53 replies to this topic

[jsmith]

Sharp has just released a 90" LED LCD TV with a full LED array consisting of 5000 individual LED's.

Articles here, here, here and here.

JSmith

[oztheatre]

jsmith, on 20 June 2012 - 01:54 PM, said:

Sharp has just released a 90" LED LCD TV with a full LED array consisting of 5000 individual LED's.

Articles here, here, here and here.

JSmith

Well that's a bit of a game changer at 11 grand, pretty impressive.
Question is can they go 150 inch for the same price as a good PJ and screen? Not yet but give em time I suppose.

11 grand US, I guess that means 20 grand here in oz

[Drizt]

Now we are talking.

Samsung going to release any plasma's that big ?

[laurie]

You are also going to need a loan to pay for the power bill for most people!

cheers laurie

[TheFrog]

laurie, on 21 June 2012 - 02:50 PM, said:

You are also going to need a loan to pay for the power bill for most people!

cheers laurie

Sharp says that due to the LED backlighting solution the TV consumes less power than two 75-w light bulbs, which means that it costs approximately $28 per year to operate.

[laurie]

TheFrog, on 21 June 2012 - 03:20 PM, said:

Sharp says that due to the LED backlighting solution the TV consumes less power than two 75-w light bulbs, which means that it costs approximately $28 per year to operate.

So thats 150watts  I assume it has some sort of advanced power mode which enables the ambient light sensor and knocks the power usage down to 150 watts or there abouts, but the picture becomes far too dim and will suffer from my experience with LCD projectors, so then people will bypass this mode to brighten the picture which in turn increase power,who knows seeing it in operation will tell the story

cheers laurie

[:)]

still bloody expensive ! and 5 inches thick ??

personally I'd say a lot of money to invest when oled is knocking on the door.

also a lot of money too I'd say when my 92" projector setup cost less than half the money installed. and the screen is wafer thin and dissapears rather than this 5 inch thick rather hard to hide monolith here ! what happens when it has a problem.

other problem being an lcd all the flaws of a back lit LCD is only going to be all the more apparent on such a big screen this size.

dont get me wrong a big fan of sharp lcds. and good to see them well in the fore front. but I think this definitely a bit of a flag waver. and give it a few generations and will be something more consumer friendly or be replaced with tech like oled by then

[Drizt]

hehe, how many years till we see a 90" OLED tv Al???  Let's be realistic here.

[robertr]

A tad bit big for the average loungeroom, (I am waiting for the resident big screen lover to shoot me down).

At 90" you can bet that the majority of sales will be for the commercial enviroment instead of home viewing.

Therefore the 5" thickness will be of little consequence.

Edited by robertr, 22 June 2012 - 08:11 AM.

[jsmith]

laurie, on 21 June 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

So thats 150watts I assume it has some sort of advanced power mode which enables the ambient light sensor and knocks the power usage down to 150 watts or there abouts, but the picture becomes far too dim and will suffer from my experience with LCD projectors, so then people will bypass this mode to brighten the picture which in turn increase power,who knows seeing it in operation will tell the story

cheers laurie

I wouldn't assume that at all... LED's use very little power.

JSmith

[ajm]

I wonder if the thickness is to stop it flexing.  I'd hate to be installing one of these beasties and have it twist and break.  I was nervous enough popping the 55" TV onto the wall bracket

[Owen]

"most people" must be on the poverty line if the cost of running any TV is an issue.

As for the price, it seems very, very reasonable to me. Nothing like it has ever been offered before and considering the Panasonic 85" is over double the price its a dead set bargain and by the time you can buy an OLED TV the same size for the same sort of price the Sharp will be land fill.

As far as I am concerned there are more fundamental issues with this Sharp and they revolve around picture quality and intended use.
Flat panels have a poor and variable fill factor, when displaying white (the best case) its about 80%, but when displaying a single colour like red, green or blue it drops to as low as 26% as only one third of the active pixel area is illuminated. This means there are large black gaps around the pixels, combine that with the sharp edges of those pixels and the result is a very harsh digital looking image when viewed from a distance that gives a viewing angle suitable for movies.
In comparison an LCoS projector has a fill factor of 90% plus which is constant no matter what colour is displayed, just like all projectors. This means a projector will provide a much cleaner smoother image then the LCD could ever hope to. The LCD would need at least 3 times as many pixels to be competitive with a good projector for large screen viewing.

LCD's are not kind to poor quality source like TV and on a panel this size its not going to be pretty. So what we are left with is a big flat panel TV that is not much use for movies and not much good for TV unless it is viewed from a considerable distance. It would make a great presentation display for business and be decent for TV in a very large room, but thats a bit of a tight focus and limits its appeal IMHO.

Edited by Owen, 22 June 2012 - 05:21 PM.

[pc9]

Owen, on 22 June 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

"most people" must be on the poverty line if the cost of running any TV is an issue.

As for the price, it seems very, very reasonable to me. Nothing like it has ever been offered before and considering the Panasonic 85" is over double the price its a dead set bargain and by the time you can buy an OLED TV the same size for the same sort of price the Sharp will be land fill.

As far as I am concerned there are more fundamental issues with this Sharp and they revolve around picture quality and intended use.
Flat panels have a poor and variable fill factor, when displaying white (the best case) its about 80%, but when displaying a single colour like red, green or blue it drops to as low as 26% as only one third of the active pixel area is illuminated. This means there are large black gaps around the pixels, combine that with the sharp edges of those pixels and the result is a very harsh digital looking image when viewed from a distance that gives a viewing angle suitable for movies.
In comparison an LCoS projector has a fill factor of 90% plus which is constant no matter what colour is displayed, just like all projectors. This means a projector will provide a much cleaner smoother image then the LCD could ever hope to. The LCD would need at least 3 times as many pixels to be competitive with a good projector for large screen viewing.

LCD's are not kind to poor quality source like TV and on a panel this size its not going to be pretty. So what we are left with is a big flat panel TV that is not much use for movies and not much good for TV unless it is viewed from a considerable distance. It would make a great presentation display for business and be decent for TV in a very large room, but thats a bit of a tight focus and limits its appeal IMHO.

Owen, can a beastie of this size handle 3d?

[Owen]

Size is no impediment for 3D, in fact the bigger the better, most TV's are way too small. Problem with the Sharp is that it cant be viewed from a close enough distance to provide a big image without looking ugly.

A DLP projector is a much better option for 3D movies if you have light control.

Edited by Owen, 22 June 2012 - 06:54 PM.

[TheFrog]

Owen, on 22 June 2012 - 05:18 PM, said:

"most people" must be on the poverty line if the cost of running any TV is an issue.

Some people haven't come to terms with how efficient LED is on power.

[TheFrog]

laurie, on 21 June 2012 - 04:45 PM, said:

So thats 150watts  I assume it has some sort of advanced power mode which enables the ambient light sensor and knocks the power usage down to 150 watts or there abouts, but the picture becomes far too dim and will suffer from my experience with LCD projectors, so then people will bypass this mode to brighten the picture which in turn increase power,who knows seeing it in operation will tell the story

cheers laurie

yep, those with the dosh to buy this TV will struggle to find the $1 a week to run it.

[pc9]

Owen, on 22 June 2012 - 06:33 PM, said:

Size is no impediment for 3D, in fact the bigger the better, most TV's are way too small. Problem with the Sharp is that it cant be viewed from a close enough distance to provide a big image without looking ugly.

A DLP projector is a much better option for 3D movies if you have light control.

ta.

[Owen]

TheFrog, on 23 June 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

yep, those with the dosh to buy this TV will struggle to find the $1 a week to run it.

Even if it cost $20 a week to run I cant see how anyone who can afford $11K for a TV will be in any way concerned.

[cwt]

Drizt, on 21 June 2012 - 10:43 PM, said:

hehe, how many years till we see a 90" OLED tv Al???  Let's be realistic here.

35" to go Drizt ; who knows    ; oled was so expensive for such a small screen [car audio faceplates and the like] and recently its getting more like it ;just a bit cheaper than 8000 eu thanks ;exciting times   

http://www.lg.com/us/oled/index.jsp

http://ces.cnet.com/...ap;categoryMain

Edited by cwt, 24 June 2012 - 09:44 PM.

[:)]

yes,

lg's 54" oled one best of show last CES

http://www.lg.com/us/oled/index.jsp

samsungs 55" oled will be out second part of this year and retail for $9k

http://reviews.cnet....tail-for-$9000/

only a first generation device for this size as they say be 2 to 3 years before competitive.

oled is probably the first realistic challenge to plasma tech I think.

myself will always pick quality over quantity. for flat panels not seen any progress for probably the last 5 years. just been a race to the bottom. to see how cheaply they can make them and makers trying to make the biggest screen they can make. So to see OLED and developements there its pretty encouraging.

LCD is already yesterdays news.....lets see where the pace of progress takes us ...

[Owen]

Why is OLED even being disused in this thread? For people in the market for a 90" or similar TV OLED is not an option and wont be for years, if ever.
A 55" is no substitute for a 65", let alone a 90" and never will be. I very much doubt OLED will be better with poor quality source than LCD.

[Chicken Man]

Owen, on 25 June 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Why is OLED even being disused in this thread? For people in the market for a 90" or similar TV OLED is not an option and wont be for years, if ever.
A 55" is no substitute for a 65", let alone a 90" and never will be. I very much doubt OLED will be better with poor quality source than LCD.

.....And that's the truth of it folks, no matter how good one's screen's technical merits are it can do little better than what you feed into it. Sad as that may be.

C.M

[ajm]

Owen, on 25 June 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

Why is OLED even being disused in this thread? For people in the market for a 90" or similar TV OLED is not an option and wont be for years, if ever.
A 55" is no substitute for a 65", let alone a 90" and never will be. I very much doubt OLED will be better with poor quality source than LCD.

For that matter, why does LCoS deserve a mention?

[Drizt]

Owen, on 25 June 2012 - 02:18 PM, said:

A 55" is no substitute for a 65", let alone a 90" and never will be. I very much doubt OLED will be better with poor quality source than LCD.

Both points are very relevant.

[Owen]

ajm, on 26 June 2012 - 11:45 AM, said:

For that matter, why does LCoS deserve a mention?

Simple, LCoS has the highest fill factor and highest native contrast ratio of any display technology available and therefore sets the standard for large screen displays. No way I would want to view a 90" LCD at the same distance I would an LCoS projector on a 90" screen. LCoS projection is also MUCH better with poor quality source than LCD and its available to buy right now, unlike OLED, so it's relevant to people wishing to purchase today.

If I where spending $11k I would buy a 65" Plasma for TV viewing and an LCoS projector for movies. A 90" 1080 LCD is not good for TV or movies and a similar sized OLED is not likely to be much better, when and if one every becomes available.

Edited by Owen, 26 June 2012 - 10:16 PM.