backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 57 comment(s) - last by Obadiah.. on Apr 16 at 5:22 PM

Samsung's 24" LED LCD panel
Higher color saturation, 180-degrees viewing and near perfect light uniformity

Several weeks ago DailyTech reported that Toshiba Matsushita was in the process or rolling out new LED-backlit LCD panels, first to be introduced into notebooks. As notebooks become thinner, the need for LED-backlit screens become more important as they take up far less space and requires less power. The same is true for desktop displays, but LED-backlit LCD panels are used primarily for a different reason here: uniformity and color gamut.

Today, Samsung announced that it will be launching several new LCD monitors that use LED backlighting, starting with a large 24-inch display. According to Samsung, the new LCD panel will rival that of even some of the best LCD and plasma televisions. The new displays boast the highest contrast ratio for LCDs available today at greater than 1000:1 ratio. Not only this, color saturation will be top-notch as well. Samsung's specifications indicated that the new panels will deliver color levels at 111% of the NTSC standard while traditional LCDs can only muster out 72%.

The new 24-inch panel will boast a resolution of 1920x1200, which is standard in the industry for screen of that size. Samsung will also feature its highly celebrated S-PVA (super patterned-ITO vertical alignment) technology, giving a true 180-degrees viewing angle.

At this time, no comment has been given on when the new LED LCDs will hit OEMs.  However, the lag between Samsung panel announcements and monitor production can sometimes exceed six months.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
When? How Much? And where?!
By Jedi2155 on 4/11/2007 3:31:51 PM , Rating: 3
I think the replacement for my CRT is finally here. Now if its competitive in pricing with the Dell 2407 ($600-800), then I would definitely try to get the funds to buy this sucker.




RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By isaacmacdonald on 4/11/2007 3:34:19 PM , Rating: 2
If the color and contrast are truly comparable to a high end plasma/LCD TV, I would pay up to 1300.00. I've been waiting a long time for a direct-view crt replacement, this seems promising.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By GaryJohnson on 4/11/2007 4:21:12 PM , Rating: 5
I found the Samsung XL20 (a 20.1" LED LCD) through Froogle for $1150. It's non LED backlit cousin, the Samsung 204B-BK, I found for $295. That's a modest 390% increase in price for the LED backlit version.

Similarly, I found the Samsung 24" 244t-BK for $690.

$690 * 390% = $2691


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Samus on 4/11/2007 4:45:14 PM , Rating: 2
lol, that's the funniest sales equation i've ever seen, props!


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Xietsu on 4/11/2007 11:36:53 PM , Rating: 2
Lol. $2679 is the MSRP for the Samsung XL20.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By FITCamaro on 4/11/2007 6:59:51 PM , Rating: 1
Yeah....I paid $900 for a 42" DLP HDTV. I'm not paying $800-1300 for a computer monitor.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By JazzMang on 4/11/2007 3:36:50 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe found a replacement for my 2405!

We'll see what happens when the reviews start filtering through.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Oregonian2 on 4/11/2007 5:01:53 PM , Rating: 2
While I'll keep my 2405fpw for now, sounds like they'll have some good replacements here whenever I'm "forced" to replace it.

Now only if they'll next change the front to a dual LCD structure for true 3D images (meaning, stereographic) as well (without increasing the price of course!).

:-)


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Yeah Yeah on 4/11/07, Rating: -1
RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Chadder007 on 4/11/2007 4:48:54 PM , Rating: 5
You are thinking of the Blue OLED I believe which has a very short life. The White LED being used as a backlight should have a significantly longer life period.
LED = 60,000 - 100,000 hours
CCFL = 25,000 - 50,000 hours


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By masher2 (blog) on 4/12/2007 7:54:48 AM , Rating: 3
> "You are thinking of the Blue OLED I believe which has a very short life. The White LED being used as a backlight should have a significantly longer life period"

Nearly all white leds are made with a blue led + yellow phosphor combination. And both white and blue LEDs have MTBFs of 100K hours or more now.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By glenn8 on 4/12/2007 12:38:17 PM , Rating: 2
I think he's talking about blue "OLED" and not regular LED... which I've read does have a comparatively short life span.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Oregonian2 on 4/11/2007 4:58:30 PM , Rating: 2
They make an LCD display with a CRT in it?


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By johnsonx on 4/11/2007 5:59:03 PM , Rating: 2
he was probably thinking of a CCFL, and got his abbreviations messed up.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Oregonian2 on 4/13/2007 5:06:13 PM , Rating: 2
You're probably right!


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By RW on 4/11/2007 8:52:11 PM , Rating: 2
What we need on future monitors is support for 100 Hz and a bit depth of more than 8 bit per pixel at least 10 bit per pixel bit depth for more than 16.7 mil colors.
But I don't think the next Digital Link Interface Display Port actually has the bandwitdh to support both the 100 Hz+ 10 bits per pixel bit depth, since the Display Port 1.1 has only 10.8 Gb/s bandwidth.

The Display Port 1.1 specification has only 10.8 Gb/s that means 1350 MB/s.
A digital image of 2560x1600 pixels has 11.7 MB.
A monitor with a resolution of 2560x1600 should reach the 1170 MB/s bandwidth at 100 Hz.
Adding 10 bits per pixel should heavily increase the bandwidth needed exceeding the actual Display Port bandwidth limitations.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By GaryJohnson on 4/11/2007 10:33:05 PM , Rating: 3
10 bit, 2560x1600, 94Hz would work as it is 10.76 Gb/s.

9 bit, 2560x1600, 104Hz would also work, as it is 10.71 Gb/s.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By RW on 4/12/07, Rating: 0
RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By GaryJohnson on 4/12/2007 2:45:13 AM , Rating: 3
Please note that I said 94Hz .

Also 1 gigabit is 1,073,741,824 bits , not 1,000,000,000 bits.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Obadiah on 4/12/2007 4:11:39 PM , Rating: 3
> Also 1 gigabit is 1,073,741,824 bits , not 1,000,000,000 bits.

That would be absolutely, unequivocally FALSE.

Unlike the case for storage where people routinely conflate powers of 2 and and powers of 10, when speaking of data transmission rates it is ALWAYS powers of 10.

So, 1Gbps is always 10^9 bits per second. It doesn't matter if you are talking about gigabit ethernet, serial-ata, infiniband, DSL, DVI, DisplayPort, or any other medium -- Data transmission rates are always powers of 10.

The rule of thumb is that if the data is stored or otherwise managed in an inherently binary medium (like RAM) then use powers of 2, otherwise use powers of 10. Since data transmission is inherently a serial process, one bit at a time, there is no reason to measure it in units of powers of 2.

To further extend this rant - raw disk capacity should be measured in powers of 10 because data on disk is not inherently a binary structure. If you don't believe me, go look at the number of bits in a disk sector (hard disk or other wise) - the payload is USUALLY a power of 2 but the REST of the bits which include error-correction, start and stop bits, etc do not add up to a power of 2.

For example, the full size of a sector on standard CDs is 2352 bytes, and high-end disk arrays from companies like HP and EMC uses hard disks configured to have only 504 bytes per sector payload, not the more common 512 bytes like on your PC.

On the other hand, filesystem capacity is measured in powers of 2 because the data-structures that the operating system uses to track manage the filesystem are manipulated in system RAM and thus are inherently binary.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By three on 4/13/2007 6:43:58 AM , Rating: 2
Obadiah, you are wrong and disseminating statements that show ignorance and confusion between mathematics and commercial information.

Information is measurable. The smallest unit of information is the bit. Since a bit holds one of two possible values, n bits can be combined in 2^n possibilities.

The huge majority of computers are binary machines (bit based), so all the information they can represent, communicate, whatever, is only measurable in powers of 2.

Since people use the decimal system daily (10 digits = 0 to 9), including for most measurements, like distances, mass media tends to also measure information as if it was decimal based on current computer systems - which is not - this is why, for example, when you buy a 320 GB HD that only holds 300 GB.

Do not confuse what you read in literature with purposes other than rigor with the Science of Information.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Obadiah on 4/13/2007 4:21:19 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The huge majority of computers are binary machines (bit based), so all the information they can represent, communicate, whatever, is only measurable in powers of 2.


Your logic does not follow. Allow me to demonstrate - the sector size of a CD is 2352 bytes. There is no way to represent that specific value as a power of 2. Even if you broke it down to bits (2352 * 8 = 18816) you still could not represent it as a specific power of 2.

In other words:

2^n = 2352

or

2^n = 18816

have no solution for n.

Thus CDs (and just about all forms of rotating disc) do not manage information in a binary way.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By three on 4/15/2007 11:25:48 AM , Rating: 2
oh, what a huge confusion years non rigorous literature have done.

Information representation is binary, on digital computers. But this does NOT mean you can't represent entities which are powers of 2!

The process of representing any reality in binary is called digitalization. When you take a picture with a digital camera, or record your voice, or design data structures for some file system, like the CDFS you mentioned, you work on a higher abstraction, that layers of logic will end up transforming in plain binary.

However - very obviously - you don't sing binary and you can design data structures as rich as your imagination wants.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Obadiah on 4/16/2007 5:22:03 PM , Rating: 2
Oh what a huge confusion not speaking English as your first language has done.

You fail to understand the term "manage."

Also, "digitalization" does not mean what you think it means:

From Merriam-Webster at http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=digit...

: the administration of digitalis until the desired physiological adjustment is attained; also : the bodily state so produced

If you wish to argue about the finer points of language, you need to be well educated in that language.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By RW on 4/13/2007 12:23:48 AM , Rating: 2
In that case that would be:
94fps × 30bpp × 2560 × 1600=11.550.720.000= 11.55 Gb/s
So u still have wrong numbers.

And even with 94 Hz the bandwidth necessary is more than Display Port 1.1 could deliver.


RE: When? How Much? And where?!
By Ringold on 4/11/2007 10:49:16 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe those would be nice numbers for professional purposes, or the crowd that buys NIC's for Klingons, but.. I don't think I'd pay any extra myself for better than 60hz and 16.7m colors. :\

I can see a difference (the nasty banding) with anything other than S-IPS screens I think it is, but this is 'good enough' for me. A bigger screen for lower cost would be nice before jumping that technical hurdle.

At least, for me.


Hm
By Great Googly Moogly on 4/11/2007 4:34:33 PM , Rating: 2
Yet another monitor with a 1996 pixel pitch. I'll pass.




RE: Hm
By Naviblue on 4/11/2007 4:55:52 PM , Rating: 2
If you don't mind me asking, how did you find out the pixel pitch? Even so, if it can display 1900 x 1200 resolutions (which is all anybody really needs)with supposely faster response times, brighter, 180 degree viewing and better color levels than what seems to be the problem honestly? The only thing I could possibly see is insane pricing...


RE: Hm
By Mudvillager on 4/11/2007 5:17:28 PM , Rating: 2
I'm currently @ 2560x1200 and I need more.


RE: Hm
By Mudvillager on 4/11/2007 5:17:44 PM , Rating: 2
*1600


RE: Hm
By Great Googly Moogly on 4/11/2007 5:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
I figured it out by looking at the diagonal size and reading the resolution. And saying that "you don't need more than 1920x1200" is quite a sweeping statement. It might be true for you, but it's definitely not true for me.

Or rather, I should say the desired resolution isn't independent of the pixel pitch. The bigger the monitor, the higher the resolution I'd need. I use 1600x1200 on a 19" CRT, and that's optimal for me. For a 24" monitor, I would lean more towards at the VERY least 2048x1536 (as a 4:3 example), but preferably higher.

So you can see that I'm screwed when my CRT dies.


RE: Hm
By Lakku on 4/11/2007 10:25:32 PM , Rating: 2
You can find a monitor with the pixel pitch if you really want to. You just want a 'cheap' monitor with the pixel pitch you somehow 'need'. There are many monitors used by medical facilities for Xrays, MRIs etc that have VERY high resolutions and a very low pixel pitch. You can also find them in other scientific settings and for CAD/architecture work. If you NEED a monitor with that kind of pixel pitch and resolution, they are out there. If you actually needed a monitor with these specs, you would KNOW they are out there. Therefore, I am going to say you WANT, rather then NEED, these pixel pitches. These are HOME and BUSINESS monitors, not for 'professional' applications. Get over it and quit pretending you need more then you actually do, or go buy a very expensive professional monitor.


RE: Hm
By Thmstec on 4/11/2007 10:46:18 PM , Rating: 2
God, you sound like my english teacher, "Do you NEED to goto the bathroom, ro do you WANT to."

And for those LCDs you speak of, very rare and the reason for that is stupid. Like the guy who said it before, back in 1996 I got my old 19inch CRT with 1600x1200...why don't we have sharper displays for normal use and available to normal users. Once normal people see the light (or in this case stop seeing the HUGE FREAKING PIXELS ON CURRENT LCDS) prices will drop and MS will start using vectors in their OS (does Vista? I really don't know for sure.)


RE: Hm
By Ringold on 4/11/2007 10:52:47 PM , Rating: 2
If the market was there, and the technology was there to make it cheaply enough to meet the market, we'd have it.

Something in the above equation doesn't exist yet. It's not stupid, but it is simple.


RE: Hm
By ET on 4/12/2007 7:16:07 AM , Rating: 2
Same here. I'm using a 19" CRT at 1600x1200 (18" effective screen). Having to move to 24" in order to not drop in resolution doesn't look good. 20" would have been better. And it's not like it's a technical problem. 17" 1920x1200 exist on laptops, and look pretty good.


RE: Hm
By AncientPC on 4/12/2007 12:12:23 PM , Rating: 2
FYI I have 1920x1200 on a 15.4" screen on a Inspiron 6000.

In regards to parent, I have 3200x1200 (2 x Dell 2001FPs) and still use multiple desktops to get the space I need.


RE: Hm
By Great Googly Moogly on 4/12/2007 11:07:25 AM , Rating: 2
Nice try. For a private individual, and not a business, it's really not possible to get a good CRT anymore. Maybe if you have the budget and manufacturer connections of a hospital as you say... when you order 20 of them in bulk. And no, there aren't any good LCDs like that you speak of. The semi-available LCDs that I know of being used in medical imaging (the one-off IBM T221 or whatever its name is and the most expensive EIZO monitors realistically cannot cope with moving pictures. At all. Try watching a movie on the 21" EIZO LCDs. Have fun with that.

But if you have any elite connections and/or pointers, I'd gladly take them.


RE: Hm
By Gooberslot on 4/12/2007 3:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
How can you determine what "anybody really needs?" Are you the god of displays?

Besides, resolution isn't the only factor; a large pitch and giant pixels look really ugly.


My Next Laptop
By Dactyl on 4/11/2007 3:56:50 PM , Rating: 2
Low power consumption, hi res: this is perfect for a laptop.




RE: My Next Laptop
By SquidianLoveGod on 4/11/2007 4:36:35 PM , Rating: 2
I like the lower power consumption, But I thought laptop LCD screens are the perfect thickness, not to thin so you can break the damn thing when you sneez...
A friend of mine has an old toshiba Laptop and the LCD screen is 1 inch thick! But It feels waaaay more solid than my Acer Aspire's Screen! You don't feel as if your damaging the laptop if you pick it up by the edges of the screen.
Personal preference really, all the new rage is thin and light. I like the dimensions as they are, but I wouldn't mind them being a little bit lighter...


RE: My Next Laptop
By Mudvillager on 4/11/2007 5:16:33 PM , Rating: 2
Check out the Vaio G. It's on the front page.


RE: My Next Laptop
By DragonMaster0 on 4/11/2007 8:31:44 PM , Rating: 2
Finally a monitor that doesn't produce too much RFI. (The CCFL inverters were making some, CRTs are making some, not LED though.)


RE: My Next Laptop
By jamesgor13579 on 4/11/2007 10:37:53 PM , Rating: 2
Most likely the LED brightness is controlled by a PWM signal so they probably emit some RFI.


replacement?
By Adul on 4/11/2007 3:45:48 PM , Rating: 2
Will it replace my belove NEC 20WMGX2 LCD? Only time will tell.




RE: replacement?
By Aprime on 4/11/2007 3:54:21 PM , Rating: 2
Price in my case.


RE: replacement?
By Zarsky on 4/11/2007 4:10:57 PM , Rating: 2
I thought 20" was enough for me, well it doesn't and this looks like a promising follower to my 20" BenQ if the price will be under 800€.


Well..
By SpaceRanger on 4/11/2007 3:33:28 PM , Rating: 2
If it'll take about 6 months to hit the shelves, then I have myself a nice Christmas present waiting for me then. This looks to be a nice addition to my collection..




RE: Well..
By Naviblue on 4/11/2007 3:38:38 PM , Rating: 2
Let's hope it doesn't...I've been eyeing down the BenQ 24" Gaming Monitor for quite some time now. This annoucement throws my plans way off. The real questions are when they're going to launch it, how fast is the response times and for how much? If it's more than 800, I can live without it.


yes!
By sprockkets on 4/11/2007 3:48:45 PM , Rating: 2
about friggin time! Now it is worth it for me to upgrade my aging yet still looks as good as new Samung 17" lcd




RE: yes!
By JoKeRr on 4/11/2007 3:59:44 PM , Rating: 2
so can we expect Dell Ultrasharp 2709FPW in roughly 6 months? That would be very tempting.


Wait and see
By FXi on 4/12/2007 4:10:01 AM , Rating: 2
Let's wait and see what the price is. It shouldn't cost that much more for a backlit LCD, just look at notebook panels with them that aren't selling for 1.5x the price.

In a year or so practically every lcd maker out there will have begun to switch to LED backlights. So be careful not to rush to your checkbook for the first models or you may regret having been taken to the cleaners...




RE: Wait and see
By glenn8 on 4/12/2007 1:09:35 PM , Rating: 2
I don't see why they couldn't be competitively priced to start with. It's not like LED technology is grand spanking new. Slap a clock on it and they can charge a premium. :)


Sounds good.
By GoatMonkey on 4/11/2007 3:38:31 PM , Rating: 2
Sounds good. Now all we need is a 50"+ 1080p panel with a LED backlight for a reasonable price.




Waiting on LED LCD TVs
By VIAN on 4/11/2007 3:59:00 PM , Rating: 2
I want this technology for my 360, but they keep taking forever to release them.




It's Expensive
By TheRequiem on 4/11/2007 5:39:55 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah I saw these at CES... they are going to be expensive. There is no question, the 24-inch monitor is more then likely going to cost over $2000. I'd imagine as competition comes into place though, you will see a dramatic move to these types of LCD panels similar to those we have seen with laptops. These monitors are for the professional field where color accuracy is demanded. Now that we have an entry (I mean, who else has an LED backlit lcd out besides Samsung?) you will start to see other manufacturers produce competition. These are more efficient displays in everyway, its the next step to go for the mainstream too. The TV market and portable markets will transition soon after they do with laptops and monitors. LED's basically eliminate ghosting completely and allow for lower power consumption. Not to mention much better colors. I'll wait until after the first couple of generations to get one, right when they get them down to a decent price point and maximize their efficiency and reliability.




Not bad...
By Kurz on 4/11/2007 6:40:50 PM , Rating: 2
Just a general question I dont mean to Hi-jack this news item.

I heard something about Laser (or was it LED?) DLP displays for the general TV's. I hope they finally bring DLP tech to the Computer Relm. LCD's being great and all I just dont like the contrast and response times on current LCD's.

Or is DLP tech not practical to produce high resolutions we see in the computer relm?




no 27/30"?
By dome1234 on 4/11/2007 9:26:20 PM , Rating: 2
Both apple and dell have 27/30 inchers out. I wonder why samsung hasn't. Is it the yield issue?

Well I did return a dell 2707 since I'm not pleased by the dead/stuck pixels, which I put to my crappy luck.




"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton

DailyTech Poll
Do you use copy/paste on your smartphone? 




17 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2010 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki