LATEST ADDITIONS

Per screen inch, this is the most expensive TV we've reviewed in years. The early 50-inch plasmas were certainly more expensive (and obviously smaller), but, in the era of higher yields and vicious competition, it's rare to see any company come out with a model that unabashedly eschews the price wars. An obvious comparison would be one of a Ferrari, and Sharp would indeed love that comparison. For the extra money, does this 57-inch offer greater performance compared with the Camrys of the LCD world? The better question would be, does it offer enough better performance to justify its substantial premium?

Two years ago you would have paid over $10,000 for a large, widescreen flat panel LCD display. And "large" might well have meant 32" diagonal. The picture would have been bright and crisp, but a pale reflection of the overall image quality available from still-plentiful CRT direct view sets. Its resolution would have been 1280x720, tops, or one of those bizarre resolutions like 1365x768 that are still featured in many flat panels.

When it comes to hard news about consumer electronics, I get it pretty much the same way you do. I read it on the internet. Sure, I could take time out of my day to call a certain Korean hardware manufacturer and ask them if the on-again-off-again combo HD drive is on again or off again, but it would be so much easier just to read someone else's report on the internet which, depending on which temporal continuum you're surfing could be accurate or fallacious or, if you're hanging out with Tim Rice decked out as a transvestite, both.