backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 29 comment(s) - last by Zoomer.. on Oct 24 at 6:51 PM

Samsung 10mm thick LCD HDTV 1  (Source: Samsung)
Samsung to show off thinnest full HD 40-inch LCD TV around in Yokohama this week

Thin is certainly in when it comes to HDTV sets and computer displays. What is typically considered thin for a LCD or plasma HDTV is somewhere in the area of 5-inches to 6-inches thick currently. Some HDTVs are even thicker than that.

Samsung announced that it will have a new thin-film-transistor (TFT), LCD on display at FPD International 2007 in Yokohama, Japan this week. The new LCD panel has the thinnest profile ever for a full-size HDTV. The 40-inch diagonal Full HD LCD TV panel is a mere 10mm thick.

That is about the thickness of a typical 10-inch to 20-inch computer LCD display, which is significantly thinner than normal HDTV sets. The bezel of the panel has also been reduced from 30mm to 14.6mm. The screen is backlit using LEDs and can reproduce 92% of the NTSC standard for color saturation. Power consumption is reported to be 90 watts or less.

With a profile of only 10mm, Samsung can give the svelte dimensions of the recently announced Sony XEL-1 OLED TV a run for its money. The majority of home theater lovers would be willing to add 7mm to the 3mm profile of the Sony XEL-1 to gain nearly 30-inches in screen size.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
TV?
By Murst on 10/22/07, Rating: 0
RE: TV?
By WelshBloke on 10/22/2007 5:19:59 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Since it doesn't weigh that much (probably), I'd be afraid to put it on a stand like that... wouldn't seem very stable.


Even if it comes with the model to hold it up?

(mind you she looks like she'd need a good meal to hold up any of the larger models)


RE: TV?
By tdawg on 10/22/2007 6:15:41 PM , Rating: 2
1 please.

:)


RE: TV?
By Zoomer on 10/24/2007 5:40:16 PM , Rating: 2
In that case, I'm in for 2. :p


RE: TV?
By MooseMuffin on 10/22/2007 5:30:19 PM , Rating: 2
Does it matter what they call it? If it has the inputs you need for tv, its a tv.


RE: TV?
By rsasp on 10/22/2007 7:26:41 PM , Rating: 2
It is a LCD monitor but in extreme size. beside those speaker comes with tv don't sound so good, it'd be better if you use external speaker


Another delay for OLED?
By bhieb on 10/22/2007 5:11:48 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Samsung announced that it will have a new thin-film-transistor (TFT), LCD on display at FPD International 2007


I am sure since this uses a fairly tried and true tech (TFT), that we can kiss the newer stuff good bye for the near future (OLED, SED). It seems manufactuers tend to stick with what they know instead of gambling on new tech (I don't blame them, though). I just think there are better technologies out there, and this will likely breath more life into the inferior (by comparison) LCD tech.




RE: Another delay for OLED?
By Reflex on 10/22/2007 5:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
Neither OLED or SED are ready for prime time at this point, both have lifespan issues(LCD lasts longer than the backlight typically, but OLED has about a five year lifespan) and mass production issues that prevent them from taking over. That does not mean that the issues will not be worked out(paticularly in the case of SED, but not so much in OLED), but there is plenty of time for LCD, especially LED backlit LCD, to improve substantially before a successor technology takes over.


RE: Another delay for OLED?
By bhieb on 10/22/2007 5:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, but do you think companies will continue to push for SED or OLED if there is another option? The only thing they really want is an uber thin TV so they can market the heck out of it. If it can be done with LCD, then the other 2 become less important. To the enthusist sure SED is better, but the mass market doesn't care about quality just marketing (in this case "thinner is better"). Whatever it takes to sell TV's, and unfortunately Color Gammut is not on my grandma's checklist, but than cute little thin one is great.


RE: Another delay for OLED?
By Targon on 10/23/2007 7:35:09 AM , Rating: 2
If there are benefits to the newer technologies(once all the kinks are worked out of the manufacturing process), then in the long run, it makes sense to invest in the new technologies. That is the real key, long term vs. short term. The bigger companies have the resources to invest in the development of the new technologies while selling older technology products to keep them going.

A big thing that is going on is the transition in the homes of average income people to flat panel. Most people out there still have a normal CRT television, not because they don't want a flat panel, but because they just can't afford to buy a panel to replace their old television. For those who are younger and don't have a house, wife, kids, etc to provide for, they just can't understand why people don't have $1300 to pay for a big panel. People who know enough about these things also will be unwilling to buy a panel that doesn't support 1080p, which means the cost goes up by a bit to buy one.


RE: Another delay for OLED?
By masher2 (blog) on 10/23/2007 7:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
> "both have lifespan issues..."

Not SED. The factor holding it up atm is manufacturing costs, but given the image quality benefit , I think its eventually going to see the light of day.


hey there
By GlassHouse69 on 10/22/2007 5:13:38 PM , Rating: 2
Hm. she is about that thick as well.

yummy!




RE: hey there
By shabby on 10/22/2007 5:40:36 PM , Rating: 2
Does she come with the lcd?


RE: hey there
By Hyperlite on 10/22/2007 6:03:12 PM , Rating: 2
and if you didn't click on it yet, that is a really, really big picture.


RE: hey there
By Zoomer on 10/24/2007 6:51:31 PM , Rating: 2
There's another picture avaliable. A mirror here:
http://eiox.com/pics/dt/113193%20800.jpg

The full size image is in the same directory.


Stop using photoshop
By marsbound2024 on 10/23/2007 12:25:40 AM , Rating: 2
Nice, but I wish they would have connected the TV up instead of tricking some with photoshopping. We get the point, but I doubt at that viewing angle that the image would be so nice. Besides, if you look at the big image, you can see that at the top left corner of the TV, it is an obvious photoshop. But really you could tell that anyway, right? :)




RE: Stop using photoshop
By Zoomer on 10/24/2007 5:45:25 PM , Rating: 2
exif data for your persual.

quote:
Orientation of image: 1
File change date and time: 2002:01:07 14:18:04
Image input equipment manufacturer: Canon
Image input equipment model: Canon EOS 5D
Software used: Adobe Photoshop CS2 Windows
Exposure time: 0.01
F number: 4
Exposure program: 4
ISO speed rating: 800
Shutter speed: 6.625
Aperture: 4
Exposure bias: 0
Metering mode: 3
Flash: 9
Lens focal length: 37
Focal plane X resolution: 3086.93
Focal plane Y resolution: 3091.3
Focal plane resolution unit: 2
Custom rendered: 0
Exposure mode: 0
White balance: 0
Scene capture type: 0


Dizam
By BansheeX on 10/22/2007 7:53:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'll take one. I wish current panels had bezels that thin. Every time I got to the store, I see 40" tvs with massive charcoal gray bezels all around the screen. Flipping ugly.




Can you be too Thin?
By ChipDude on 10/22/2007 9:54:12 PM , Rating: 2
Damm it looks hot, but I'd be afraid to break her... opps I meant the TV.

I got a 52 LCD and I got to admit I'm not ready to hang it on the wall. When they get to about 50 lbs then I don't think it'll be an issue at all. Going from 50lbs and a 1" to something much less is cool but probably to 90% of the market not worth the extra price.

Seriously she is way to thin




This is a true geek taking a picture.
By mWMA on 10/22/2007 11:19:58 PM , Rating: 2
It seem if you look at the bigger picture you will find that the camera is focused more on the girl and less on the LCD. A picture job well done to entice a geek.




no cables?
By LanFear on 10/23/2007 1:01:44 PM , Rating: 2
Anyone else notice that there's a nice HQ picture on the tv, but no cables seeming to connect it to anything? Struck me as a little odd.




Who cares?
By mcnabney on 10/22/07, Rating: -1
RE: Who cares?
By GNStudios on 10/22/2007 5:11:52 PM , Rating: 2
weight?


RE: Who cares?
By bhieb on 10/22/2007 5:22:12 PM , Rating: 3
Weight is the main thing, but it would still suffer the main flaw in wall hanging and that is cabling. What I would love to see is someone develop a standardized wall mount that included the cabling (all inputs and power). Maybe just a socket that could be mounted in between 2 studs, then the TV could just "screw" into that standard socket. Make sure the socket contains about 30' of 2" cabling for all the connections, then you could then run to a closet near by. Then if you wanted to move TV's, just unscrew it and put in a bigger one.

I love my wall mounted units, but I basically had to plan the house remodel around them to get all the clutter out of the room. It would be very hard to retro an existing house.


RE: Who cares?
By ertomas on 10/22/2007 6:01:03 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know if this works but it sure looks nice:

http://www.decorp.com/products.htm


RE: Who cares?
By xphile on 10/22/2007 10:24:51 PM , Rating: 2
I hear you in FM. And all that really states is that the main problem isn't actually how thin a panel is, its actually two other things - what it weighs, and how it can be interconnected.

If the weight is totally dependent on the thickness then yes thin is important, but in all other respects nobody I know can tell how thick a screen is when they are watching it - they all essentially either do or could look the same thickness from the front. Being the weight of a small refrigerator is what makes thiner practical (If also more fragile).

For me the real effort now needs to be spent improving the interconnectivity. All the new screen tech absolutely SCREAMS for wireless high speed digital connection.

It isn't like in the average house the signals are going to have to go far.

It isn't like the technology doesn't exist to protect the signals being sent.

It isn't like it wouldn't be a piece of cake for the content companies, broadcast companies and manufacturing companies to sit down and agree on a standard...

Oh yeah ok, the last one will screw it for at least 5 years - I stand corrected.


RE: Who cares?
By SkeeterLDR2004 on 10/22/2007 5:40:25 PM , Rating: 2
Have you ever tried to properly align a 1st generation 50" flat panel on a wall mount? Not to mention that you can mount it using few supports/studs (and therefore more possible mounting areas). If this thing is light enough to be carried by one person (not considering length), I'd bite.


RE: Who cares?
By kkwst2 on 10/22/2007 8:26:18 PM , Rating: 2
Yup - been there. Mounting it is not that bad if you get a decent bracket. It's the cable routing that is the pain. I have all the signal cables going down the wall into the basement. Most of the components stay in the basement with an RF controller. The DVD cable goes up through a register vent back into the den (for obvious reasons). I spent 2 hours mounting the TV and 2 days routing the wiring.

The thin factor I think is what is most appealing.If you could get close to flush against the wall it would look less obtrusive in a living room. Current flat panels still protrude noticeably from the wall.

However, the connectors are still going to be an issue in getting this thing flat against the wall. I think eventually they're going to make the link to the TV wireless, with a connector box that you can stow some distance away with all the connectors attached. This should eliminate everything but the power cord. Then you just bury the junction box behind the TV without having to fish multiple connectors through the wall.


RE: Who cares?
By Pandamonium on 10/22/2007 9:43:37 PM , Rating: 2
If we get wireless HD video in the next 3 years, I'll be impressed.


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il











botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki