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

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

[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

[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)

rejects

[solarlux]

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

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: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...

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.

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?

[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: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.

Awesome!

[iolaus]

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

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.

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...