Panasonic's ultra-thin 54Z1 plasma in the wild
By Paul Miller 
posted Mar 12th 2009 6:12PM
posted Mar 12th 2009 6:12PM
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.
I'm not sure if I like this gray color scheme...
i think there is something wrong with the colour on the screen too, the guy on the left looks a bit blue.
From early press shots I'm going to go out on a limb here and infer that those speakers are removable...Yes?
That's a beautiful television with an equally impressive price tag.
Aw crap, I thought this was today's giveaway.
Our blue friend should be the President of the United States... perhaps he could solve the economic troubles....
Crap - I was going to say "McCain is looking good in that shot - but Obama's color is a little off...Maybe they should adjust the tint..."
You basically had a similar idea. Drats! Foiled again!
Wireless video signal transmitter = win
Kelsey Grammer FTW!!
Excellent tv but not long ago I bought a 60" Pioneer Kouro for half the price, the extra 3 grand could be employed to buy a top notch HTPC or a good 7.1 sound system, or illegal drugs and women of bad repute with which to enjoy your setup.
Not worth the price
So, it's thin... Big deal.
What matters is the picture quality!
The reason we're surrounded by shitty LCDs and to a lesser extent Plasma's is this race to see who can manufacturer the thinnest set.
Have you ever seen a CRT HDTV at 1080P? It makes the latest Kuro look like a piece of shit.
Would love to get a 50" HDTV CRT, just would need to borrow my neighbor's fork-lift to put it in my living room. My back is still smarting from the time I tried to lift my 36" Wega (225lbs), can't imagine a 50"...sorry, CRT's are just not practical. The future for OLED's is looking bright though.
The "CRTs break my back with their weight" really is a piss poor excuse.
Do you really move your television set so often that WEIGHT is a requirement??? No, really...
My understanding is that CRTs' size are limited by the technology to around 38".
A 50" CRT would be sweet. I have a 37" CRT doing 1080 OTA and it blows me away.
Thin is nice but as Joseph says - picture quality is the most important - tied directly to size. Any fool can make a teeny 40" or 50" screen look great. Impress me with a picture on a 70 or 80" screen and I'll be thrilled.
Is that a C-SPAN still from a broadband stimulus meeting?
Too expensive! Wait a couple years and such thin LCDs and Plasmas will be commonplace and much cheaper and OLEDs will be taking over. Sony has a 9.9 mm thin 40" LCD too, which J&R is/was selling for $3299 (down from $3999).
Would love to get a 50" HDTV CRT, just would need to borrow my neighbor's fork-lift to put it in my living room. My back is still smarting from the time I tried to lift my 36" Wega (225lbs), can't imagine a 50"...sorry, CRT's are just not practical. The future for OLED's is looking bright though.
I really don't see the need for a wireless TV... I mean, that signal will carry loads of data at a very high frequency - aren't we surrounded by enough radiation sources already? Just but some kind of slimline blu-ray drive on the back of that thing and dump the wireless...
the bezel and frame is humongous. whats the point of thin if it dont look sexy? and whats with the fugly base?
Come on Mega Millions!
What company said they were going to stop making plasma again?
Plasma's are just ridiculous powereaters and you better have a) green power b) american-style low prices for power.
Rediculous powereaters? What TV are you referencing to specifically. Are you spec'n power supplies or actually power use? I would bet money that this Panasonic Z panel would use less power than older traditional LCD's. The neo panels are suppose to use half as much power. My 42" PZ80u has a huge power supply, but when hooked up to a meter it only used up on average about 175 watts. That's pretty power efficient if you ask me... my 47" LCD I bought 2 yrs ago uses about 215 calibrated.