×

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 82 Inch LCD

CmdrTaco posted more than 9 years ago | from the all-the-better-to-doom-you-with dept.

Displays 232

karvind writes "Physorg is reporting that Samsung Electronics has developed the world's largest liquid crystal display panel. This 82-inch TFT-LCD is 17 inches larger than LCD flat panel previously developed by Sharp. This development challenges plasma display panels in this market area. This full HD image quality (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) TFT-LCD panel was developed at the company's new production complex in Tangjeong, Korea. The soon-to-be operational 7th-generation production facility uses glass substrates that measure 1.87m x 2.20m."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

232 comments

size/resolution (5, Interesting)

Boeboe (815330) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876521)

1,920 x 1,080 pixels. It could be me, but it does look quite low for a screen that big.

Re:size/resolution (2, Interesting)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876591)

That was once my gripe against big screen TV in general. But combine the higher Res of HDTV, and the fact that you dont sit 12 inches from the screen, and it should be fine.

Actually, I think I would rather have a projector. Mmmmm, Battlefield 1942 on the entire wall of my living room.

Re:size/resolution (5, Informative)

Silwenae (514138) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876598)

1920x1080 is the MPEG HDTV standard. The TV does exactly what it should do.

Now granted, if you wanted to use it as a computer monitor, it would be different, but 99% of folks are going to use this as a TV, so that resolution is right on.

Re:size/resolution (0)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876820)

If you want big, blocky pixels, sure. It'd be better if they went a higher res and line-doubled (tripled?) existing HDTV.

Re:size/resolution (2, Interesting)

eno2001 (527078) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876899)

99% of folks

Hehehehe... "99%" of the 2% who can afford to plunk down a few thousand dollars for a TV this size. Wake me when I can get an 42" OLED display for $500. That's when I'll move to HD. Doesn't anyone here think it's a little unrealistic to pay over $500 for a TV set? Hello? (Speaking as a non-gadget guy of course. I prefer building my own to buying pre-made crap)

Re:size/resolution (1, Insightful)

ecotax (303198) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876609)

That's HDTV resolution. Making a HDTV screen larger just gives you larger pixels. So it's pretty useless in your living room (unless it's way larger than mine, that is).

Re:size/resolution (-1, Redundant)

davestar (680893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876615)

however, 1920x1080 is the resolution of an HD broadcast format (1080i). a higher resolution monitor won't better the image quality if the source is the limiting factor.

Re:size/resolution (2, Interesting)

Neuropol (665537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876662)

yes. it does look low. one would think that it would be up the 2000's for vertical and horizontal, or higher. one would also think that with increasing sizes they should be attempting to increase the resolution values at the same time. 1920x1080 is high(er), but, these days size matters so crank up the v/h numbers, too?

in other news, these would be great for home theater applications!

Re:size/resolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876715)

Digitial Cinema screens are much much bigger, but they are still at this resolution.

We're not talking about a computer monitor. Just a TV monitor.

Re:size/resolution (1)

dirty (13560) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876912)

And they look down right awful.

That being said, if someone were to give me one of these LCDs I'd take it in a second. I've seen Samsung's 46" LCD and despite it being "only" 1920x1080 the display was quite beautiful, even when used as a computer monitor.

Re:size/resolution (4, Funny)

dfn5 (524972) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876853)

It could be me, but it does look quite low for a screen that big.
This display is mainly intended for portable MP3 players, so they really didn't need a high resolution.

Refresh rate (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876999)

Now, I wonder what the refreshrate of this beast is. Can it do 60Hz that is required for full HDTV (and any other TV broadcasts). 60Hz is about 16,7ms...

Just that much closer... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876524)

Just that much closer to "Frank's 2000 inch TV"...great.

rejects (5, Interesting)

solarlux (610904) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876525)

I wonder how many get tossed to make that one 82-incher....

Re:rejects (5, Informative)

Jagen (30952) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876554)

Probably not anymore than when they make an apple 23inch dislay, the number of transistors is the same in both (same res).
In fact given that the size of each transistor is larger in this screen it probably has a lower reject rate than the apple displays.

Re:rejects (3, Informative)

Vihai (668734) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876763)

Probably it's the opposite; when the surface gets bigger, the probability of finding impurites (and thus bad pixels) gets higher.

Re:rejects (2, Interesting)

fallendragon (777963) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876947)

I'm not sure that makes sense. If it was that easy then surely they'd have made an 82" display a lot sooner and the bigger displays would be cheaper to produce. Or if not cheaper at least a similar cost since you'd have more material but less rejects and that would balance the cost. There must be more to it than that.
Of course market forces in TVs means a bigger set => we can charge more for it, even if it costs the same or even less to produce. etc. Opposite applies to other things like cell phones where slim/smaller = higher cost so really manufacturing cost probably has little to do with pricing here.

Re:rejects (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876688)

I wonder how many get tossed to make that one 82-incher...

Did you really mean to ask how many got "tossed" to make an 82-incher? Oh, wrong interpretation of "tossed." Sorry.

Re:rejects (0, Redundant)

DJStealth (103231) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876747)

Keep in mind that the resolution is not as high density as a computer monitor's resolution, so the probability of bad pixels is not as high.

So... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876527)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that
I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

Re:So... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876569)

I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

What a boost in frustration-level as she still is virtual.

Re:So... (1)

jizmonkey (594430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876638)

Well, you could see them right now on that screen if you could afford it.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Tony Hoyle (11698) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876905)

If you can afford that screen try going into the big blue room.. you can buy some real 3d women for a lot less (often the cost of a couple of drinks).

Eventually? (1)

wiredog (43288) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876668)

Since 82 inches =6 feet 10 inches, you can see her right now. In fact, if she's of average height and shown diagonally, you will see her larger than life size.

Re:Eventually? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876790)

I guess your implying that she'll be laying down right???

82 inches on a 16x9 ratio makes the A = 40 inches and the B = 71 inches. If the person is standing up that'll only make them 3 foot 4 inches tall.

Re:So... (1)

shird (566377) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876711)

You can do that today already, with your home CRT. Just so long as you dont mind seeing only a fraction of her at a time :)

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876750)

of course, Id love to see the camera that could take that shot more than the screen.

Re:So... (2, Funny)

R.Caley (126968) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876735)

They keep making these bigger screens to keep up with the need to fit in the male stars who have taken advantage of all of the amazing products and services they get email about.

Re:So... (1, Funny)

lottameez (816335) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876743)

Perhaps you should try a dating service. I understand that they can help to accomplish the same goal.

Re:So... (5, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876862)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

Don't know about that; but I'm overjoyed personally, as it's the first time my 82-inch penis will be able to be seen in 1:1 scale on an LCD.

Bleh.... seriously, would anyone *really* want an 82-inch penis? Truth is, I'm not that big, but I'm perfectly happy with my 82cm.

What was that at the back? "82mm more like"? Yeah, well maybe so, but it's what you do with it that counts. I hope... *sob*

Re:So... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876973)

Wath a dick that long you could get an assfuck and a blowjob at the same time, except the blowjob is in reverse.

Impressive!

Re:So... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876869)

Bad value for the money: For much less, hire a prostitute!

Great (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876534)

You'll need to take out two loans; one to buy the thing and the other to afford power it

Re:Great (4, Interesting)

imsabbel (611519) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876616)

its no plasma, so it shouldnt need much more power than your CRT TV.

But one thing is to be considered: if it is as bright as a small tv, a white picture should be seriously blinding... 2 or 3000 lumen are headlight quality...

Re:Great (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876870)

I don't know what you're talking about (or why you were modded insightful) but obviously this thing is not going to blind you when you look at it. If you're doing some type of 'total light output' calculation, keep in mind it's spread out over 82". It's similar to comparing staring at a projector bulb and saying the picture on the opposite wall is the same 'brightness'.

82 inches (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876551)

Aren't these the same guys who yesterday said 10,000,000 bytes was 10 gigs?

Re:82 inches (0, Flamebait)

maotx (765127) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876708)

10,000,000 bytes IS 10 Gigabytes [wikipedia.org].

I guess it depends on if your using the telecommunications version, which uses SI [wikipedia.org], or the more common, but improper, computer science version (which should really be using a Gibibyte [wikipedia.org].)

Re:82 inches (1, Funny)

generic-man (33649) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876751)

Hey, I edited the Wikipedia entry to state that one Gigabyte is 1,000,000 bytes. Until someone corrects it, your post is correct.

Re:82 inches (0, Troll)

TheKidWho (705796) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876852)

Ummm....
1,000 bytes is one kilobyte
1,000,000 bytes is one megabyte
1,000,000,000 bytes is one gigabyte..

Press release from Samsung + pic! (4, Informative)

binaryDigit (557647) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876574)

Here is the press release [samsung.com] striaght from Samsung along with a picture of the beast. Wonder how much power this thing soaks up and how much heat it puts out?

Re:Press release from Samsung + pic! (1)

BigDogCH (760290) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876647)

It is hard to get a feel for how big that really is (or how I would pay for it). They have 2 people standing next to it, but I am sure they picked the shortest 2 models they could find.

Blue pixels? (2, Insightful)

dereklam (621517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876692)

Looking at that picture, it seems to me they are avoiding demoing blue pixels. Does anyone know if LCDs of this size have issues showing blue?

Undoing the Slashdotting (1, Funny)

CleverNickedName (644160) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876575)

Luckily the flames spewing from their server will be put out with all the drooling.

All' well that ends well.

Nice but... (4, Informative)

Ironsides (739422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876590)

82" is nice and all, but I'd rather have their 102" Plasma" [engadget.com]

Re:Nice but... (1)

codeguy007 (179016) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876675)

Chances are in a few years, you won't have to forgo that new $60,000 dollar car just to buy an 82" LCD monitor. I would count on a 102" Plasma dropping much in price though.

Blue pixels? (0, Redundant)

dereklam (621517) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876717)

Looking at that picture, it seems to me they are avoiding demoing blue pixels. Does anyone know if plasma TVs of this size have issues showing blue?

Nice laptop!! (-1, Redundant)

erroneus (253617) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876627)

I can wait to play solitaire on the plane with one of those things on my lap. :) I just love to piss people off, for some reason, and since I'm not some smell obese prick, I would need to make up for it with a laptop wielding one of these displays! :)

Whats that in Metric (0, Troll)

DisprinDirect (755967) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876629)

I'm getting confused with all these non-decimal units. What's 82" in S.I. units? Is that about 2 cubits? (or are cubits a unit of volume?).

So, for those of us who don't live in one of the last few stated who have not adopted the S.I. (Burma, Liberia and the USA I believe are the only remaining 3), can we have S.I. units please.

I wonder if those 3 countries have anything else in common? Lets, see, they all execute children don't they - Oh no, USA just announced it will stop doing that!

Re:Whats that in Metric (1, Funny)

kahei (466208) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876699)


Back under your bridge... g'wan, shoo, shoo...

Dang trolls, more of 'em each year... I blame them suits in Washington.

how big are the pixels? (2, Interesting)

Matey-O (518004) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876630)

They've gotta be, what, a quarter inch square? based on it being 1.87m by 2.2m, that's about .57 cm x 1.1 cm or friggin' HUGE (Feel free to correct my math) That seems like you'd need to stand 30 feet away to make it look like a 19" monitor at 2 feet.

Re:how big are the pixels? (-1, Redundant)

davestar (680893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876695)

based on it being 1.87m by 2.2m, that's about .57 cm x 1.1 cm or friggin' HUGE (Feel free to correct my math)

Well, since you asked...

pixels are ~1.1 mm x ~1.7 mm (2.2 m / 1920 and 1.87 m / 1080)

Re:how big are the pixels? (0)

davestar (680893) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876895)

haha, i have the first post with the correct calculations yet get the "Redundant" mod? Throw me a bone here!

Correcting your math, as requested (3, Informative)

Animaether (411575) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876736)

Without pulling up the actual specs...
2.2m = 220cm
220cm / 1920pixels = 0.114583cm/pixel
Or, in other terms, about 1.15mm/pixel

1.86m = 187cm
187 / 1080pixels = 0.173148cm/pixel
Or, in other terms, about 1.73mm/pixel

Slightly non-square, I'd imagine if I'd pull up the actual specs of the display panel itself (not the entire casing) I'd get square, and smaller, pixels yet.

Re:Correcting your math, as requested (2, Informative)

OblongPlatypus (233746) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876951)

The 2.20m by 1.87m measure is of the glass substrate they use in production. This is enough for a 110" screen, but for whatever reason they cut it down to 82" for this one.

So the pixels are probably around a square millimeter each, not too bad.

Re:how big are the pixels? (1)

Emil Brink (69213) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876765)

I didn't check on your math per se, but I think your assumptions are wrong. The "substrate" the blurb talks about is most likely something that is processed, then cut into multiple actual screens. At least that is how the term is used in e.g. IC production, I think. Anyway, if you compute the diagonal of a 2.2 by 1.87 meter rectangle, it comes out to 2.9 meters. This is about 113", which is why I think you're using the wrong numbers (113" IsNot 82").

Re:how big are the pixels? (1)

guroove (231050) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876768)

Uh, your math is a little off there. It would be closer to .57mm x 1.1mm. you misplaced a decimal point somewhere. 1000mm = 1m

Re:how big are the pixels? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876780)

Also if you look at the specs it's 1920 x RGB x 1080, so there are 1920 x 1080 x 3 pixels, or 6.22 million pixels. This cuts your pixel size down even further due to a threefold increase in pixels over your initial calculations

Re:how big are the pixels? (1)

breadbot (147896) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876789)

The substrate is that big (2.2 x 1.87 meters), but that's for two 82" screens. A single screen is a little less than half that size -- it fits 1920 pixels into something less than 1.87 meters, and 1080 in less than 1.1 meters. If they're square, then they're slightly less than 1 millimeter on a side.

Re:how big are the pixels? (2, Informative)

ed_g2s (598342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876800)

The substrate is much bigger than the screen.

The screen is 82" on the diagonal =~ 2.08m
The aspect ratio is 16:9 so
(16x)^2 + (9x)^2 =~ 2.08^2
337x^2 =~ 4.34
x =~ 0.113m

So it measures about 1.815m x 1.02m. I imagine it has more than 1920x1080 pixels and has image enhancing to scale the image up, but if it were 1920x1080 then the pixels would be 0.094cm square which is about 1/25th of an inch.

Re:how big are the pixels? (2, Informative)

TommyW (75753) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876808)

From the article:
Full HD 1,920 x 1,080 pixels 16:9 aspect ratio
Resolution 1,920 x RGB x 1,080 (Full HD)

Which makes the pixels 1mm square. Or, 0.04 inches square.

I'm still waiting (2, Funny)

WormholeFiend (674934) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876649)

for a printer that will print currency so that I can buy the current "largest" computer monitor and/or TV.

Big pixels (2, Funny)

LordOfYourPants (145342) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876650)

1920x1080 at 82"... Those are some big dots. I wouldn't call it "liquid crystal" but more like "vacuum tubes with plastic filters on them."

Re:Big pixels (2, Interesting)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876810)

By my estimate, it is still about 25 dpi. It would beat my projector hands down, I think I have about 4 dpi on the final screen, though I am projecting XGA onto about a 180" diagonal.

I wouldn't use it as a personal screen unless I were five meters back, but that's part of the idea for some people, a convergence display.

Digital Artwork (1)

Foolomon (855512) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876682)

82" means that digital paintings that update themselves with images from the Internet are not far behind, I'm guessing.

Lifesized (2, Funny)

saskboy (600063) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876690)

Now I can finally display a lifesized woman with a 41" chest, front, sides, and back, on my computer screen. 'Bout darn time.

Oh, not that I would...

Larger Than.... (4, Funny)

goneutt (694223) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876718)

So now we have an 82 inch TV. And 60 inch waistlines.

Priorities People.

Re:Larger Than.... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876916)

Never fear, we'll get 82 inch waistlines soon enough.

When will it replace plywood? (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876722)

I saw this yesterday, and wondered when we're finally going to see these things advertised in architectural sizes. You walk into a store. "We only sell them in the standard 4'x8', just like sheetrock and plywood. Go to a custom house to get a trimmed down version." When? I doubt 2010. 2020? 2030?

Just in time... (1)

should_be_linear (779431) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876742)

...for tonights Chelsea-Barcelona game... My wife will be surprised I guess, first "Arsenal" Champions league TV chair ($700) now this.

What a waste (3, Funny)

Perl-Pusher (555592) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876786)

High Resolution 82 inch monitor, low resolution internet porn. Is that a fuzzy breast or a sand dune?

What advantages over a DLP projector? (3, Interesting)

ites (600337) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876801)

Why would anyone buy such a piece of equipment in preference over a good DLP projector?

A projector is light and can be easily moved. It gives you a huge display, with comparable resolution and brightness. It is cheaper. It can double up for business use, and can be carried in one hand. And when it's switched off, you get your living room back.

The only disadvantage of a projector is that it can be a little noisy - DLP chips get very hot and need a lot of cooling.

And perhaps there are no projectors with built-in TV decoding, which I don't care about personally since I don't have TV, and only watch DVDs.

its not the biggest guys (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876803)

there was one at cbit, about 108 inches I think?
yeah it was a prototype, but so is this until its in a store someplace.

remember that? or is slashdot too busy duping itself to death?

And my loan amount is... (1)

yoma (564439) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876813)

Ok has anyone seen how much this bad boy is? I need to know so that I can sell some small countries I have in order to pay for it.

Level 50 Mage on LCD (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11876821)

Now I can truly enjoy a Level 50 mage ganking me in WoW. You know...there could be a real potential here with theaters eventually. (When they get big enough.)

Megapixels? (3, Insightful)

imroy (755) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876837)

From TFA:

Pixels: 6.22 million (number of RGB sub-pixels)

Yes, that's 1920 x 1080 x 3 = 6220800. I can't wait until the camera manufacturers catch onto this new method to inflate the number of "megapixels" in their cameras. Fifteen megapixels here we come!

(Just don't mention the bayer pattern [howstuffworks.com] used on CCD's)

latest and greatest (1)

MarsDude (74832) | more than 9 years ago | (#11876858)

All this latest and greatest technology... and they can't even make it wide-screen ???

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...