Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

$90,000 103in HDTV

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the just-a-little-excessive dept.

180

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. "

cancel ×

180 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Commercial Products (3, Informative)

redelm (54142) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749087)

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.

Re:Commercial Products (1)

dintech (998802) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749109)

Now come on, you saw that on Land of The Giants didn't you?

Pythagoras (2, Informative)

Mateo_LeFou (859634) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749259)

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)

Re:Pythagoras (1)

MrShaggy (683273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749421)

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 the same output as a 50watt quartz light.` If they go into the RGB screens that will push back the plasma displays. Cost is everything.

Its expensive, yes, however many groups like to be the first to be the leading edge, bragging rights.

Re:Pythagoras (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750099)

"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 that on trade.

With this thing, I'd be hard pressed to go back to normal tv agian...except for maybe the bedroom or kitchen.

The ONLY complaint is that it can get a little 'dim' in the middle of the day when sunlight is leaking through the window shades, but, I thought about it...and it isn't any worse than my old 60" Mitsubishi tv was in middle of the day with very bright light coming in the living room.

Videophiles may call it "cheap" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749493)

$100.000 doesn't sound too expensive for some people since I know at least 1 person who paid $80.000 to Barco CRT projector alone and there were THX guys setting up/validating the audio for his private cinema at his ranch. I guess it may have hit $250.000 for full setup.

I heard he was using 35mm+(Cinema) DTS before and that was "full" digital upgrade. I didn't follow but I am sure he will be interested in Digital Cinema when tests are over.

Sound mad? Well, you can buy a $1M Lombarghini (taxes) and get stuck in Istanbul traffic behind a bus, which one sounds logical? :)

Posting AC for this one since I don't want guy traced from my nick. Customer privacy :)

Do the math (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750191)

This mostly looks like a commercial product for a convention hall or stadium

I'm too lazy to do all the math (it's Monday and I'd get it wrong anyway, I'm a moron on Mondays), but apparently less lazy than the submitter or the parent. That's eight and a half feet diagonal, how wide is it? Five feet?

From TFS: I guess if you can afford a room big enough to house it, you can afford the TV.

I live in a $52,000 house (no mansion!) and an eight foot diagonal screen would fit in there. That TV would be SWEEEEET in my little living room!

From TFP: One local store has one about 15' (180") diagonal

That's what, ten feet wide or so? That would fit too, but it would be like being in the front row at a theater.

Or maybe not - how big would the pixels be on a screen that big? Even on a hidef TV?

-mcgrew

Meh. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749095)

Meh.

rear projection (4, Funny)

Devil's BSD (562630) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749119)

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!

Re:rear projection (5, Funny)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 7 years ago | (#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!

Re:rear projection (1)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749387)

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?

Re:rear projection (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749449)

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 roof off the building and taken the screen! Fortunately for my friend, payment was due for the hardware on completion of installation, and the conference centre took over responsibility for security at that point...

Re:rear projection (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749467)

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.

Re:rear projection (1)

i.r.id10t (595143) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749489)

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....

Re:rear projection (1)

metallic (469828) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749593)

We had the same thing happen, except with a piano.

Re:rear projection (1)

Falladir (1026636) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749861)

Depending on how malignant the thief is, he might destroy the TV out of frustration. It doesn't take much, he could probably do it without waking you.

Re:rear projection (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749239)

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

Is that anything like a Compact Disc(TM) LP'?

Nintendo tapes (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749351)

Is that anything like a Compact Disc(TM) LP'?
Or "Nintendo(TM) tapes"?

Re:rear projection (1)

catxk (1086945) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749347)

If you cut a good deal at the projector, you might even afford the actual player for those Blu-Ray discs.

Re:rear projection - afford the room? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750407)

Ummm... my 3 room apartment has enough for our 100inch TV (projector, duh) and my maggie MMG speakers! I wish I could afford this thing (not!)

Seriously though, 10 grand and you could kill this thing and have it look better with projection.

And thief proof? ...great so they just smash it and laugh at you... then you have no way of finding them.

no speakers (4, Funny)

maharg (182366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749121)

50 grand and it doesn't even come with speakers ? pah !

Audio output power: N/A (line outs only)

Re:no speakers (4, Funny)

sarathmenon (751376) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749235)

Don't worry, they have a 100 grand speakers to pair along with it.

Re:no speakers (4, Funny)

maharg (182366) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749313)

.. don't forget the remote, a snip at 10 grand ..

Re:no speakers (1)

plover (150551) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749881)

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.)

Keeper? (1)

jginspace (678908) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749123)

The reviewer doesn't seem to mention whether he got to keep it or not...

Dead Pixel! (5, Funny)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749133)

AAAARGH!

Re:Dead Pixel! (1)

Mathness (145187) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749417)

I had the same thought. But then I think the physical size of the pixels (1x1mm I reckon) should be large enough to prevent that.
At that price it is probably checked before shiping.

Re:Dead Pixel! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749503)

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! (3, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749689)

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.

Re:Dead Pixel! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749801)

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.

Re:Dead Pixel! (1)

sYn pHrEAk (526867) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749711)

Nope, Its native resolution is 1920x1080, standard 1080p.

Re:Dead Pixel! (1)

Hoi Polloi (522990) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750165)

To quote Seinfeld: "What's that red dot?"

how about an affordable one instead. (5, Insightful)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#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!

Re:how about an affordable one instead. (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749197)

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.

They don't come down in price (4, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749245)

They just wait for inflation to catch up.

 

Re:how about an affordable one instead. (1)

UbuntuDupe (970646) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749303)

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.

Re:how about an affordable one instead. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750125)

Well, if you want affordable, just buy smaller TV.

20" LCD TVs are around 200$ and 26" for 400$.

Remember that it's less than 5 years when people paid 800 USD for 26" CRT TV.

So I would say that LCD TVs are very affordable.

Whatever you have you can afford some sort of TV.

Re:how about an affordable one instead. (1)

Paulrothrock (685079) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750493)

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.

Sad thing ... (2, Funny)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749141)

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....

i'm looking forward to the day (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749177)

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

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (1)

thegrassyknowl (762218) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749227)

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?

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749231)

Go to Ebay, search for `LCD projector'. If you're lucky, it'll cost $40 or less. You don't even need a can of paint.

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (3, Funny)

jamesh (87723) | more than 7 years ago | (#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 :)

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (1)

cyrax256 (845338) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750083)

Please take down what you said, I don't want to see the day some wise guy paints hello.jpg :-S

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749299)

yeah, this is real insightful. why isn't this marked off-topic?

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749405)

I don't know if it's that easy. I think you'd need to make each part of your smart paint very intelligent - able to receive data and recognise its own location, as well as receiving power and outputting light. At present, we don't have any way to make nano-machines that are sufficiently clever to do that. We could make them with today's technology but they wouldn't be very small - micro-metre scale, rather than molecule-sized.

By the way, the word for your painted wall-sized nano-technology television is "mediatron" [Stephenson, 1995 [wikipedia.org] ].

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (3, Funny)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (3, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750481)

He's already dreaming far beyond you--he's talking about getting good products and service at Radio Shack!

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750535)

40 years later and all NASA has given me so far me is some Tang

Tang? And medical advances like heart monitors and ultrasound pictures of fetuses, GPS, cell phones, satellite TV (wow I'm on topic aven it the parent isn't!), Hubble pictures, pictures of Mars taken from the surface (you ARE a nerd, aren't you? If not wtf are you doing here?) close up pictures of all the other planets, better weather forecasting (live in Florida or Texas? Space tech may have saved your life!), advanced radars (live in the midwest US? Space tech may have saved your life), and soon to come other tech invented for space like fuel cells and advanced solar cells.

That's just off the top of my head.

Come to think of it, you probably AREN'T a nerd. Why are you at slashdot?

-mcgrew

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749727)

Patent Pending

Re:i'm looking forward to the day (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750217)

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.

Front projection apparatus anyone? (1)

schmidt349 (690948) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749185)

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 of Stars" plasma screen you can probably hire professionals to do it for you and pocket the difference.

Perhaps the base is weighted with $10 bills (£5 notes?). That would explain the price to me more effectively.

I mean, I know there are people who extoll the virtues of plasma over all other display types, but seriously.

Re:Front projection apparatus anyone? (1)

sherriw (794536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749353)

I was thinking the same thing. Some people have more money than brains.

Re:Front projection apparatus anyone? (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749381)

Perhaps the base is weighted with $10 bills (£5 notes?). That would explain the price to me more effectively.


no, they just made the logo out of antimatter [uaf.edu]

Re:Front projection apparatus anyone? (1)

computechnica (171054) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749871)

You would need a Matter-AntiMatter reactor (or a Mr.Fusion) to supply the 1.21 Gigawatt's to power this beast

Re:Front projection apparatus anyone? (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749651)

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.

Re:Front projection apparatus anyone? (1)

jonnythan (79727) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749775)

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 banker buddies over to watch the game on this thing than on front projection.

220Kg? (3, Insightful)

gelfling (6534) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749191)

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.

Re:220Kg? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749585)

1.5kW of power consumption, apparently. So yes, you'd need some sort of AC for it.

Definitely a toy for the nerd who has everything (except perhaps common sense).

For the US-centric... (4, Informative)

UserChrisCanter4 (464072) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:For the US-centric... (2, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749355)

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:For the US-centric... (2, Interesting)

Tet (2721) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749389)

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...

Re:For the US-centric... (1)

Nimey (114278) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749529)

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.

Re:For the US-centric... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749771)

Of course the same screen size with a much higher resolution would be neat (tho even more expensive), but what's great with 1920x1080 is that it's the *exact* full HD res, meaning that HTDV or BR/HDDVD sources can be displayed with no scaling at all.
That's a real bonus considering all those 1366x768 LCD tvs and 1680x1050 LCD monitors...

can show 1080-line sources mapped perfectly pixel for pixel to the screen's resolution, with no overscanning.

Premier League (3, Funny)

dunc78 (583090) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749671)

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?

Re:For the US-centric... (1)

JATMON (995758) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750271)

Since we are talking about a TV, I figured that we should do a comparison between TVs. So, I did price search for a Panasonic 50" Plasma TV on http://www.nextag.com/50-plasma-panasonic [nextag.com] & http://www.nextag.co.uk/panasonic-50-plasma [nextag.co.uk]

50" Panasonic plasma in the UK: 1300 to 5000
50" Panasonic plasma in the US: 1400 to 5000

Looks like there is a big mark up in the UK on TVs. So it makes me wonder what that actual price would be in the US. If they are in line with the 50" plasma's then it would be more in the range of 50,000.

So, I can get two.

Ob. Penny-Arcade (3, Funny)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749215)

I can sympathize: Comic [penny-arcade.com]

Sadly.. (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749281)

..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.

Not as big as Frank's... (2, Funny)

Bazman (4849) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749283)

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] )

Re:Not as big as Frank's... (3, Informative)

Megane (129182) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750361)

Quick math on Frank's TV: if it's 4:3, 2000 inch diagonal would be 1200 inches (100 feet) high. Widescreen 16:9 would be 720 inches, or 60 feet.

Basically, Frank's TV is the size of a drive-in theatre screen.

This post has been a public service of the Federal Useless Consumer Knowledge Statistics Department

Replacement (2, Funny)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749305)

That would be a nice replacement for my window.

Power Consumption (3, Informative)

frostilicus2 (889524) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:Power Consumption (2, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749391)

Any ideas what a comparable CRT would consume?
The souls of the innocent.

About 800W (1)

DarthStrydre (685032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750349)

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.

I meant CRT, not LCD... my bad (1)

DarthStrydre (685032) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750391)

Apologies in advance before I get modded through the basement. The numbers are correct though.

Priceless? (2, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749367)

1. 103" HDTV Plasma: $90,000
2. Ferrari car: $1,000,000
3. Watching aftermath from a too frantic Wii car game: Priceless.

Re:Priceless? (1)

Apoklypse (853837) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749547)

Ferrari - $250,000 CDN here in downtown Toronto, Ontario, Canada - Avenue Rd dealership at Bloor St, then add the obligatory 15% HST for the various governements picking the ONE taxpayer pocket

Don't buy a Wii (0, Offtopic)

sherriw (794536) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749369)

These TVs should come with a free Wii! *evil laugh*

1920x1200 is not enough (1)

HeyBob! (111243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749407)

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?

Re:1920x1200 is not enough (1)

TheStonepedo (885845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749563)

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.

Re:1920x1200 is not enough (1)

HeyBob! (111243) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750031)

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.

Hmm.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749425)

Can I hook it up to my computer? 103' of frag-filled glory!

And, with the right stereo equipment, a "HEADSHOT" will blow out every window in my house!

Yeah someone was broke and needed money (1)

ddelella (1088977) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749469)

Lets see: 67" Samsung HDTV with HDMI, 10000:1, and full 1080p = $3000 $90,000 / $3,000 = 30 67" TVs I think I will stick with the 30 67" tvs instead of one tv that is 36" bigger. I can even stand all my tv is a tv wall 5x5 and get 335" square. Oh yeah, now that is a nice tv. When that 103" gets down to a resonable $5,000 let me know.

Japanese price (4, Informative)

MZGuy (538887) | more than 7 years ago | (#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:Japanese price (2, Informative)

GauteL (29207) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750027)

"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 if you are using the heavy duty stand.

Re:Japanese price (1)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750369)

You'll probably have to ship them by ocean freight if you want to use that TV anywhere outside of Japan.

Re:Japanese price (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750415)

Too bad the tuner won't work with US broadcast/satellite/cable signals... if all you need mpeg2+AAC decoding from terrestrial digital or BS/CS tuner included (just find a place with line-of-site on the dish) though, the Japanese set is one way to go ;)

scary (1)

archen (447353) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749583)

the world becomes more like Fahrenheit 451 every day

$5000 SuperHD TV (1)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749647)

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 external screen.

The one I've got costs only about $1200. Why can't it scale up for $5000 to be bigger? And why shouldn't it scale up better than linearly (shared components) to nearly any size?

Re:$5000 SuperHD TV (1)

larytet (859336) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749889)

I've been in the theater with approximately 140 degrees view screen. The screen was literally all around you. I think that there were 5 or 6 projectors. The whole setup included water dispensers under the roof and odor dispensers. You really can feel smell of apples when watching a documentary about local farmers. The whole system was from Japan and relatively new - under 3 years. You can see edges between "screens" - pictures generated by the projectors. I have no idea how many pixels were there. Probably lot.

It just so happens (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749655)

that TV Turnoff Week [wikipedia.org] is coming up.

Costs $0.41 Per Minute To Watch (3, Interesting)

centauricw (950113) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

How far away do you have to sit? (2, Interesting)

AmiAthena (798358) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749847)

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 properly on such a huge screen. So not only do you have to have a wall wide enough and tall enough to fit the thing on, the room needs to be long enough to sit that far away. As someone mentioned, this might not be a problem since a person who can afford this probably has the space for it, but it still makes my brain hurt a little.

Another impracticality that springs to mind is that this isn't even a very good investment- what's the average life of a plasma screen? Could you go back to a relatively normal size TV after you've had this, or will you be shelling out $90,000 every 5 years or so? At least our "little" DLP will still be usable in 10 years. We might have to spend $300 on a light bulb for it, but we'll be able to see the picture.

Here's some math I can do: for the same amount of money, you could buy 30-40 61" TVs and put one on every wall; which would be kind of scary but pretty awesome. (And on a moral, "isn't there anything worthwhile you could do with your obscene sums of money?" note, I looked up one of those sponsor-a-child charities I see on TV and you could sponsor 312 children for one year, or 20 children for 15 years each, or of course one child for 312 years. I am *NOT* judging anyone, I just got to thinking about the numbers.)

I can't deny it would be cool to have, but for several reasons I can't imagine buying one, even if I could afford to.

Terrific. Just what I needed... (1)

Panaqqa (927615) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750067)

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.

What if it breaks? (1)

tech10171968 (955149) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750197)

As someone who used to work in a TV repair shop I wonder what the repair procedures for these behemoths are going to be. People already get really bent out of shape when a shop has to take the TV to their facilities for repair; and it seems as if the larger the TV the more upset they become (of course I'm well aware that this may be because when they buy the "extended warranty" from the salesperson at Best Buy, et al, they are promised "in-home servicing" but soon find that there almost is no such thing - many troubleshooting issues exist which simply cannot be resolved at the customer's house. But that's a whole other thread of discussion by itself). Also, what of the logistics involved in transporting this beast to the repair shop? Just how light or heavy is this thing? I ask because most TV shops that are lucky enough to be able to provide such a service have (at best) 2 men and a small, "U-Haul" type delivery truck, which (in most cases) may not be spacious enough to accomodate such a large screen. Also, many of the customers I've encountered loved to place their widescreen TV's in some of the darndest places (usually on the 2nd floor higher and around some tight corners). Since placing a TV in such precarious locations can increase the chances of damage being done to the TV or the house when moving said appliance most TV shops will actually refuse to even consider touching a TV in that situation (mine was one of them). These are situations which, in my experience, a large number of customers simply never consider when buying these outsized TV's.

overpriced (1)

pablo_max (626328) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750213)

Seems cheaper to buy 4 50inch LCD's and drive them with your SLI config. Not to mention, I am sure such a screen has GIANT ghosts ;)

a much cheaper solution (2, Insightful)

llZENll (545605) | more than 7 years ago | (#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.

At last, a worthy output device (1)

clickclickdrone (964164) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750301)

For my laserdisc player. Those DVD's will never catch on you know.

The Reviewer's Conclusion (1)

themelv (1000816) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750331)

I've never seen pubic shaving rash so highly defined.

FAIL2ORS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750531)

told reporters, inventing excuses way. It used to be endless conflict GNAA (GAY NIGGER is dying.Things be a coc^k-sucking
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?