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."
"4 inches is fine!"
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.
Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but she lied.
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.
Screw tablets, I want this resolution on a laptop. It's damn near impossible to get a reasonable priced laptop with more than 1366x768. Most companies don't have them at all. Even MBPs only have 1440x900. A laptop graphics card can handle the resolution ... I would have thought these would be more common by now.
for some weird reason, resolutions are going down, not up.
A 5 yr old budget laptop had a 1280*1024 screen
My 3 year old budget laptop has a 1280*800 screen
current laptops in the same price range are 1366*768
A few years and will the resolution be 10000*1 ?
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.
Those are the 'wide screen' adaptations of older standard sizes that are being pushed now.
You might not mind, or even think it's great if you watch movies all the time on your laptop, but that's not what I do with one.
HD refers to resolution, not pixel density. A 100' screen at 1920x1080 resolution would not have a very high pixel density, assuming the resolution is mapped 1:1 onto the pixels. Pixel density, on the other hand, would be quite high if the screen was only 3". "Retina", if you use Apple's terms, means that 1' away, your eyes cannot see the pixels. This generally implies a pixel density of over 270 pixels per inch. Most LCD monitors are between 72 and 96ppi. Some may hit 120, but nothing close to this new display. That is why they are using Apple's term which describes density, not resolution.
today is spelling optional day.
My 15" MBP has the 1680x1050 anti-glare screen, which really pushes the usability of some of the OS X widgets. Any 15" MBP can be ordered with it. I don't know if you'd want to go that much higher on any "modern" OS, until they are display resolution independent.
Too small of a dot pitch simply makes most operating systems unusable or irritating -- this box is too small, this text in this section needs to be enlarged, this document needs to be zoomed -- and so the demand for higher resolution displays just isn't there.