Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

$90,000 103in HDTV 180

Posted by CmdrTaco
from the just-a-little-excessive dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Found this review of Panasonic's 103in plasma. Not only is the screen itself massive, but the price tag comes close to $100,000! I guess if you can afford a room big enough to house it, you can afford the TV. "
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

$90,000 103in HDTV

Comments Filter:
  • Commercial Products (Score:4, Informative)

    by redelm (54142) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:38AM (#18749087) Homepage
    This mostly looks like a commercial product for a convention hall or stadium. There are much bigger ones, usually based on discrete RGB LEDs. One local store has one about 15' (180") diagonal.

    • Pythagoras (Score:3, Informative)

      by Mateo_LeFou (859634)
      Convention Hall: maybe. Stadium, no.
      At 2:1 aspect ratio this comes in right around 8' X 4'. Not for big events.
      (a 103" diagonal is *very different from a 180)
      • by MrShaggy (683273)
        Hey, you can always put them together in a grid style, to make them do wahtever you want.
        Most of the time when you go to a concert, thats what the large back screens are. If they are the RGB LED, they are individual panels that are about 4'*4' wide. If you can get signal to each of the screens, then you can make the array act any way you want.

        OSRAM is a manufacturer of light-bulbs, for the entertainment industry. They are releasing a super-bright LED this summer. Its supposed to be 1000 Lumens, which is th
      • by cayenne8 (626475)
        "At 2:1 aspect ratio this comes in right around 8' X 4'. Not for big events. (a 103" diagonal is *very different from a 180)"

        I was thinking the same thing....100"+ screen diagonally is NOT that big.

        I easily get that with my projector. Heck, I've gotten very spoiled...anything smaller just looks 'weird' to me.

        The unit was an optima one, I got it last year for $1300 with a free bulb ($300 value). A friend of mine owed me money, and also happened to have a pull-down screen extra in his garage, so I took th

        • Exactly, and if you ever move, you won't have to hire a team of people to uninstall/reinstall that beast. You can unscrew your projector from the mount in the ceiling, unplug it, throw it in it's little 2'x2' case and carry it to the new place easy as can be.

          The way I see it, if you want a big TV you can't beat a projector, I don't see any reason to spend 10 grand on a 65" HDTV when you can buy a $1500 1200lumens HD Projector (if you even spend that much) that can blast anything from a 20"-110" image. You
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by neoform (551705)
      What a waste.

      You could buy a Texas instruments DLP projector (the types you'll find in new digital movie theaters) for that price, not to mention the size of the screen would be capable of being much larger than 103"..
      • by sg3000 (87992) *
        > You could buy a Texas instruments DLP projector

        Normally, you'd be right. A projector can get you a much bigger screen at a much lower price than a TV. The problem is your room has to be able to support it. There are some cases where you want to do a projector, but you have to resort to a TV because of problems in the room.

        When we built our house, the media room was supposed to accommodate a projector, but it didn't. The problem was the ceiling is 9 feet tall, but the wall where you'd project has a slop
  • by Devil's BSD (562630) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:42AM (#18749119) Homepage
    Really, at that price, getting a $20,000 projector and setting up a rear projection screen system would be better. I mean, you could use the $70,000 saved to buy a handful of Blu-Ray(TM) DVD's!
    • by thegrassyknowl (762218) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:51AM (#18749199)

      I mean, you could use the $70,000 saved to buy a handful of Blu-Ray(TM) DVD's!

      Yeah, you could probably get one or two HD-DVDs and then get the change sued off you by the MPAA For watching them.

      I gotta say I like it - not so much because it's big and HD, but because it's unwieldy and thief-proof. Just imagine the poor schmuck who tries to steal it. Score one for Panasonic finally making a common-thief-proof TV. If this baby goes missing you can track down all the professional riggers and crane operators and find it in no time!

      • by elrous0 (869638) *
        Well, obviously, such a huge display MUST be used for illegal public presentations of these movies. The good folks at the MPAA certainly can't allow THAT. Have we learned NOTHING from the noble efforts [respectcopyrights.org] of these fine people?
      • I gotta say I like it - not so much because it's big and HD, but because it's unwieldy and thief-proof.

        Don't count on it. A friend works in the big screen business, typically supplying kit for conference centres, office meeting rooms, public buildings, that sort of thing. A couple of years back, they installed a pretty huge screen, something like 15' IIRC. They finished work late one evening, and when they went in the following morning to set up some software to use it, someone had literally lifted the

      • by CastrTroy (595695)
        I don't think any thief could steal a 36 inch CRT. Those things are heavy. Maybe if he brought a friend or 3. Still it's not something that is really worth their time, even if they do figure out a way to lift it.
        • by i.r.id10t (595143)
          Or shown up with a white van, a dolly, a clipboard, and a jumpsiut with a nametag on it.

          Campus police actually held the doors open and helped the guy load it in the van....
      • because it's unwieldy and thief-proof. Just imagine the poor schmuck who tries to steal it.

        The schmuck will injure himself on your property while trying to steal the TV and then sue you for millions of dollars. The court will side with him because you didn't put a "Danger: Do Not Steal--May Cause Injury" sign on your TV.

    • a $20,000 projector
      Try $2500 for 1080p (this was over a year ago). And it's been done. I think the screen is currently set to around 108in. diagonal. The limit was the size of the bolt of fabric, but the projector could go bigger.

    • Even Better. $2500 (720P) - $7500 (1080P)

      Front projection technology has made *amazing* progress over the years. Just imagine giant screen plasmas. They are that good. And you can have the screen almost as big as you want without having to deal with a heavy ass tv.

      107" Dalite Hi Power screen can be had for about $500.

      720 Front Projector Panasonic $2000 (I've got this one)
      http://www.projectorcentral.com/panasonic_ax100.ht m [projectorcentral.com]

      OR

      1080 Front Projector JVC DLA $7000
      http://projectorcentral.com/jvc_dla-rs1.htm [projectorcentral.com]
  • no speakers (Score:5, Funny)

    by maharg (182366) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:42AM (#18749121) Homepage Journal
    50 grand and it doesn't even come with speakers ? pah !

    Audio output power: N/A (line outs only)
    • by sarathmenon (751376) <srm@sara t h m enon.com> on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:56AM (#18749235) Homepage Journal
      Don't worry, they have a 100 grand speakers to pair along with it.
    • by plover (150551) *
      Actually, the TV is only $30,000.

      The rest of the $60,000 went for Monster Cables.

      I can hear the Best Buy salesman now: "If you're spending that much on a TV, don't you want the best cables? Y'know, the reds are a lot crisper with good cables." (The sales creature actually said that to me to try to get me to spend $160 on an HDMI cable when I bought my plasma. Because apparently it's the red bits that degrade if they're not happy with the quality of the cable.)

      • by jZnat (793348) *
        I hope you pointed out the difference between analogue and digital signals to him. The days of Monster Cables being overpriced but pretty good analogue cables are over; you can just use cheap Taiwanese digital cables and get the same quality. :)
        • by plover (150551) *

          I hope you pointed out the difference between analogue and digital signals to him.

          I tried! But the Monster sales reps appear to have their hooks deep into the flesh of the Best Buy floor sales people. Perhaps it has a lot to do with their commissions, but this guy didn't want to hear about digital vs analog, he just wanted to sell me 2 meters of wire for 160 frackin' dollars. Seriously, I was considering buying one of their closeout HDMI DVD players for $80, taking the cheap Taiwanese HDMI cable out of

  • The reviewer doesn't seem to mention whether he got to keep it or not...
    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Not sure about this TV, but some manufacturers seem to think that less than x% dead pixels means that it isn't defective. With a screen that large, it could have about 1000 dead pixels before it would even qualify. That's assuming it has more pixels than your standard 40 inch HDTV. Which I would hope so, lest those pixels be very huge.
      • Re:Dead Pixel! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by tverbeek (457094) on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:49AM (#18749689) Homepage
        HDTV data only goes up to 1920x1080. Any more pixels than that and you're not adding anything to the picture quality, just duplicating or averaging existing data. A screen this large is simply overkill. Heck, you can get the same visual effect by sitting closer to your 40-inch screen.
        • by CastrTroy (595695)
          Couldn't they just use more pixels, and some kind of filter to smooth out the edges? I know there's some Nes/SNES emulators that look much better than the original because they up the pixel count and use antialiasing. I'm not sure how well it would work for video, but I think it would help. I'd hate to think that this TV has pixels that are 5 times larger than the 20 inch HDTVs you can get at your local electronics store.
        • by zakezuke (229119)
          HDTV data only goes up to 1920x1080. Any more pixels than that and you're not adding anything to the picture quality, just duplicating or averaging existing data. A screen this large is simply overkill. Heck, you can get the same visual effect by sitting closer to your 40-inch screen.

          I use a 20 inch screen for personal viewing. Heck 19 inch TVs was the standard for years, even when it became tacky to have a working TV ontop of the nonworking console.

          Regardless something like this is probally not for person
        • by ed1park (100777)
          Yes, but when you have multiple people watching a movie and have a decent surround setup, it kicks absolute ass. Also, split screen games like Gears of War or a 4 person match of Top Spin 2 is WAY more fun!

          I'm using a 107" diagonal screen with a projector which can be had for $2500. 720p Panasonic 1800lumens.
        • Something big & far away looks better than something small & close up. This is part of the reason people still go to movie theatres.

          Unless you're missing an eye and don't have any depth perception, in which case I'm sorry...
      • To quote Seinfeld: "What's that red dot?"
  • by plasmacutter (901737) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:44AM (#18749135)
    seriously, the plasma market is starting to remind me of the travel channel's luxury home shows ("more and more americans are buying homes like these".. yeah right)

    how about a bridge in the gap between teeny tiny (and way too expensive for that size), and "OMG XBOX HUEG" (and out of reach of the average person).

    the "cheap" models at walmart start at 900 and go up from there, and if you actually want color fidelity youre looking at a minimum 1500.

    how long have these flat tvs been on the market? i seem to remember them advertised 8 years ago, so where the heck are the AFFORDABLE ones!
    • by hey! (33014)

      seriously, the plasma market is starting to remind me of the travel channel's luxury home shows ("more and more americans are buying homes like these".. yeah right)


      And we thought the rest of the world hated us because of our freedoms. It turns out they actually believe the BS the media tells us is the American Way of Life.
    • by Colin Smith (2679) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:57AM (#18749245)
      They just wait for inflation to catch up.

       
    • I can't answer that, but I can guarantee you this: In less than five years, there will be at least one sob story in the media about a poor family struggling to get by, which receives some form of welfare, and which happens to own one of these things.

      Hell, we already have a story [ajc.com] (firstborn) about a family making $48,000/year in rural Georgia with a $327 monthly car payment on a car much newer than mine, qualifying for health care assistance.
    • I'm not going to upgrade to a flat panel until two things happen: They're under $400 and my current CRT, which is less than a year old, breaks down. I don't watch enough TV to make it worth a thousand bucks.

    • by cayenne8 (626475)
      "the "cheap" models at walmart start at 900 and go up from there, and if you actually want color fidelity youre looking at a minimum 1500.

      how long have these flat tvs been on the market? i seem to remember them advertised 8 years ago, so where the heck are the AFFORDABLE ones!"

      Well, I remember seeing my first flat panel tv at Comdex about 10 years ago or so. The price then, I think was in the ballpark of $30K+...maybe more. In light of that..prices have come down.

      Depends on where you are in life, I do

    • by Pontiac (135778)
      how long have these flat tvs been on the market? i seem to remember them advertised 8 years ago, so where the heck are the AFFORDABLE ones!

      What a 20x drop in Plasma prices over 10 years isn't good enough for you?

      The first Phillips 42" plasma sold for $20,000

      I can pick up a 42 plasma or LCD at Costco today for $999

      I spent more than that on a 50" rear projection TV in 2001 and that technology has been around since the 40's! http://www.cedmagic.com/history/rca-first-project- 648ptk.html [cedmagic.com]
  • The installers were testing the machine when their union mandated coffee break came up. By the time they punched their clock and returned to work, the test image of "PANASONIC" has been burnt in. So very sad....
    • My faith in slashdot restored. This comment went down to -1 flamebait/troll before coming back to the original level. Thanks.
  • when you go to radio shack, and for $19.95, you get a can of paint and some sort of gadget. you go home, stick the gadget to the wall (your interface), then paint a rectangular area on the wall next to the gadget. the paint consists of self-aligning chemicals that when dry, creates a television

    it really isn't far fetched nanotechnology, the requisite advances in semiconducting polymers means the concept is not that far off. since they already have electronic paper, liquid crystals displays are well established, and OLEDs are coming on the scene now, technologies getting close to the "paint your own tv" concept, chemically and technically at least, i really don't think this concept is that far off

    think about it: at the factory where they make OLEDs/ liquid crystal displays/ electronic paper, there is a fabrication process. that fabrication process merely assembles the requisite pixels into a proper grid. someone, somewhere, will make this process automatic, like crystallization/ polymerization, so all you need is for it to "dry" after applying it to a flat surface
    • Sounds good, but right after they invent that some artistic movie producer will want to make a dodecahedral movie and what are you going to do with your quadrilateral screen then?
    • by jamesh (87723) on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:03AM (#18749295)
      Graffiti will have taken on a whole new meaning by then. Taggers won't be walking around with spray cans full of paint, they'll walk around with computers and reprogram the walls to display their tags (and they'll have spray cans with no paint, just solvents, so they can still huff them :)
    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:20AM (#18749433)
      Hey, if I'm gonna dream, I want a lot more than that. Give me a holodeck and a flying car, goddammit!

      Oh, and I want a moonbase too. 40 years later and all NASA has given me so far me is some Tang.

    • You can save the decades of waiting and pay a little more for a front projection system now. How do you repair a paint-on screen? Do you have to scrape the old one off before painting on a new one? Is there a reasonable hope that you can paint on a new coat in the damaged area of the old paint? If you ask anyone that does painting, they'll tell you that blending is a little hard to do.
    • I had this same idea years ago. I think we have a ways to go (i.e., decades) but I'll be waiting along with you.

      In 20 years, digital display technology could be as ubiquitous as paper today. I'm sure the advertisers are waiting with bated breath.
    • ...Circuit City bought Radio Shack.

      The best we can hope for is that we can go to Canadian Tire and buy a pre-painted wall, that only needs a day's work to trim to fit our actual house.
  • It's hard for me to understand why anyone would actually shell out the ridiculously high sticker price for this thing considering that you can have a really excellent 103" front projection apparatus for no more than $20,000, and if you shop right or are willing to forego 1080p you can do it for under $10,000. Sure, you have to design the room it's placed in such that you reduce or even eliminate ambient light for optimum viewing contrast, but given how much you save from not getting the "My God, It's Full o

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      For some people, the goal isn't to do the same thing cheaper, but to do the same thing in a more expensive way. If you have virtually unlimited amounts of money, then why not spend as much as possible. It's not like you can take it with you when you're dead.
    • by jonnythan (79727)
      Projection is awesome.. if you're in a dark room.

      The fact is that this plasma will give a much better picture in rooms that are anything but "very dim."

      Look at a white wall in a regularly lit room. Is that the color you want the blacks on your TV to be?

      This item isn't meant to be mass-market. If $90,000 is a *big freakin deal* to you, then the TV is definitely not for you. If $100k is a drop in the bucket, then this beats front projection hands down, so why not? It'd be way cooler to have your investment ba
    • by zakezuke (229119)
      It's hard for me to understand why anyone would actually shell out the ridiculously high sticker price for this thing considering that you can have a really excellent 103" front projection apparatus for no more than $20,000, and if you shop right or are willing to forego 1080p you can do it for under $10,000.

      Well, let me see. I remember when I was a kid there was a loud resturant called "Pizza and Pipes [pstos.org]" which not only offered a huge Wurlitzer Theatre pipe organ for entertainment, but a smallish movie scre
  • 220Kg? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gelfling (6534) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:49AM (#18749191) Homepage Journal
    Wow you can't hang that on a wall, unless you have a wall that can hang a refrigerator.

    Also, my 46" throws off a noticeable amount of heat. This unit might need some custom ventilation.
  • by UserChrisCanter4 (464072) * on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:53AM (#18749213)
    a couple of things to remember here:
    1) $90,000 is the price after currency conversion and VAT (UK's 17.5% "Sales tax"). Without VAT, the TV is $78,000 in a pure currency converted price.
    2) This is only the price with a currency change. Some products don't fluctuate much, but many things are ridiculously expensive in the UK when compared against the same product in the US. Judging by the pricing on the UK Top Gear, for example, cars are often $10K-$15K more for the same product. Computers are a little more reasonable, but you can still find a huge difference. The 30GB iPod (US $250), for example, is $355 US dollars at today's rate.

    It is refreshing to see a jumbo plasma TV that isn't a low-res, corporate boardroom model, though. I only wonder how much juice this thing sucks down.
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Red Flayer (890720)

      1) $90,000 is the price after currency conversion and VAT (UK's 17.5% "Sales tax"). Without VAT, the TV is $78,000 in a pure currency converted price.
      Oh, that settles it then -- I'm going out to get one right now, I'll pay for it out of petty cash.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Tet (2721)
      It is refreshing to see a jumbo plasma TV that isn't a low-res, corporate boardroom model, though.

      You think it isn't low-res? I was quite depressed when I saw how few pixels they'd given it. At 103", 1920x1080 equates to a rather paltry 22dpi. I just don't understand why large screens can't at least have the same resolution as a decent monitor. I mean, I'm not expecting a 103" screen with 100dpi. But just being able to match, say, the number of pixels found on a Dell 30" monitor would be nice...

      • by Nimey (114278)
        It's a television, so more pixels than HDTV can use would be a waste.

        If you're sitting close enough to this thing to see the individual dots, you're 1) sitting too close, and 2) in possession of more money than sense.
      • I just don't understand why large screens can't at least have the same resolution as a decent monitor.

        Defect rates. At two million pixels per screen, they're already throwing away almost 15% of the screens they make. The pixel density you're suggesting would mean that either consumers would have to deal with dozens of dead pixels in their hundred thousand dollar product, or the price would have to go up to match the new discard rate (which would be into the 99.several nines percent.)
      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        You think it isn't low-res? I was quite depressed when I saw how few pixels they'd given it. At 103", 1920x1080 equates to a rather paltry 22dpi.

        The would have added that CSI miracle-zoom-in technology that would make a higher pixel resolution a sensible option, but the royalties were too high.

    • by dunc78 (583090)
      How about these Premier League footballers they refer to... Can they compete with our U.S. NFL footballers, or they more along the lines of NFL Europe footballers?
  • by Nerdfest (867930) on Monday April 16, 2007 @07:53AM (#18749215)
    I can sympathize: Comic [penny-arcade.com]
  • ..the remote control is the size and weight of a Volkswagen Beetle, so you'll want to do a few weeks of strength training in preparation for the inevitable fight over it.
  • by Bazman (4849) on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:01AM (#18749283) Journal
    Risin' above the city, blocking out the noonday sun
    It dwarfs the mighty redwoods and it towers over everyone
    I still remember when that delivery truck came down our block
    What a lucky guy, I hear he got the last one in stock
    And the neighbors are just green
    They say, That's the biggest screen we've ever seen!

    It's Frank's 2000" TV (Frank's 2000" TV)
    Everbody come and see(Frank's 2000" TV)
    Frank's 2000" TV (Frank's 2000" TV)

      ( Weird Al Yankovic of course, http://www.whatarethelyrics.com/WEIRDALYANKOVIC/Fr anks2000.html [whatarethelyrics.com] )
  • Replacement (Score:3, Funny)

    by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte.drunksnipers@com> on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:05AM (#18749305) Homepage
    That would be a nice replacement for my window.
  • Power Consumption (Score:4, Informative)

    by frostilicus2 (889524) on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:05AM (#18749315)
    If you were wondering (this is Slashdot, after all), according to the manufacturers specs [panasonic.co.uk], this beast consumes 1500W (!) of power. Any ideas what a comparable CRT would consume?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Rob T Firefly (844560)

      Any ideas what a comparable CRT would consume?
      The souls of the innocent.
    • Based on the power consumption of a typical 3 tube rear projection LCD at 52" and multiplying by 4. Plasma does provide a wider viewing angle too, which does justify some of the extra power.
  • Priceless? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jugalator (259273) on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:14AM (#18749367) Journal
    1. 103" HDTV Plasma: $90,000
    2. Ferrari car: $1,000,000
    3. Watching aftermath from a too frantic Wii car game: Priceless.
  • Sure it's great to have a big image, but if it's still 1920x1200, the quality is no better than my 24" screen on my pc. I'll be impressed when the pixels size remains the same and they add more of them to make the screen bigger. Also, where's my 300dpi lcd screens?
    • It's between 2200-2300 pixels in 103 diagonal inches, or about 21-23 pixels per inch. Unless the viewer sits very far away from the screen (which would be quite a waste as I'd imagine the goal is a theater-like experience) the pixels will be visible. To compare, my several-years-old LCD monitor at 1280x1024 and 17" has about 96-97 pixels per inch.
      • by HeyBob! (111243)
        The native resolution is 1920x1200 (from the features table) which makes it about 18 pixels per inch.
        On my 24" LCD, it works out to 80 pixels per inch.

        Viewing distance will make up for some of that.
    • by grahamsz (150076)
      Grab yourself an IBM T221 - it manages over 200 dpi on an LCD display.

      My dell laptop with a 15.4 WUXGA screen does 1920x1200 so it's about 150 dpi if my calculations are correct.

  • Japanese price (Score:4, Informative)

    by MZGuy (538887) on Monday April 16, 2007 @08:32AM (#18749543)
    I saw a Panasonic 103" 1080P TV when I was in Japan in the end of March. According to the price tag it was named TH-103PZ600, and cost 5,600,000 Yen, which would be about 47000 USD. I have a photo of the price tag right here [flickr.com] if you want to look for yourself. With that kind of outrageous difference in price, I'd go get it from Japan if I were in the market for that TV.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by GauteL (29207)
      "With that kind of outrageous difference in price, I'd go get it from Japan if I were in the market for that TV."

      Not to rain on your parade, but this may not be entirely practical with a 103" Television. I can foresee a whole host of problems that the mega-rich which this is marketed towards, may rather want to pay $40000 to avoid. I assume the US price, like the UK price, also comes with a whole team of professional installers, cranes and the like.

      From the review the television is 220 kilograms or 350 kg i
    • You'll probably have to ship them by ocean freight if you want to use that TV anywhere outside of Japan.
  • My DLP is an internal projector onto a 50" panel. Why can't they put 9 of those, 3x3, inside the case, closely registered at their edges? Maybe a video sensor feeding back images of the internal corners where 4 tiles meet, piezos positioning them to accomodate thermal flexing of their common mounting brackets.

    I'd like a 4800x3600 display, whether it's 50" or 190". And if the projector could go into a focusable lens, instead of the fixed one in the case, it could project to practically any size on an externa
  • by centauricw (950113) on Monday April 16, 2007 @09:02AM (#18749827)
    Plasma screens are only rated for 3600 hours of viewing time before they deteriorate below spec and the manufacture won't replace the glass. Based on this, we computed that you loose $0.41 a minute watching this set.
    • by raynet (51803)
      Humm.. Usually plasma-TVs have half file of 50000+ hours at which point their maximum (I currently use only 1/3rd of maximum brightness and it is bright enough for me) brightness is half of which it was when purchased. After that it will still be probably usable for atleast 25000+ hours (and if you don't use it originally at max settings you get longer usage) so based on this the price per minute would be only about $0.02-0.03 a minute.
  • My boyfriend and I recently got a 61" DLP (which he NEEDED because he bought a PS3). According to both the manual and our experience, you should sit 7' to 10' away for optimal viewing pleasure. Sitting closer results in having to turn your head to follow the action (as well as the color looking a little off); this makes you very aware you are watching TV, ruining immersion. I don't really know how to go about the math for this, but it seems like you'd have to be something like 20" away to view anything p
  • is the ability to drop six figures for a device that does little more than allow people to advertise to me while wasting my time. I wonder how it would work out as a monitor? Because after having ditched television over 15 years ago, I am not about to pick up the habit again.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by sootman (158191)
      Area Man, is that you? [theonion.com]

      I mean seriously. You came all the way to an online forum, clicked on a link to a story about TVs, and took the time to post a comment about how you don't watch TV. ?!?!?
    • by djh101010 (656795) *

      is the ability to drop six figures for a device that does little more than allow people to advertise to me while wasting my time. I wonder how it would work out as a monitor? Because after having ditched television over 15 years ago, I am not about to pick up the habit again.

      Why is it that people who have given up television then seem to have the need to tell us about it? Why then, do you specifically, bother commenting on a product which by your own choice you're not interested in? It's equivalent to the guy who goes on and on about his OS of choice not having viruses.

  • by llZENll (545605) on Monday April 16, 2007 @09:35AM (#18750261)
    1) Buy a 50" plasma and sit closer!

    2) Buy 4 42" plasmas for each person in your family so everyone can sit closer.
  • For my laserdisc player. Those DVD's will never catch on you know.
  • by KozmoStevnNaut (630146) <henrikstevn AT gmail DOT com> on Monday April 16, 2007 @10:26AM (#18750953)
    I've seen one of these in person and played around with it a bit, so I guess I'm pretty much obliged to comment...

    Yes, it is ridiculously huge, just bit over 2.6 metres from corner to corner.

    It's also not a TV, it's just a monitor. From what I was told it takes both VGA and DVI inputs, and it has an RS232 port for controlling brightness etc.

    HD looks great on it, the colours are good, and you can easily view it from almost 90 degrees to the side without any real loss of color or contrast. Then again, you really have to be at least 3 or 4 metres away from it to be able to see the whole image comfortably.

    There are 12 (yes, twelve!) fans on the back of it to provide cooling, which I guess you need every bit you can get of, considering the monitor uses 1500 watts when in use.

    I think their target market is high-end home cinemas, but at that price and at that power usage, I would think an HD projector would be more economical. The monitor is useful in daylight though, you can't really say that for most projectors.
    • by cybereal (621599)

      I think their target market is high-end home cinemas, but at that price and at that power usage, I would think an HD projector would be more economical. The monitor is useful in daylight though, you can't really say that for most projectors.

      I use a projector at nearly its full throw. It maxes at 110" and I use 100". It's not HD, at only 1024x768 (though it's happy to emulate with some interesting results up to 720p) but it looks great for DVD with my xbox 360. The games look really nice too. I use the

  • "I guess if you can afford a room big enough to house it, you can afford the TV."

    Yeah, it's real hard housing a 4' x 7.5' TV.
  • The only thing that keeps plasma tech. going is the uneducated masses who don't understand technology.
    The price, power consumption, relatively low native pixel count, image quality and physical weight of a plasma when compared to LCD is crazy.
    This massive tv is totally redundant when comapared to a front projector at a 10th of the price which could give an even (much) bigger screen at the same image quality.
  • If you are going to spend that much on a TV, why not buy a decent project TV for slightly more.

    The Sony Pro 4K SRX-R110S can do up to 4096 x 2160. High contrast ration and 10,000 ANSI lumen gives quite the impressive result. I witnessed this during the Electronic theater at Siggraph last year where one of the animations was shown at the projector's native resolution. The difference between what I thought was good, HDTV's 1080p, and the full 4096x2160 was stunning.

    The SRX-R110S [sonybiz.net] only costs about $125,000 ;-)
  • Something tells me that lifespan is going to be rather important with TVs of this size. Given the difficulty in installing the thing, I could anticipate that some people will expect them to last 30-40 years. (I would also anticipate that such TVs will be installed while a house is being constructed.

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.

Working...