Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Engadget]Samsung to announce 2560 x 1600 10.1 tablet
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Engadget]Samsung to announce 2560 x 1600 10.1 tablet - Page 3

post #21 of 44
I just hope this leads to 24-24" displays @ 2560x1600
Dr. Gonzo
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930k Gigabyte X79-UD3 ASUS GTX Titan X 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z C9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO SSD 2TB Crucial M4 256GB Lite-On Blu-Ray Writer Swiftech Apogee Drive II 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Home Premium 64-Bit ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q 27" Tesoro Durandal Silverstone 850w Strider 
CaseMouseAudio
Antec Eleven Hundred Logitech G502 Creative SoundBlaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
Dr. Gonzo
(16 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 3930k Gigabyte X79-UD3 ASUS GTX Titan X 16GB G.Skill Ripjaws Z C9 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
Samsung 850 EVO SSD 2TB Crucial M4 256GB Lite-On Blu-Ray Writer Swiftech Apogee Drive II 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 10 Home Premium 64-Bit ASUS ROG Swift PG278Q 27" Tesoro Durandal Silverstone 850w Strider 
CaseMouseAudio
Antec Eleven Hundred Logitech G502 Creative SoundBlaster Zx 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by nathris View Post
If I wanted to display blue at one coordinate, but the sub pixel arrangement for the corresponding pixel was red-green or red-white or green-white, how exactly would I do that?
That is only because you are looking at 1:1 pixel. However, isn't it a completely different story when you look at the picture as a whole? I've skimmed through some info with respect to Pentile algorithm and the math involved in there was actually taking the whole picture as a base and then they went DOWN from there, rather than trying to do a 1:1 info matching and then build UP from there. The resulting picture on a Pentile display was, don't get me wrong, different but for an average use, it had negligeable difference. Couple that with an AMOLED or its variant display and you've got a very competitive "screen" as a whole to go up against SuperLCD and eIPS for mobile displays.

It's not like you're going to be needing mission critical colour matching capability on your smartphone. Don't you have a specilized equipment just for that purpose in your lab/studio/home?
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9650 @ 4.0; 1.228v ASUS P5Q-E HD6970 8GB Corsair 6400C5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80GB + WD 500 Raid 0 7 Professional SM 275T+2693HM+2343BWX Filco Blue and Brown 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair HX520 Lian Li PC-P80B Razer Lachesis 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9650 @ 4.0; 1.228v ASUS P5Q-E HD6970 8GB Corsair 6400C5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80GB + WD 500 Raid 0 7 Professional SM 275T+2693HM+2343BWX Filco Blue and Brown 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair HX520 Lian Li PC-P80B Razer Lachesis 
  hide details  
Reply
post #23 of 44
If that was just a screen, I'd buy it, add a touchscreen and then use it. I have no use for a underpowered tablet.
post #24 of 44
So.. Much.. Math in this Thread.. It feels like High School all over again. =S
   
Beautiful Card, Plays Great
Msi GeForce GTX 560 Ti (Fermi) N560GTX-TI Twin Frozr II/OC Video Card
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3550 MSI Z77A-G45 MSI N560-GTX Ti Twin Frozr II OC Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1x 1 Hitachi 1TB 7200rpm // 1x 500gb Seagate 72... Scythe Ninja 3 Push-Pull Windows 8 Pro 64-bit // (Win7 Dualboot) LG 27" IPS277L 
KeyboardPowerCase
Razer BlackWidow Corsair TX650M Corsair Carbide 400R 
CPUMotherboardGraphics
Intel Core Duo T2350 30B2 Mobile Intel(R) 945 Express Chipset Family 
  hide details  
Reply
   
Beautiful Card, Plays Great
Msi GeForce GTX 560 Ti (Fermi) N560GTX-TI Twin Frozr II/OC Video Card
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5 3550 MSI Z77A-G45 MSI N560-GTX Ti Twin Frozr II OC Corsair Vengeance 8GB DDR3-1600 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
1x 1 Hitachi 1TB 7200rpm // 1x 500gb Seagate 72... Scythe Ninja 3 Push-Pull Windows 8 Pro 64-bit // (Win7 Dualboot) LG 27" IPS277L 
KeyboardPowerCase
Razer BlackWidow Corsair TX650M Corsair Carbide 400R 
CPUMotherboardGraphics
Intel Core Duo T2350 30B2 Mobile Intel(R) 945 Express Chipset Family 
  hide details  
Reply
post #25 of 44
I'm probably in the outlier-population, but high resolution small screens are wasted on me. TBH, as long as I can see text and pictures at high enough resolution to mostly make out the main details, I don't crave more pixels.

This bit from the article caught my eye:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Source
Things are a bit vague with LG -- no specific resolutions are mentioned in the pre-show announcement, but we're told that the company will introduce "a full line-up" of "ultra-high resolution" Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching (AH-IPS) products, including 3.5-, 4.5-, 7-, 9.7, 55-, and 84-inch panels, with a "greater number of pixels than the PPI that can be recognized by the human eye at a typical distance"
Sounds like a waste of resources if you ask me. Kinda like speakers and sound components that boast frequency output beyond what the human eye can hear or distinguish. Thanks, but I'd rather have a cheaper tech that doesn't go beyond the capability of my senses to distinguish.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #26 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
I'm probably in the outlier-population, but high resolution small screens are wasted on me. TBH, as long as I can see text and pictures at high enough resolution to mostly make out the main details, I don't crave more pixels.
So your missing the connection between pixel density and text clarity and the issue being magnified as smaller screens further infiltrate our lives?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
This bit from the article caught my eye:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Source View Post
with a "greater number of pixels than the PPI that can be recognized by the human eye at a typical distance"
Obviously going much beyond the 300dpi point is pretty pointless, but why wouldn't we strive for pixel perfect images (at least in terms of pixel density) if technology allows us?

Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
Sounds like a waste of resources if you ask me. Kinda like speakers and sound components that boast frequency output beyond what the human eye can hear or distinguish. Thanks, but I'd rather have a cheaper tech that doesn't go beyond the capability of my senses to distinguish.
The human eye can hear sounds?

lol, not trying to belittle your point of view, of course pursuing this tech would inevitably make the less extreme dpi screens cheaper for all that don't require them like yourself. I'm just stating my own opinon and don't see why we wouldn't do something that would so obviously benefit our computing experience in almost every way.
2nd Gen HTPC
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 5800K ASRock FM2A85X Extreme4-M AMD 7660D GSKill Sniper Series 32GB DDR3 1866MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 120GB Samsung Spinpoint F4EG 2TB Asus BD-ROM BC-12B1ST/BLK/B/AS Win7 Ult 64bit 
MonitorPower
Samsung 3D LED ES6200 55" 250W P.O.S. 
  hide details  
Reply
2nd Gen HTPC
(10 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
A10 5800K ASRock FM2A85X Extreme4-M AMD 7660D GSKill Sniper Series 32GB DDR3 1866MHz 
Hard DriveHard DriveOptical DriveOS
Vertex 2 120GB Samsung Spinpoint F4EG 2TB Asus BD-ROM BC-12B1ST/BLK/B/AS Win7 Ult 64bit 
MonitorPower
Samsung 3D LED ES6200 55" 250W P.O.S. 
  hide details  
Reply
post #27 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
Sounds like a waste of resources if you ask me. Kinda like speakers and sound components that boast frequency output beyond what the human eye can hear or distinguish. Thanks, but I'd rather have a cheaper tech that doesn't go beyond the capability of my senses to distinguish.
But you do realize by pushing the envelope and going beyond what is required and being efficient at it in turn reduces the price (i.e cheaper tech) to produce things that are within the capability of your senses.

However, how can you be sure that things that you cannot sense do not matter to our everyday lives? For example, if we only cared about energy wavelengths that only our visual sense can pick up, Roentgen would have never explored the x-rays, we would never have ever bothered to study the effects of gamma rays on biological tissues (maybe we'd end up saying it is "magic" that's damaging our organs - some countries still believe that it is "voodoo" magic - sound too familiar?).

Just because we cannot sense it does not mean it does not matter. I hope you are not that ignorant -- well ignorant may be too harsh of a word, how about... forgiving? -- as to what kind of technology we should be pushing to enhance.

A quick example. Go get a true recording from a studio or from a concert hall, and then digitize that copy and cut the "non-relevant" frequency out of it (i.e. normal range of human hearing 20hz-20khz). Now listen to the two samples very carefully, one true recording and the other truncated at high- and low-frequencies. Do you "hear" the difference? Do you "feel" the difference?
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9650 @ 4.0; 1.228v ASUS P5Q-E HD6970 8GB Corsair 6400C5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80GB + WD 500 Raid 0 7 Professional SM 275T+2693HM+2343BWX Filco Blue and Brown 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair HX520 Lian Li PC-P80B Razer Lachesis 
  hide details  
Reply
My System
(13 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Q9650 @ 4.0; 1.228v ASUS P5Q-E HD6970 8GB Corsair 6400C5 
Hard DriveOSMonitorKeyboard
Intel 80GB + WD 500 Raid 0 7 Professional SM 275T+2693HM+2343BWX Filco Blue and Brown 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair HX520 Lian Li PC-P80B Razer Lachesis 
  hide details  
Reply
post #28 of 44
Why?
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k GA-Z77MX-D3H Palit Jetstream 680 4GB 4 X 2GB G.Skill Ripjaws X (1600MHz/CAS8 @ 1.5v) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
60GB Corsair Force + 2TB RAID0 + 500GB Antec Kühler 620 w/AP-14 Windows 7 Professional x64 Dell U2711 (2560 x 1440) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Filco Majestouch (MX Blues) Corsair HX650 Lian Li PC-U6B Razer Deathadder 3.5G 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
3570k GA-Z77MX-D3H Palit Jetstream 680 4GB 4 X 2GB G.Skill Ripjaws X (1600MHz/CAS8 @ 1.5v) 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
60GB Corsair Force + 2TB RAID0 + 500GB Antec Kühler 620 w/AP-14 Windows 7 Professional x64 Dell U2711 (2560 x 1440) 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Filco Majestouch (MX Blues) Corsair HX650 Lian Li PC-U6B Razer Deathadder 3.5G 
  hide details  
Reply
post #29 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by AMv8(1day) View Post
So your missing the connection between pixel density and text clarity and the issue being magnified as smaller screens further infiltrate our lives?

Obviously going much beyond the 300dpi point is pretty pointless, but why wouldn't we strive for pixel perfect images (at least in terms of pixel density) if technology allows us?
Not missing the point--this type of screen tech mentioned here claims to surpass the ability of the human eye to distinguish pixels at a normal viewing distance. To that extent, it's a waste beyond bragging rights.


Quote:
Originally Posted by AMv8(1day) View Post
The human eye can hear sounds?

lol, not trying to belittle your point of view, of course pursuing this tech would inevitably make the less extreme dpi screens cheaper for all that don't require them like yourself. I'm just stating my own opinon and don't see why we wouldn't do something that would so obviously benefit our computing experience in almost every way.
LOL, ya got me--eye, ear, no big difference, right?

But the point of it all is the technology is by far surpassing the ability of our senses to even distinguish differences--to that extent, there is no point beyond saying, "isn't it cool we can do this?" Yeah, it's cool, but pointless, and I'd rather not pay more for a product just to subsidize a company's research to making something like a screen that contains more pixel density than our eye can ever distinguish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kppanic View Post
But you do realize by pushing the envelope and going beyond what is required and being efficient at it in turn reduces the price (i.e cheaper tech) to produce things that are within the capability of your senses.
No it doesn't--why would consumers want to pay more now to subsidize a company's research to produce something like a display panel that has specifications that are far beyond what the human eye can distinguish. It's a waste, since a display panel is something built for our eyes to perceive. Having more pixel density than our eyes can perceive is pointless, and it does nothing to "push the research boundaries" since display tech will only ever needed to be dictated by what our eyes can see. Why don't we build display panels that output "colored" light deeper into the infrared then? I mean, it's pushing the boundaries beyond what we need, and therefore it must benefit us, right? Wrong, there's no point in building a sensory-feedback device that surpasses the ability of the senses of the person who is using it.


Quote:
Originally Posted by kppanic View Post
However, how can you be sure that things that you cannot sense do not matter to our everyday lives? For example, if we only cared about energy wavelengths that only our visual sense can pick up, Roentgen would have never explored the x-rays, we would never have ever bothered to study the effects of gamma rays on biological tissues (maybe we'd end up saying it is "magic" that's damaging our organs - some countries still believe that it is "voodoo" magic - sound too familiar?).
It is a GIANT leap to go from display panels with pixel density exceeding the ability of our eye to distinguish to talking about fundamental empirical research for the sake of science. The article in this post has nothing to do with empirical science--it's about the specific purpose of cramming more pixels in a visual display device, beyond what our eyes can even perceive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kppanic View Post
Just because we cannot sense it does not mean it does not matter. I hope you are not that ignorant -- well ignorant may be too harsh of a word, how about... forgiving? -- as to what kind of technology we should be pushing to enhance.
Yes it does--by definition. If your eyes cannot notice a difference between two different display technologies, then the one with more pixels is a waste. By definition. You can't perceive it, therefore it's not doing anything for you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by kppanic View Post
A quick example. Go get a true recording from a studio or from a concert hall, and then digitize that copy and cut the "non-relevant" frequency out of it (i.e. normal range of human hearing 20hz-20khz). Now listen to the two samples very carefully, one true recording and the other truncated at high- and low-frequencies. Do you "hear" the difference? Do you "feel" the difference?
Anyone who chooses to pay more for something that is sensory-indistinguishable from another item is an idiot. If your ears cannot distinguish frequencies, then they cannot distinguish frequencies, whether they were present during a recording or removed post-recording. Assuming no loss during processing, it wouldn't matter. The only people that claim to "feel" the difference are the idiots that choose to pay 10x more for something that cannot compensate for what their ears cannot hear, and need to justify it.
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
    
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i5-2500K Biostar TP67B+ XFX HD5750 1GB 2x4GB DDR3 Corsair 1600 
Hard DriveOSMonitorPower
60GB OCZ SSD, 2x160GB HDD RAID0, 500GB+500GB+1.5TB Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit Samsung SyncMaster 930B Antec SmartPower 450w 
Case
Antec 900 
  hide details  
Reply
post #30 of 44
Quote:
Originally Posted by guyladouche View Post
Anyone who chooses to pay more for something that is sensory-indistinguishable from another item is an idiot. If your ears cannot distinguish frequencies, then they cannot distinguish frequencies, whether they were present during a recording or removed post-recording. Assuming no loss during processing, it wouldn't matter. The only people that claim to "feel" the difference are the idiots that choose to pay 10x more for something that cannot compensate for what their ears cannot hear, and need to justify it.
This discussion is starting to remind of a pre-view thread for a DAC over at Head-fi. It pretty much came down to the fact that a $200 DAC now can produce sound just as well as a DAC that costs $1200 (level matched of course). Even with all the low less connectors and noise isolation built into the expensive DAC there wasn't really a perceptible difference between the two. If anything the expensive DAC added distortion in a way which appealed to 'audiophiles.'

I think the main point is what humans can precieve is unmeasureable and different for every person. You will have to overshoot that percetible boundry in order to make sure you got everyone.

OT: How many consumers will be able to see the difference between 2560x1600 and 1280x800? Enough to make money out of it? I think the step is definitely over the line of the percetible boundry. The next step in resolution density will most likely go unnoticed to the naked eye so why pursue it. The primary purpose of this technology is to display information and I think marketing can only carry a product so far.

There is always going to be other areas of display technology they will and can constantly improve on such as contrast, black depth and color accuracy. Even those parameters will get to a point beyond human preception.
Lil Burninator
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K ASUS Gryphon CF R9 290Xs Samsung 4x4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 1TB 2x 240s | 360 | MPC35X | Mostly BP W7 Pre x64 XL2720T 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
K70 AX1200 CaseLabs S5 + Ped G700/Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Vespula WA7 + KRK RP6s + HD650s 
  hide details  
Reply
Lil Burninator
(14 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
i7 4770K ASUS Gryphon CF R9 290Xs Samsung 4x4GB 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung EVO 1TB 2x 240s | 360 | MPC35X | Mostly BP W7 Pre x64 XL2720T 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
K70 AX1200 CaseLabs S5 + Ped G700/Mamba 
Mouse PadAudio
Vespula WA7 + KRK RP6s + HD650s 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Hardware News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Hardware News › [Engadget]Samsung to announce 2560 x 1600 10.1 tablet