Slashdot Mirror
Samsung Unveils New 10" Retina Display
adeelarshad82 writes "Samsung has unveiled a brand new 10.1-inch display that supports a maximum of 2560×1600 pixel resolution that could be ripe for next generation tablets. Samsung's new display is more of a tech demo than anything else at this stage. While it looks impressive, it's not quite ready for broad production. It does, however, prove that high pixel density and high-resolution tablet displays are possible without unreasonable power requirements coming along in the process."
10 inches ought to be enough for anybody.
It does, however, prove that high pixel density and high-resolution tablet displays are possible without unreasonable power requirements coming along in the process.
I'm not sure the power requirements are the biggest issue with this type of display. I think cost is going to be the biggest hurdle it has to clear before it finds its way into a tablet.
Maybe not unreasonable power requirements for the display itself, but the GPU will need to be ramped up a bit as there are more than 10 times as many pixels as on a 800x480 display.
So am I to understand that "retina" is the new "HD"? I expected something better from Slashdot...
I'd like the 24-inch version of this, please.
Putting bigger screens with better resolutions into tablets won't change the fact that they're still useless.
I've lost track of how many friends and co-workers bought into the hype, and spent tons of money on a tablet from one vendor or another. They try to read a book on them a few times, and maybe try to use them in a couple of meetings, and quickly realized that it was not an enjoyable experience.
Tablets are nothing but gimmicks.
Apple vs Samsung PT II
hey they are doing 2012 Olympics in 4096*2160
FINALLY! That's the kind of resolution that makes an e-reader device worthwhile! Sufficient DPI makes all the difference when trying to read diagrams and small print without having to zoom and pan manually.
If they can make those screens profitable on the tablet market, perhaps we'll finally get proper high-resolution screens for laptops as well, which have been hampered by the inability of Windows software to handle high resolutions. Now that Windows 7 supports automatic rescaling of legacy applications, there is a chance we could finally move past the 100 dpi barrier. Printers have been 600 dpi or better for decades now,
Unfortunately, it's one of those nasty 'Pentile' displays, where subpixels are treated as pixels to inflate the on-paper resolution. If you treat them as actual useful displays where each pixel contains all the sub-pixels required to display the full range of colours (3 for regular displays, 4 for pentile, despite the name implying 5), then the actual resolution is lower than a traditional pixel layout.
Brilliant, now Apple can stick it up their arse since they certainly ain't going to get any for production.
The final frontier is now: how to make it wrappable / roll-in and back again or similar? 10 inches is too big for my pockets..
And worse, it is one with no real definition. At least HD has some definitions, even though people often play fast and lose with them. "Retina" just seems to mean "High pixel density." Apple's marketing department coined the term to imply that the display has a resolution equal to your eye. Of course that isn't the case, it is dependent on distance. However it worked for marketing and apparently has caught on with people.
The final frontier is now: how to make it wrappable / roll-in and back again or similar? 10 inches is too big for my pockets..
You can have a fully bendable display once we figure out how to combat the creasing problem. Hint: Paper currency is "wrappable" -- Take a few from your wallet and look at a "straightened" piece of fully bendable currency and you'll get my point.
IMHO, It's more feasible to use projective displays to solve the "too big for my pockets" problem.
Since it wasn't anywhere in the FA - numbers that really matter:
- For almost 30 years, the computer standards were 72 or 96 PPI (points per inch) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch#Computer_monitor_DPI_standards
- the "iRetina" display is 326 PPI.
- this new Samsung display should have a PPI of 299.
- 300 PPI is close to the limit of what the human eye is able to resolve (at the distances these screens are used - your living room TV doesn't need such high-density resolution).
I've no objection to pentile displays in principle. Humans do have higher green perception and so perhaps such a display can be useful. For that matter it is similar in principle to the Bayer pattern that still digital cameras use for their sensors.
The problem I have is like you've noted with overselling it. You can't claim more resolution on less subpixels. The net result will be a more grainy image. Cameras like to do this too, their "megapixel" count is the total acquisition area, ignoring that each pixel in fact captures only one colour.
Also it seems that maybe it is not such a wonderful idea, since Samsung seems to be working hard to develop and market non pentile OLED displays. They call it "real stripe" and you can find more infor here: http://www.tested.com/news/pentile-vs-real-stripe-amoled-displays-whats-different/1868/.
IMHO, It's more feasible to use projective displays to solve the "too big for my pockets" problem.
..or detachable screens so you can have a 10" in another pocket and a small screen in your pockets..
For many years now I have been very disappointed by stagnation, and down-right reversal in DPI trends. 13 years ago I was running a 19" CRT at 2048x1536, now to find a computer display with similar DPI is very difficult; to find a CRT is even more so, despite the venerable technology's superiority in virtually all image quality metrics.
TVs continue to get larger and larger, while 1080p is likely to remain the standard by which they are all measured for several years to come, and penetration of media with a native resolution > 1080 will take even longer. So there is little incentive for mass produced panels (e.g. TVs, and even computer monitors) to improve on DPI; I am glad however, that the emerging mobile device market is not shackling itself to the same philosophy.
Viva la DPI!
But perfect for broad reproduction.
main() {1;}
Getting high enough yields is the hard part. The chances of a dead pixel are proportional to the area of the display, and inversely proportional to the pixel size. Also, with feature sizes this small, there's much higher chance of a whole line being bad. Making a high DPI display for a phone is a lot easier than making one for a tablet.
I hope they're able to get this on the market soon, but I'd be surprised if I can buy a 300+ DPI iPad in less than two years.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
It is getting there, but as of yet there are still hurdles to be dealt with.
The biggest is just cost. Pixels cost money, every sub pixel needs a transistor (or two if you want a nice high quality IPS panel) and so more pixels equals more cost. You might think you want a display like that, but are you willing to bear the cost? Such a monitor could easily cost $3000-4000. Still interested?
Another big one is UI scaling. Programs and OSes are only now getting on board with the whole resolution independence thing. Windows Vista and 7 are fully on board and scale beautifully but many, many apps for them do not. That means you get some things that don't scale at all, or some where only parts (like text) scale but others (like the box that contains the text) don't. Can be a real issue in the case of extreme scaling. Now Windows can deal with that, it can present the programs with a lower resolution virtual display they render to and then stretch it up, but of course that really eliminates the usefulness of a high rez display.
OS-X kinda supports it, but it is incomplete at this point (the next version should have it completely implemented) and because of that app support is not good. Linux? Don't make me laugh, it is a hodge podge disaster there.
Another issue that isn't critical, but could be problematic, is interconnects. It takes more data than you might think to do really high resolutions. So let's say you want to double a 1920x1200 display's pixel density, which would give you 186ppi. No higher colour depth or refresh rate, just more pixels. Ok that is 3840x2400. Not counting any overhead, that takes 12.4gbits/sec to drive. You can do that, Displayport 1.2 can handle it (17.3gbits/sec max) but that's all. HDMI 1.4 isn't enough, DP 1.1 isn't enough. So doable, but barely and only then with the newest technology, which not a lot of videocards support.
Video processing power and RAM are other issues too. 4x the total number of pixels means you need much more processing power to handle all that. For a composited desktop cards today could handle it no problem, but one of the little integrated units probably wouldn't do it, need a dedicated accelerator. For 3D? That will be a real problem. Even a very high end accelerator will have trouble, probably need more than one.
Ultra high rez displays are just some time off. You can pull high pixel density on small devices because it doesn't take many pixels. The "Over 300ppi" and "Retina display" of the iPhone sounds all impressive until you realize it is just 960x640, only about 1/4th of full HD. No problem, that is still low rez. However if you want around 300ppi on a 24" display you are talking around 5760x3600 (that's actually only 279ppi) which would require massive amounts of interconnect bandwidth, not to mention the cost and so on.
It'll happen, but the tech isn't there yet for it to be real feasible.
To see all the detail on a screen just an arm's length away from you!
I absolutely agree with you. I think that a part of the problem is a lack of demand - or a perceived lack of demand. People who buy monitors seem to be looking at diagonal size, not resolution. I'm sure they tell focus groups that this is what they care about. And there are monitors out there that go to 2560x1600, but they are marketed at "professionals" and are absurdly expensive. What's worse, they seem to be immune to whatever force that's rapidly driving down the prices of the 1080p monitors. Some manufacturer needs to take the plunge and produce these in mass quantities, so they can charge a slightly lower price. I'd become interested once this started to approach $700. Maybe in two years? For now I'm getting by OK with 1920x1200 - a nice monitor resolution that also seems to have gone extinct.
Seeing a lot of talk about this display could be used for iPad 3. However, I don't see it likely as LG Display, who provides displays to Apple has also promised to show AH-IPS panels at the SID Display Week. The AH-IPS will have "an ultra-high resolution" which one can assume will be better or at par with these Samsung displays.
Anyways, for those who're interested I found the display images on the web.
http://www.samsunghub.com/2011/05/14/first-images-of-10-1-inch-wqxga-display-for-tablets/
Like display higher then 480x320 for 3.5 inch phones or digital camera with over 14.3M pixels when the max resolution is 5Kx3K max.
Or the stupid moving plate on your microwave.
oh... and "3D display" which are 2D displays + stupid effects.
It's like saying your stereo has "eardrum" fidelity.
The proper analogy here is to the cochlea, as that's the transducer in the ear, just as the retina is the transducer in the eye. "Cochlea fidelity" would then mean the stereo system reproduces all audible frequencies so accurately that a median human auditory system introduces more noise than the equipment does.
Isn't Apple severing ties with Samsung over their phone being to similar to an iPhone? If so, I wonder what would happen if Samsung pushes this towards Android and Blackberry for their tables and all of a sudden, Apple is the one with less quality?
Now before somebody posts that Apple would be the biggest purchaser, so Samsung would be hurting them self. 1) Apple is currently suing Samsung. 2) Samsung can only produce so many of these screens (high reject rate). 3) if Android/Blackberry devices can use up the supply that Samsung can produce, there is no loss.
Given two otherwise identical devices, per your definition, one of them could qualify as a retina display if it was 'intended' to be viewed from a foot away and the other wouldn't if it was 'intended' to be viewed from a foot and a half.
The input device helps to determine intent. A touch screen is designed to be viewed closer than a screen connected to a keyboard and mouse on a desk, which in turn is designed to be viewed closer than a screen connected to an infrared remote control, one or more gamepads, or a Phantom Lapboard.
The DVD industry, for enabling [display] makers to widen their screens with the excuse that EVERYONE's main PC use was not vertical browsing, but letterbox (American) entertainment
PROTIP: A 1920x1080 pixel monitor can display two 960x1080 pixel windows side by side. Window managers have "Tile Vertically" and "Snap" features to take advantage of this.
sub pixel needs a transistor (or two if you want a nice high quality IPS panel)
How many transistors are there in even a low-end Pentium Dual Core CPU?
Windows Vista and 7 are fully on board and scale beautifully but many, many apps for them do not.
There are so many applications for Windows that there's usually an alternate application for every need, at least one of which will hopefully support the system DPI setting that has been in, for example, Windows for the past decade. Well-known applications are probably used by at least one government, and that government can invoke accessibility law (Section 508 and foreign counterparts) against applications that do not support system DPI correctly.
Paper is wood fiber, so I'm guessing that the "creases" are really just the micro-equivalent of a log being broken in half and never going back together. Try bendinga sheet of plastic, and you'll see the problem doesn't exist in other materials.
Agree -- I bought a new Samsung 305T (30", 2650x1600) over 2 years ago for $999, and can't even see any current comparable monitors at the same price. I'd hoped for sub-$800 WQXGA by now. Would be nice at a slightly lower diagonal size too (say 28"), 30" gives me a headache after a long day staring at it. Using an older LCD 20" 1600x1200 for email and such now. Another thing I'm hoping for is that manufacturers will improve the brightness controls to where you can actually dim them enough: I like to work in relatively low-light settings, and the lowest brightness setting on practically any modern LCD monitor does not go below fairly bright. Old-style CRTs tended to be better in this respect, dimming down all the way to "no picture" if needed. A monitor is not a TV.
I want to be able to watch movies on a tablet without the horrible scaling artifacts. Quality on ipad2 is just terrible. 1080p please!
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
My number for "iPads sold" was for iPhones - the number of iPads sold is about 20 million, not 100 million. Still a nice chunk of volume for a subcontractor though.
Meld 9 of these into one nice 30" display with 7680x4800 display. *grasping hands* Now, please...
When are we going to get high res display for laptops? My 5 year old 1920x1200 (slightly higher than Full HD) 17" laptop is needing replaced, and I do not want to go backwards on screen resolution!
NHK (the Japanese broadcaster) has been working on the next generation of HD for 5 years now. 7680 x 4320 resolution, 22.2 channel audio. They already have cameras and have done live broadcasts. http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/02_super.html
Of course, it took over 10 years for HD to make it from being developed until it was a common consumer product, so don't hold your breath. (NHK developed 1080i around about 1980, first commercial broadcasts in Japan 1994, first in USA 1998).
Chrome seems to think the site has hosting malware or by the looks of it the ads. I'm not sure I care enough to bother trying to reading their article.
So this explains the lame iPad 2. The screens just weren't ready for the real iPad 2+ yet.
Could Apple really avoid having a screen like this in the iPad 3 once competitors have them?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Amen to all three of you. I had no idea when I picked up a couple of 16:10 1920x1200 screens three years back for $349 each, I was getting something that was fast-disappearing. Whether you get 20" or 27" these days, they're all 1920x1080. It's funny, because computers were always a different market than TV, and in computers, more "height" pixels is always a Good Thing, for full-height word-pro pages, more rows on spreadsheets, etc.
And 2560x1600, it's got that same you-can't-go-back phenomenon that was always true for every higher resolution before them ... but almost zero volume of sales means they stuck at $1200 over three years ago. Why people don't want that higher resolution is a mystery.
My best guess: so much computing now is just web pages. Web apps, cloud-provided-everything. And web pages aren't ever designed at such resolutions.
From what I've heard, there *are* some limits. Beyond a 2560x1600 in the middle and a pair of fair-sized screens on either side to park all your icons and desktop folders on, your windows that you need in sight but aren't using, you've about reached the limit of the pixels you can manage.
But I don't know. My physical desk at home is a glorious 7 ft. x 4 ft, and everything on it is at least at 300 dpi. I don't have a lot of trouble finding things on it.
Keep in mind that once you go past about 1920x1200, DVI single-link cables and circuitry no longer work. DVI bandwidth is only capable of driving 2.75M pixels @ 60Hz. Which puts the limit up around 2098x1311 for a 16:10 display over DVI single-link. And a 1920x1200 @ 60Hz display is 2.3M pixels. The 2560x1600 is 4.1M pixels.
Enough to justify the cost difference? Probably not, but it's one factor that goes into the reason why prices take a jump upward once you get past 1920x1200@60Hz displays.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?