Panasonic launch 103″ plasma TV.

[Smokey]

Panasonic has announced that it is to begin taking orders for its 103-inch plasma TV at the start of September. LG with its 70" plasmam was the largest on the market, but now Panansonic take the lead.

103-inch 1080p panel is more than 89.3" wide by over 50.2" high, and features full HD pixel resolution of 1,920 horizontal by 1,080 vertical.

With price tag of $70,000, it will be built to order and is expected to be available from select high-end electronics retailers in December.

http://pictures.directnews.org.uk/Live/Photo9399.jpg

http://www.avinfo.co.uk/index.php?main=story&id=17366724

[basite]

thats very huge

[edtyct]

I can't see this as anything more than a chest-beating contest. At that size, anyone would do better with a front-projection system. The consumer public for a plasma of this size would have to be people with deep pockets and not much understanding of video--the type that believes plasma to be the jewel in the HD crown and sheer size to be a mark of distinction. I can't even imagine a practical commercial use for this thing.

[GMichael]

Some people would gladly shell out that kind of cash just so they could say that they spent more than anyone else on their TV. I'm not one of those people. Kind of a nitch market I'd say.

[AVMASTER]

we have enough trouble with hanging 60" plasmas; can you imagine the weight of this beast! not to mention getting it to the customer ( picture a 36" sony XBR crt to the 3rd floor loft, now double that!)

[edtyct]

White glove service aside, one thing this plasma won't get, or deserve, is reviewers . . . although now that I mention it, I can see the headline on some self-aggrandizing publication--Pansasonic's 103" Plasma, First Review.

[The Tahitijack]

As I noted last month, its odd that major brand names offer plasma in popular sizes of 42" and 50" but have left the in between or right size 46" to lcd.

Panasonic should have delivered a 46" plasam to compete with the 46" Samsung and Sony lcd's.

If a good rule of thumb for correct viewing distance is about 2 1/2 times the screen diagonal then the optimum seat for 103" plasma is about 21 1/2 feet, which is a little further back than their marketing photo indicastes.

[Smokey]

I can't even imagine a practical commercial use for this thing.

I believe this TV will be catered more to commercial than consumer venue. The front projector are not ideal in many environment such as bright, crowed or cramp-space environment.

As AVmaster mentioned, if price doesn’t keep typical consumers away, the sheer size and weight of it might. But as always, some people got to have it. And bragging right for the first reviewer :D


If a good rule of thumb for correct viewing distance is about 2 1/2 times the screen diagonal then the optimum seat for 103" plasma is about 21 1/2 feet.

That rule probably apply to no HD sources and TVs.

For example if source/TV is 1080 HD, the ideal sitting distance will be around 13 feet :)

http://www.soundandvisionmag.com/assets/download/0602_tech_talk2_large.jpg

[basite]

I can't see this as anything more than a chest-beating contest. At that size, anyone would do better with a front-projection system.

most of the very rich people don't know enough about their things to fully configure them, they would rather buy this collosal lcd than a projector which you have to configure to make it work properly, also, people with no darkened room for a projector would rather buy the tv.

[edtyct]

I don't know about most of the rich people, but for many people--rich or not--front projectors do not even show up on the radar. Unlike TVs, front projection systems don't have a high profile. It's easy for members of boards like this one and other video enthusiasts to forget how large a segment of the population knows next to nothing about this pursuit. Now take those who happen to get enlightened about the possibility of front projection in their homes. Many of them will stop short because they have misgivings about the labor intensiveness of installation, because they don't want video to be the focal point of their livingroom, or because they aren't interested enough in a dedicated room. But I think that you'd find a greater proportion of the enlightened "rich" than of the enlightened "middle class" have front projection in their homes if only because they are more likely to have the space and/or the scratch to have it installed correctly. As I said before, many of the unenlightened of any means have acquired the idea that plasma is the be-all-and-end-all of high-definition TV. A good slice of them might well think that a 103" plasma represents the pinnacle of video achievement. As you say, the ultra-rich and especially impulsive among them will just "have to have it," though I still don't believe that they will add up to much of a buying public. So far as commercial uses are concerned, this thing is completely otiose, unwieldy, and cost-ineffective. Cranking up the contrast and brightness to make it viewable in a bright lobby for eight hours at a time will kill it quicker than any $70,000 product deserves to die, particularly if the content on it is stationary, as many commercial plasma displays are most of the time. Companies that gobble it up as signature statements in conspicuous contexts will match the profile of the few cost-no-object people who spring for it.