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

Photos courtesy of
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 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
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’"

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.

“And I don't know why [Apple is] acting like it’s superior. I don't even get it. What are they trying to say?” -- Bill Gates on the Mac ads

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