Samsung Announces Retina Tablet Display

[Guest]

First of all, the reporter should have used the proper term for the display which is WQXGA (2560x1600) instead of a company's created name which usually is meaningless. For example, a retina is like film and captures an image, it does not display one. If the name "Retina" referred to a new camera's image sensor, that would make more sense but companies just grab any word that they think sounds cool and use it instead of using one that logically works.

As for anyone needing a resolution that high, as a professional photographer, I will jump at getting one. With a 10.1" screen, I would be able to display a 6x8 photo at 100% at print quality. I would prefer a screen that could display an 8x10 or 8x12, but it is a start. Having a mobile screen that would be able to display photos almost instantly to a client would be an invaluable tool especially when shooting at a remote location.

 

[geof2001]

If they can pack that kind of pixel density into a 10.1 display why aren't we seeing these resolution natively available in affordable 24-30" desktop screens?

 

[kyuuketsuki]

[citation][nom]geof2001[/nom]If they can pack that kind of pixel density into a 10.1 display why aren't we seeing these resolution natively available in affordable 24-30" desktop screens?[/citation]Who said this tablet was going to be "affordable"? I very much doubt it will fall into that classification for the general public. Also, it's complete overkill for the general public. Only specialized users, such as photographers like backslashdotcom, would really need such a thing. 1920x1080 is more than adequate even for larger screens. 2560x1600 on a 10.1" is just... insane, at this point in time.

 

[spookie]

are they announcing SLI and Crossfire for tablets next?? And maby a tablet version of Sandy Bridge?? Cause I don't see the use of that resolution without some serious power behind it

 

[cjl]

2560x1600 would look amazing on a display this size. Too bad it's pentile. Contrary to what's stated in the article above, a pentile display looks worse than a standard display of the same resolution. Its benefit is that it increases the ability of the panel manufacturers to increase pixel density, not that it looks better.

 

[Guest]

ummm, can I bind more tablet from these together to achieve a "massive little" monitor for my pc?

 

[mkrijt]

I think they will use this for FullHD 3D on tablets without glasses....

 

[RealityClash]

It'll be really interesting to see what's powering this...

 

[fleeb]

Why do people use "Retina Display" as an adjective for non-Apple products?

 

[Vladislaus]

[citation][nom]cjl[/nom]2560x1600 would look amazing on a display this size. Too bad it's pentile. Contrary to what's stated in the article above, a pentile display looks worse than a standard display of the same resolution. Its benefit is that it increases the ability of the panel manufacturers to increase pixel density, not that it looks better.[/citation]
Funny because most reviews I've read about the Galaxy S (which uses a PenTile display) screen says it's one of the best phone screens out there and many even state it's better than the one on the iPhone 4.

Of course this screen is different from the one in the Galaxy S that uses a RGBG pattern and this one uses a RGBW pattern, so we'll have to wait and see.

 

[macewrox]

Suddenly the 11 hour battery life of tablets becomes 3 hours.

 

[back_by_demand]

So exactly what content do you, I, or anyone else have that playsback on that resolution.

HD video is 1920 x 1080.

Anything above that is a waste for now, although doing it just to poke Apple in the eye is very worthwhile.

 

[slo]

From the comments am reading, am guessing nobody know what pentile is...
Pentile displays share two of their subpixel colors by using the third one as a center color and alternate the other two. In a row of pixel you'd have
red,green,blue,green,red.... instead of red,green blue red green blue.
in the first example the blue is shared by two pixels as is the second red sub pixel.
A normal 2560x1600 monitor would have (x3) 12.288.000 subpixels
A normal 1920x1080 monitor would have (x3) 6.220.800 subpixels
A pentile 2560x1600 monitor would have(x2) 8.192.000 subpixels

While the technology will help bring power usage down and larger resolutions in smaller displayes, am not sure of the results in image quality since i havent seen one close up. Interesting piece of kit tho.

 

[TeraMedia]

I agree with mkrjit and \.com. For pro photographers, this would seem to be the perfect tool for checking your results before you leave the area. At this resolution, you might actually be able to verify whether your photo is in-focus, which you simply can't do at a lower resolution such as 1024x768 (nevermind QVGA). Note that the display is also bright enough to be used outdoors - so that you can check your photos at weddings, sporting events, etc.

And for 3D, the problem with current resolutions is that they tend to provide relatively low depth resolution. Moving the pixel over by 1 for one eye and not the other can change the perceived depth by very large amounts, which increase the further the target depth is from the observer. So the closer together those pixels are, the greater the depth resolution.

 

[wiyosaya]

IMHO, for this to be useful, it will require a built-in magnifier so that the screen looks like it is really 27"+. This resolution approaches useless, as I see it.

I've seen 1920 x 1200 on 15.1" laptops that a company that I worked for used; the screen was extremely difficult to read. I find it hard to imagine that this display, pushing the resolution up while the screen size down from that, will provide anything truly useful. Anyone using it will likely develop a permanent squint.

More marking bling

 

[figgus]

[citation][nom]fleeb[/nom]Why do people use "Retina Display" as an adjective for non-Apple products?[/citation]
Why did Apple need to use an idiotic term like that in the first place?

 

[phate]

Just came to the comments to see several already beat my first thought to the punch. Why the F can't we get better res monitors at a decent price.
I've been using a 22" at 1680x1050 for years because to get a 28" or so at anything more than 1920x1080 costs 2-3x as much.

 

[rantoc]

[citation][nom]jgalecio[/nom]Wont they get sued by apple for using the term 'retina' display? Just saying...[/citation]
[citation][nom]Restatement3dOfTed[/nom]Samsung didn't - Douglas Perry tacked "Retina" onto it.[/citation]

You can't expect a writer of Steves Hardware to know its real name is WQXGA, they lived under the green fruits marketing for too long!

 

[td854]

[citation][nom]geof2001[/nom]If they can pack that kind of pixel density into a 10.1 display why aren't we seeing these resolution natively available in affordable 24-30" desktop screens?[/citation]

This. Emphasis on laptops though. My first laptop from 2002 had a 15" 1600x1200 display, and we can't even get 2560x1600 in a 17"+ laptop display nowadays.

 

[osxsier]

Cant wait for iPad 3 to have one of these

 

[fir_ser]

[citation][nom]ikefu[/nom]And all the tablet GPUs just had a heart attackNext up: AMD announces Radeon 6970 for tablets![/citation]
LOL

 

[fir_ser]

Hope its not that much costly.