Samsung's 15.4, 30, and 40-inch LED-backlit LCD panels

Samsung is showing off their LED-backlit LCDs today at the ICDL 2007, or Int'l Conference and Exhibition on Display LEDs... where else. First up is their 30-inch, 2560 x 1600 pixel (WQXGA) resolution panel (pictured above) capable of 16.7M colors, 300cd/m2 brightness, 6ms response, 180-degee viewing angle, 900:1 contrast ratio, and covers 111% of NTSC color gamut. That panel will likely turn up in Samsung's own SyncMaster lineup as well as being repackaged and sold by Dell, Apple, HP and others currently in the 30-inch monitor game. Also on display is a 15.4-inch LED-backlit LCD sporting a 1440 x 900 resolution, 5.8-mm thinness, and 3.1W power consumption making it suitable for all the new laptops. This panel manages 262k colors and a 330cd/m2 brightness while covering 45% of NTSC color gamut. Last up is a bump to that 40-inch LE40M91 we saw at IFA which brings a 500 cd/m2 brightness, 180-degree viewing angle, and relatively meager 1366 x 768 pixel resolution offset by a smokin' 100,000:1 contrast ratio through the use of "local dimming" LEDs -- a process whereby the backlighting is effectively shut off in dark areas to generate true black. Samsung plans to include these local dimming LEDs in their LCD TVs shipping this year. Great... prices and dates now please? Pictures of the others after the break.

Read -- 40-inch LED-backlit LCD
Read -- 30-inch LED-backlit LCD
Read -- 15.4-inch LED-backlit LCD

15.4-inch

40-inch local dimming LED on right

40-inch local dimming LED on right

[scabby @ Feb 1st 2007 10:11AM]

These things are hot. The LED backlit panels I've seen in person are gorgeous. We need this technology to be affordable, nowish please.

[scott @ Feb 1st 2007 10:14AM]

So is WUXGA the upper limit for display technology?

No consumer monitors seem to be surpassing that even though high-end graphics cards are definitely capable of doing more.

[Tony C @ Feb 1st 2007 10:35AM]

Amazing! That 15.4 incher's 1440x900 resolution is identical to what would slip into a 15" MacBook Pro... Hmmmmm!!! And 30" and 40" LCDs too! Suitable for upgraded Cinema Displays!

Samsung beat Apple's likely forthcoming product announcements to the punch... They will *not* be happy... ;)

[Michael Lomker @ Feb 1st 2007 10:36AM]

I'm very interested in this technology but I'm curious why they provide NTSC color ratings when most people are interested in HD (ATSC) on these things.

[Scott Hoaglund @ Feb 2nd 2007 10:19AM]

The NTSC color space is used as a reference, like the Adobe color space. It really has nothing to do with HD (ATSC). When high-end monitors used for color-critical applications are evaluated, they are done so by looking at what percentage of the NTSC and/or Adobe color space can be achieved.

[John Allison @ Feb 1st 2007 10:38AM]

That's funny,

15.4 inch screen... That would fit in the MacBook Pro. Funny.

[Scott @ Feb 1st 2007 10:50AM]

And here I was just mulling purchasing a Samsung 40-incher LCD TV. Maybe I'll have to wait now and see what the pricing/release is on this one... :/

[AJ @ Feb 1st 2007 2:18PM]

How are these LEDs arranged? Anyone know? It seems like the dimming capability would be limited to just the areas where the LEDs are mounted behind the screen. Not very precise is it?

oh well, cool anyway.

[Eric V @ Feb 1st 2007 11:37AM]

The specs kind of let me down...

-The 30-inch has an impressive resolution and NTSC rating (by far) but what about the brightness and contrast?

-The 15.4-inch has a nice resolution but lacks even a decent brightness and color specs to go with it...

-The 40-inch just confuses me. Sure it's bright and has smooth colors but it can't even display a true 1080i image...

[DJeneral @ Feb 1st 2007 2:28PM]

There is a real simple reason why the 40" doesn't have a 1080p+ native resolution, because it's designed to be used for TV applications and your eye will be incapable of discerning the different between 1080p and 720p unless you view less than 5 feet away. And yes it absolutely can display a true 1080i or 1080p image, just not natively. You will still see a dramatic difference in picture quality between a 1080i/p source and a 480i/p source despite it only having a 1366x768p resolution.

[Scott Hoaglund @ Feb 2nd 2007 10:20AM]

1366 x 768 can certainly display a true 1080i image. It just can't handle 1080p.

[Yuri @ Feb 1st 2007 1:18PM]

Eric V

- The 30" display's brightness is limited by its high resolution. The high number of pixels per inch mean that each is very small, allowing little light to pass through (think a camera aperature). To increase brightness you would need to add more LEDs, which would increase power consumption, increase heat generation and raise bill of materials - meaning higher cost to the consumer.

- The 15.4" has lower brightness and color spec because it is a portable application. Battery life and weight are two of the most important factors in this application, and increasing brightness would mean adding more LEDs, shortening battery life and increasing weight. It would also increase bill of materials for more bulbs - LEDs are still pricey compared to CCFLs.

- The 40" has a reasonable resolution to allow for its mass production and speedy introduction. A ~2 megapixel panel (1920 x 1080) would require more LEDs and would suffer the higher manufacturing defect rate associated with high resolution panels (more pixels per inch mean more likelihood of defective pixels - remember that a ~2 megapixel display has more than 6 million subpixels!). Both of these factors would increase bill of materials and cost to the consumer - slowing adoption and making rollout less attractive to manufacturers.

[barrington.thompson @ Feb 11th 2007 2:32PM]

What you are virtually saying is that the quality control for the pixels LEDs are useless.

Therefore, why not improve the quality control?

How many hours does each pixel LED last for, because proper testing must have been carried out?

Is this the reason why some firms don't include dead pixels as part of their guarantees, so that they can maximise their profits at the consumers expense?

How much extra would it cost to produce a 40" 1920x1080p TV instead of 1920x1080i TV?

How much longer would it take a robot to insert 6 million instead of 3 million LEDs?

If TVs were made let's say one inch wider to improve air flow and cooling the LED chips would,'t that alleviate the over heating problem?

If it is resonably possible to make light bulbs reasonably reliable than why not LEDs or LCD chips?

I think that the most reliable torches and christmas lights are LEDs and not light bulbs despite that there maybe for example 5 LEDs in a torch.

How many LEDs and LCDs can be fitted into a 40" TV before TVs before they become over heated and unreliable?

Can you present a table of for example 12 Hours use a day how many years would a LED and LCD 40" last for and better still all sizes of HD TVs?

[b @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:10AM]

bullshit. Just cos your eyes are old and crap, dont assume everyone else is as blind as you are. I can see the difference quite clearly, from normal viewing distance.

[b @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:10AM]

bullshit. Just cos your eyes are old and crap, dont assume everyone else is as blind as you are. I can see the difference quite clearly, from normal viewing distance.

[barrington.thompson @ Feb 8th 2007 9:27PM]

Where did you get the information from that:-
1) The human eye cannot tell the difference between 720P and 1080p unless than 1080P, because with LCD and probably any other format the distances are between 2.5 to 3 times the diagonal distance. 40" = 40"(inches)x3/12 = 10' (feet).

2) Are you saying ignore 1080p native source and 1920x1080p TV that there wouldn't be much difference? What happens when people like me say I want to know whether a native 1080p source is used and a 1080p TV would the picture quality be much better and if you still say no, please provide the website URL as proof, thank you?

I think that the best native source of 1920x1080p would at least be significantly much better than 1366x768p resolution. which manufacturer who manufactures LED TVs supports your claims?

[ASTROBOT @ Feb 1st 2007 1:56PM]

Drooling over the 30' monitor. Please oh please be under $2000!!

[ug @ Feb 2nd 2007 1:24AM]

Let me get this straight, if TV applications you sit farther back and the eye is incapable of discerning the different between 1080p and 720p then I guess they should just show theatrical movies with a 640x480 video projector in the theater if you sit in the back. Get real!

[me duh @ Feb 2nd 2007 1:46AM]

Brightside tech?

pretty sure they have the patent on the selective brightness, and they were making noises about partnering with a big outfit. Everybody was saying LG though.

[b @ Feb 3rd 2007 12:08AM]

bapbow wrong answer. true 1080 p/i video CAN ONLY BE DISPLAYED ON A SCREEN WITH 1080 res or better, that is 1080 X 1920. Sure itll display on a lower res monitor, but it wont be 1080p/i anymore, it will be downsampled to the monitors res. stop talking shit.
(also to the guy saying there is no visible difference between 720p and 1080p, how about you speak for your own blind ass (or maybe put your glasses on. the difference is quite apparent to me so dont assume just cos your eyes are bad everyone elses are too.

[Rick @ Aug 10th 2007 10:52PM]

does anyone know a release date for the 30"? it's been a few months since these were announced.

[jdot @ Oct 31st 2007 10:40AM]

Your forgetting the fact that unless your a movie buff a 1080p television will mean absolutely nothing because broadcast television cannot go to 1080p due to FCC regulations on broadcast bandwidth. So only true 1080p sources are digital photos, blu ray, and hd dvd.