Hands-off with the impossibly thin Sharp LCD prototypes

The ultrathin Sharp LCD prototype we saw yesterday at the company's press conference has made an appearance on the showroom floor (though out of our reach for fiddling with, provided it had any buttons), and boy is this thing... uh, thin. As you can see by the photos, the display practically disappears when you get around the side of it, and for those of you wondering about cabling, there's nothing to see when you peek at the back, though we suspect that those tubes / bars holding the things up may have something to do with getting an image on these behemoths. Check the gallery for a full view of your television-watching future.

Gallery: Hands-off with the impossibly thin Sharp LCD prototype

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

[ferry @ Aug 31st 2007 1:42PM]

What a john logie baird rip off

[mike @ Aug 31st 2007 2:06PM]

I really dont see why manufactures are still pushing for thinner displays. The displays are already like 4 inches thin. Why would you need thinner then that?

[Ebzy @ Aug 31st 2007 3:17PM]

I think that the manufacturers know that many men take to their gadgets as how they take to their women. Size zero, or at least the thinner the better. :)
I know the lady engadget readers will choose to, and the men who read this with their wives and girlfriends breathing down their necks will be forced to mark this comment down.

[John @ Aug 31st 2007 6:41PM]

Judging from how high ranked his comment is, it appears very few Engadget readers have wives or girlfriends breathing down their backs... if at all ;)

[nebulus @ Aug 31st 2007 2:11PM]

Its really impressive to see such a thin screen and a great bit of technical skill to flatten all the electronics, but I'm struggling to find an application that is pushing the flattening of displays.
I've got a Sony Flatpanel KDL40W2000 its only 4 or so inches thick, and its hardly an issue, even if it were to be mounted on a wall...

Not complaining (theres a first for an engadget post ;) ) but can anyone explain, why this super thin contest is going on?

[Brandson @ Aug 31st 2007 2:15PM]

They go thinner/lighter for a number of reasons: to eventually reduce manufacturing and shipping costs, to allow more versatile placement of a TV in a living space, and for marketing purposes. Personally, if I'm hanging a TV on my wall, I'd rather it be as thin and light as possible without sacrificing quality.

[nebulus @ Aug 31st 2007 2:32PM]

I can dig the thinner lighter concept, but I imagine a line is drawn against manufacturing costs, R&D etc...
Also the issues with shipping hyper thin displays is going to come to a head pretty soon, the packaging will get severely beefed up (so lighter shipping costs become irrelevant), or the risk of damage in transit is going to get to become a really high percentage of units...
I figured 4 inches is pretty damn thin, but still pretty robust, and they must be getting close to the limits of what is sensible quite soon, maybe already passed it, not that I'd complain about having a super thin TV (not planning to replace my 1080p loveliness anytime soon though! )

[Carl @ Aug 31st 2007 2:45PM]

Meh, lovely n everythin' but I bet its a million years before we can buy 'em, and when we can I'm expecting it to be impossibly expensive.
Nice to look at though.

[Ladderless @ Aug 31st 2007 3:08PM]

Are those air vents on the back? If they are, wouldn't they be blocked when the whole thing is hung up on the wall?

What am I missing here?

[Mr. B @ Aug 31st 2007 3:18PM]

heatsinks perhaps?... some airflow would still be good though.

[Andy @ Aug 31st 2007 3:32PM]

There are no heatsinks. You can see the light through from the back. I suspect the power brick is external and connected through those tubes. Perhaps along with some electronics?

And I don't imagine a retail version being this prettily mounted. Those look like custom mounts, or perhaps custom casing for the show.

[Rainier @ Aug 31st 2007 5:01PM]

What? No beautiful women to model for this product? Gosh, I feel so cheated!

[Brian @ Aug 31st 2007 6:06PM]

My form factor thirst will not be quenched until my monitor replaces the wallpaper in my house.

[db @ Aug 31st 2007 9:49PM]

I'm assuming that when they make LCDs this thin, they are also much lighter than a 4"+ thick LCD . . . I have a 37" screen LCD and while it's not exactly bulky nor heavy, I would NEVER hang it up on the wall just because the back isn't exactly flat and it's kind of "bubbly".

I would love to have an LCD as thin as this Sharp one because the back is COMPLETELY FLAT and doesn't protrude out (like my current LCD) and looks much neater to hang up on my wall. My aunt has a 60"+ LCD that she has bolted up on the wall and that thing just looks like a monstrosity. If it were as thin as this thing, it would look much cleaner against her wall.

Just my opinion . . . of course you don't necessarily need an LCD that thin, but if it makes it lighter and more convenient for some people then why not? Especially if it was lighter, then I wouldn't mind getting an LCD that's even bigger than 37" (not that it's heavy but it just gets difficult moving it around after awhile, especially up the stairs).

[Flalex @ Sep 3rd 2007 8:53PM]

my laptop has a screen that thin and it looks great, what's taken so long to get this in a tv?