Beta
×

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!

Sharp LCD Display with 1,000,000:1 Contrast Ratio

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the easy-on-the-eyes dept.

Television 184

i4u writes "Sharp announces in Japan that it has developed a LCD display with the world's highest contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1. The Sharp ASV Premium LCD display panel has a size of 37 inch, 1920x1080 pixel resolution and a brightness of 500cd/m2. Sharp aims the Mega Contrast LCD display at the professional TV and movie production industry. For comparison the Canon and Toshiba developed SED TV has 100,000:1 contrast ratio."

cancel ×

184 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

WARNING (5, Funny)

LiquidCoooled (634315) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702937)

Do not look into the Sharp LCD Display with your remaining eye.

Re:WARNING (1)

deesine (722173) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702938)

Someone's gonna put an eye out with that thing!

Re:WARNING (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13702939)

The goggles, they do nothing!!

Sorry, someone had to do it..

Re:WARNING (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13702982)

It's at this point that porn suddenly becomes dangerous.

Re:WARNING (-1, Redundant)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702989)

Oh god! The blackness! It's... so... dark...

Re:WARNING (4, Funny)

Eccles (932) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702999)

Nigel Tufnel: It's like, how much more black could this be? and the answer is none. None more black.

Re:WARNING (5, Funny)

Anpheus (908711) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703067)

We should be aiming for 0 K black body emissions or else it doesn't have enough contrast for me. I demand the best.

Ob-quote (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703351)

The contrast on this one goes up to 11....

Re:WARNING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703478)

11 on a scale of 10 in blackness, perhaps?

my eye does not meet its requirements (3, Funny)

bariswheel (854806) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702941)

I don't think my eyes are good enough for that...I'll have to have another talk with my lasik surgeon that cheap rat bastard...

Re:my eye does not meet its requirements (4, Funny)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703321)

And how am I even supposed to know how much improvement this provides over my current monitor when the article does not provide a screenshot of the new monitor!? Let's face it, there hasn't been any improvement in displays during my lifetime. Every time I see a TV commercial for the latest high-tech TV, its brightness and clarity is at most 50% better than the TV I have now, subjectively, and that just isn't worth my hard-earned cash. Not when I can put the money where it really makes a difference, like expensive wine, high-end audio equipment, and Nike shoes.

Re:my eye does not meet its requirements (1)

networkBoy (774728) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703568)

Gawd I wish I had mod points. You just made it worth it to wake up on a monday at 5 in the morning.
-nB

Re:my eye does not meet its requirements (2, Insightful)

oc255 (218044) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703730)

I agree. That was funny as crap.

Although those Aqous TV [moretosee.com] ads are trying to do exactly what the grandparent was joking about: Sell image quality through bad image quality devices. I always thought it was such a stalemate.

Although people go to the movies every once and a while and maybe they'd notice the gap between the big screen and their dated tube. Maybe that's why "home theater" was coined. It was a good way to describe that clear picture you remember from the real cinema.
1. Go to movies
2. See pretty picture
3. Point at screen, "me want that"
4. ---
5. Profit!

Maybe eventually you'd be influenced by peers if you visited their houses (dinner party etc) and saw their screens. If everyone had 800" wall TVs (see Total Recall) that looked crystal clear, I'd probably wonder what I'm doing with a tube on a table. The disparity would probably influence me.

But at the same time it's not like an iPod where you see white earbuds everywhere. It's not so 'public'. Meh, getting OT.

Re:my eye does not meet its requirements (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703705)

yeah because putting 10k instead of 2k to an audio system really makes a noticiable difference... ..err. no it doesn't. but it's a wonderful way to look like an idiot geek when you bring up your shiny cables while having dinner.

Article (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13702951)

Sharp announces that it has developed a LCD display with the world's highest contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1.

The Sharp ASV Premium LCD display panel has a size of 37 inch, 1920x1080 pixel resolution and a brightness of 500cd/m2.
Sharp aims the Mega Contrast LCD display at the professional TV and movie production industry. Message to Sharp: I also want a LCD display that works well in bright rooms. No word on when this new Sharp ASV Premium LCD displays will be available.
The highest contrast ratio we reported so far about was 100,000:1 reached by a SED TV developed by Canon and Toshiba.
More details in this Sharp press-release (Japanese).

110 words, the rest is ads. What an absolutely useless website.

Re:Article (4, Funny)

screwballicus (313964) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702968)

110 words, the rest is ads. What an absolutely useless website.

This ignores the fact that these 110 words are themselves basically an ad for the product. My thoughts were something more along the lines of "a 110 word ad, paid for by a plethora of ads surrounding it. What an absolutely useless website."

Re:Article (1, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703104)

My thoughts were something more along the lines of "a 110 word ad, paid for by a plethora of ads surrounding it. What an absolutely useless website."

Odd. My thoughts were `a 110 word ad, paid for, and additional ads, also paid for. Why didn't I think of this business model?'

Re:Article (4, Funny)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703333)


Never mind the descriptions - give me the SCREENSHOTS! I want to see how good this quality is.

Re:Article (0)

blefler (169430) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703434)

C'mon, what did you expect? It's a press release!

Re:Article (1)

mwilli (725214) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703538)

Was a link even necessary? At least we could pretend that the Sharp logo is actually a picture of this display showing the Sharp logo.

Won't work well with Linux (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13702953)


Linux is *not* user friendly, and until it is linux will stay with >1% marketshare.

Take installation. Linux zealots are now saying "oh installing is so easy, just do apt-get install package or emerge package": Yes, because typing in "apt-get" or "emerge" makes so much more sense to new users than double-clicking an icon that says "setup".

Linux zealots are far too forgiving when judging the difficultly of Linux configuration issues and far too harsh when judging the difficulty of Windows configuration issues. Example comments:

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Linux?"
Zealot: "Oh that's easy! If you have Redhat, you have to download quake_3_rh_8_i686_010203_glibc.bin, then do chmod +x on the file. Then you have to su to root, make sure you type export LD_ASSUME_KERNEL=2.2.5 but ONLY if you have that latest libc6 installed. If you don't, don't set that environment variable or the installer will dump core. Before you run the installer, make sure you have the GL drivers for X installed. Get them at [some obscure web address], chmod +x the binary, then run it, but make sure you have at least 10MB free in /tmp or the installer will dump core. After the installer is done, edit /etc/X11/XF86Config and add a section called "GL" and put "driver nv" in it. Make sure you have the latest version of X and Linux kernel 2.6 or else X will segfault when you start. OK, run the Quake 3 installer and make sure you set the proper group and setuid permissions on quake3.bin. If you want sound, look here [link to another obscure web site], which is a short HOWTO on how to get sound in Quake 3. That's all there is to it!"

User: "How do I get Quake 3 to run in Windows?"
Zealot: "Oh God, I had to install Quake 3 in Windoze for some lamer friend of mine! God, what a fucking mess! I put in the CD and it took about 3 minutes to copy everything, and then I had to reboot the fucking computer! Jesus Christ! What a retarded operating system!"

So, I guess the point I'm trying to make is that what seems easy and natural to Linux geeks is definitely not what regular people consider easy and natural. Hence, the preference towards Windows.

Contrast Ratio (5, Interesting)

mysqlrocks (783488) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702958)

Doesn't this start to become meaningless at a certain point? I mean, is 1,000,000:1 really any noticeably better than 100,000:1?

Re:Contrast Ratio (1)

GabeCrowe (778508) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702973)

well, now black is _black_ and white is _white_ none of this contradictory black is white nonsense.

Re:Contrast Ratio (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13702974)

Oh, it is ten times better, it really is.

Re:Contrast Ratio (3, Insightful)

ergo98 (9391) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702981)

Doesn't this start to become meaningless at a certain point? I mean, is 1,000,000:1 really any noticeably better than 100,000:1?

It's very meaningful from a technology accessibility perspective (the "trickle down" theory) - right now at the consumer level sets and computer monitors are offering with 400:1 to 600:1 contrast ratios. As they develop technologies at the extreme ends, it tends to push down prior accomplishments - this might be the sort of achievement that yields us economical 2000:1 displays.

Re:Contrast Ratio (1)

TheSHAD0W (258774) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703531)

I suppose the "trickle-down" is good, but is this really going to help the production industry? Do we really want the video editors struggling to deal with subtlety at a level almost no one else is ever going to see?

Re:Contrast Ratio (5, Informative)

jong99 (848508) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703011)

The eye has a maximum contrast ratio of 1,000,000:1 [wikipedia.org] . There may be little perceptable difference between the two, but the closer the better.

Re:Contrast Ratio (3, Informative)

Mprx (82435) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703021)

No, because the human eye sees brightness on a log scale, so we have a very large brightness sensitivity range. The contrast ratio of staring directly at the sun: the dimmest light we can see is about 1e13:1, so this display has a long way to go to duplicate contrasts visible IRL.

Re:Contrast Ratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703060)

If it was as bright as the sun you would probably need a fusion reactor to power it! (Eh? Eh?)

Re:Contrast Ratio (2, Informative)

nonlnear (893672) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703101)

[turns off funny detector]

If it was as bright as the sun you would probably need a fusion reactor to power it!

Actually, a typical welding arc is brighter than the sun, and doesn't take nearly that much power. Now, to be as bright as the surface of the sun...

Re:Contrast Ratio (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703064)

But for reproducing pictures, it's only the "simultaneous contrast ratio" that really matters - ie what you can take in in one look or from one scene.

Re:Contrast Ratio (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703073)

But we are talking about contrast here. Put the the sun next to the dimmest light we can see and I bet the eye can't see the that dimmest light again.

Inaccurate Analysis (4, Informative)

brunes69 (86786) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703382)

You don't care about the min and max here, because the amount of brightness your eye can discern depends on the dialation of your pupil. What matters is the amount you can discern at any given pupil dialation, which is much mushc smaller.

For example, Go into a brightly lit room and try to differentiate between 10 subtle shades of black. Or go into a dimly lit room and try to discern between 10 subtle shades of white.

Re:Inaccurate Analysis (2, Interesting)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703741)

Yes, but the point of these monitors is to enable film compositors to work at something approaching the contrast ratio of the final product. More and more pipelines are switching from 8 and 16 bits per channel color measured on arbitrary scales to either logarithmic or 16/32 bit per channel floating point color, thanks in large part to Paul Debevec's work [debevec.org] with high dynamic range imaging. In this scenario, the monitor itself clamps the brightness to an unacceptably narrow range, and this monitor is a solution.

This is not targeted at the home computer user. This is a technology for high-end video gear, and a few years down the road, for high-end home theaters (assuming anything gets released to the public in a yet-to-be-determined HDR video format).

Above the contrast ratio of film or DLP projection, I'll agree it's close to useless, however. Unless some exotic sci/med visualization stuff needs it.

It can be handy (5, Interesting)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703078)

Maybe not for the average gaming home application.

But in medecine/radiology it can be really useful : makes it easier to spot small subtle differences between to shades of gray on a X-ray pic, when these are located on a larger scale.

i.e.: when an X-ray image has ~1000 shades of gray, and clinically significant information lies in features that are only 2 or 3 levels appart.

You must either use a high contrast display (like this one, or "special for radiology high contrast CRT", or "printed on transparent film and then displayed with ultra-bright backlight")
Or play a lot with contrast & lightning parameters until selected window makes the differences less subtle.
Or even better, use both technique at once. ...

Also, I'm sure the pr0n industy will find a way to do something useful out of such screens.

Wouldn't resolution be more critical? (1)

TheConfusedOne (442158) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703227)

While the different gray shades are all well and good if you have to push your picture down to 72 to 100 dpi then don't you lose the advantage of that color differentiation by filtering out the subtle objects? (I guess you could zoom in but that has its own problems.)

Resolution - depends on (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703900)

It depends on the source.
- CAT-Scan slice can be as small as 512x512 (so there's no fundamental problem of using it on a 72dpi display)
(and i'm only mentionning X-ray produced pictures. There are stuff from nuclear medicine produce picture with very low resolution due to scathering and everything is just about shades of gray... or rather shade of pseudo-color mapping)
- On the other side, mamographies can be as huge (sorry no pun intended) as 4096x4096
(and resolution is critical because you have to spot small calcification that are only a few pixels wide).

So most specialised medical viewing equipement are usually very high resolution (huge dual 2048x2048 B/W CRT are common on radiology "viewing station" - have worked on with some. Great to watch X-ray pics. Great also to watch webcomics on dead (sorry no pun intended) days.)
but :
- it's still useful do be able to zoom, because of the complexity of spatial resolution of the human eye, some details are more likeliy to be seen when at larger or smaller scale.
- there's not only "viewing station". There are doctors who may want to view pictures on their desktop that are connected to regular LCD screens (for the sake of saving desktop space) from the office in their clinic, for exemple : they may want to correlate the current X-ray pic & report, with older one from the hospital's archives and it's way much faster to retrieve the digital backup of the picture and its report from the database, than try to find if there's still an actual transparent print somewhere.

Having high-contrast LCD screen will bring better quality in situation where a workingstation station with normal desktop foot print is needed, like in the internal medicine doctors office.

Re:It can be handy (2, Funny)

TheOldSchooler (850678) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703846)

This will be a real boon to the medical industry, especially Dr. Nick. "And those smudges that look like my fingerprints... that's trauma!"

Re:It can be handy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703885)

ahm... did you ever think of changing LUTs [LookUpTable]? maybe a spectral LUT instead of a grayscale one? for most people, it's easier to tell the difference between e.g. reddish and blueish than it is to tell the difference between lightish gray and darker gray. if the differences are that subtle, then try 'stretching' out the LUT (e.g. equalize histogram, &c.). you can get

(grayscale)
0x0000 00a0
  to map onto e.g.

(RGB)
0xa0a0 5f00
, &al.


engage those cones, along with the rods. false-color maps are not exactly a new concept.

Re:Contrast Ratio (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703264)

No, it's bullshit. Marketing departments basically pull the numbers for contrast ratio out of their collective arse.

Re:Contrast Ratio (1)

Allelophagia (906839) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703279)

Of course... It is 10 times better.

Re:Contrast Ratio (1)

metalhed77 (250273) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703768)

Film has greater dynamic range and a larger gamut than PC monitors and it shows. When trying to edit motion picture effects images often HAVE to be 16 bits per pixel to accomodate this fact. While the difference is not noticable on today's PC monitors, where the editing takes place, the difference is very noticable once the film has been transfered to film and projected.

Current output devices don't have the same range in any respect as the human eye, we have a lot of improvements that can be made to image output devices.

Nothing for you to see here (-1, Offtopic)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702965)

Hmm...

Black? (5, Interesting)

R2P2 (193577) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702967)

I wonder if this thing can do black that actually looks black, or if it just gets the high contrast ratio by being able to produce whites brighter than the sun?

Re:Black? (3, Informative)

Janek Kozicki (722688) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702997)

I wonder if this thing can do black that actually looks black, or if it just gets the high contrast ratio by being able to produce whites brighter than the sun?

it has a brightness of 500cd/m2. still too light for me, but much better than 1000cd/m2 which are far more copmmon.

and by the way: original announcement [sharp-world.com] . Why They are posting links to such crap websites in the original story?

Re:Black? (2, Interesting)

Orgasmatron (8103) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703157)

Slashdot relies on user submitted stories.

This one was submitted by a user named "i4u" and the links were to (drum roll please), i4u.com.

You visit a shitty site on the way to the press release, and i4u gets impressions on their banners.

Buzzword galore (1)

fbw (69311) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703180)

A "Mega Advanced Super Premium" LCD that defies, delivers and is unprecedented, all in the first small paragraph.

I wouldn't want to be in a buzzword drinking game where a sharp marking droid was reading out this press release...

Re:Black? (3, Informative)

Blue-Footed Boobie (799209) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703346)

Wait, +5 Informative? Sorry to drop the ball on this guy - but he has no clue what he is talking about.

500cd/m2 brightness is pretty nice for an LCD display - since most of the LCD display's on the market right now are 250cd/m2 - 300cd/m2. To get a brightness of 1000cd/m2 you are looking at a Plasma Display, which is useless as a computer monitor (too large generally, burn-in issues, and even higher-resolution Plasma displays make text look like shit).

So, 1000cd/m2 brightness it NOT common in LCD Displays currently.

Re:Black? (1)

KiloByte (825081) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703450)

Do you mean, whiter than white? I think I've heard that somewhere already.

Brighter than the sun? At 500 cd/m2? Hardly ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703007)

Yes, blacks will be very black ... but it is not a HDR display outside of a darkroom.

(HDR displays need much higher max brightness when there is ambient light, couple of thousand cd/m2.)

Re:Brighter than the sun? At 500 cd/m2? Hardly ... (1)

Vitriol+Angst (458300) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703553)

I would think that either, they have negative blacks that suck in light -- or they have a Million Lumen pixel. Or more likely, they are adding all the pixels being light and comparing that to the screen at black.

This is probably are really great monitor -- but if these specs actually meant something it would mean I would be sitting right in front of a Laser Beam. Tell me this isn't the "Allen Parsons Project" and they don't plan to make Millions and Millions of these screens. ;-)

Re:Black? (1)

sam_paris (919837) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703024)

No display can produce pure black. It's apparently not possible, I gather its possible to get as close as buggery but never to actually reach it. Rather like the speed of light...

Re:Black? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703047)

Well, that depends how you define black.
  1) A surface that doesn't reflect or emit any visible light. Why not? It'd have to absorb any light (and emit as IR and UV, otherwise it'd be a black hole heh).
  2) A surface that *almost* doesn't reflect or emit any visible light. The almost being the point where the human eye can't tell the difference with 1), far easier.
  Current CRTs are quite good in dark enviroments, otherwise the glass screen will reflect too much light, still better than LCDs, though.

Re:Black? (1)

SeanAhern (25764) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703305)

I have the specs in hand for a display that turns off the individual light-emitting elements when the signal to that pixel says "black". When it is one step above black, the element turns on and a second "valve" starts modulating that light. Thus, when you have true black in your image, you get real black. No light added to the background ambient light. That as good as you can get, even theoretically.

misprint (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13702976)

Cmdr Taco misread, the actual ratio was 1,000,000:1,000.

What the heck does that mean? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13702985)

"#000000" = black hole; do not touch screen or you'll lose a finger as not even light can escape a black pixel on this display

"#ffffff" = surface of sun; again, do not touch. In fact, wear these protective goggles.

Re:What the heck does that mean? (4, Funny)

aug24 (38229) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703097)

Reminds me of the bash.org snippet:

"What does whiter than white mean?"
"#GGGGGG"

J.

Re:What the heck does that mean? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703474)

The goggles do nothing!

Still not good enough... (1, Informative)

CaptnMArk (9003) | more than 7 years ago | (#13702998)

...to put it on the outside of Hotblack Desiato's ship.

Re:Still not good enough... (0)

LittleGuernica (736577) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703082)

zaphod's just this guy you know

Announcements I'd like to read instead (2, Insightful)

core (3330) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703003)

How about "manufacturer releases LCD display where pixels don't commit suicide as soon as you look at the screen sideways"

Or "manufacturer releases LCD display where black is black, not grayish"

Or "manufacturer releases LCD display that is actually usable in a heavily lit environment"

Even for movie professionals I'd guess that this is at least as important as being able to see sweat pores on an actress' skin :P

--
Smash hit ball matching game for pc & mac, Atlantis: http://www.funpause.com/ [funpause.com]
Currently #2 on RealArcade!

This is about that (2, Insightful)

Craig Ringer (302899) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703168)

Actually, this article is about one of the points you raised. The display has fairly high pixel dimensions, but since it's a very large display it's not actually that high resolution. It's nothing fancy in that regard - no pores on skin here.

What it *does* do, according to the spec, is solve the greyish blacks and muddy whites problem. Comprehensively. That's what a contrast ratio means - it's the ratio in brightness between the brightest white and darkest black the display can produce /at the same time/.

Re:Announcements I'd like to read instead (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703263)

Are you stupid or just dumb?

Do you know what contrast means?
If so, do you what it means when you have a very high contrast ratio combined with a "normal" brightness?

I'll give you a hint. It's something to do with darkness.

Re:Announcements I'd like to read instead (-1, Flamebait)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703298)

And he got modded up, too.

Not much of a surprise, though. Nowadays every article seems to be full of +5 Insightful complaints that miss the point totally. God people on this site are stupid.

I'll bet the next reply to this post will tell me to just leave if I don't like it. Maybe I will.

Re:Announcements I'd like to read instead (0, Offtopic)

paradizelost (689394) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703405)

Just leave if you don't like it. ;)

Re:Announcements I'd like to read instead (1, Offtopic)

Freexe (717562) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703475)

What you should do, is mark any person who makes a good comment as a friend, and people who make stupid or retarded comments as foes.

Then mark up your friends, mark down foes, mark down ACs, mark down funnys, don't show treads that are below your threshold and customise the rest as you want. Grab the rss feed and ignore/delete the headlines that are obvious dupes.

After a few months of doing this you will start to notice a real difference in the quality of posts.

Re:Announcements I'd like to read instead (1)

EvilNTUser (573674) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703858)

The reason I'm getting so frustrated is that while I can do that, someone who doesn't know better will just be bombarded with misinformation.

I've also always had a very strong urge to argue with people who are wrong. Maybe my own life would be better if I just didn't care :-).

Re:Announcements I'd like to read instead (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703673)

How about "manufacturer releases LCD display where pixels don't commit suicide as soon as you look at the screen sideways"

They don't. They just hang around feeling miserable and burst into tears if you look at them "that way".

Do you actually think this is a display? (3, Funny)

ProppaT (557551) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703010)

(1) 1x10^6:1 LCD screen + (1) monkey holding a magnifying glass = "Tartar Word Domination!!!"

You could frickin' blow up the moon with that laser.

Re:Do you actually think this is a display? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703238)

I for one welcome our High-Contrast rulers...

1,000,000:1? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703022)

I think they meant to indicate how many people will be able to afford this stupid thing.

So... (1, Funny)

carguy84 (897052) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703023)

Will we finally know Michael Jackson's true color?

Re:So... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703254)

More to the point, will he?

off topic.... (1)

carguy84 (897052) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703621)

do I have to spell out my joke for you?!? sheesh.

New 3D Planar LCD Monitors (1)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703045)

Talking about LCD technology
GIS Monitor has an excellent article about new planar 3D monitors [gismonitor.com] (picture included [gismonitor.com] ), they are stereoscopic 3D LCD monitors based on an entirely new stereoscopic technology. From the article: The device is particularly well-suited for geospatial image analysts and photogrammetrists, who require 3D viewing to discern depth in the imagery and interpret spatial details.

In addition to this (posted on http://slashgisrs.org/ [slashgisrs.org] ), the /. crowd will be happy to learn that According to Planar, future imaging applications for its new device may include medical imaging, molecular modeling, CAD/architecture, and computer gaming.

Re:New 3D Planar LCD Monitors (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703228)

This looks like a pretty blatant rip-off of Slashdot, and is clearly not very popular judging by how many comments are on articles. It also links to articles as Posted on Slashdot: ... When the articles come from other sources, not Slashdot. What is the point of your pitiful site?

Re:New 3D Planar LCD Monitors (1)

Lord Satri (609291) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703760)

This looks like a pretty blatant rip-off of Slashdot, and is clearly not very popular judging by how many comments are on articles. It also links to articles as Posted on Slashdot: ... When the articles come from other sources, not Slashdot. What is the point of your pitiful site?

Well, slashgisrs.org is only a week old. It target a different crowd than /., it's for the GIS+RS professionals. All links are provided on the articles, not only /. links. There's plenty of slashcode-based website out there, are they all blatant rip-off of Slashdot, of course not, and that's why you've been modded offtopic. Hopefully, sometimes, the mods are right! ;-)

Liquid Crystal Display Display (-1, Offtopic)

Andy_R (114137) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703062)

It is not Liquid Crystal Display Display.
It is not going to work with your PC computer, or your VGA Graphics Adapter that you bought with money from the ATM machine that asked for your PIN number.

Try getting it right, just once, Please? It would make an old grammar nazi nazi very happy.

Sharp is a old school LCD company (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703065)

Sharp blew everyone away at CES way back in 1982 with their 4 inch LCD, its not surprising at all that their leading the way still with cutting edge LCD's

Useless specifications (5, Informative)

smartalix (84502) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703096)

This is a bullshit spec, as are 90% of all specifications given with LCD, Plasma, and any other non-CRT display technology in existence. (The CRT guys woulds lie too if their tech weren't so mature.)

Contrast ratio, brightness, and screen-performance information are generated by suing highly tailored test patterns and performance benchmarks that have little to do with the real image, but a lot to do with published specs.

For example, depending on how the technology responds, the contrast ratio test may consist of a white square, box, or dot on a black field, or a measured sequence of black-to-white screens, with the measured difference in brightness given as the contrast ratio.

The best analogy is speaker specs, which unless they are linked to recognized performance specifications (like frequency response given as plus/minus decibel variance from 20 to 20,000 Hz), are completely misleading. A speaker advertised as delivering 500 Watts may only be able to handle that much power as a transient, and even then a speaker can only "deliver" the power fed into it, which means you also need a 500-W amplifier.

A very good example was at the latest Society for Information Display (www.sid.org) show. Samsung had both the largest LCD and the largest Plasma in existence at the show, and although the brightness and contrast "specs" for the Plasma was greater, the LCD obviously had a brighter and sharper image in operation. True, the blacks were better in the Plasma, but that was the only visible distinction to the discerning viewer and only shows how little a guarantor of performance a high contrast rating is.

This news is certainly encouraging information, and will certainly result in a better-performing display appearing on our shelves soon. But to look at any given spec and shout "halleluia!" is being overly generous.

Re:Useless specifications (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703146)

Also.. it's a damn fixed pixel device..

I'll stick with CRT until digitals can do away with damn fixed pixels.. It's still gonna suffer from jaggies and screen door and all the other crap LCD's are famous for.

Gimme a Sony G90 anyday.. nothing beats the on/off ratio of a CRT.

Re:Useless specifications (1)

Admiral Llama (2826) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703306)

This is probably some junk where in order to display an all white screen it maxes out the brightness, in order to display an all black screen, it simply turns the backlight off, and they then take that difference in brightness and call that their contrast ratio. Tell me how well it does on an ANSI checkerboard pattern and then we'll start talking.

Re:Useless specifications (1)

jackbird (721605) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703783)

Is 25,000:1 [brightsidetech.com] with 3000 cd/m2 brightness on an ANSI checkerboard worht talking about? It's not the monitor in question, but the tech is real enough to have been shown at SIGGRAPH this year.

Obligatory Linus quote (2, Funny)

halleluja (715870) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703120)

I have _never_ seen a display that was both big enough to be useful _and_ accurate.

How is contrast ratio measured? (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703127)

Well, if a panel can display a truly black pixel next to a moderately bright one, doesn't it mean that its contrast ratio is infinite?

How useful is this measure, really?

Re:How is contrast ratio measured? (2, Interesting)

BenjyD (316700) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703197)

I think the point is that LCDs don't produce a black pixel, because they work by blocking the light from a lamp behind the screen with a thin film of liquid crystal. They always allow some light through, hence the grey appearance of cheap LCDs

Re:How is contrast ratio measured? (1)

HuguesT (84078) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703873)

Sure, precicely.

Maybe they've found a way to block the light better and they may have a blacker pixel, but does it mean you can have suddenly very dark features on screen and very bright ones and they are both visible at the same time.

A better measure of screen quality might be the number of perceptibly different grey levels this screen is capable of delivering, AND the ratio between the darkest and the brightest of them. I suspect most humans would have a hard time differencing screens that can do more than about 200 levels.

Sharp LCD Display with 1,000,000:1 Contrast Ratio (1, Funny)

Saiyine (689367) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703167)


Sharp LCD Display with 1,000,000:1 Contrast Ratio

Yeah, but does it got better resolution than the real world?


--
Superb hosting [dreamhost.com] 4800MB Storage, 120GB bandwidth, ssh, $7.95
Kunowalls!!! [kunowalls.host.sk] Sexy wallpapers (NSFW!).

Re:Sharp LCD Display with 1,000,000:1 Contrast Rat (1)

Epistax (544591) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703445)

I hope so. I really get irked when I walk by a thinly-poled picket fence (is that what you call it) where I can see another part of the fence through it. As I walk down the street I get a very distorting effect of there being a completely solid barrier followed by there being no barrier as the pickets pass between and infront of eachother. Really, it's the closest thing I've seen in real life to pixelation. I demand an upgrade.

Not that good contrast, really (3, Funny)

Sulka (4250) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703202)

I saw a photo of the screen on a website and the contrast looks exactly like my current screen. Where's the improvement?

New graviton compression technology (1, Funny)

tgd (2822) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703214)

That must use dilithium crystals to push warp plasma through etched conduits to cause a graviton compression wave creating a warp field bubble at each black pixel, forming a microscopic black hole ensuring the pixel is perfectly black.

Seriously though, I close my eyes and things aren't perfectly black, so I'm not sure 10^6:1 is all that useful.

Re:New graviton compression technology (1)

mike2R (721965) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703542)

Just imagine the sort of quality they will get out of the thing once they try reversing the polartity of the flux converters.

Re:New graviton compression technology (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703849)

Seriously though, I close my eyes and things aren't perfectly black, so I'm not sure 10^6:1 is all that useful.

Time to upgrade your eyelids.

Frickin' laser beams (2, Funny)

John Jorsett (171560) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703335)

Does any else get the mental image of turning on this monitor and suddenly having every square inch of one's face pierced by tiny little pixel-sized laser beams?

Siggraph 2004 (2, Interesting)

Ann Coulter (614889) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703385)

There was a paper presented in SIGGRAPH 2004 about two High Dynamic Range Display Systems [sunnybrooktech.com] (PDF*). One system was a projector shining into a LCD. It is theoretically possible to have a contrast ratio of c*d:1 where the projector has a ratio of c:1 and the LCD has a ratio of d:1. I have found a projector that has a ratio 7000:1 and a LCD television with a ratio of 900:1. Combining them could possibly give a contrast ratio of 6,300,000:1. I believe there is some merit in having c and d be close to each other, so this theoretical 6.3 million to one ratio should be taken with a mountain of salt.

It should be duely noted that the projector-LCD system presented in the link has a measured ratio of about 54,000:1 as opposed to the theoretical 200,000:1 ratio. However, I plan to build a $3000 display with a ratio of about 70,000:1. The projector-LCD systems have the advantage of being able to take high precision illumination values. You effectively double the amount of information that can be fed into the display by having two "screens" (the projector and the LCD). Perhaps those who want to experiment with HDR imaging and do not mind a bit of bluring should consider building one of these $1500-$5000 setups, as opposed to those 100,000:1 or 1,000,000:1 displays.

For those who have sunglasses, happy hacking.

*I would have given a HTML link if the Authors' links [cs.ubc.ca] were functional.

I guess that's like a "GUI User Interface" (3, Funny)

mjeppsen (621795) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703534)

Hmm, "LCD Display"...that must be something like a "GUI User Interface". Can we mod the original story as "Redundant"? :-)

Matthew Jeppsen
www.FresHDV.com

How much contrast is ehough? (5, Interesting)

Richard Kirk (535523) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703759)

Bright sunlight is about 120 000 lux. We can see some detail in starlight at about 0.0003 lux. If you want to cover the entire range of the eye, then about 10^9:1 ought to do it.

This, of course, is rather silly. We cannot see simultaneous contrast of a billion to one. Our retina is not black, so the light will scatter around in the eye, and give us a flare signal of about a percent or so. We are used to rejecting a low light level like that. That would give us a sensible contrast ratio of 100:1. But this is not the whole story either - if you have a scene on a monitor with only 100:1 contrast, it might look OK in office lighting, but the shadows will look very 'milky' in a darkened room.

In our experience, people using monitors or digital projectors to simulate film will need something like a 1500:1 contrast ratio. There seems to be a point somewhere a bit beneath 2000:1 where the blacks come convincing, and the viewer will accept the simulation. There is some point about 1200:1 where the blacks stop looking convincing, and start looking grey.

If you are trying to match a display to a projector, it is nice to have another factor of two, so you can match the absolute brightness without having to go to the display white. You may want to get this because you sometimes have to drive the RGB channels beyond the white point to get bright and clean looking pastel colours.

You will want to have a continuous tone curve. Field-emission devices will have a cube-type power law down to a point, and then they will cut off exponentially. This may give good-looking greys down to a point, and then plunge into black, crushing all the shadow detail. That does not look as nasty as 'milky' shadows, but it is not that much better.

So - about 3500:1 is good for simulating colour film. However, colour film is pretty dim - 16 ft-lamberts (50 cd/m2) is standard. Images look a lot more colourful if they are brighter. If you want really high-contrast images, you need something like a LCD monitor with a variable LED blacklight, which gives you your local 100:1 contrast and a huge overall contrast ratio. Have a look at http://www.brightsidetech.com/tech/bstech.php [brightsidetech.com] .

Re:How much contrast is ehough? (4, Insightful)

mjeppsen (621795) | more than 7 years ago | (#13703904)

For the record, startup company Brightside recently introduced a 200,000:1 "extreme dynamic range" (EDR) display. Tom's Hardware stated that the 200,000:1 contrast ratio was basically "infinite". They have a few display screen images for comparison, and the differences are striking: http://www.tomshardware.com/hardnews/20050923_1705 19.html [tomshardware.com]
Specs on the Brightside display are 37", 3000 cd/m2 brightness rating, 1920x1080 resolution. Yours for the low price of just $49,000.

As to contrast ratio I wonder how 1,000,000:1 is even measureable. As the parent states, 3500:1 is comparable to color film. I also read somewhere that 70mm film has a contrast ratio of approximately 1000:1. YMMV...

Matthew Jeppsen
www.FresHDV.com

Look ma! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#13703859)

No eyes! YAaaa!!!





</Combution>
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>