This looks like good news - 1440p RGB OLED in new tablets

M

Morkai

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 10, 2011
Messages
426
From this article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/8168/...5-84-hands-on-with-samsungs-66mm-thin-tablets

"Both Galaxy Tab S models feature a 2560 x 1600 Super AMOLED display. According to Samsung, the 10.5” model features a full RGB stripe."

Is it at all possible to buy three of these and make a 3x 1440p portrait setup? :)
How does samsung interface displays on tablets?

Either way, good news that they ramp up production, i guess!
 
wow. i'd figure the screen alone would cost as much as the ten inch model. what about refresh rate? any improvements in regards to pixel persistence?
 
It's amazing how ahead of the curve the display tech is on the mobile side vs the desktop side. Frustrating, really.
 
Q-BZ said:
It's amazing how ahead of the curve the display tech is on the mobile side vs the desktop side. Frustrating, really.
Click to expand...

Most laptops are still using TN's. Even enthusiast brands such as MSI :rolleyes:.
Last time I checked a few obscure Fuijitsu? used VA's and only very expensive HP Elitebook's and Dell workstations had 6-bit IPS.:rolleyes:
 
Q-BZ said:
It's amazing how ahead of the curve the display tech is on the mobile side vs the desktop side. Frustrating, really.
Click to expand...

I can't disagree but the ROG laptop we have has a 120Hz TN... it just can't do games at 120FPS lol.
 
Panmaster said:
Most laptops are still using TN's. Even enthusiast brands such as MSI :rolleyes:.
Last time I checked a few obscure Fuijitsu? used VA's and only very expensive HP Elitebook's and Dell workstations had 6-bit IPS.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

IPS panels require a stronger backlight to achieve the same brightness compared to TN.

And even if it's IPS... it's still 16:9 with a giant plastic space under and above the screen. While there's absolute zero use for a 16:9 aspect ratio on workstation laptops. In the footprint of a Thinkpad 15.6" with protruding 9-cell battery they could have fitted a 15" 4:3
 
Q-BZ said:
It's amazing how ahead of the curve the display tech is on the mobile side vs the desktop side. Frustrating, really.
Click to expand...
It is really frustrating.

I don't know why laptops at 15.6-inch to 17-inch size don't have 2560x1440 or 2560x1600 resolution LCDs of IPS quality MINIMUM in this day and age. Yet, mobile phones and tablets are getting them even as large as 11-inches.

Does it cost that much more to go another 3 to 6 inches?

It's absolutely ridiculous especially since the most common resolution for laptops are the shitty 1366x768 resolution laptops at sub-$600 dollars. It's 2014 and laptop LCD displays should have advanced more than mobile devices since the first iPhone or Galaxy S came out.

It's like all the advances are going mobile first, desktop and laptop PCs last.
 
Wait and see how those OLED panels fare over time. A lot of companies want to bring the tech to market, but there are many challenges to getting it to work correctly and hold up over time.

Colors don't all degrade at the same rate of use thus color shifts can occur
LG tried to resolve this by using a standard LCD color filter and the OLED as a white backlight
Samsung liked this so much they tried to copy it, then ended up licensing it after a patent fight

Sealing technologies are rapidly advancing - but the point to consumers is that they have HAD to advance because of the deficiencies found in each on tried so far

Remember these companies would love to recoup the billions in R&D spent on this tech but it's very hard to get screens that hold up over time, and produce a quality picture. When it works it's spectacular. But keeping those results for years of use is proving to be very difficult.
 
Not saying I got this exactly right but doing a lot of reading and other things: In the past I'd seen some reviews of AMOLED screens on certain products and I'd seen complaints of less than accurate colors, oversaturation, and that sort of thing.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/8168/...5-84-hands-on-with-samsungs-66mm-thin-tablets

Someone in the comments area even has a link talking about burn-in.

Obviously tech improves and evolves over time but I just took note of it.

http://www.engadget.com/2014/06/12/galaxy-tab-s-hands-on/

^^ This is a lot more promising in regards to the AMOLED.
 
Last edited:
none of that matters because with a desktop os they can be calibrated. they're like that to appease the masses who immediately set saturation to 100 when they get a new tv. i'm most interested in oled because of the perfect blacks, possibility for zero motion blur, nonexistent input lag, and high refresh rates. i don't care so much about color so long as it's at least on par with upper-mid tier IPS panels.
 
I really do not know why Laptop's are still being built with 16:9.....I have been complaining about this for years. I went with Mac laptops, just because of the aspect ratio in the past. My $4000 dell M4800 with the 3800x1800 QHD+ screen has 16:9 and a stupidly aggressive antiglare coating drives me insane....

I just can't comprehend why they would do this crap... just give us 16:10 or 5:4 laptops man, it is not that hard.
 
There's the Chromebook Pixel with 2560x1700.. .beatiful display... useless otherwise. I hate it as well. So stupid to find a $50 panel on a $2000 laptop.
 
Andyk5 said:
I really do not know why Laptop's are still being built with 16:9.....I have been complaining about this for years. I went with Mac laptops, just because of the aspect ratio in the past. My $4000 dell M4800 with the 3800x1800 QHD+ screen has 16:9 and a stupidly aggressive antiglare coating drives me insane....

I just can't comprehend why they would do this crap... just give us 16:10 or 5:4 laptops man, it is not that hard.
Click to expand...

16:10 is dead and it's not coming back, get over it already, jesus christ
 
Odellus said:
16:10 is dead and it's not coming back, get over it already, jesus christ
Click to expand...

It's obviously not dead in the tablet sector, so it's perfectly reasonable for someone to wonder why there are no 16:10 laptops (not counting the pixel).

For work related laptops, 16:10 or even 4:3 would make much more sense from a consumer standpoint.

What I don't get is why there aren't more IPS or at least VA displays in laptops. Yep, they are more common now than they used to be, but people seem way too focused on cpu speed or other specs, and somehow don't seem to care that their screen is god awful to look at.
 
Namelessme said:
It's obviously not dead in the tablet sector, so it's perfectly reasonable for someone to wonder why there are no 16:10 laptops (not counting the pixel).

For work related laptops, 16:10 or even 4:3 would make much more sense from a consumer standpoint.

What I don't get is why there aren't more IPS or at least VA displays in laptops. Yep, they are more common now than they used to be, but people seem way too focused on cpu speed or other specs, and somehow don't seem to care that their screen is god awful to look at.
Click to expand...

it's probably got something to do with the fact that you're holding the screen in your hands. i doubt it would be 16:10 for any other reason.
 
Last edited:
Odellus said:
it's probably got something to do with the fact that you're holding the screen in your hands. i doubt it would be 16:10 for any other reason.
Click to expand...

Maybe they chose that res since on a small screen extra vertical space is of more use to people than horizontal would be. Too narrow and web browsing can be rather annoying in landscape on a tiny 8" screen, for instance. It's actually sort of annoying regardless, even at 16:10. Probably why a lot of people like the ipad's 4:3 ratio.
 
just one more step to oled laptops and then PC MONITORS! :) please god, please!!!!
 
Anemone said:
When it works it's spectacular. But keeping those results for years of use is proving to be very difficult.
Click to expand...
Samsung's Galaxy Tab 7.7 has been around for almost three years now and there doesn't seem to be any reports of degradation problems with its OLED panel, so it would seem longevity isn't a major issue (although the costs involved may be).
 
Odellus said:
16:10 is dead and it's not coming back, get over it already, jesus christ
Click to expand...

Defends 16:9. Doesn't read article. Interesting.

It's a garbage aspect ratio with absolutely no advantages. Productive work demands 16:10 or even 4:3, while movies and gaming work better with 21:9. The only reason companies moved to 16:9 is because they could cut more 16:9 screens from a given area of LCD material and sell them to ignorant people at identical prices. Or even mark them up as "FULL-HD-BBQ".

LCD itself also has dramatic and fundamental flaws that make it strictly inferior to superior technologies like plasma, SED, etc. Self-emissive pixels are crucial to achieve good detail with dark content, and sample-and-hold is a useless method for rendering motion.

The fact that even many supposedly tech-savvy people STILL refuse to understand things like this boggles the mind.


On topic: I'm delighted that the mobile game is causing a sort of display renaissance. Five years back there was almost no hope. LCD had been stagnant (or regressing) for a decade, and big-screen OLED was mostly a pipe dream. We'll see if OLED can solve the color-drift and scale-up issues. Otherwise, we'll muddle along with LCD until someone revives SED or creates a new technology.
 
Its funny cause the galaxy tab s 10.5 with 10.5" is only $500, the same price as any other high end 10" tablet, including the galaxy tab pro with PLS display that they released only a couple months ago. The screen itself is only one part of the component cost. So why cant someone buy nine of these, screen only, connect them all together for a 31.5" display with 7680x4320, jerry rig something to combine 9 signals, and sell it? OLED has very thin bezels. Just a thought. :p
 
wabbitseason said:
Defends 16:9. Doesn't read article. Interesting.

It's a garbage aspect ratio with absolutely no advantages. Productive work demands 16:10 or even 4:3, while movies and gaming work better with 21:9. The only reason companies moved to 16:9 is because they could cut more 16:9 screens from a given area of LCD material and sell them to ignorant people at identical prices. Or even mark them up as "FULL-HD-BBQ".

LCD itself also has dramatic and fundamental flaws that make it strictly inferior to superior technologies like plasma, SED, etc. Self-emissive pixels are crucial to achieve good detail with dark content, and sample-and-hold is a useless method for rendering motion.

The fact that even many supposedly tech-savvy people STILL refuse to understand things like this boggles the mind.

m delighted that the mobile game is causing a sort of display renaissance. Five years back there was almost no hope. LCD had been stagnant (or regressing) for a decade, and big-screen OLED was mostly a pipe dream. We'll see if OLED can solve the color-drift and scale-up issues. Otherwise, we'll muddle along with LCD until someone revives SED or creates a new technology
On topic: I'.
Click to expand...

no where in my post did i defend 16:9 and games/movies definitely do not work better with 21:9. i fucking hate 21:9/2.35:1. go watch any 16:9 film/television series and then tell me they would've been better had they been 21:9. that shit sucks. if anything 4:3 is the only true proper aspect ratio.
 
Last edited:
Odellus said:
no where in my post did i defend 16:9 and games/movies definitely do not work better with 21:9. i fucking hate 21:9/2.35:1. go watch any 16:9 film/television series and then tell me they would've been better had they been 21:9. that shit sucks. if anything 4:3 is the only true proper aspect ratio.
Click to expand...

"Get over it" boils down to the same: agreement with the race to the bottom.
 
jcvjcvjcvjcv said:
"Get over it" boils down to the same: agreement with the race to the bottom.
Click to expand...

no, it doesn't. it means i'm tired of hearing people bitch about 16:9. every single thread on this forum where aspect ratio is brought up, someone whines about 16:9 and then states how superior 16:10 is. it's incredibly annoying and does absolutely nothing for discussion.
 
WTF are you people talking about? 16:10 and 16:9 are so similar no one cares. They are both "widescreen".
 
jerry rig something to combine 9 signals
Click to expand...

2560x1600 is doable with DisplayPort 1.1 and so you can take three DisplayPort 1.2 ports and three MST hubs, that's hardly a problem. Best done probably with two cards; only the older 7870 Eyefinity 6 had this many.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top