Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook


Forgot your password?

Samsung Unveils 82 Inch LCD 232

karvind writes "Physorg is reporting that Samsung Electronics has developed the world's largest liquid crystal display panel. This 82-inch TFT-LCD is 17 inches larger than LCD flat panel previously developed by Sharp. This development challenges plasma display panels in this market area. This full HD image quality (1,920 x 1,080 pixels) TFT-LCD panel was developed at the company's new production complex in Tangjeong, Korea. The soon-to-be operational 7th-generation production facility uses glass substrates that measure 1.87m x 2.20m."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Unveils 82 Inch LCD

Comments Filter:
  • size/resolution (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Boeboe ( 815330 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:18AM (#11876521)
    1,920 x 1,080 pixels. It could be me, but it does look quite low for a screen that big.
    • Re:size/resolution (Score:2, Interesting)

      by BigDogCH ( 760290 )
      That was once my gripe against big screen TV in general. But combine the higher Res of HDTV, and the fact that you dont sit 12 inches from the screen, and it should be fine.

      Actually, I think I would rather have a projector. Mmmmm, Battlefield 1942 on the entire wall of my living room.
    • Re:size/resolution (Score:5, Informative)

      by Silwenae ( 514138 ) * on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:25AM (#11876598) Homepage
      1920x1080 is the MPEG HDTV standard. The TV does exactly what it should do.

      Now granted, if you wanted to use it as a computer monitor, it would be different, but 99% of folks are going to use this as a TV, so that resolution is right on.
      • Re:size/resolution (Score:3, Interesting)

        by eno2001 ( 527078 )
        99% of folks

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

      • by EulerX07 ( 314098 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @11:01AM (#11877002)
        My beef is that since it's the same resolution, you could probably go with a 40-60" one, sit a few feet closer to the tv, and buy yourself a small car with the money you save.
        • by uradu ( 10768 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @12:59PM (#11878228)
          Your beef?! Do go buy yourself a 40-60" one, along with that small car. This particular model is for those who already have a fleet of small (and large) cars, and need a large central TV to frame with all the other 40-60" ones they already have. IOW, you're NOT the target market for this model, so don't take it personally that it doesn't come bundled with a small car.
        • Why not give the expensive 60" screen a miss, and get a hig res computer monitor and sit closer still? I mean $600 will get you a pro tube that can handle 2048x1536 with better colour than and LCD or Plasma.

          Well the thing is, maybe you want a room where more people can watch, and still have a bigger screen experience. A 20" monitor is plenty when you are 2' away from it, as with computers, but it's kinda hard to have friends over and watch on that, gets crowded.

          It's all just a matter of what scale you wan
    • by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:48AM (#11876853) Journal
      It could be me, but it does look quite low for a screen that big.
      This display is mainly intended for portable MP3 players, so they really didn't need a high resolution.

    • What? Those idiots screwed up the aspect ratio, that doesn't work out to 4:3!
  • rejects (Score:5, Interesting)

    by solarlux ( 610904 ) <> on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:18AM (#11876525)
    I wonder how many get tossed to make that one 82-incher....
    • Re:rejects (Score:5, Informative)

      by Jagen ( 30952 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:21AM (#11876554) Homepage
      Probably not anymore than when they make an apple 23inch dislay, the number of transistors is the same in both (same res).
      In fact given that the size of each transistor is larger in this screen it probably has a lower reject rate than the apple displays.
      • Re:rejects (Score:4, Informative)

        by Vihai ( 668734 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:40AM (#11876763) Homepage
        Probably it's the opposite; when the surface gets bigger, the probability of finding impurites (and thus bad pixels) gets higher.
        • Re:rejects (Score:3, Insightful)

          by jcr ( 53032 )
          That's true, but another factor is the feature size. The bigger the pixels, the less likely it is that any impurity on the surface will result in a bad pixel.

          There's a Xerox spin-off company that's been making 200+ DPI color LCDs for quite some time, but they have yield problems, since at that feature size, it's much easier to have a flaw that takes out a whole row or column of pixels.


      • Re:rejects (Score:2, Interesting)

        I'm not sure that makes sense. If it was that easy then surely they'd have made an 82" display a lot sooner and the bigger displays would be cheaper to produce. Or if not cheaper at least a similar cost since you'd have more material but less rejects and that would balance the cost. There must be more to it than that.
        Of course market forces in TVs means a bigger set => we can charge more for it, even if it costs the same or even less to produce. etc. Opposite applies to other things like cell phones whe
      • Re:rejects (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jackstack ( 618328 )
        There's got to be other factors other than transistors per unit area. These displays are made up of many different layers. Getting 5-10 micron features to line up perfectly from layer to layer over 2 meters can be nontrivial. Also, I've heard that the glass sheets used to make the active matrix of transistors can begin to behave like paper when they get that large (i.e. they can bend quite easily).

        Also - the transistors are still photolithographically defined... which means they have to spin coat a pho

        • Re:rejects (Score:3, Informative)

          by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
          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. Larg

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

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

    • Probably none, depending on your definition of tossed.

      Hear me out.

      This is either a one off or a short run. And in these one off's short runs (if full scale production hasn't already started - if it has tweaks have been made) are run slower, with more supervision, and components are probably prechecked as they go in, so they can fully appreciate the production mechanisms.

      The prototypes and previous designs, do you count them as 'tossed' because of production errors?

      In the full scale run, I am sure they w
  • So... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:18AM (#11876527)
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that
    I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?
    • Since 82 inches =6 feet 10 inches, you can see her right now. In fact, if she's of average height and shown diagonally, you will see her larger than life size.
    • You can do that today already, with your home CRT. Just so long as you dont mind seeing only a fraction of her at a time :)
    • Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)

      by R.Caley ( 126968 )
      They keep making these bigger screens to keep up with the need to fit in the male stars who have taken advantage of all of the amazing products and services they get email about.
    • Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)

      by lottameez ( 816335 )
      Perhaps you should try a dating service. I understand that they can help to accomplish the same goal.
      • Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)

        by EulerX07 ( 314098 )
        He could also go with an escort service instead. The costs are higher but the success rate is more pronounced, especially for someone that needs a big tv to see a naked women.

        Not that I'd know anything about that. I swear.
    • Re:So... (Score:5, Funny)

      by Dogtanian ( 588974 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:48AM (#11876862) Homepage
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that mean that I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

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

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

      What was that at the back? "82mm more like"? Yeah, well maybe so, but it's what you do with it that counts. I hope... *sob*
      • Re:So... (Score:2, Funny)

        by NanoGator ( 522640 )
        "Bleh.... seriously, would anyone *really* want an 82-inch penis?"

        Heh. A coworker friend of mine asked one of his coworker friends a hypothetical scenario: "What would you do if a chick you dated ran around telling everybody you had a small penis?" "Hit her with it."
    • Re:So... (Score:3, Funny)

      by gstoddart ( 321705 )
      I'm eventually going to see a naked woman in 1:1 scale?

      In your case, no. If you haven't by now, you may never. :-P
  • Great (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:19AM (#11876534)
    You'll need to take out two loans; one to buy the thing and the other to afford power it
  • Damn (Score:3, Funny)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:20AM (#11876546) Homepage
    Damn, and I just got a 19 Inch. Guess my stuff is obsolete as always.
  • 82 inches (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Aren't these the same guys who yesterday said 10,000,000 bytes was 10 gigs?
  • by binaryDigit ( 557647 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:23AM (#11876574)
    Here is the press release [] 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?
    • Blue pixels? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by dereklam ( 621517 )
      Looking at that picture, it seems to me they are avoiding demoing blue pixels. Does anyone know if LCDs of this size have issues showing blue?
      • by iainl ( 136759 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @11:10AM (#11877106)
        No, my LCD runs Windows just fine ;-)

        Being sensible for a moment, it's OLED that has the "blue pixel death" problem, not LCD, so you should be fine. LCDs don't have the short half-life of plasma and OLED (they just look like crap to start with).
        • Short half-life of plasma screens is a myth. They last about 15 years before becoming half as bright as they were originally.

          I bet the LCD screen's backlight would give out well before 15 years.
      • Looking at that picture, it seems to me they are avoiding demoing blue pixels. Does anyone know if LCDs of this size have issues showing blue?

        Good question. I'm noticing from the specs that "color saturation" is 92% of NTSC standard. Anyone know what that means exactly, and how it compares to DLP technology (I'm assuming plane old tubes have 100% ... is that true, or does the standard incorporate some asymptotically unattainable ideal? Also, anyone know how this matches up to PAL, which by all accounts
    • I think the backlight is the biggest factor. Backlights are often just flourescent tubes.

      I think it might be an interesting exercise, take the known power consumptions of other known sizes of LCD TVs and scaling up by area.
    • Wow, and an 8ms refresh rate. Very impressive. I was expecting it to be dog slow.
  • Nice but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Ironsides ( 739422 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:25AM (#11876590) Homepage Journal
    82" is nice and all, but I'd rather have their 102" Plasma" []
    • Chances are in a few years, you won't have to forgo that new $60,000 dollar car just to buy an 82" LCD monitor. I would count on a 102" Plasma dropping much in price though.
    • Re:Nice but... (Score:3, Informative)

      by klui ( 457783 )
      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.
      • Interestingly enough, two of those three make me want to go for DLP or DLA over LCD as well (I'd never get a Plasma, just putting it out there). LCD burn in is possible and does happen. LCD pixels weaken over time and die or get turned permanently on. LCD and Plasma both still have problems, which is why I will be going with rear projection at some point.
    • A 102" Plasma? Why, so your kid can race his Hot Wheels between the pixels on it, or do you just prefer hardware with an expiration date? I don't think my living room's big enough to put enough distance between my chair and that TV to let it look good.
      • Re:Nice but... (Score:3, Informative)

        by Ironsides ( 739422 )
        That distance would be ~200" (4 times the screen height). That's a bit over 16.5' or 5 meters.
        • Meh. I just have a big chip on my shoulder about plasma and was trying (and failing) to be funny.
        • Due to the increased resolution, the ideal seating distance from an HD display is roughly half that of traditional SD 'big screens.'
          • Ideal distance (to see picture at best quality) for SD is 5 times the height.
            Ideal distance (for human comfort as tested by the japanese in the 60/70s) for SD is 4 times the height.
            Equivalent distance for US-HD when compared to that of US-SD is 3 times the height.

            I base the 4 times the height on human comfort rather than equivalent viewing quality of SD vs HD.
  • by Matey-O ( 518004 ) <> on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:28AM (#11876630) Homepage Journal
    They've gotta be, what, a quarter inch square? based on it being 1.87m by 2.2m, that's about .57 cm x 1.1 cm or friggin' HUGE (Feel free to correct my math) That seems like you'd need to stand 30 feet away to make it look like a 19" monitor at 2 feet.
    • by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:38AM (#11876736) Journal
      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.
      • 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.
        • Oops, silly me, the "whatever reason" is of course that they cut two screens out of each substrate. This puts the measurements at 1.87m by 1.10m, and each pixel would be pretty much exactly a millimeter to a side.

          The largest 16:9 screen they could get from this substrate, incidentally, would be 97" (source []). Obviously by cutting in the other direction and wasting quite a bit of the material, though.
    • The substrate is that big (2.2 x 1.87 meters), but that's for two 82" screens. A single screen is a little less than half that size -- it fits 1920 pixels into something less than 1.87 meters, and 1080 in less than 1.1 meters. If they're square, then they're slightly less than 1 millimeter on a side.
    • 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.
    • 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.
  • by WormholeFiend ( 674934 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:30AM (#11876649)
    for a printer that will print currency so that I can buy the current "largest" computer monitor and/or TV.
  • Big pixels (Score:3, Funny)

    by LordOfYourPants ( 145342 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:30AM (#11876650)
    1920x1080 at 82"... Those are some big dots. I wouldn't call it "liquid crystal" but more like "vacuum tubes with plastic filters on them."
    • Re:Big pixels (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Jeff DeMaagd ( 2015 )
      By my estimate, it is still about 25 dpi. It would beat my projector hands down, I think I have about 4 dpi on the final screen, though I am projecting XGA onto about a 180" diagonal.

      I wouldn't use it as a personal screen unless I were five meters back, but that's part of the idea for some people, a convergence display.
  • Lifesized (Score:2, Funny)

    by saskboy ( 600063 )
    Now I can finally display a lifesized woman with a 41" chest, front, sides, and back, on my computer screen. 'Bout darn time.

    Oh, not that I would...
  • by goneutt ( 694223 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:36AM (#11876718) Journal
    So now we have an 82 inch TV. And 60 inch waistlines.

    Priorities People.
  • I saw this yesterday, and wondered when we're finally going to see these things advertised in architectural sizes. You walk into a store. "We only sell them in the standard 4'x8', just like sheetrock and plywood. Go to a custom house to get a trimmed down version." When? I doubt 2010. 2020? 2030?
  • by Perl-Pusher ( 555592 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:42AM (#11876786)
    High Resolution 82 inch monitor, low resolution internet porn. Is that a fuzzy breast or a sand dune?
  • by ites ( 600337 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:43AM (#11876801) Journal
    Why would anyone buy such a piece of equipment in preference over a good DLP projector?

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

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

    And perhaps there are no projectors with built-in TV decoding, which I don't care about personally since I don't have TV, and only watch DVDs.
    • by Steve525 ( 236741 ) on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @11:03AM (#11877026)
      The only disadvantage of a projector is that it can be a little noisy

      Actually, the biggest disadvantage of a front projector is that they are only good in dim to dark rooms. The white screen necessary to reflect the projected light also reflects all the other light in the room. Perhaps if Sony's ChromaVue screen becomes readily available, this will change.

      • Actually, the biggest disadvantage of a front projector is that they are only good in dim to dark rooms. The white screen necessary to reflect the projected light also reflects all the other light in the room.
        Perhaps if Sony's ChromaVue screen becomes readily available, this will change.

        Have you seen a projector in the last 8 years? The 1000+ lument projector technology that every dot-com salesman packed on the plane is now under $1000. As for ChromaVue, which is a brand name for pigment which absor

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

      The lamps get hot, not the DLP chips. The lamp temp depends on the manufacturer just like the noise level of the fan used.

      I agree about a good (even moderately good) DLP projector. I have a BenQ PB6200, does 1024x768. With my permenately tensioned DALITE screen, I paid less than $2000 for everything brand new even with cables.

      It does HD too (granted slightly lower res than 720p) b

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

      Because a projector has to be mounted on the ceiling or somewhere, with power and video cables running to it, which many people would find much more inconvenient than having an LCD panel hanging on the wall.

    • Uh, projectors have bulbs in them that cost about $500 each and need to be replaced every 1000 hours or so. LCDs don't. Depending on the projector, this LCD might also be brighter. Also, you can't make shadow puppets by holding your hands up in front of an LCD.
    • 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 [] and the resulting headaches.


  • Awesome! (Score:2, Interesting)

    by iolaus ( 704845 )
    Now all I need is a 40 ft. long room to watch it in!
  • Megapixels? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by imroy ( 755 ) <> on Tuesday March 08, 2005 @10:45AM (#11876837) Homepage Journal

    From TFA:

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

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

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

    • Alot of small TFT displays (such as those for use in automobiles) already do this. They claim for example 2400x480 resolution, but when you get the thing you realize they are counting "sub-pixels" and you really only have an 800x480 display.
    • 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.
  • Options (Score:2, Funny)

    by lbmouse ( 473316 )
    Does it come with the two Asian women [] to help hold it up?
  • All this latest and greatest technology... and they can't even make it wide-screen ???

  • Wow (Score:2, Funny)

    by Wordsmith ( 183749 )
    Just imagine the size of the keyboard on that laptop. You could play hop scotch on the numeric keypad.
  • The Apple Cinema Display HD actually has a higher resolution than this...
  • ... and only 2,073,600 are either stuck or burnt out.

"It takes all sorts of in & out-door schooling to get adapted to my kind of fooling" - R. Frost