Samsung Unveils 82 Inch LCD

karvind writes "Physorg is reporting that Samsung Electronics has developed the world's largest liquid crystal display panel. This 82-inch TFT-LCD is 17 inches larger than LCD flat panel previously developed by Sharp. This development challenges plasma display panels in this market area. This full HD image quality (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) TFT-LCD panel was developed at the company's new production complex in Tangjeong, Korea. The soon-to-be operational 7th-generation production facility uses glass substrates that measure 1.87m x 2.20m."

Comments

82 inches of slashdot?

[bryan986]

Now I get to watch my favorite sites get slashdotted in style!

size/resolution

[Boeboe]

1,920 x 1,080 pixels. It could be me, but it does look quite low for a screen that big.

Re:size/resolution

[BigDogCH]

That was once my gripe against big screen TV in general. But combine the higher Res of HDTV, and the fact that you dont sit 12 inches from the screen, and it should be fine.

Actually, I think I would rather have a projector. Mmmmm, Battlefield 1942 on the entire wall of my living room.

Re:size/resolution

[Silwenae]

1920x1080 is the MPEG HDTV standard. The TV does exactly what it should do.

Now granted, if you wanted to use it as a computer monitor, it would be different, but 99% of folks are going to use this as a TV, so that resolution is right on.

Re:size/resolution

[ecotax]

That's HDTV resolution. Making a HDTV screen larger just gives you larger pixels. So it's pretty useless in your living room (unless it's way larger than mine, that is).

Re:size/resolution

[Neuropol]

yes. it does look low. one would think that it would be up the 2000's for vertical and horizontal, or higher. one would also think that with increasing sizes they should be attempting to increase the resolution values at the same time. 1920x1080 is high(er), but, these days size matters so crank up the v/h numbers, too?

in other news, these would be great for home theater applications!

Re:size/resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

Digitial Cinema screens are much much bigger, but they are still at this resolution.

We're not talking about a computer monitor. Just a TV monitor.

Re:size/resolution

[SilentChris]

If you want big, blocky pixels, sure. It'd be better if they went a higher res and line-doubled (tripled?) existing HDTV.

Re:size/resolution

[dfn5]

It could be me, but it does look quite low for a screen that big.

This display is mainly intended for portable MP3 players, so they really didn't need a high resolution.

Re:size/resolution

[eno2001]

99% of folks

Hehehehe... "99%" of the 2% who can afford to plunk down a few thousand dollars for a TV this size. Wake me when I can get an 42" OLED display for $500. That's when I'll move to HD. Doesn't anyone here think it's a little unrealistic to pay over $500 for a TV set? Hello? (Speaking as a non-gadget guy of course. I prefer building my own to buying pre-made crap)

Re:size/resolution

[dirty]

And they look down right awful.

That being said, if someone were to give me one of these LCDs I'd take it in a second. I've seen Samsung's 46" LCD and despite it being "only" 1920x1080 the display was quite beautiful, even when used as a computer monitor.

Re:size/resolution

[EulerX07]

My beef is that since it's the same resolution, you could probably go with a 40-60" one, sit a few feet closer to the tv, and buy yourself a small car with the money you save.

Re:size/resolution

[Pieroxy]

Unless you want to sit 1 meter from your TV, you won't see any pixels. Read again: This is a TV!

Re:size/resolution

[Limecron]

Sure, and it'd only cost 10x more to scale the same HDTV image over more pixels and appear exactly the same at an appropriate viewing distance.

Of course, if you prefer the blurry look to the blocky look when sticking your head up close to the TV, then I'm sure the extra money would be worth it. :)

Re:size/resolution

[uradu]

Your beef?! Do go buy yourself a 40-60" one, along with that small car. This particular model is for those who already have a fleet of small (and large) cars, and need a large central TV to frame with all the other 40-60" ones they already have. IOW, you're NOT the target market for this model, so don't take it personally that it doesn't come bundled with a small car.

Re:size/resolution

[Teddy Beartuzzi]

What? Those idiots screwed up the aspect ratio, that doesn't work out to 4:3!

Re:size/resolution

[jeffgeno]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say your home-built TV will be much crappier than a pre-made Sharp LCD or Pioneer plasma.

Re:size/resolution

[Dirtside]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=luxury

HTH.

Re:size/resolution

[Anonymous Coward]

A quick calculation, assuming a 16x9 aspect ratio, states that there are about 26.8 pixels per inch in either direction. Compare this to 72 dpi on a typical monitor...

Re:size/resolution

[g33ky]

Or maybe Tie-Tac-Toe, such as at the end of Wargames.

Re:size/resolution

[CmdrObvious]

As long as you can find a projector with enough lumens that you can see it in daylight you are set.

~2k lumens is what they say, obivously it depends on what the light in your living room is like...

It is a sweet way to play battlefield. Personally I still like my monitor for websurfing and coding, but the projector is awesome for games.

-- my $0.02

Re:size/resolution

[Jozer99]

From 10' away, that is enough DPI to make it look like a continuous image. It is also just right for HDTV.

Re:size/resolution

[BigDogCH]

Just out of curisity, how many lumens do you think I would need for a fairly dark living room. Lights off, 1 window with shades closed. Some light seaps in through 2 large open doorways though, however nothing direct. Could I go less than 2K lumens?

Re:size/resolution

[boomfart]

easy! I've used an 850 lumen in a lit office and while it was not clear it was fine once the lights were dimmed, I find 1400 nice in a lit room but any projector looks better in a darker room and brighter is always better. I have noticed the brighter ones do a better job of white when the wall is not quite white. The problem for games is the resolution many max out at 800 x 600.

Re:size/resolution

[MegaHyster]

As long as you can find a projector with enough lumens that you can see it in daylight you are set.

What is this "daylight" you speak of?

Re:size/resolution

[YankeeInExile]

Works out to 36.6 pixels/inch

Just that much closer...

[Anonymous Coward]

Just that much closer to "Frank's 2000 inch TV"...great.

rejects

[solarlux]

I wonder how many get tossed to make that one 82-incher....

Re:rejects

[Jagen]

Probably not anymore than when they make an apple 23inch dislay, the number of transistors is the same in both (same res).
In fact given that the size of each transistor is larger in this screen it probably has a lower reject rate than the apple displays.

Re:rejects

[Speare]

I wonder how many get tossed to make that one 82-incher...

Did you really mean to ask how many got "tossed" to make an 82-incher? Oh, wrong interpretation of "tossed." Sorry.

Re:rejects

[DJStealth]

Keep in mind that the resolution is not as high density as a computer monitor's resolution, so the probability of bad pixels is not as high.

Re:rejects

[Vihai]

Probably it's the opposite; when the surface gets bigger, the probability of finding impurites (and thus bad pixels) gets higher.

Re:rejects

[fallendragon]

I'm not sure that makes sense. If it was that easy then surely they'd have made an 82" display a lot sooner and the bigger displays would be cheaper to produce. Or if not cheaper at least a similar cost since you'd have more material but less rejects and that would balance the cost. There must be more to it than that.
Of course market forces in TVs means a bigger set => we can charge more for it, even if it costs the same or even less to produce. etc. Opposite applies to other things like cell phones where slim/smaller = higher cost so really manufacturing cost probably has little to do with pricing here.

Re:rejects

[jackstack]

There's got to be other factors other than transistors per unit area. These displays are made up of many different layers. Getting 5-10 micron features to line up perfectly from layer to layer over 2 meters can be nontrivial. Also, I've heard that the glass sheets used to make the active matrix of transistors can begin to behave like paper when they get that large (i.e. they can bend quite easily).

Also - the transistors are still photolithographically defined... which means they have to spin coat a photoresist. The wafers used to make your pentium chips are about a 1ft (.3m) in diameter. These are nearly 7 times larger and are not circular. So... imagine a rectangular piece of glass 2m in one dimension spinning at 3000 revolutions per minute. How does this effect yield? I don't know. But one thing I'm pretty sure about is that larger is not easier.

Re:rejects

[Anonymous Coward]

If 1 pixel on a small screen is a justification for throwing it away, there's an increased chance of meeting that criteria as the size is increased. That's true for each component of each display, so each contributing manufacturer has increased loss. Additionally, there is the development time when resources are being spent yet production is not getting any return. It's new technology for all of the manufacturers, not just more of the same old same old.

Re:rejects

[Zeinfeld]

So... imagine a rectangular piece of glass 2m in one dimension spinning at 3000 revolutions

Actually probably not, the article said that they make two screens at a time. So we can assume that what they would do is to get a sheet of glass that is roughly square, 2m on each side. The large sheet does not need to be spun as fast as a small one, its the linear velocity, not the angular that matters.

What makes larger screens hard is getting the scalled up equipment. And getting the necessary throughput. Larger screens means each step of the process takes longer.

From a yield point of view the transistors are going to be so large that crystal defects are not relevant so you win on that one. On the other hand you have a really big problem getting the mask in registration over such a large area.

As for use, the first ones will be used for computer monitors at trade shows. There is no other use that is going to justify a $30K monitor which is what the first ones off the line are likely to cost. For that use the resolution is perfectly adequate.

The key breakthrough here though is that 82" is large enough for a meetingroom/classroom monitor. Projection displays are very unsatisfactory, the room has to be so dark that people go to sleep. Once the price is $5K or less this becomes an interesting choice.

Re:rejects

[Anonymous Coward]

The odds of an impurity destroying the cell I think are lower though as the whole transistor geometry increases. The smaller the transistor gets, the more likely some impurity or process variation will destroy it. The larger it is, the more resillient it normally is to such variations.

Re:rejects

[jcr]

That's true, but another factor is the feature size. The bigger the pixels, the less likely it is that any impurity on the surface will result in a bad pixel.

There's a Xerox spin-off company that's been making 200+ DPI color LCDs for quite some time, but they have yield problems, since at that feature size, it's much easier to have a flaw that takes out a whole row or column of pixels.

-jcr

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that
I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

What a boost in frustration-level as she still is virtual.

Re:So...

[jizmonkey]

Well, you could see them right now on that screen if you could afford it.

Re:So...

[shird]

You can do that today already, with your home CRT. Just so long as you dont mind seeing only a fraction of her at a time :)

Re:So...

[R.Caley]

They keep making these bigger screens to keep up with the need to fit in the male stars who have taken advantage of all of the amazing products and services they get email about.

Re:So...

[lottameez]

Perhaps you should try a dating service. I understand that they can help to accomplish the same goal.

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

of course, Id love to see the camera that could take that shot more than the screen.

Re:So...

[Dogtanian]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

Don't know about that; but I'm overjoyed personally, as it's the first time my 82-inch penis will be able to be seen in 1:1 scale on an LCD.

Bleh.... seriously, would anyone *really* want an 82-inch penis? Truth is, I'm not that big, but I'm perfectly happy with my 82cm.

What was that at the back? "82mm more like"? Yeah, well maybe so, but it's what you do with it that counts. I hope... *sob*

Re:So...

[Tony Hoyle]

If you can afford that screen try going into the big blue room.. you can buy some real 3d women for a lot less (often the cost of a couple of drinks).

Re:So...

[EulerX07]

He could also go with an escort service instead. The costs are higher but the success rate is more pronounced, especially for someone that needs a big tv to see a naked women.

Not that I'd know anything about that. I swear.

Re:So...

[Dogtanian]

Oh, and I just want to say that the person who modded down the parent only did so because they have a small penis :-P

I'm not making assumptions about their gender though; I'd have said the same thing if they were a guy.

Thank you! I'll be here all week, etc....

Re:So...

[lottameez]

Overrated? Somebody out there doesn't have much of a sense of humor.

Re:So...

[gstoddart]

I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

In your case, no. If you haven't by now, you may never. :-P

Re:So...

[NanoGator]

"Bleh.... seriously, would anyone *really* want an 82-inch penis?"

Heh. A coworker friend of mine asked one of his coworker friends a hypothetical scenario: "What would you do if a chick you dated ran around telling everybody you had a small penis?" "Hit her with it."

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

And she'll even have giant pixels!

Re:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who can get some real 3d women for the cost of a couple of drinks should probably not be on Slashdot

Great

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll need to take out two loans; one to buy the thing and the other to afford power it

Re:Great

[kernelblaha]

and another to buy the hanger to put it in!!!

Re:Great

[imsabbel]

its no plasma, so it shouldnt need much more power than your CRT TV.

But one thing is to be considered: if it is as bright as a small tv, a white picture should be seriously blinding... 2 or 3000 lumen are headlight quality...

Re:Great

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know what you're talking about (or why you were modded insightful) but obviously this thing is not going to blind you when you look at it. If you're doing some type of 'total light output' calculation, keep in mind it's spread out over 82". It's similar to comparing staring at a projector bulb and saying the picture on the opposite wall is the same 'brightness'.

Damn

[CastrTroy]

Damn, and I just got a 19 Inch. Guess my stuff is obsolete as always.

82 inches

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't these the same guys who yesterday said 10,000,000 bytes was 10 gigs?

Re:82 inches

[maotx]

10,000,000 bytes IS 10 Gigabytes.

I guess it depends on if your using the telecommunications version, which uses SI, or the more common, but improper, computer science version (which should really be using a Gibibyte.)

Re:82 inches

[OblongPlatypus]

Please count the number of zeroes one more time...

Re:82 inches

[generic-man]

Hey, I edited the Wikipedia entry to state that one Gigabyte is 1,000,000 bytes. Until someone corrects it, your post is correct.

Re:82 inches

[TheKidWho]

Ummm....
1,000 bytes is one kilobyte
1,000,000 bytes is one megabyte
1,000,000,000 bytes is one gigabyte..

Re:82 inches

[bosshoff]

Nope... 1,000 = 1 kiloBIT 1,000,000 = 1 megaBIT 1,000,000,000 = 1 gigaBIT

Re:82 inches

[KlomDark]

They specified BYTES, smart guy...

Re:82 inches

[ATMAvatar]

So obviously, the TV is 8.2 feet.

Re:82 inches

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's on Wikipedia, it must be true.

If it's not true, then it must be edited. Then it must be true.

Re:82 inches

[Anonymous Coward]

I will die stubborn and proud before I use words like "gibibyte" seriously. And you're off by a factor of a thousand in your number. Boy, I bet you feel stupid. You even used bold text to make your point all that much stronger.

Re:82 inches

[Anonymous Coward]

I bet you feel stupid

Yes, so true.
It was early this morning and let something simple slip.
But why the hell was I modded Troll?

Re:82 inches

[bosshoff]

And I was responding to the noob that wasn't giving accurate numbers for bytes, by telling him that he was specifying BITS instead. Thanks for trying though noob.

Re:82 inches

[Anonymous Coward]

Mods on glue solvent fumes, probably.

Not falling for this one

[Guitar Wizard]

Ha! This is obviously a hoax. "Liquid crystal"? Such a think is obviously impossible! Who do they think we are...fools?

WOW!

[jyanix]

And I thought I was cutting edge with my new 20".

Press release from Samsung + pic!

[binaryDigit]

Here is the press release striaght from Samsung along with a picture of the beast. Wonder how much power this thing soaks up and how much heat it puts out?

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic!

[BigDogCH]

It is hard to get a feel for how big that really is (or how I would pay for it). They have 2 people standing next to it, but I am sure they picked the shortest 2 models they could find.

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic!

[j1bb3rj4bb3r]

Somehow, viewing these pics on a 15" laptop monitor left me underawed.

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic!

[Anonymous Coward]

I love the wording: Samsung develops world's largest 82" TFT LCD. So, if someone else comes along and makes another 82" TFT LCD, but puts it in a wider, thicker frame, can they advertise as "world's largest 82" TFT LCD"?

That's like saying Mini Me is the world's tallest 24" man.

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic!

[phusg]

Wonder how much power this thing soaks up and how much heat it puts out?

If you know one, you pretty much know the other. Of course a percentage goes into light (the whole point) and a little bit will surely go into some sort of zooming sound somewhere along the way, but as long as you're watching inside then generally all the power will end up as heat.

My own (barely) educated guess based on the bottom TFT-LCD on http://www.signetlcd.com/av_applications.html and accounting for difference in size and luminance put's it around the 600 Watts.

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

I think the backlight is the biggest factor. Backlights are often just flourescent tubes.

I think it might be an interesting exercise, take the known power consumptions of other known sizes of LCD TVs and scaling up by area.

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic!

[inmate]

from the samsung website:
The world's largest 82-inch TFT-LCD

yes, well...i guess they win then...

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic!

[nacturation]

Wow, and an 8ms refresh rate. Very impressive. I was expecting it to be dog slow.

Undoing the Slashdotting

[CleverNickedName]

Luckily the flames spewing from their server will be put out with all the drooling.

All' well that ends well.

Nice but...

[Ironsides]

82" is nice and all, but I'd rather have their 102" Plasma"

Re:Nice but...

[ntshma]

You told me size doesn't matter...

Re:Nice but...

[codeguy007]

Chances are in a few years, you won't have to forgo that new $60,000 dollar car just to buy an 82" LCD monitor. I would count on a 102" Plasma dropping much in price though.

Re:Nice but...

[klui]

There are problems with plasma displays that make me veer towards LCD.

1. Plasmas suck up power like there's no tomorrow. I hear 300-500 watts is nominal. That 102" would definitely be on the high end of the scale.
2. Plasma burn in.
3. Limited lifetime.

Until these disadvantages are taken care of, I will pass. LCDs have none of these problems and with the new 7G Samsung, it looks like they may have taken care of the viewing angle and brightness problems.

Re:Nice but...

[Valdrax]

A 102" Plasma? Why, so your kid can race his Hot Wheels between the pixels on it, or do you just prefer hardware with an expiration date? I don't think my living room's big enough to put enough distance between my chair and that TV to let it look good.

Re:Nice but...

[Ironsides]

Interestingly enough, two of those three make me want to go for DLP or DLA over LCD as well (I'd never get a Plasma, just putting it out there). LCD burn in is possible and does happen. LCD pixels weaken over time and die or get turned permanently on. LCD and Plasma both still have problems, which is why I will be going with rear projection at some point.

Re:Nice but...

[Ironsides]

That distance would be ~200" (4 times the screen height). That's a bit over 16.5' or 5 meters.

Re:Nice but...

[Valdrax]

Meh. I just have a big chip on my shoulder about plasma and was trying (and failing) to be funny.

Re:Nice but...

[jfisherwa]

Due to the increased resolution, the ideal seating distance from an HD display is roughly half that of traditional SD 'big screens.'

Re:Nice but...

[Anonymous Coward]

While that cute little metric may "work" for 4:3 CRT TVs (and some small widescreen TVs), it does not apply to a giant digital widescreen. 24 degrees horizontal x 14 degrees vertical simply does not come anywhere near approximating a theater experience. :(

Remember that the whole purpose of a having a giant 16:9 screen is to view it from approximately one screen width away. This closely mimics sitting in the sweet spot at a movie theater and gives you 45 degrees horizontal x 29 degrees vertical (* note: you'll also want to make sure that you're viewing level is above the center of the screen or you'll probably end up hurting your eyes and/or neck). Although you can technically discern individual pixels, you cannot see the borders of the pixels of a 1280x720 DLP front projector at that distance (96" x 54" wide screen, seated 96" = 8' away). The lack of a screen door effect causes your brain not to care, and you think you're at the movie theater watching a film.

The 102" plasma (88.9" x 50.0") would give you the same visual size at about 7.5', but its pixel edges are obviously more visible than DLP. However, the 50% higher pixel density of 1920x1080 (versus the 1280x720 I quoted earlier) helps make up for this fact. Thus, I'm going to claim that you should be able to watch this thing from 7.5' away. However, if the pixel edges are visible at that distance, you'd be better served to buy the less expensive DLP front projector. But if you're really intent on spending that kind of dough, you could get a 1920x1080 LCD front projector with 6000 ANSI lumens for the price of the 102" plasma. ;)

Oh and as a side note, the 6000 lumen projector would probably wash out the plasma if you projected directly onto its screen! This could give a whole new meaning to picture in picture! :P

Re:Nice but...

[Ironsides]

Ideal distance (to see picture at best quality) for SD is 5 times the height.
Ideal distance (for human comfort as tested by the japanese in the 60/70s) for SD is 4 times the height.
Equivalent distance for US-HD when compared to that of US-SD is 3 times the height.

I base the 4 times the height on human comfort rather than equivalent viewing quality of SD vs HD.

Re:Nice but...

[jeffgeno]

Rear projection looks nice if you're centered in front of the screen perfectly, but even the newest Samsung DLPs suffer from some serious vertical off axis dimming. Add that to the sparkly anti-reflective coating they use, and it's a deal breaker for me.

how big are the pixels?

[Matey-O]

They've gotta be, what, a quarter inch square? based on it being 1.87m by 2.2m, that's about .57 cm x 1.1 cm or friggin' HUGE (Feel free to correct my math) That seems like you'd need to stand 30 feet away to make it look like a 19" monitor at 2 feet.

Re:how big are the pixels?

[otis wildflower]

FTA:
"Module Size 1,875mm x 1,080mm x 45mm"

That would map to nearly 1mm square pixels.

Re:how big are the pixels?

[Emil Brink]

I didn't check on your math per se, but I think your assumptions are wrong. The "substrate" the blurb talks about is most likely something that is processed, then cut into multiple actual screens. At least that is how the term is used in e.g. IC production, I think. Anyway, if you compute the diagonal of a 2.2 by 1.87 meter rectangle, it comes out to 2.9 meters. This is about 113", which is why I think you're using the wrong numbers (113" IsNot 82").

Re:how big are the pixels?

[guroove]

Uh, your math is a little off there. It would be closer to .57mm x 1.1mm. you misplaced a decimal point somewhere. 1000mm = 1m

Re:how big are the pixels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Also if you look at the specs it's 1920 x RGB x 1080, so there are 1920 x 1080 x 3 pixels, or 6.22 million pixels. This cuts your pixel size down even further due to a threefold increase in pixels over your initial calculations

Re:how big are the pixels?

[breadbot]

The substrate is that big (2.2 x 1.87 meters), but that's for two 82" screens. A single screen is a little less than half that size -- it fits 1920 pixels into something less than 1.87 meters, and 1080 in less than 1.1 meters. If they're square, then they're slightly less than 1 millimeter on a side.

Re:how big are the pixels?

[ed_g2s]

The substrate is much bigger than the screen.

The screen is 82" on the diagonal =~ 2.08m
The aspect ratio is 16:9 so
(16x)^2 + (9x)^2 =~ 2.08^2
337x^2 =~ 4.34
x =~ 0.113m

So it measures about 1.815m x 1.02m. I imagine it has more than 1920x1080 pixels and has image enhancing to scale the image up, but if it were 1920x1080 then the pixels would be 0.094cm square which is about 1/25th of an inch.

Re:how big are the pixels?

[TommyW]

From the article:
Full HD 1,920 x 1,080 pixels 16:9 aspect ratio
Resolution 1,920 x RGB x 1,080 (Full HD)

Which makes the pixels 1mm square. Or, 0.04 inches square.

Re:how big are the pixels?

[TommyW]

D'oh. I meant to quote
Module Size 1,875mm x 1,080mm x 45mm

Re:how big are the pixels?

[Anonymous Coward]

Based off 82", 1080 lines and 16x9 aspect ratio:
Height = 40.2"
40.2/1080 = 0.037 inches per pixel.

That's roughly 27 pixels per inch. Certainly noticeable up-close, but how close do you plan on sitting to an 82" screen?

Re:how big are the pixels?

[fanblade]

The pixels are not that big. You'll find that 82" on the diagonal means 71" wide by 40" tall at a 16:9 aspect ratio. The display has 1920x1080 pixels:

722 pixels per square inch
27 dpi

Compare that to my 50" Samsung DLP at home (1280x720)

863 pixels per square inch
29.5 dpi

I use my 50" DLP as my computer monitor and it's perfectly readable. If anything, the pixels are too small for me to read easily across the room. I would totally drool over a larger display with a slightly lower dpi such as this one!

Re:how big are the pixels?

[nacturation]

... then the pixels would be 0.094cm square which is about 1/25th of an inch.

Careful now! They lost a mission to Mars by mixing their units all willy-nilly like that. :)

I'm still waiting

[WormholeFiend]

for a printer that will print currency so that I can buy the current "largest" computer monitor and/or TV.

Big pixels

[LordOfYourPants]

1920x1080 at 82"... Those are some big dots. I wouldn't call it "liquid crystal" but more like "vacuum tubes with plastic filters on them."

Re:Big pixels

[Jeff DeMaagd]

By my estimate, it is still about 25 dpi. It would beat my projector hands down, I think I have about 4 dpi on the final screen, though I am projecting XGA onto about a 180" diagonal.

I wouldn't use it as a personal screen unless I were five meters back, but that's part of the idea for some people, a convergence display.

Eventually?

[wiredog]

Since 82 inches =6 feet 10 inches, you can see her right now. In fact, if she's of average height and shown diagonally, you will see her larger than life size.

Re:Eventually?

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess your implying that she'll be laying down right???

82 inches on a 16x9 ratio makes the A = 40 inches and the B = 71 inches. If the person is standing up that'll only make them 3 foot 4 inches tall.

Re:Eventually?

[TGK]

Clearly you and I are interested in different kinds of pr0n...

Re:Eventually?

[killmenow]

Too bad I'm fresh out of mod points...that was good for a laugh.

Re:Eventually?

[dmf415]

Even larger with Ultra wide zoom!

Digital Artwork

[Foolomon]

82" means that digital paintings that update themselves with images from the Internet are not far behind, I'm guessing.

Re:Digital Artwork

[hcdejong]

already done

Lifesized

[saskboy]

Now I can finally display a lifesized woman with a 41" chest, front, sides, and back, on my computer screen. 'Bout darn time.

Oh, not that I would...

Re:Lifesized

[sokoban]

This display will allow you to see a whole midget, life-sizd on your screen. Sweeeeet.

Blue pixels?

[dereklam]

Looking at that picture, it seems to me they are avoiding demoing blue pixels. Does anyone know if LCDs of this size have issues showing blue?

Re:Blue pixels?

[iainl]

No, my LCD runs Windows just fine ;-)

Being sensible for a moment, it's OLED that has the "blue pixel death" problem, not LCD, so you should be fine. LCDs don't have the short half-life of plasma and OLED (they just look like crap to start with).

Re:Blue pixels?

[FreeUser]

Looking at that picture, it seems to me they are avoiding demoing blue pixels. Does anyone know if LCDs of this size have issues showing blue?

Good question. I'm noticing from the specs that "color saturation" is 92% of NTSC standard. Anyone know what that means exactly, and how it compares to DLP technology (I'm assuming plane old tubes have 100% ... is that true, or does the standard incorporate some asymptotically unattainable ideal? Also, anyone know how this matches up to PAL, which by all accounts has a richer colorspace than NTSC, particularly with respect to reds.)

Re:Blue pixels?

[Richthofen80]

Short half-life of plasma screens is a myth. They last about 15 years before becoming half as bright as they were originally.

I bet the LCD screen's backlight would give out well before 15 years.

Re:Blue pixels?

[iainl]

Some of the latest ones do, it's true. Finding one that will definitely last ages, and has decent picture quality to start with, and most importantly I can afford, is turning out a pain.

The only one I really know at the moment is the Panasonic 7-series, and that doesn't have an HDMI-board for when Sky HD digital launches next year.

Re:Blue pixels?

[Richthofen80]

Panasonic is an awesome display. I have one of the first consumer models ( TH-42PW5 ) and its a great picture. The only thing lacking is a good software interface on the TV. They're also upgradable ( my TV has composite / VGA / component only, but can be upgraded to DVI with an expansion card). It's also built like a tank.

Re:Whats that in Metric

[kahei]

Back under your bridge... g'wan, shoo, shoo...

Dang trolls, more of 'em each year... I blame them suits in Washington.

Blue pixels?

[dereklam]

Looking at that picture, it seems to me they are avoiding demoing blue pixels. Does anyone know if plasma TVs of this size have issues showing blue?

Larger Than....

[goneutt]

So now we have an 82 inch TV. And 60 inch waistlines.

Priorities People.

Re:Larger Than....

[gmletzkojr]

Are you suggesting that we should have 82 inch waistlines and 60 inch TVs?

Re:Larger Than....

[iainl]

Well, having helped a friend lift his 42" plasma, I'd say anyone moving this 82" TV regularly won't have to worry about their waistline for much longer. They're obscenely heavy, to be honest.

Re:Larger Than....

[khallow]

But will we win the waist race?

Re:Larger Than....

[greenegg77]

You're right. Time for another Big Mac(tm), 12-piece MacNugget(tm), Super-sized Fry(tm), and a small Diet Pepsi(tm)...

Gotta keep workin' on those abs, whatever the heck they are...

Oh, and can someone help me off this couch? It seems to have become attached to my ass...

Re:Larger Than....

[iowannaski]

Yeah, but this isn't a plasma.

When will it replace plywood?

[Speare]

I saw this yesterday, and wondered when we're finally going to see these things advertised in architectural sizes. You walk into a store. "We only sell them in the standard 4'x8', just like sheetrock and plywood. Go to a custom house to get a trimmed down version." When? I doubt 2010. 2020? 2030?

Re:When will it replace plywood?

[Zaffo]

...and Bradbury's vision inches ever-closer...

Re:When will it replace plywood?

[UWC]

Bah, now you're scaring me. Wasn't a big part of that scenario that the broadcasts were passed through a customization box/filter of sorts to tailor the experience to the viewer? I read a short-ish and none-too-in-depth article on Wired the other day about the incredible personalization/customization of information delivery possible today that allows many people to pretty much just see what they want to with little fear of being presented with views that would challenge preconceptions. Obviously it's not nearly so complete or pervasive or all-encompassing as what Bradbury depicted, but I realized that I hadn't even given it much thought until I read that article. Obviously information delivery isn't at the point yet where one can be completely subsumed by comforting and reassuring sameness, but it's closer for a lot of people than one would initially think. Along with the wonderful ability of one to connect with a group of people of a similar mindset over the Internet comes a potentially decreased interaction with people who see things differently.

An interesting thing I've noticed is that larger community sites tend to present more conflict than the social networking type environments. For example, there's almost always someone ready to strike back with a counter argument on Slashdot, and even if it's just to be contrary, it still offers an opposing or at least different view of a subject. While Slashdot still obviously caters to a relatively thin slice of overall events, the discussion of those tends to reveal different frames of reference in which to view them. On the other hand, through my traversals of places like LiveJournal, where the users choose both the topic and the viewpoint, and everyone hosts their own reference frame's home, I notice an interesting tendency for vast networks of nearly identical views to be interconnected and to some degree isolated except for a few tenuous links from other reference frames.

Bah, crazy insane tangent. Now I'm interested in this social dynamic divide. But I'll probably explore it no further. Lousy lack of motivation...

Correcting your math, as requested

[Animaether]

Without pulling up the actual specs...
2.2m = 220cm
220cm / 1920pixels = 0.114583cm/pixel
Or, in other terms, about 1.15mm/pixel

1.86m = 187cm
187 / 1080pixels = 0.173148cm/pixel
Or, in other terms, about 1.73mm/pixel

Slightly non-square, I'd imagine if I'd pull up the actual specs of the display panel itself (not the entire casing) I'd get square, and smaller, pixels yet.

Re:Correcting your math, as requested

[OblongPlatypus]

The 2.20m by 1.87m measure is of the glass substrate they use in production. This is enough for a 110" screen, but for whatever reason they cut it down to 82" for this one.

So the pixels are probably around a square millimeter each, not too bad.

Re:Correcting your math, as requested

[OblongPlatypus]

Oops, silly me, the "whatever reason" is of course that they cut two screens out of each substrate. This puts the measurements at 1.87m by 1.10m, and each pixel would be pretty much exactly a millimeter to a side.

The largest 16:9 screen they could get from this substrate, incidentally, would be 97" (source). Obviously by cutting in the other direction and wasting quite a bit of the material, though.

Re:Correcting your math, as requested

[Anonymous Coward]

isn't 1.86m == 186cm?

Re:Correcting your math, as requested

[Anonymous Coward]

I would think they get 3 82" screens out of a single substrate, with a few cm to spare around the edges. 82" diag = .75 m x 1.33 m. Stack two up and you get 1.5 m x 1.33 m. That leaves a .87 m x 1.87 m rectangle to fit the third panel in, rotated 90 degrees, of course.

Pixel size: .75 m / 1080 pixels = .69 mm and 1.33 m / 1920 pixels = .69 mm. So square .69 mm pixels.

Re:Correcting your math, as requested

[OblongPlatypus]

Nope.. not sure what you're doing wrong since you don't post your calculations, but .75x1.33 is roughly 60" diagonal, not 82:

sqrt(75^2 + 133^2) / 2.54 = 60.11

Re:Correcting your math, as requested

[Animaether]

*grin*

typo :) /me slaps self silly
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ /me also waits 20 seconds as per slashdot anti-abuse crapola script.

Just in time...

[should_be_linear]

...for tonights Chelsea-Barcelona game... My wife will be surprised I guess, first "Arsenal" Champions league TV chair ($700) now this.

What a waste

[Perl-Pusher]

High Resolution 82 inch monitor, low resolution internet porn. Is that a fuzzy breast or a sand dune?

What advantages over a DLP projector?

[ites]

Why would anyone buy such a piece of equipment in preference over a good DLP projector?

A projector is light and can be easily moved. It gives you a huge display, with comparable resolution and brightness. It is cheaper. It can double up for business use, and can be carried in one hand. And when it's switched off, you get your living room back.

The only disadvantage of a projector is that it can be a little noisy - DLP chips get very hot and need a lot of cooling.

And perhaps there are no projectors with built-in TV decoding, which I don't care about personally since I don't have TV, and only watch DVDs.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Steve525]

The only disadvantage of a projector is that it can be a little noisy

Actually, the biggest disadvantage of a front projector is that they are only good in dim to dark rooms. The white screen necessary to reflect the projected light also reflects all the other light in the room. Perhaps if Sony's ChromaVue screen becomes readily available, this will change.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Valdrax]

I'll list my reasons for going with Sharp's 45" AQUOS instead of a front projector:

1. Projectors are noisy and hot as you mentioned.
2. Cable routing is a problem. I live in an apartment and can't route through my ceiling to hide cables.
3. Bulb replacements can be expensive and are needed far more frequently than for an LCD.
4. 1080p DLP (and LCoS) projectors are even more expensive than current LCDs (but probably not this monstrosity). A good high-contrast screen is even more money.
5. Ambient lighting (such as sunlight) can mess with a projector's image quality, and I don't live in a cave.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Sandor at the Zoo]

Why would anyone buy such a piece of equipment in preference over a good DLP projector?

Because a projector has to be mounted on the ceiling or somewhere, with power and video cables running to it, which many people would find much more inconvenient than having an LCD panel hanging on the wall.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[LordNimon]

Actually, the biggest disadvantage of a front projector is that they are only good in dim to dark rooms.

Only the inexpensive ones have that problem. You can get a 3,000 lumens projector for about $3,500, and that's plenty bright for daytime viewing.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Anonymous Coward]

1. noisy and hot, yes (but it's the same thing)

2. cable routing... run the video cable around the wall.

3. bulb replacement? in 3 years I've never replaced the bulb in my DLP projector

4. cost... used to be high but projectors now start at under $1000.

5. ambient lighting... true! but i don't couchsurf during the day anyhow - hate to waste daylight. movies are for nighttime!

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Anonymous Coward]

Deeper black in daylight.

Remember, when using a projector, the surface you're projecting on is white, and the darkest color you'll be able to get is as dark as the surface your're projecting on.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Steve525]

Let's see, a 3000 lumen projector onto a 100" screen is about 100 ft-candle. A typically brightly lit room is about 10 ft-candle. So, yes, a 3000 lumen projector would be plenty bright in a such a room. But, you are still loosing contrast, since the brightest part of the screen is only 10 times the darkest.

A Rush fan, eh?

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude, I project onto a black wall. You get the deepest shade of black imagineable. Yeah, you need to turn the brightness up a lot but dude, the black... it's sooo deep...

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Anonymous Coward]

> 5. Ambient lighting (such as sunlight) can mess with a projector's image quality, and I don't live in a cave.

YOU!. Yes, YOU. Slashdotter 32670. TURN IN YOUR GEEK CARD.

~mumble mumble not even living in caves anymore, has a 5-digit ID, should be old enough to know better~

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Valdrax]

2. cable routing... run the video cable around the wall.

Then up the wall to the projector where it's mounted in the ceiling? Not me.
Do you prefer the projector to be lower where people can walk in front of it? Also not good for my seating arrangement.

3. bulb replacement? in 3 years I've never replaced the bulb in my DLP projector

Cool. I've always just seen that listed as a downside to projectors, but I've never owned one. An LCD screen's backlight is supposed to last for about 10 years.

4. cost... used to be high but projectors now start at under $1000.

Show me a $1000 1080p native resolution DLP -- not a 720p that supports 1080i/p signals.
Come on, I double-dog dare you.

5. ambient lighting... true! but i don't couchsurf during the day anyhow - hate to waste daylight. movies are for nighttime!

Unfortunately, my sleep cycle is easily affected by watching bright movies at night. Plus, this is also meant to be my computer screen (which is one reason why 1080p is so important to me).

These are just my reasons, really. They may not be valid for others. My roommate constantly complains about my obsession with hiding wiring and derides my wireless router all the time. To be honest, the system I wanted to get was going to be a 1080p DLP RPTV, but the release date kept getting pushed back, and the price jumped to nearly 5 digits. I almost waited so that I could get the superior DLP constrast ratio. Anyway, all systems involve tradeoffs.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Anonymous Coward]

DLP Projector's seem to be pretty good in well lit rooms. Walking around a Sams' or other warehouse club and looking at a 50" DLP and it is fine. I wouldn't touch a none DLP reprojection system.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Locke2005]

Uh, projectors have bulbs in them that cost about $500 each and need to be replaced every 1000 hours or so. LCDs don't. Depending on the projector, this LCD might also be brighter. Also, you can't make shadow puppets by holding your hands up in front of an LCD.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[iowannaski]

Show me a $1000 1080p native resolution DLP -- not a 720p that supports 1080i/p signals. Come on, I double-dog dare you.

Hell, show me a reasonably priced front projector that that does 720p natively. All of the cheap ones are only 1024x768. Display a 16:9 picture with that and you are only getting 25% of the resolution of a 1080i picture.

Does it look better than my TV? Yes. Is it HDTV? No.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[mamer-retrogamer]

Why would anyone buy such a piece of equipment in preference over a good DLP projector?

I'll give you my number 1 reason: rainbows and the resulting headaches.

-Mike

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[David Leppik]

Actually, the biggest disadvantage of a front projector is that they are only good in dim to dark rooms. The white screen necessary to reflect the projected light also reflects all the other light in the room.
Perhaps if Sony's ChromaVue screen becomes readily available, this will change.

Have you seen a projector in the last 8 years? The 1000+ lument projector technology that every dot-com salesman packed on the plane is now under $1000. As for ChromaVue, which is a brand name for pigment which absorbs everything but a projector's red, green and blue, an equivalent product exists called
Screen Goo. That's a grey paint, and the reviews I've seen of it claim that it beats the pants off of most screens. It's pricy for paint, but a fraction of the cost of a normal screen.

I've had a projector for over five years now. When I got it, 600 lumens was the standard. That one you do need a dark room for, especially if you like your 80-inch display. A few years later, 1000 lumens was affordable. I just picked up a MacWarehouse catalog and their cheapest projector is 1200 lumens for $990.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[ATMosby]

Any water cooled DLP projectors out there?

its not the biggest guys

[Anonymous Coward]

there was one at cbit, about 108 inches I think?
yeah it was a prototype, but so is this until its in a store someplace.

remember that? or is slashdot too busy duping itself to death?

Re:its not the biggest guys

[UWC]

I saw reference to a plasma TV of similar size somewhere in this thread. Might that be what you're thinking about? This one's LCD.

Re:Whats that in Metric

[guroove]

It's about 208 cm.

And my loan amount is...

[yoma]

Ok has anyone seen how much this bad boy is? I need to know so that I can sell some small countries I have in order to pay for it.

Awesome!

[iolaus]

Now all I need is a 40 ft. long room to watch it in!

Megapixels?

[imroy]

From TFA:

Pixels: 6.22 million (number of RGB sub-pixels)

Yes, that's 1920 x 1080 x 3 = 6220800. I can't wait until the camera manufacturers catch onto this new method to inflate the number of "megapixels" in their cameras. Fifteen megapixels here we come!

(Just don't mention the bayer pattern used on CCD's)

Re:Megapixels?

[luiss]

Alot of small TFT displays (such as those for use in automobiles) already do this. They claim for example 2400x480 resolution, but when you get the thing you realize they are counting "sub-pixels" and you really only have an 800x480 display.

Re:Megapixels?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until the camera manufacturers catch onto this new method to inflate the number of "megapixels" in their cameras.
They already do... CCDs only measure one color per pixel, thus they consider each "point" 3 pixels

a picture

[JeffSh]

So here's a picture but this article also says it's 102" not 82"

who knows what it really is. Sweet though.

Re:a picture

[__aahlyu4518]

I made the same mistake :-)

The picture is of a 102 inch PLASMA screen.. not an LCD :-)

Options

[lbmouse]

Does it come with the two Asian women to help hold it up?

Re:Options

[Stroman Rebar]

No, but if you want to buy two more displays, you can simulate them at full size.

Re:Options

[Tavor]

One would hope so, as you are going to be selling your soul to Samsung to afford it.

latest and greatest

[__aahlyu4518]

All this latest and greatest technology... and they can't even make it wide-screen ???

Re:latest and greatest

[__aahlyu4518]

hmm... according to THIS picture it IS a widescreen... but also 102 inch... so what is it?

Re:latest and greatest

[__aahlyu4518]

and another reply to myself... above picture is a plasma.. not an LCD

Sweet...

[Gruneun]

Dead pixels the size of my fist.

Re:Sweet...

[ntshma]

You'd definately want to order this baby from South Korea to take advantage of the new Zero Dead Pixel Policy.

Re:Sweet...

[Anonymous Coward]

No. This policy is about recall policy **NOT ABOUT QUALITY AT ALL**.
What they are saying is they can make crappy LCDs which are
cheap enough to be replaced any time. Since the policy is only valid
in Korea, we'll get the rest of LCDs which has nice black dots...

Refresh rate

[Anonymous Coward]

Now, I wonder what the refreshrate of this beast is. Can it do 60Hz that is required for full HDTV (and any other TV broadcasts). 60Hz is about 16,7ms...

That's a plasma

[charnov]

FYI that's their 102" plasma...nice try, though

Wow

[Wordsmith]

Just imagine the size of the keyboard on that laptop. You could play hop scotch on the numeric keypad.

The Lamps get Hot

[TimeTraveler1884]

The only disadvantage of a projector is that it can be a little noisy - DLP chips get very hot and need a lot of cooling.

The lamps get hot, not the DLP chips. The lamp temp depends on the manufacturer just like the noise level of the fan used.

I agree about a good (even moderately good) DLP projector. I have a BenQ PB6200, does 1024x768. With my permenately tensioned DALITE screen, I paid less than $2000 for everything brand new even with cables.

It does HD too (granted slightly lower res than 720p) but it still looks better than SD. All in all, not a bad for a 105" TV than one can actually afford. I have a HD DVR from Time Warner that performs the tuning function for me.

In my opinion, it's not the noise, TV tuning, or even "rainbow effect" of projectors that is the problem. The problem is it is a lot of work to get something going that looks decent. Mounting, for the project, mounting the screen. Mounting curtains or something because the screen gets a bit washed out during the day. These are problems to me. But with a little effort and thought, they can be solved.

The attraction with LCD, is you just nail it up to the wall and call it done.

My thoughts Exactly

[Prince Vegeta SSJ4]

it seems that LCD's and Plasmas are becoming like the SUVs did over here in the US. My Flat Screen is bigger that your Flat Screen. Now, granted, they have thier uses (I actually have 2, for the tight areas wehre I wanted a relatively large screen - and use them to display random artwork as opposed to changing phusical pictures, etc). But, if you've got a room big enough for a screen this size, a Projecter seems like a much more logical choice.

I do believe that the bulb life on the projectors is alot lower than for a LCD or PLASMA's screen, so that cost would need to be factored in. But if I could afford something like this, I might as well pay for an automatic drop down projector and screen, that's hidden totally.

anyway, just my opinion.

Sony Ericsson P910a (Arrrgh!)

[Valdrax]

You think that's irritating? Check out this, the Sony Ericsson P910a PDA phone with amazing 262K color screen.

Wow! 262K? That's even better than 256K!
Lord, I @#$%#!* hate marketing.

Re:Sony Ericsson P910a (Arrrgh!)

[Anonymous Coward]

I sent this to Ericsson's feedback:

Yo dumbasses, your P110i says it's got 262K colors. Tell your marketing people to get their shit straight. In computer terms, a "K" is 1024, not 1000. Therefore, your thingy puts out 256K colors (256 time 1024). You're going to get sued by somebody.

Re:Sony Ericsson P910a (Arrrgh!)

[Anonymous Coward]

"K" means "one thousand." (Actually that should be a lowercase k.) Therefore, 262K colors means 262 thousand colors, which is closer to the truth than "two hundred fifty-six one thousand twenty-fourcolors."

As a computer engineer, can I claim that I weigh 2% less because a Kg is equal to 1024 grams? Do I weigh 81.9 kibigrams instead of 83.9 kilograms?

Re:ha

[Dogtanian]

The local drive-in movie screen still pwns all! hahahaha!

Maybe so, but you need a girlfriend to take with you unless you want to be seen as a loser who goes to drive-ins on their own.

And this *is* /. after all...

Next!

Probably none

[tod_miller]

Probably none, depending on your definition of tossed.

Hear me out.

This is either a one off or a short run. And in these one off's short runs (if full scale production hasn't already started - if it has tweaks have been made) are run slower, with more supervision, and components are probably prechecked as they go in, so they can fully appreciate the production mechanisms.

The prototypes and previous designs, do you count them as 'tossed' because of production errors?

In the full scale run, I am sure they will aim to minimise the error rates to the same or less (because higher value goods) of the other TFT's.

Also, bigger size != more pixels, this is the same old HD resolution, and larger components (pixels) can be produced more reliably.

Wow I didn't mention spam and 82" anywhere in my post... damn.

Supersize me baby

[zioncity]

Can I get fries with that?

Fahrenheit 451

[bjomo]

Soon I can afford my 2nd wall. At this rate I'll be watching "the Family" by decades end.

Re:Fahrenheit 451

[Anonymous Coward]

As a parent, I highly recommend using NetNanny to block any downloads of "The Veldt".

Dead pixels?

[ccharles]

Does anybody know if this is covered by their previously mentioned zero dead pixel policy?

Re:Dead pixels?

[Anonymous Coward]

In Japan...

Woh momma!

[EvilNutSack]

Is there a viagra sticker on the side of that puppy?

82" LCD TV!!

[imrec]

(81" viewable)

Re:Whats that in Metric

[Anonymous Coward]

Lets, see, they all execute children don't they - Oh no, USA just announced it will stop doing that!
Hah.Hah. Hah. Blam! STFU.

Sad...

[IntergalacticWalrus]

The Apple Cinema Display HD actually has a higher resolution than this...

Re:Sad...

[Overzeetop]

Way higher, especially in the *drool* 30" model. Actually, my laptop has higher resolution (1920x1200) than this screen.

Re:Sad...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the 23" cinema display has more pixels at 1920x1200, and the 30" has even more at 2560 x 1600 pixels. I'd take a 30" cinema display over this, any day.

Metric porn measurements

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not that big, but I'm perfectly happy with my 82cm.

As an American, I'm not all that familiar with the metric system, but 82cm? Isn't that almost a meater?

Talk about your international standard units....



"I'm nearly two kilometers tall"

Re:Metric porn measurements

[NuGeo]

82cm is about 32 inches. So yeah, I definitely would say a penis that large qualifies as a "meater". ;)

Dollar Dollar

[Anonymous Coward]

... that new $60,000 dollar car...

Step 1. Pronounce $60,000 : "Sixty thousand dollars" -- GOOD!
Step 2. Pronounce $60,000 dollar : "Sixty thousand dollars dollar" -- BAD!
Step 3. Enlightenment

Correcting you correcting his math...

[fandrieu]

the substrate is used for several displays from tfa: "23-inch (24 per substrate), 26-inch (18 per substrate) and 32-inch (12 per substrate) to 40-inch (8 per substrate) and 46-inch (6 per substrate). " and finally "Samsung can produce two 82-inch panels from a single substrate" that makes the actual 82" screen 220/2=110 cm high and 187 cm wide 187 cm / 1920pixels = 0,0973cm/pixel 110 cm / 1080pixels = 0,1015cm/pixel pretty square as 1920/1080 =(16*120)/(9*120) =(120/120)*(16/9) =16/9

Re:ha

[Anonymous Coward]

hahahahaahaahaaa hoohohohhahahaahhohohoho

omg you are SO witty!

That's already how it's expressed

[Sycraft-fu]

They give the rating of the CCD, not the effective number of colour points you get. For example my SD (720x480) DV cam has over a megapixel CCD. Do the math you find out that it only takes around 350,000 pixels to do SD. The reason it has a larger CCD is because of the mask on it. If you go a setp up, to real pro gear, you discover the numbers drop back down to below a MP, since they split the light with prisms and go to 3 seperate CCDs.

MOD PARENT UP

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes the parent made a mistake.
But should his/her ignorance be deemed neccassary for "Flambebait"?

But that's true of any level

[Sycraft-fu]

Why not give the expensive 60" screen a miss, and get a hig res computer monitor and sit closer still? I mean $600 will get you a pro tube that can handle 2048x1536 with better colour than and LCD or Plasma.

Well the thing is, maybe you want a room where more people can watch, and still have a bigger screen experience. A 20" monitor is plenty when you are 2' away from it, as with computers, but it's kinda hard to have friends over and watch on that, gets crowded.

It's all just a matter of what scale you want your viewing room on (and what you can afford).

1,920 x 1,080 pixels...

[sokoban]

... and only 2,073,600 are either stuck or burnt out.

Golly

[Sir_Jeff]

I'll have 4 to hold up my roof :)

Limited resolution

[gatzke]

I don't think DLP projectors are that high in resolution.

I want 1080p resolution in my next home theater. I think that is like 2100x1080 or so. DLP only goes to 1024x768, generally.