TVs keep on getting thinner
So you think this is thin? Samsung's new panel is an astonishing 20% thinner than this Sony panel.

Samsung announces the 7.9mm TV

Alex Kidman21 October 2008, 9:13 AM

Time to throw away that existing LCD or Plasma --- it's a chunky beast. Or at least, that seems to be Samsung, Sony and Philips are thinking.


Like any tech geeks, we can appreciate the trend towards miniaturisation in technology -- when it's applied sensibly. In TV terms over the past ten years, this has evolved as a push towards thinner and thinner TVs, and Samsung has claimed the lead in this particular race, showing off a 40" LCD TV  that comes in at an astonishing 7.9mm thick, according to this PC Advisor report. The race is particularly tight, with Philips already having demonstrated an 8mm thick panel earlier in the year. Then again, there's the chance we might see the Samsung panel in Australia at some point, while Philips has recently announced it's exiting the local TV market.

At the same time, Samsung also showed off another prototype screen. This one's 52 inches, and comes in at a relatively chubby 9.9mm, which makes it identical to Sony's ZX1 display, which was recently on display in Sydney. Unlike Sony's product, however, both of the Samsung screens are prototypes only; the ZX1 is a production model that Japanese consumers will be able to sink their teeth into in just a couple of weeks time. At 9.9mm thick, it's not even that beefy a sandwich, either.

With the average TV punter still firmly of the opinion that the innards of an LCD or Plasma TV may as well be powered by ground up particles of pixie dust, it's worth noting that all of these screens "cheat" in one significant technology fashion, by offsetting some of the internal functions (most notably the digital tuner) to a breakout box. Which is what flat panel TV manufacturers were doing just a couple of years ago before they integrated digital tuners. So while it's super-thin to hang on a wall or have on a stand, you're still going to need somewhere solid to run the cables to, which we feel somewhat defeats the purpose.

The race to a paper-thin TV does beg one simple question as well. While we've got nothing but plaudits for the technological wizardry that keeps on making panels thinner and thinner, we've got to ask -- who spends all day looking at the side of their TV, rather than the front?


Post your comment



Comments

RSS feed Email alert

techdribble (User):

Given some of the stuff on TV these days the side of the TV may well be more interesting.

21 October 2008, 12:20 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Hemma (User):

That's why i won't be getting one. Why buy a TV when all you get to see are douches like Bert Newton and Rove?

21 October 2008, 1:16 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Sad but true. And then there's the HD TV issue where networks are not giving enough bitrate to HD so it comes out all JPEGgy, so even if you did want to watch CSI:NY:HD, it's not worth using an HD TV anyway.

21 October 2008, 2:00 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Enforcer. (New user):

Whoa. Very nice. Would fit nicely on my stand above my computer screen ;)

21 October 2008, 1:10 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

plutonium210 (Advanced member):

"Samsung announces the 7.9mm TV" - APC

Thanks Apple MacBook Air ! Look what you've started :)

21 October 2008, 1:32 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

I'd like to point out 2 flaws with this mine's thinner than yours contest:

1) Thinner displays at greater sizes is much, much more likely to see your costly investment snap when moving it to a new cabinet, etc.

2) Paintings and photos hanging on walls tend to be around the 1 to 2cm thick range. Why is it important to have a TV any thinner?
80-90% of these things wind up sitting on a TV stand or entertainment unit that's a good 40cm deep anyway. And wall mounted ones could be 3 or 4 cms thick and still not look out of place.

Edit: I'm not knocking the idea or the companies... I think it's really cool they got a TV that size down to that thin. But sometimes the practicality seems to be forgotten in the contest.

21 October 2008, 2:03 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

JGrant (User):

I'd rather a chunky beast CR-TIZZLE than the visual vomit you see on most sub $2000 LCD-TVs :D

21 October 2008, 3:43 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Nathan_Never (New user):

The only good reason I see about this race to the thinnest TV is to make "standard" 5-8cm thick LCD-Plasma TV cheaper for the consumer. As new thin models come out in the market the previous models will look chubby and price will go down.

Beside that I don't see what is the difference between having 8mm TV or 8cm TV on my television stand. While the difference was noticeable between old 60cm or more tick old TV and the actual 8cm TV now it has lost importance and relevance.

21 October 2008, 4:48 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Tin (Senior Forumologist):

Good point about price drops ;-)

21 October 2008, 5:06 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

Dan Warne (Administrator):

We're all gonna end up living in shoeboxes like in Japan with population growth how it is... I say the smaller the TV, the bigger area for a big reeeeelaxing sofa :-)

21 October 2008, 7:46 PM (1 year ago)report abuse Send to a friend reply

anonymous user Anonymous user


Tags