Video: Panasonic's 150-inch plasma defies reality
Panasonic's 150-inch plasma display was fairly baffling while still veiled, but if you had to catch a few drops of drool when checking that out, we'd suggest grabbing a handful of napkins now. Mahalo Daily's Veronica Belmont was able to get up close and personal with Panny's new beast, and it pretty much goes without saying that you can't afford to miss the video waiting after the break.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
JTM @ Jan 7th 2008 3:05PM
Yes it is.
JTM @ Jan 7th 2008 3:05PM
Really really beautiful I mean
Senor_Tom @ Jan 7th 2008 3:06PM
OMFG sums that screen up...
OMFG sums up horrible american accents (women)
OMFG sums pretty much everything up
noazark @ Jan 7th 2008 3:07PM
I sure hope one of you guys are dating that Veronica Belmont girl. cause its getting to be a little... a lot... to much. Well sure, i suppose if i were at CES i'd be following her every move too.
Senor_Tom @ Jan 7th 2008 3:11PM
Ryan Block is.....the editor-in-chief.
She made the top 10 list of sexy geeks and ryan was in the runners up, dont ask why i know that.
noazark @ Jan 7th 2008 3:20PM
i guess thats a pretty darn good explanation.
umm....hello??? @ Jan 7th 2008 4:01PM
8'x11' is the size of my bedroom. wow.
ps-
yeah, it DOES seem like a lot of unnecessary exposure for her--"live from CES 2008 for Mohala Daily, it's Veronica Belmont"...even more unnecessary is her commentary which is highly uninformative "look at this...isn't it beautiful?"--(really?? Did I NOT JUST READ that same line BEFORE I clicked the read link??) or her TRYING to show how to use things when the camera angle sucks. Might as well just point the camera at her chest and be done with it. and no, I don't care who she's dating and if Ryan gave us full disclosure on this already, this is just bad form.
ScooterDe @ Jan 7th 2008 4:30PM
sure she is pretty, like many TV presenters, but the videos are very short and not particularly informative. For instance in this video she might stand a lot closer to the screen for the sake of showing us the relative size, and remark on the pixelation etc., provide some specs (1080p?) etc.
mac @ Jan 7th 2008 6:14PM
I can't comment on the rest, but she said it's a 4k screen...so 4x 1080p
Yubastard @ Jan 8th 2008 7:51AM
yeah, she's hot... and she sure knows how to present. now, for the camera man... well, fire him.
James Cameron @ Jan 7th 2008 3:13PM
Will need to sell my house for this.
tyler @ Jan 7th 2008 3:14PM
I think I'll get one for the kitchen.. one for the bedroom.. lol..
Darkest Daze @ Jan 7th 2008 7:13PM
Just get 2 more and make a whole room out of them.
Denver_80203 @ Jan 7th 2008 3:19PM
I'm somehow comforted to know that not only can't I afford the screen, I can't afford a house large enough to take advantage of it.
ray @ Jan 7th 2008 3:22PM
this thing is beautiful, i am thinking watching porn on it.
DarkLightConnection @ Jan 7th 2008 4:08PM
Why is he low ranked?
This would rock for porn... is like being there with full-size girls
stickmanfc73_ @ Jan 7th 2008 3:24PM
8 feet by 11 feet. How far away must you sit for it not to consume all of your eyesight?
Patrick @ Jan 7th 2008 3:57PM
Perhaps it will consume almost all of one's field of view, and every inch still looks clear. :)
This makes me wonder how much a person with 20/20 can actually see. Of course we see more of what's in front, and peripheral isn't as detailed, so maybe the next step up is to add on to edges but with less detail. I don't know. It's crazy. I remember a while ago reading about the "ultra" HD video, or some such name, test that was done with with 24mp, (4 8mp cameras) and displayed using multiple displays cleverly seemed together. Some people got a little nauseated because it was so realistic; they felt there visually, but they were sitting still.
I'm thinking 8k(7680x4320=33mp?) is as far as display tech will go before some immersion/3d sci-fi thing will come around that modifies our simple brains so we can see more. 32k(530mp)cyborg ready video downloadable by 2200? lol
Michael Chastain @ Jan 7th 2008 5:22PM
The THX recommended viewing angle is 36 degrees. 1440p easily covers that based on visual acuity (the amount of detail the eye can resolve), so I'm not sure we'll ever need higher resolutions for the home. For reference 36 degrees works out to a 90" screen @ 10'. By comparison, 1080p maxes out at about 75" @ 10' before you can make out individual pixels and the image starts to lose sharpness.
boe @ Jan 7th 2008 6:29PM
Depends on the person - for many about 14 feet would work - for those who think 50" require a 12' room - I think about two house back. Depends on if you put any stock in the gibberish some so called "experts" will give. There is no correct answer to your question - depends on the person but I would say most people should be fine at about 15 feet but again I repeat - TEST for yourself - don't take my word for it or anyone elses - only you can decide what is the right distance for a given size screen. There is no magic formula although many have been posted - they are wrong - simple as that - ask an eye doctor - they measure your peripheral vision in a real eye test - same with the government for "unique" positions/roles - each person is different.
Michael Chastain @ Jan 7th 2008 6:42PM
To answer the original question the ideal viewing distance for a 150" TV would be between 17-23'.
Ladderless @ Jan 7th 2008 3:49PM
Is there a new aspect ratio out there?
I presume that "8 Feet by 11 feet" includes the frame/stand? I hope that what they're showing, with the distracting blue lights, isn't what actually gets shipped.
The picture itself will "only" be slightly larger than six feet high.
Patrick @ Jan 7th 2008 4:02PM
I assumed 150 inches was screen size...sqrt(8^2 + 11^2)=13.6 feet(163 inches). So, that's close.
(Someone please tell me if I did my math wrong; it's been a while.)
CosterMonger @ Jan 7th 2008 4:22PM
life size porn?
Frumious B @ Jan 7th 2008 4:46PM
Worst. Plasma. Ever.
Black levels look like a polar bear with a magnesium flare strapped to its back swimming in a sea of crisco at a Pat Boone concert.
Might as well grind borax cleanser into your eyes.
Michael Chastain @ Jan 7th 2008 5:26PM
Right, because a web video of a prototype in a harshly lit exhibition hall displayed on what is likely a poorly calibrated computer monitor is an accurate way to evaluate a set.
Frumious B @ Jan 7th 2008 5:31PM
Fair enough. I'll upgrade Pat Boone to N'Sync.
XGM @ Jan 7th 2008 4:54PM
Ill have two please.
Matt @ Jan 7th 2008 5:29PM
WTF is "4k resolution"? 4000xsomething? Or somethingx4000?
Colin @ Jan 7th 2008 7:20PM
Correct me if i'm wrong, but i think this is the new Ultra HD!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultra_High_Definition_Video
BTW, if your thinking its a bit early for thinking new formats, you should take in consideration that HD (i.e. 1080p) was 'invented' in 1969, thats nearly 40 years ago. (source; http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,132289-c,hdtv/article.html)
Joe Anstine @ Jan 10th 2008 10:34PM
that defies the reality of ever being in my appartment
Jason Hofmann @ Jan 11th 2008 11:20AM
It's not "the new Ultra HD", it's Digital Cinema 4k, which is 4096 x 2160, or roughly the equivalent of a 2 by 2 matrix of 1080p displays (and exactly the resolution of a 2 by 2 matrix of Digital Cinema 2k displays).
See the following illustration for clarification:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:UHDV.svg
vdogg89 @ Jan 23rd 2008 4:16PM
just think how big the pixels would be