Samsung Develops World's First three-inch VGA LCD 173
Nomad05 writes "Samsung announced this week it has developed the world's first three-inch VGA LCD panel that "directly meets industry interface standards for digital still cameras." What this means is that future LCD screens on digital cameras will allow multimedia to be viewed at a resolution of 640x480. Presently, a majority of camera LCDs only display multimedia at a resolution of 320x240 — significantly lower in quality than Samsung's new LCD.
In layman's terms, expect significantly brighter, more detailed LCD displays, which will enable you to review your photography more thoroughly after you take an exposure. This innovation will make it easier to spot blurry images and ensure your photo is framed properly.
"
Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:2, Funny)
What's color?
KFG
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:4, Funny)
And 320x200? My teletype [columbia.edu] only had 132 columns.
Hold on, I gotta go chase some of those damn kids off my lawn...
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:1)
My Apple ][+ had 80 columns! And that was AFTER installing the 80 column card! Before that we had 40 columns!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_80_column_card [wikipedia.org]
And my Epson MX-80 did not have descenders! (go look it up yourself)
(I still have all that gear)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:2)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:1)
In my day, we had *real* teletypes.
80 columns, completely mechanincal apart from the solenoid and key switch.
None of your sissy "colour", "software cursors", "80 column cards", or "lowercase".
Real men typed in UPPERCASE.
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:2)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:2)
In my day (Score:2)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:2)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:2)
Re:Damn kids and their VGA's... (Score:2)
Excuse me while I use xmode to "innovate" a (2048x1536)x2 xorg.conf since (1920x1440)x2 is too low for me to properly frame an image in Inkscape. Maybe the highest resolution my monitors will crank out will solve that problem.
Framing is improved by the person using the camera. Verifying that the focus was correct and that lighting was good is made possible by higher resolution, higher contrast screens.
20 bucks (Score:2, Funny)
Re:20 bucks (Score:2)
Re:20 bucks (Score:2, Funny)
Re:20 bucks (Score:2)
Batteries ? (Score:2, Interesting)
But now your batteries will last really long now!!
Re:Batteries ? (Score:1)
Re:Batteries ? (Score:5, Informative)
I'm sure it won't have a positive effect, but it may not have as much of a negative effect as you'd think. Back when I was doing Palm OS programming, I kept track of the trends in Palm hardware, and most of their machines are battery-powered devices using 320x480 displays (so half this resolution). Hardware review sites would do various battery life tests on new units, including various combinations of display off and on, CPU running and idle (and therefore halted and using very little power), backlight off and on, etc. And what I remember noticing is that the LCD really doesn't take up nearly as much power as you'd think. It's mostly the other parts of the device that use up the real power.
Also, I'm not really sure that a higher-res display will use much more power at all. Most of the power used is from the backlight, if I recall correctly, and that is going to be proportional mainly to the total area -- it shouldn't matter much how many pixels there are in that are. As for brightness increases, if this means a brighter backlight, then it might use more power (assuming all other things are equal), but with an LCD, there are two ways to increase brightness: one is to brighten up the backlight, and the other is to reduce the amount of light that the LCD blocks. The latter means you can get a brighter screen with the same backlight. If they do that, then it wouldn't necessarily increase power usage at all.
Re:Batteries ? (Score:2)
I've recently read a set of reviews about Pocket PCs, and several different authors have emphasized that those that run at 640x480 have a shorter battery life. I haven't tested this myself.
On the other hand, I've interacted with many Palm OS devices thruout the years, and indeed I can say that screen resolution didn't have an impact on battery life. The factors that _are_ behind that are the wireless interfaces.
Re:Batteries ? (Score:2)
That said, my Nokia 770, which is now over six months old, has a 4.1" 800x480 screen. I think this works out at about the same pixel density as a 3" 640x480 screen and the fact that they can make larger screens implies a higher yield. Since this is a shipping product, it m
Re:Batteries ? (Score:2)
The fourfold increase in resolution's increase
Re:Batteries ? (Score:2)
But it means they have room to put more bars on the battery meter! That's gotta mean longer life, right? Right?
Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:1, Interesting)
No, I am not making that up.
KFG
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:5, Funny)
Log:
true
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2, Offtopic)
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:3, Informative)
Your statement makes absolutely no sense. The only thing selling at a per unit loss in high volumes will get you is high losses. $0 x 1,000,000 units is still $0. Worse yet, -$10 x 1,000,000 units is -$10,000,000. You tend not to stay in business with that kind of model.
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2, Informative)
Exactly. That's the point of the orginal joke; and what, I hope, made my joke on the joke funny. Because it's true.
Other poster has it pretty much right with his joke about the Xbox, we're talking pretty much the same sales model. The display makers are locked in a tech/market dominance war and have been bleeding cash for years, each hoping to make it up by being the last man stand
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
Rather like the First Citiwide Change Bank on Saturday Night Live many years ago.
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
Sorry, guess I didn't catch the humor in it... That's what happens when you read replies out of context, I suppose...
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know who, where or how old you are. If you don't know the joke I used, which is quite possible; and that it is a joke, it would necessarily go over your head. It might have helped to have read a bit of Dave Barry to understand the cultural meaning of the phrase "I'm not making this up," which implies that "I'm not making this up," but. . . there is a joke in h
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
I wonder if that's why the 15" 1024x768 displays have been pretty much abandoned as a market? And the 17" 1024x768 LCD displays seem to be headed the same way as well.
(There are
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
What you'll find is that most web designers out there make the assumption that your display is running at 96ppi (pixels per inch). That means they will calculate the font size that "looks good" in pixels and apply it to the web page by saying 10px or 8px or 12px.
Needless to say, this causes all sorts of issues when you try viewing
Re: (Score:2)
It'd also be nice if manufacturers would be more upfront about the fact that SLI doesn't work with a dual monitor setup.
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:5, Informative)
That would be false.
You make the false assumption that cost per unit is constant regardless of volume. That is rarely the case in real life, and especially not so in the case of high-tech manufacturing.
There are a bunch of very large fixed costs - the highlights include R&D and the construction of the manufacturing plant. If the marginal manufacturing cost is less than the selling price, then the higher your volumes, the more units there are to amortize those fixed costs. Thus larger volumes mean smaller losses.
Presuming your marginal cost is relatively constant, then at some point larger volumes will mean a cross from red to black, or in other words profitability. But even if that point is unattainable (say for instance it is larger than the total market) you still lose less money by selling higher volumes.
I realize this site is not MBAdot, but this stuff is basic econ101 and shouldn't be a surprise to anyone who went to college, or even the honors track in high school.
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know what KFG was talking about, but 'per unit loss' sounds like "Each unit sells for less than cost of materials". Which would mean you're losing money per unit ON TOP of infrastucture. What I'm guessing is going on here (assuming kfg's not talking out of his ass, and I'm not being dumb), is that they have, for example, some deal
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
So why are you telling me this? The irrelevancy started 2 or 3 posts up the chain. Or rather, the conversation moved on -- we stopped talking about samples almost immediately after the OP, please try to follow along.
I don't think that the snide remark at the end of your comment was really necessary either.
Ditto, but you wrote it anyway.
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
Re:Shame displays are not like other tech products (Score:2)
Now experimenting with tfts is all well and good, but the amount of money spent on R&D per unit can be staggering and is responsible for a good deal of spin
Brighter screens, double both dimensions: (Score:1, Funny)
Re:Brighter screens, double both dimensions: (Score:1)
Re:Brighter screens, double both dimensions: (Score:2)
Are there any that use the main optics? Maybe SLRs do, but I'm not that familiar with them.
I thought that was the issue, you can't be sure you have the subject properly framed without a display.
Re:Brighter screens, double both dimensions: (Score:2)
Re:Brighter screens, double both dimensions: (Score:2)
That said, whoever can come up with a good color reflective LCD screen deserves to be a billionare. I'd like a laptop screen I can see in the sunlight.
Re:Brighter screens, double both dimensions: (Score:2)
The big issue is that LCDs rob peter to pay paul. Small issues in room lighting become huge issues in the outside, and vice versa. If you want increased brightness in the sun, you're going to lose a number of things, cone of viewing, contrast, color saturation. If you want one of those others you lose another. Small increases, such as dbefs really do make
In Layman's Terms... (Score:2, Interesting)
So, when we are explaining new tech to people who do not know better, we can just make stuff up, right? Okay, maybe I could buy that you can verify framing easire in some circumstances, but how does resolution have anythin
Re:In Layman's Terms... (Score:2)
Re:In Layman's Terms... (Score:2)
The extra resolution won't mean much if you're looking at a screen that's too dark...
2.4 Inch VGA LCD Premiered Months Ago (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.vodafone.jp/english/products/model_3G/
hyperopia (Score:2)
That's assuming you don't suffer from hyperopia.
What I'm looking forward to is a few years from now, when my 15.4" laptop screen will have the same DPI as this new panel. Of course it will take a couple gigs of dedicated VRAM, but the SVG based www of the future sure will look crisp on it!
Dan East
Re:hyperopia (Score:2)
I suspect what will happen is that the web browser folks will offer to scale images on the fly. I've heard that Opera already has this capability.
Stay close (Score:2)
So any farther than 10cm (3.9") from the display and you cant see the full detail of the image displayed. I guess it will work.
Re:Stay close (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Stay close (Score:2)
"In layman's terms"? (Score:2, Funny)
This is Great (Score:2)
I'd love to see PDAs/Cellphones take advantage of higher resolution displays, too. Though I don't know how that would affect power consumption or processing power.
Re:This is Great (Score:3, Informative)
Add to that it's Xbrite and touchscreen capabilities and I reckon it's pretty much about as good as you can get at the moment - sort of coming in at around 260 dpi. When you run Cleartype on it in Windows, the anti-aliasing is virtually invisible, it just looks like paper.
Regarding the power consumption - AFAIK, the UX180 screen is LED
Nearly an inch smaller VGA screen makes news? (Score:5, Interesting)
Look up the Toshiba e805 PDA. Or the Dell Axim x51v (which can be had cheaply). Both feature a 3.8" VGA screen.
So all that's been accomplished is the screen is an inch smaller.
I've had QVGA screens that were 1.6" in size, so they had the same DPI as this screen...
Re:Nearly an inch smaller VGA screen makes news? (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Nearly an inch smaller VGA screen makes news? (Score:2)
Maybe you're holding it upside-down?
Maybe sideways? Or are you always that orthogonal?
Re:Nearly an inch smaller VGA screen makes news? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Nearly an inch smaller VGA screen makes news? (Score:1)
Re:Nearly an inch smaller VGA screen makes news? (Score:2)
Re:Nearly an inch smaller VGA screen makes news? (Score:2)
afaik the display is made by sharp.
Resolution (Score:2)
in 10" laptop screens (something like 1800x2400 displays) and in projectors.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is for VIDEO cameras (Score:3, Informative)
What this really means is that you will be able to get crystal clear standard definition screens on your camcorder.
Of course its a bit late. A lot of the cameras now coming onto the market are shooting HDV and soon AVC HD- many in progressive formats and without the frame sync issues of SD video. So... they can include the older 60Hz LCD's and use frame doubling in the framebuffer. They can also use higher resolution small LCD's.
Still this is a great technology, and being able to do this should help Samsung's institutional knowledge about LCD's in general. I hope to see some of these devices used in LCD field production monitors of varying sizes.
SD ain't dead yet.
Say what? (Score:4, Insightful)
Say what? The images that are rendered onto the tiny screen of a camera are sized down with aliasing algorithms. Although the resizing will happen at 640x480 instead, this will have little impact since we do no longer take memorable pictures at this resolution. Memory is so cheap now and I'm sure we can get four gigs under a hundred bucks soon, too. So, either way, the picture is always going to be scaled down and viewed in proper resolution once you've zoomed in a few times.
Also, the higher resolution won't do anything at all for those of you who want to spot blurred pictures with more ease. Even if it's definitely a higher DPI, you end up watching at 3 inches which is very small, so blurred objects that appear not so sharp will appear sharp on this tiny display, simply because the blurred area will appear so small on a small screen, it won't even be noticable. Once again, zooming in is the only solution.
Either way, I'm sure someone will come up with an algorithm that detects blurred images automatically. It may not be 100 percent proof, but that's still a lot better.
I'm obviously trolling here, however. More DPI is always nice and I bet we can go to 1000 DPI before we stop bothering that much about it, but the arguments used in this article made no sense to me.
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
Not necessarily. My Canon S80 has a manual zoom function. In that mode, the center of the screen is a 1:1 blowup of the CCD image so you can focus better.
I've heard that's how many autofocus systems work these days. They u
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
Re:Say what? (Score:2)
For the Flash Card market (SD and CF):
1GB - between $18 and $30 (usually $20 to $25)
2GB - $32 to $50 ($40-$45 more likely)
4GB - $65 to $120 ($70-$75 seems common)
8GB - (CF only) - $140 to $285 (most are $140-$150)
Gee... (Score:2, Funny)
Is this slashdot or CNN?
Actually, expect NOT brighter displays (Score:1, Informative)
Projector? (Score:2)
On the "layman's terms" thing... (Score:2, Informative)
I would have included more specs and details on the brightness of the LCD and pixel count had I been more considerate. Again, my bad.
Nomad05
How times have changed (Score:1, Interesting)
Now these young whippersnappers at Samsung are rocking the boat! Get your microscopes out!
Re:How times have changed (Score:2)
This is Slashdot.. (Score:2)
Presently, a majority of camera LCDs only display multimedia at a resolution of 320x240 -- significantly lower in quality than Samsung's new LCD. In layman's terms, expect significantly brighter, more detailed LCD displays, which will enable you to review your photography more thoroughly after you take an exposure. This innovation will make it easier to spot blurry images and ensure your photo is framed properly
Am I the only one feeling that those few sentences were unneeded and even inappropriate for Sla
The world's first? Maybe because it's so big.. (Score:2)
Sharp V-604SH [vodafone.jp]
Not to nitpick, (Score:2, Insightful)
I mean come on, this is supposed to be a site for techno nerds.
Pentax are going to love this. (Score:2)
Three-inch CRT (Score:2)
Re:Three-inch CRT (Score:2)
To all submitters and editors: (Score:2)
Can we just fuck right off with the phrase "in layman's terms" and the accompanying explanation? This is slashdot, news for nerds. We are nerds. We are NOT laymen. Yes, we know what VGA is. Yes, we know what it means when you double the resolution of an LCD. To suggest we don't demonstrates the editor's complete ignorance of the readership.
Re:To all submitters and editors: (Score:2)
My point exactly!
Samsung... knows Apple, right? (Score:2, Insightful)
How many DPI can I get on a desktop monitor? (Score:2)
Re:Homos. Explain me this, you idiot (Score:2)