Print this article | E-mail this article | Comment on this article

103-inch Plasma TV to Cost $70,000

By Nate Mook, BetaNews

July 19, 2006, 3:55 PM

Panasonic's massive 103-inch plasma television will arrive in time for the holidays in the United States, but it won't come cheap: the TH-103PZ600U carries a retail price of just under $70,000 USD. With a contrast ratio of 4000:1, the display area measures 50.2 inches high and 89.3 inches wide.

The plasma features full high-definition 1080p resolution, and will be available from select high-end retailers starting in December. Professional installation will be required due to the TV's weight and size. "Panasonic's 103-inch display represents the pinnacle of our achievement to date and truly redefines the level of ultimate home entertainment available for the most demanding video connoisseur," remarked Andrew Nelkin, Panasonic's Display Group Vice President.

Add a Comment (30 Comments)

BetaNews reserves the right to remove any comment at any time for any reason. Please keep your responses appropriate and on topic. Foul language and personal attacks will not be tolerated.

By naman91

posted Jul 23, 2006 - 9:52 AM

Yeah well, which a** would buy that when u can buy a projector for 1/70th of that price and a projector can project bigger pictures and takes less space.

Score: 0

By Intrusive_Rogue

edited Jul 20, 2006 - 10:48 AM

I have a 103" Plasma TV in my Right hand and a Ferrari Testerosa in my Left hand (yes they sell for under 70K now.) I get to choose only one of them.

What was in my Right hand again?

(Insert obligatory masturbation joke below.)

The only people buying this TV are NBA players. ;)

Score: 0

By alphatrigon

posted Jul 20, 2006 - 4:46 PM

I think there would be more people buying than the avg person thinks. I'd say the athletes,lawyers...club onwers. Those shiny types with the bling that women love. I don't have bling...women hate me hehe

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 21, 2006 - 9:09 AM

I don't have bling...women hate me

I'm sure it's just because of the lack of bling, right? *evil grin*

Score: 0

By Neoprimal

posted Jul 20, 2006 - 4:23 AM

Well if you can go out and buy a $120,000 car or 5 then this TV is just for you.

Score: 0

By FubarJeb

posted Jul 20, 2006 - 3:20 AM

Let me just take a second mortage on my house and will have it in no time.

Score: 0

By myk04l

posted Jul 20, 2006 - 2:50 AM

holy mother f*#&@r

Score: 0

By GS5

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 10:39 PM

Damn, and I just got the 100-inch model last week.

Score: 0

By ingu14

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 9:50 PM

way too big.

Score: 0

By apexracer

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 10:56 PM

sorry - not in my vocabulary ;-)

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 9:11 PM

What res? Hopefully significantly better than just 1080i... :/

Score: 0

By wincement

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 11:59 PM

The plasma features full high-definition 1080p resolution

Actually reading the article helps sometimes...

Score: 0

By Tenoq

posted Jul 20, 2006 - 11:24 PM

'Twas what I meant - slip of the finger. :P So only supports 1080p? That's a bit of a let-down.

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jul 21, 2006 - 3:40 PM

1920x1080 too low for ya? Might I suggest this close to monitor DPI Quad-HD TV?

Sit 10 feet away and it'll look damn near perfect...assuming you can get TV or videos at that resolution.

Score: 0

By PC Rat

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 8:04 PM

...

At that price, I'll take a half dozen !

...

The Computer Rodent

...

Score: 0

By dkairo

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 7:34 PM

I would rather spend money on a high end projector and a screen.

Do you know how far you need to sit away from the 103" screen to get the best viewing area!

Score: 0

By DotNet_Coder

posted Jul 21, 2006 - 11:31 AM

LOL, if you can afford a 103" screen, then you can afford the space to be able to sit back far enough ;-)

Score: 0

By Kramy

posted Jul 21, 2006 - 3:38 PM

You'd have to sit 20-30 feet back!...that's one crazily huge room.

Score: 0

By PC_Tool

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 4:55 PM

Yeah, but how can I get one for *free*?

Score: 0

By Grazer

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 4:59 PM

I was thinking the same thing.

Score: 0

By the artist

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 4:50 PM

to make it short, this is sh*t.

Score: 0

By bourgeoisdude

edited Jul 19, 2006 - 4:37 PM

"Let's see...honey, you want to buy that Lincoln Navigater or that Panasonic TV?"

Sorry...even extreme cutting-edge millionares wouldn't (or perhaps SHOULDN'T) have any desire to spend that much money on the latest thing. This is from Panasonic, too--unpleasent surprise. I guess Panasonic may be moving towards Sony's way of business...

Score: 0

By Das mod

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 5:33 PM

"Ok kids, i just spent all your college fund on this new TV,....
but guess what ?? now you will have a great tv to watch during all those years you wont be attending college"

Score: 0

By ConceptJunkie

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 5:38 PM

Hooray! Now we don't have to go to college work hard and get a good job so we can afford a great TV.

We love you Mom and Dad! Where's the remote?

Score: 0

By Banquo

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 4:26 PM

Yeah, I want to pay $70,000 for a TV that uses technology prone to burn in and very short life. Why not just a high definition projector and point it at your wall if you have to have a giant screen? I wouldn't even want a screen that big, how far back would you have to sit to be comfortable viewing it? My living room isn't that large I'm afraid.

Score: 0

By Xypheri

posted Jul 20, 2006 - 2:16 PM

Well, my guess is that the person who buys a $70,000 dollar TV probably has a dedicated theater room, and another $100,000 invested into said theater room.

Still, there are some pretty good projectors at a fraction of the cost that are 70% as good.

Score: 0

By ladylust

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 4:22 PM

Hmmm.. if you afford $70,000 for 1 TV.. why not just buy five 60 inch TV's at about $3,000 each and just link them together on a wall.

Score: 0

By spongy-poo

posted Jul 20, 2006 - 12:29 AM

Probably look better if you bought six.

Score: 0

By vinchinzu

posted Jul 19, 2006 - 9:12 PM

That's a very good observation.

Score: 0

By Xetius

edited Jul 21, 2006 - 2:52 PM

$70,000 today, $10,000 in 6 months, $5,000 in a year. If you have to chose between this TV and something else then chose the something else... some people dont have to make the choice. Unfortunately i'm not one of them.

Score: 0

Nov 21 - 6:51 PM ET Coalition urges better laws for e-mail and cell phone privacy

Nov 21 - 6:42 PM ET How is Internet advertising faring in this bad economy?

Nov 21 - 6:15 PM ET From out of the Amazon Cloud, an AWS winner emerges

Nov 21 - 5:20 PM ET Mufin music finder enters public beta, adds widgets

Nov 21 - 5:01 PM ET Google launches its SearchWiki semantics plug-in

Nov 21 - 4:57 PM ET Asus previews a slimmer, less costly Eee PC

Nov 21 - 4:32 PM ET New Adobe Media Player ushers in AIR 1.5

Nov 21 - 2:11 PM ET AT&T to add Pantech's low-cost C630 phone to 3G lineup

Nov 21 - 1:11 PM ET iPhone gets firmware 2.2 update

Nov 21 - 11:51 AM ET The Dell surprise: Higher earnings on lower revenue