Samsung entered the 30-inch LCD monitor derby a while ago, but now at the huge CeBIT show in Germany it's rolled out a big bertha computer monitor with LED backlighting, all the rage for color freaks. The SyncMaster XL30 packs scary specs if you're inclined to believe such things, quoting a 3000:1 contrast ratio and a 2ms response time. Heck, that's so quick, why don't they just call it zero?
Beyond all that guff, the 30-inch behemoth does double duty as an HDTV—with its HDCP capability, it'll pass through all the DRM-infested content you care to watch. Samsung's not talking prices yet, but its conventionally-backlit 30-incher goes for around $1600. Looking at this picture of the flat panel, we're wondering if it's a 4:3 display, and hoping not. We'll pass along more info when we get it.
Samsung Debuts 30-inch LED-Based Monitor at CeBIT 2007 [Born Rich]












Comments
Don't you mean LCD is LED Backlit, or was this a joke? If so, ha..... ha....
So confused...
I'm assuming it's a joke, based on the tag also reading "LCD BACKLIT".
I had to read that title twice too lol. Can't wait for LED backlighting to take off, uses less power and should have better color representation.
Charlie!.... Pricing please!
I'm in the market for a 30" LCD monitor....
4:3 aspect have more rez than 16:9 actually.
Any idea what the native resolution is?
How much???
I'll take...two!
4:3 aspect have more rez than 16:9 actually.
But 4x3 is rediciously innefficient, especially in a monitor that big.
Not saying that it isnt, but how is 4:3 inneficient? assuming you are using the whole realestate of the monitor it should be just as efficient as a 16:9 monitor, well cept for 16:9 films, which are actually quite rare. I want a 2.35:1 ration monitor. You know, just to be different.
If it's going to double as an HDTV then one could only assume that it will be 16:10 aspect ratio. I didn't say 16:9 because, if I'm not mistaken, none of the wide-screen LCDs out there are 16:9 due to some limitation, correct?
There's no mention of resolution. For something that big, we need outrageousness. We need 2084x1536, at the very least; maybe even madness like 3200x2400. Otherwise, what's the point? I mean, who's really buying 30"+ monitors in anything other than 16:9 these days? Or maybe, maybe, 16:10?
Toastercoockie,
4:3 has more rez than 16:9 and it is not innefficient.
Most PC "standard" resolutions are offbeats of ye'ol 640x480 rez. The 4:3 ratio.
A typical 20" Wide LCD has 1680x1050 rez = 176400 pixels
A typical 20" 4:3 LCD is 1600x1200 rez = 192000 pixels
So a wide screen cuts off 15600 pixels for ya!
Not to mention that you still cannot see full HD signal because 1080i [or p...] is 1920x1080.
And... that pixels on 4:3 LCD's are actually smaller than on the 16:9 LCD's so they have better visual definition so co$t more...
And... providing you don't particularly use it for watching movies... 4:3 is actually better for PC work or gaming (most games scale in 4:3).
And don't get me started in HDTV aspect ratios...
Some bozo channels (ABC, CBS...) transmit HD in 4:3 so they leave black bands on the sides.
Some movies come in:
- 16:9 (1.78) so they fill the screen nicely.
- 12:9 (1.33) so they leave a thin black side edges.
- Some wack jobs give you 2.35:1 for Cinemascope⢠effect so might as well use a sledge hammer on the HDTV...
They can never get it right.....
I'll take the XL30 any day!
You mean it's a Liquid Crystal Display Display! That's two displays for the price of one. And it's 4:3! Can it get any better? I think not...
Comment on this post
Reply by EmailLogin with your username and password below. Or comment on this post via email.
Forgot your username or password? New User?