Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

61-inch Wide Plasma Monitor 238 writes "NEC Plasma Display Corporation today announced the launch of two 61-inch wide plasma monitors from the PlasmaSync(TM)61XM2+series (a grey bezel model, and a silver bezel model) that are equipped with "Enhanced Split Screen" ability - a high quality, high performance Double Picture function. Sales will commence on February 1st, 2004 to meet various uses mainly in multimedia presentation and public display applications with different release dates for each region. NEC Plasma Display Corporation is targeting 25% of the world commercial market share with its 11 model line up. See the source with picture or Read the Main Specifications." The 1365x768 resolution definitely means this is more TV than Monitor, but who wouldn't want it in their office?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

61-inch Wide Plasma Monitor

Comments Filter:
  • Aw, MAN! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:49AM (#7961922)
    And I just bought a new 57-inch plasma monitor!
    • Re:Aw, MAN! (Score:5, Informative)

      by Walterk ( 124748 ) <dublet@ac[ ]rg ['m.o' in gap]> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @10:17AM (#7962104) Homepage Journal
      Actually, Samsung [] have released a 63" Plasma TV [] a while ago. Their frontpage displays their 80" Plasma TV [] with a resolution of 1920x1080. Yes. Eight Zero Inches.
      • Re:Aw, MAN! (Score:2, Informative)

        80" Plasma TV with a resolution of 1920x1080

        That's what, 25dpi? each pixel is 1mm x 1mm large? that must look pretty from up close...

        • Except that you'll soon develop RSI in your neck from having to look from side to side if you are that close to it. ;)
          • Except that you'll soon develop RSI in your neck from having to look from side to side if you are that close to it. ;)

            Well, since your peripheral vision FOV is about 180degs, if the perspective correction is done right you only need to roll your eyeballs. ;)

        • Re:Aw, MAN! (Score:3, Informative)

          by Walterk ( 124748 )
          The specs say 0.891x0.994mm.

          Have you ever walked up to a movie theatre projection screen? The image quality really sucks. Sometimes it isn't the DPI that maters, but the size. Who cares if it's big pixels if you can sit away a few meters (better for your eyes anyway) and have a TV that's friggin' bigger than you are!
          • I don't think it used to be as much of a problem before everything went digital. Before, there weren't pixels, since it was analog. It might get blurrier the closer you were looking at the screen, but *not* pixellated.

            As a child, I used to watch movies from the front 3 rows all the time. Nowadays, I just can't do it, and it's not just because my eyes have changed over time. Movies look funny up close.
          • So it's a good TV and a lousy monitor. Weren't we talking about monitors?
        • Re:Aw, MAN! (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Eon78 ( 19599 )
          So don't look at it from that close :)

          We have some ship simulators. The largest has 360 deg. view generated by 10 pc's. Output resolution is 1280x1024 (per pc) which gets downscaled to something around 1024x768 by our Barco SIM6 projectors. That doesn't seem much but the image is more than 4.5m high, and you get to look at it from, say 5 to 6 metres away. Then it's still an impressive picture to look at :)
        • DLP....check it does look pretty up close. I work in the lab :)
      • Re:Aw, MAN! (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DJStealth ( 103231 )
        If my 20" LCD monitor can do 1600x1200 why is it that a 61" can't do 4 times the resolution?
        • Re:Aw, MAN! (Score:4, Interesting)

          by iainl ( 136759 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @11:26AM (#7962615)
          "If my 20" LCD monitor can do 1600x1200 why is it that a 61" can't do 4 times the resolution?"

          Because the difficulty with building a monitor, and number of duff ones they have to bin due to too many dead subpixels, goes up with the number of pixels rather than the size of the screen per se.

          1600x1200x4x4 (assuming you want 3 times res in each direction, to give the same dpi as you're used to) is over 92 million subpixels. So you need an error rate of around 10^-9 just to get a fully working screen. 1600x1200 monitors are scarily expensive as it is; ones with 16 times as many would just be obscene.
        • The more pixles you want to pack onto something, at any size, the harder it is. Plus it's not like most people care so it's a waste of money.

          Like you can beat your 20" LCD easily. Viewsonic makes a 22" LCD that does 3840x2400. That's 2x max HDTV in each direction. So it's only 2 inches bigger than yours yet has over double the resolution.

          So what gives? why doesn't you're have a similar resolution? Well because it's expensive as hell, that's why. That's like a $4000 monitor. Plus I'm betting you don't real
  • by KillerHamster ( 645942 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:51AM (#7961929) Homepage
    can you play Duck Hunt on it?
    • Imagine how big you could make a Minesweeper board on this baby!
  • by badfrog ( 45310 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:53AM (#7961937)
    Looks like if you have to ask, you can't afford it.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:53AM (#7961942)
    ... but everytime I mention it to my gf, she keeps telling me that "size isn't important", it's what you _do_ with what you got. She encouraged me to simply do more with what I have. Sigh.
  • by bc90021 ( 43730 ) * <bc90021&bc90021,net> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:55AM (#7961956) Homepage
    ...and what was featured in "Back to the Future" (II, I think)...

    What I want is a big screen monitor covering the wall that can be divided up into quadrants and can be used to watch multiple channels all at once, with a few quadrants for terminals and some Gnome programs! This brings us one step closer... ;)
    • [cartman]Shweeeet....[/cartman] Watching Monster Garage, while playing RTCW, playing with your favorite kernel, and while playing GT2 would be cool, but distracting, don't you think.
    • Paperless Office (Score:2, Insightful)

      by sbowles ( 602816 )
      I've always thought that the "Paperless Office" would never be a reality until I could get a monitor that was the size of a desk.

      This way I could have files spread all over it, each with a font size that didn't hurt my eyes.

      • I see more in high res LCD/OLED screens (for the real work), coupled with (very) high resolution e-ink 2x A4 sized books. You could just "Print" to the e-ink book and use that for documentation.

        Later on, these e-ink books could be upgraded to color and touch screens to make annotations. The other screens could also use touch screens and - indeed - become part of the desk.

        The books would obviously be portable and use wireless technology. With even small bateries these monitors could last really long.

    • With the resolution this panel has, your "quadrants" wouldn't have much more resolution than VGA Mode 13h ;-)
  • Nitpick (Score:4, Informative)

    by Mostly a lurker ( 634878 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:56AM (#7961964)
    ... 61-inch wide ...

    Actually 61" diagonal. Nice anyway. This would be great for presentations: beats a projector hands down.

    • hmm i think they were aiming for 61" wide(screen) plasma TV but screqed it up....

    • I wouldn't beat the projector's protability (although that also depends on the model)...
    • not really just a nitpick... a really serious difference.
      If it were 61" wide, assuming it's a 16:9 ratio (no, I didn't RTFA... this is Slashdot!), it would be 34.3125" high. Pythagoras tells us:

      61^2 + 34.3125^2 = X^2

      3721 + 1177.34765625 = X^2
      4898.34765625 = X^2

      that this would make it a 69.98819654948968" diagonal screen...

      Now THAT's a Nitpick!

  • by apoch2001 ( 701484 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:57AM (#7961970)
    A 61" screen is larger than my living room given that home builders think someone can actually survive in a 400sqft hole called 'upscale living condominiums'. Perhaps I can put it on the balcony and use it as a beacon
  • by rigolo ( 416338 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @09:58AM (#7961974)
    You hear all this buzz about HDTV screens, being Plasma or LCD etc etc. But when you look at the specifications they are never True 1080P ready. I want a widescreen display that can do 1920x1080 at 30". The closet thing is the samsung 240T (24" 1920x1200) but it is already a few years old. All the screens that came after always had a lower resolution. When you check the LCD screen manufacturers you will also not find screens that size, so .. where are they?
  • Evil Plot (Score:2, Funny)

    by mphase ( 644838 )
    I've noticed an evil plot involving Plasma and LCD tv's. Architects are purposely designing living rooms where it is impossible to place an old style back projection big screen tv.
  • Although it's nice, guess it will be roughly 3-5 years before the price comes down to a level where the common public can afford. Most of us don't have that deep pockets....... :(

    Hey Santa...I know it's a bit early...but I don't mind one of these babies for coming Xmas :P

    • With the life expectancy of the current plasma screen technology, I'm sure that you'll be able to buy one of the screens manufactured today for a little bit of nothing in 3-5 years. Of course it'll be dead by then, but hey you'll have a great 61" diagonal paperweight.
  • DLP is better... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dane23 ( 135106 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @10:01AM (#7961998) Homepage
    I don't know why everyone has a hardon for plasma. Sure it's thin but it suffers from burn in and it runs fairly hot and the colors fade after a few years. DLP doesn't suffer from burn in at all, so you can play all the computer/pc games on it you want without fear of ruining your multi thousand dollar investment. Plus when the DLP light board goes out in 3-4 years just buy a new one for a few hundred and drop it in.
  • Projector (Score:4, Interesting)

    by donnyspi ( 701349 ) <junk5.donnyspi@com> on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @10:02AM (#7962003) Homepage
    It seems to me that at this size of over 5 feet, maybe a nice projector [] would be better.
  • how many... (Score:3, Funny)

    by VEGx ( 576738 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @10:02AM (#7962006)
    how many pr0n sites could you have open then at the same time? [inches? what's that? translate it to something I understand]
    • Errr, it's enough to display about .000004% of a Library of Congress?

      (Based on a LOC of 105,000,000 MiB (number pulled from here [], MiB for my convenience), and a resolution of 1365x768 at 32 bits. Of course, any 1365x768 display is enough to display .000004% of an LOC.)
    • translate it to something I understand

      It's about .4 Volkswagen Beetles, diagonally.

  • Specifications (Score:5, Interesting)

    by earplug ( 465622 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @10:03AM (#7962007)
    >> Current Rating A:6.7A(Max) G:8.0A(Max)

    Am I reading this correctly? 6.7-8.0 amps? To protect the investment, is it possible to get a surge protector that can handle that kind of current for a decent price?

    Furthermore, don't many houses run on 15-20 amp circuits? That just seems like a lot of power!

    >> Speakers 9W+9W (6)

    Where does the surround sound hook up at? Does it typically connect to the TV, or is it supposed to connect upstream somewhere like at the DSS dish, or DVD player?
    • You are reading this correctly, plasmas use a silly amount of power. I you put you hand up to one, you can feel the heat radiating off it. I am concerned about the wiring in my old house running a plasma, and therefore will probably get an LCD.
    • Yes, houses run on 15 amp circuits. But, remember thats per breaker. It also might even scale the voltage down before using it or something and thus draw a lot of current, but at a lower voltage.

      A more usefull number would have been the power comsumption.

      8A at 120V is 960 Watts.

      If you are running this tv with an entertainment system, you dont have a lot of room for other stuff, but you do have some. (electrically:))
  • by edwardd ( 127355 )
    So why does this come out AFTER christmas??
  • Yes! (Score:2, Funny)

    by b0r0din ( 304712 )
    I'll finally have a large enough screen TV to make my evil supervillain's lair with my computer console that has way too many buttons.
  • Huh? (Score:2, Interesting)

    with different release dates for each region

    Why do companies insist on doing that? Surly they'd make more money with a single release date? Would make advertising a lot simpler.
    • Re:Huh? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by bn557 ( 183935 )
      well, this way they don't have to commit to a huge production of the product before they're assured that:

      A. the product is actually going to sell
      B. the product isn't going to require a major recall.

      if they produced 10,000 of these, distributed them to 39 countries, then found out that they have to recall them, replace them all, and have a PR nightmare, they're easily going to be out whatever extra they made from the mass distribution.
  • ...for the bridge of my starship. Now all I need is the split keyboard for the arms of my chair, and I'm good to go.
  • by mwood ( 25379 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @10:20AM (#7962127)
    *yawn* I can wait. If I'm gonna have a monitor five feet wide, wake me when they get the resolution up to about 10240x7680. 100x as much detail is worth some serious money to me; bigger pixels are not.

    What would I do with all that real estate? How about a couple dozen windows, none overlapping, each more detailed than what I have now? (Then I need to figure out how to touch-type with VR gloves....) There's a lot of low-level event detectors in the human visual pathway that are being wasted by our tendency to view computing processes through the tiny peepholes we call displays.

    (Think about the mural display rooms in the opening chapter of Hogan's _The Genesis Machine_, or the Prime Radiant in Asimov's _Second Foundation_. Now, those are some *real* display hardware!)
  • by ennerseed ( 463366 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @10:21AM (#7962132) Homepage
    Really at this point anything under 1080p is kinda half*ssed for a high resolution TV. -I would guess this mind frame would follow in the newest, fastest, best /. crowd- And yes, something that big with that low of resolution, would have pixels too largs to look at 24" from you face. It would look like those 17" lcd monitors that Dell ships out at 640 x 480... how many time have you gone to help a friend out on their computer and have to talk them into bumping up their resolution.... god why!

    • It would look like those 17" lcd monitors that Dell ships out at 640 x 480... how many time have you gone to help a friend out on their computer and have to talk them into bumping up their resolution Way too many times!

      On a similar note, is it just me, or have others noticed a nasty jitter in HDTV fast moving images? I used to think it was something unique to plasma/LCD monitors, but then I noticed it on a Pioneer Elite rear projection set. The thing about the big screens is that the effect becomes even mo

      • I was watching a DirectTV HD feed in a store, and noticed compression artifacts from fast-action scenes or quick scene changes. It looked beautiful as long as there wasn't too much movement, otherwise it got all blocky.
  • At eight amps, that should keep any room warm.
  • The DoubleSight Dual 15" LCD Display [] from Thinkgeek. [] How about a good old fashioned side-by-side dual LCD mounting arm? []
  • Me. I'd be happy if I could have a dual head 18-19" display... Right now I"m working with a slightly fuzzy 17" that's begging to have a soda poored, *ummm* I mean, accidentally spilled into it.

  • ...and maybe I have just not see the good ones yet, but none of the ones that I have seen are as good as a good CRT direct view. And I can't stand dead pixels, even one will drive me crazy. For the money, you can get soo much more, *if* you have the space.
  • No way (Score:2, Funny)

    by Orion442 ( 739483 )
    No thanks, I spend way too much on paper towels as it is.
  • 61 inches? (Score:3, Funny)

    by YeOldeGnurd ( 14524 ) on Tuesday January 13, 2004 @11:27AM (#7962638) Homepage Journal
    Lucky Bastards!

    I have an understanding of plasma dispays. And soon I will have understanding of videocassette recorders and car telephones. And when I have understanding of them, I shall have understanding of computers. And when I have understanding of computers, I shall be the Supreme Being! God isn't interested in technology. He knows nothing of the potential of the microchip or the silicon revolution. Look how he spends his time: forty-three species of parrots! Nipples for men!

  • I wouldn't. Given that a reasonable sized office is maybe 6 metres across, at 61 inches and about 1300 by 768 this would be pixel-o-rama. I'll wait for the 4000x6000 version :-)
  • Primarily because they suffer from burn-in. How would you like a permanent "Start" button in the lower left or a permanent menu bar from your mac?

    On another subject, it's interesting, but the Sony XBR-950 series of Plasma monitors run Linux in their media box (which is a video switch + runs media from a memory stick).

    And no, I would not like a beowulf cluster of these, thank you very much.
  • You have an office?!!?!! I am *so* offended!

    Realistically, can you think of anything else that could be so little used by normal people but be a big status symbol for the CxO set? I think that this will be a big seller to the 7-figure high-tech exec crowd. It's pretty clear that NEC has a winner on its hands here (BTW, do I get extra karma for using it's and its right?).

  • Plasma is good if you need to hang it on a wall, but others are catching up. InFocus was showing a 61" DLP rear-projection set that is thin enough to hang on a wall at CES, for example.
  • So little space!

  • I heard somebody say that some large plasma monitors cannot be used for TV since you would notice a flicker from changing images. Is there any truth to this?

To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire