# LCD TV'S



## B Newt (Aug 12, 2007)

I was wondering why LCD TV jump from 52" to 65". There doesn't seem to be any in between these sizes???


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

I couldn't tell you a for-sure answer, but I know that the glass used to make LCDs comes in certain sheet sizes which are then cut down to make the various monitors 18", 20", etc. etc.

Maybe the 65" is a full sheet size and the 52" sets are cut down with the excess material available to make some other standard sized sets. I certainly haven't done the math, but by utilizing this method, the companies would be making use of as much of the material as possible and from what I understand the glass is one of the more expensive parts of the monitor. My understanding of it all is, however, very limited.


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

samsung makes a 57" ... not cheap though 

http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8457234&type=product&id=1184369167214


----------



## gulfwarvet (Mar 7, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> samsung makes a 57" ... not cheap though
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8457234&type=product&id=1184369167214


Not being cheap isn't the word for it


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

Ah .. See .. paying for all that unused glass :lol: That is pricey.


----------



## Pinion413 (Oct 21, 2007)

AirRocker said:


> samsung makes a 57" ... not cheap though
> 
> http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=8457234&type=product&id=1184369167214


Egad! Not cheap? That's quite the understatement. :lol:


----------



## johnzim63 (Oct 8, 2005)

B Newt said:


> I was wondering why LCD TV jump from 52" to 65". There doesn't seem to be any in between these sizes???


I'd say it's marketing. They probably figure that anyone who'd spend $3000+ for a tv will spend up to $10,000 without blinking.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

johnzim63 said:


> I'd say it's marketing. They probably figure that anyone who'd spend $3000+ for a tv will spend up to $10,000 without blinking.


I'm not so sure about that one .. $10,000 is still more than 3 times bigger than $3,000.

Would you be willing to spend $10 on something if a $3 item was satisfactory? :grin:


----------



## Greg Alsobrook (Apr 2, 2007)

did anyone notice the contrast ratio?? 500,000:1 !!! :lol:


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

AirRocker said:


> did anyone notice the contrast ratio?? 500,000:1 !!! :lol:


I'm pretty sure that my eyes don't work that well


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

I don't think anyone's eyes work that well. Those numbers are sort of bogus in that 500,000:1 sounds a lot better than 10,000:1 but because they are ratios the actual percentage difference is less than 1%. It's like sunscreen. You think SPF50 is twice as good as SPF25, but actually there's a 2% difference in the amount of light that gets through.


----------



## SteveHas (Feb 7, 2007)

That particular unit is a LED lit LCD.
This being LED lit as opposed to ccfl, llows the unit to essentially "switch off" or not lite pixels that aren't needed. 
This makes the blacks so dark it looks like printers ink.
It is an amazingly beautiful TV.
While the accuaracy of the 500,000:1 contrast ratio is arguable, the resulting pq is not.
Manufactueres all seem to have a different way of measuring contrast ratio.
The 52" version sells for about $3500.00 +-.
I think this HUGE price is based on

1.) new technology, Samsung was the only one to market with LED lit LCDs when it was released,

and

2.) the size.

If I could, I would

:new_Eyecr:new_Eyecr


----------



## Steve Mehs (Mar 21, 2002)

You want expensive? http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...51&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11040914

After my jaw hit the floor, I thought that was a typo, but it's been like that for a while now. And in checking other sources the price appear to be correct. The 70" Sony Grand Wega RPTV LCD that it replaced was $6500 I believe.

PS - I'm purposely not mentioning the price, click on the direct link from Sony and see how far your eyes bug out. That will have more an effect then me just typing it out.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)




----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

Interesting tidbit about LCD manufacturing I learned recently. When a large screen is manufactured and there is a flaw, bad pixel/s, the screen is cut into smaller sizes for smaller sets. Looks as though they salvage most of the cost this way.


----------



## Marriner (Jan 23, 2006)

davring said:


> Interesting tidbit about LCD manufacturing I learned recently. When a large screen is manufactured and there is a flaw, bad pixel/s, the screen is cut into smaller sizes for smaller sets. Looks as though they salvage most of the cost this way.


how does this work from a pixel density perspective? A 52" LCD would have a much lower pixel density (number of pixels per square inch) than a 20" screen would unless i am missing something.


----------



## davring (Jan 13, 2007)

I haven't taken the time to do the math but I am certain a 1080x1920 screen could be cut to be 720/768 or some multiples in between? I understand your question but I read this in an article discussing the Sony/Samsung LCD screen manufacturing facilities. Made sense when I read it It also said they use them for various displays in advertising.


----------



## Cholly (Mar 22, 2004)

Steve Mehs said:


> You want expensive? http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...51&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11040914
> 
> After my jaw hit the floor, I thought that was a typo, but it's been like that for a while now. And in checking other sources the price appear to be correct. The 70" Sony Grand Wega RPTV LCD that it replaced was $6500 I believe.
> 
> PS - I'm purposely not mentioning the price, click on the direct link from Sony and see how far your eyes bug out. That will have more an effect then me just typing it out.


That reminds me of the $16,900 Blu-ray player that was announced this week.
http://www.switched.com/2008/02/27/goldmund-debuts-16-900-blu-ray-disc-player/


----------



## spartanstew (Nov 16, 2005)

Steve Mehs said:


> You want expensive? http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs...51&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=11040914
> 
> After my jaw hit the floor, I thought that was a typo, but it's been like that for a while now. And in checking other sources the price appear to be correct. The 70" Sony Grand Wega RPTV LCD that it replaced was $6500 I believe.
> 
> PS - I'm purposely not mentioning the price, click on the direct link from Sony and see how far your eyes bug out. That will have more an effect then me just typing it out.


They've had this TV on display at Bjorn's in San Antonio for about 6 months. I gotta say, it's one impressive display. You can even save $1000 off MSRP if you buy it from them.


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

spartanstew said:


> They've had this TV on display at Bjorn's in San Antonio for about 6 months. I gotta say, it's one impressive display. You can even save $1000 off MSRP if you buy it from them.


I like TV, but no way, no how, not in my lifetime .. :nono2: .. and yes, I am but one person, but I'd be willing to be most people would agree with me on this one 

oh to have enough money where your first thought is either "why not" or "maybe." .


----------



## bhelton71 (Mar 8, 2007)

What is the largest LCD that one can purchase now ? Not talking CES demo but real product.

Like Panasonic has displayed a 150" plasma at CES but I believe you can only buy 103" (but only 4000:1 contrast ratio  ) at max.
http://www.computeronline.com/panath103pf9uk.html


----------



## Doug Brott (Jul 12, 2006)

That's one hefty price tag .. also

240 V AC, 1550 Watts and ¼ ton (nearly 500 Lbs.)

Check out this excellent brochure on this crazy set.

ftp://ftp.panasonic.com/pub/Panasonic/Drivers/PBTS/brochures/B_TH-9Series.pdf


----------



## Koby (Mar 5, 2008)

I'd rather a plasma at those sizes.


----------



## Sirshagg (Dec 30, 2006)

johnzim63 said:


> I'd say it's marketing. They probably figure that anyone who'd spend $3000+ for a tv will spend up to $10,000 without blinking.


Not quite. I've paid $5K for a TV but wouldn't even consider $10K (and that was an option when I bought the $5K set)


----------



## veryoldschool (Dec 10, 2006)

davring said:


> I haven't taken the time to do the math but I am certain a 1080x1920 screen could be cut to be 720/768 or some multiples in between? I understand your question but I read this in an article discussing the Sony/Samsung LCD screen manufacturing facilities. Made sense when I read it It also said they use them for various displays in advertising.


This would make sense for those with defects on the sides, but I'd guess if it was in the middle, it's scrapped.
Intel does the same with their chips. Those that don't pass specs for "x speed" and rated slower.


----------

