Gizmodo
The new one-inch thick TV are not experimental as we first imagined: they will release them in two to three years, with a flagship 131-inch version illuminated by some "secret technology we can't talk about." We've just seen them in Berlin and they really are skinny. Sharp's Corporate Communications PR-Manager, Martin Beckmann told us all about it.
The TVs will be made at Sharp's new plant in Osaka - which is the same one that makes their solar panels, because it shares the same manufacturing technology.
We asked Martin how they were lighting the panels, suggesting it was LED. Martin smiled and shook his head, saying that it was top secret and he wasn't at liberty to talk about it. Who knows? Maybe he was bluffing or maybe he didn't know, but it sure looked amazing.
They are, however, aiming to be size leader of LCD TVs - and, it seems, the kings of thin. Let Giz remind you that the screen is just 23 mm thick - that's 0.9 inches - and 32 mm (1.26 inches) if you add in the back box and grille. And just check how big their tenth-generation LCD panel actually is - that's little old me jumping up and down next to it, and I'm 5'11".
Comments
Will you marry me?
Finally! A TV that is large enough, and thin enough, for me to use it as a garage door.
Oh, Addy, please don't marry subroc. I'd be so much better for you.
Available 2010. Affordable 2015. Just as they start demoing the holograhic version. Can't we ever just STOP so something I can afford is actually cutting edge? Curse you gadget makers.
BTW - Addy. You should probably marry me, the other two are losers.
Yah...beneditor has a good point. How long was it that SD CRT TV's basically kept the same features? After the switch to color, there weren't many changes. I knew people with huge CRT's in the 80's...and things weren't any bigger in 2000. Even the inputs basically stayed the same: cable/coax and composite RCA. Some fancy sets eventually got S-video and component-RCA...but no major difference was visible and not having an S-video input on your TV didn't mean you were somehow left out. Some sets were a little flatter than others, but overall, the technology was pretty constant from 1970 until today. You could use the same TV for 30 years and not feel like you were missing out. The only *real* way to tell how old your TV was was by looking at the bezel/cabinet material.
Today, while I love the idea of things getting better, it really just makes me not want to buy anything when I know in 2 years I really will be missing out. Why waste the money now when I can get something better for the same price if I wait a little longer? We moved from 480p DVD to 1080p HD-disks in less than 10 years -- does that mean if I buy an HDTV today, it won't even support the full resolution of my movies in another 5-10 years? For anybody that still thinks $1000 is a lot of money, this is not the sort of climate they want to buy into.
It uses glow-stick technology. You have to crack it in half and shake it up.
They don't want you to know that the grill in the back is how it lights itself. It uses the ambient light of the room and if you knew that then you wouldn't buy the tv because you would then know that watching the tv in the dark or wall mounting would be impossible.
Hey! Where's the "tits-sized" image? :D
Assuming what these TVs will be sold for, that model is flipping us the wrong finger.
Also, the first picture is over-dimensioned: one of the dimensions should be converted to (reference).
And one interesting side-effect of the as-yet-unidentified backlighting technology is that everyone who was within 10 feet of the screen that day now has no need for a vasectomy.
@bu11etman: wtf...lol
i think 3-4 inches is thin enough
@bdkennedy1: @EQC:
lolz at the garage door idea, HELL ill build my house with these as the walls
@alin0steglinski: and ceiling
@alin0steglinski: and floor
@alin0steglinski: And driveway
Start a discussion:
Login with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?