Yesterday in Tokyo, Sharp introduced a remarkable 52-inch LCD-TV prototype that is only 29mm thick. That’s scarcely more than an inch, and only slightly more than a third the thickness of current sets. The set weighs 25kg, compared with 30.5kg for conventional 52-inch LCD-TVS, and has a contrast ratio of 100,000:1, said Sharp director Takuji Okawara, compared with 2000:1 for the native contrast of Sharp’s sets today. Sharp also said the new set would consume only half the power of current sets. Now that is impressive.

Ken Werner
Senior Analyst and Editor

Sharp expects to develop the set for volume production in early 2010, and build it on Sharp’s Gen 10 production line, which will begin operation at about that time.

Sharp said the introduction was intended to pre-empt any inroads from AMOLED-TVs, but that concern seems premature. Although Toshiba and Sony will be introducing relatively small-screen AMOLED sets late this year - at very high prices - significant issues with materials and manufacturing processes must be resolved before TVs using this impressive technology can be manufactured at high volume with good manufacturing yield and competitive costs. Still, three of AMOLED’s claims to fame are a thin package, high contrast, and reduced power consumption, and Sharp is addressing all three of them with its new prototype.

Sharp President Mikio Katayama said the enhanced performance of the new set results from a combination of improvements in materials, color filters and backlights. These improvements will be introduced individually in upcoming Sharp products. Estimated pricing for the new set was not given.

Large-screen LCD-TVs have demonstrated significant gains in visual performance over the last few years, and continue to do so, but the overall mechanical package has not changed dramatically. Sharp’s creation of a lighter and much thinner package, without compromising performance, will add excitement to the category and create an important product differentiator for Sharp. Of course Samsung, LG, Sony and other competitors still have 2½ years to do the same thing. They’re not likely to be doing it on a Gen 10 line, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

Reply to the author