9 proportions are to be retained.
It's for commercial application (cinemas), and probably few homes of billionaires with a private cinema.chebby said:Ok, hands up (not gel obviously) all those who really have room for a 34ft long telly.
I doubt even gel will be able to make his parents move to a sufficiently larger (and much taller*) house.
It's all got a bit stupid (unless you live in a baronial hall or a very large barn conversion).
* At least 19ft ceilings if it's 16:9 proportions are to be retained.
Compared to $15k for a 4K PJ and another $3K for a decent screen?bigboss said:You'll have to remortgage your house to buy a 12 feet LED screen, *if* Samsung ever makes it.
Right. And also, the price drop will be far less, given that only a few will be made anyway.Son_of_SJ said:But when it comes to super-large sizes, the cost increase is more than the corresponding area increase. Something to do with both the difficulty of making super-large size screens without manufacturing defects, and also that far fewer numbers of units of the very large sizes are needed, compared with smaller sizes. No economies of scale, and all that.
Ahhh...ellisdj said:according to the AVF podcast its a load of smaller screens put together not one massive screen