Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Technology

50" Flat Screens from Pioneer 95

Posted by CmdrTaco from the you-gotta-be-kidding dept.
jon pointed us to an amazing screen. Its 50 inches, its flat, and at $20k you could buy a nice car instead. And 1280x768 doesn't seem like that many pixels for that much real estate. But still... yum. If anyone at pioneer wants to ship me a demo unit I promise to play quake on it and return it in a few years...
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

50" Flat Screens from Pioneer More

50" Flat Screens from Pioneer

Comments Filter:

  • PDP (Score:1)

    by kbob ( 17863 )
    So, does PDP still stand for Pink & Dark Pink?

    K<bob>

  • If you weren't an AC I would give you $50 for that hilarious comment.

    That line might have come straight out of Andrew Eldritch's (Sisters of Mercy's frontman) mouth.

    Damn the preview button, I couldn't have made any tpyos

  • These have been around for a while. We bought ours about 2 weeks ago and i knew about them at least 1 month before that. This 50" is expensive. ours was only $14995. Go to http://www.globe-mart.com/audvid/tv/37plus/flat.ht m
  • I've seen a 50-inch screen go for "only" 8.5k$ at pricescan [pricescan.com]

    the exact address for the item is here [pricescan.com]

    couldn't find more information on it on sony's site though. but for almost 1/3 the price, it's probably a better pick even if it isn't flat.


    another issue. did anyone ever ponder the sheer mass of these things? i just look at my computer desk now, and i wonder if it could stand the load.

    also, quite a few desk models can't hold a 50" monitor in them.

    but then again, if you spend 20k$ on a monitor, buying a table shouldn't be that much of an issue.


    as for the resolution... it'll probably look real grainy :( so much for the ultimate quake experience.

  • Wow, I feel pretty silly. I must've re-read your post about a dozen times trying to figure out what you were saying... But yes, ironically, it should've been ==.

    Oh wait! Unless I was programming in BASIC or Pascal! Then it would be =. Unless I really meant an assignment operator, and then (in Pascal) it would be more desktop space := more productivity. Or, if I were doing it in Intel assembly it would be...

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • Doom is still my favorite..
  • This is for some reason reminding me of a certain article on /. just a few weeks ago. Except I didn't need 20 grand for the other one.
  • It would be nice to put one your ceiling and be able to surf or watch TV while laying in bed. But for that kind of money I think a projector would work just as well.

    umm, *Fall*, **CRUSH

    =)

  • The review mentioned that they couldn't get rid of all the pixel jitter, a phenomenon that those of us with desktop LCD displays with analog interfaces have been suffering with. Why didn't they put a digital interface on this thing? I mean, it's not like they couldn't afford to...

    Unfortunately there doesn't yet seem to be consensus on the a single digital interface standard, but there are only a few contenders, and I'm sure as soon as one of them wins, someone will sell converters for those of us that bought the others.

    Sigh.

  • Where I work I am fortunate enough to have access to one of these things. First of all, I should clarify, its an extra wide display, its not like a 50 inch monitor. Its maybe about 24 inches high or so and about 40 inches wide. (does that math work out somewhere close?)

    Anyway, it still is really damn cool. Quake II was a little difficult to play because I wasn't used to how skewed everything was. I played with the FOV commands and it worked a little better. I haven't had a chance to try quake 3 yet because I don't have a 3d card in my box at work.

    Anyway, these can actually be had for about $18000 if you look hard enough. Its only 10% less, but that extra $2000 can be put to good use on other toys.
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • actually, "can't get no worse", but then Stokely Carmichael's famous "mind over matter" remark, "if you don't mind, it don't matter", has been PC'd to "if you don't mind, it doesn't matter" so why quibble.

    He who controls the past controls the present - Eric Blair (aka George Orwell)
  • My Bio organic chemistry professor has a nifty projector which simply plugs into the monitor socket of his laptop. You can nicely project computer images on a screen. If you put the projector far enough away I'm sure you can make the image 50 ft wide, and I'm pretty sure it didn't cost $20k.

  • Re:I want HDTV (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    http://www.atsc.org for more information on the standard. Highest HDTV resolution is 1920x1080 (maximum at 60i fps- most likely will never be used, 30p fps, or 24p fps).
  • From the bottom of the page:

    Testing with DisplayMate software revealed a few defects, however. We observed some pixel jitter that could not be eliminated even after we tweaked the timing settings. The jitter showed up only on images with fine patterns. With an XGA signal, the image size and position had to be adjusted manually. And when the PDP-502MX displayed the 4:3 XGA resolution in its normal mode (not scaled to fill the screen), the aspect ratio was slightly off, making circles look like ovals.

  • how come hardware companies don't send you more free stuff? I'll bet a /. post generates at least a few sales.

    if I ran a company /. would get loads of free stuff, especially beer.

  • The thing holding up direct digital interfaces for monitors intended for TV viewing is Hollywood. FireWire (IEE-1394) is the intended format, but the Hollywood types want to control what happens between any digital source devices and any digital display devices.

  • In the (humourously bad) movie version of Fahrenheit 451, the three TV walls had been replaced with a flat screen mounted on one wall. It would have been about the same size as this screen. Interestingly enough, at one point, Montag uses it as a light source to read by. Sometimes it seems as if that's all a TV would be good for today, too. :)

    (BTW, did MST3k ever do the F451 movie? It certainly deserves it. :)

  • Plasmas have limited color depth (Score:3)

    by K8Fan ( 37875 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @05:33PM (#1622719) Journal

    Every plasma screen I've seen, at NAB, CES, SIGGRAPH and CEDIA, has limited color depth. The earliest ones, like the Phillips, looked like a bad GIF. The most recent ones, like the Sony and Panasonic, look like a decent GIF. Until the plasma cells and drivers are fast enough to display a true 24-bits, they won't be anything more than trade-show curiousities.

    On the other hand, the Sony true flat CRT that was reported here many months ago should be able to have 24-bit quality, longer life than plasma, decent black levels and true crt brightness levels. Plasma is a dead end.

  • I figured it was called 1984 because that was the year Winston thought it was...
  • Is the PDP-502MX related to my PDP-10? :-)
  • That's pretty nifty.

    Does anyone know if the Apple flatscreen cinema display can be used with a PC? Better, does anyone know if it can be used with any of the popular X servers?

    -awc

  • Weird Al (Score:3)

    by cxreg ( 44671 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @08:28AM (#1622724) Homepage Journal
    Ive got a flat screen monitor 40" wide
    I believe yours says Etch-A-Sketch on the side
  • These aren't (that) new. I've seen ads for them (a month or two ago, can't remember the magazine).

    In fact, in my Algorithms & Programming class ("Comp Sci for Comp Sci majors") they have 2 of these. It's quite a waste, for a room not that large, they have 2 front projection screens, 15" LCDs on every table (for a total of 12), and these 2 50" Pioneer LCDs.. and all they display is the MS PowerPoint presentation featuring the notes of the day. What a waste. (RPI, in Troy, NY if you're interested).

  • ... (Score:1)

    by doomy ( 7461 )
    Posiblities are endless...

    Imagine, You can play q3a on this with a brown paper bag on your lap. And guess what, you'd _Glow_ in the dark too! :)

    Large screens such as this have only one use (in this moment in time). Wouldnt it be great to have a couple of this at the next and have it scroll source code (much like what mozilla did.. and how ID was watching their download servers).

    Or maybe, it wold be better if they had a raffle and give a couple of these away. Or, someone rich could actually buy a couple of this and have some sort of a programming contest (maybe they have some software that needs to be written but no one really wants to write it?) and give the first place winner one of these babies.. the rest can have VA systems. :)

    Oh, these wont hurt your eyes (I'm not a registered eye doc)
    --
  • yep, and degaussing is a simple matter of shaking my monitor.

  • Only 20k? (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I'll take 2 of them
  • Well, perhaps he would be frowing to see how true his predictions were.


    I'm not passing judgment on these screens, but this sure is getting closer and closer to the video wall from "1984"


    I definetly think the technology is cool, no doubt about that (a 50" game of Quake 3 anyone?) but it's mere existance seems to lend itself to paralleling "1984"

  • Re:George Orwell would be smiling.... (Score:3)

    by Kintanon ( 65528 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @08:44AM (#1622730) Homepage Journal
    Wrong book, 1984 had the 2 way TVs where the excersise people bitched you out for not touching your toes.

    Fahrenheit 451 had the Wall Screens, in fact Monetgue had 3 walls of one room done and his wife would sit stoned out in the room talking to the TV people...

    Kintanon
  • Anyone out there give a bit more detail about the pixelation (long vertical rows of subpixels, 5 sides, etc.)? Curious as to how subpixels (and plasma displays in general) work, subpixel density and the like...

    --
  • The specs on Pioneer's page [pioneer-eur.com] look good. The pixels are big, but the screen wasn't meant to be viewed up close.

  • Is there a point? (Score:3)

    by rde ( 17364 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @08:34AM (#1622733)
    Given that you can get a projector with comparable resolution, is there any point in spending $20k on one of these puppies? I'd rather spend five grand on a projector and blow the rest on jelly babies.
  • That's a pretty weak resolution. It's better than a lot of Monitors (and it's a flatscreen) but I'll keep my 21" not-so-flatscreen that looks keen at 1600x1200 - I think every programmer out there will agree that more desktop space = more productivity. And Linux isn't too great with the multiheaded display scene yet.

    -----------

    "You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

  • You've got to admit.... (Score:2)

    by Anonymous Coward

    You've got to admit it's getting better...getting better all the time.

    Now lets cart it up to our shotgun-shack on stilts
    and watch _Flipper_ with our ethnically diverse friends.
  • Can you imagine Q3 or Unreal on one of these bad boys? Add surround sound and.... and...

    *Drool*
  • I currently have a setup with 3 21" monitors hooked up to the same computer. One is more than enough for my eye to focus on, trying to look at more space than that I have to turn my head. I think a 50" monitor would be a waste for desktop purposes, especially since the resolution is so low.

    It would be nice to put one your ceiling and be able to surf or watch TV while laying in bed. But for that kind of money I think a projector would work just as well.

  • Oh, COME ON!

    "Oh no, someone came out with a big TV screen! We're all doomed to life under an evil tyranny!"

    Wall screens aren't a necessary, much less sufficient, requirement for Big Brother.

    Big TV screens existed in SF before 1984 was published. Bad-ass totalitarian governments have and do exist without wall screens, much less two-way wall screens.

    Of far more importance is who controls what is (and isn't) on the screens.

  • this would be a great monitor for people who have 20k to spend on their ultimate quake machines, but for businesses who would use this sort of thing ie. design and large format printing, 1024x768 just wont cut it. I feel that a high resolution should have been #1 when designing this screen. At least 1600x1200. Come on guys. My 15" Multisync can do 1024x768.
  • George Orwell only re-titled his novel "1984" because he could not get it published as "1948", which was his original intention. It was not intended as a prediction.

    IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH - Eric Blair (aka George Orwell) from 1984
  • I've invested in this new technology - it's a one way, multimedia stream of information, absolutely amazing. I got a huge monitor, it's incredibly simple to setup (just plug it in and you're running) and cheap - 500 UKP only for a 40" monitor! It's called "television", and it's going to be the next big thing!

    --

  • For that kind of money (Score:3)

    by aheitner ( 3273 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @08:51AM (#1622742)
    You could just buy an Electrohome [electrohome.com] Marquee series digital projector. My friend has one he got for free. Sure, it's a bit bulky (about 4'x2'x3', 150 lbs) but it will project a 20' image easily. 1600x1200 and super bright.

    These are the projectors they use in the lecture halls here at CMU.
  • It's either 1280x768 (16:9) or 1024x768 (4:3), see the Pioneer web site. [pioneerelectronics.com] As for a 1600x200 21" computer monitor being better or worse, note that there is a big difference between TV monitors and computer monitors. The phosphors are formulated with different goals in mind. You sit 18 inches (.5 meters) away from your computer screen all day. You sit 10 feet (3 meters) away from your TV. If your computer screen was as bright as your TV screen, your eyes would be fried in short order. TV's are 60 Hz (or 50) interlaced. Computer screens are typically 60 Hz or more, non-interlaced - this all affects the amount of flicker. On your computer, you are looking mostly at stationary text and images. In the olden days (before windows), there used to be lots of text scrolling, and long persistence phosphors would leave trails. This would be a problem with lots of motion as in modern games.

    Plasma monitors can't be compared head to head with CRTs based simply on resolution, there are lots of other variables.

  • As a previous poster stated, it's mainly a TV, and even as a monitor is intended for viewing from far away by a group of people, as in a company meeting or product demo.
    My employer is using it as a TV, and it does have a great picture when seen far away. The only drawback I've noticed so far is that bright blues are *painfully* bright...like when accessing the options menu.

    I haven't seen how it works under HDTV though, or even if it does without special converters.

  • um... (Score:1)

    by emmons ( 94632 )
    It's not ment to replace your 16 monitors, it's ment to be used as a TV or for presentations.

    -----
  • I work for a government agency. We have a department who deals with the public in property tax issues. We needed a bigger monitor, and I just happened to see this exact model on Gateway's site (we get some kind of discount through them). I would prefer 1600x1200 res on it but with the exception of its thickness it's better in all aspects then the specs on the unit mentioned above. I haven't had the oppurtunity to play Quake on it yet, but I WANT TO :-). If you have the money to spend, I recommend this monitor.
  • No, that's 127 centimetres.

  • Re:It's Plasma! (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    brightness. Size. uniform screen lighting. For the size, can you make an LCD active-matrix panel? No? OK.
  • Was Frank's 2000" TV a flatscreen?
  • Why don't I just get a 15" monitor capable of 1280x768 and sit really really close to it? ;D

  • pixel size? (Score:3)

    by synaptic ( 4599 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @10:25AM (#1622752) Homepage
    Information About Dot Pitch
    http://www.csf.org.uk/csf/dot-pitch/ dotpit.htm [csf.org.uk]

    Monitor Specs
    http://www.pioneerelectronics.com/ home/pdphd.htm [pioneerelectronics.com]

    The page says the pixel (or dot) pitch is:

    0.858 x 0.808 mm

    So the pixels are what, three times bigger than a normal .28 dp monitor?
  • You're absolutely right regarding consumer interfaces that pass MPEG bits. But I was just talking about wanting a raw digital pixel interface, which is already available on most of the latest computer LCD panels. Since the data isn't compressed, and it doesn't usually match the defined digital TV formats, Hollywood doesn't care about that.

    Also, by having a "raw" digital interface, the thing would be more future-proof. If different digital TV broadcast or cable standards show up, you'd just add a different decoder.

    Of course, maybe the manufacturer doesn't want to sell tubes that can easily adapt to changing interfaces. Planned obsolescence.

  • I hope the movie you're refering to is not the one directed by Francois Truffaut because I liked it. Agreed, he did better things like "The 400 Hundred Blows" and "Vivement Dimanche" (Don't know what the English translation for this latter one is). Who is MST3k anyway?
  • I saw one of these working in a TV store, it's stunning! £12K is a lot though for a TV screen.
  • Well, I don't know who directed it. It was shot in B&W, and had miserable production values. eg. at one point, some firemen fly through the city using a jetpack or somesuch. A thread is clearly visible above their heads. :)

    MST3k stands for Mystery Science Theatre 3000. Basically, a man and his three robots are forced to watch bad sci-fi movies. While watching, they make sarcastic comments about the movie.
  • Well I think I will blame it on monday-syndrom.


    Thanks for the correction.
  • I anti-alias with a quick strike of my louisville slugger
  • Wall screens aren't a necessary, much less sufficient, requirement for Big Brother.
    I make no such claim in my statement.


    Big TV screens existed in SF before 1984 was published. Bad-ass totalitarian governments have and do exist without wall screens, much less two-way wall screens.
    I never claimed either didn't exist.


    "Oh no, someone came out with a big TV screen! We're all doomed to life under an evil tyranny!"
    No such statement exists in my original post.


    Perhaps you have confused my post with somone elses. Whatever you think I am infering from my statment is of your own accord.


  • videoconferencing w/ Mr. Spacely about sprokets and cogs.

    Chuck
  • they work pretty well with a linux x-server.

  • Orwell, Bradbury (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Eric Blair wasn't a techno-alarmist. He was more alarmed about debasement of the language with weasel words, and with insincere, unselfcritical, and self-serving demagogues.

    Check out Homage to Catalonia for some kicking descriptions of what it was like to fight on the losing side in the Spanish Civil War, including the sensation of being shot in the neck. Good stuff.

    As some suggested here, enveloping wall screens are more Farenheit 451 than 1984. Bradbury, who gets dismissed as a poetic loafer by many these days, really hit the nail on head with his description of a populace utterly absorbed in shallow, commercially driven tube culture.

    Interestingly, the book burning in the novel is instigated not as a tool of oppression, but due to something very much like political correctness. Books are full of ideas, and ideas can be upsetting to minorities and the religiously inclined and people afraid For The Children. (Bradbury also went after goody two-shoes censors in one of the component stories in The Martian Chronicles.)

  • Nice, but it won't handle HDTV (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Not enough resolution for HDTV, so what's the point? I'll take a quality front projector and screen over it any day.
  • Hey, you already posted that one for an earlier flatscreen article!

    That's worse than reposting articles!

    -Lung

  • Picture window (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Even at this resolution, it's nearing the point where it will exceed visual acuity when hung on a wall. As the resolution improves, we can bring them closer. When the image becomes good enough to become indistinguishable from a picture window at a distance of a meter or so, and they get cheap enough, I'll want to set up three of them in my office in such a way that they simulate a bay window looking out on any of several scenes.
  • So, Rob's still begging for hardware I see... seems like with the money he made from Slashdot he could just go out and buy one of these with his pocket change...
  • Wow, I though plasma diplays disappeared years ago.

    So, exactly what are the advantages of plasma displays over what the current LCD technology can offer? It seems higher resolution isn't one of them...
  • You'd be just as well off with backlit high resolution photographs. Whenever you move your head, you'll notice that the scene doesn't shift as it should, and the illusion will be lost.

    Unless you mount a position sensor to your head that gets the display to dynamically update its image depending on where you're looking from, stick with posters.
  • Please, think for yourself for a change. You might actually enjoy it.


    I was. I wasn't listening to your tired "everyone should think like me" drivel. It's amazing that you actually think that by somehow thinking like you I'm thinking for myself.

    It's also amazing that a person can not point out the similarities between a novel written about technology and the rise of such technology without being labeled an idiot. Maybe you should do some thinking of your own.

    You assumed that I was making a comment in that particular vein. You read my comment with pre-formed assumptions, and somehow that's my fault?

  • I corrected myself in a follow up post.
  • http://electronics.killerapp.com/cgi/crunch/pdetai l.asp?ptable=Television_Sets&PID=1001387 I hate it when people get tricky just to get you to come visit their page... hrmph.
  • That's a pretty weak resolution. It's better than a lot of Monitors (and it's a flatscreen) but I'll keep my 21" not-so-flatscreen that looks keen at 1600x1200 - I think every programmer out there will agree that more desktop space = more productivity. And Linux isn't too great with the multiheaded display scene yet.

    It's intended to be a 50" TV Screen, not a PC display. And 1024x768 is a huge improvement for TV resolution. It's amazing how people will look at HDTV or a DVD and rave about how "breathtaking" the image quality is, then sit down and _nag_ about how Quake/Unreal only runs at 1024x768 and why not at 1600x1200 or whatever.

  • Re:1280x1024?? (Score:3)

    by Zeni ( 52928 ) on Monday October 11, 1999 @09:10AM (#1622781)
    Its a 16:9 aspect ratio, so the 'normal' computer
    monitor reses aren't the same as plasma monitors.

    Plama monitors are not meant to be viewed close
    up. Rule of Thumb 1.5 X width of screen is the
    minimum distance one should be from the screen.

    They look like crap when they are resized, or they
    don't fill the entire screen when using NTSC, or
    when connected to a computer.

    Best viewed with a wide-screen Directors cut of
    your favorite movie.
  • >You've got to admit it's getting better...getting better all the time.

    If I recall Sgt pepper correctly, the next (sub)line is: "Can't get any worse".
  • Think about it: 1500x1000 pixels. 25fps. A HD board might cost a few $hundred and a HD cam costs $75,000 but that's real geekware.

Slashdot Top Deals

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (10) Sorry, but that's too useful.

Close