Samsung's 21-inch OLED TV is the world's largest...for now
By Peter Rojas 
posted January 4th 2005 6:59AM
posted January 4th 2005 6:59AM
Samsung is showing off a 21-inch OLED television with a resolution of 1920x1200 and a 5000:1 contrast ratio that
we're pretty sure is the world's largest OLED display (the last "world's biggest" was a
20.1-inch model made by LG Philips). No details on when
we might be able to go broke buying one, but needless to say, we're offically in lust.
[Thanks, VoiD]
Finally, a panel that has the resolution that geeks like me need. I'm so sick of "High Def" televisions that run crappy 720p.
I've had my notebook running 1920x1200 and I'd never go to any display running less than this. I'm glad to see that this OLED tv/monitor has a healthy amount of pixels on it.
All the news reports and press releases aside from this one quote 6.22 million pixels. One of them even goes so far as to get the resolution right (WUXGA), but by my math 1920 x 1200 = 2,304,000. Way to go Engadget, you're the only ones to get it right!
I'd have to give credit to our tipster who supplied us with the solid info in his tip.
It's stupid to give letter names to resolutions (such as WUXGA) when it means nothing and is much easier to say 1920 x 1200.
1920 x 1200 makes me feel funny when I say it
Richard, since consumers know they can buy a 3MP camera for under $200, convincing them to spend thousands more on a TV with "only" 2.3MP is a tough sell.
In order to boost the oh so important megapixel value, a common marketing trick is to count each of the red, green and blue sub-pixels; giving you a value roughly three times the real number.
If megapixels are that important to the consumer, rather than comparing new TVs to cameras, they should compare them to their old TV. Their top of the line NTSC set that served them well for the last 20 years is only 0.36MP and a jump to 2.3MP is actually pretty damn good.
My New Years resolution is 1920x1200.
Hmmm, thanks for that info. I hadn't thought of using sub-pixels; that is really sneaky and is not something that I'd like to see take hold. But it still doesn't explain the 6.22 million figure, because 1920 x 1200 x 3 = 6,912,000.
Regardless, this is the most gadget-lust inducing monitor I've seen since LCDs first became available. Thinner, faster, and at 16:10 it can display all manner of widescreen formats natively while still being PC-compatible. I WANT ONE.
My New Years resolution is 1920x1200.
6.22 million is the number of pels (the red, green, and blue parts of pixels) in a 1920x1080 (1080i/1080p) display. They either got the count wrong, or the resolution wrong.
My guess is that they got the resolution wrong, if it's a TV (since TVs are typically 16:9) -- and that they got the pel count wrong if it's a computer monitor (since monitors are typically 16:10).
Subpixels are a dirty, dirty trick. In fact, digital cameras do worse-- they use a 2x2 array of single-color subpixels and count all of them as full pixels. Something like
RG
GB
A "4 megapixel" camera is really only 1 megapixel of full-color detail. Our eyes are more sensitive to luminance than color detail, though, so this is probably a reasonable compromise. I still think they ought to have to be more honest in their product labelling, though.
1920x1080x3=6.22mil
why? dont ask me.
Don't OLED screens lose their brightness about twice as fast as regular LCDs? I thought that was why they weren't practical for most consumer electronics. Also, I seem to remember that they cost much more, making it a tough sell (at least for me).
OLED TV??? Where are the tons of OLED displays for phones, and certainly someone should replace the LCD in GBAs and GBDS with OLED! I'll lust after a 21 inch OLED after I actually SEE a 2 inch one.
I would assume this is 'small molecule' construction and is either w-rgb or rgb--anyone know?
Sony previous large displays were tiled--assume this is one sheet.
That oled.at web site posted by erik has a link to some very good info. on OLED in a 54-page PDF presentation file here: http://www.ktp.at/webdesign/oled/nextgenerationoled.pdf
Jump to page 19 for the bottom line:
Pros: OLED is lighter, brighter, faster, huge viewing angle, more power efficient than LCDs, and eventually will be cheaper to manufacture.
Cons: Lifetime, sunlight readability, current production costs.
Next step: compare OLED to SED (Surface-Conduction Electron-emitter Display). See http://hdtv.engadget.com/entry/1234000150026155/