Print 18 comment(s) - last by firebird2006.. on Jul 26 at 1:15 PM

The SyncMaster 460PXn with MagicNet
460PXn happens to be the first 46" LCD

Targeted at the commercial and corporate space, Samsung is introducing two new displays that both have embedded versions of Windows XP. The SyncMaster 400PXn and 460PXn are standalone displays that do not require a computer to operate. In fact, the displays come preloaded with Microsoft Office document players and PowerPoint to create presentations on the fly.

The new screens can be configured into a larger 4x4 grid, using 16 displays. The displays can also be configured using a computer from a remote location. Using a technology Samsung calls MagicNet, a computer from a remote location can control not just one display, but all 16 displays at the same time -- dragging content from one screen to another is no problem. From Samsung's press release:

Upgrades to the 2006 MagicNet enabled displays include an embedded Windows XP operating system, high definition resolution, portrait or landscape orientation modes, and video wall support up to 4x4 displays, all supported by MagicNet. These upgrades extend the capabilities of the displays with more choices for end-users while maintaining ease of use and simplifying the installation process.

Quick specifications:
  • Viewable Image Size: 46"
  • Brightness (Typical): 500 cd/m²
  • Contrast Ratio (Typical): 800:1
  • Viewing Angle (H/V, Typical): 170°/170°
  • Interface: Analog/Digital
  • Max/Native Resolution: 1366x768
  • Available Color(s): Black
  • Special Features: S-Video, PIP, PBP, RS232C, Supports NTSC/PAL/SECAM, Wall Mounting & Pivot, MagicNet - Network Capability
Samsung's senior product marketing manager Mark Picard said "by adding the Windows XP operating system, we have made our displays more power, useful and flexible for the end-user." Both the SyncMaster 400PXn and 460PXn support HD resolutions and come with connections appropriate for commercial uses like airports, malls and restaurants. The new displays are available immediately.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

no 1080p?
By Xchus on 7/25/2006 12:25:18 PM , Rating: -1
That resolution sucks, specially if you are going to split the screen into smaller screens, I mean does it make any sense.

And correct me if I'm wrong but isn't BDVD and HD-DVD 1080p (I read that in the last issue of Wired in an ad) why in the hell do companies market their 720p as HD when is not true HD....

RE: no 1080p?
By wil2xl on 7/25/2006 12:35:16 PM , Rating: 5
The display isn't for watching your favorite flicks. Says "commercial and corporate space".

1366x768 is true HD.
In fact, 1280x720 -- the res you're referring to -- is true HD.
1024x768 is also true HD (using non-square pixels)

just cuz it's not 1920x1080 doesn't mean it's not high definition.

RE: no 1080p?
By headbox on 7/25/2006 12:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
You missed the point- it's not to split into smaller screens, it is to combine multiple monitors into bigger screens.

RE: no 1080p?
By dagamer34 on 7/25/2006 12:39:43 PM , Rating: 3
Because you don't need 1080 lines of resolution for such a "small" monitor if it's meant for airports and malls. You won't be able to tell the difference from so far away.

1080p only makes are real difference when you've got a large display (like 50-60+ inches). And especially since most families will never own a TV larger than 40", most of the 1080p stuff is FUD. 720p is good enough! Your choice of a TV will factor in much more on picture quality than the way you get your HD if the source is decent.

RE: no 1080p?
By TheDoc9 on 7/25/2006 2:26:55 PM , Rating: 1
don't know about that one, are you regreting a 720p purchase perhaps?

RE: no 1080p?
By namechamps on 7/25/2006 5:51:47 PM , Rating: 2
He is exactly right.

Resolution needs to go hand in hand w/ screen size. Now there is some overlap but generally speaking larger screens see more benefit from higher resolution than smaller screens.

Think about it. It has been the say way in the Computer LCD world for long time. Most smaller screen <=17" are 1280x1024. It is not until the screen gets larger that the resolution grows. It wouldn't make sense to have a 17" 2560x1440 monitor. Same thing applies to HDTV.

Also people tend to sit further away from TV then they do computer monitors. As distance increases the ability for your eye to see the difference decreases. So on a small screen unless u plan to sit 3 feet from the screen your eye simply will be unable to resolve the differences between a good 768P system and 1080P system. Now for very large screens 60"+ and projection systems 100"+ the PQ increase is massive and well worth any price. On medium screens say 46"-65" 1080P is nice but expensive and not really mandatory. Less than 46" and 1080P is simply marketing.

That being said I expect within 2 years most if not all screens larger than 37" will be 1080P. Why? Because of consumers like the original poster who believe if it is not 1080P it's not Hidef. Rather than educate consumers it is simply easier for CE companies to sell more exepnsive sets and laugh all the way to the bank.

RE: no 1080p?
By lemonadesoda on 7/25/2006 8:59:43 PM , Rating: 2
It wouldn't make sense to have a 17" 2560x1440 monitor
I have to disagree with you there. Have you tried cleartype on your TFT? Do you use anti-alias on DirectX titles? Neither would be necessary with a 17" 2560x1440 screen. A 17" screen is about as tall as a "Letter"/"A4" page. Notice how easy it is to read a piece of paper with small print, but how hard it is to read the same page if PDF at 100% zoom?

The intention of a high def screen is not just to show "more" but to show it better, clearer.

Think about a TV screen vs. TFT. TFT is sharper and less eyestrain for reading. Exactly the same gains with UXGA and WQXGA.

RE: no 1080p?
By firebird2006 on 7/26/2006 1:15:50 PM , Rating: 2
That's right if your OS can't take advantage of the higher resolution.

Higher resolution is ALWAYS better, because basically your display medium is capable of displaying finer details. Laptop screens have always led the way - I was using a 15" 1600x1200, and later 1920x1200 on 15.4" and 17". Due to XP's inability to scale, there are issues with legibility and comfort. BUT, when you're viewing say high res photos, they really do "jump" off the screen for lack of better word.

Look at it another way, the real world is made up of infinite pixels. So the higher pixel count per given area, the better the visual quality. But of course the OS or information has to be able to take advantage.

Vista is suppose to support vector scaling for the entire GUI. I haven't been keeping up, so not sure if this feature is implemented or how well.

Honestly, I wouldn't mind having higher res HDTV... 1920x1080 can be found in small laptop screens!

RE: no 1080p?
By dice1111 on 7/25/2006 12:40:01 PM , Rating: 3
They are not spilting the one display into smaller screens, they are using 16 displays in a 4x4 grid to become one mammoth display. Most likely for large conferences in ampatheaters. You might be able to get your HD resolution when they are all hooked together.
Besides, I doubt a costly 4x4 display configuration like this will be used to watch home theater movies on it. Mostly likely just powerpoint and the odd avi from the marketing department.

RE: no 1080p?
By namechamps on 7/25/2006 5:56:57 PM , Rating: 3
Who needs 1080P with a mere 1080 lines of resolution?

A 4x4 grid would have a combined resolution of 5464 x 3072
That's 15+ megapixels or 8X the pixels of 1080P.
Another way to look at it would be 3072P :).

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki