• On The Insider: Holy Cleavage!
August 28, 2008 12:38 PM PDT

Panasonic puts plasma TVs on a diet

Posted by Erica Ogg
  • Font size
  • Print
Sharp thin LCD

Sharp's 23-millimeter thick Aquos XS1 comes to the U.K. this fall.

(Credit: Engadget)

We had inklings that thin was in for the HDTV business this year after CES, but the sets being shown off at IFA in Berlin this week confirm it.

Panasonic showed off the 50-inch version at CES in January, but brought out 58-inch and 65-inch versions of the startlingly thin TVs at IFA at the Berlin trade show Thursday.

Unsurprisingly, Panasonic is saying that the sets are not as heavy as normal plasma TVs. Plus, the prototypes are being made with WirelessHD inside, which means fewer pesky wires. Keep in mind, this is not a real TV. It's just a prototype for the gadget hounds at IFA to drool over.

But, it'll likely happen eventually. Plasma is actually one of the last of the HDTV technologies to go super skinny. Sony set the standard with its ridiculously slim OLED TV, and Hitachi showed up at CES with a 1.5-inch thick LCD.

Now Sony's trying thin LCDs on for size, as my colleagues at Crave UK found out.

Sharp also has its Aquos LCD TV on a workout regiment. The XS1 is a mere 23 millimeters thick, and comes in 52-inch or 65-inch panel sizes.

This one's actually a real product, but for now only available in the UK beginning this fall.

Erica Ogg is a CNET News reporter who writes about consumer electronics and PCs, mostly as chief correspondent for Crave. She's also one of the hosts of CNET News' Daily Podcast. In her non-work life, she's a history geek, a loyal Dodgers fan, and a mac-and-cheese connoisseur. E-mail Erica.
Recent posts from Crave
Ion's bevy of turntables and iPod accessories
Psyko 5.1 headset puts speakers where they've never been before
T-Mobile slide show
Panasonic SC-TZ1: wireless, ultra-slim speaker system
LG BD390 Blu-ray player includes built-in Wi-Fi
Nokia shows off the BH-804 Bluetooth headset
News of home theater tech from LG comes streaming in
Iriver's Wave Home: All-in-one communications/multimedia hub gets some buzz
Add a Comment (Log in or register) 9 comments
by Wes#1 August 28, 2008 1:37 PM PDT
Not too long ago, TV manufacturers were competing for the LARGEST screen, with 60", then 65", 70", 73".... and so on. The idea was that you could better replicate the theatrical experience, and become more immersed in the movie, with bigger screens. And the emergence of HDTV was going to provide stunning clarity at larger sizes.

But now that HDTV has taken off, it's all about who can make the THINNEST screen! Actual production TVs (not prototypes) have, on average, gone to smaller screens. Why is THIN a big deal? Are we more concerned with how a TV looks when it's OFF??
Reply to this comment
by Foggy August 28, 2008 9:04 PM PDT
Okay, I don't have a wide screen TV nor do I have an HDTV and I don't plan to get one until I absolutely have to. In my house that would be 6 TVs. At least 4 would need to be wide screen so until prices come why down the way computer prices did, my first computer in 1989 cost $2600, I can't imagine the cost and I wonder how many average people percentage wise own a plasma or LCD TV. AT&T and Cable keep blabbing how they have more HDTV channels, like it really matters since come February they all have to be. I know the picture is better, but I don't think it's that better that I need to go out and spend hundreds or thousands on a wide screen HDTV. When the price is in line with analog prices let me know and then I'll consider one and the thinner the better.
Reply to this comment
by Foggy August 28, 2008 9:05 PM PDT
Okay, I don't have a wide screen TV nor do I have an HDTV and I don't plan to get one until I absolutely have to. In my house that would be 6 TVs. At least 4 would need to be wide screen so until prices come why down the way computer prices did, my first computer in 1989 cost $2600, I can't imagine the cost and I wonder how many average people percentage wise own a plasma or LCD TV. AT&T and Cable keep blabbing how they have more HDTV channels, like it really matters since come February they all have to be. I know the picture is better, but I don't think it's that better that I need to go out and spend hundreds or thousands on a wide screen HDTV. When the price is in line with analog prices let me know and then I'll consider one and the thinner the better.
Reply to this comment
by gboess82 August 29, 2008 8:13 AM PDT
"AT&T and Cable keep blabbing how they have more HDTV channels, like it really matters since come February they all have to be. I know the picture is better, but I don't think it's that better that I need to go out and spend hundreds or thousands on a wide screen HDTV. When the price is in line with analog prices let me know and then I'll consider one and the thinner the better."


In February, the stations are all broadcasting in digital, not HD. And if you already have AT&T or Cable, you don't have to worry about it.

The thinness of the set is only going to be a consideration for people that mount it on a wall, not people that just keep it on a stand. I can't imagine buying a $3000 TV and not mounting it on a wall, but people will pay he money and put it on a stand and show off how thin their TV is, but on a stand it won't really matter. With a "Low Profile" wall mount, the television is going to be about 3 inches total away from the wall, which in my opinion is the best looking way to go. 1.5" for the mount and 1.7" for the TVs.
by jeff327 August 29, 2008 5:05 PM PDT
Your're a fool. You know nothing about HDTV. You should not even be allowed to read this website. Go back to Bedrock.
by gary85739 August 29, 2008 5:51 AM PDT
Bought a Panasonic 42" Viera several years ago. I was so satisfied with it, I bought another one a year later. These HDTV sets are SO nice. Glad the prices are dropping. Got the first set at Best Buy & the 2nd set at WalMart for much less!

Shop around, you'll be glad you did and when you finally get a plasma, well, there is nothing better for tv or video viewing!
Reply to this comment
by hkhalilmd August 29, 2008 9:43 AM PDT
Am I missing something here. Samsung is already selling 2" thick TV's ( 860 series) in the states.
Reply to this comment
by boopiejones August 29, 2008 11:32 AM PDT
why is it so difficult/expensive to produce a super thin tv? even the cheapest of cheap laptop computers have screens less than a half inch thick. i realize that all the laptop processing gear isn't behind the screen, but even if you add the thickness of all that stuff you are still well under 2 inches for the whole package. with the technology we have, there is no reason why "flat" screens need to be more than an inch thick.
Reply to this comment
by donwonton August 29, 2008 5:31 PM PDT
http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9848008-7.html

durrr
Reply to this comment
advertisement

About Crave

The name says it all. Crave is our blog about gorgeous gadgets and other crushworthy stuff. If you would like to contact Crave with a tip or comment, please write to: crave@cnet.com

Add this feed to your online news reader

Crave topics

In the news now

Yahoo's Decker strong contender for CEO

Sources say the president of the embattled Internet search pioneer has been through two rounds of interviews with the board.


Gadget extravaganza in Las Vegas

CES 2009 is in full swing. Highlights so far include Palm's WebOS and Pre device, Microsoft's Windows 7 beta, and much more.


advertisement

Inside CNET News

Scroll Left Scroll Right
-->