Samsung prepping 6.5mm LCD for debut at CES
By Laura June 
posted Jan 5th 2009 1:32AM
posted Jan 5th 2009 1:32AM
Please note: If you're a current Engadget commenter, you do not need to re-register. Simply login and you will be prompted to select a username.
Wow, I have to admit I'm a huge Samsung LCD fanboy. This thing is pretty slick. It's crazy how thin they can make these now.
You already posted that link a couple back.
Why so desperate?
Why so serious
Oh god Reed. PLEASE DON'T become one of the people EVERYONE hates by posting your link everywhere.
Just comment, this isn't a place for advertisement
What's the point in getting really really thin TV's if the stand's going to take up half the room anyway?
come on samsung or sony, or anybody for that matter break the 1080p mark and that will be good news. thinner smaller does not mean alot bring on the highest resolution that you can. i mean who here honestly would not like to own a 2k,4k, or an ultra resolution display. just my two cents.
yes, i can't wait to play all my 4000p movies on a tv
I think the problem is not with the display, but with the content available. With the cable and satellite TV providers and content producers fail to produce and deliver shows in 1080p, people would not see a need to upgrade to something even higher resolution when the content isn't here to deliver at that resolution. As much as I love 4K (I have been fortunate enough to see one of those sweet 4K Sony projectors in action in a private demo) being used to model mechanical designs and movie projections, the market from content producer (difficult to edit because it is computationally expensive), to the delivery infrastructure and equipment (again computationally intensive and high requirement for bandwidth with today's H264 and VC-1 compression), and user (the clarity brought at such close distance could cause dizziness) are simply not ready to adopt the resolution yet.
Bottom line is that while the 4K resolution may be good for large theatre projection or for companies doing mechanical design, the capital cost of investing into this resolution maybe too much for everybody in the process from content production to consumption. Perhaps it will take at least another 5 to 10 years before 2K and 4K becomes widely adopted as computation power increases and more efficient compression algorithm allows for efficient and cost effective production and delivery.
lol is there even a point for being that thin?
its like girls who gets so thin that their rib bones shows up *shrug*
i presume so you can lug it to the shelter in a jiffy when a tornado decides to visit your house.
Now if they could just make it flexible so I can fold it and take it with me would the best.
yeah samsung please bring a cheap(!) quad hd to ces
@ uncontrol
where are you? in panavision or red?
Why so thin? Just to make it more expensive? Make it cheaper, in the way that everyone will afford at least a 42" one!
I don't understand the appeal of these ultra then TV's. In the end, it still needs a fairly wide base which ends up taking the same footprint anyways. I'd rather take a better TV that is thicker and cheaper then simply be "thinner" and more expensive with likely being mediocre, anyway.
Agreed. I have a Sony SXRD 50a3000, and it's got an amazing picture. It beats out DLP in color and video movement (and has less SSE than the Samsung DLP set), and when the sets were still reasonably available just after being discontinued, you could find a 60" for like 1700 or less.
It's a shame that Sony had to play the market demand and discontinue the sets in favor of LCD technology. I know their XBR sets provide great looking picture, but they're so much more expensive. The whole "I NEED A SET I CAN HANG ON MY WALL" mentality of consumers is really getting on my nerves, especially because to even have it look good while hanging on that wall, you need all your cables and other AV peripherals professionally installed accordingly.
Most people don't recognize a good thing when they see it. They just want what everyone else has...
I'll take it in the 65" flavor please!
LCD cannot even display motion properly yet, maybe they should concentrate on that first.
Yeah, Plasma and RPTV's have been able to deliver excellent response times for quite a while now, and it's taken LCD's a long time to even catch up, let alone try to surpass other tech.
I dont understand thin TVs, yeah compared to CRT, but that thin just seems like shwoing off...
How would you utilize the extra thinness?
Slicing cake.
For those who didn't get the "slicing cake" joke, remember how HP guy used MacBook Air to slice a cake (its thin and sharp on edges, others used it to cut bread, themselves).
I guess I'm the only one here to understand the appeal of this thin-ness. I'm so excited I'm about to have a nerdgazm! I was stoked when I saw how thin the 850 series was... but this is just unbelievable. And now judging by the posts today, it looks like every manufacturer is going to be engaging in similar innovation... it's clear where these products are headed. Frankly, I'm just dazzled... in my opinion this is getting to be a real sweet spot of LCD.
I think you need to get laid. The 850 is not that thin. Pioneer plasma baby!
Whats next? 0.5mm OLED screen? Oh, wait, was it 0.4mm by Sony?
In either case it would be GREAT if they stopped their "the thinner the better" and started thinking about the rest of things, like low response time (cheap OLED pretty please), good/proper/realistic rich colors, great detail in the dark, smaller weight (JVC! Nicely done!), smaller power requirements, smaller price.
So please if you know anyone in Samsung pass them a message - we don't really care if its thinner than iPhone. As thin as iPhone will do the job nicely, so its time to take a look at other parameters.
Ohhh its so thin!
Who cares. It is not like I am going to lift it every day. Now if they could find a way to make me thin, that would pique my interest.
NICE AND ALL BUT.. I just got off the phone with samsung support talked to tier 2 and managers and they dont know jack. They also waste loads of your time with irrelevant questions. Im at tech so I have some clue. if you cant support a product no one should buy it.
Everyone who is complaining needs to wait for the press release before you whine about it being thin and them not focussing on fixing other issues. Im sure they will have a plethora of "fat" tv's for your liking. Are we really complaining about technology ADVANCING to a point where this is possible?!?!?!
Why is everyone banging on about stands? LCD TVs are for wall mounting. The point is to save space, that and to look amazing, i'm must admit, thats one sexy screen, the JVC also.
If your wondering about players, you can hide those away somewhere else, they don't HAVE to be right under your TV, especially with universal remotes and the like. Picture this: mount and ultra thin LCD TV on your chimney breast that makes it almost look like it IS the wall, and hide your DVD/BD player in a cupboard in the annoying space either side. Instantly makes your living room look bigger and tidier.