Samsung Unveils the World’s First, Largest and Most Curved 105” Curved UHD TV

December 19, 2013 | Comments | Tomorrow Works

Samsung Tomorrow at CES 2014

Summary:

  • The world’s first, largest and most curved 105-inch Curved UHD TV will be unveiled at CES 2014.

  • The Samsung 105-inch Curved UHD TV adopts a new proprietary picture quality algorithm that delivers optimized color and greater feeling of depth.

  • The Samsung 105-inch Curved UHD TV provides almost two times vivid images when viewed from the side and and boasts an 11 million pixels (5120X2160) screen resolution with a 21:9 aspect ratio.

 

 

Samsung Unveils the World’s First, Largest and Most Curved 105” Curved UHD TV

 

Samsung Electronics announced that it would be unveiling the world’s first, largest and most curved 105-inch Curved UHD TV at CES 2014.

 

World’s First, Largest and Most Curved 105” Curved UHD TV

 

Earlier, Samsung showed off its advanced technology by unveiling the world’s first UHD TV at IFA 2013. Now, the company will prove its undisputed technology leadership in the global TV market by showcasing its 105-inch Curved UHD TV at CES 2014.

 

The Samsung 105-inch Curved UHD TV adopts a new proprietary picture quality algorithm that delivers optimized color and greater feeling of depth. As the curved panel has been further upgraded and TV circuit technology has been added, the combination of the upgraded curved panel with a greater picture quality engine provides the ultimate immersive experience.

 

As Samsung’s 105-inch Curved UHD TV is the world’s most curved, it provides almost two times vivid images when viewed from the side and the best possible TV viewing experience from any angle. Also, the 105 incher adopts ‘Quadmatic Picture Engine’ which delivers all content in UHD-level picture quality no matter what the source is. Samsung’s 105-inch Curved UHD TV boasts an 11 million pixels (5120X2160) screen resolution with a 21:9 aspect ratio.

 

“We are happy to unveil the 105-inch Curved UHD TV, the culmination of Samsung’s advancements, following the world’s first Curved UHD TV at IFA 2013,” said HS Kim, executive vice president of Visual Display Business, Samsung Electronics. “You will experience a true curved TV optimized for consumer viewing environments at CES 2014.”

 

Samsung’s 105-inch Curved UHD TV will be on display at Consumer Electronics Show 2014 held in Las Vegas from Jan. 7 to Jan. 10

 

 

 
*All functionality features, specifications and other product information provided in this document including, but not limited to, the benefits, design, pricing, components, performance, availability, and capabilities of the product are subject to change without notice or obligation.
  • Nice

    Where can I pre-order? :))

    • samsungtomorrow

      Thanks for your interest on our 105” Curved UHD TV, @Nice! For inquiries about pricing, release dates, and specifications in your area, please visit your local Samsung portal site at http://www.samsung.com/sec/function/ipredirection/ipredirectionLocalList.do to browse product information and contact your local Support Team. You will be able to find the information you want to know right away. Thanks!

      • anonanalyst

        Thanks Samsung for the latest updates and also timely comment entry(s) in the comments area. Nice to know that Samsung keenly tracks articles and makes new comments.

        • samsungtomorrow

          We thank you, @anonanalyst, for visiting the Samsung official global blog! We aim to bring the latest information and news to our visitors, enjoy them with interesting articles, and answer their questions if we can. We hope that the visitors will keep coming to our blog and become a Samsung fan in the end. We very much appreciate your comment! You have made our day! =)

  • Coinmanmat

    And if that 85 inch UHD TV costs $40,000 how much will this one be?

    • samsungtomorrow

      Hi @Coinmanmat:disqus – For inquiries about pricing, release dates, and
      specifications in your area, please visit your local Samsung portal site at http://www.samsung.com/sec/function/ipredirection/ipredirectionLocalList.do to browse product
      information and contact your local Support Team. You will be able to find the
      information you want to know right away. Thanks!

      • djmuzi

        You’re right, info should be found on your page first.

        But in reality the Samsung website is probably the slowest for publishing infos about new TVs.

        It’s every year the same game.

        There are first rumors. Then the CES brings all the new models – on Samsung website – nothing…

        All the reviews and blog posts start to appear – on Samsung website – nothing…

        New TVs start to appear April or May in stores but when you browse your own website they still aren’t listed !!! :)

        They start to appear bit by bit bit maybe June or July…

        who really wants to find info about your TVs has found them probably long time ago on another place.

        • samsungtomorrow

          Hi djmuzi — The reason why we suggested @Coinmanmat:disqus to visit the Samsung website was because he can know the latest information on the product in his area by contacting our local Customer and Supports team. We apologize for the late updates on the Samsung websites. We will try to bring the latest information as quickly as we can. Thanks for letting us know.

  • RainbowDash

    Oh, good, I had no use for my $100,000 anyway …

  • LazarusDark

    *drools*
    ….

    • LazarusDark

      Also, HUGE KUDOS for going for better than UHD resolutions. That’s actually higher than 4k res! (though the true 4k spec also includes higher color and other specs, so this panel is likely still not true theater 4k, but you’d probably be hard pressed to notice).

  • Mxx

    Do you take first-borns as payments? And do batteries come included with this TV’s remote?

  • jasonb527

    Curved TVs are stupid. Anyone who wants a curved TV hasn’t actually watched one for any considerable amount of time. They are disorienting when viewed from a steep angle and when there is glare, it is made much worse because of the curve.

    And the 21:9 aspect ratio is just ridiculous. That guarantees you will have black bars either on the top or sides of everything you watch unless you zoom/crop the image or distort it by stretching or squishing it. These are possibly the dumbest TVs made in the past decade. What a waste of effort.

    • spottedreptile

      I’m guessing you can’t afford one. . .

      • jasonb527

        You’re right, I can’t afford one you smug a-hole. But that doesn’t invalidate my comment. I CAN afford a 55-65″ curved OLED TV and have chosen not to buy one because they are stupid, the TV above is just more stupid, kind of like your comment.

    • Shawn Lyman

      I agree with you Jasonb527 about curved TVs. 2 big factors for curved screens. The size needs to be way bigger than 105″ in order to handle a wide viewing area of at least 12 feet wide. The sweet spot is way too narrow. And then you have content. A straight line will not look straight on a 105″ curved TV for most viewers.

      But the 21:9 ratio isn’t completely bad. I personally would like to see TVs stick with 16:9 as a lot of content fits it perfectly and if it’s 100+ inches, then you still have a large screen for 2.35 and 2.40 ratio movies. The 21:9 ratio they list is a rounded figure. 21:9 would be a 2.33:1 ratio. But based on the pixel count, the ratio comes to 2.37:1, which is a nice middle ground for 2.35 to 2.40 “CinemaScope” movies. So the black bars would be ultra tiny, or if stretched, the distortion would not be noticed. So 21:9 is the marketing number instead of saying 21.6:9 (for 2.40:1) or for this many pixels, it would be about 21.33:9

      Just wanted to clarify the marketing use of 21:9. But I still think 16:9 is the best mainsteam flat panel ratio. Though I do see a good market for 21:9 as well. But not curved screens.

      We finally have some decently priced 80″ 1080p flat panels. But I would really like to see some decently priced 100″ 4K flat panels. Until then, my ultra big screen experiences will remain front projection based. So hopefully 4K projectors start coming way down in price.

    • Pyronaut

      21:9 is not ridiculous. It’s a niche market (constant image height viewing), geared towards home theatres. As Shawn said, it’s for 2.35:1 films. If you will be watching mostly films on it, then it makes total sense because “scope” films will be wider rather than shorter – which is the intended effect.

      You get black bars either way. This way you just get the black bars on the sides for 16:9 content rather than on the top/bottom for 2.35:1 content, which is preferable for some.

  • tibor anghi

    what is wrong with this pessimist people , Samsung is the leader in display technology and obviously this tv set is not for the average joe ,but rather its a stepping stone in future technology
    these people are so brainwashed that if apple could make a curved tv like this this people would be standing in line already to buy one of these puppy .
    keep up the good work Samsung ,and never mind these hillbillies these people don’t see past their nose even though this is the 21st century
    I don’t know what’s worse reading their comments or watching duck dynasty ;)

    • samsungtomorrow

      Thanks for the high praise,@tiboranghi:disqus! And thanks for being such a great Samsung fan! You have made our day!

  • Alexander Schratt

    It´s great, that Samsung has readopted the idea of producing Cinemascope-Displays at UHD resolution, after Philips had stopped manufacturing 21:9 HDTVs. In my opinion, the format will have a chance on the market only if appropriate content will be available. That means that a Blu Ray successor should also feature an optional anamorphic format to save Cinemascope movies (e.g. movies captured with a RED Epic camera at 5120 x 2160 or scanned from film sources at the same resolution and published anamorphic at 3840 x 2160). The crucial point is: Players of a Blu Ray successor format must be able to sample the image down to a letterboxed 16:9 format to be playable on “ordinary” UHD displays in order to maintain compatibility to the official UHD standard. However, picture quality would even be better on these ordinary 16:9 displays as downsampling brings more sharpness to the image. Regarding the older Philips 21:9 TVs, the letterboxed HD Cinemascope format was only zoomed to fit the display, yet no additional image details could be derived from the source.

    It is often argued, when 4:3 or 16:9 content is shown, that on a Cinemascope Display large areas of the screen remain unused as black bars or pillars. But taking into account, that more and more TVs are connected to the internet, that argument becomes weaker. 21:9 displays would be the first to show additional web content at the unused areas at the sides, without disturbing the flow of the featured motion picture. A 4:3 or 16:9 source could even be shifted to the left or right side of the screen to create a more contiguous area to show these additional contents (e.g. Social Media, additional information to the current broadcast, etc.). For sure, Cinemascope displays only make sense at a certain screen height, in order to watch 4:3 or 16:9 sources at a reasonable size. On the other side, ask yourself for what kind of moving pictures a big screen is useful and preferable? Mostly, it is not the news, documentaries or other kinds of “informative TV” or soaps that come to you in 16:9, but (epic) movies you´d like to or have watched in cinemas. If you look at these movies, the majority is shot in Cinemascope format – just have a look at the Blu Ray releases. So I´d say that the Cinemascope format is just the next “logical step” in the evolution of TV-displays.

    • Alexander Schratt

      To make it even more precise what I meant, concerning the potential of an anamorphic format: the original image is captured at 5120 x 2160 and then compressed to anamorphic 3840 x 2160 pixels. If a Cinemascope (I call it “WUHD (Wide Ultra High Definition)” display is connected to the Player, the image will be stretched horizontally to the original 5120 x 2160 pixels on the screen. On the other hand, if an ordinary 16:9 UHD TV is connected instead, the image will be compressed vertically and black letterbox bars will be inserted by the player in order to show the Cinemascope format undistorted at the right proportions on the 16:9 screen.

      Should such an anamorphic format be introduced with a Blu Ray successor, it would be necessary, however, to advertise it intensively among consumers, in order to generate awareness of the higher resolution that comes with it. A dedicated “WUHD” logo should be developed and leaflets, TV spots, etc. should inform consumers about the added value of the higher resolution with anamorphic 3840 x 2160 sources.

      • peterhg

        Not sure what you mean about these comments, suppose you refer to when you use a Blue Ray player as source, in this case every Blue Ray player has its own manner to scale.

        Better to use, and talk about, the build-in scaling capabilities in the 21:9 TV set. Having a normal input over DVB-T or DVB-S, the 2nd gen Philips 50PFL7956 I have will do the job, either automatically ( Auto fill ), or there are menu to set specific manners, such as “21:9″ which force to step to 21:9, or “21:9 with subtitles”, which leaves room at the bottom for the sub titles, automatically moves the subtitles. There are 7 different settings.

        As far as I know, this was in the first model from Philips done in software, the 2nd generation uses a dedicated chip-set to do the 21:9 scaling. The 1gen did not have the ability to move the subtitles, it had to be done by using a Philips Blu Ray player which did the job of moving the subtitles.

        Most ( all ) material ( also Blu Ray ) has been going trough a process of scaling and formatting, often several steps in the chain till the content is delivered as input to the TV set. So it makes little sense to try talk about anamorphic lences, format standards, WUHD, what has been done or not in this chain of scaling and formatting etc. – the only thing which matters in reproducing 21:9 ( or any content format ) is the technology in the 21:9 TV set, its capabilities and features to handle the input and present this input as optimal as possible.

    • peterhg

      “In my opinion, the format will have a chance on the market only if appropriate content will be available”.

      I disagree on this one – key will be PRICE, PRICE and PRICE. Secondary but important, that the scaling technologies are in-place. Scaling 16:9 content to 21:9 gives any material new life, 16:9 content looks simply much better in 21:9 format – but only if its done right.

      I hope the 3rd generation of 21:9 will add to the list of scaling optinions, combined ZOOM + STREACH, optimally a user-selectable percentage of zoom and of streach. But a 50/50 is better than only having the opetions either to zoom to 21:9, or streach to 2:9. I´m quite sure that if a combination is used, you would not be able to see if the source is 21:9 or reformatted 16:9, it is today difficult to see in many cases, and I have personally some times to set to original format in order to see which format the original format is in.

      • Alexander Schratt

        I don´t understand why you´re so keen about scaling. When you compress the image as anamorphic 3840 x 2160 from a 5120 x 2160 source (the Red Epic camera for example has this option), you´ll always have the full vertical resolution, which is a true added value to consumers as you will never have such a crisp and detailed image on any 16:9 UHD display. A zoomed image can NEVER be as detailed as if you have the full native vertical resolution on the screen. No zooming algorithm can ever be as intelligent as to restore the same image details as the original had. When you use letterboxed Cinemascope as source, at an aspect ratio of 2.4:1 the vertical resolution (active pixels) on an UHD screen is about 1600. Zooming up to a Cinemascope display featuring 5120 x 2160 pixels still uses these 1600 pixels to be extrapolated to 2160 vertical pixels. When you use an 3840 x 2160 anamorphic source, you have not less than 560 pixels of additional vertical image details. The image only has to be stretched electronically from 3840 to 5120 pixels in the horizontal directions. As I wrote before, vertical downsizing to fit to normal 16:9 UHD displays would perhaps also enhance the image quality on these displays, compared to letterboxed sources with only 1600 active vertical pixels. Again, in my opinion the key to success is, that Blu Ray successor players must be able to deliver the unaltered anamorphic 3840 x 2160 source whenever a Cinemascope (WUHD) display is connected (the screen then stretches the image electronically to 5120 x 2160), while the player would have to downsize the source to a letterboxed Cinemascope with 3840 x (approx.) 1600 pixels whenever a 16:9 UHD display is connected. The type of display would be transmitted to the player via HDMI handshake/EDID metadata. Another argument, why I am in favor of this, is that studios would have to produce only one consumer version that can be played back on both, Cinemascope and 16:9 UHD displays, which helps to save money. However, both display types would profit from anamorphic sources: Cinemascope displays would have the advantage of unmatched image details, while 16:9 UHDTVs would also profit from downsizing a higher quality source in terms of sharpness.

        • Alexander Schratt

          Of course, future satellite/cable receivers and media players/renderers could also be equipped with processors/software to expand or squeeze an anamorphic image to the correct proportions. Perhaps a firmware update could also add that feature to existing UHDTVs, but I don´t know, if that´s possible. However, since current HDTVs offer so many options to expand or zoom the image, it should also be possible to add the option to squeeze an anamorphic image via firmware update.

  • Peterhg

    Dont know why people always have to comment on something they have no experience – comments such as black bars on a 21:9 – this is not really an issue on a 21:9, but IS and isssue on a 16:9.

    Come back when you have experience with a 21:9, weeks of experience.

    After about 2 years with a 21:9, there is no way back to 16:9, which is an outdated format.
    The advantages with an 21:9:

    1) The picture filling the view and the frame, gives a much more feeling of being a part of the movie, its simply more “movie”.

    2) Many films and programs broadcasted in 16:9 format, are originally in a wider format and re-formatted to 16:9, meaning many films/programs are compressed horizontally and people looks unnaturaly skinny – when the picture is streached on a 21:9, it becomes more natural – but this you first realize by having a 21:9.

    3) Black bars on a 21:9, not used – 16:9 content is streached, or zoomed, or a combination as you chose – which as above is making up for many of the films reformatted to 16:9, the rest are not that important, you cant see the picture is streached in most cases any way, tennis, football, etc. you cant see it, but the experience of watching tennis or football on a 21:9 is much more present and immense than on a 16:9.

    4) A 21:9 is more compact than a 16:9, you get a bigger movie picture on a 21:9 than on a 16:9, on lees space. You can fit a 50″ 21:9 to a small room, and get a 54″ move screen. There is a limit for a 16:9 in size, where the screen simply gets too high and viewing gets unpleasent, or the room is not heigh enough.

    5) When having a 21:9, all content from CinemaScope and below is displayed with same picture height – as in a cinema, where the side curtains are adjusted to the format of the movie. 16:9 is simply a wrong format for a screen. On a 16:9, movies get resized in height, and the picture is downscaled = smaller picture and you loose the movie experíence having the black bars. Further, you have to adjust the distance of your sofa every time you switch from 16:9 to 21:9 content.

    There is really no advantage with the 16:9, except if the widest format was 16:9, but most movies are in 21:9 or whider. Most 16:9 content looks much better when streached to 21:9.

    In order to move forward, to move towards larger screens in our living room, we need 21:9, great that LG and Samsung now hopefully ignites 21:9 – this format has already proved in TV monitors for gaming – only thing now is to get some volume up and prices down.

  • Peterhg

    … as to the curving, I dont think its possible to judge in theory, this has to be experienced live.

    But if the idea is to fill the eyes view, also the corners, will for sure give a much more immense and feeling of being in the movie – for sure. Question is at witch sitting distance from a 105″ 21:9 to get the eye view fully covered, and if this is operational in a normal living room.

  • Alexander Schratt

    It is also thinkable to film or scan at 5120×2160, preserve that resolution for 21:9 displays and resize it in a player/renderer before output to a letterboxed image with 3840×1620 active pixels, when a 16:9 display is connected. Of course, the advantage of a 5120×2160 pixel-to-pixel transmission must result in an even more detailed image than what you´d get when expanding an anamorphic source. And most important, the superior image details of a true 5120×2160 source on a 21:9 display would be even more visible in comparison to letterboxed Cinemasope on an 16:9 UHD screen. It should also be mentioned here, that HDMI 2.0 allows the 21:9 format as an option.

    • Alexander Schratt

      Another question is, if a potential Blu-Ray successor format will allow 5120×2160 as an optional resolution (if not, anamorphic 3840×2160 would come into play again). However, a three- or four-layer Blu-Ray-XL type with 100 GB or more storage capacity could be necessary to cope with the enormous amounts of data.

  • Alexander Schratt

    However, in my opinion native 5120×2160 sources could only come into play, if a) this is an optional format for future premium streaming/download services or b) as an optional format on a Blu-Ray successor. In the latter case, the ability to downsize to a letterboxed 16:9/3840×2160 signal at the player´s HDMI output would have to be a mandatory feature of every Blu-Ray successor player to ensure compatibility with 16:9 UHDTVs. Concerning broadcasting, 3840×2160 seems to be the mandatory standard defined by ITU, EBU etc. However, I could imagine a signal transfer like we once had in Europe with PAL Plus, if that could be achieved from a technical point of view: To broadcast “hidden” lines in the black bars of the image, which would be ignored by conventional 16:9 UHDTVs and therefore appear as black bars on these screens, whereas 21:9 TVs could perhaps be able to interpret these hidden lines, restoring an anamorphic image with 3840×2160 active pixels and finally expand the image horizontally to a full screen 5120×2160 movie.

    • Alexander Schratt

      The “data model” of 21:9 broadcast transmissions could perhaps be a “core” which is 3840×1620 active pixels plus an “extension”, containing the remaining 540 rows of pixels of the anamorphic image (comparable to a DTS-HD audio stream with core (for vintage DTS decoders) + extension (additional data for DTS-HD decoders)). In case of potential 21:9 broadcasts, to ensure compatibility with 16:9 UHDTVs, DVB tuners of these 16:9 TVs should be able to “ignore” the extension and show black bars on top/bottom instead, while DVB tuners of 21:9 TVs should be able to interpret the extension, using all of the 2160 vertical pixels, then stretching the anamorphic image to 5120 horizontal pixels on the screen.

      • Alexander Schratt

        On the other hand, from a technical point of view, it should be much easier to squeeze an anamorphic 21:9 UHD-DVB-stream vertically on a 16:9 UHDTV down to 1620 active pixels and add letterbox-bars (instead of the above mentioned core + extension architecture). However, this would be feasible only if ALL future UHDTVs, which will have a built-in UHDTV-tuner, would be able to do so. Older UHD display models without an integrated UHD-DVB-tuner could get the UHD-DVB-stream from a set top box with built-in UHD-DVB-tuner. However, ALL of these external DVB-receivers would then have to be able to deliver a vertically squeezed letterbox-image to a connected 16:9 UHD display. If these features will be mandatory to a yet to be defined UHD-DVB standard for optional anamorphic UHD-DVB-streams, I see a bright future for 21:9 displays, not being just a niche product.

  • Alexander Schratt

    Now, that I´ve written a lot of comments and maybe it´s become a little bit confusing, I´d like to summarize my personal point of view of what I think would be necessary to give 21:9 UHDTVs a real chance for a sustainable market share (I´d like to point out once again, that the 21:9 format is already part of the HDMI 2.0 feature list as an option):

    1: UHD-DVB-Stream at 3840×2160 (approved resolution), if an anamorphic signal is allowed as an option for the transmission of Cinemascope (21:9) movies

    1.1: UHDTVs with integrated UHD-DVB-Tuner
    1.1.1: 21:9 UHDTVs with resolution 5120×2160: the image is being stretched horizontally to 5120×2160
    1.1.2: 16:9 UHDTVs with resolution 3840×2160: the image is being squeezed vertically to 3840×1620 active pixels (Letterbox)

    1.2: UHDTVs without integrated UHD-DVB-Tuner: an external UHD-DVB receiver set top box is connected
    1.2.1: 21:9 UHDTVs with resolution 5120×2160: the image, horizontally stretched to 5120×2160 pixels, is being transmitted via HDMI 2.0
    1.2.2: 16:9 UHDTVs with resolution 3840×2160: the image, vertically squeezed to 3840×1620 active pixels (Letterbox), is being transmitted via HDMI 2.0

    2: Blu-Ray-XL: if the optional resolutions 5120×2160 and/or 3840×2160 anamorphic will be approved for Cinemascope movies
    2.1: 21:9 UHDTVs with resolution 5120×2160: the image is being transmitted natively at 5120×2160 (Pixel-to-Pixel) from the player via HDMI 2.0 (or horizontally stretched by the player, if the source is 3840×2160 anamorphic)
    2.2: 16:9 UHDTVs with resolution 3840×2160: the image is being scaled down proportionally to 3840×1620 active pixels (Letterbox) by the player and transmitted via HDMI 2.0 (or vertically squeezed by the player, if the source is 3840×2160 anamorphic)

    3: IP/Network-Streaming/Download: if, in case of Cinemascope movies, optional “Premium” Downloads at the resolutions 5120×2160 (“21:9 Native”) or 3840×2160 (“21:9 Anamorphic”) will be offered for 21:9 UHDTVs, dedicated HDD-players/renderers could transmit the image via HDMI 2.0 either natively (Pixel-to-Pixel) to the 21:9 UHDTV or horizontally stretched, if the downloaded file is 3840×2160 anamorphic. Whoever owns a 16:9 UHDTV, will rather not buy a 21:9 download. However, maybe he will buy it as an “investment for the future”. In the latter case, the player/renderer must also be capable to deliver a downscaled or vertically squeezed Letterbox-UHD-image, respectively, via the HDMI 2.0 output, in order to watch the movie on a 16:9 UHDTV, too.

    • samsungtomorrow

      Thanks for your opinion, @alexanderschratt:disqus. We appreciate it!

    • Alexander Schratt

      Just to point out the (in my opinion) key to success for 21:9 UHDTVs once again: we would really need a new Blu-Ray profile and Download/Streaming media featuring that higher resolution of 5120×2160 to give people a real added value in comparison to standard UHD 3840×2160. Only if we´re going to have movies in that resolution available, people will be willing to buy 21:9 UHDTVs, as they will get to see by far more detailed images.