Sharp's 46/42/37-inch AQUOS X series grabs world's thinnest title
By Thomas Ricker 
posted Jan 24th 2008 4:51AM
posted Jan 24th 2008 4:51AM
posted Jan 24th 2008 4:51AM
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
strange for me to see the post with no guys claiming "FIRST" :)
Pretty interesting set of specs there. Kind of wondering whats the weight on that...
at that thinness.. CG is definitely off unless for a sturdy stand.. which doesnt look like it.
testing testing
FIRST!!... no... wait...ahhhhgg
Pioneer showed off a 9mm thin Plasma TV at CES.... coming within 12 months. More significantly lower power is coming too.
btw. If your looking for a flat screen TV, take a look at Plasma which has a superior picture to LCD largely because of better blacks & contrast and almost zero motion blur. Inch for inch they are generally less expensive than LCD and all the concerns of burn-in have long been solved.
Whoah, it says the panel has a 120MHz refreshrate.
Compared to an average panel that's about 1.000.000 times more. This is awesome!
I'm ordering 2 million networked X-Boxes to make the most of this screen's refresh rate...
That technology was introduced pretty much last year and not every tv has it just a select few.
Sally, he is pointing out the typo, he does realize that 120Hz is not unheard of but he is pointing out that 120MHZ is and is quite obviously wrong. I think that someone needs a new editor...
TV? What TV?
Nah, I was too occupied looking at the girl instead. Looks a bit old, but firm boops. :p
She caught my eye also.
The woman in question seems to be considerably deeper a point a few inches below her neck than your average asian lass. Could this be to make the "amazingly thin" television look even thinner in comparison.
I wonder how the call to the her agency read - "She's got to be 'busty' - no seriously, it's so our new television will look thinner."
Her girls are uneven.
I'm glad she doesn't have the same side-profile as the AQUOS. Slim isn't appealing on everything.
its called a padded bra.
Something is not quite flat over there...
Arjan,
Yes, I also noticed they managed to the World's Bustiest Asian Booth Babe to stand beside their TV for comparison in that third picture.
Thinest LCD yes, but thinnest TV not quite. Check out Sony's new OLED TV. Has a 3mm panel and is currently available in an 11in. model, larger TVs on the way. In addition to being super thin, oled allows for true blacks. Check out the review at 3LUXE:
http://www.3luxe.com/best_ofs/Flat_Panel_Televisions/Sony_OLED_Digital_TV
or Sony
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&productId=8198552921665327724&langId=-1
That tv is 2k for an 11" and its OLED of course its thin its organic...
True blacks? Nope, only truer blacks (relative to current technology).
Right, true black in comparison to today's blacks. But with no back-light, will another device in the near future be able produce better "true black" than oled technology?
Hmm.... the X-series has it's pros and cons for me.
Pro: Fairly thin. 1.35" is not Paris Hilton slim but it's somewhat sexy.
Pro: Separate media box reciever is back! this time cordless.
Pro: 8-3-way speakers, yowza!
Con: Black is NOT Gloss Black so I'll pass on these and any other brand that thinks Matte Black is "stylish".
Con: Oddly designed stand. Reminds me of the first ILO LCD TVs sold at Wal-Mart 2-years ago. They could had copy Panasonic and Hitachi's forklift design from 2005/2006.