Westinghouse introduces super-high-res LCD, 1080p models

First there was 1080p. Now there's something called "Quad Full" or 3,840x2,160 resolution, which Westinghouse showed off in a 56-inch LCD HD monitor at this year's Consumer Electronics Show. The company says that equates to a resolution greater than 8 megapixels and that the LCD offers "stunning, never-before-seen picture reproduction."

Westinghouse's upcoming 52-inch 1080p LCD television

The Quad Full monitor may be the flashy headline act, but the real meat of the story is that Westinghouse is serving up several new LCD televisions, with a full lineup of moderately priced 1080p models in 42-, 47-, and 52-inch sizes. The company has also announced additional all-in-one models that feature a built-in DVD player. A new line of photo frames is on tap as well, and judging from an early peek at the specs, it should be better than the old line, which wasn't impressive.

Here are the highlights of Westinghouse's offerings for 2007.

1080p LCD HDTVs

TX-F430S series

• 42- and 47-inch models
• 1,920x1,080 native resolution
• 8ms response time
• Inputs: 4 HDMI, 2 component, 1 composite, 1 S-Video, 1 VGA
• Integrated ATSC tuner
• Available in April
• $2,000 MSRP

TX-F480S series

• 52-inch model
• 1,920x1,080 native resolution
• 6.5ms response time
• Inputs: 4 HDMI, 2 component, 2 composite, 2 S-Video, 1 VGA
• Integrated ATSC tuner
• Available in May
• Price not available

1,366x768 LCD HDTVs

Many of the HDTVs in this category have multiple model numbers for what seems to be the same TV. Westinghouse has not announced what the differences are between these models at this time.

SK-42H240S and SK-42H360S

• 42-inch models
• 1,366x768 native resolution
• 8ms response time
• Inputs: 2 HDMI, 2 component, 2 composite, 2 S-Video, 1 VGA
• Integrated ATSC tuner
• Available in April
• $1,700 MSRP

SK-32H520S and SK32540S

• 32-inch models
• 1,366x768 native resolution
• 8ms response time
• Inputs: 2 HDMI, 2 component, 2 composite, 2 S-Video, 1 VGA
• Integrated ATSC tuner
• Available in April
• $950 MSRP

SK-32H590D

• 32-inch model
• Built-in slot-loading DVD player
• 1,366x768 native resolution
• 8ms response time
• Inputs: 2 HDMI, 2 component, 2 composite, 2 S-Video, 1 VGA
• Integrated ATSC tuner
• Available in April
• $1,050 MSRP

SK-26H240S and SK-26H520S

• 26-inch model
• 1,366x768 native resolution
• 8ms response time
• Inputs: 2 HDMI, 2 component, 2 composite, 2 S-Video, 1 VGA
• Integrated ATSC tuner
• Available in April
• $700 MSRP

SK-26H590D

• 26-inch model
• 1,366x768 resolution
• 8ms response time
• Inputs: 2 HDMI, 2 component, 2 composite, 2 S-Video, 1 VGA
• Integrated ATSC tuner
• Available in April
• $800 MSRP

[rtmk40]

Now, this would be worth the wait

As opposed to the HDMI1.3, this doubling of the pixel resolution compared to what's available in the current 1080p offerings, would definitely make my wait for a TV worthwhile. I believe this difference might actually be discernable to our eyes, unlike going from million plus colors to billion plus colors in HDMI1.3. Who knows, perhaps the HDMI1.3 is also offered in the new Westinghouse LCD HDTV.

[Dustout]

I think 1080p will be the standard for 6 years

So many things are showing off the powers of 1080p, i dont see anything in the forseeable future that will be useing anything higher. Plus when 1080p is replaced it will be by a tv that can display at like 8010p

[karport]

Marketing of new and improved whatever

The companies have to brag or promote something as the next innovation, even though it likely is not.

You cannot get content in 1080p from Cable, Sattellite, etc, and Blu Ray and HD-DVD may be still born. HDMI is a paper standard and it is unclear if the human eye can even detect what is being promoted.

I am reminded of ultra Tide with Oxy power when I read this stuff.

I think it may be 6 years before we even see 1080p adopted by the content providers much less bank on anything above that.

[cyde01]

They proved me wrong!!!!

I never thought consumer products would go beyond 1080p. At 56 inches, can you really tell the difference between this set playing 1080p video and the same set playing at the full 2160 resolution?

I always thought that because the pixel size would become so small, anything above 1080p would have to be on a huge screen, like 100 inches+, in order for anyone to be able to tell the difference. Regardless, no authority is rushing to create a new format that's larger than 1080p for consumers (2k and 4k exist for movie theaters) and broadcast and cable TV have not even been able to go to 1080p, let alone something even larger. I honestly still doubt we will see consumer home video go beyond 1080p.

[karport]

Super high resolution > 1080p

Since I am only interesting in viewing TV via cable or satellite and watch an occassional DVD, I am not caught up in any claims of better performance over 720p or 1080i.

If there is some laboratory test data that demonstrates some improvement that I cannot possibly see because of the screen size and pixel density, it is a ho hum.

It will be interesting to see when the consumers get smart and thumb their nose at this stuff.

[killakaipo]

CYDE01 Talked way too soon!

I told you Cyde01! I was right all along and a lot sooner than you or I even thought! I have won the bet wish I bet some money on this one. I mean didnt we argue about this last week and you were saying how nothing better is coming out for the rest of your lifetime? Please man! The Higher res television are already here. Just like I was saying the COMPANIES RELEASE THERE CRAP SLOWLY!

There will always be something better next year like 2000p 4000p etc. So I hope you get my point buy a 1080p monitor, watch and HD DVD and see the difference for yourself instead of theorizing that there isnt any.

Now you can finally stop theorizing if companies are gonna make anything better because its already here baby and it just might be cheap enough for you to finally afford so checkout the difference for yourself and you can stop saying theres no difference in resolution numbers to make yourself feel better! Believe that!

[cyde01]

Why the insults did I ever insult you?

Did I ever say that I can't tell the difference between 1080p and standard def? I guess you think I'm a moron but I am not, I can tell the difference between 1080p and standard def, I'm saying neither YOU nor I would be able to tell the difference between 1080p and 2000p UNLESS IT WAS ON A MUCH LARGER MONITOR. This is obviously just a gimmick to attract attention by Westinghouse because there is nothing broadcast in 3840x2160 and no movie discs or anything else in 3840x2160. I can guarantee you that if we both went and saw this thing and you could flip a switch between 3840x2160 and 1080p we wouldn't notice much of a difference, and if we did it would be small at best.


NOW CAN I HAVE AN OPINION WITHOUT BEING INSULTED?

[killakaipo]

CYDE01 Talked way too soon!

I told you Cyde01! I was right all along and a lot sooner than you or I even thought! I have won the bet wish I bet some money on this one. I mean didnt we argue about this last week and you were saying how nothing better is coming out for the rest of your lifetime? Please man! The Higher res television are already here. Just like I was saying the COMPANIES RELEASE THERE CRAP SLOWLY!

There will always be something better next year like 2000p 4000p etc. So I hope you get my point buy a 1080p monitor, watch and HD DVD and see the difference for yourself instead of theorizing that there isnt any.

Now you can finally stop theorizing if companies are gonna make anything better because its already here baby and it just might be cheap enough for you to finally afford so checkout the difference for yourself and you can stop saying theres no difference in resolution numbers to make yourself feel better! Believe that!

[MasterNewbie]

Very interesting...

There really is no point to 2180p televisions.

Much like 720p vs 1080p on <40" TVs, you won't get the benefit of the new resolution with a proportionally larger TV screen. Additionally, wouldn't bandwidth be a problem? You'd have to find some way to send and receive the signal before these types of TVs can become even practical. Westinghouse might have gone the easy way and just made multiple HDMI connections, but seriously, HDTV penetration? Not much. SHDTV penetration? Not gonna be any better than HDTVs.

[tnmtlm]

Having Doubts...

I don't doubt the veracity of what Westinghouse will showcase at the expo. To me, the real question lies in the TV's ability to upscale a 720p/1080i/1080p signal to the resolution this TV boasts. Remember, the government has already assigned the 16 definition standards and the uppermost of them is 1080p. So unless that set of standards is being changed, no signal being broadcasted regardless of provider will be at a higher resolution than 1080p. I can't speculate on whether other content (ie - high definition DVD formats, next-gen console gaming formats, etc) will break the boundaries. Any educated guesses?

[l0gar]

Monster 56 as a computer display?

Honestly, that is the only use I can think of for it at the moment. Though, if its decent beyond just resolution that would make one kick a** monitor. Upscaling even a 1080p signal to that level though probably won't work well. Thinking in megapixel terms -- because that actually kinda works -- it would be like turning a 2 megapix image into an 8 every 1/60th of a second. I just don't think we're there yet.

[suxxorz]

This is stupid

The only reason to get this would be for computer use or if you wanted a super huge wall display for high megapixel jpgs. Are we going to have to suffer through a pixel race on TVs just like cameras? Problem is, they at least have somewhat of an advantage with cameras. Where is the content that would need such a resolution. People can hardly tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p on these size TVs.

[juser_bogus]

what you fail to see...

is that the quad res allows for an even multiple of 720p AND 1080i resolutions. this will give the best picture because there will be no interpolation and in a sense then all will be native.

[barrington thompson]

Westinghouse super high resolution 56-inch LCD,CES

Any person, who has more sense than money, would prefer to waste money on a poor quality TV rather than spending the same amount of money on a much better TV quality is their privilege or stupidity.

People who complain can stay with CRT or buy black and white TVs ? It appears that some people have got nothing better to do, but complain about improving standards ? moan, moan and moan.

Why don?t they do something constructive and moan about poor customer services or poor quality controls instead?

I would prefer to buy the best quality HD TV (even if it numerous TVs are going to be a ?Quad Full" or 3,840 x 2,160) at the lowest price.

Quad Full, doesn?t surprise me, which is why 1080p is necessary also.

The best HD TV being created by the Japanese organisation who it is claimed created HD TV are working on a resolution for public displays much better than quad full.

With a TV it is necessary to read things from the TV for example; TV guide, the weather, and Teletext etcetera. In the future the TV will probably replace the computer monitor (wireless, HDMI 1.3) for example to watch digital photographs:
www.hdmi.org <about><FAQ>

One reason why people cannot tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p, is because they have not been shown the best 1080p picture using the best HD products including the best HDMI 1.3 features etcetera!

I would take the attitude that consumers who could not tell the difference between 1920x1080i and 1920x1080p resolutions were probably con!

Suxxorz, can supply evidence that people who couldn?t tell the difference between 1080i and 1080p were not con and everything were done to the highest standards including HDMI 1.3:-

1) Used high definition (high definition) DVD films, which were created with 1080p native HD cameras
2) Used the best 1080p cables
3) Used the best 1080p TVs / projectors
4) Used the best; Blu-ray or HD DVD films and preferably these should be filmed in 1080p native cameras to best quality
5) Used proper Dolby DTS-HD HD sound etcetera
6) Were people shown extremely; slow and fast motion clips also, I don't think so?

If Suxxorz or anybody else can find ? (lets make it extremely easy, to prove me wrong) only one case and post the evidence on this forum with the names and model numbers of HD products used and the website?s URL of the survey

My logic is, that an excellent Blu-ray or HD DVD films should be noticeable better than an up converted DVD to 1920x1080i despite that I haven?t compared them ? should be commonsense!

[jbradfor]

This is great! I need one for displaying photos!

My major complaint with digital photography is that no TV comes close to the resolution of my camera; even 1080p is only 2 megapixels. While 8 MP is not quite up to the quality of a good slide projector, it is sufficent for my needs.

[Gsteele]

Do the math

Nice idea for a TV. Of course, nothing is going to be broadcast, or fed from a DVD of any kind, at that native resolution, so what you will necessarily see is a mathematically upscaled image of 1080p at best. With smoothing, it will look better (i.e., less pixilated) if you look at it from a distance where you CAN see the pixels at 1080p. But you don't look at it from that distance.

If we do the math, based on looking at a computer monitor, it helps to put this in perspective. For a range of sizes from 15" to 20" LCD monitors, at resolutions from 800x600 to 1600x1200, (i.e., 4:3 aspect ratio - not widescreen) we see that the vertical pixel resolution varies from 67 to 100 pixels per vertical inch. In widescreen TVs, for a range of sizes from 17" to 70", at resolutions from 1280x720 (720p), through 1920x1080 (1080p), to 3840x2160, the vertical pixel resolution varies from 31 to 92 pixels per vertical inch. The 92 is for a 17" widescreen monitor at 1440x768. For even the Westinghouse LCD, the resolution is 79 pixels/vertical inch.

But we watch computer LCDs at a distance of about 18 to 24 inches - and READ from them, as opposed to predominantly looking at large moving shapes. If you look at your computer screen from 3 and a half feet away (using the 2.5 times diagonal viewing distance rule of thumb for a 17" widescreen), you'd be hard pressed to see ANY pixelation. Try it. And the vertical resolution of that screen is only 17% higher than the Westinghouse screen. I have to get about 18" from my 19" LCD to see any vestige of a pixel, and then only if I stare at it with the intent of seeing it. At 4 feet, I can't even read anything on it except BIG letters.

If a 42" 720p plasma (not all plasmas are as sharp as 720p, of course) is sharp enough for your eyes, consider that the vertical resolution is only 35 pixels/inch. At the recommended 12 foot viewing distance of the Westinghouse screen, you'd be hard pressed to notice that you were looking at a better picture (79 pixels/inch) than a 61 inch 1080p (36 pixels/in) if a 42" plasma is already good enough that you can't see pixels at the standard viewing distance from it.

So, as nice as it might be to have a 56" screen with a resolution almost as good as your computer LCD, at the normal viewing distance for TV, you won't really be able to see the difference. You'd have to sit so close, you'd have eyestrain and motion sickness after about 20 minutes, so it's hardly worth the tradeoff.

Of course, as a huge display to game with, I suppose you could make the case, but can you imagine the graphics card and processing horsepower you'd need to have to feed this a native signal - if, in fact, it's possible to do so?