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 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.


"We shipped it on Saturday. Then on Sunday, we rested." -- Steve Jobs on the iPad launch











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