
Samsung Introduces 24-Inch LCD 139
floam (who got the info from MacUser UK
)writes: "Samsung, in whom Apple invested $100 million to further expand Samsung?s TFT-LCD flat-panel display production capacity, is now offering a 24" digital LCD monitor. The Syncmaster 204T offers support for resolutions of up to 1920x1200 pixels, a dual monitor support to toggle between input from two different monitors, support for both DVI Compliant and Analog input, and a 16:10 aspect ratio. The $8,000 monitor also supports picture-in-picture, or multi-screen functionality, which can display multiple windows on the screen and offers 'True Color,' 16.7 million color support. Supporting two full-size A4 pages, it delivers more than 170 degrees of conic view and the company says that 'all images regardless of input resolution can be scaled to 1920x1200, 16:10 WUXGA mode with unsurpassed sharpness and vividness.'" Yes, please. Imagine when we'll be able to scoff at the "only" 24" LCD screen being bundled with the cheap system at CompUSA ... reason to dream, anyhow.
dot pitch (Score:4)
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:2)
Duff pixels are indeed "part of the deal".
/However/, various companies set the acceptable quality levels at different ration/pixel-counts.
On a standard 14" laptop display some big name manufacturers will ship up to 10 duff pixels. (Hewlett Packard in my experience not only set the approval level the highest, but also employ people who can't count to judge them, I've returned 2 laptops for screen problems in the last few years - both HP). However, this appears to be big-name complacency on their part. In my experience the _small_ manufacturers of laptops _seem_ to have a higher overall quality when it comes to the TFTs (and super-twists in the past) they use.
One "bargain" that used to be available from SGI was the "reject shop" that they ran. They used to sell _really_ cheaply huge flat panel displays for about a quarter of what they would have been worth if they didn't have about 20 duff pixels.
FatPhil
--
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:1)
This was on the Samsung stand and it was definitely analog. I can't stand analog - it looks terrible compared to a digitally connected TFT (like a laptop) or even a decent monitor. The blurred pixels are just too annoying.
According to the specs the screen has a digital interface but I'll believe it when I see it.
Re:Yes! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... (Score:1)
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:2)
*cough* lives under norwegian bridges *cough*
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:1)
Your post suggests that you believe the purpose of government is fulfilled by it simply responding to what the people, or some corporations, claim to want (though it's obvious you realize that what they wanted got them into trouble down the road).
That's not the purpose of government -- good government consists of saying NO loudly and clearly to most everyone most all of the time.
Had the CA government not been populated with the usual mass of meddlesome beauracrats (probably, for all I know, forcing the power companies to choose between what you claim was what they "wanted", but might well have been a huge compromise, and a much-worse alternative previously imposed by government beauracracy), they would have known better than to impose half-fast regulation (yes, I choose that spelling on purpose -- sound it out ;-) then, or much in the way of regulation in the first place.
That way, when the cozy assumptions of corporate fat-cats don't pan out, the market, and the wise fat-cats who tend to it properly, can respond quickly -- much more quickly than that same beauracratic government is likely to.
Of course, the market will assert itself (it is continually doing so) -- various beauracracies serve as dikes against the flow of the market, for both good and ill, whether within businesses, families, or governments, but the biggest, slowest-to-tear-down, and often most stupidly placed dikes are usually the ones built by government beauracracies. Major dislocations of population, including extremes like mass starvation, can be the results of market forces acting to reconcile reality to long-term patterns of behavior. (Though, in this case, I certainly hope Californians don't move to other states in large numbers, bringing their penchant for electing meddlesome beauracrats with them. ;-)
At least when the dikes built by other organizations (families/households, corporations, non-profits) prove to be poorly placed, too large, too small, etc., the rest of the market can quickly respond without having to relocate en masse to another nation or continent...
As to whether businesses should "lie down" with the "lion" of government at all, or just ignore it (and leave it to the whims of those, such as socialists, who can't get through a day without contemplating all sorts of ways they'd like to impose their wills on others), that's a moral argument only in the extreme -- realistically, it's a strategic and/or tactical decision.
IMO, we should resent the corporate fat-cats who grease the palms (in legal and illegal ways) of government officials less than we do the officials who are so easily greased. We didn't elect the former -- they're behaving out of self-interest, exactly "as intended" -- but the latter supposedly represent the interests of "we, the people", and thus should be able to "just say NO" even to well-meaning attempts by one group to impose its will on another via the iron fist of government.
Interesting, can anyone else compare? (Score:1)
Re:MacOS Rumors Has an Apple Flat Panel Roadmap (Score:1)
The link is here. [macosrumors.com]
Basically, once they can realistically sell them for what the 22" is going for now (currently it costs $5,000 just to manufacture one) it will replace the 22". Drop the price of the 15" to about $500 or, heaven forbid, even lower, and fill in the gap with a 17.4" and a 20" for $1200 and $2000, respectively.
However, I have a feeling LEPs will be out before Apple accomplishes all this... it sure would be nice to cut all those prices in half. :)
IBM had bigger high rez screens in the lab 2 years (Score:2)
Re:Copy Protection Digital Encrypted (Score:1)
And an even higher resolution one... (Score:2)
Image size: 22" diagonal
Aspect ratio: 16x10
Resolution: 204 ppi (!!)
Addressability: QUXGA-Wide (I think they're making this stuff up... [grin])
Number of pixels: 9.2 Million (3840x2400)
Contrast Ratio: 400:1
This thing, as you might expect, is REALLY impressive. It's like having a fully virtual 11x17 (B-size) sheet of paper in front of you, since the pixel density is one that would be respectable for a printer, much less a screen.
Tiny details and hairlines are sharply visible: they showed a street map of all of Manhatan, and every street was clear, if small. This sort of thing in a foldable, portable, low power form factor would finally give us a viable replacement for paper in some cases.
I have no idea what kind of video card it used, or how much compute power is required to run the thing. It was quite snappy in the demos.
Oh and it's not available yet (it will be targeted at CAD/CAM and medical imaging markets), but when it is, expect to pay around 30 kilobucks. Guess I won't be gettig one after all...
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:1)
Re:too bad interfaces haven't caught up yet... (Score:1)
It's all Pay per Play! No subscription, no service. :-(
16x10 would be nice (Score:1)
Xmas list (Score:2)
Santa,
There's one more thing I forgot to tell you...
Re:Ha, I'll do you one better (Score:2)
"The pulp and paper industry is one of the largest and most polluting industries in the world; it is the third most polluting industry in North America."
Asikaa
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:1)
Re:"170 degrees of conic view"???? (Score:1)
This problem has pretty much been solved in LCDs. Now the remaining problem is colour quality.
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:2)
Someone down below (tonywong?) claims that the DVI spec is only up to 1280x1024? Seems a bit short sighted, if true.
Jules
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:2)
The crisis in California clearly demonstrates that hippie attitudes - such as "conserve in all areas of life" - are totally divorced from reality.
The solution for California is:
1. Let companies build power stations
2. Free the retail price of electricity
Hasn't anyone over there got any idea of basic micro economics?
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:1)
So I assume it would look much better if it were digital
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
So each row needs a wire, and each column needs a wire, and all the transistors share a ground and positive voltage reference. That makes for a few thousand wires, not a few million.
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:1)
So I presume at full resolution the only choice is analog. Which is just not good enough.
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:1)
I'm using two 18" flat panels (Eizo L661) in a 2560x1024 DualHead display, and each character of text is pixel-perfect. It can take some time get an LCD configured correctly, but if the phase and clock are correct, even an analog connection shouldn't have any blurring.
Now to try out the DVI out with my new 42" NEC PlasmaSync.
---
Re:Copy Protection Digital Encrypted (Score:1)
Drool (Score:2)
$8000? (Score:1)
As it is, you can get a Sony 24" 16x10 (FW900) for under $2000 (US) now. I know, I'm sitting front of one writing this and it works perfectly at 1920x1200 under both X and on my Macintosh G4 cube (the monitor has a source switch on the front panel).
Re:a quick look at the specs: (Score:1)
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
I think I'll need 2 (Score:5)
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
Yes! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... (Score:5)
What's that Neo? Ah yes, "Whoah" indeed.
How much is too much? (Score:2)
One Word (Score:1)
Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
Re:Old news in Europe (Score:1)
Seen it. Love it. Want it. (Score:1)
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:4)
I have a 21" Eizo CRT on my main home machine, and in order to have pinpoint convergence on the whole screen, it's about 24" deep! Likewise on the 21" Nokia monitor at work.
So firstly the monitor is far too close to the end of my nose, as I can't position it far enough back on the desk. (I only want a couple of inches more, I'm really just absurdly close at the moment.)
Also, in order for the CRT to be structurally sound with such large spans of glass, it needs to be quite think (in the same way dinosaur bones are relativelty thinker than crocodile bones which are relatively thicker than newt bones).
I have had to DIY reinforce my crappy desk at home to support the weight! (technology stuff is higher priority than furniture stuff, obviously). A flat pane display would weigh about a third of that. I could put it anywhere. I could even stick it on the wall...
Yes, these are just "convenience", but for some convenience is worth spending money on.
FatPhil
--
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:1)
(too early in the bloody morning, that's how)
FP.
--
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:5)
Now scale as needed. After awhile the materials become too unwieldy. Imagine trying to keep two very flat panes of material at extremely precise tolerences apart over large distances in a consumer product... This is exactly what the manufacturers must do. Furthermore the error rate becomes so numerous the product becomes economically impractical. They probably could be made but the manufacturer is better off making more smaller screens for greater profit.
Even if someone does go for making them visualize the flexing in the front panel when the panel is moved around during manufacturing & shipping. You thougt the rainbows on a samaller screen were bad when you touched it consider trying to build a 24"+ pane that doesn't flex.
As manufacturing technologies improve the yields do go up and the defect rates are kept under ontrol but it's still a difficult market. There's also the problem that the market is a moving target: your US$250 million plant that you built last year for 12" screen is a has-been in today's 13" world, gotta recoup that money fast.
It used to be some manufacturers would only replace a screen if one had >2 defects within the radius of a US quarter coin.
Finally we're eventually going to run into things like bandwidth problems. It'll require some impressive technology to control some enormous number of pixels by some enormous number of pixels all with some high number of possible color combinations at the speeds required.
The more adventuresome will now want to jump in with predictions of distributed rendering and local processing etc.)
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:1)
Remember, anti-aliasing is blurring, after all.
The other followup is also correct.
FatPhil
--
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:2)
Mr Manager, I'd love to work for your company, but I would need this monitor in order to do my work effectively. My previous company considered it a very reasonable request, honest!
And while I'm at it, I'd like a pony too
screw hi-tech (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
5x5 pixel area = 25 elements
10x10 pixel area = 100 elements
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:1)
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
HP Quality Control (Score:1)
DVI = 1280x1024 max. (Score:1)
Re:HP Quality Control (Score:1)
Phil
--
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:1)
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:1)
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:1)
blessings,
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:1)
DVI: Digital, but not copy-protected (Score:2)
Ever look at the el-cheapo LCD monitors sold at CompUSA and wonder why they don't have the sharpness of a laptop display? It's the analog signal path.
To my eyes, analog (VGA D-Sub-15) LCD monitors look pretty bad. Some of the least expensive models exhibit noticeable 'jitter', which makes them WORSE than a regular CRT display.
Just wondering (Score:1)
Is this to make it sound bigger, or am I missing something? I mean, I know my maths is bad, but it's not that bad...
The model is actually 240T (Score:1)
So, how many should I ship over????
JC
Old news in Europe (Score:2)
While the size and luminosity of the Samsung were nice, it wasn't nearly as sharp as Apple's Cinema Display. And for the Samsung's price you can buy a G4 Cube with the 24" panel!
If only flat panels were cheap enough, I could save lots of room in my tiny apartment and my electricity bill would nicely drop...
.m
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:1)
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:1)
The stairs also had _3_ doglegs.
The Eizo _was_ unpacked before I even tried to get it up that final flight. It also had to rest on 6" wide strips of all 6 possible sides during its journey up the stairs, as the only way to move it was to _roll_ it.
Oh - what's this "delivery guy" nonsense?
Never again...
Phil
--
Image scaling (Score:1)
I was always disappointed with past LCD's being unable to properly cope with resolutions below their physical DPI. It always used to mess the picture up to the point of near unusability. (At least I couldn't stand it.)
Sure, it doesn't SOUND hard to stretch and blur an image at 60Hz, but I've never seen it actually done until now.
Maybe I'll be getting a flat panel monitor after all....
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:1)
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:2)
I hate to wreck your fascist little dream, but CRTs are likely to be with us for quite some time.
One of the things that CRTs do very very well compared to LCDs is to present consistent colour balance across normal (and abnormal) viewing angles. Even though the stated viewing angle of this (and other) LCD panels is reasonably good, I've never seen an LCD panel that could/did maintain consistent colour across that viewing angle. My limited knowledge of the physics involved suggest that it might not be possible to match (or even approach) the performance of CRTs in this area. For a graphics artist or photographer, or anyone involved in visual arts where colour accuracy is important, LCDs suck.
The prices for LCD panels are high, not because of some conspiracy by the manufacturers, but because the things remain difficult to manufacture. The failure rate of individual pixels is so high that entire displays have to be trashed. I don't have numbers handy @ the moment, but I seem to recall something like 30%-40% of manufactured displays don't meet acceptable standards. Apple, for instance, has been known to issue RMAs for Powerbooks that had 10 or more dead pixels (on a 1024x768 display). Considering the amount of waste, they've got to make up the costs somewhere. They'd be selling at an extreme loss trying to compete with CRT pricing right now. In other words, LCDs, from a QA perspective, suck. Oh, yes and the amount of resources that went into manufacturing and then recycling the defective displays, means that LCDs are not exactly guilt-free anyway.
Aside from the obvious "US != the world" comments, given the amount of power that the modern corporation has wielded in policy/lawmaking, do you honestly believe that such a measure would ever see the light of day? Especially with Dubya in office? I don't think so. And rightly so. I think the pure economics involved in LCD manufacture justify their prices. If I were the CEO of Samsung, and was ordered to lower the price of LCDs, I would either increase the pricing on CRTs to make up the losses (and take a loss on CRTs) or refuse to sell LCDs in the US market (and encourage the grey-market import of them instead).
Dreamin' (Score:1)
Old as semi trucks are, I've never been able to scoff at one, or fit one into my garage. Guess I'm just stuck with this plain'o 19" KDS Avitar @ 1600x1200.
Re:Does it age gracefully? (Score:2)
Tube based monitors have several problems that come with age. The phosphors can burn in, they can lose vacumn, the electron gun can lose accuracy and coherence (fuzz out), and all phosphor based monitors lose brightness over time.
Generally, if an LCD doesn't go bad in the first six months, it will last until you break it, or until the backlighting burns out, which part can often be replaced seperately.
LCD projectors tend to fail due to heat. LCD in laptops tend to fail due to the flexible connection in the hinged lid. LCD in handhelds tend to fail due to impact, flexing, and bad electrical connections. An LCD monitor should not be subject to any of these problems.
Not encrypted- DVI is not copy protection (Score:1)
This is a computer monitor. It does include VGA D-sub-15 connection and DVI-D (the LCD computer monitor standard). The manual explicitly states VGA, SVGA, and WUXGA are supported. The monitor will also accept NTSC video- that is analog, unencrypted, unprotected movies.
From their website:
Moore's Law (Score:1)
That is what I am waiting for; massively higher resolution.
Whoa. I know kung-fu! (Score:2)
I sure as hell hope that's not true. I *KNEW* I shoulda eaten the blue pill...
Re:a quick look at the specs: (Score:2)
However, they do support interlace on NTSC and PAL sources.
Re:Yes! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... (Score:2)
What's the big deal, anyway? There are better ideas for screensavers out there - why copy the Matrix?
Do you *really* wanna be Keanu Reaves?
Not a bargain (Score:2)
I haven't priced it out, but i imagine you could purchase four 15" lcd displays along with a four head video card you could have a display of 30"x30" for probably a fraction of 8,000$.
Ha, I'll do you one better (Score:3)
Re:But... Nitrozac says yes... (Score:2)
Nitrozac says [slashdot.org] size DEFINITELY matters.
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:2)
The "funny thing" is that was supported by the power companies, who thought it would be a great way to gouge their customers. I hate to burst your conspiratorial little bubble, but the power outages were caused by one simple thing: nobody had expected electricity usage to go that high. That's it. Plants and infrastructure take so long to build you have to plan years in advance. They planned incorrectly.
--
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:3)
Re:Yes! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... (Score:3)
the official windows screensaver at Whatisthematrix [whatisthematrix.com] runs in 800x600, if memory serves. On a larger, higher resolution monitor, it will be a little box of matrix goodness surrounded by black bars. Add that to the fact that flat panel monitors generally look like crap if not set to the resolution they are designed for, and you've got one basic choice... xmatrix on UN*X, which, while great fun and the screensaver I use, is a basic hacked version which is not at all like the actual matrix code from the movie. (for instance, notice the lack of the "explosion-like" bursts of bright expanding squares as seen in the movie.).
Looks like its time for you to start coding up a newer better version of xmatrix, to be released for all us
16:10 vs. 16:9 (Score:2)
This just in.... (Score:5)
insiders at Samsung have reported one problem relating to the quality of the screen image, pet cats have been found trying to pounce on and kill the microsoft office paper clip. Sadly now cat has yet to succeed
________
Re:"170 degrees of conic view"???? (Score:2)
Yes. If you read the link, it says 85 degrees viewing left, right, top, and bottom.
IBM has a higher-resolution screen (Score:5)
Re:Yes! BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA..... (Score:2)
--
Re:Dream... (Score:2)
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:2)
Get this: I have a Sony W900 (24" widescreen) but old style CRT
Anyway, like you say, these monitors are *deep*, when we get it to my front door I find that there was less than 1cm space spare to get the enormous box through the door - I almost had to unpack the damn thing outside!
Mike
Re:What's the point other than to brag? (Score:2)
Yeah I'm such a wimp - I couldn't manage to carry the monitor 300km from the distributers to my flat, so I got a guy with a car to do it for me
Mike.
First my monitor then my guns (Score:3)
If those stinking CRT cops come for my monitor I'll fight them to the death. If I throw my old monitors at them then I can say that they are actually weapons and therefore protected under the second ammendment.
Does it age gracefully? (Score:3)
I'd be reluctant to spend $600 on a lower end one to find it fuzzing out after two years. This would make them rather more like "renting" than like "buying"... :-(
saw one this week... not that good (Score:4)
On close examination, you could see that the vertical in the letter 'I' in Microsoft Word was blurred across two pixels. So clearly it was an analog connection.
Digital interfaces are the solution. The Apple widescreen monitor, which uses a digital interface, was the most common monitor at the show.
"170 degrees of conic view"???? (Score:2)
What is "170 degrees of conic view"? Do they mean that the screen can be seen (distorted as fuck) from 85 degrees away from the normal in every direction? (That's about 1.8pi steradians - 4pi is the whole sphere, 2pi is a hemisphere.)
FP.
--
Re:Limiting factor in LCD Size (Score:2)
Each pixel on the screen needs to have its own wires (3, presumably), and as your screens get bigger, their circumference to area ratio gets worse, so it becomes more of a problem to squeeze all the wires in along the back...
After all, 2000 x 1000 x 3 is about 6 million little conducting channels.
I think this is one of the reasons people are so excited about transparent conductors..
Jules
I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:2)
LCD display panels are an excellent way to sharply decrease the power requirements of a computing system. It is unfortunate, though, that given this manufacturers and retailers artificially inflate prices far beyond their natural market equilibrium.
As the crises in California plainly demonstrates, we can no longer hold irresponsible power consumption habits, but must try to conserve in all areas of life. Recognizing the critical role that computers fill in today's economy, Congress should immediately move to reduce the cost of LCDs and other energy efficient display systems. Manufacturers cannot be allowed to enjoy the luxury of high prices when archaic cathode ray tubes are wasting incredible amounts of energy.
Although drastic, perhaps the only real option the government has is an outright ban on CRTs, accompanied with a system to confiscate existing units. Only then will superior display technologies such as Samsung's unit be able to gain wide usage.
Re:saw one this week... not that good (Score:2)
With a high resolution like that, scaling would look just-about-OK (compared to how horrible scaling 640x480 onto 800x600 used to look on the first generation ones, anyhow!), and maybe they were demoing the scaling.
If this screen really doesn't have a digital interface, then I agree with your concerns..
Jules
Yes, let the government into your life a bit more. (Score:2)
Gee, you seem to be aware of California's electricity problems, and yet you don't know enough about the situation to avoid doing the same thing with monitors!
The problem was that California government told the California companies how much they could charge for power, but de-regulated their suppliers, meaning their costs could go up, but their profits would go down because they couldn't charge consumers more when the prices went up. End result? The two biggest power companies in California filed for bankruptcy.
And now you want to do the same thing with monitor manufacturers. When will you liberals learn? Keep the frigging government OUT of commerce! Let the market decide.
Manufacturers cannot be allowed to enjoy the luxury of high prices when archaic cathode ray tubes are wasting incredible amounts of energy.
Ummm... so your solution is put these companies out of business?
Although drastic, perhaps the only real option the government has is an outright ban on CRTs, accompanied with a system to confiscate existing units. Only then will superior display technologies such as Samsung's unit be able to gain wide usage.
Oh Christ I wasted all this time on a TROLL!!
1600x1024 possible (Score:2)
So, in short, 1600x1024 works perfectly, meaning that while there may be a 1024 limit on the vertical resolution DVI can drive, there is not a 1280 limitation on the horizontal resolution.
Still, the standard is already showing its age now that even higher res monitors are shipping.
16:10 (Score:4)
Remember folks, that's a 16:10 aspect ratio, not 8:5. That's twice as big!
I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature.
But... (Score:2)
Are you saying she lied to me?
Hehe (Score:2)
Re:BaSE (Score:2)
Re:I welcome guilt-free display technology (Score:2)
I hadn't thought that LCD displays were artificially inflated, though. I assumed it was just market economics --- the volumes haven't brought the prices down yet. And the technology is still new and expensive. I'd be interested to know if you have reason to think the price is artificial.
I'm just assuming that they will gradually get more-and-more popular (already flatscreens are a fairly common sight in banks and so forth, the succesful European internet cafe 'EasyEverything' uses them exclusively, I think), and prices will come down.
I'm hoping my next monitor will be flat-screen, one way or the other. We haven't heard much of plasma screens recently; I was hoping they'd be a nice competitor technology to push prices down.
Jules