Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Hardware

Samsung Debuts Thin Galaxy Tab S With Super AMOLED 2560X1600 Display 176

Posted by samzenpus
from the brand-new dept.
MojoKid (1002251) writes Samsung unveiled its latest flagship tablet, the Galaxy Tab S, at an event in New York City tonight, and the new device is thin, lightweight, and sports a killer Super AMOLED display. Samsung boasts that the Galaxy Tab S's 2560x1600 display has 73% better color reproduction than conventional LCD displays and can match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette" with deeper blacks and a 100,000:1 contrast ratio. The 10.5-inch device weighs just 467g and measures a mere 6.6mm in thickness (and there's an 8.4-inch version, too). Under the hood, the Galaxy Tab S features Android KitKat 4.4, 3GB of RAM, 16GB or 32GB of storage with a microSD slot that supports up to 128GB. The front camera is 2.1MP and the rear 8MP camera has an LED flash. No word on the exact processor on board just yet, other than it's a quad-core SoC. It's likely a Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 though an Exynos variant or perhaps even Tegra 4 wouldn't be beyond the realm of possibility.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Debuts Thin Galaxy Tab S With Super AMOLED 2560X1600 Display

Comments Filter:
  • Time for an upgrade (Score:1, Informative)

    by CaptQuark (2706165)
    Ok, I want one!!
    • by JaredOfEuropa (526365) on Friday June 13, 2014 @05:08AM (#47228333) Journal
      I want... similar drool inducing screen specs to make it into the bigger screens, where ultra-high resolutions actualy make sense. The choice in TVs and monitors with resolutions that exceed HD is still decidedly poor. On tablets, a high resolution helps especially when reading for longer periods of time, but I couldn't care less about black levels or color reproduction. Again, such features are more important for bigger screens.
      • Behold, the latest wonder [newegg.com] from Asus. UltraHD in a 28" screen for $650 at NewEgg. Limit 2 per customer. (No, they're not paying me to post this. I wish they were.)

        Yeah it's a TN panel, but the reviews show it can manage a standard color gamut better than pretty much any TN panel before it, while still benefiting from the TN design in its response time. It claims 1 ms grey to grey transition. Off angle viewing is better than many TN panels as well. And with the DisplayPort connection, it's capable of 6

        • And with the DisplayPort connection, it's capable of 60Hz vertical refresh at full resolution, something HDMI can't do until the new HDMI spec is finalized.

          It's already finalized: HDMI 2.0 [hdmi.org]

      • by thegarbz (1787294)

        I would have to disagree that things like color and contrast ratio don't matter on portable displays. Why does one system matter more than the other? I see plenty of color critical applications for tablets and phone just as I do for desktops. Also I greatly prefer that the technology irons out it's bugs on a small cheap disposable device before I drop $2000 on a desktop monitor that will last me 8 years like my current one.

        Start small, get it perfected, increase the size. A perfectly valid development metho

    • by Nutria (679911)

      You have a *lot* more disposable income that me. Childless?

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Sure! Who needs kids when there's 7 billion of us worthless fucks already here!

      • You have a *lot* more disposable income that me. Childless?

        The term "childless" is offensive and discriminatory.
        The proper term is "child-free".

    • Samsung has been on a real kick lately with locked bootloaders [thewire.com].

      Fuck any company that tries to limit what I can do with my possessions.

      Until they prove that this new tablet is easily rootable, so that you can do what you want on it, no self-respecting nerd should buy this.

      (And before any smartass pipes up with "customers are leasing it, not buying it" yeah yeah, you are very clever, but you and I both know that's horseshit.)
  • Units! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Friday June 13, 2014 @04:35AM (#47228223)

    "The 10.5-inch device weighs just 467g and measures a mere 6.6mm in thickness" ...

    • Re:Units! (Score:5, Funny)

      by fractoid (1076465) on Friday June 13, 2014 @04:51AM (#47228267) Homepage

      The 0.267m device weighs just 0.467kg and measures a mere 0.0066m in thickness.

      Happy now?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Racemaniac (1099281)

      well, screens are even in metric countries still mostly measured in inch. a 10.5 inch screen is clearer than a 27cm screen.
      It's indeed strange and stupid, but unless there is a sudden movement to get rid of this convention, it's rather convenient to keep it that way. Everybody knows the sizes in inch of the screens they have, so if a new screen then also measures it in inch, it's easy to compare it to what you currently have.

      If i read somewhere the screen diagonal measured in cm, it's most of the time a tin

      • by GNious (953874)

        I've travelled to quite a few European countries (I'm European), and most places, electronics-stores give screen-sizes in centimeters, not inches. Is more prevalent in east-european countries.

        • here in west europe, i also see it sometimes, but most of the times it's still inches. And when i see it in cm, it's just strange :p

        • In Finland I have only rarely seen centimeters mentioned in screen sizes. It's generally inches through-and-through.
        • by Mr0bvious (968303)

          Not here: http://www.fust.ch/de/r/tv-fot... [www.fust.ch] (probably the most popular electronics store in Switzerland).

      • Re:Units! (Score:5, Insightful)

        by AmiMoJo (196126) * <[ten.3dlrow] [ta] [ojom]> on Friday June 13, 2014 @06:19AM (#47228523) Homepage

        a 10.5 inch screen is clearer than a 27cm screen.

        It's really not though, at least to me. When you say 27cm I immediately have a firm idea of how big it is, but 10.5" is a bit vague for someone living in a (mostly) metric country. TV sizes are much easier to visualize in centimetres as well.

      • by Calinous (985536)

        Romania has started Metrification about 150 years ago... but I'm still referring to mountain bike wheels as "of 26 by 1.9" (inches that is).

      • Many "32" class" TV are in fact 31.5" when you look at the details because they are 80 cm which is even less than 31.5" (so should be rounded down to 31")
    • by dj245 (732906)

      "The 10.5-inch device weighs just 467g and measures a mere 6.6mm in thickness" ...

      Not really that amusing. Screen sizes in even the most solidly [amazon.co.jp] metric [amazon.it] countries [amazon.co.uk] are often measured in inches.

      • by amorsen (7485)

        Ha, you included UK in solidly metric. The UK has basically failed to switch. Only fuel is measured in metric units. Well ok, milk is sold in 568ml containers that do not say "pint" anywhere, but everyone says pint.

      • in Italy TVs have been sold measured in inches since the very beginning, and Italy is as metric as they come. Fun random fact, they are actually said to be xx 'thumbs' wide (pollici)

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 13, 2014 @05:02AM (#47228305)

    These tablets sure look nice. The main downsides seem to be (i) price and (ii) Samsung's customized TouchWiz UI (so you gotta wait for custom ROMs).

    But the question in my mind is the following: how do these differ from the TabPro tablets? They look quite similar to me... Thoughts?

    • by CastrTroy (595695)
      Personally, I find android to be not so great for tablets. I can understand Samsung wanting to use a custom UI as the stock one doesn't allow multiple apps onscreen at the same time. Personally, I really like the UI on my Surface 2. My only major complaint is the lack of apps.
  • by advid.net (595837) <.ten.divda. .ta. .todhsals.> on Friday June 13, 2014 @05:16AM (#47228351) Journal

    If it can match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette" , maybe it could be used to display a test for tetrachromate people ? [wikipedia.org]

    I always wanted to make such a test, but I was quite difficult with real pigments.

    I hope some application will try to make such a test, it would be amazing !

    • by Ecuador (740021) on Friday June 13, 2014 @08:40AM (#47229323) Homepage
      They say "94% of nature's true palette" yet it still cannot reproduce a single shade of octarine...
    • Looks like you have been beaten to the punch [blogadilla.com]. Anyway, I'm not sure why it would matter: they're so rare that the chances of one coming across a screen that could display the test is pretty low.

      Consider that cameras and monitors don't even capture the full range in terms of dark to light that the NORMAL human eye can see. Extra color information, like resolution, is one of those things that you need to actually see and get used to before you become willing to shell out extra money for it. I have an A
  • match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette"

    I assume they actually mean 94% of the colours humans can see - unless this thing can spit out X-rays.

    • by wbr1 (2538558)

      I assume they actually mean 94% of the colours humans can see - unless this thing can spit out X-rays.

      That is part of their new user/ad tracking software.

    • by Bongo (13261)

      match colors up to 94% of "nature's true palette"

      I assume they actually mean 94% of the colours humans can see - unless this thing can spit out X-rays.

      Hee.

      http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/31/Radioactive_Man.jpg

  • I own the Tab 2 and it's a great device - but the poor black contrast lets it down, particularly when watching video. On my Galaxy S4 mobile the blacks (eg, dark scenes or fade to black in movie) are pure black, better than iPhone and others .. whereas on the Tab2 they're distinctly grey due to the LCD backlight. Super AMOLED is superb.

    • Super AMOLED is superb.

      Agreed, as long as you're inside. My S4 is a bear to use outside because you just can't see the display worth a damn in bright sunlight.
    • by Mr0bvious (968303)

      I own a Tab 1, 2 and Note (all 10" versions) and I must say that the Tab 2 is absolute rubbish compared to the other 2. It is amazingly non responsive (slow).

      The Note is fantastic and the Tab 1 is pretty good - but what the hell did they do to the Tab 2? That thing was a step backwards from the Tab 1, I hate it.

      • by synapse7 (1075571)

        I'm using a custom rom/kernel in my tab2 that overclock the video and cpu chips, and its not too bad. I think my next tab will be an 8" version.

  • by 2ms (232331) on Friday June 13, 2014 @08:44AM (#47229355)
    Why is there such an incredible number of advertisements for products like this on Slashdot these days? Surely no one actually considers it news that the latest model of some commodity consumer electronics product has a faster processor and more compact form factor than its predecessor.
    • by timeOday (582209)
      Have to take issue with you on this one. AMOLED is actually a big deal. That's why it's mentioned in the title, and that's why it's newsworthy. I don't want to upgrade my TV again until I can get an OLED.
    • by Salgat (1098063)
      I don't mind a productive discussion on an exciting new electronics product. Would you be angry if there was a submission announcing the release of the Xbox One or PS4?
  • Removable battery? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by sremick (91371) on Friday June 13, 2014 @09:30AM (#47229689)

    Does this have a removable battery?

    I've stopped buying consumer electronics that take the markedly ANTI-consumer and needless action of making non-removable batteries. I realize this eliminates most tablets* but I really have little use for a tablet (my job has provided several for me to use but I really couldn't care less about them, having tried them).

    * - And all Apple hardware, but I'm ok with that too.

    • by Solandri (704621) on Friday June 13, 2014 @03:15PM (#47232579)

      I've stopped buying consumer electronics that take the markedly ANTI-consumer and needless action of making non-removable batteries.

      That was true about 10 years ago, but I don't think it's true anymore.

      • 10 years ago, devices typically used the full capacity of the battery and topped off when full. Consequently it would wear out quicker. After a year of use, it would probably only hold half the charge it did new. After 3 years it would probably only last 5-15 minutes. Being able to replace the battery was important then for the longevity of the device. Today most manufacturers do not use the battery's full capacity. They typically allow it to be charged only to 90% of real max capacity (the software just reports this as 100%), and discharged to 10% (reported by the software as 0%). The batteries on all my newer devices which are 3-5 years old are still lasting 70%-90% as long as they did new.
      • 10 years ago, laptop batteries in particular would only last 1.5-2.5 hours on a charge. Anything over 3 hours was considered long. Today, 4-5 hours is typical, and many will operate 6-10 hours. So there's less need to have a second spare battery you can swap in.

      I empathize with those whose usage patterns fall outside of these cases, and who could really use a second battery to swap in. But in general I think the extra capacity and smaller size that comes from molding the battery to fit in limited space and not having to encase the battery in a protective plastic housing are a worthwhile tradeoff. Bear in mind that when user-replaceable batteries were common, they were substantially overpriced and probably represented the biggest rip-off in the tech market after $100 for an extra 16 GB of flash memory.

      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        In theory what you say is true, but it doesn't take into account how hard some devices push batteries these days. High current charging doesn't do them much good, and neither does heat which is a shame because due to decides being so thin and fanless they tend to dissipate a lot of it into the chassis (and thus the battery). Some laptops have even started providing chargers that can't actually power the damn things, relying on the battery to provide extra current when needed. If you push the machine hard a

    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      markedly ANTI-consumer and needless action of making non-removable batteries.

      You're joking right? Consumers are pushing a desire for thinner lighter devices capable of longer and longer run-times with higher loads. Something has to give when you are designing around these requirements. A lot of modern devices are thin because their batteries lack any kind of protection. Using flat lithium cells gives the designer far more flexibility to design a product rather than having a full battery pack with protective case and protection circuit. The average consumer is likely to damage the ty

      • by sremick (91371)

        You're joking right? Consumers are pushing a desire for thinner lighter devices capable of longer and longer run-times with higher loads.

        Believe it or not, consumers also like to not have to replace their device in 2 years because the battery only holds half the capacity it used to. Just because it's not on the box or part of the advertisement's spiel doesn't mean it's not something consumers care about. There are plenty of consumers who can see into the future beyond the length of their nose.

        Something has to give when you are designing around these requirements. A lot of modern devices are thin because their batteries lack any kind of protection. Using flat lithium cells gives the designer far more flexibility to design a product rather than having a full battery pack with protective case and protection circuit.

        You seem to be under the misconception that these rule each other out. Do you do much electronics repair? How many devices have you owned? Opened? Repl

        • by thegarbz (1787294)

          You're absolutely right, except where you're completely wrong.

          Consumers don't like to replace their device in 2 years because of battery? Not a problem. I don't think I've ever met anyone who swapped because of a battery. They swap because their contract is up, because the new shiny thing came out, because all their friends have one, not because of a battery (by the way my Samsung Galaxy S is still working fine on it's original battery). Manufacturers do NOT need to make a device wear out, the vast majority

  • by presidenteloco (659168) on Friday June 13, 2014 @11:22AM (#47230605)

    after only a few years of operation, there is a noticeable dimness to the screen, so that it is unusable in daylight.

    I've read that AMOLED displays degrade quickly in their brightness.

    Great for you if you are a company wanting to sell me a new phone every two years. Sucks for the consumer who might want to keep their phone 5 or even 8 years like I kept my last pre-smartphone.

    • by thegarbz (1787294)

      Sucks for the consumer who might want to keep their phone 5 or even 8 years like I kept my last pre-smartphone.

      Just another example of being unable to please everyone. The vast majority of consumers these days don't use their phones for anywhere near that long. It's true AMOLEDs do tend to die over time but they will far outlive the average service life of the phone (far less than 5 years).

Always draw your curves, then plot your reading.

Working...