Monster quad-HD LCD from Westinghouse to demo at CES

Continuing to roll with the 1080p bandwagon, Westinghouse has announced plans to show off the new year's product line of 1080p-capable LCD sets at CES, with a 52-incher as the flagship model. Also to be displayed is a 56-inch LCD with 3840 x 2160 resolution -- a full four times high-definition -- that is most likely intended for medical imaging or videoconferencing use. Imagine taking four 23-inch Apple Cinema displays and somehow attaching them together and that's what you'd get in this prototype. Move over 103-inch plasmas, you're so 2006!

[update: fixed apple display size]

[Adam Filipowicz @ Jan 5th 2007 1:34PM]

well 4 apple 30" cinema displays would be a resolution of 5120 x 3200
so not quite what they were saying

[Steven @ Jan 5th 2007 1:41PM]

30" displays are 2560x1600. 4 Displays like that would be 5120x3200. 30" displays are almost double the megapixels of 1080p.

[FuzzyBee @ Jan 5th 2007 1:42PM]

I wonder what sort of bandwidth it'd take to do videoconferencing using this resolution. There aren't that many normal HD videoconferencing units out there today, even.

[geekmorgan @ Jan 5th 2007 3:13PM]

I think the video conferencing idea is to show multiple cameras at once, instead of one giant-resolution video. Hi resolution displays are used in TV production, you can fit several video streams on the screen at once which is good for live events and switching.

[James @ Jan 5th 2007 1:43PM]

2160p is useless at 56"

manufacture a 150" 2160 LCD panel and we'll talk.

[jdklev @ Jan 5th 2007 1:35PM]

best
caption
image
ever

[Horhay @ Jan 5th 2007 1:41PM]

You're assuming the 30" Apple display has 1920 x 1080 resolution. It actually has a native resolution of 2560 x 1600 so 4 of those together would be 5120 x 3200 (not 3840 x 2160).

[Chad @ Jan 5th 2007 2:03PM]

It's funny (to me) that this article showed up today since just yesterday my company asked me to spec out solutions to multiplexing 4 screens into 1 large display (50+"). While there are several ways to do that, most result in losing half your resolution which wouldn't work too well for us. Up until now, I was set on just buying 4 projectors.

[Goobimama @ Jan 5th 2007 2:48PM]

Seriously James? You will be able to talk about actually buying a 150" LCD panel?

[Erik Hanson @ Jan 5th 2007 3:27PM]

My bad everyone, I mistakenly typed the 30-inch model when I meant to use the 23, which has a more-likely square root resolution of 1920x1200 (close enough for my fuzzy math! Just enjoy the photoshopping!)

Thanks to everyone who caught this!
-Erik

[Paul in Maryland @ Jan 5th 2007 4:24PM]

Look for Matrox to be the first to market with a suitable card. The company's Parhelia HR256 (http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/cadgis/products/parhelia/hr256.php) already delivers 3800 x 2400 from a single card to drive those exotic megabucks 22.5-inch imaging widescreens.

[Bucket @ Jan 5th 2007 4:50PM]

MUST BUY NOW.

[Dan @ Jan 5th 2007 6:14PM]

Umm, 56 divided by 2 is not 23. Did someone skip elementary school math?

If a 28-inch LCD existed, imagine 4 28-inch monitors seamlessly attached together.

[Paul in Maryland @ Jan 5th 2007 5:24PM]

I just did the math: For a 56-inch 16:9 display, the active display area would measure about 29.1 inches high by 51.7 inches wide (1504 square inches). At the announced resolution, these dimensions work out to 74 dots per inch (dpi)--too coarse by today's standards, where 20.1, 24, and 30-inch LCDs deliver 100 dpi. It's equivalent to running a 21-inch 4:3 monitor (with an actual display 16 inches wide) at 1184 x 888.

[Dan @ Jan 5th 2007 5:42PM]

The dpi doesn't need to be that high. It's freakin' 56 inches!!! How close are you going to be sitting to it?

[don @ Jan 5th 2007 6:05PM]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly certain Westinghouse had this (or a similar quad HD display) at their booth at the 2006 CES as well.

[sfxZm @ Jan 5th 2007 8:15PM]

Big deal!!

Didn't IBM release a 22.2" monitor in early 2003 with QUXGA-W (3840x2400) resolution.

http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=8578

[justin @ Jan 5th 2007 6:48PM]

out of curiosity, does westinghouse make any decent products? i can go into a best buy, look at all the lcd's in the home theater and computer section and the westinghouse is the cheapest of all, and the crappiest looking of all, with fuzzy looking pictures and ghosting of ridiculous proportions. i see stuff posted on digg and engadget all the time and there is always hype about them, but i guess i don't see it. anyone care to enlighten me?

[xVariable @ Jan 5th 2007 8:29PM]

You know: there's a far easier way to get monster quads: just ride your bicycle a lot! *rimshot*!

Thank you! Thank you very much! I'm here every Friday, thanks for coming-out!

[Tom @ Jan 5th 2007 9:14PM]

I once played Mario 64 in 2560x1024 (dual 19" monitors). Can't say I was all that impressed. Moving on...

[GhostDoggy @ Jan 6th 2007 3:27PM]

Can the Westinghouse unit even accept and display unaltered a 3840 x 2160 signal? This would be nice if it could, but if not it wouldn't be the first time the maximum input insignal accepted was less than the native resolution of the display.

[SporkRocker @ Jan 6th 2007 4:58PM]

Wouldn't hooking this bad boy up to your pc require alot gpu/cpu power? Imagine trying have latest hot cpu and/or gpu not enough power?

[Andy @ Jan 7th 2007 11:05AM]

This is not 4 times HD 1080p resolution. It is only twice.. Resolution doubles when number of pixels quadruple.

[2nd Grade Teacher @ Jan 24th 2007 11:29PM]

Andy...do the math again, it is quad hdtv. 3840x2160. Not 3840x1080, nor is it 1920x2160. It is 3840x2160. They even took duck tape in the picture with four 1920x1080 monitors (granted the monitors I think they are referring to are 1920x1200). Anyway, it is quad HDTV.

1920x1080 + 1920x1080
1920x1080 + 1920x1080

=

3840x2160

Class Dismissed!

[Andy @ Jan 25th 2007 3:27AM]

haha way to resurrect a post. I got an e-mail telling me about this.

Anyway, like I said resolution doubles when pixels quadruple. Resolution doubles when area quadruples, provided the same pixel density.

They teach this on 3rd grade, so I don't blame you.