Samsung teases CES unveiling of HDTV with 'unprecedented new shape' - Page 4

You forgot the sarcastic marks. Unless you're serious, then maybe you don't know what Nook and Kindle Fire are based on.


It's a Japanese comic, the comic's name and the main character's name is Yotsuba. The closest comparison I can make is it has some similarities to Calvin and Hobbes, namely because of the age of the protagonist and precociousness. If you only read one, I would recommend Yotsuba. It's available translated into English.


I think projectors have been pretty good for five years or so. I don't know why these makers show them on a table though. Hang it from a ceiling or don't project, as far as I'm concerned. The upside is that new visitors think you don't have a TV, the projector hides in plain sight.


Maybe they learned something from the marsupials and the TV has a pouch.


Sounds like an interesting idea, though maybe ten years from practicality. But I really don't see why the black bars are a problem in the first place, especially with people that are willing to ruin (stretch, crop, etc.) the image to make the black bars go away.

5. Android fans, in parent's basements, can see cockroaches on wall behind while watching Dungeons and Dragons.

 

"The logo… is on the TOP!"

 

Flexible ≠ stretchable. You can't just pull on the panel and make it change shape. Additionally, you couldn't really do this to the physical device in the first place, as it would be entirely unstable (both in wall-hung and stand configurations).

Simple solution: You go find the fridge from which Samsung stole their design and buy that instead.

I only read one! Every day is the most enjoyable day.

I have a TV and a few monitors. I regret the TV, the color quality and blacks aren't where they should have been for a PDP, but it took me a while to realize that. The screen developed a dead line during a power outage, thankfully replaced under warranty. Also, one of the monitors died.

I've seen several people here mention that they've had Samsung appliances die very prematurely.

Not found anything quite like their designs to be honest. I have walked the floors of Best Buy many times looking but always come back to Scamsung's design. They seem to be actually innovative in this field. Any suggestions welcomed. I think I am being swayed by the ultra cool LED lighting LOL!

 

I don't think there is a way of making their ad copy make any sense at all.  How is any kind of rectangle a "new shape" as you say above?  

 

TV's have always been circles, rounded rectangles, or rectangles and the progression has been from one to the other that way as the TV design progresses through time.  About the only thing that hasn't been done (much) is the upright rectangle but even then the screen on the upright rectangle TV would still have to be the recumbent rectangle we are all familiar with.  Judging by the cloth shape, this is that kind of design.  

 

There is no new shape, it's just them making what they think is a funny reference to all the stuff in the trials about patenting shapes.  

 

I think those who design and promote transparent displays no matter what company they work for should be fired.  Other than looking cool in action movies, transparent screens not only have no purpose, they are impossible to use.  Seriously.  Samsung and anyone else is literally insane if they think transparent displays of any kind have any market potential at all, especially as TV's or computer monitors.  

 

Anyone with half a brain who has thought about this for more than a few moments should be able to see this.  It's essentially the same problem as that of "glare" but a hundred times worse.  

 

I got my Samsung refrigerator at Best Buy several years ago and am totally happy. I went out looking for a well-built unit. Samsung's design was the only one I found currently being made where the steel case was formed, welded, and then painted. All other's I looked at had the case made of pre-painted steel that had then been formed and sheet-metal screwed together. Open the door and look to see if you can see any sheet-metal screws; if so, close the door and move quickly away.

Unless there is a toggle on / off for the transparency in which case there maybe some applications for such technology.

Thanks. I might have to do that just so I can be hip to what the kids are all jiggy about. Dy-no-mite!

The fact is that the vast majority of the most popular feature films in the last ten years were shot 2.4:1.    (I used to argue as you did, but someone challenged me on this and I did the research and I realized they were correct:  In 2001, 56% of the top 100 films were 2.35:1.  In 2011, 68% of the top 100 films were 2.35:1.)    

 

The reason why we got stuck with 16:9 is because it was the most common shape between 4:3 SD television and 2.35:1.   It was determined by a SMPTE committee, but the Director's Guild was opposed to it--they wanted a compromise of 2.0:1.  The reason why it didn't happen was because these decisions were made when sets were still CRT and it was extremely difficult and expensive to build a CRT scanning gun that would maintain focus at the edges of a wide screen.      Had digital/HDTV come after the development of the plasma and LED technology, we probably would have had sets at somewhere between 2.0 and 2.4:1.

 

Whether 2.4:1 is the better shape is determined by whether one does more television watching or feature film watching.   If it's feature films, 2.4:1 AR makes more sense.   If it's TV, 16:9 makes more sense because the TV industry is not going to go through another major capital investment process, as they had to for digital TV to change the AR again.   However, if the cable/broadcast industry does ever move to 4K, IMO, it would make sense at that time to also move to 2.4:1 displays, but I actually don't see the industry going there because they don't see any return for the investment.    The industry did not even want to move to digital TV, but the Government forced them into it.   

 

Another issue is that anamorphic widescreen films were always be meant to shown on a wider screen (larger image) than 1.85 (common height).    In our current 16:9 TVs (and in most digital cinemas), 2:39 is shown at common width.     That destroys the intent of an anamorphic or widescreen image.   Having said that, as consumers move to ever-larger displays, maybe that's less of an issue (even though widescreen would still have less height).    I consider it to be an issue on my 55", but maybe I wouldn't care if I had an 84", like the new Sony $25,000 4K set.

Edited by zoetmb - 1/1/13 at 9:49am

 

Well, if you have a ton of cash, you could always buy American and get a Sub-Zero built-in.    24" counter depth and as little as 30" width.  Separate compressors for the refrigerator and freezer compartments.    Interchangeable panels.   But it will set you back around $8K.    It's like the Apple tax.   

As long as they patent it like their other non-obvious geometric shapes:

http://www.google.com/patents?id=_sUEAgAAEBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=samsung&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=samsung&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=_cUEAgAAEBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=samsung&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=samsung&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=A7YJAgAAEBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=samsung&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=samsung&f=false
http://www.google.com/patents?id=0YAIAgAAEBAJ&pg=PA3&dq=samsung&source=gbs_selected_pages&cad=3#v=onepage&q=samsung&f=false

The aspect ratio of the shape in their marketing image is around 4:3:



Portrait only looks good when it's near that aspect on large displays. 16:10 is usable but it does look a bit off. For a TV that's permanently in landscape, it doesn't make sense any more and the aspect of the TV in the video is 16:9.

The marketing image seems to be showing off the aesthetic design of the frame. It might be transparent but the difference in the shape would have to be the stand because you can't fit the components (which aren't transparent) into that display. If it was transparent, the TV shape in the video would also be lighter under the sheet as light would pass through from the back but it's the same shade as the solid pedestal. It actually looks like a standard TV sitting on a pedestal but the stand can't extend very far out the front of the TV and seems to be a little taller than their current one.

I think they're trying to do what Apple does here - make odd marketing so people talk about it and then when it launches, it looks almost identical to last year's model. It's just evolution not revolution. Samsung should innovate instead of litigate etc.

I think the bezel should be larger, the Smart TV UI massively simplified and it should have a nicer base. Given that the bezel is still very thin, I'd say they focused on the latter two but it's still just a 16:9 black rectangle.

 

Oh yeah, I think there are uses.  Headsup displays are an obvious one, and the ability to turn it on and off would certainly help.  It will just make watching TV a lot harder, and for no apparent gain.  

 

Samsung isn't the only fool in this market either, several other companies are dropping millions down the toilet on this tech.

 

The only real advantage I can think of to having a transparent TV screen is the fact that it sort of disappears when not in use instead of being a giant black rectangle that dominates the room.  That's a very tiny "win" compared to the multiple "losses" of the technology in general.  I would bet that those rich enough to buy one of these bleeding edge transparent TVs would probably already have a separate TV room that solves that problem anyway.  

 

The obvious flaw in this reasoning is that "films" are not the thing that people watch on TV the most.  

 

Even if 100% of films were 2.4:1 (they won't be as there the trend is actually towards 16:9 lately), films only make up a portion of what we watch on TV.  I don't have the figures on movies versus other content, but common sense would indicate that the non-movie content would be higher than 50%.  Possibly a lot higher.  

My guess: if they use some kind of a low power consumption screen you can leave on the whole day, you have not just a TV but a picture frame. Use it in landscape or portrait much like your iPad with all kinds of content. Gallery, blackboard or TV. Add Siri and there you have it, a completely new device, home communication and entertainment center.

It might be shaped like a giant hamster. Nobody would expect that. In portrait orientation it's a hamster on hind legs with a feral, snarling pose.

Because we all want to spin our TV's around to look at pictures?

You mean like B&O? http://www.bang-olufsen.com/en/picture/beovision-10

"Samsung, one of Apple's chief rivals"... This statement makes no sense as Apple does NOT make TVs. Samsung makes many, many, many other consumer electronic devices other than cell phones, tablets, and laptops.

Good to know that you have a full brain and all these engineers working on transparent displays are morons.

This clearly states whose input is relevant.

 

Actually I only have half a brain due to a horrible accident as a child which is why I always use the "half a brain" thing.  

Samsung isn't announcing a "completely new device" they are promising an "unprecedented new shape".

 

Sorry to bust that brain fart, now come back with a new shape.

Well now, that's a house of a different collar...

...or is that a tough roadie to Ho...

At one point 4:3 TV content was most common and we were able to move to 16:9 TVs. The 4:3 content just sat in the middle (or was stretched) until the programming caught up, but it did. At some point the concession to make the switch happened. I can't see that 16:9 will forever be the the aspect ratio for TV content simply because it's what we have now, especially as TVs grow in size.

Oh a new ratio for televisions from Samsung this is not new thought maybe it will be one/25 and get this over with.

To be really immersive, would not the TV have to be large enough to exceed the viewers field of view, from an average distance -- both horizontally and vertically?

Aren't screen size and aspect ratio less than the field of view limits pretty meaningless?

 

It would also have to exude smell at appropriate times, from cartridges inserted into the bottom of the panel. 

 

Televisions could adopt the inkjet printer model: the device itself would be completely free, but the constituent smell cartridges (all seven) would be $100 apiece and contain enough smell for a few days' programming only.

 

These could also be said to cover taste, and all that would remain is specialized viewing chairs, manipulating static electricity to manage touch.

 

Gives new meaning to the word "Sensurround"!

Yes, but what is that optimal immersive view? The retina is pretty much a circle and yet we don't have circular displays or even 1:1 aspect ratio displays. As displays have gotten bigger they've become more widescreen in most cases. The exception to that would be IMAX which I think is 4:3 but that's an extreme example of an immerse experience where the edge of the screen can go beyond our peripheral vision.

Since our eyes are spaced apart side-by-side on a horizontal plane and our extra-ocular muscles saccade more easily from left to right than up and down I assume that widescreen wasn't used for fashion on large displays but for a reason based on our biology. If that is the case would it not also make sense that once you get to a point where the relative height of a television panel is so large that you can't easily absorb content top to bottom without moving your eyes (or head) up and down that it would make sense to instead widen the panel so you can see more content? Have movie theaters gotten it wrong all these decades?

I did a simple, unscientific, but unbiased test. In my hand I held a random playing card. Back side toward me, I brought it two feet out from my eyes then moved it two feet to my right and flipped the card while still looking ahead comfortably (which means I did force my vision to focus on objects much farther away). I repeated this with each cardinal direction. I feel I can much more easily see left and right without effort than I could up and down. What happens when the TV display becomes 6 feet tall and you're sitting 10 feet away? Will 16:9 still make sense?
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/1/13 at 1:38pm

 

You must have the patience of a saint!

I'd certainly have fun watching someone try it with a 50"+ TV.

The best display aspect is one that works with human vision, which seems to have angles of view of 140 degrees horizontal and 90 vertical:

http://www.hitl.washington.edu/publications/tidwell/ch3.html

This would make a 14:9 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/14:9 ) display the closest match and 16:10 next to that but 16:9 is a good aspect and I think we should stick to it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/16:9

I don't like super-wide video formats - thinner content seems to give an impression of being higher budget. Whenever you see old VHS content, it looks like low budget now and 16:9 looks like TV content but it's just perception; wider formats just show less vertical content. If TVs switched to 2.35:1, TV content would have to switch too and then you get the same perception that the quality of 2.35:1 is no better.

A TV manufacturer certainly won't drive that change. It's in the whole pipeline from the cameras shooting, to the editing, to the storage formats.

The video of the new Samsung TV shows a 16:9 display.

I found an interesting thread from a while back:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/91725/what-about-the-mac-mini/40#post_1324886

You've been at this TV thing for well over 4 years now. Do you think 2013 is the year it'll finally happen? If so, what are your expectations for size, price and shipment volume?

 

Can you imagine the scent for a show like "Judge Judy"? One part DMV, one part senior center.

Dirty Jobs (though I think that's long ended). 😝

 

Is Ice Road Truckers still on? Sweaty semi cabins and parched ice… What all this reality show crap is doing on the "History Channel" is beyond me…

… Jersey Shore… 😵

OT:

I was hoping that Apple would run a 3D mapping flyover of Pasadena today -- to capture the Parade route and the Rose Bowl Stadium... My teen years were spent in Pasadena... Lots of great memories!

LOL. Honestly... I've never been described a patient... Or as a saint, for that matter!

OT:

One of the neighbor kids brought his new tablet over... It is a Polaroid? It runs Android? First Droid tablet I've ever seen/touched... Maybe after the game, I'll get some hands on with it!

It's already been tried in cinemas (amazingly) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smell-O-Vision

🎵 On Wisconsin, Get your Bong Wisconsin, Bong Wisconsin, Bong...
Then you get some marijuana...
Touchdown sure this time...
Rah, Rah, Rah...

From a Cardinal fan!

 

I remember going to exactly one movie back in the 70s (or was it the early 80s?) where they handed out scratch and sniff cards to be used along with the movie. Funny thing... I can't even remember what that movie was now.

Or the cannonball jump scene into the mire -- from Slumdog Millionaire.