January 7, 2015
CES 2015

Samsung Now Has a Massive 110" 8K TV with 3D Capabilities That Don't Require Silly Glasses

Samsung 8K TV
Just when we all were starting to get used to the notion of 4K technology becoming the norm, Samsung went and displayed a crazy 110" 8K TV at this year's CES show.

Although Samsung has been hammering away at ultra high-resolution screens for a few years now, this year's model is their most cogent attempt at creating the ultimate cutting edge TV for people willing to foot a massive bill, although as far as I can tell, this particular screen won't be available to purchase for some time.

The details and specs on this TV aren't particularly clear either, but it seems that the head-turning feature that Samsung is trying to push forward with this high-end model is 3D technology that doesn't require glasses to be viewed properly. What's even cooler is that the 3D is supposed to be viewable from multiple angles. All of that in conjunction with a crystal clear display with more resolution than anyone could possibly ever need.

Here's an early video from YouTube user zedomax, who saw the TV yesterday during the first day of the CES trade show in Las Vegas. The commentary is a bit silly, but the video gives you an idea of what Samsung is shooting for with this TV.

Here's what Gizmodo's Mario Aguilar said about his hilariously conflicting experiences with viewing the TV:

Its resolution is even more infinite than I remember it. And then, they switched on the glassesless 3D and I almost threw up on myself. [...] Sure, the image popped out of the screen, but overall, it sort of felt like I was drunk. Only little bits of the image were in focus, and the overall picture looked warped and wacky. I felt dizzy. I wanted to look away.

Ultimately, I'm inclined to say that this technology is somewhat meaningless to filmmakers at this point in time. Content-wise, 8K isn't even on most of our roadmaps yet considering that a good portion of us still haven't fully transitioned to 4K. Then there's the issue of 3D, which as far as I'm concerned, is still more of a gimmick than a useful visual tool for filmmakers. Sorry Samsung and giant Hollywood blockbusters. That's not to say that 3D technology won't move forward to a point where it's a more pleasant and immersive experience for audiences, but right now, 3D just isn't worth it.     

Your Comment

12 Comments

why?

January 7, 2015 at 9:04PM

2
Reply

So you could stick it to your forehead like an oculus rift

January 8, 2015 at 2:05AM

0
Reply
avatar
Edgar More
All
971

Numbers, numbers, numbers, numbers.

January 7, 2015 at 10:15PM

4
You voted '+1'.
Reply
Jacob Floyd
Writer / Videographer
1360

3D without glasses is sure a move in the right direction, once they figure out how to have a better experience without the glasses and make a damn standard so to avoid 50 different names of the same thing.

Those 8K timelapses most likely from a D810.

January 8, 2015 at 1:57AM, Edited January 8, 1:57AM

8
Reply
avatar
Isaac Alonzo
Photographer / Cinematographer
342

Baby steps in convenient 3D exhibition.
At least they're trying!

January 8, 2015 at 6:15AM

0
Reply
avatar
James Oldham
Cinematographer
199

I don't know what you guys are talking about.. That girl looked like she was standing IN THE ROOM. Wow.. completely blew my existence.

January 8, 2015 at 11:31AM

5
Reply
avatar
Will Watkins
Cinematographer // Editor
234

The use of the pejorative "silly" when referring to 3D viewing glasses shows an ignorance of the basics of vision and imaging. The use of the viewing glasses permits high quality realistic viewing from every position in the audience, at a relatively low cost. Attempts to get a realistic appearance by just increasing resolution, fail miserably. Real life images extend from a few inches to infinity. No matter how high the resolution, flat systems do not eliminate the serious distortion that is effected when you compress a three dimensional scene all the way down to a flat plane. Squashed pictures are hardly realistic. Autostereoscopic systems are expensive, and not necessary, when you can get better results at lower cost with glasses-based systems. Do you consider sunglasses to be silly, or cool? 3D viewing glasses are very similar in style to sunglasses. And, they do a very good job of eliminating the flatty distortion.

January 8, 2015 at 10:55PM

1
Reply

I'm all about all the pejoratives you can think of when it comes to 3D. 3D itself is silly. To even use 3D in the first place is silly and ignorant of the basics of vision. It's not more realistic or immersive to make your eyes do things they don't do in real life. To focus and converge at different points in not natural, so it is as "unrealistic" as you can get. I can't wait for movies to finally give this up...I don't see it happening soon, but people are finally getting over this 1950's style gimmick.

January 12, 2015 at 1:05AM, Edited January 12, 1:05AM

7
Reply
avatar
Daniel Mimura
DP, cam op, steadicam op
1977

With all respect, i find it hard to believe such a defense for a system that's not organic nor natural to our bodies... Compare to sunglasses?? I missed the point, hope you can clarify how 3D glasses are similar to sunglasses (and i don't mean "i wear both in my face"). A small part of me wants some new eye deseases in 15-20 years due to 3D glasses use, just to say "i told you so", 'cuz i think that modern kids growing using 3D glasses in their houses, are forcing their eyes. If not, then why movie theaters recommends only watching a 3D movie per day?

January 14, 2015 at 11:49AM

1
Reply
avatar
Rafa Ga
Digital Film-Video Editor / Colorist / Motion Graphics
272

Price?

January 12, 2015 at 5:25PM

0
Reply
avatar
Gerard
Filmmaker
88

8KTV with passive 3D means 4K for each eye?

January 13, 2015 at 10:49AM

0
Reply
avatar
Terma Louis
Photographer / Cinematographer / Editor
1311

Almost 10 feet diagonal and 8K, is that all?

January 14, 2015 at 7:59PM

0
Reply