Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Develops World's First three-inch VGA LCD
Nomad05 writes "Samsung announced this week it has developed the world's first three-inch VGA LCD panel that "directly meets industry interface standards for digital still cameras." What this means is that future LCD screens on digital cameras will allow multimedia to be viewed at a resolution of 640x480. Presently, a majority of camera LCDs only display multimedia at a resolution of 320x240 — significantly lower in quality than Samsung's new LCD.
In layman's terms, expect significantly brighter, more detailed LCD displays, which will enable you to review your photography more thoroughly after you take an exposure. This innovation will make it easier to spot blurry images and ensure your photo is framed properly.
"
This innovation will make it easier to spot blurry images and ensure your photo is framed properly.
Say what? The images that are rendered onto the tiny screen of a camera are sized down with aliasing algorithms. Although the resizing will happen at 640x480 instead, this will have little impact since we do no longer take memorable pictures at this resolution. Memory is so cheap now and I'm sure we can get four gigs under a hundred bucks soon, too. So, either way, the picture is always going to be scaled down and viewed in proper resolution once you've zoomed in a few times.
Also, the higher resolution won't do anything at all for those of you who want to spot blurred pictures with more ease. Even if it's definitely a higher DPI, you end up watching at 3 inches which is very small, so blurred objects that appear not so sharp will appear sharp on this tiny display, simply because the blurred area will appear so small on a small screen, it won't even be noticable. Once again, zooming in is the only solution.
Either way, I'm sure someone will come up with an algorithm that detects blurred images automatically. It may not be 100 percent proof, but that's still a lot better.
I'm obviously trolling here, however. More DPI is always nice and I bet we can go to 1000 DPI before we stop bothering that much about it, but the arguments used in this article made no sense to me.
Full Tilt
I wondered what the big deal was at first,but then I realized that the big thing here would probably be the DPI. 640x480 on a 3" screen would require a higher DPI than a 4" screen. I haven't RTFA, but I'm assuming the deal is that they couldn't get that DPI before.
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
In my day we had 80 columns by 25 rows and a choice between two colors: green and amber.
The road to tyranny has always been paved with claims of necessity.
The great thing about the Internet is the way it allows people of all nations, all ages and all backgrounds to miscommunicate with each other.
."peculiar."
I don't know who, where or how old you are. If you don't know the joke I used, which is quite possible; and that it is a joke, it would necessarily go over your head. It might have helped to have read a bit of Dave Barry to understand the cultural meaning of the phrase "I'm not making this up," which implies that "I'm not making this up," but. . . there is a joke in here somewhere.
And my own sense of humor is, shall we say. .
KFG
but "LCD displays"? Like "Liquid Crystal Display displays"?
I mean come on, this is supposed to be a site for techno nerds.
Don't get me wrong, this is a step in the right direction.
But now your batteries will last really long now!!
A larger LCD would eat more battery. Adding pixels doesn't do squat.
In fact, since the image is much more legible, you may spend less time setting up before a shot.
What you're arguing is that each unit makes slightly more money than materials, so you have to sell a lot to make up the cost of infrastucture. Duh, no shit, basic econ.
I don't know what KFG was talking about, but 'per unit loss' sounds like "Each unit sells for less than cost of materials". Which would mean you're losing money per unit ON TOP of infrastucture. What I'm guessing is going on here (assuming kfg's not talking out of his ass, and I'm not being dumb), is that they have, for example, some deal with companies like dell where they're being paid a lump sum for a contract to provide units at a certain cost, or some wierd such backroom nonsense that is certainly not basic econ 101.
It'd be nice if the original poster would clarify, but I think you're making too many assumptions.
Regardless, you probably can't buy single units because the manufactures make to order, rather than pay for warehousing costs for units waiting to sell.
Am I the only one wondering if the next iPod will have a VGA display?
The Admin and the Engineer