Being flagship televisions available today, 8K Ultra-HD TVs not only feature a resolution of 7680×4320 pixels, but also pack all the latest technologies that manufacturers have to offer these days and therefore can provide ultimate experience even with 4K or 2K content. Samsung’s Q900 family of 8K TVs do exactly that, but because of its premium positioning, the company offered them in large sizes, which means price tags excessive for most. Up until this week.

At IFA, Samsung introduced its smallest 8K UHDTV to date: the Q900R 55-inch model QN55Q900RBFXZA, which costs significantly less than the rest of the SKUs in the lineup.

The television uses Samsung’s IPS-class 7680×4320 panel backed by a quantum dot-enhanced LED backlight that promises FALD-like operation, which Samsung dubs Direct Full Array 16X technology (in case of the 55-inch model). The TV features a peak brightness of 4000 nits, which is the maximum luminance at which HDR content is mastered these days. Speaking of HDR, the Q900-series officially supports HDR10, HDR10+, and HLG formats, but not Dolby Vision (at least for now). As far as color gamut is concerned, the Q900-series can reproduce 100% of the DCI-P3 space.

Just like its bigger brothers, the Samsung Q900R 55-inch uses the company’s Quantum Processor 8K as its brain. The SoC is responsible for all decoding, upscaling, and other operations. Among the capabilities of the chip that Samsung is particularly proud of is its proprietary 8K AI Upscaling technology, which is designed to enhance the quality of digital content to panel’s native resolution (does not work with PCs, games, analogue content, etc.). Furthermore, the SoC is also able to interpolate content to 240 FPS and supports AMD’s FreeSync/HDMI Variable Refresh Rate technologies.

Last but not least, the UHDTV comes with a 60-W 4.2-channel audio subsystem.

While technological excellence of Samsung’s Q900-series Ultra-HD televisions is well known, the key feature of the 55-inch model is its price. The 8K television carries a price tag of $2,499, which is in line with higher-end 4K TVs. Considering the fact that retail prices tend to fall below MSRPs, the 55-inch Q900 will likely be considerably more widespread than its larger counterparts.

Related Reading:

Source: Samsung

POST A COMMENT

52 Comments

View All Comments

  • MDD1963 - Saturday, September 07, 2019 - link

    I bought a 4k 58" by Westinghouse for $250 on sale.... :) Reply
  • prophet001 - Friday, September 06, 2019 - link

    What is outputting 8K content right now? Reply
  • dullard - Friday, September 06, 2019 - link

    Just about any decent modern smartphone takes photos that are more than 4K (most are roughly 6K). Meaning, to see your photos on a 4K TV you get nasty compression artifacts. Reply
  • Beaver M. - Saturday, September 07, 2019 - link

    As I said, you have no idea what you are talking about. Compression artifacts from displaying a bigger picture than the screen is???
    Yeah no, dont bother, Im not going to argue with someone like you...
    Reply
  • dullard - Saturday, September 07, 2019 - link

    There is no need for you to give up when you are wrong. We can educate you, so that you can do better next time.

    Try reading up on image resampling. Here is an oversimplified example of what happens to an image when displayed on a screen of lower resolution: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/3...

    Details disappear. Blur often is often created or distorted. Fine details can be entirely eliminated. Sharpness changes. Etc.

    Look at the test images here and how distorted the lines look, or even how lines disappear or clump: https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/forums/thread271...

    That is why you often don't want low resolution screens, even if you cannot "see" the pixels from far away.
    Reply
  • citan x - Friday, September 06, 2019 - link

    I would be interested in this. And I want it as a monitor. Ideally, I would prefer a 40 inch 8k for 220 ppi, but this could work. Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Friday, September 06, 2019 - link

    Yes, I was just thinking the density is equivalent to 4K at 27.5", which is pretty decent for a desktop monitor. 55" would (just) fit on this desk instead of 2x23" screens. However, I'm not sure how I'd use the vertical space... fullscreen video might not be a good idea unless you view from further away. Reply
  • voicequal - Friday, September 06, 2019 - link

    You might want to try out 4K first. 4K at 27.5" at 100% scaling is just a bit too small unless you have better than 20/20 vision. Eye fatigue comes on fast at that size. Reply
  • stephenbrooks - Friday, September 06, 2019 - link

    I'd probably be at 175% scaling for 4K/27", given I use 125% at 1440p/27". I suppose 8K is fun because you double your screen size *and* double the clarity. I don't want to halve the size of the UI! Anyway, this is speculation at this point since 8K is pretty esoteric still and demanding on hardware. Reply
  • zodiacfml - Saturday, September 07, 2019 - link

    I'd be all over this if I shoot photos with a full frame digital camera, mainly for displaying images. Otherwise, a 4k TV with decent specs will do. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now