Posted 01.07.2010 at 7:03 pm
21 Comments
Behold, 152 Inches
John Mahoney
This year at CES, Panasonic revived something we haven't seen in a while--the battle of the biggest screen. Already the current title holder with its 150-inch plasma screen from 2008, Panasonic came to Vegas this year with two 152-inch behemoths, bettering their own record. But there's a bit of a catch.
The catch is that the 152-inch screen is made with the exact same piece of glass that created the 150-incher; tweaks to the bezeling opened up a tiny bit more screen around the edges, increasing the viewable images size by two inches (and stretching the aspect ratio to 17:9 from the standard 16:9).
That's not to say that the 152-incher is just a cheap trick. The giant sets that make the rounds at tradeshows represent the largest single piece of glass the factory is able to produce. This "mother glass" is designed to efficiently yield the maximum number of panels when it is cut into the glass for smaller sets (the 152" TV's glass normally yields nine 50-inch TVs).
Dr. Larry F. Weber, an engineer who helped invent the plasma TV at the University of Chicago in the 1960s, was in Panasonic's booth watching the oglers. He explained to me that in making a prototype set, it's important to keep a larger margin around the outside of the glass to connect the display's electrical components. As the technology improves, however, less space around the edge is needed.
And thus, 152 inches instead of 150. Progress, march on.
21 Comments
To comment, please Login.
Popular Tags
Gadgets
Regular Features
|
|
|
|
|
|
June 2013: American Energy Independence
Five amazing, clean technologies that will set us free, in this month's energy-focused issue. Also: how to build a better bomb detector, the robotic toys that are raising your children, a human catapult, the world's smallest arcade, and much more.
Popular on Popsci
Most Commented
Gadgets
- Google Glass Isn't A Surveillance Device
- Drone-Vision Rifle Goes On Sale For $22K
- Would You Give This Company $250 For A Survivalist's E-Ink Android Tablet?
- What We Know (And Think We Know) About The New Xbox
- BeerSci: A Pint That Fits In Your Pocket
- Xbox One: Here's What We Know About Microsoft's New Console
- The First Round Of Apps For Google Glass Is Here
- Google Should Include A Self-Destruct Button On Every Android Phone
- Internet-Enabled Laser Pointer Lets You Play With Your Pet From Anywhere In The World
- Oculus Rift Game Simulates What It's Like To Get Your Head Chopped Off. For Fun.
Most Emailed
Gadgets
- Xbox One Is The First Games Console For People Who Don't Like Games
- Xbox One: Here's What We Know About Microsoft's New Console
- What We Know (And Think We Know) About The New Xbox
- Drone-Vision Rifle Goes On Sale For $22K
- Internet-Enabled Laser Pointer Lets You Play With Your Pet From Anywhere In The World
- The First Round Of Apps For Google Glass Is Here
- Google Should Include A Self-Destruct Button On Every Android Phone
- BeerSci: A Pint That Fits In Your Pocket
- Would You Give This Company $250 For A Survivalist's E-Ink Android Tablet?
- Oculus Rift Game Simulates What It's Like To Get Your Head Chopped Off. For Fun.
Most Viewed
Gadgets
- Xbox One Is The First Games Console For People Who Don't Like Games
- Xbox One: Here's What We Know About Microsoft's New Console
- What We Know (And Think We Know) About The New Xbox
- Drone-Vision Rifle Goes On Sale For $22K
- Internet-Enabled Laser Pointer Lets You Play With Your Pet From Anywhere In The World
- The First Round Of Apps For Google Glass Is Here
- Google Should Include A Self-Destruct Button On Every Android Phone
- BeerSci: A Pint That Fits In Your Pocket
- Would You Give This Company $250 For A Survivalist's E-Ink Android Tablet?
- Oculus Rift Game Simulates What It's Like To Get Your Head Chopped Off. For Fun.
Online Content Director: Suzanne LaBarre | Email
Senior Editor: Paul Adams | Email
Associate Editor: Dan Nosowitz | Email
Assistant Editor: Colin Lecher | Email
Assistant Editor: Rose Pastore | Email
Contributing Writers:
Rebecca Boyle | Email
Kelsey D. Atherton | Email
Francie Diep | Email
Shaunacy Ferro | Email
Today on PopSci.com
Copyright © 2012 Popular Science
A Bonnier Corporation Company. All rights reserved. Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.
Wow 152 inches? Just how far back do you have to sit to look at the whole screen and reduce any eye damage?
@ Mai2ine
Sitting close to the TV does not damage your eyes. It has been proven.
@wowlife
It's called DEPTH.
I agree with wowlife, they say it is made of the same glass that is used to make 9 50in screens, 150length, 150 width.
Guys... look at the gentleman standing just to the left of the TV. He looks to be a good 3' to 4' shorter than the TV. Not to mention the bald gentleman to the right of the TV. Quit hating on Popsci
@Azores: Just because you agree with him doesn't mean its correct (that also isn't what wowlife said, btw). A 150 inch screen isn't 150x150 inches; video screens are measured on the diagonal.
May still be the wrong pic though.
Finally zerobass is right! Off course i should suspect someone that doesn't know how to read a computer article to completely understand an article about large tvs.
ya i dont think the diagonal is 152, that look like 80-100, which is still effing huge so 152 is godly
Its called depth of field guys who think its not 152inches
This seems like one of those things, have to see it to believe it. Plus even if I see it i would have to meassure it, because i highly doubt that you get every inch they claim.
I'm guessing the picture of the TV is different from the actual one. One hundred fifty two inches is equivalent to 12 feet 8 inches. From comparing the man standing next to it, I'd say it's no more than 6-8 feet wide (even if the man is closer to the camera--he seems to be about 2-3 feet closer to the camera, it doesn't look to be wider than 8 feet). I could not picture two of him standing on top of each other and not exceeding the space between the lower corner and the opposite corner to make the 152" or so. The man would have to be 6'4" to be even with the length and two of him would already look like they'd surpass that length. He doesn't look like he's taller than 6'2.
According to Wolfram Alpha, 12'8" is 2.3 times the size of the average human. So unless that man (and many of the people on the floor) are unnaturally tall, my guess is that the TV in the photo is not actually 152 inches (diagonally).
There are many layers to the photo and several things of questionable scale to use for comparison. Here, let me Google that for you.
www.displayblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/CES2010_Panasonic_152inch_4K2K_3D_Plasma_TV.jpg
Yep, that photo looks much more convincing.
The apparent facts:
TV against white divider; expected screen height 71 inches (5'11"), expected screen width 134 inches (11'2").
Raised stage perhaps 3-4 feet deep
Man to left several feet in front of raised stage. From camera position appears to be below the height of the speakers to the side of the tv, though we can't tell if that is because he is short. The speakers come up to about the halfway mark on the tv and it appears the the distance from the audience floor to the bottom of the tv is less than from the bottom of the screen to the top of the speaker. We can conclude that the tv is at least as tall or taller than the man to the left.
Foreground crowd at least 6-8 feet from man to left, suggesting picture may be taken as far away as 16 feet and maybe more. But since you can't see the midground, it appears to be compressed and it therefore looks smaller than it is.
Also, do you think a 80-100 inch tv is going to draw that big of a crowd to take a picture of it?
At 16x9 aspect ratio, 152" diagonal equates to 132.5" wide by 74.5" high. Don't they teach Pythagoras' theorem any more?
daggilli
Was trying to remember the formula for solving that, and couldn't think of it for the life of me.
Oh yeah, remembered my math/geometry teacher in high school saying something about that, but I was too busy checking out the girl behind me to notice anything he said. Oh well, next time I need to figure out the length and width of a rectangle, I'll use it (probably never again).
johnt007871
The picture you linked to isn't proof of anything. The guy's Asian. He could be 4'3" tall for all we know.
daggili,
Since the article says "stretching the aspect ratio to 17:9", I might snarkily retort: don't they teach english any more?
^^ nno english is useless note my poorly terriblelyer usier of grammier and spellinger :P...the math and science is much more important... and how in the world can you forget Pythagoreans theorem for right triangles... i learned it in like...probably first or second grade...
Optics2.0
Not everyone is an architect or math major or carpenter...honestly not everything they teach in school is applicable in real life for most people. If you didn't already know, Paris Hilton gets by pretty well without knowing 5th grade math or geometry.
That's great that you learned it in the first or second grade. But which one was it? First or second grade? Memory not working too well????
Math and science are only important to those who value it. Obviously, math and science are important in general, but where would we be without the written word????
Optics2.0,
The subject of "english" encompasses reading comprehension as well as spelling and grammar. I though of using those word, but opted for the simpler "english".
He calculated with the right formula but with the wrong data. I was merely pointing out that the two people who extrapolated (independently I might add) the dimensions were using the stated 17:9 dimensions.
Wow, I likes, I likes it ALOT!!!!! Too Bad They didn't make it 3D though. But Seriously How Much Is? In My country..We have TV but pappy Gets tired quick , and puppet that looks like news man is only sock.