102" Plasma

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"John Reyes" <jreyes6302@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xCXDd.7960$F67.2582@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Just saw pix of this at CES Show. There is a God! :-)
>

got a link?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

How much? $102,000? :-) Are you referring to the Samsung set? My
understanding is that was a prototype. The 80" version is supposed to be
available in May for retail.

Jeff


"John Reyes" <jreyes6302@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xCXDd.7960$F67.2582@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Just saw pix of this at CES Show. There is a God! :-)
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"JimK" <1alpha@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0c71u0he7fpahl37cbqu3db2lrpsj7rdt3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 08 Jan 2005 20:44:13 GMT, "John Reyes"
> <jreyes6302@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>>Just saw pix of this at CES Show. There is a God! :-)
>>
> $75,000

There's no way its worth it, unless being the "first guy on the block" is
that important to you. You can get a 3 tube DLP projector with a much better
(and larger) picture for only $25,000.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

In article <19141-41E0C4C8-209@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net>,
SAC441@webtv.net (SAC 441) wrote:

> If I am going to spend $75000,I would rather pay off my
> mortgage.....anyway,it is too large for any room I have to put it
> in,so no drooling here.

Well, my viewing room is 114" wide, so if I remove the door to the room,
and put the components and the subwoofer under the monitor, it's
do-able--the only problem would be where the center speaker would go.
It's too big for a wall mount, so it used to sit on top of the old TV.

--
Stop Mad Cowboy Disease: Impeach the son of a Bush.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"SAC 441" <SAC441@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:19141-41E0C4C8-209@storefull-3251.bay.webtv.net...
> If I am going to spend $75000,I would rather pay off my
> mortgage.....anyway,it is too large for any room I have to put it in,so
> no drooling here.

Exactly, but we can all dream about being in an income class where 75 big
for a TV makes sense. I mean when you've spent $200k on a theatre room in
your $4m house, why not?

Myself, I only have room for a set of maximum external width of 55 inches or
so, which restricts me to a screen size of 50 to 56 inches. I was favouring
the 52 inch JVC ILA (width 49 1/2), but now I see that JVC has announced a
56 inch ILA, which by extrapolation I guess would be about 54 inches wide.
Sounds worth waiting for.

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I wonder what the resolution of that set is. If its 1024x1024 (as most
plasmas I see are) I will, well, laugh or something. That would just be
ridiculous.

--Dan

"John Reyes" <jreyes6302@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:xCXDd.7960$F67.2582@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
> Just saw pix of this at CES Show. There is a God! :-)
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

dg wrote:
> I wonder what the resolution of that set is. If its 1024x1024 (as most
> plasmas I see are) I will, well, laugh or something. That would just be
> ridiculous.
>
> --Dan

Both the 80" and 102" are 1920x1080p displays. Samsung claims they
will start shipping the 80" this year and the 102" is strictly a
technology demonstration for bragging rights & publicity. The market for
the 80" plasma is going to be tiny anyway given the reported very high
price tag of around $45K for it.

If I had the money and the space, I would rather get the 65" Panasonic
plasma anyway, maybe wait until it goes 1920x1080p (8UY model in the
fall of 2005 would be my guess)

Alan F

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

No such thing as 1024x1024 plasmas. Most of better, bigger plasmas are 1360
x 768 or close to it.


"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newsUAEd.10058$5R.2972@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
>I wonder what the resolution of that set is. If its 1024x1024 (as most
>plasmas I see are) I will, well, laugh or something. That would just be
>ridiculous.
>
> --Dan
>
> "John Reyes" <jreyes6302@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:xCXDd.7960$F67.2582@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>> Just saw pix of this at CES Show. There is a God! :-)
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

"John Reyes" <jreyes6302@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:xCXDd.7960$F67.2582@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

> Just saw pix of this at CES Show. There is a God! :-)
>
>

will God give me the money to buy this monster?

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

I stand corrected...
I wonder how the plasma looks like with a computer image, if the resolution
is 1024x1024 and the aspect ratio is 16:9, then the plasma's pixels are not
square, but rectangular. Anyone try it as computer display?

"dg" <dan_gus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
newskWEd.10357$5R.8928@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com...
> Thank you! I have had email from people saying there is no such thing as
> a 1024x1024 plasma, or that there is only 1 plasma with that res. Odd
> because 1024x1024 plasmas are pretty much all I see when looking at plasma
> "HD" displays (which I personally wouldn't consider HD, as cool as they
> are).
>
> --Dan
>
> "Jeff Rife" <wevsr@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1c4d057eb166dd93989a78@news.nabs.net...
>> Hasenpfeffer (hasenpfeffer@triad.rr.com) wrote in alt.tv.tech.hdtv:
>>> No such thing as 1024x1024 plasmas.
>>
>> There are many, many 1024x1024 plasmas. Here are just a few (data
>> from http://www.pricescan.com):
>>
>> ViewSonic VPW450HD
>> 42 inch, Plasma, HDTV Ready, Native Resolution 1024 x 1024
>>
>> Samsung HP-P3761
>> 37 inch, Plasma, HDTV Ready, Native Resolution 1024 x 1024
>>
>> Philips 42FD9954
>> 42 inch, Plasma, HDTV Ready, Native Resolution 1024 x 1024
>>
>> Sony PFM-42B2
>> 42 inch, Plasma, HDTV Ready, Native Resolution 1024 x 1024
>>
>> RCA PHD42600
>> 42 inch, Plasma, HDTV Ready, Native Resolution 1024 x 1024
>>
>> There are 36 different models listed at that site, and its nowhere near
>> exhaustive.
>
>

Archived from groups: alt.tv.tech.hdtv (More info?)

Hasenpfeffer wrote:

> I stand corrected...
> I wonder how the plasma looks like with a computer image, if the resolution
> is 1024x1024 and the aspect ratio is 16:9, then the plasma's pixels are not
> square, but rectangular. Anyone try it as computer display?
>

There are two resolutions currently found in 42" and 43" HD plasmas:
1024x768 (Panasonic, Samsung, LG, Pioneer) and 1024x1024 ALiS (Alternate
Lighting of Surfaces) panels. The ALiS panels all come from one or two
suppliers, Hitachi is the main manufacturer IIRC. They alternate between
2 sets of 512 lines, so they can be a bit funky in trying to figure out
how a 720p or 1080i source is scaled. Both of these have rectangular
pixels, unfortunately, which is a drawback for use as a computer
display. I have a 1024x768 HD Panasonic plasma and have hooked my laptop
set as 1024x768 up to it. I get a stretched picture, not bad, but still
stretched. HD and DVD viewing on it can be jaw dropping for anyone who
grew up with SD TV, so the rectangular pixels are not an major issue for
TV viewing. After all, SD TV signals have never been 4:3 in terms of
true horizontal vs vertical resolution.

For square pixels on a plasma, you have to get an ED model (852x480)
or step up to a 50", most of which are 1366x768 pixels.

Alan F