Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Samsung Unveils New 10" Retina Display

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the one-day-by-and-by dept.

Displays 155

adeelarshad82 writes "Samsung has unveiled a brand new 10.1-inch display that supports a maximum of 2560×1600 pixel resolution that could be ripe for next generation tablets. Samsung's new display is more of a tech demo than anything else at this stage. While it looks impressive, it's not quite ready for broad production. It does, however, prove that high pixel density and high-resolution tablet displays are possible without unreasonable power requirements coming along in the process."

cancel ×

155 comments

Obligatory (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125756)

10 inches ought to be enough for anybody.

Re:Obligatory (3, Funny)

singingjim1 (1070652) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125758)

"4 inches is fine!"

Re:Obligatory (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125772)

Sorry to be the one to tell you this, but she lied.

Re:Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125798)

was it a she?

Re:Obligatory (0)

thisnamestoolong (1584383) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125934)

10 inches ought to be enough for anybody.

That's not what your mom said...

Re:Obligatory (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126004)

10 inches ought to be enough for anybody.

That's not what your mom said...

His dad's OK with it, though.

Re:Obligatory (0)

PPH (736903) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127298)

Circumference or diameter?

Power Requirements? (3, Interesting)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125760)

It does, however, prove that high pixel density and high-resolution tablet displays are possible without unreasonable power requirements coming along in the process.

I'm not sure the power requirements are the biggest issue with this type of display. I think cost is going to be the biggest hurdle it has to clear before it finds its way into a tablet.

Re:Power Requirements? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125780)

I recall that when Nokia was testing prototypes for their "double-resolution" (anyway, over 200 dpi) displays *many* years ago, some of supplied prototypes required water cooling. Sure, things have changed (even in this case, just in less than a year), but it's not necessarily just the price that might limit what's practical.

Re:Power Requirements? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125864)

How many years ago was this?

I've got an IBM T221, 3840x2400 22.2", 204 ppi, and it's only fan cooled (and the panel isn't what needs cooling, the FPGAs that do the video processing are).

Re:Power Requirements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126076)

Most likely it was 2004 or 2003. I it all sounds a bit hard to believe, but I trust my source who worked with these displays. Remember, those were prototypes from various panel manufacturers, not prototype phones. (Water cooling was needed in order to maintain panel properties constant while measurements were made - and not all panels were sufficiently low-power that they would have succeeded in maintaining sufficiently constant temperature, which was of course a requirement for an end product.) Also, panel technologies used by T221 and mobile phones are most certainly different.

Re:Power Requirements? (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127272)

Pretty sure there were commercially available 200+ ppi displays for PDAs back then, too.

But, I wasn't sure what Nokia was doing in this case - after all, Nokia also made computer displays.

Re:Power Requirements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126120)

Screw power requirements. Make a 22" version and put me down for 3.

Re:Power Requirements? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126148)

Screw the cost, can you imagine a Beowulf cluster of these??

Re:Power Requirements? (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127120)

Agreed. You can get 2560 monitors today; however, they all seem to be professional displays and typically are 27" and higher. Thus they cost 3-4X than a cheaper consumer grade monitor. The only consumer model I know that is being sold is the iMac 27".

maybe.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125762)

Maybe not unreasonable power requirements for the display itself, but the GPU will need to be ramped up a bit as there are more than 10 times as many pixels as on a 800x480 display.

Re:maybe.. (4, Insightful)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125844)

Screw tablets, I want this resolution on a laptop. It's damn near impossible to get a reasonable priced laptop with more than 1366x768. Most companies don't have them at all. Even MBPs only have 1440x900. A laptop graphics card can handle the resolution ... I would have thought these would be more common by now.

Re:maybe.. (1)

bhtooefr (649901) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125870)

You can get a reasonable priced laptop with 2048x1536.

The problem is, it's gonna be a 5 year old laptop, and you have to swap a 6+ year old new old stock panel in.

Alternately, depending on your definition of reasonably priced, not too hard to get a 15.6" 1920x1080 laptop, brand new.

Re:maybe.. (3, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125886)

for some weird reason, resolutions are going down, not up.
A 5 yr old budget laptop had a 1280*1024 screen
My 3 year old budget laptop has a 1280*800 screen
current laptops in the same price range are 1366*768

A few years and will the resolution be 10000*1 ?

Re:maybe.. (3, Informative)

wings (27310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126238)

My 3 year old budget laptop has a 1280*800 screen
current laptops in the same price range are 1366*768

Those are the 'wide screen' adaptations of older standard sizes that are being pushed now.
You might not mind, or even think it's great if you watch movies all the time on your laptop, but that's not what I do with one.

Re:maybe.. (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125890)

Or on a TFT monitor that costs a reasonable amount. I'm going to buy a 32in TV as my next monitor as the resolution is just the same as a standalone one and I can do more with a proper TV.

Re:maybe.. (3, Insightful)

MinaInerz (25726) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126528)

My 15" MBP has the 1680x1050 anti-glare screen, which really pushes the usability of some of the OS X widgets. Any 15" MBP can be ordered with it. I don't know if you'd want to go that much higher on any "modern" OS, until they are display resolution independent.

Too small of a dot pitch simply makes most operating systems unusable or irritating -- this box is too small, this text in this section needs to be enlarged, this document needs to be zoomed -- and so the demand for higher resolution displays just isn't there.

Re:maybe.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126786)

And even if you get a resolution-independent OS that can scale legacy applications, you really need to double the screen resolution in order to avoid horrible scaling artifacts. In this sense the Samsung screen would be great, if it was really an upgrade from 1280x800 to 2560x1600, instead of marketing fluff for a "pentile" display.

Re:maybe.. (1)

cognoscentus (1628459) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127256)

I can happily read standard size webtext on my 1400*1050, 14" laptop screen from a distance of three feet or so, for prolonged periods.
I'm currently drooling over Macbooks but the standard resolution of 1280*800 is a little on the small side, particularly for programming. Widescreen is such a poor form factor for coding. Maybe it wouldn't be so bad if laptop screens could pivot... I guess tablets have the advantage of reorientation, but will require an additional keyboard to retain that precious vertical real-estate.

Re:maybe.. (2)

gordo3000 (785698) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125874)

aren't the new tegra's that are due out this year (Kal-El) already slated for this resolution? While apple may wait a full year, there will probably be someone out earlier with hardware that can support this chip. I think it was debuted a couple months ago.

Buzzwords! (1)

Lumpio- (986581) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125770)

So am I to understand that "retina" is the new "HD"? I expected something better from Slashdot...

Re:Buzzwords! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125776)

Me too. It's fucking ludicrous: a display is a light transmitter, a retina is a light receiver.

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125804)

You forget that Steve Jobs is a god that can operate beyond rules logic and majority still won't complain.

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

wootest (694923) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125834)

If you take Apple's naming of a Retina display to be the original definition, it's when a display's pixels are of high enough density that, at the intended viewing distance, the eye doesn't discriminate between the individual pixels.

HD is a good way to specify a standard for a video format, and "HD ready" is a good way to specify that a display can show HD without scaling down ("HD ready" for 720p, "full HD" for 1080i). Depending on the size of the display you can't consistently claim that the image you're seeing is "high definition", just that it's higher than SD. In this way, a "Retina display" per the above definition gives the same guarantee for every size.

Re:Buzzwords! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125950)

In this way, a "Retina display" per the above definition gives the same guarantee for every size.

Not really, because it combines information about the physical device (which might be said to be 'guaranteed' if that was all it was about) with information about the manufacturer's (or someone else's?) intentions (which aren't measurable). Given two otherwise identical devices, per your definition, one of them could qualify as a retina display if it was 'intended' to be viewed from a foot away and the other wouldn't if it was 'intended' to be viewed from a foot and a half. And presumably a single device would change its status of being or not being a retina display whenever intentions change. A term defined on that basis can't reasonably be said to guarantee anything about a device. At most it can give some weak guidance (which of course might be better than nothing).

The input device helps to determine intent (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126746)

Given two otherwise identical devices, per your definition, one of them could qualify as a retina display if it was 'intended' to be viewed from a foot away and the other wouldn't if it was 'intended' to be viewed from a foot and a half.

The input device helps to determine intent. A touch screen is designed to be viewed closer than a screen connected to a keyboard and mouse on a desk, which in turn is designed to be viewed closer than a screen connected to an infrared remote control, one or more gamepads, or a Phantom Lapboard.

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126088)

If you take Apple's naming of a Retina display to be the original definition, it's when a display's pixels are of high enough density that, at the intended viewing distance, the eye doesn't discriminate between the individual pixels.

Yeah, we know what it means, it's just lame and confusing.

It's like saying your stereo has "eardrum" fidelity.

Cochlea fidelity (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126732)

It's like saying your stereo has "eardrum" fidelity.

The proper analogy here is to the cochlea, as that's the transducer in the ear, just as the retina is the transducer in the eye. "Cochlea fidelity" would then mean the stereo system reproduces all audible frequencies so accurately that a median human auditory system introduces more noise than the equipment does.

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125810)

I think its easier to say retina display instead of high resolution display. Plus retina display is the benchmark to beat.

Re:Buzzwords! (2)

MiniMax333 (885543) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125822)

Hi-Res? It's the same length as retina but has less syllables.

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125882)

High resolution is a moving target. Someone up the thread posted a link to an Apple High Resolution monitor. It did 640x480 - that was high resolution in the late '80s. Retina displays must have a high enough pixel density that you can't discern individual pixels at the typical viewing distance - i.e. the display has a higher resolution than your retina.

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126244)

Until you get the option to upgrade your retinas

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127170)

The problem is the acronyms that displays have used [wikipedia.org] over the years somewhat offputting and confusing to the average consumer. Add to that the move from 4:3 to 16:9 or 16:10 standard. At this point, most companies just use the pixel count instead of WXGA+ as this is clearer to the consumer. Using a brand name also distinguishes Apple in the same way Kleenex is for Kimberly-Clarke.

Pretty much (5, Insightful)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125894)

And worse, it is one with no real definition. At least HD has some definitions, even though people often play fast and lose with them. "Retina" just seems to mean "High pixel density." Apple's marketing department coined the term to imply that the display has a resolution equal to your eye. Of course that isn't the case, it is dependent on distance. However it worked for marketing and apparently has caught on with people.

Re:Pretty much (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126062)

I actually expected something like an implant or a projection upon the retina...a contact lense would have been enough for christs's sake...but no it's a marketing term that i never heard before..

Re:Pretty much (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126958)

To be fair, Apple have said that with the iPhone retina display the pixels are indistinguishable at the distance you hold the phone, not just any distance.

Re:Pretty much (1)

Carewolf (581105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127028)

HD was a better definition when it was less defined, then it was then used relatively, and had separate meanings depending on context. I am still amazed anyone can produce new laptops with super-low resolutions that are lower than the lowest resolution available in any laptop sold 6 years ago, and have the guts to call it HD.

Re:Pretty much (3, Informative)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127066)

"Retina" just seems to mean "High pixel density." Apple's marketing department coined the term to imply that the display has a resolution equal to your eye. Of course that isn't the case, it is dependent on distance

"The screen is marketed by Apple as the "Retina Display", based on the assertion that a display of approximately 300 ppi at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm) from one's eye is the maximum amount of detail that the human retina can perceive."

Considering all of the boo-hoo'ing this statement caused here a year ago, I'm surprised there were enough people with mod-points to have missed it.

Re:Pretty much (1)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127226)

Contrary to what you imply, Apple has defined it [apple.com] . It does not mean high pixel count. It means a high enough pixel count at a certain distance to where the average eye cannot discern the individual pixels. For me, HD TV is just as ambiguous with at least 3 different standard resolutions, but remember HD TV has always meant "higher resolution than standard TV".

Re:Buzzwords! (3, Informative)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126322)

HD refers to resolution, not pixel density. A 100' screen at 1920x1080 resolution would not have a very high pixel density, assuming the resolution is mapped 1:1 onto the pixels. Pixel density, on the other hand, would be quite high if the screen was only 3". "Retina", if you use Apple's terms, means that 1' away, your eyes cannot see the pixels. This generally implies a pixel density of over 270 pixels per inch. Most LCD monitors are between 72 and 96ppi. Some may hit 120, but nothing close to this new display. That is why they are using Apple's term which describes density, not resolution.

Re:Buzzwords! (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127042)

So am I to understand that "retina" is the new "HD"? I expected something better from Slashdot...

No HD was never a measurement of 'pixels smaller than the eye can see."

My big ten inch (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125788)

I'd like the 24-inch version of this, please.

Re:My big ten inch (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125824)

I'd rather have the 27" or 30" version to replace my current main 27" IPS monitor running at 2560x1440. Or maybe replace my secondary 22" monitor and make the old 27" the "crappy" older monitor. The PPI difference might make it a bit weird though.

Re:My big ten inch (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126022)

A 30" version with the same total resolution as 24" at 200dpi would be far more useful anyway. 150dpi is a lot at desktop viewing distances.

Re:My big ten inch (1)

mikael_j (106439) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126074)

Yes, a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 has a pixel density of 109 PPI and at normal viewing distances you just don't see individual pixels. Well, you can see the pixels but it's not like they stand out like a sore thumb as they do when you start to look at pixel densities closer to 80-90 PPI. 150 PPI would be extremely nice, no risk of small text being limited by the pixel grid anymore...

Re:My big ten inch (2)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125946)

I've been able to score a couple of IBM T221 monitors. 3840x2400 in 22", which comes out to 204dpi iirc. It takes some funky finagling and specific video cards to get it all set up, but if you can get it to work, it's really rewarding.

It's the only piece of computing hardware I've come across where the phrase "They don't make them like this anymore" actually applies.

However, what we truly need is an adoption of a dirty-rectangle update display interface, and hardware scaling on the display itself (so it can run upscaled video overlays without pushing full res at full framerate). However, with full-screen animations of tablet interfaces becoming the norm, instead of desktop-like 2d windows with only partial changes per refresh, that might not mitigate much anymore.

Re:My big ten inch (2)

0100010001010011 (652467) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126064)

HDTV has absolutely ruined the 'high res' monitor market. They keep advertising larger sizes. 20!, 23!, 25! monitors but if you look at the resolution they're all 1920x1080. Monitor prices continue to fall but decent resolution monitors aren't because no one is buying them. All the factories are spitting out HDTV.

I found one T221 on ebay. It was 1700$.

Re:My big ten inch (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126152)

I agree. Over 10 years ago I was running 2048x1536 on a high quality CRT, and that cost only $300.

The T221s were cheaper before, but they've become more sought out and so the prices have been flying back up. But hey, they did debut for $18,000, and then dropped down to about $8,000, so that's still a steal! :-P

Re:My big ten inch (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126216)

There are three places to place obvious blame:

Broadband, for allowing people to stream ever bigger resolutions rather than 1990-standard 300x240 clips (horrible at fullscreen, but nobody was complaining)
The CRT industry, for keeping people at mid res for so long that we got coiled like a spring waiting for larger sizes... by the time LCD's became cheap enough, it wasn't wether you were ditching that your old screen to get a new 1280x1024 res, but wether you were trading 14-inch CRT for "lots of inches more"
The DVD industry, for enabling with the CRT^W LCD makers to widen their screens with the excuse that EVERYONE's main PC use was not vertical browsing, but letterbox (American) entertainment

Re:My big ten inch (1)

vlueboy (1799360) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126260)

And judging from Youtube's default video resolutions, we are nowhere near REQUIRING 1080p resolutions for daily use yet, to justify the diminished 1080p that they all got US stuck with.

This whole Widescreen res fiasco should be optional, just like that fingerprint reader that you're [very likely] NOT yet seeing near your desktop keyboard nor 99% of laptops --where it would actually be of some use.

Re:My big ten inch (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126772)

I'm not sure I follow you about size. 19" CRTs were super common--I myself had 21" CRTs--for years before LCD monitors caught on. When they did, 15" LCD monitors seemed the standard and 14" LCDs were common. I don't think the size thing is really spot on.

Two pages at 960x1080 (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126796)

The DVD industry, for enabling [display] makers to widen their screens with the excuse that EVERYONE's main PC use was not vertical browsing, but letterbox (American) entertainment

PROTIP: A 1920x1080 pixel monitor can display two 960x1080 pixel windows side by side. Window managers have "Tile Vertically" and "Snap" features to take advantage of this.

Re:My big ten inch (1)

dfghjk (711126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125990)

IBM produced that 10 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors [wikipedia.org]

The problem with 200 dpi on a desktop monitor is viewing distance and the fact that UI's don't scale as we would like them to. T221's can be bought on eBay and there's a Yahoo newgroup that discusses how to use them. Apple even provided support in OS X once upon a time, but that's fallen into useless disrepair. Try one, but you probably won't like it.

Technology really isn't there yet (2, Interesting)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126324)

It is getting there, but as of yet there are still hurdles to be dealt with.

The biggest is just cost. Pixels cost money, every sub pixel needs a transistor (or two if you want a nice high quality IPS panel) and so more pixels equals more cost. You might think you want a display like that, but are you willing to bear the cost? Such a monitor could easily cost $3000-4000. Still interested?

Another big one is UI scaling. Programs and OSes are only now getting on board with the whole resolution independence thing. Windows Vista and 7 are fully on board and scale beautifully but many, many apps for them do not. That means you get some things that don't scale at all, or some where only parts (like text) scale but others (like the box that contains the text) don't. Can be a real issue in the case of extreme scaling. Now Windows can deal with that, it can present the programs with a lower resolution virtual display they render to and then stretch it up, but of course that really eliminates the usefulness of a high rez display.

OS-X kinda supports it, but it is incomplete at this point (the next version should have it completely implemented) and because of that app support is not good. Linux? Don't make me laugh, it is a hodge podge disaster there.

Another issue that isn't critical, but could be problematic, is interconnects. It takes more data than you might think to do really high resolutions. So let's say you want to double a 1920x1200 display's pixel density, which would give you 186ppi. No higher colour depth or refresh rate, just more pixels. Ok that is 3840x2400. Not counting any overhead, that takes 12.4gbits/sec to drive. You can do that, Displayport 1.2 can handle it (17.3gbits/sec max) but that's all. HDMI 1.4 isn't enough, DP 1.1 isn't enough. So doable, but barely and only then with the newest technology, which not a lot of videocards support.

Video processing power and RAM are other issues too. 4x the total number of pixels means you need much more processing power to handle all that. For a composited desktop cards today could handle it no problem, but one of the little integrated units probably wouldn't do it, need a dedicated accelerator. For 3D? That will be a real problem. Even a very high end accelerator will have trouble, probably need more than one.

Ultra high rez displays are just some time off. You can pull high pixel density on small devices because it doesn't take many pixels. The "Over 300ppi" and "Retina display" of the iPhone sounds all impressive until you realize it is just 960x640, only about 1/4th of full HD. No problem, that is still low rez. However if you want around 300ppi on a 24" display you are talking around 5760x3600 (that's actually only 279ppi) which would require massive amounts of interconnect bandwidth, not to mention the cost and so on.

It'll happen, but the tech isn't there yet for it to be real feasible.

Re:Technology really isn't there yet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126512)

That's where this tablet display comes in - tablets are not too dependent on buggy legacy applications and there is a real possibility that this display can gain sufficient marketshare to succeed. The resolution is actually high enough that they can support existing applications in 1280x800 mode. Once you have relatively cheap 2560x1600 displays on the tablet market, you can get them on a few ultraportable laptops and once such laptops get some marketshare, software vendors will finally start working out the glitches in their UI implementations.

Invoking Section 508 against DPI-unaware apps (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126870)

sub pixel needs a transistor (or two if you want a nice high quality IPS panel)

How many transistors are there in even a low-end Pentium Dual Core CPU?

Windows Vista and 7 are fully on board and scale beautifully but many, many apps for them do not.

There are so many applications for Windows that there's usually an alternate application for every need, at least one of which will hopefully support the system DPI setting that has been in, for example, Windows for the past decade. Well-known applications are probably used by at least one government, and that government can invoke accessibility law (Section 508 [wikipedia.org] and foreign counterparts) against applications that do not support system DPI correctly.

Re:Technology really isn't there yet (1)

SomeKDEUser (1243392) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126948)

My KDE interface is completely scalable. I could very well use a very high resolution screen (and would, if any were actually sold at not-stupid prices).

So it is stupid, inept, proprietary software which is holding the world back. And the HD craze. To be honest, it is more the HD craze than anything, and I am glad the geeks are starting the rebel. I was dissed as a whiner when pointing out last year that reasonably high resolution monitors were disappearing, because of the gullibility of the public.

Re:Technology really isn't there yet (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127200)

Oh, it's mostly here [barco.com] . You won't want to pay for it, but they are very nice.

Re:Technology really isn't there yet (1)

fast turtle (1118037) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127284)

It's called Dual Link and you simply have to select cards with that capability or with SLI/CrossFire to handle that density. My current card is a budget card >$100 when new (Radeon 5670 w/512m) that supposrts both Dual Link and CrossFire. This means I could easily handle a 5120x4800 display using a pair of them for >$250, which is cheaper then a single High End Card (not top line).

Tablets are still useless. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125808)

Putting bigger screens with better resolutions into tablets won't change the fact that they're still useless.

I've lost track of how many friends and co-workers bought into the hype, and spent tons of money on a tablet from one vendor or another. They try to read a book on them a few times, and maybe try to use them in a couple of meetings, and quickly realized that it was not an enjoyable experience.

Tablets are nothing but gimmicks.

Re:Tablets are still useless. (1)

ThunderBird89 (1293256) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125922)

I would disagree with that, maybe your friends were using it 'wrong'.

A tablet is primarily a presentation device, not to be used even in a meeting, but in a vis-a-vis negotiation, where you can present rich content to your partner to illustrate and help get your point across, or make annotations and constructive cooperation possible when discussing a contract or treaty.
In a meeting, I'd use a PDA to read my notes from, and possibly stream the slides to the projector (is such technology available? It would be insanely cool, and handy...).

Reading a book is another thing, I still prefer hardcover, but a specially formatted PDF or ebook is good too. Yesterday, I thumbed through Sun Tzu's Art of War on my Nexus S, and it was fairly enjoyable, although Art of War is formatted as a list of paradigms to uphold, not as prose, making it easier to adapt to a small screen.

All in all, I'll give you this: today's tablets have fairly limited uses, but I think mostly because of software-side issues (without having access to any tablet-specific app stores though, feel free to contradict me on this!). On the hardware side, the main issue is still weight: when an A4 tablet weighs little more than an A4 notebook, while still maintaining a battery life of ~6 hours and a reasonable price tag (1000-1500€), I think we've hit the last obstacle in front of general public adoption. But even then they won't be the be-all-end-all of computing, but another distinct device and step on the mobility-power graph, with its own use: just like you probably won't try using a Nexus S smartphone (low-mid power-extreme mobility) to do 3D modelling or CAD, tablets will always be a mid-power-mid-mobility presentation device where content creation is a secondary objective, as opposed to the mainly creation-oriented laptops (high power-mid-high mobility) and the singularly creation-focused desktops (extreme power-no mobility).

Re:Tablets are still useless. (1)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125954)

It really depends on the user. I'm really thinking of getting a desktop like an iMac next time around with an iPad as a mobile companion device. When I'm out, the only thing I use my laptop is for making notes, recording sound, maintaining my diary and e-mails, quick web browsing, checking on social networking sites etc. iPad can do all of these. Might be pushed to a MacBook Air, but that is still overkill for what I need, and others too.

My 15 inch MacBook Pro is bulky, heavy, and has to be attached to a mains socket if I need to keep going for a whole day.

Tablets are not useless. I have lost track of friends that have dumped their laptops when they are out of the office in place for a tablet.

I smell more law suits (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125812)

Apple vs Samsung PT II

Hires (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125820)

hey they are doing 2012 Olympics in 4096*2160

Re:Hires (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125972)

I'll never understand the fear of height in resolutions. They keep increasing the horizontal, but also actively _decrease_ the vertical resolutions (I'm running 3840x2400 per display). It'll get to the point where we're going to have 10,000*16 displays soon. :-P

Re:Hires (1)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126376)

Perhaps you should seek to understand the fear of heights in movie theaters.

Woo-hoo! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125832)

FINALLY! That's the kind of resolution that makes an e-reader device worthwhile! Sufficient DPI makes all the difference when trying to read diagrams and small print without having to zoom and pan manually.

If they can make those screens profitable on the tablet market, perhaps we'll finally get proper high-resolution screens for laptops as well, which have been hampered by the inability of Windows software to handle high resolutions. Now that Windows 7 supports automatic rescaling of legacy applications, there is a chance we could finally move past the 100 dpi barrier. Printers have been 600 dpi or better for decades now,

Fake-out (4, Informative)

EdZ (755139) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125836)

Unfortunately, it's one of those nasty 'Pentile' displays, where subpixels are treated as pixels to inflate the on-paper resolution. If you treat them as actual useful displays where each pixel contains all the sub-pixels required to display the full range of colours (3 for regular displays, 4 for pentile, despite the name implying 5), then the actual resolution is lower than a traditional pixel layout.

Re:Fake-out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125884)

True, but at this resolution the subpixel layout makes no difference since it's below the resolving capability of the human eye.

Which is rather annoying (2)

Sycraft-fu (314770) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125928)

I've no objection to pentile displays in principle. Humans do have higher green perception and so perhaps such a display can be useful. For that matter it is similar in principle to the Bayer pattern that still digital cameras use for their sensors.

The problem I have is like you've noted with overselling it. You can't claim more resolution on less subpixels. The net result will be a more grainy image. Cameras like to do this too, their "megapixel" count is the total acquisition area, ignoring that each pixel in fact captures only one colour.

Also it seems that maybe it is not such a wonderful idea, since Samsung seems to be working hard to develop and market non pentile OLED displays. They call it "real stripe" and you can find more infor here: http://www.tested.com/news/pentile-vs-real-stripe-amoled-displays-whats-different/1868/ [tested.com] .

Re:Which is rather annoying (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126248)

But like with cameras maybe the marketing just gets pointless. Sure a 10megapixel camera doesn't have 10million full colour pixels but due to the interpolation of a beyer pattern being actually quite good the end result actually appears quite sharp when viewed 1:1 on a computer display, so really no one gives a damn that they have only 5 million green, and 2.5million red and blue pixels.

In practical terms the difference between screens is minimal even if the resolution numbers are artificially inflated. The Galaxy S display looks just as good as the Desire's give or take the incredible contrast ratio of the AMOLED screen.

In terms of resolution you've either got a normal display or a retina display. Subtle differences induced by adding an additional subpixel and then "adjusting your marketing" for the actual pixel count doesn't rank in the consumers eyes in terms of real world performance.

Re:Which is rather annoying (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127076)

Not in comparison to same photo shot with a Foveon sensor camera.

Re:Fake-out (1)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126050)

Not only is the resolution actually lower, when you use them at the specified resolution, text looks all jagged and rough-edged... :(

Re:Fake-out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126250)

Here's some further information on the subject: http://pentileblog.com/lcd/regarding-wqxga-pixel-density/

Although I'm not convinced, doesn't subpixel rendering on screen fonts (ClearType in Windows) work using the same property of human vision? With ClearType (I assume also with other OSs' technologies) there are some visual defects when an edge of a subpixel-rendered symbol is on a certain background. A subpixel-width cursor on the edge of a blue selection rectangle appears red, for example. I wonder if the technology suffers from similar visual defects? Or do they hope that the density of the pixels will hide that?

The linked sites' authors claim that, to the human eye, it looks exactly the same as a "traditional" RGB panel with the same resolution.
Also, the resolution mentioned isn't derived from the pixel count, but some sort of "industry standard for measuring resolution" which is independent on pixel count but measures modulation ratio.

Re:Fake-out (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36127010)

It's actually not the standard PenTile that people think of, used in Samsung's first-gen Super AMOLED display. Those had an RGBG layout.

This new screen uses a RGBW layout instead. It's still not as "high-res" as a normal RGB LCD, but it's pretty damn close and A LOT better than RGBG. The Atrix 4G on AT&T uses the same type of display FYI.

Stick it to Apple (1)

Quick Reply (688867) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125840)

Brilliant, now Apple can stick it up their arse since they certainly ain't going to get any for production.

Re:Stick it to Apple (2)

whiteboy86 (1930018) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125906)

The current Retina display is made by LG and Samsung competes with others like AUO here to be Apple's chosen supplier.

Resolution is fine, when can I wrap it like paper? (1)

fluor2 (242824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125850)

The final frontier is now: how to make it wrappable / roll-in and back again or similar? 10 inches is too big for my pockets..

Wrappable is fine, when can I iron it like cloth? (2)

VortexCortex (1117377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125908)

The final frontier is now: how to make it wrappable / roll-in and back again or similar? 10 inches is too big for my pockets..

You can have a fully bendable display once we figure out how to combat the creasing problem. Hint: Paper currency is "wrappable" -- Take a few from your wallet and look at a "straightened" piece of fully bendable currency and you'll get my point.

IMHO, It's more feasible to use projective displays to solve the "too big for my pockets" problem.

Re:Wrappable is fine, when can I iron it like clot (1)

fluor2 (242824) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125952)

IMHO, It's more feasible to use projective displays to solve the "too big for my pockets" problem.

..or detachable screens so you can have a 10" in another pocket and a small screen in your pockets..

Re:Wrappable is fine, when can I iron it like clot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36127072)

Paper is wood fiber, so I'm guessing that the "creases" are really just the micro-equivalent of a log being broken in half and never going back together. Try bendinga sheet of plastic, and you'll see the problem doesn't exist in other materials.

chosen ones go last supper witholding zillions$ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36125878)

from each other? there's only a few billion starving babys today, soupy saturday, so our rulers are probably hoarding up against each other, as well as all of us until passover, is over, again. you call this 'weather'? read the teepeeleaks etchings, please. thank you.

So the PPI is... (1)

BlueTemplar (992862) | more than 3 years ago | (#36125920)

Since it wasn't anywhere in the FA - numbers that really matter:
- For almost 30 years, the computer standards were 72 or 96 PPI (points per inch) : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dots_per_inch#Computer_monitor_DPI_standards [wikipedia.org]
- the "iRetina" display is 326 PPI.
- this new Samsung display should have a PPI of 299.
- 300 PPI is close to the limit of what the human eye is able to resolve (at the distances these screens are used - your living room TV doesn't need such high-density resolution).

Glad to see "HD"TV is not killing DPI advancement. (1)

Kaldaien (676190) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126176)

For many years now I have been very disappointed by stagnation, and down-right reversal in DPI trends. 13 years ago I was running a 19" CRT at 2048x1536, now to find a computer display with similar DPI is very difficult; to find a CRT is even more so, despite the venerable technology's superiority in virtually all image quality metrics.

TVs continue to get larger and larger, while 1080p is likely to remain the standard by which they are all measured for several years to come, and penetration of media with a native resolution > 1080 will take even longer. So there is little incentive for mass produced panels (e.g. TVs, and even computer monitors) to improve on DPI; I am glad however, that the emerging mobile device market is not shackling itself to the same philosophy.

Viva la DPI!

Re:Glad to see "HD"TV is not killing DPI advanceme (1)

Dr. Spork (142693) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126404)

I absolutely agree with you. I think that a part of the problem is a lack of demand - or a perceived lack of demand. People who buy monitors seem to be looking at diagonal size, not resolution. I'm sure they tell focus groups that this is what they care about. And there are monitors out there [newegg.com] that go to 2560x1600, but they are marketed at "professionals" and are absurdly expensive. What's worse, they seem to be immune to whatever force that's rapidly driving down the prices of the 1080p monitors. Some manufacturer needs to take the plunge and produce these in mass quantities, so they can charge a slightly lower price. I'd become interested once this started to approach $700. Maybe in two years? For now I'm getting by OK with 1920x1200 - a nice monitor resolution that also seems to have gone extinct.

Not quite ready for broad production .... (1)

SickLittleMonkey (135315) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126184)

But perfect for broad reproduction.

Building one unit is a start... (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126292)

Getting high enough yields is the hard part. The chances of a dead pixel are proportional to the area of the display, and inversely proportional to the pixel size. Also, with feature sizes this small, there's much higher chance of a whole line being bad. Making a high DPI display for a phone is a lot easier than making one for a tablet.

I hope they're able to get this on the market soon, but I'd be surprised if I can buy a 300+ DPI iPad in less than two years.

-jcr

Now you need better than 20/20 vision (1)

splerdu (187709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126326)

To see all the detail on a screen just an arm's length away from you!

LG AH-IPS and display pictures (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126436)

Seeing a lot of talk about this display could be used for iPad 3. However, I don't see it likely as LG Display, who provides displays to Apple has also promised to show AH-IPS panels at the SID Display Week. The AH-IPS will have "an ultra-high resolution" which one can assume will be better or at par with these Samsung displays.

Anyways, for those who're interested I found the display images on the web.

http://www.samsunghub.com/2011/05/14/first-images-of-10-1-inch-wqxga-display-for-tablets/

Re:LG AH-IPS and display pictures (1)

DJRumpy (1345787) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126834)

Along with the fact that Apple has drawn a line in the sand, and rarely if ever goes backwards. I would expect the next iPad display will not be Pen Tile, and it will probably be a high pixel density as well. Apple seems very ready to cut ties with Samsung, and I suspect if they are at that point they already have an alternative lined up. It would be foolish to piss off the supplier for parts on a hot seller unless you had another already lined up.

It will be interesting to see how this unfolds between the two. Of that there is no doubt.

Another useless product (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36126672)

Like display higher then 480x320 for 3.5 inch phones or digital camera with over 14.3M pixels when the max resolution is 5Kx3K max.
Or the stupid moving plate on your microwave.
oh... and "3D display" which are 2D displays + stupid effects.

Maybe not for the iPad (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36126734)

Isn't Apple severing ties with Samsung over their phone being to similar to an iPhone? If so, I wonder what would happen if Samsung pushes this towards Android and Blackberry for their tables and all of a sudden, Apple is the one with less quality?

Now before somebody posts that Apple would be the biggest purchaser, so Samsung would be hurting them self. 1) Apple is currently suing Samsung. 2) Samsung can only produce so many of these screens (high reject rate). 3) if Android/Blackberry devices can use up the supply that Samsung can produce, there is no loss.

Re:Maybe not for the iPad (1)

mr_lizard13 (882373) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127106)

Isn't Apple severing ties with Samsung over their phone being to similar to an iPhone?

Not quite. Sure they are suing them, but Samsung remains a supplier of components for Apple's products.

If so, I wonder what would happen if Samsung pushes this towards Android and Blackberry for their tables

Android device manufacturers and RIM will certainly buy some of these, in the same way they buy panels from Samsung already. The issue though is one of cost. Unless you can buy in the volumes that Apple do, and can afford multiple-billion dollar prepayments like Apple do, then you pay a higher price for those panels. Your options are then to sell your product at a higher price to consumers, or sell it at a finer margin.

Now before somebody posts that Apple would be the biggest purchaser, so Samsung would be hurting them self. 1) Apple is currently suing Samsung.

That doesn't mean they would stop supplying to Apple, nor does it mean Apple would stop buying from Samsung. Samsung has two core businesses: selling products to end users, and manufacturing components. They only compete with Apple in the first.

2) Samsung can only produce so many of these screens (high reject rate).

That's true, but no different than how it works with other display types they already manufacture.

3) if Android/Blackberry devices can use up the supply that Samsung can produce, there is no loss.

Enough Android devices get shipped to use up the supply, sure. But because the device manufacturers can't buy at the low cost Apple can, and can't offer up the multi-billion dollar prepayments needed by Samsung to built the plants and buy the necessary machinery, it tends not to happen.

Re:Maybe not for the iPad (1)

Dcnjoe60 (682885) | more than 3 years ago | (#36127188)

But you left out that Apple announced they are moving to Intel for a large part of their fabrication. This, too, takes business away from Samsung who currently has the contract. Regardless of the outcome of the phone suit. Samsung is losing its largest fabrication partner. The impact of that on the special pricing Samsung gives Apple has yet to be seen.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...