Official 70"+ LCD thread - Page 18

I've been following this thread for the past 3 1/2 months and other "big screen" threads for years. At one point, I thought the vaporware Visio 70" was going to be the answer to my dreams; of course it wasn't! The new Sharp is temping, but I'm still holding out for 3D and would appreciate the advantages of full array w/local dimming. I am a member of the "bigger is better" club and have been considering the 92" Mitsu, but have some performance questions that need more than theoretical answers. My old Pioneer 65" RPT is dying, so I'm going to have to pick up a replacement soon. Looks like I'll be forced to pick up an interim set, probably a Mitsu 73" for year or twos use and wait for the RIGHT set to appear, if that could ever happen! I hope so.

You are focusing on the current supply situation when there is a quite long supply chain between the US and Japan including a big old slightly radioactive ocean which containers of these things must cross. Of course the local warehouses are stocked now; the Sharp 10G plant was in operation until just this week.

Fast forward a month or two of the only motherglass plant in the world capable of producing these being shut down and there may well indeed be a supply problem.

+1 I very seldom suggest purchase but if anyone looking for huge and best bang for buck then 732 is the one even at $3300. All the best if you choose to wait for other 70 inchers at good price.

The sets are made in mexico. Only some parts for japan. No need to wait for other 70+ inchers just other versions of this sharp 70" like 3d version.

Being they already have the base of the set and just have to add the features to otner versions I dont see it being too much pronlem or delsy on the other model sharp 70's.

If they hsve to they can take back some of the 200 732's my locsl best buy have in their warehouse and chsnge them into 735 or 935's, lol.

I agree its a long (1-2 yr) for sam 75" or other 70+ in. Lcd (85" pana olasma still too expensive snd well its not lcd so not for tnis thread) but sharp 735 and 935 are 1.5 a d 3.5 months away respectively.

Is it exactly 70" as the maximum? I know they didn't materialize, but there was talk of 72" (LG/Vizio) last year. If 70" is the max affordable and the next step up is equally wasteful at 75", why would anyone think of making a 72"?

To echo Irkuck, one of the reasons I'm fairly sure LG is not making the 72 in quantity is that the cost structure sucks for it. It's fun to announce big TVs -- the LCD guys love this -- that you have no real plans to produce to show you're as state of the art as the other guys. But somewhere along the way, Sharp actually opened a plant capable of producing 70" TVs in quantity. No other LCD maker has such a plant.

Understood...I may not have worded my question very well.

I'm wondering if there is anything unique about 72" that would even have it be considered/announced and not go straight to a 75" size if both are bigger than what can be done for a reasonable cost. If it's fun to announce a 72", wouldn't it be even more fun to announce a 75"?

Good point and it probably has to do with the optimal cut of LG's 8.5G fab.

An interesting case in point now is Samsung trying to differentiate themselves by an extra inch in their 2011 models. They probably found a way to optimise the glass cutting and depository process better to give an extra inch.

This may not sound much but Samsung's 40" TV (instead of the usual 42") saved them from the worst of the 2007 LCD slump.

The +1 strategy is only on their plasma sets, their LCDs are still the same sizes this year.

To be honest, it does at least appear LG is committed to commercializing the 72-inch size, per se. As for Samsung, who even knows what size they are planning on commercializing? I know some of you think the 75-inch thing was a product announcement, but I'm not among those who saw it as more than a demo of a concept.

When Samsung can actually ship a 65-inch set in quantity, they can start worrying about what they will commercialize that's larger. As they have no announced 65-inch products for 2011, I'll await those first.

Since this is from Vizeo saying these 21:9 sets with 3 sizes up to 71" avail sometime this year, take it with some grain of salt. Just something interesting to compete with the sharp 70" and I must imagine it will help bring this 71" sooner than later.

And for those like myself who would use these for mainly movies, the 21:9 aspect I think would offer a bigger picture than the standard 16:9 ratio given everything equal 70".

http://www.hometheater.com/content/2...jvc-projectors

I'm late into this discussion, but I agree that TV size is a function of affordability and what is considered acceptable or the norm. I purchased a 35" CRT back in 1992 which was considered large for most homes then. Today most people consider a 37" LCD as being relatively small.

Today we talk of 65-70" sets as being large, but 20 years from now, those may be considered small with 100" 4x HD sets being typical. Of course aesthetics and available space play a factor, but if a 100" TV sold for $1000, I think we would be able to make room for it! Even most wives wouldn't object at that price!

Again, we can speculate on the future until the future is here, but it's pointless. I will say that most homes in the U.S. cannot accommodate a 100" screen and those homes are not likely to be destroyed in the next 20 years to make room for one. This is irrespective of the price of the TV.

I will point out that U.S. homes are massive compared to European and most first-world Asian counties.

Technologies generally need to be commercialized in the first world, wealthy economies to proliferate and I don't see how anything is ever going to proliferate 100" TVs in those countries. Small quantities? Perhaps. Ubiquity? No.

The 21:9 aspect provides a smaller area than the 16:9 given the same diagonal.

A 100" diagonal screen only requires a room width of a bit over 8 feet. Even older American homes can accomodate that size in a family or living room. Bedroom use may be an issue.

One of the limits on screen size has always been the resolution of the signal being displayed. Blow up an SD tv feed, VHS tape, or even a DVD large enough and it looks really bad.

HD has broken this resolution barrier. You can now go bigger and still get an acceptable image.

You had pointed out that it is pointless to try to predict the future, but, I would suspect that in the years to come, image transmission technology will continue to improve and that we will see higher quality images possible on larger displays. This will help drive the market for larger displays.

I can easily see the concept of a "hang on the wall display" growing into a "wall sized display".

I get your point about 24 cylinder limos and energy consumption and that could be a factor, but I think the issue with TV size is a matter of technology catching up and supply and demand. The cost and ability to manufacture a 24 cylinder engine 40 years and now has not changed much. However, the price of manufacturing a given size TV has dropped tremendously over the same time. TV's have also become more energy efficient.

The fact that 80" DLP's and now 90" DLP's exist means that there is a demand for that size. The only reason large DLP's represent a very small fraction of the market is due to their inferior performance vs LCD's and plasmas and the fact that they are bulky. I'm not interested in purchasing a 90" DLP for those reasons, but if there was a thin 90" LCD I could hang on my wall for the same price, I would be interested. I also agree that it is prohibitively expensive to mass produce 70+ LCD's and plasma's now, but as demand gradually increases for larger sizes, the supply chain and technology will improve over time making larger TV's more affordable. Even smaller homes typically have at least one large wall. I could easily accommodate a 100" LCD set on my family room wall.

Um, what? Are you claiming "so long as the wall is 8 feet wide it can have a 100 inch display?" If so, that's technically true and completely irrelevant to my argument. Technically, I can have a llama in my back yard.


This remains irrelevant to my argument. You need to find a shred of evidence there is some desire for 100-inch TVs. You need to find me a counter-example to the real people I encounter who "would never put in a TV that big". They don't want giant TVs. The issues are not technical, not ones of resolution.

They are often issues of space. I don't know anything about your home, but I have been in many homes around here where there is nothing resembling a wall that could accommodate a 100-inch TV. Yes, there are 8-foot walls (and larger of course). But that doesn't mean any of them could handle a 100-inch TV. In my home -- which is slightly larger than the average American home (very slightly) -- the only family room large enough has a couch and faces the sliding glass door. There is no way to use it for a TV. Placing a 100-inch TV in my home would require removing fireplaces and rebuilding walls. It will not be happening.

People get confused here often. When I write "People don't want 100 inch TVs" I don't mean "No one wants a 100 inch TV." The projector forums here will provide you with names and photos of people that want giant TVs. Many of them have media rooms or theaters -- that most homes do not have and do not want (see my good friend and the home theater he just dismantled after a decade of non use, for example). Many of them are single men with "bachelor pad" type residences. Some of them have a 100-inch display in a family room, but really not many.

In the middle 1980s, the music CD was commercialized and while we can debate digital vs. analog till the cows come home, it was a 44 kHZ, digitally sample pristine recording medium that at least compared to the cassette tape of its day, obliterated the sound quality of what we had become used to. (Again, I am aware that LPs contain more information than CDs by many metrics. I am also aware of their downsides.) The CD was so good, it removed all other music formats from the market in anything other than niche status.

Some years later, attempts were made to improve upon digital sound media with the SACD and the DVD-Audio formats. They are better. In fact, sometimes they are so good its amazing. They do not account for 1% of music sold and they never will. The dominant format for music distribution is the MP3 (or equivalent), typically compressed to bit rates of 128kbps, sometimes offer at 2-2.5x that. It is inferior to the CD of the same music in nearly all cases. Efforts like Music Giants et al. to sell better quality compressed digital music have failed.

I am firmly convinced that the long run future of music sales is almost entirely in streamed music offerings like XM-Sirius (I'll let you figure out why that's a streamed digital offering), Rhapsody, Pandora, rdio, MOG, Spotify, et al. Those are all even lower quality than well-encoded, higher-bit rate MP3s.

This is true in spite of the fact that insanely great digital files could be made at 512 kbps and that with increasing storage, we could easily store more songs on an iPhone today -- assuming the 32GB model -- than we could on the iPod that ushered in the growth phase of the MP3 era (6x+ of the capacity, and assuming 4x the bitrate). There is no movement to distribute digital downloads consistently at 320kpbs, let alone 512kbps.

In video, the situation is probably even more grim. Despite the very solid growth of BluRay (ignore people who claim it's a failure, the numbers say it's doing about as well as DVD over its first 5 years), the movie industry's future lies in lower-than-BluRay bit-rate content. The fastest growing video service on earth is Netflix streaming, which occasionally exceeds DVD quality, but which never reaches BluRay quality. DirecTV (and others?) offer some 1080p PPV type content which can be very good, but again is never better than a current BluRay.

The move industry is pushing more digital sales and celestial locker solutions like Ultraviolet (and what you'll eventually see from Amazon and Apple). These are typically movies/TVs at 1/5 to 1/3 the bitrates of BluRay.

The notion that higher-bit-rate and higher-resolution video is something that is wanted by the industry is wrong. The notion that it's "compatible" with the anemic broadband speeds in the world's largest movie market is wrong. The notion that it's coming in the next decade is wrong. If anything, we are going to remember the era of receiving uncompressed HD and getting rapidly released BluRays of all new movies as the golden age for the videophile.

I'd rather not bet against a future home with a display wall and 10 gigabit connectivity and streamed content that doesn't need DRM because we no longer store any of it since said connectivity is as reliable as power. I'd like to believe that will come in the next 50 years. But I'm not naive. Most of the homes that had the first TVs in the US are still standing and some barely accommodate a 50-inch TV in the living room. A lot of TV viewers like my aunt and uncle live in a townhome which is much newer than the TV era, and yet no more capable of holding a 60-inch TV in the living room than a Toyota Prius is for the flip down back seat video.

The transmission lines for your phone might have been installed as early as the 1920s and almost certainly haven't been touched since they first went in. The cable "drops" in America are largely the ones that were installed with the cable when it was HBO and a better signal.

Things change insanely slowly even when they seem to be changing insanely quickly. The adoption of cell phones and the internet are interesting exceptions in that they largely didn't require the customer to make significant infrastructure changes.

If people were clamoring for movie theater sized home TVs, then I'd be of the opinion that they were coming in bigger numbers. But this desire is a niche within a niche and at AVS we are almost entirely the larger of the niches. We don't represent the market, which is why we are rarely entirely satisfied with the new product offerings delivering all we "demanded".

At the end of the day, I am a believer that you are entitled to believe what you want so long as you don't make up facts. And from what I can see, you are largely on the correct side of the factual divide and you simply don't see the multitude of reasons why I am flat out certain that even 70-inch TVs are only going to be a small fraction of the market. (A position that I believe most of the well-reasoned posters here agree with, although we often quibble over how small that fraction will be.)

I am actually more certain that even if 100-inch TVs become readily available -- and there are physical logistics reasons why they will absolutely never be readily available until they can be sold in pieces -- you are talking about fractions of 1% of U.S. homes having them. And fractions of 0.1% of European and Japanese homes. And the cost of said TVs will really not be high on the list of why those percentages are so low.

This remains irrelevant to my argument. You need to find a shred of evidence there is some desire for 100-inch TVs. You need to find me a counter-example to the real people I encounter who "would never put in a TV that big". They don't want giant TVs. The issues are not technical, not ones of resolution.

They are often issues of space. I don't know anything about your home, but I have been in many homes around here where there is nothing resembling a wall that could accommodate a 100-inch TV. Yes, there are 8-foot walls (and larger of course). But that doesn't mean any of them could handle a 100-inch TV. In my home -- which is slightly larger than the average American home (very slightly) -- the only family room large enough has a couch and faces the sliding glass door. There is no way to use it for a TV. Placing a 100-inch TV in my home would require removing fireplaces and rebuilding walls. It will not be happening.

People get confused here often. When I write "People don't want 100 inch TVs" I don't mean "No one wants a 100 inch TV." The projector forums here will provide you with names and photos of people that want giant TVs. Many of them have media rooms or theaters -- that most homes do not have and do not want (see my good friend and the home theater he just dismantled after a decade of non use, for example). Many of them are single men with "bachelor pad" type residences. Some of them have a 100-inch display in a family room, but really not many.


In the middle 1980s, the music CD was commercialized and while we can debate digital vs. analog till the cows come home, it was a 44 kHZ, digitally sample pristine recording medium that at least compared to the cassette tape of its day, obliterated the sound quality of what we had become used to. (Again, I am aware that LPs contain more information than CDs by many metrics. I am also aware of their downsides.) The CD was so good, it removed all other music formats from the market in anything other than niche status.

Some years later, attempts were made to improve upon digital sound media with the SACD and the DVD-Audio formats. They are better. In fact, sometimes they are so good its amazing. They do not account for 1% of music sold and they never will. The dominant format for music distribution is the MP3 (or equivalent), typically compressed to bit rates of 128kbps, sometimes offer at 2-2.5x that. It is inferior to the CD of the same music in nearly all cases. Efforts like Music Giants et al. to sell better quality compressed digital music have failed.

I am firmly convinced that the long run future of music sales is almost entirely in streamed music offerings like XM-Sirius (I'll let you figure out why that's a streamed digital offering), Rhapsody, Pandora, rdio, MOG, Spotify, et al. Those are all even lower quality than well-encoded, higher-bit rate MP3s.

This is true in spite of the fact that insanely great digital files could be made at 512 kbps and that with increasing storage, we could easily store more songs on an iPhone today -- assuming the 32GB model -- than we could on the iPod that ushered in the growth phase of the MP3 era (6x+ of the capacity, and assuming 4x the bitrate). There is no movement to distribute digital downloads consistently at 320kpbs, let alone 512kbps.

In video, the situation is probably even more grim. Despite the very solid growth of BluRay (ignore people who claim it's a failure, the numbers say it's doing about as well as DVD over its first 5 years), the movie industry's future lies in lower-than-BluRay bit-rate content. The fastest growing video service on earth is Netflix streaming, which occasionally exceeds DVD quality, but which never reaches BluRay quality. DirecTV (and others?) offer some 1080p PPV type content which can be very good, but again is never better than a current BluRay.

The move industry is pushing more digital sales and celestial locker solutions like Ultraviolet (and what you'll eventually see from Amazon and Apple). These are typically movies/TVs at 1/5 to 1/3 the bitrates of BluRay.

The notion that higher-bit-rate and higher-resolution video is something that is wanted by the industry is wrong. The notion that it's "compatible" with the anemic broadband speeds in the world's largest movie market is wrong. The notion that it's coming in the next decade is wrong. If anything, we are going to remember the era of receiving uncompressed HD and getting rapidly released BluRays of all new movies as the golden age for the videophile.

I'd rather not bet against a future home with a display wall and 10 gigabit connectivity and streamed content that doesn't need DRM because we no longer store any of it since said connectivity is as reliable as power. I'd like to believe that will come in the next 50 years. But I'm not naive. Most of the homes that had the first TVs in the US are still standing and some barely accommodate a 50-inch TV in the living room. A lot of TV viewers like my aunt and uncle live in a townhome which is much newer than the TV era, and yet no more capable of holding a 60-inch TV in the living room than a Toyota Prius is for the flip down back seat video.

The transmission lines for your phone might have been installed as early as the 1920s and almost certainly haven't been touched since they first went in. The cable "drops" in America are largely the ones that were installed with the cable when it was HBO and a better signal.

Things change insanely slowly even when they seem to be changing insanely quickly. The adoption of cell phones and the internet are interesting exceptions in that they largely didn't require the customer to make significant infrastructure changes.

If people were clamoring for movie theater sized home TVs, then I'd be of the opinion that they were coming in bigger numbers. But this desire is a niche within a niche and at AVS we are almost entirely the larger of the niches. We don't represent the market, which is why we are rarely entirely satisfied with the new product offerings delivering all we "demanded".

At the end of the day, I am a believer that you are entitled to believe what you want so long as you don't make up facts. And from what I can see, you are largely on the correct side of the factual divide and you simply don't see the multitude of reasons why I am flat out certain that even 70-inch TVs are only going to be a small fraction of the market. (A position that I believe most of the well-reasoned posters here agree with, although we often quibble over how small that fraction will be.)

I am actually more certain that even if 100-inch TVs become readily available -- and there are physical logistics reasons why they will absolutely never be readily available until they can be sold in pieces -- you are talking about fractions of 1% of U.S. homes having them. And fractions of 0.1% of European and Japanese homes. And the cost of said TVs will really not be high on the list of why those percentages are so low.[/quote]

My largest tv is 65". I could easily handle a 100" diagonal screen in my room, and still have room for my front speakers. Room is the least of my concerns.
My home is fairly typical.

I would not move to a larger screen size unless the price was reasonable and the image produced was stellar.

Front projectors have been available forever to deliver this screen size. Problem is the need for a light controlled viewing area. I want my viewing room to be multi-use as opposed to a dedicated movie theater.

Mitsubishi is about to break the 90" barrier with a DLP set and Sharp already has a 70" LED available for under $3000.

As prices continue to go down and screen sizes up, more people will move up their screen size. 19" tube tvs were once the most common size in the us. 42" Plasma sets went for over $3000 just a few years ago.

Bigger can be better in lots of things. TVs are just one of them.

Copper networks will not last forever. If they are to be replaced, might as well use fibre. Which is what is being done in Australia. The plan is to re-use the same cable conduits, pulling out copper and pulling through fibre instead. Minimal digging involved. The goal is to provide 100 megabits, peak 1 gigabit to 93% of the population. The rest will have to make do with 12 megabits fixed wireless of satellite.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Broadband_Network

@aydu, your formatting is a wreck. That said, you proved my point. Those things are available. Nearly no one buys them.

@Frank, fiber to the home will be deployed to 51% of US households by the middle of the century, I'm somewhat sure. By 2030? Almost certainly not.

If there are no rules, I would imagine cars would be wider rather than longer/stretched If there are no traffic jams or oil crisis I wouldn't rule out 500HP cars being mainstream. Without scale 500hp cars will never be cheap. There are constraints to why markets developed to as it is now. Key is to understand the constraints and if these constraints changed. Which is also why I asked Chris about any issue transporting and installing a 70".

PS I never could understand why people talk of hanging >80" TVs if we assume our eye level should be centre of screen. Presumably it could be part of the wall but you wouldn't hang such a big display per se.

Was in my basement HT over the weekend playing some vid games on the 67" with closer seating then at my 65" in fsm room.

Trying to watch a 3d movie on the 65" seemed a but small.

Cant wall mount anything less then 70" or it will seem too small another few feet back then where it is now on the stand.

Reslly need bigger thrn 70", but unless I go with the still super expe skve 85" pana plasma (let alone the price of the 100") or the upcoming 92" mitsu display then the biggest i csn go right now is the 70 which I'll have to settle fo.

Knowing that myself and ppl like me want bigger, especially for 3D (more immersive) and that my seating distance is about avg. and we would like 70" or bigger then I know there are ithers who feel the same.

I dont know why tbis arguement continues. 70" is in demand and so is bigger. Its just in some ppls head that 70" is "too big" (like my mom) and then they get it and realoze its great a d thry coukd have actually gone bigger. These are flat screens not crt.

As these get thinner and lighter plus less bezel, larger size screens will be more doable so then its just the price barrier.

Samsung right nkw seems to have the thinnest bezel. Their 55" tskes up the spsce thst older 42's or smaller did and seem downright small. If they out out their 75" with the D8000 bezel, it woukd not seem too big at all. Shame they are so behind on arger suzes and 65D8000 is so delayed too little too late. And everyone basically knows the 75" they showed at CES or whatever wont be out for 2 years if that.

The argument continues because it seems like people like you are trying to prove that "people like you" are somehow mainstream.

The argument also continues because interesting points get made now and again.

As for constraints -- as were discussed above and were interesting points for example -- physical space is a critical constraint. Energy use is a critical constraint. Cost is a critical constraint. It's pretty pointless to argue that people sitting in their basement home theaters are somehow mainstream and represent some kind of harbinger of a common future. U.S. houses are actually getting smaller after a generation of getting larger. Electricity rates are already rising and yet still don't reflect the overall cost of making that power -- including externalities. And, irrespective of all this, there is no evidence that even today people are gravitating toward the largest TVs available because, well, they don't want them.

None of us are saying, "no one will buy gigantic TVs". But everytime someone else chimes in and implies that "someday everyone will because I want one", it's going to draw a response. And maybe that response will raise some new interesting point. But in the meantime, 70 inch TVs are in fact available. And they are in fact affordable. And they are, in fact, being ignored by the vast vast majority of customers who don't wand them. And being snapped up by the small minority that does want them.

Led lcd is energy saving.

Also, I dont think msny ppl know about the one 70" availabe. And if they do they assume its expensive and that its "too big". As soon as they see the price, noone woukd say its too big.

Ppl used to fit monster rp crt's in small spaces with close seating. Also its the psychology that 70" is the biggest flat screen in most stores. As soon as there is 72, 75, 85 whatever. Then everyone would get the 70". Some ppl just want second to biggest or middle of the road even if they can fit and afford the 70.

Slim bezel like samsung d series will also make it look smaller causing many more to buy 70" or larger.

Constraints changed:
-More Energy saving, >50% less power vs 5 years ago, LCD or plasma. IIRC California Energy bill also do not apply to >50" TVs
-No more LED shortage set prerequisite for larger LCDs.
-though not mass market but pricing is attractive vs competitors. This is the main reason why I'm in this thread to witness the dawn.

Constraints still:
-supply (also mean less cost down on mother glass as Asahi or Corning only makes 10G motherglass for Sharp)
-perception psychology (42" owners likely to upgrade to around 50-55" rather than 70", this been discussed previously on the mean size) WAF is major issue.
-Financial, $3000 not considered cheap as it represents a month's income for many.
-Physical like Transportation and wall area.

I seriously don't think they are being ignored, just as most don't ignore a Ferrari passing by. But whether one considers to take more action towards owning a Ferrari is another issue altogether