Samsung Unveils 82 Inch LCD

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."

Re:rejects

[Jagen]

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:So...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

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

Press release from Samsung + pic!

[binaryDigit]

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?

Nice but...

[Ironsides]

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

Re:size/resolution

[Silwenae]

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.

Correcting your math, as requested

[Animaether]

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:rejects

[Vihai]

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

Re:how big are the pixels?

[ed_g2s]

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?

[TommyW]

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.

Re:Correcting your math, as requested

[OblongPlatypus]

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:Nice but...

[klui]

There are problems with plasma displays that make me veer towards LCD.

1. Plasmas suck up power like there's no tomorrow. I hear 300-500 watts is nominal. That 102" would definitely be on the high end of the scale.
2. Plasma burn in.
3. Limited lifetime.

Until these disadvantages are taken care of, I will pass. LCDs have none of these problems and with the new 7G Samsung, it looks like they may have taken care of the viewing angle and brightness problems.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[Valdrax]

I'll list my reasons for going with Sharp's 45" AQUOS instead of a front projector:

1. Projectors are noisy and hot as you mentioned.
2. Cable routing is a problem. I live in an apartment and can't route through my ceiling to hide cables.
3. Bulb replacements can be expensive and are needed far more frequently than for an LCD.
4. 1080p DLP (and LCoS) projectors are even more expensive than current LCDs (but probably not this monstrosity). A good high-contrast screen is even more money.
5. Ambient lighting (such as sunlight) can mess with a projector's image quality, and I don't live in a cave.

Re:Megapixels?

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't wait until the camera manufacturers catch onto this new method to inflate the number of "megapixels" in their cameras.
They already do... CCDs only measure one color per pixel, thus they consider each "point" 3 pixels

Re:Nice but...

[Ironsides]

That distance would be ~200" (4 times the screen height). That's a bit over 16.5' or 5 meters.

Re:rejects

[Zeinfeld]

So... imagine a rectangular piece of glass 2m in one dimension spinning at 3000 revolutions

Actually probably not, the article said that they make two screens at a time. So we can assume that what they would do is to get a sheet of glass that is roughly square, 2m on each side. The large sheet does not need to be spun as fast as a small one, its the linear velocity, not the angular that matters.

What makes larger screens hard is getting the scalled up equipment. And getting the necessary throughput. Larger screens means each step of the process takes longer.

From a yield point of view the transistors are going to be so large that crystal defects are not relevant so you win on that one. On the other hand you have a really big problem getting the mask in registration over such a large area.

As for use, the first ones will be used for computer monitors at trade shows. There is no other use that is going to justify a $30K monitor which is what the first ones off the line are likely to cost. For that use the resolution is perfectly adequate.

The key breakthrough here though is that 82" is large enough for a meetingroom/classroom monitor. Projection displays are very unsatisfactory, the room has to be so dark that people go to sleep. Once the price is $5K or less this becomes an interesting choice.

Re:What advantages over a DLP projector?

[mamer-retrogamer]

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

I'll give you my number 1 reason: rainbows [avsforum.com] and the resulting headaches.

-Mike

That's already how it's expressed

[Sycraft-fu]

They give the rating of the CCD, not the effective number of colour points you get. For example my SD (720x480) DV cam has over a megapixel CCD. Do the math you find out that it only takes around 350,000 pixels to do SD. The reason it has a larger CCD is because of the mask on it. If you go a setp up, to real pro gear, you discover the numbers drop back down to below a MP, since they split the light with prisms and go to 3 seperate CCDs.