|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments on ‘Sharp pitches 'world's largest' LCD screen’Friday 13th June 2008 10:55 GMT
Wouldn't a Plasma look better and cost less?
Anonymous Coward • Friday 13th June 2008 11:06 GMT
Small LCD TV's look bad enough but magine 108 inches of grey blacks and uneven backlighting! Woop! Awwww
Greg • Friday 13th June 2008 11:40 GMT
"Sharp's not saying how much the beast will set you back because it's offering the display entirely on a built-to-order basis. It's really aimed at businesses who want enormo-screens for conference rooms, shopping centres and the like." But I want one! Price
Greg • Friday 13th June 2008 11:41 GMT
Just after I posted that, I found a website quoting the price as $100k. Ouch. Wall space isn't the issue ....
Anonymous Coward • Friday 13th June 2008 11:46 GMT
.... it's the length of the room. Of course, like the 50"+ screens already available, it's not really an issue of space for the actual screen, it's that you need to be sitting 20 feet away to avoid looking at a mess of pixels. Too small
Anonymous Coward • Friday 13th June 2008 11:49 GMT
I'm waiting for 120" before I replace my CRT WANT ONE!!
Paul Naylor • Friday 13th June 2008 11:51 GMT
The only problem is that this beatie is probably bigger than the largest wall in my front room! S'pose I'll have to make do with a LOTR extended edition marathon on my pitiful 28" Sony... @Alexandre Swioklo
Anonymous Coward • Friday 13th June 2008 12:44 GMT
read it again.. largest screen cut from 2mx2m panel not the size of the manufacterd panel! A Projector is Better
Quantum • Friday 13th June 2008 12:47 GMT
For several years I've enjoyed a high-def projector shining on a 10' screen in my living room. I can see every hair on Charlize's head! I went with a projector when the size of these new TVs just got out of hand. It cost me $5,000 and the screen is a sheet of formica from Home Depot ($75). Only catch is, you mist be able to completely shut out light entering the room, and preferably have dark walls. But man, is it worth it! @projector
Anonymous Coward • Friday 13th June 2008 12:48 GMT
Save £2K? Try nothing. When flat-screens were £3K, fair enough. Can this comment be filed in the folder marked "Valid arguments 8 years ago" please? Many thanks. Pointless picture...
Anonymous Coward • Friday 13th June 2008 13:19 GMT
...surely we all know what a TV looks like? What we need to know now is how big it is -- we need someone standing next to the TV. Electric
Mr ChriZ • Friday 13th June 2008 13:39 GMT
How many Nuclear stations do you need to run it? @@projector
David Wiernicki • Friday 13th June 2008 23:17 GMT
You can find a 10' wide flat-screen for $4k? And @Wall space... if you're running 1080p, or even 720p, the rule of thumb is 1.5x screen width at the outside. A lot of people like 1.2x screen width. A 108" screen is only somewhere around 8' wide (ish) so you're looking at 12 to 15' seating distance. I've got an 80" wide projection screen in my home theater, and the room's only 14' deep. Looks great. If you're in a theater sitting in the middle/middle, you'll get about the same field of view. @Valid arguments 8 years ago
eddiewrenn • Saturday 14th June 2008 00:51 GMT
There's a folder for that? I've been wondering where all my posts have been going! Just what I wanted
ian • Saturday 14th June 2008 03:42 GMT
To be able to watch crap-o-vision in eye-filling surroundo-view! For a mere fortune! Oh God, we're doomed (with hyphens). Reason for not Plasma
Christian Berger • Saturday 14th June 2008 04:53 GMT
The reason for not using Plasma here is fairly simple. Those screens will end up displaying static images for most of their lives. But short lived
Antoine Dubuc • Saturday 14th June 2008 14:25 GMT
4x 1080p is set for late next year.... Paris, because she'd looked nice humping on 108 inch! lolll Rather old news
Greg Andrews • Sunday 15th June 2008 16:07 GMT
Sharp displayed one of these at the CES show in Jan 2007. The column where I first read about the beast decided that it wasn't intended to be a consumer product. Rather it's a demo of Sharp's glass fabrication prowess. Sharp makes displays for a lot of other companies who slap their brand name on the front, and the 108-inch is intended to attract their OEM business rather than purchases from the average consumer. For those who wanted someone standing next to it: http://tv.about.com/od/manufacturers/ig/2007-CES-Top-Models/Sharp-spokesmodel-Alisha-Jones.htm @AC
heystoopid • Monday 16th June 2008 08:19 GMT
@ac surely you must have a direct connection to a power sub station for Plasma units similar to that size would consume upwards of 750 watt hours or for 5000 hours of usage some 4000 KwH give or take and an estimated MTBF of between 30,000 and 60,000 hours to reach half light power output . This would equate to life time power consumption of ouch ! , I did not need that wallet load of cash to fund the kids private schooling to pay for it's 15 year working life cycle ! As for an LCD unit they would average power consumption would be approximately half as much again for the same MTBF of 30,000 hours , but the question remains unanswered is how cheap or dear are the rare and uncommon lamps used in these units or is it cheaper to land fill it and buy a new replacement ! Strangely no mention on all units as to the relatively constant colour purity drift either (LCD's are truly a nightmare to colour balance for correct colour temperature in photography as for the newest low res 20" colour Mac well forget about that one!) ! Projectors LCD/DLP units have two problems involving the coolant condenser lens bath water suffering from bacterial bloom and lamp life is any where between 400 to 5000 hours if fitted with a special cold current inrush limiter/lamp filament pre-warmer device/half light output , the replacement globes start at $400 and rapidly climb higher as they have a very specific tight tolerance colour spectrum output . Literally one can say the incandescent lamp may work for five hours at full output or may be not (Murphy's dog would say one never has a critical replacement globe that fits and mysteriously globes of course always tend to die when the store is closed for the long holiday weekend and one must also be reminded that filament globes are the least effective in that they generate ninety five percent consumed energy as heat and need large cooling condenser lens to provide even light output per unit area from a point source as the transmission LCD's tend not to like very high operating temperatures from the illuminating lamp as their liquid changes density with temperature and switching times also change as well ! As for the CRT undoubtedly my old 30kg HP 22" 1000 series Colour Monitor will still be going strong long after any of the above flash new units have turned up their toes , lost the colour purity balance and gone to the great maker in the sky , whilst still saving a small fortune in power bills and generating far less carbon emission green house gas as well ! Alas , no technology is perfect but have you got a big enough wallet to fund the blood out of a stone kilowatt hours thus , that be the question for the new kids on the block ? The period for commenting on this story has finished |
Hot Product ReviewsSony Walkman S seriesMost Wanted TV
Data from Pricegrabber Review FinderAccessories
Price FinderTop Stories
Channels
On Other Register sites…
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||