backtop


Print 69 comment(s) - last by Visual.. on Oct 27 at 8:52 AM


Photos courtesy of AVing.net
Thin is in, again

This week at the 2006 Korea Electronics Show, Samsung showed off a 17-inch AMOLED that was only 12mm thick -- the panel itself is only 1.8mm thick. Being one of the thinnest in the world, the display is based on organic LED technology and produces brightness and image quality to LCD displays available today. This display is able to run at 1600x1200 resolution, which is the sweet spot for many of today's larger format displays. At 17-inches however, 1600x1200 may be a bit too much for some.

Performance for the new AMOLED screen also appears to be excellent. Pixel response time is rated at an extremely fast 0.01ms. The screen has a constrat ratio of 1000:1 and a brightness rating at 400cd/m2. In terms of specifications, both constrat and brightness appear to be on par with most of today's popular LCD panels, which indicates that AMOLED technology definitely has room for maturity. Full specifications are as follows:
  • Screen size: 345.6 x 259.2mm
  • Aspect ratio: 4:3
  • Viewing angle: >170 degrees
  • Resolution: 1600 x 1200 (UXGA)
  • Pixel pitch: 216um
  • Response time: 0.01ms
  • Colors: 262,144
  • Brightness: 400cd/m2
  • Contrast ratio: 1000:1
One of the current limitations appear to be the color support of the screen, supporting only 262K colors instead of the millions of colors of today's LCDs. The other issue is that most consumers expect screens to be produced in a 16:9 or 16:10 aspect ratio these days. The 4:3 aspect ratio is definitely on the way out.

Despite a few needed improvemnts, it's clear that AMOLED technology holds a great deal of promise. Thin products are becoming the norm and TVs and displays being thin are no exception.


Comments     Threshold


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

By Lord Evermore on 10/22/2006 10:34:25 PM , Rating: 4
A lot of people don't "expect" or even want widescreens, so there's plenty of reason to make a 4:3 screen. Especially at such low diagonal as 17 inch, that'd be a really low vertical resolution for a desktop screen. 1600x1200 is pretty extreme for 17 inch though; I don't even want it that high on a 19 inch, there's too much stuff that the size is set at a certain pixel value and becomes annoyingly small at high resolutions.

Also, a large percentage, I think actually the majority, of LCDs are only using 6-bit color panels, which is what this thing is. They use dithering to approximate 16.2 million colors, and I can't imagine that this screen doesn't do that as well, unless it truly is a very early model that they can't control the pixels finely enough.




By Gooberslot on 10/23/2006 2:12:34 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't understand the point of widescreen computer monitors. You're just giving up screen space. If you don't believe me just compare the resolutions of a 20" widescreen versus a 4:3 screen. And I don't know about everyone else but most of my computer time is spend reading and more vertical space is definitely better there.


By Le Québécois on 10/23/2006 4:10:09 AM , Rating: 2
For reading you are perfectly right but for almost everything else 16:9 is a far better ratio since the human eyes are made to see way more on the horizontal line of sigh than the vertical one.

Just look at a 4:3 monitor until your vertical line of sight is completely full with the monitor. You'll see that there's still plenty of room left for something on your horizontal line of sight. All that go to waste on a 4:3 monitor.

I'm fact the only reason why the first ratio was 4:3 it's because when cinema began in it's early years the first theatre where it was publicly shown had a scene with a 4:3 ratio.


By Le Québécois on 10/23/2006 4:14:11 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm fact


Sorry but at this hour my brain's french to english translation matrix is not fonctionning properly ;) .

I meant : In fact....


By Visual on 10/23/2006 4:56:11 AM , Rating: 1
sorry but your facts are little more than urban legends...
the actual reason for the 4:3 aspect is because of the nature of the CRT technology - the glass tube itself is rotationally symmetric because of how it is produced, there is very limited room for shaping it to be wider than higher.

also it might be true that your horizontal field of view with both eyes is much wider than vertical, but this isn't reason enough to make our tvs half height :/ a single eye's field of view is probably even square-er than 4:3, and what's more important - the field of view that's covered by both eyes at once is infact larger vertically than horizontally. so the argument for best monitor aspect isnt over yet


By GoatMonkey on 10/23/2006 7:51:34 AM , Rating: 4
Get one that rotates. 9:16 if you want.


By abhaxus on 10/23/2006 11:56:07 AM , Rating: 2
I cannot comment to your claims on CRT production being the main factor in the prominence of 4:3 aspect ratio TVs and monitors, however, the poster was correct in saying that the reason for the 4:3 aspect ratio is that cinema was originally produced in a 4:3 ratio.

The first movies were all 4:3 or even completely square, until the TV emulated the movie screen, at which point the studios and directors went to widescreen to create separation between the home TV experience and the movie theater experience.

Perhaps as you say, the TV could not follow until new CRT production technologies really took hold. I do not know. But the ACTUAL reason for 4:3 aspect ratio monitors and TVs being prominent is because cinema was originally shot 4:3.


By Topweasel on 10/23/2006 2:15:45 PM , Rating: 2
Oh that explains why we have so many CRT Widescreen TVs.

4:3 became standard because very early Movies used 4:3 Cameras and TV due to the reduced cost took decades to make the conversion to 16:9. A more people bought 4:3 televisions the idea became harder and Harder to imagine and then everyone basically gave up till the late 80's early 90's. It was even till DVD came out in the late 90's before people started to accept 16:9. Which means for 60 years we have been watching movies with half the picture missing. Everything computer related was taken from that.

As for the Eyes 6:19 Might be better but only if it was displayed on your retinas, other wise it doesn't matter because our eyes ability to focus and brains ability to ajust the information we digest from our eyes allows us to handle any size frame aslong as we are back far enough to take the the full size of the screen in.


By Lord Evermore on 10/23/2006 4:30:04 AM , Rating: 2
Don't know about you, but I have to move my eyes or my head to actually look directly at something in order to focus on it. Peripheral vision is only largely of use in games really. And how many people sit so close to a screen that the top and bottom are at the limit of their visual range? Even people who sit really close to a monitor are still "wasting" vertical space the way you described it; the screen is fully within their visual field.

We have a wider horizontal field of view because we have two eyes with a roughly round field of view sitting side by side, not because the actual function is better horizontally. Just adding space to the sides is only useful if you actually have something to put in that space, and the majority of people most of the time don't. Most (average) users in most languages work with one window at a time, with images and text starting at the top left and rarely having as much content on the right side as along the left. Adding more space just adds more unused space AND removes vertical space, it's "wasted" except for the times they're playing games in wide resolution (still not a majority) or watching widescreen video.


By crystal clear on 10/23/2006 4:52:40 AM , Rating: 2
This is for all you guys compalining about LCDs/CRTs-this could be an interesting add-on to your screens:

"Change your LCD monitor into a convenient touch-screen with ‘EZ-Canvas’"
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_...






By Le Québécois on 10/23/2006 8:21:22 PM , Rating: 2
About that gaming comment, you gave me an idea.

Have you ever been or lately been in a large and modern(like in lately upgraded working tools)gaming company? They all have wide 16:10 ratio monitors(a friend of mine works for a gaming company and showed me where he works). Sure you could argue that it is because they do games. But think for a second. Except for the artists that work there. All the others do all their programing works in text utilities AND with many windows open at once.

Wide screen isn't just for gaming or movie because if it really was the case, those companies wouldn't waste a cent on wide screen monitors except maybe for the artists.

The human peripheral vision is made to look at thing with a wider horizontal than vertical ratio.

If not, why are we stuck with a 4:3 ratio? If it's because of the "difficulties that you have when you do a CRT monitor"? Why the hek didn't they do 1:1 ratio monitors? it's even more simple. Humm, maybe I should do a patent on 1:1 ratio monitors because after what you said, it seems that there's no such thing as peripheral vision when it comes to "working" on a computer.


By peternelson on 10/23/2006 11:57:02 PM , Rating: 2
I think you will find John Logie Baird (the UK inventor of television) used a scanning system with a 1:1 aspect ratio by scanning with a rotating disc.

Therefore your patent would fail under "prior art" considerations.

I think widescreen is useful, but I also have an HP 1740 rotatable 4:3> 3:4. Vertically this is superb for web browsing as I find that most sites when they fill the screen horizontally can be read completely in the vertical without scrolling and that saves a lot of time.

To take advantage of the human eye's viewport, several screens (of 4x3 or 16x10) can be placed side by side, and multiple screen use has a lot of advantages.


By Le Québécois on 10/24/2006 2:34:23 AM , Rating: 2
Well...just so we understand each other...the 1:1 ratio WAS irony.

And the wide screen thing at the gaming company I was talking about, I never said they didn't use more than one 16:10 monitors, just that it was the ratio used by the whole staff( except maybe for the receptionist.)


By BikeDude on 10/23/2006 5:39:43 AM , Rating: 3
I happen to have two 4:3 17" monitors at work and a single 16:10 30" at home. I can't imagine going back to a single 4:3 monitor, no matter how big it is. (and I say this despite being blind on one eye)

16:10 happens to be (roughly) the golden ratio. It is a very natural aspect ratio for us humans and has served us well through most of mankind's history. 4:3 is an oddity brought into existance because of CRT technology constraints.

Stop living in the past!


By mindless1 on 10/26/2006 9:45:04 AM , Rating: 1
Stop pretending you are picking past vs future.

The FACT is, human vision does not matter. The presentation on-screen by the applications does, and that is almost never closer to 16:10 save for a few large spreadsheets. Most people do not use their monitor for primary movie playback either.

Having two windows open side-by-side is another story, widescreen is great for that.


By glennpratt on 10/27/2006 1:09:32 AM , Rating: 2
Yes, 16:10 isn't great for working on a single letter sized document, but neither is 4:3... But a 16:10 monitor switched to portrait is great. Really, having one window full screen is going the way of the dinasaur anyway. When were talking about small ~17in monitors, aspect ratio doesn't mean to much for desktop work, but think about 30" monitors. Would you really prefer them to be 4:3, a big square basically? I'd have to physically move my head up and down.


By yacoub on 10/23/2006 8:03:07 AM , Rating: 3
I love my 16:10 widescreen and hope to never go back to 4:3 or 5:4.
It's better for:

Gaming - more natural view in FPS, toolbars out of the way in RTS.

Creative design - putting palettes and toolbars off to the side leaving a nice full square working area.

Level design - Building a game level in something like Hammer is nicer because the side toolbar(s) again still leave you with a nice full four squares of real estate that is more natural

Watching movies - If you have 20" or larger S-IPS widescreen you can easily enjoy DVD watching on it

Sound file editing - the wider view is infinitely better because you can spread out the timeline for the file, giving you either a view of more length of the wave at a given zoom level, or allowing you to see the same amount of time at a higher zoom, than you can on 4:3 or 5:4.

Web browsing - almost never having to scroll side-to-side

Those are the six that I've run into in my use that come to mind right away.


By Gooberslot on 10/23/2006 8:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
If you have to scroll side to side in a web page then that web page is extremely broken or you're using a very low resolution.


By Wwhat on 10/23/2006 9:26:42 PM , Rating: 2
A widescreen has just as many vertical dots (in fact a few more often) as a square screen, only extra on the side, and you can always find stuff to put on the side surely.
So what's the problem.


By PrinceGaz on 10/24/2006 9:42:43 AM , Rating: 2
But a widescreen monitor is not as tall as a standard monitor of the same size, and has less vertical pixels.

Take 20" panels for example; the usual resolutions are

20" Widescreen - 1680x1050
20" Standard - 1600x1200

to get the ideal 1200 vertical pixels on a widescreen monitor, you usually have to go up to the considerably more expensive 23" and 24" models.

Given the choice between 1680x1050 widescreen and 1600x1200 standard at a similar price, I'd choose 1600x1200 everytime. Of course I'd prefer 1920x1200 widescreen over either of them, but cost becomes a factor then.


By Spadge on 10/24/2006 7:38:19 AM , Rating: 2
There is no shame to setting font and icon sizes to large, and still running at 1600x1200; it's not just about how many words/objects you can fit on a page, it's how finely detailed the pixels are.

More is always better.

The only problem is: this applies to colour range, too. :)


FOOL!
By RyanM on 10/22/2006 10:28:46 PM , Rating: 4
"At 17-inches however, 1600x1200 may be a bit too much for some."

Shut up, shut up, shut up. Don't even let these guys think that. I'm sick and fscking tired of the 90 to 100 pixel per inch crap we've had to put up with on computer LCDs since they've been making them.

I *WANT* an LCD that can EXCEED the resolution of my CRT. I'm running a 23" viewable HP A7217A widescreen CRT at 2176 x 1360. I'd be running it at a higher resolution (2560 x 1600, maybe) if the monitor could output it clearly enough, but sadly it can't.

That's 115 ppi give or take, and my idea would be about 120 to 125. It's about freakin' time these companies starting putting out LCDs that could display graphic design resolutions worth a damn. 1600 x 1200 on a 17" viewable screen is 117 PPI. That sounds freaking glorious, and about damn time.




RE: FOOL!
By Lord Evermore on 10/22/2006 10:44:44 PM , Rating: 3
The majority of people aren't doing graphic design. We're looking at pictures on web pages that are a certain pixel width and height, or looking at personal photos where zooming might make the image look crappy or just be annoying to have to do, looking at fonts that look smaller and smaller at higher resolutions, menus that get harder to maneuver on because they're so small unless you manually adjust settings.

The ideal of course would be a screen that can actually display far far more pixels than the resolutions that we use, so that each of the RGB pixel-units could be used as only like 1/4 of a pixel of the resolution, providing finer detail and better dithering, which is pretty much what a CRT does.


RE: FOOL!
By Etsp on 10/23/2006 1:16:46 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd be running it at a higher resolution (2560 x 1600, maybe) if the monitor could output it clearly enough, but sadly it can't.

When you say clearly enough, do you mean like the static images have one or more erm, "Fuzzy copies" of itself next to it? On my 21" CRT from IBM, I had to use lower resolutions and lower refresh rates because of that problem.

but, I found a solution, it turns out, standard VGA cables arent shielded enough for (some) large CRT's at high resolutions. If what you're experiencing is fuzzyness or the ghosting I described, spend some money on a high quality VGA cable, you will be completely satisfied. I think I spent $20-$40 on mine, and the problem dissapeared completely at all useable resolutions and refresh rates. Try it!

and as far as resolutions are concerned, Evermore is half right. for gaming, yeah I want resolution. When I'm browsing the web or just using a non full screen program, the menus and the text for everything get too small for most people at high resolutions, and you cannot simply lower the resolution in windows to solve this, as it causes some visual distortion on LCD's... your only choice is to tell windows to use a larger DPI, which I've found causes bugs on certain web things (My sister wanted to play this slot machine game that was made in java with a non resizable window, and the DPI settings made it too large for its own preset window, rendering it unplayable) I use 1600x1200, but my monitor is 4 inches bigger than that one, If I had a choice, I would use 1280x960 on a monitor that size because sadly, my eyes arent perfect.


RE: FOOL!
By Johnmcl7 on 10/23/2006 5:01:58 AM , Rating: 3
I fully agree with you - the odd part is, laptop displays have had significantly higher resolution panels for ages as you can get 1920x1200 on a 15.4 inch display. You need to go all the way up to 23 inches to get that resolution on a desktop display.

John


RE: FOOL!
By Fluppeteer on 10/23/2006 1:09:50 PM , Rating: 3
To be fair, the article does say "for some users". I still cringe whenever a journalist comes out with something like this, though. Some of us like having more desktop real estate (and use applications with dynamic scaling capabilities - few can't be at least partly configured these days, and Vista is alleged to improve things a bit). There's a big push to make things work with different DPI settings (and I'm not sure the correct approach is being taken), but I'm prepared to be unashamed about wanting everything small.

The problem with journalists objecting to this is not that, for some people, they don't have a valid point - it's that it's discouraging, both to customers and manufacturers. There's always been a premium to screens over the "standard" SXGA. I've never objected to people who want everything bigger having a low resolution screen, I've even recommended a 19-inch "see the pixels from the other side of the room" screen to people with poor eyesight, but that doesn't mean more pixels are worthless. If the reviews pan any device that steps out of the norm, fewer will be sold, and such devices will either be unavailable or more expensive than they need to be.

I'd love a 17" UXGA desktop screen. What I'd really love is a 15.4" WUXGA or 15" QXGA laptop screen in a desktop housing, but the manufacturers seem convinced that nobody will buy one (unless there's a better reason that they're not sold). I don't want to waste most of my desk on a 30" monitor just to get 2560x1600. I don't need a 24" screen for WUXGA, but these days I have little choice. I rejoiced when I heard that 22" monitors were getting cheaper (woohoo, cheap WUXGA at last), then screamed when I found that 22" was the new 1680x1050 size, even though 22" WUXGA panels had been around for ages. If we all ran 19" CRTs at 1600x1200 (or 2048x1536 in some cases), why be scared of a - sharper - UXGA flat panel with a similar visible area?

I'm perfectly happy with my old 17" 1600x1024 SGI LCD. I'm even happier at home, with my 22.2" QWUXGA T221. I've used a 19" UXGA Iiyama, and it was fine. 19" SXGA screens drive me nuts. The claim that "tiny text is illegible" is generally based on CRTs with poor focus; the T221 is pin sharp and perfectly legible. Everyone can read 9.5pt newspaper text, after all. I wish the industry weren't obsessed with bigger pixels, and leaving those of us who want more of them paying the premium (in money and space) that comes with the larger panel size. Even 15.4" WUXGA laptops are rare and expensive these days, and for some reason 17" seems to be the target; why would I want to carry a 17" laptop around just to get WUXGA?

Kudos to them for going with this resolution (but more to Epson for putting 1920x1080 in a 7.1" LCD). I appreciate the author trying to tread the line, but it's a line that's done lots of damage in the past, and the issue is sensitive.


RE: FOOL!
By wien on 10/23/2006 9:45:11 AM , Rating: 3
I would agree with you if (and only if) we would get some kind of resolution independant GUI for our OSes. Just imagine a completely vector-based GUI where you could change the "resolution" at will, and fluidly (Not just text DPI like today). Going for a browse? Zoom in a bit and you'll have text crisp as chips. Working with enormous images? Zoom out a bit to make room for them.

This way monitor makers could make monitors with as high a pixel density as technology would allow, without having to worry about near sighted users complaining about their text being too small.

I was hoping both OSX, Vista and XGL/Compiz would allow stuff like that since they're using 3D hardware for the GUI, but it seems like they all just render to textures instead of using real polygons. Maybe next time around...


RE: FOOL!
By trabpukcip on 10/23/2006 11:32:12 AM , Rating: 2
The icons in vista were supposed to be vectors weren't they?
Vectors and ultra resolutions are the future.
I think that panel cost and video card power are the current real limitations on the resolution front.
Firefox has zoom extensions to zoom full pages with enlarged text, pity it doesn't work that well.

When i do design at work i try to use illustrator as much as possible as pixels aren't the best for fine screen printing and I use a heavy amount of vector based smart objects in photoshop (the best photoshop innovation in years) where illustrator is not practial.

I can't wait for the day when we start to talk about screens more frequently in terms of megapixels of resolution (at least the 30 inch displays are 4MP).
I only wish my 24 inch widescreen had a higher resolution than 1920 x 1200 (rotating two 30 inchers to portrait side by side would be fun!).


RE: FOOL!
By wien on 10/25/2006 5:41:51 PM , Rating: 2
RE: FOOL!
By johnsonx on 10/23/2006 5:15:15 PM , Rating: 2
They used to sell 19" 1600x1200 displays, and no one bought them. They had so many complaints and problems that not one single vendor offers such a panel any longer.

Even at 1280x1024, many end-users complain that everything is too small and set the resolution to 1024x768. The fact is that while 'us' enthusiasts like extremely high resolutions, most users want everything to be big so they can see easily.


RE: FOOL!
By Visual on 10/27/2006 8:52:22 AM , Rating: 2
but then obviously a 19" 2048x1536 would be perfect - dumb users can still set 1024x786 in desktop properties, and it'd scale perfectly without any filtering - just use 4 real pixels for one virtual pixel.
us enthusiasts can keep the resolution at max, and adjust DPI settings and font sizes instead
best of both worlds.

once screens get to tens of thousands of pixels in a row, it'd be possibly to select any of today's lower resolutions with almost no scaling artifacts.


OLED finally!
By Supa on 10/22/2006 9:49:36 PM , Rating: 2
It's great to finally seeing OLED out with such great specs, esp the super fast response time.

Color deepth is obviously lacking, but I'm also concerned about the OLED display lifespan which is not mentioned here.


---




RE: OLED finally!
By Etern205 on 10/22/2006 10:04:32 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the lifespan of OLED

quote:
Lifetime - While red and green OLED films have long lifetimes (10,000 to 40,000 hours), blue organics currently have much shorter lifetimes (only about 1,000 hours).

Manufacturing - Manufacturing processes are expensive right now.

Water - Water can easily damage OLEDs.


from: Howstuffworks.com


RE: OLED finally!
By The Sword 88 on 10/22/2006 10:09:01 PM , Rating: 2
Those number will improve with time and so will the manufactoring costs.


RE: OLED finally!
By Viditor on 10/22/2006 11:14:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
blue organics currently have much shorter lifetimes (only about 1,000 hours)


The "How Stuff Works article is a bit dated...
Earlier this year, Universal Display Corp (the people developing the molecules for Samsung) created a new organic blue with a 17,500hrs @200 nits or 3,000hrs @500 nits (target luminance)...
http://www.universaldisplay.com/

I believe they are currently about ready to show an organic blue with a 50k hrs @200 nits molecule (rumour).

If true, that would give the OLED display a lifespan (8hrs/day) of ~3.25 years @ 500nits.
One thing to remember though, OLEDs are much less expensive to manufacture than LEDs...


RE: OLED finally!
By Spivonious on 10/23/2006 2:11:55 PM , Rating: 2
That sounds like the first-gen of plasmas. Short lifespan, amazing picture and contrast. Of course now plasmas match LCDs for lifetime, so perhaps by 2010 everyone will have an OLED and LCDs, DLPs, and Plasmas will be put out at the curb.


RE: OLED finally!
By OddTSi on 10/22/2006 10:37:18 PM , Rating: 2
I'm also wondering if they've managed to up the lifespan at all. That seems to be the main sticking point of OLED if I'm not mistaken.

As for the colors, that color depth just means it's a 6-bit panel. I'm sure if it was a production panel they would provide some sort of dithering technique for it to bring it up to ~16.2M percieved colors like all of the 6-bit LCD panels. However I want them to come out with 8-bit panels, not 6-bit ones.


Laptops
By BladeVenom on 10/22/2006 9:48:59 PM , Rating: 2
LCD monitors are thin enough now that making them smaller isn't really that big a selling point, at least for most people. They should have put it into a laptop.




RE: Laptops
By feelingshorter on 10/22/2006 9:51:02 PM , Rating: 2
But that thing doesnt seem to need backlight, not only that, it has an extremely fast response time of .01! Crazy. I'm sure the colors will go up, just like how LCDs did. Other than that, i cant wait for the technology to mature.


RE: Laptops
By ZmaxDP on 10/22/2006 10:26:16 PM , Rating: 2
The whole point of OLED is that it doesn't need backlighting I thought (Aside of course from the power savings...)


RE: Laptops
By Lord Evermore on 10/22/2006 10:27:03 PM , Rating: 2
OLEDs. Each pixel emits its own light in the color needed, so there's no backlight, no bleedthrough, none of the issues of brighter and darker areas of the screen.


RE: Laptops
By Lord Evermore on 10/22/2006 10:37:51 PM , Rating: 2
It's not even any smaller than most LCDs, when you consider the stand. The only time the thickness of the entire unit here would be important is if it was being flush-mounted, or perhaps it weighs enough less to be useful in portability.

How sturdy is this thing? Being so thin I'd expect it to be a little more flexible than an LCD unit. You could make a laptop lid really thin with this, but I don't know if it would be safe.


256K colors is all TNs right now
By Zebo on 10/23/2006 1:34:55 AM , Rating: 2
256K colors is no biggie for most people ...they use them day in day out with 6bit TN's and VA's and they manage via dithering to get into "16 million".

Great for Samsung pushing the envelope. Respose time of OLED/SED will finally bring CRTs to compete obsolesence....Response is critical defect LCD's have.. OLED and SED have it. Samsung really is the new Sony who just seemed to give up innovation and just make rebadged products now, hell... they don't even make monitors anymore. Can't compete.




RE: 256K colors is all TNs right now
By Lord Evermore on 10/23/2006 2:45:28 AM , Rating: 2
Until the issue of native resolutions if eliminated, CRTs aren't going to completely die.


RE: 256K colors is all TNs right now
By jtesoro on 10/23/2006 5:23:33 AM , Rating: 2
I think some of the LCD displays have the capability to switch to a non-upscaled image if the user chooses. This would mean that your screen won't be filled up, and the image could end up being too small, but at least there would be no distortion.

It's not perfect but that may be acceptable in some situations.


By Fluppeteer on 10/23/2006 1:18:28 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Until the issue of native resolutions if eliminated, CRTs aren't going to completely die.


Well said. I was hopeful for the latest laser projectors, but as far as I could tell they're still using something like a DLP for the individual pixels. A laser projector based on scanning (like a laser printer) could, with some focus adjustment, work with arbitrary resolutions.

Mind you, any projection technology ought to handle the same, with the addition of a zoom element into the optics. I'm still waiting for someone to make a rear projector HDTV which renders both 1080 and 720 natively, by zooming and ignoring some pixels. For so long as the industry thinks digital scaling and 1366x768 is good enough (yuk) because "customers are amazed by how much better it looks than SDTV" (yes, but it's not as good as it COULD be had it not been artificially mangled) I don't hold out much hope. But that's another rant.

Let's take our display innovations where we can get them...


By Jellodyne on 10/26/2006 11:43:33 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is, you don't really care about what resolution you're running, you care if your app/os/movie doesn't look right/isn't . sized right at the native resolution. In a perfect world, all display devices would render at their native/maximum resolution, and your apps would just look crisper than at lower resolutions. Technical limitations have kept resolutions relatively low, on both the display and the renderer (video card) sides of the fence, but those limits are going away. The primative act of designing applications for a fixed resolution/dot pitch will follow soon enough.


so these displays
By S3anister on 10/22/2006 11:00:44 PM , Rating: 3
Can producs true black right? like no light? so that i can actually watch movies and have it look good?




RE: so these displays
By Lord Evermore on 10/22/2006 11:12:51 PM , Rating: 2
It should. Although that brings up a question: how do you define a contrast ratio between no light at all, and any amount of light? Maybe 1000:1 indicates full brightness to the minimum that a pixel can emit before it's just off or too low to generate any photons.


RE: so these displays
By Fluppeteer on 10/23/2006 1:12:49 PM , Rating: 2
The BrightSide panels (which can also produce no light in dark areas) take their measure from the contrast between the dimmest light they can produce (as opposed to the dimmest light they DON'T produce) and the brightest light they output, as you suggest. Mind you, they have an advantage!


RE: so these displays
By S3anister on 10/23/2006 12:04:10 AM , Rating: 1
produce*


crap dot pitch vs acceptable
By ElJefe69 on 10/23/2006 10:12:23 AM , Rating: 1
Anything less thant .21 is crappy dot pitch/apperture grille. I have not bothered to buy an lcd for the dot pitches on them are terrible. One wants 8 bit+ colour too. Why? because non 8 bit colour looks like crap.

I have a 22" diamond pro 2070SB CRT. It was 800 dollars 2 years ago. I have yet to find any lcd that comes close to it in any way. When it dies I wont be able to look at text for more than a half or or tolerate someones face through my game's sniper scope looking like a commodore64 image.





RE: crap dot pitch vs acceptable
By Spivonious on 10/23/2006 2:19:40 PM , Rating: 2
CRT FTW!

I've been thinking about going LCD recently, but everytime I look at the LCDs in the store and then come back to my NEC FE791sb, there is no contest! Color depth and contrast are simply better on CRT, and the lack of a native resolution is a big feature IMO.


RE: crap dot pitch vs acceptable
By Einy0 on 10/24/2006 10:30:13 AM , Rating: 2
SED is the answer! CRTs will be replaced by SED in all ways... Woot can't wait bring em on...


Typos
By Bremen7000 on 10/23/2006 1:40:36 AM , Rating: 2
"and produces brightness and image quality to LCD displays available today."
Comparable to LCD...

"improvemnts"

What consumer Expects widescreen from a 17" monitor? 20"+ maybe, though personally I don't like widescreen below 21". But I have yet to see consumers trending toward small (17") widescreen monitors...




RE: Typos
By Johnmcl7 on 10/23/2006 5:15:44 AM , Rating: 2
Most laptops now come with widescreen displays, there's very few with 4:3 displays so there's a definite consumer trend towards small widescreen monitors there.

John


Power consumption?
By Serlant on 10/23/2006 7:53:24 AM , Rating: 2
any idea on the power consumption of this tech
because the 0.78mm thick 2.2" model has a power consumption of 229mW
http://aving.net/usa/news/default.asp?mode=read&c_...
would be a very good option for ultra portable laptops




RE: Power consumption?
By Serlant on 10/23/2006 7:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
and also the 2.2" model shows a lifetime of 28,000 hours


Aspect and unstated limitations
By FXi on 10/23/2006 7:44:59 AM , Rating: 2
I've been a hopeful on OLED for a while, as many have, and they aren't stating panel lifetime there which is going to be a key issue in whether the displays are going to make it to market.

Thin, irregardless of need, will be popular it seems, no matter what.

Color range was "supposed" to be better with OLED than with other technologies. I do wonder what happened.

16:10 is a very suitable ratio. Yes widescreen is being driven by PC gaming AND by PC movie watching, but since those make up one of the strongest segments driving PC sales, it's a valid argument that this segment will often define the most likely future pc specifications. Moreover, in many fields related to the financial world, widescreen data is incredibly handy. So it's a lot more than gaming that benefits from these screen ratios. 4:3 is rapidly becoming a minority, and much like CRT's, while it does have some technical merit, if the wave of regular buyers and upgraders dictate 16:10 as a preference, 4:3 will dwindle and die. Lesson there is that if you prefer something you actually have to buy it often to keep the manufacturers producing said preference.

:)




RE: Aspect and unstated limitations
By ElJefe69 on 10/23/2006 10:15:35 AM , Rating: 1
they wont produce CRT's anymore that would blow away your lcd for half the selling price not because people wont buy them but because LCD's are cheap as dirt to make and ship and the profit margin is enormous.


You guys need glasses.
By kuyaglen on 10/23/2006 11:09:55 AM , Rating: 2
My 4 year old 15" laptop has a very very nice 1600x1200 4:3 display. I hope these become available in 1920x1200 @ 20" & 24" From the picture I hope that their not achieveing this slimness by using a power brick.




RE: You guys need glasses.
By mindless1 on 10/26/2006 9:47:30 AM , Rating: 1
Why not a brick? I suppose they could use a similarly sized base pedestal but merely claiming "I hope" because you'd like everything to be as compact as possible is pointless, who DOESN'T want any aspect smaller if there is no gain in it being larger?


Aspect ratio
By Eug on 10/22/2006 9:45:58 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the aspect ratio here is irrelevant for future production units based off this technology. They could choose whatever aspect ratio they wanted.

P.S. I suspect you mean 16:10, not 10:10.




10:10 should be 16:10
By Tiamat on 10/22/2006 9:46:48 PM , Rating: 2
I dont think anybody wants a square screen :D

16x12 on a 17" screen is excellent. I used to run 16x12 on a 16" viewable CRT @ 75hz back in the day. That dpi is starting to approach where you can interpolate other resolutions without easily visable artifacting.




Laptop thin screens
By daftrok on 10/22/2006 10:41:01 PM , Rating: 1
Though the thickness of the laptop may not change that much with this technology, it'll definetly help with the battery life and heat issues. I think this should be out with televisions as well. Imagaine a 30 lb 50" widescreen television.




RE: Laptop thin screens
By Viditor on 10/22/2006 11:25:26 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
Imagaine a 30 lb 50" widescreen television

Imagine a 5lb 50" widescreen hung like wallpaper...

There are 2 other scenarios of working OLEDs called FOLEDs and TOLEDS. They stand for Flexible and Transparent OLEDs, and they are currently in aggressive development for the Military in Heads Up displays...
OLEDs don't require a glass substrate (the vast majority of the weight), but they do require that there be no air or water. The problem being worked on at the moment is development of a clear plastic sheet that is impervious to leaks from air and water (all transparent plastics have some osmosis at the moment).


Links
By crystal clear on 10/23/2006 3:03:38 AM , Rating: 2
Interesting
By Hokum on 10/23/2006 11:02:15 AM , Rating: 2
But needs to mature before it becomes really viable to the general public.

Sadly its no good for me until they have millions of colours...




By Blackraven on 10/24/2006 11:58:55 AM , Rating: 2
0.01 ms?!?!?!? WTF?

That beats even today's current LCD technology and perhaps for two generations more.

Crazy....




“Then they pop up and say ‘Hello, surprise! Give us your money or we will shut you down!' Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that.” -- Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee Cheng referencing patent trolls











botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki