LG showcases massive 136-inch MAGNIT 4K TV

As we continue to cover CEDIA activities from two weeks ago, it appears that Samsung and arch-rival LG are still slugging it out in the huge TV stakes. Positioned as a residential display offering “the ultimate home theater experience”, LG’s MAGNIT 4K was showcased at CEDIA in Dallas and comes with a 136-inch diagonal screen size. The full-featured panel includes LG’s webOS platform, apps and AI-enhanced processing. So, this is clearly a TV, not a display. The new TV follows LG’s 2021 introduction of the DVLED line with models topping out at a gigantic 325 inches with 8K resolution.

Michael Kosla, VP at LG, says, “With its groundbreaking performance, LG MAGNIT 4K 136-inch is a luxury residential display offering viewers the cutting-edge color, clarity and contrast of LG’s Micro LED combined with Alpha 9 AI-enhanced processing designed to present movies, TV shows or pieces of digital art optimally.”

But the juicy picture details revolve around the vast Micro LED screen with 2,000 nits of peak brightness, ideal for rooms with higher ambient light. Less public are the precise color space measurements and HDR capabilities, but perhaps therein lie the shortcomings. Micro LED images are generated by millions of individual diodes that can turn off completely when presenting black, so fine contrast should at least prevail. Connections consist of four HDMI in ports, LAN in, digital out, two USBs in and an RS232C port.

Wealthy MAGNIT owners will also have an option to load digital art onto the display and set up a collage of personal photos. There is a screen share capability through AirPlay 2 and Miracast protocols for wireless content streaming from iOS, Android, macOS or Windows 10 devices. LG has partnered with Bang & Olufsen for a Beolab 90 speaker bundle.

For more information on the LG DVLED TV line, click here.

 

 

 

 

Martin, a seasoned journalist and AV expert, has written for several notable print magazines. He’s served in key roles at Lucasfilm’s THX Division, NEC’s digital cinema division, and has even consulted for DreamWorks. Despite his illustrious career, Martin remains rooted in his passion for cinema and acting, with notable appearances in several Spielberg films, Doctor Who, and Star Wars: The Empire Strikes Back. He currently resides in San Francisco.

Post Disclaimer

Some of our content may contain marketing links, which means we will receive a commission for purchases made via those links. In our editorial content, these affiliate links appear automatically, and our editorial teams are not influenced by our affiliate partnerships. We work with several providers (currently Skimlinks and Amazon) to manage our affiliate relationships. You can find out more about their services by visiting their sites.

Share this post:

View thread (26 replies)

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
9,607
I thought the box for my 65" tv was massive. I can't imagine this in any possible way.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
29,044
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
...If you're going to buy a TV that large you might as well just buy a projector then.
If there’s a TV that large why would you buy a projector? Everything is easier and many things better with direct display over projector.

I can't wait for 120” direct view OLED or high quality LED to hit sub-$10k to be a great option against projectors.
 
Last edited:

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
29,044
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
I think the biggest problem with direct view over projector is speaker placement. I don't think acoustically transparent TVs is a thing :) so that's a big trade off for those of us with two-row movie rooms. But I'd really give it a good hard think if it becomes an option.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
29,044
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
Any info on black levels or contrast ratio? At 2000 nits, I assume it can show all HDR content mastered at 1000 nits without any dynamic tone mapping. And is pretty close to the 4000 nit mastering standard. The irony for me is this too big. I can fit maybe 125" max screen. It will definitely be FML is everyone goes straight from 100" displays to 140" displays!
 

John Dirk

Premium
Ambassador
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
May 7, 2000
Messages
6,770
Location
ATL
Real Name
JOHN
I think it's a good indicator that we will eventually get there, with "there" denoting a day when size and [reasonably priced] optimal performance displays are no longer mutually exclusive. As Stevie Wonder says in his beautifully classic, Someday At Christmas, "maybe not in time for you and me, but someday..."
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Ambassador
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,962
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
I think the biggest problem with direct view over projector is speaker placement. I don't think acoustically transparent TVs is a thing :)
The thing is, how many people actually do that? I know a LOT of people with projection systems, often insisting on filling the wall with screen and no consideration for the speakers. Or they insist on tiny little in-wall models, which is just a dog with different fleas. I can count the number of people I know of with AT screens on one hand.


What am I saying? Allow me to spell it out...

I find all too often (in my opinion) that when setting up a projection system, most if not all the planning is put into, as I said, "filling the wall with screen and no consideration for the speakers." Then insisting on a severely compromised audio system because there's no room for decent speakers, and no consideration for how to reproduce the best audio. I am saying the... polar... complete... opposite... of "who cares" about audio or an AT setup. In fact, if an AT setup had been planned for, then leaving room on the front wall for speakers wouldn't be a factor, because they'd be behind the screen. My meaning is NEVER "who cares" about audio. It never has and never will. It is usually that too much priority is put on the biggest image possible, at the sacrifice of audio.

Is that a little more clear?
 
Last edited:

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
29,044
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
The thing is, how many people actually do that? I know a LOT of people with projection systems, often insisting on filling the wall with screen and no consideration for the speakers. Or they insist on tiny little in-wall models, which is just a dog with different fleas. I can count the number of people I know of with AT screens on one hand.
I don’t understand these arguments in the content of an expensive, niche enthusiast forum where people are chasing “perfection”.

I mean, you’re a self-professed, high-end, two-channel audio guy spending big money on dedicated gear. Do you denigrate the interest in 24 bit stereo music against all Atmos surround sound streaming audio and the mass market using medioce lossy Bluetooth EarPods?

Sure, very few people use AT screens. Most people have 50-60” TVs and enjoy TV speakers or sound bars.

So what?

AT with behind-the-screen speakers is awesome and anyone building a projector-based room should really give it a serious look against the other options. There are real trade offs in the options, which is why there’s not a “right” solution. And I wish that pre-proc makes invested in audio processing to optimize by behind-the-screen speakers and under/over/both-screen speakers (and also multi-seating-row side wall speakers), but that’s another thread. And it’s why I’m an AT enthusiast but not an absolutist.: I’m very open to the speakers trade off against the prospective benefits of a 120” direct view. And I’ve come to modest understanding recently in the tradeoff in screen brightness between AT and non-AT.

But I really don’t get the “this solution is dumb because very few people use it” when we’re in a niche forum where people go bonkers about buying discs that no one does any more?

:)
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Ambassador
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,962
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
That’s not even remotely what I was meaning.

I genuinely don’t know what nerve I struck, so I’ll just move on.
 

DaveF

Moderator
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Mar 4, 2001
Messages
29,044
Location
Catfisch Cinema
Real Name
Dave
That’s not even remotely what I was meaning.

I genuinely don’t know what nerve I struck, so I’ll just move on.
You were saying “hardly anyone does AT screen so who cares about it?”

And I’m saying that’s an inexplicable argument on an HTF forum.
 

JohnRice

Bounded In a Nutshell
Premium
Ambassador
HW Reviewer
Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2000
Messages
18,962
Location
A Mile High
Real Name
John
That is NOT what I was saying Dave.

Leave me the hell alone.
 
Last edited:

RJ992

Supporting Actor
Joined
Sep 7, 2010
Messages
646
Real Name
Joel
If there’s a TV that large why would you buy a projector? Everything is easier and many things better with direct display over projector.

I can't wait for 120” direct view OLED or high quality LED to hit sub-$10k to be a great option against projectors.

Because projectors offer 3D.
 

Lee Sandersen

Stunt Coordinator
Joined
Sep 15, 2022
Messages
54
Real Name
Leland T. Sandersen
Yang, my guess is because they can. The tech here is already paid for, just the actual production is the cost, and is that really that much more than a 1000 dollar 70 inch 4K at Walmart? The mindset of someone who would pay 300K for this is different than yours and mine. Do they like the TV? Sure, but they must have other motivations as well. This is bigger then my 123 inch diagonal screen in my theater, and I am sure, looks much brighter and better then my 1080P Sony projector, but for 300K? My theater room is in the basement, not sure how I would get it into there. I feel that is going to be the real problem for TVs this size, getting through doors and around corners. Otherwise, a large TV will be in place of the screen in my future, but it is going to be reasonably priced and will have to somewhat collapse so I can get it into place. I imagine todays buyers of such TVs have huge homes with ample space to maneuver.
 

YANG

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 10, 1999
Messages
1,557
... ...The mindset of someone who would pay 300K for this is different than yours and mine. Do they like the TV? Sure, but they must have other motivations as well. This is bigger then my 123 inch diagonal screen in my theater, and I am sure, looks much brighter and better then my 1080P Sony projector, but for 300K? My theater room is in the basement, not sure how I would get it into there. I feel that is going to be the real problem for TVs this size, getting through doors and around corners... ...
There is 3 sides to a coin, and we often see the biggest part, while the edgy part is often ignored or barely noticeable.
So, it's either the big sensible part or the big ignorant/dumb part we see that separates our sense on the buyer's decision.

Google the term LG MAGNIT, you'll see that the results we pull out, points it to signage products... aka, theoretically, not really a consumers TV product. This hint, gives a window of clues how big inch displays is formed.
Given the factor that the overall resolution stays at 4K-UHD, i could already figure out that the diagonal 136inch can be achieved if 9 modular panels of 720P resolution is stacked up in 3x3 manner, then hold by a frame to stabilize the formation.
Of course, a 2x2 stack up by using 4 70inch FHD screens is possible too... due to the weight of a 70inch panel, big thick frame would be required to hold 4 panels stable.
The above mentioned modular construction, is much cost effective than a 1x1 single panel cutting, where in such a big size, vibrations and knocks in transportation process will inflict hidden hairline cracks into the glass and panels. Eventually after some period of usage, would burst or cracks further due to heat and contraction depending on environment.

So... had i cracked the mystery?

Not yet! We have so far touched on the visual part of the product, but we have yet touch on the audio part of the product, where the sound, is from B&O!
Yeah... the "ROLEX" of Electronics! That boost the status and the "image" of the product further up to higher than general consumer level!

@$300000, the buyer gets a mega display that won't have screen burn issues compares to those who spends the same amount of monies to get their mega size OLED... if there's one such model.
@$300000, the buyer gets a mega display that most other folks around his neighborhood would not be able to beat... in terms of exclusiveness.
@$300000, the buyer gets a mega display that could be easily serviceable... if it only takes to swap off a faulty module. Economical as well...
@$300000, the buyer gets the "ROLEX" of consumer audio... by B&O.
...and there will be more things, to make folks around to look up on the buyer... because he/she can burn money.

Sensible Consumer? Bah... for the sake of "Value for Money", they've to work very hard to dig around for more details in technical aspects.
 

YANG

Screenwriter
Joined
Feb 10, 1999
Messages
1,557
to my knowledge, panel/glass cutting had just reached to the stable state @ Generation 10.5, where 75inch is the max.
136inch? let's do some diggin... had they reached gen.13?
 

Bryan^H

Senior HTF Member
Joined
Jul 3, 2005
Messages
9,607
This cracks me up---- 325" is literally cinema size (or larger).
Must be nice to be super rich.

1666021637192.png
 
Most Popular