Panasonic's gigantic 150-inch plasma is official!

Although we got to see some pics of this beast under wraps, there's nothing like seeing it in person. The gigantic HDTV was unveiled at Panasonic's keynote today, with at least one surprise, this sucker is 4k! That's right, it is 4x 1080p, which we're sure looks awesome, but oh my where will the content will come from? Regardless, we have no doubt this thing will look sensational upconverting your 1080p HD movies.

[Richard Lai @ Jan 7th 2008 1:01PM]

That screen could fit a life-size baby elephant!

[bboyskidz @ Jan 8th 2008 1:09AM]

"where would the content come from"

answer - 4 2.5 inch CCD cameras with pixel-shifting technology
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4320p


The eighteen-minute uncompressed UHDV footage in the NHK demonstration consisted of 3.492 terabytes of data, with each minute requiring 194 gigabytes. In this format, an uncompressed two-hour full length UHDV movie would require 23.28 terabytes of data storage. However, using current MPEG-2 compression technologies, a UHDF video signal with a format of four times the width and four times the height of the current 1080p HDTV standard would require 16 times the bitrate, or 6 GB per minute, with a two-hour feature film requiring 720 GB.

[paragraph @ Jan 7th 2008 1:01PM]

I can has one?

4x1080p is just rediulous :\ still rockin' 420i

[a ham sandwich @ Jan 7th 2008 1:05PM]

420? you mean 480?

[Richard @ Jan 7th 2008 1:17PM]

He couldn't afford the other 60 pixels.

[Juice @ Jan 7th 2008 1:21PM]

^hAHA

[SteveS @ Jan 7th 2008 1:55PM]

"upconverting your 1080p HD movies" - something just sounds so sacrilegious about that statement...

[bboyskidz @ Jan 8th 2008 1:10AM]

not to mention that it would be 480p - not 420i

[boe @ Jan 7th 2008 1:05PM]

I'm stoked they are working on HUGE screens. I'd be very happy if they used some of that technology to create a reasonbly priced 80" screen for those of us ready to upgrade from our 60-65" screens.

[Josef @ Jan 7th 2008 1:25PM]

boe: "...upgrade from our 60-65" screens."


Are you looking to adopt?

[boe @ Jan 7th 2008 2:15PM]

Josef,

I'm not looking to adopt but friends are always welcome to come over and watch a movie - please bring your own date.

My 65" TV is about 6 years old- RPTV - mits - still looks fantastic (I tweaked it quite a bit) but I'd be happy to upgrade if there was something I could afford that looked at good in an 80" model. I didn't get the 72" RPTV because at the time the 65" looked much better. They've long since stopped making my type of TV but if you read the forums for only about $2,500 (back then now much less) it has one of the best pictures available but it is rather bulky. To get a great projector that compares in quality, I'd need about 30K - I've looked at a lot but most just don't look great to me. An 80" plasma could potentially look good and still be in a price range I could force myself to accept. If there was a decent 80" I could shuffle my old 65" into my bedroom and replace my old CRT. Little goes to waste at my place - everything eventually moves from the living room to the bedroom when I upgrade. My friends, family and the salvation army are usually happy to take whatever gets upgraded from the bedroom.

[Patrick @ Jan 7th 2008 1:06PM]

if it's size your after and you have any sort of moderatly light-controlled environment, why not go front projection?

i use a panasonic pt-ax100u (yeah it's 720 and not 1080) projector in my living room (custom built diy screen with some instructrions from the internets) and i get more than acceptable results with lights on or the shades open. oh yeah, it's also rockin at 110".

any decent plasma or lcd i was looking at cost just as much as the projector and definitately wouldn't have the coolness factor. on the downside, hosting all the superbowl/bcs/world series, etc, etc parties gets expensive! =)

[Khris @ Jan 7th 2008 1:16PM]

I've got a video projector and 120" screen in my livingroom as well.

BEST
INVESTMENT
EVER!

Connected to my SageTV HTPC and using my WHS box for Storage gives me more entertainment possibilities than I can shake a stick at! (And at 120", that's a big stick!)

[Sly @ Jan 7th 2008 1:06PM]

"this sucker is 4k! That's right, it is 4x 1080p"

mean.

[donald @ Jan 7th 2008 1:06PM]

when i saw 4k, i was like....."i'm leaving the office for the day."

then i got what they meant and was like...."yeah, nevermind on that."

in my head, i was hoping PRICE MISTAKE, but in reality, i was fearing the elec bills. :)

ds

[Wii-Maniak @ Jan 7th 2008 1:07PM]

Holy mother of jebis!!!

[kasmir @ Jan 7th 2008 1:08PM]

please how much will it cost me I NEED ONE

[JeffnLA @ Jan 7th 2008 1:08PM]

I have a 70" 1080P TV. I'm ready for the next step... my entire wall being viewable!

[Josef @ Jan 7th 2008 1:28PM]

JeffnLA: "I have a 70" 1080P TV. I'm ready for the next step... my entire wall being viewable!"


Forget what I said in the above post to boe. Are you looking to adopt?

[boe @ Jan 7th 2008 2:26PM]

I understand completely! I can't understand people who say oh that 50" in a 12' room is as big as I'll ever need - people have me install HT equipment all the time and I always have to struggle to get them to go 10" more. Within a few months they always say - "I should have gotten a larger set"

[computer.dude.28 @ Jan 7th 2008 5:37PM]

You guys suck we have a 42" (yes, FORTY TWO) plasma in our living room, and my mom says it's too big!! She wants to get something smaller!

[Kiteless @ Jan 7th 2008 1:08PM]

Wow. You know that thing is gonna cost $50K.

[andy @ Jan 7th 2008 1:15PM]

That'd be a bargain considering they want 80k for their 100" 720p version.

[gamedude420 @ Jan 7th 2008 1:09PM]

what would the height and width of such a tv like this be?

[jason Brennan @ Jan 7th 2008 2:01PM]

its 150 inches, and a ratio of 16:10; use pythagoris!

[GreezyG @ Jan 7th 2008 1:14PM]

Be sure to figure in the construction costs associated with installation of this baby... I'm sure most of us would have to knock out a wall to get this in the house!!!

[nathan @ Jan 7th 2008 3:29PM]

Uh, considering how much that would cost, you build a new house AROUND the TV, duh.

[Johnny @ Jan 7th 2008 1:15PM]

That is the sexiest thing I have ever seen up to date.

[caubeck @ Jan 7th 2008 1:40PM]

You must get out more.

[andy @ Jan 7th 2008 1:17PM]

no.

I want to see 7.5' tall, and this thing is only 6.5' before including the bezel.

[Richard @ Jan 7th 2008 1:19PM]

It looks nice, but I won't be impressed until they show off 20-50 inch 4k displays for the home.

[Udayan Tripathi @ Jan 7th 2008 1:20PM]

Perfect for showing your megapixel photos and REALLY expanded SD or even HD video. Awesome.

[bjorn_ahlm @ Jan 7th 2008 1:23PM]

Isn't 4K = 4096x2160?

At least according to the info I have.

[andy @ Jan 7th 2008 1:29PM]

Hold up.


I just had a thought: If they put 4 tuners in this thing, next fall I could watch four football games at 75" 1080p (or 70" with a little gap between them) at the SAME TIME :D

the mind runs wild with possibilities.

[DWells55 @ Jan 7th 2008 2:04PM]

Oh, the multitasking potential. Super Bowl, Call of Duty on my 360, Blu-Ray movie, and my PC each getting a quarter of the screen. I'm pretty sure I'd hit some sort of happiness limit at that point.

[szamot @ Jan 7th 2008 1:36PM]

... but will it blend? That is the question!

[a ham sandwich @ Jan 7th 2008 1:39PM]

i hope not. then again if you even have a blender that big you need to kill yourself.

[kasmir @ Jan 8th 2008 6:22PM]

ha

[vsaint @ Jan 7th 2008 1:55PM]

You actually save money in the long run as this will heat your entire house.

[computer.dude.28 @ Jan 7th 2008 5:40PM]

(While taking up half the capacity of the power grid)

[rule @ Jan 10th 2008 4:04AM]

yeah, unless you live in Florida and it never gets under 60

[Andy M @ Jan 7th 2008 1:55PM]

Interesting as a novelty I guess, but beyond that, a non-event IMO.

The closest you'd ever want to sit to a 52" set is 8-9 ft... and that's pushing it. Any set larger than that simply means you have to sit further away. Sure, lots of folks have larger rooms to do this, but what are you going to do... intentionally place your couch 30' away from a 150" plasma? Anything closer would be as stupid as having to settle for the front row seats after showing up late for a movie except with the added risk of retinal damage.

Point is, bigger is better (as any honest woman will tell you), but only up to a certain threshold. After that it's just plain painful :)

[Timothy Hood @ Mar 2nd 2008 1:47PM]

Actually THX recommends a viewing distance of 1.5-1.75x the diagonal. So you'd only need to be about 19' back, which is very doable for a lot of people. Especially those that could afford this TV. :-)

[Dude @ Jan 7th 2008 1:55PM]

Wow... How heavy is this thing? and how are you gonna get it through the front door?

[PreGHz @ Jan 7th 2008 4:46PM]

Where there's a will, there's a way.

[DWells55 @ Jan 7th 2008 2:07PM]

If you can afford this, you can probably afford to just build a house around it.

[James Cameron @ Jan 7th 2008 2:16PM]

You can probably only fit it through double doors house or take it through the back if you have a glass slide door.

[Humble Pie @ Jan 7th 2008 9:09PM]

lol it weighs about 500 lbs. DAAAAYYYAM!!!!! it can also fit through a door that is more than 6ft. high. DAAAAYYAM!!!!

[boe @ Jan 7th 2008 2:18PM]

Distance completely depends on your peripheral vision - that is why they have to fit for glasses. Don't believe that nonsense about the correct viewing distance that they tell you. Try for yourself - don't trust anyone who says one size fits all. Does everyone sit the same distance from their monitor on their PC - I don't think so.

[hemmy @ Jan 7th 2008 2:19PM]

This will go great with Toshiba's portable nuclear reactor you're going to need to power that behemoth of a TV