Sharp shows 108-inch LCD monster

[INKster]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/07/sharp-trumpets-108-inch-lcd-tv-world-wonders-why/



to vendor:
- Come again, i have to trade how many Ferrari's for it ?

 

[London Geezer]

http://www.engadget.com/2007/01/07/sharp-trumpets-108-inch-lcd-tv-world-wonders-why/



to vendor:
- Come again, i have to trade how many Ferrari's for it ?

Flippin heck... why not just buy a projector?! Ok i know the answer, but still...

This is definitely for people with inferiority complex...

 

[Mintmaster]

You know, sometimes I wonder if Engadget even reads what it writes:

Update: Ok, we got the official word from Sharp, and this 108-incher is a real monster. It's 93.9 inches high, 52.9 inches wide and 107.8 inches on the diagonal, and shines with 2.07 million pixels (1,920 x 1,080). So to recap, this thing is 7.8 feet high. We feel very, very small now.

Because everyone with a big-screen loves to mount it sideways...

 

[Ty]

You know, sometimes I wonder if Engadget even reads what it writes:
Because everyone with a big-screen loves to mount it sideways...

Are they including it being on the stand?

Anyhow, what most excites me about this, is that it's the 92 model which should have vast improvements over the 62's which were unfortunately, fairly crappy.

 

[Moloch]

I suppose with is for people who dont want a projector setup eh?
Cuz im pretty sure you could get a fairly nice one for the price of this one

 

[Bludd]

That won't be many pixels per square inch. Silly resolution for such a huge screen.
It should have something like WQUXGA.

 

[Moloch]

That won't be many pixels per square inch. Silly resolution for such a huge screen.
It should have something like WQUXGA.

Nothing silly about it when the best res you will ever get on hd-dvd/bluray is 1920x1080P, taking into account that film tranfers are in the range of 1300x800~ or so and many digital films have res caps and that means that just because it's advertised as 1080P doesn't mean you get the full 1920x1080P res
Untill there is an even better HD spec 1920x1080P is all that's needed, any more is a waste.
Also if you think it's a low res for the size then you gotta take into consideration you wont be like 3 feet away.
Btw using a handy dandy calc 14 feet is the "correct" distance to be sitting from this screen so the resolution and size matches up to the ability of your eyes (assuming 20/20) to resolve resolution.
Oh and btw 16:10 AR makes no sense at all for a tv
I'd like to start seeing 2:35 screens

 

[Ty]

Is this actually meant for production? Here I was thinking it's merely for bragging rights, a way to attract attention to your company and it's "real" products. Which would explain why LG faked their large LCD screen.