Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?
What a boost in frustration-level as she still is virtual.
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?
82" is nice and all, but I'd rather have their 102" Plasma"
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars
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.
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.
Probably it's the opposite; when the surface gets bigger, the probability of finding impurites (and thus bad pixels) gets higher.
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.
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.
Too stupid to live.
Too stubborn to die.
I'll list my reasons for going with Sharp's 45" AQUOS instead of a front projector:
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
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
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
-Mike
Schrödinger's cat is not amused—maybe.
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.