1. TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users. Ask a question and give support. Join the community here.
    TechSpot is dedicated to computer enthusiasts and power users.
    Ask a question and give support.
    Join the community here, it only takes a minute.
    Dismiss Notice

C Seed's 262-inch 4K display will complete your home theater

By Cal Jeffrey ยท 18 replies
Jun 21, 2017
Post New Reply
  1. C Seed, an Austrian television manufacturer that specializes in extra large LED TVs just unveiled its latest 4K display. The C Seed 262 sets a world record for home televisions with its 262-inch screen. Yes, that is almost 22 feet diagonal.

    The TV is over 8 feet tall and just under 22 feet wide. It delivers a UHD picture with a brightness of 800 nits, so even in brightly lit rooms, the picture should look great. Of course, turning up the brightness on over 7 million pixels is going to consume some energy. The display runs at an average of 2.85 kilowatts with a maximum consumption of 11.4 kW.

    "Enjoy a viewing experience that up to now was simply unavailable outside a private movie theatre in a remote corner of your mansion."

    It has a built-in 4K media server and supports 7.1 and 9.1 surround sound powered by 10 speakers. The self-contained theater system is only missing the fold-in seats and sticky floor.

    When the TV is not in use it has a motorized fabric curtain that covers the screen. Not only does the cover protect the screen, it disguises it as a gigantic wall hanging.

    Aside from the obvious power requirements, the sheer size of the display must be considered when finding the proper place to install it. Unless you have some heavy equipment, you will probably want to spring for the $38,500 installation fee. You also might need an inspector to be sure you have a wall that can support the television’s 1,763-pound weight.

    A motorized fabric cover hides the screen when not in use.

    Once you have hurdled those obstacles, the only thing left to do is take out a second mortgage. The C Seed 262 will only cost you $539,000. Naturally, this display would only fit in the most lavishly designed home, so the half million dollar price tag should be no problem. Pre-order yours today so you can have one when they start shipping later this summer.

    Permalink to story.

  2. That Other Guy

    That Other Guy TS Enthusiast Posts: 47   +25

    Need one for every room... and a good finance plan.
    Cal Jeffrey likes this.
  3. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,892   +2,219

    4:3 aspect ratio? 22' by 8' =/= 4:3, it's 11:4
    Cal Jeffrey likes this.
  4. Cal Jeffrey

    Cal Jeffrey TS Evangelist Topic Starter Posts: 1,770   +428

    Thank you. Fixed. Don't know where my head was. Well actually, it was my wife barking at me to get the f- out off the computer so we could run errands before it gets to be 110 degrees (aka rushed the final edit). lol
    Reehahs, Steve and yRaz like this.
  5. HamRadioGuy

    HamRadioGuy TS Rookie Posts: 19

    That's not right either.
    If both were true, the height would be zero.
  6. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,892   +2,219

    if 22:8 doesn't equal 11:4 then would you mind correcting me?
    Reehahs likes this.
  7. HamRadioGuy

    HamRadioGuy TS Rookie Posts: 19

    If the 8-foot height were accurate, given the anamorphic format of 2.39:1, the width would be 19.12-feet and the diagonal (hypotenuse) would be 20.73-feet (which would make it "almost 21 feet", not "almost 22 feet"). Doesn't seem like any of the facts are very accurate, but I'm not buying one either. Is was just an interesting read until the errors...
  8. HamRadioGuy

    HamRadioGuy TS Rookie Posts: 19

    The author stated that the width AND the diagonal were both almost 22 feet. Using Pythagorean's theorem (A-squared + B-squared = C-squared, where C = the hypotenuse) you would get zero for the height (A-squared + 22-squared = 22-squared; "A" computes to zero).
    Reehahs likes this.
  9. HamRadioGuy

    HamRadioGuy TS Rookie Posts: 19

    Sorry, your math is correct, but the numbers you are using are wrong. If the TV is 262 inches (21.83 feet), that usually refers to the diagonal size of the TV (not the width). If the diagonal length is 21.83, then the "22" in your "22:8" ratio would be incorrect as the ratio usually refers to width:height. Sorry I wasn't clear...
  10. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,547   +1,537

    If the Diagonal is 262 inches.... and the height is over 8 feet (let's make it 100 inches, as that makes for easy math), then the width must be (262*262) - (100*100)... which is 242.165 (rounding) inches... which in feet would be 20.18 (rounded).

    This doesn't count for the bezel, however.... the diagonal is usually used for viewing screen.... but width and height generally do not...

    As this ratio is something like 20.18:8.3, my guess that if you remove bezels, the ratio would actually be 21:9.... which actually IS a fairly popular screen ratio nowadays....

    Without knowing the exact size of the bezels, we can't do the exact math (and remember, the diagonal we used should actually be slightly larger to calculate the other sides as it didn't include bezels either)... but I highly doubt something this large - and EXPENSIVE - wouldn't use a standard ratio....
  11. VitalyT

    VitalyT Russ-Puss Posts: 4,478   +3,037

  12. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,547   +1,537

    OK.... just went to the website itself....


    Resolution: 4096 x 1716 pixels

    That's actually a ratio of approximately 2.387:1...... 2.3333:1 would be 21:9....interesting.... I wonder if anyone knows why they've chosen such an unusual viewing ratio?
  13. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,547   +1,537

    But it wouldn't be 262 inches, would it!

    However, for about $30,000, you could buy a Sony 4k projector that can give you a higher resolution 300 inch screen....

    I suspect there are many other projectors available, but I think you get the picture :)
    Evernessince and VitalyT like this.
  14. yRaz

    yRaz Nigerian Prince Posts: 2,892   +2,219

    Its fine, I was being lazy. I thought since people say 16:9, 11:4 would be fine. Either way it wasn't 4:3.
  15. Igrecman

    Igrecman TS Maniac Posts: 278   +165

    That's a good ratio for lots of movies. Not for TV obviously, but perhaps one day 16:9 could be replaced by a ratio as wide as this.
    Raoul Duke likes this.
  16. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,547   +1,537

    It might be... but it's not really a standard.... Is anything actually broadcast or released in that resolution?
  17. erickmendes

    erickmendes TS Evangelist Posts: 572   +247

    Still anone arguing about a HALF MILLION f*cking tv?
    The aspect ratio and hipotenuse seems more interesting than a price tag that would solve all my financial problems...
  18. Squid Surprise

    Squid Surprise TS Evangelist Posts: 2,547   +1,537

    Well, this product is clearly only for the top .001% of the economic population.... not exactly something that posters on this thread would be a part of... but for that amount of money, I'd be expecting more :)
    erickmendes likes this.
  19. captaincranky

    captaincranky TechSpot Addict Posts: 14,972   +4,009

    "21:9" is already rounded off for the mathematically challenged. "CinemaScope's" ratio, (and other anamorphic formats), is 2.35 to 1.00. You know, somehow a "9" has to be tacked on the end of any modern screen aspect ratio, so the masses can continue to pretend to understand what the TV & Movie industries are talking about

    That said, 2.387 to 1.00 begins to make a whole lot more sense, giving a bit of leeway at the outer edges of the screen for any possible mastering error.

Add your comment to this article

You need to be a member to leave a comment. Join thousands of tech enthusiasts and participate.
TechSpot Account You may also...