Panasonic puts plasma TVs on a diet

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.

[Wes#1]

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??

[Foggy]

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.

[Foggy]

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.

[gboess82]

"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.

[jeff327]

Your're a fool. You know nothing about HDTV. You should not even be allowed to read this website. Go back to Bedrock.

[gary85739]

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!

[hkhalilmd]

Am I missing something here. Samsung is already selling 2" thick TV's ( 860 series) in the states.

[boopiejones]

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.

[donwonton]

http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-9848008-7.html

durrr