Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Displays Handhelds

Samsung Unveils New 10" Retina Display 155

Posted by timothy from the one-day-by-and-by dept.
adeelarshad82 writes "Samsung has unveiled a brand new 10.1-inch display that supports a maximum of 2560×1600 pixel resolution that could be ripe for next generation tablets. Samsung's new display is more of a tech demo than anything else at this stage. While it looks impressive, it's not quite ready for broad production. It does, however, prove that high pixel density and high-resolution tablet displays are possible without unreasonable power requirements coming along in the process."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Unveils New 10" Retina Display More

Samsung Unveils New 10" Retina Display

Comments Filter:

  • Power Requirements? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WrongSizeGlass ( 838941 ) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @06:26AM (#36125760)

    It does, however, prove that high pixel density and high-resolution tablet displays are possible without unreasonable power requirements coming along in the process.

    I'm not sure the power requirements are the biggest issue with this type of display. I think cost is going to be the biggest hurdle it has to clear before it finds its way into a tablet.

    • Agreed. You can get 2560 monitors today; however, they all seem to be professional displays and typically are 27" and higher. Thus they cost 3-4X than a cheaper consumer grade monitor. The only consumer model I know that is being sold is the iMac 27".
    • Kind of makes me sad that HD is only 1080p. I just saw a 70 inch TV go on sale at my local electronics superstore. 1080p at that size isn't such good resolution. Especially compared to the 10 inch retina display that is 1600 vertical lines. I would like to see the result of this technology 10 years. Will everybody be buying 4K resolution TVs? Will we have cables with enough bandwidth to carry the signal? What medium will we get the video on?
      • It's true 1080p isn't mind blowing at that size, but try watching a 70" TV in standard def. At least with HD, you can get an acceptable image on a larger screen these days.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Hadlock ( 143607 )

      I for one welcome our $300 16,000x9,000 pixel 24" monitor overlords. We've been stuck at 1920x1080 for too long. In terms of cheap displays, anyways.

  • I'd like the 24-inch version of this, please.

    • I'd rather have the 27" or 30" version to replace my current main 27" IPS monitor running at 2560x1440. Or maybe replace my secondary 22" monitor and make the old 27" the "crappy" older monitor. The PPI difference might make it a bit weird though.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dfghjk ( 711126 )

        A 30" version with the same total resolution as 24" at 200dpi would be far more useful anyway. 150dpi is a lot at desktop viewing distances.

        • Yes, a 27" monitor at 2560x1440 has a pixel density of 109 PPI and at normal viewing distances you just don't see individual pixels. Well, you can see the pixels but it's not like they stand out like a sore thumb as they do when you start to look at pixel densities closer to 80-90 PPI. 150 PPI would be extremely nice, no risk of small text being limited by the pixel grid anymore...

    • I've been able to score a couple of IBM T221 monitors. 3840x2400 in 22", which comes out to 204dpi iirc. It takes some funky finagling and specific video cards to get it all set up, but if you can get it to work, it's really rewarding.

      It's the only piece of computing hardware I've come across where the phrase "They don't make them like this anymore" actually applies.

      However, what we truly need is an adoption of a dirty-rectangle update display interface, and hardware scaling on the display itself (so it ca

      • HDTV has absolutely ruined the 'high res' monitor market. They keep advertising larger sizes. 20!, 23!, 25! monitors but if you look at the resolution they're all 1920x1080. Monitor prices continue to fall but decent resolution monitors aren't because no one is buying them. All the factories are spitting out HDTV.

        I found one T221 on ebay. It was 1700$.

        • I agree. Over 10 years ago I was running 2048x1536 on a high quality CRT, and that cost only $300.

          The T221s were cheaper before, but they've become more sought out and so the prices have been flying back up. But hey, they did debut for $18,000, and then dropped down to about $8,000, so that's still a steal! :-P

        • There are three places to place obvious blame:

          Broadband, for allowing people to stream ever bigger resolutions rather than 1990-standard 300x240 clips (horrible at fullscreen, but nobody was complaining)
          The CRT industry, for keeping people at mid res for so long that we got coiled like a spring waiting for larger sizes... by the time LCD's became cheap enough, it wasn't wether you were ditching that your old screen to get a new 1280x1024 res, but wether you were trading 14-inch CRT for "lots of inches more

          • And judging from Youtube's default video resolutions, we are nowhere near REQUIRING 1080p resolutions for daily use yet, to justify the diminished 1080p that they all got US stuck with.

            This whole Widescreen res fiasco should be optional, just like that fingerprint reader that you're [very likely] NOT yet seeing near your desktop keyboard nor 99% of laptops --where it would actually be of some use.

          • The DVD industry, for enabling [display] makers to widen their screens with the excuse that EVERYONE's main PC use was not vertical browsing, but letterbox (American) entertainment

            PROTIP: A 1920x1080 pixel monitor can display two 960x1080 pixel windows side by side. Window managers have "Tile Vertically" and "Snap" features to take advantage of this.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by dfghjk ( 711126 )

      IBM produced that 10 years ago. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors [wikipedia.org]

      The problem with 200 dpi on a desktop monitor is viewing distance and the fact that UI's don't scale as we would like them to. T221's can be bought on eBay and there's a Yahoo newgroup that discusses how to use them. Apple even provided support in OS X once upon a time, but that's fallen into useless disrepair. Try one, but you probably won't like it.

    • It is getting there, but as of yet there are still hurdles to be dealt with.

      The biggest is just cost. Pixels cost money, every sub pixel needs a transistor (or two if you want a nice high quality IPS panel) and so more pixels equals more cost. You might think you want a display like that, but are you willing to bear the cost? Such a monitor could easily cost $3000-4000. Still interested?

      Another big one is UI scaling. Programs and OSes are only now getting on board with the whole resolution independence thin

      • sub pixel needs a transistor (or two if you want a nice high quality IPS panel)

        How many transistors are there in even a low-end Pentium Dual Core CPU?

        Windows Vista and 7 are fully on board and scale beautifully but many, many apps for them do not.

        There are so many applications for Windows that there's usually an alternate application for every need, at least one of which will hopefully support the system DPI setting that has been in, for example, Windows for the past decade. Well-known applications are probably used by at least one government, and that government can invoke accessibility law (Section 508 [wikipedia.org] and foreign counterparts) against applications that do not support system DP

      • My KDE interface is completely scalable. I could very well use a very high resolution screen (and would, if any were actually sold at not-stupid prices).

        So it is stupid, inept, proprietary software which is holding the world back. And the HD craze. To be honest, it is more the HD craze than anything, and I am glad the geeks are starting the rebel. I was dissed as a whiner when pointing out last year that reasonably high resolution monitors were disappearing, because of the gullibility of the public.

      • Oh, it's mostly here [barco.com]. You won't want to pay for it, but they are very nice.

      • It's called Dual Link and you simply have to select cards with that capability or with SLI/CrossFire to handle that density. My current card is a budget card >$100 when new (Radeon 5670 w/512m) that supposrts both Dual Link and CrossFire. This means I could easily handle a 5120x4800 display using a pair of them for >$250, which is cheaper then a single High End Card (not top line).

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by Surt ( 22457 )

        Hmm, a little math says this shouldn't cost that much.
        Let's say we have a 16inx9in display (cinema format) at 600dpi.
        That's 51M pixels, at 10 transistors per pixel, a whopping half billion transistors. Which you can get for about $200.

  • Fake-out (Score:5, Informative)

    by EdZ ( 755139 ) on Saturday May 14, 2011 @06:59AM (#36125836)
    Unfortunately, it's one of those nasty 'Pentile' displays, where subpixels are treated as pixels to inflate the on-paper resolution. If you treat them as actual useful displays where each pixel contains all the sub-pixels required to display the full range of colours (3 for regular displays, 4 for pentile, despite the name implying 5), then the actual resolution is lower than a traditional pixel layout.

    • I've no objection to pentile displays in principle. Humans do have higher green perception and so perhaps such a display can be useful. For that matter it is similar in principle to the Bayer pattern that still digital cameras use for their sensors.

      The problem I have is like you've noted with overselling it. You can't claim more resolution on less subpixels. The net result will be a more grainy image. Cameras like to do this too, their "megapixel" count is the total acquisition area, ignoring that each pixe

      • But like with cameras maybe the marketing just gets pointless. Sure a 10megapixel camera doesn't have 10million full colour pixels but due to the interpolation of a beyer pattern being actually quite good the end result actually appears quite sharp when viewed 1:1 on a computer display, so really no one gives a damn that they have only 5 million green, and 2.5million red and blue pixels.

        In practical terms the difference between screens is minimal even if the resolution numbers are artificially inflated. The

        • Not in comparison to same photo shot with a Foveon sensor camera.

          • Sure. But Foveon sensors overstate their native resolution just like the Beyer pattern sensors. So when you compare pictures from a camera like a Sigma D10 with for example a D7000 12megapixel camera you still end up with the same result. After all Beyer interpolation can be ignored and instead the local 4 group of pixels can be combined. This is used quite extensively in astrophotography. The end result not only has no interpolation Foveon style, but also looks better as the Foveon sensors currently are be

    • Not only is the resolution actually lower, when you use them at the specified resolution, text looks all jagged and rough-edged... :(

  • The final frontier is now: how to make it wrappable / roll-in and back again or similar? 10 inches is too big for my pockets..

    • The final frontier is now: how to make it wrappable / roll-in and back again or similar? 10 inches is too big for my pockets..

      You can have a fully bendable display once we figure out how to combat the creasing problem. Hint: Paper currency is "wrappable" -- Take a few from your wallet and look at a "straightened" piece of fully bendable currency and you'll get my point.

      IMHO, It's more feasible to use projective displays to solve the "too big for my pockets" problem.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by fluor2 ( 242824 )

        IMHO, It's more feasible to use projective displays to solve the "too big for my pockets" problem.

        ..or detachable screens so you can have a 10" in another pocket and a small screen in your pockets..

  • For many years now I have been very disappointed by stagnation, and down-right reversal in DPI trends. 13 years ago I was running a 19" CRT at 2048x1536, now to find a computer display with similar DPI is very difficult; to find a CRT is even more so, despite the venerable technology's superiority in virtually all image quality metrics.

    TVs continue to get larger and larger, while 1080p is likely to remain the standard by which they are all measured for several years to come, and penetration of media with a

    • I absolutely agree with you. I think that a part of the problem is a lack of demand - or a perceived lack of demand. People who buy monitors seem to be looking at diagonal size, not resolution. I'm sure they tell focus groups that this is what they care about. And there are monitors out there [newegg.com] that go to 2560x1600, but they are marketed at "professionals" and are absurdly expensive. What's worse, they seem to be immune to whatever force that's rapidly driving down the prices of the 1080p monitors. Some manuf
    • NHK (the Japanese broadcaster) has been working on the next generation of HD for 5 years now. 7680 x 4320 resolution, 22.2 channel audio. They already have cameras and have done live broadcasts. http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/technical/02_super.html [nhk.or.jp]

      Of course, it took over 10 years for HD to make it from being developed until it was a common consumer product, so don't hold your breath. (NHK developed 1080i around about 1980, first commercial broadcasts in Japan 1994, first in USA 1998).

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by rbrander ( 73222 )

      Amen to all three of you. I had no idea when I picked up a couple of 16:10 1920x1200 screens three years back for $349 each, I was getting something that was fast-disappearing. Whether you get 20" or 27" these days, they're all 1920x1080. It's funny, because computers were always a different market than TV, and in computers, more "height" pixels is always a Good Thing, for full-height word-pro pages, more rows on spreadsheets, etc.

      And 2560x1600, it's got that same you-can't-go-back phenomenon that wa

  • But perfect for broad reproduction.

  • To see all the detail on a screen just an arm's length away from you!

  • Isn't Apple severing ties with Samsung over their phone being to similar to an iPhone? If so, I wonder what would happen if Samsung pushes this towards Android and Blackberry for their tables and all of a sudden, Apple is the one with less quality?

    Now before somebody posts that Apple would be the biggest purchaser, so Samsung would be hurting them self. 1) Apple is currently suing Samsung. 2) Samsung can only produce so many of these screens (high reject rate). 3) if Android/Blackberry devices can use up

    • Isn't Apple severing ties with Samsung over their phone being to similar to an iPhone?

      Not quite. Sure they are suing them, but Samsung remains a supplier of components for Apple's products.

      If so, I wonder what would happen if Samsung pushes this towards Android and Blackberry for their tables

      Android device manufacturers and RIM will certainly buy some of these, in the same way they buy panels from Samsung already. The issue though is one of cost. Unless you can buy in the volumes that Apple do, and can afford multiple-billion dollar prepayments like Apple do, then you pay a higher price for those panels. Your options are then to sell your product at a higher price to consumers, or sell it at

      • But you left out that Apple announced they are moving to Intel for a large part of their fabrication. This, too, takes business away from Samsung who currently has the contract. Regardless of the outcome of the phone suit. Samsung is losing its largest fabrication partner. The impact of that on the special pricing Samsung gives Apple has yet to be seen.

        • But you left out that Apple announced they are moving to Intel for a large part of their fabrication.

          Wasn't that just a rumor and not confirmation? Every site I've read postulates it as a possibility. The slashdot editing treated it as fact.

        • I didn't leave it out. You didn't mention it in your comment, therefore I didn't mention it either.

          That aside, the 'special pricing' arrangement refers to the purchase of displays, for which Apple has invested in the form of multi-billion dollar prepayments. The payments have already been made up front, both in order to secure low price and a large degree of exclusivity.

          Samsung have the cash already, and the contract is signed.

          • I didn't leave it out. You didn't mention it in your comment, therefore I didn't mention it either.

            That aside, the 'special pricing' arrangement refers to the purchase of displays, for which Apple has invested in the form of multi-billion dollar prepayments. The payments have already been made up front, both in order to secure low price and a large degree of exclusivity.

            Samsung have the cash already, and the contract is signed.

            How does one sign a contract and make payment for a display that was just created? Does Apple's contract cover every display Samsung will come out with or does it cover specifically the displays that were designed for the ipad(1) and ipad2? Just curious.

  • I want to be able to watch movies on a tablet without the horrible scaling artifacts. Quality on ipad2 is just terrible. 1080p please!

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by jo_ham ( 604554 )

      The iPads currently don;t have the high dpi display that the iPhone 4 has - I expect it to be in the next iPad (I mean, what else are they going to do to improve it, other than increase cpu and gpu power - they seem to be shunning external connectors and card slots).

      I personally found that the iPad (first gen) was great for watching BBC iPlayer, albeit not HD content and did make me consider getting one for that sort of use in the future, as well as the basic features (casual email, casual games etc). Righ

  • Meld 9 of these into one nice 30" display with 7680x4800 display. *grasping hands* Now, please...

  • Chrome seems to think the site has hosting malware or by the looks of it the ads. I'm not sure I care enough to bother trying to reading their article.
  • So this explains the lame iPad 2. The screens just weren't ready for the real iPad 2+ yet.

    Could Apple really avoid having a screen like this in the iPad 3 once competitors have them?

Slashdot Top Deals

/earth: file system full.

Close