Samsung are a bit more than that. They are huge (biggest company in South Korea I believe) and they make pretty decent stuff. My fridge, microwave and PC monitor are all Sammy and never had any problems with them.
I think the reason they copied the iPad was some kind of cultural difference which meant they didn't see anything wrong with it, but now that they have been successfully sued, I'm sure if they try to innovate they will be successful.
I am suffering from inner conflict, I as an Apple person hate Scamsung but really want to get one of their fridges
I can see the differences in the image top to bottom, I just don't get it. They just seem so bland to me that I wondered if there was some backstory to the artwork that I'm not privy too.
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.
I guess if you watch movies in the dark a disappearing TV would be no advantage. But if you just watch TV shows in the evening with the lights on, maybe those black bars are a distraction, matching neither the image nor the TV surrounds (unless your TV cabinet is black of course).
As for the daytime, there is a kind of glass where you run a current through it and it goes from completely clear to completely opaque, sometimes used in car windows. Perhaps if they put a thin layer of this behind the image-bearing glass? They would need to find a way for the black glass to only activate in areas behind actual image though.
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.
Glad you asked. There are several benefits to transparent displays:
1. Washed out blacks. The black level of the screen is the color of whatever is behind it.
2. Multitasking. You can stack several displays and watch multiple shows at once.
3. Magic fish bowl. You can finally find a use for those tacky aquarium screen savers
4. Impress geek friends who carry supersized android fonz. Seriously, nothing impresses geeks more than excess displays of impractical novelty tech.
5. Android fans, in parent's basements, can see cockroaches on wall behind while watching Dungeons and Dragons.
So they had to come all the way to Australia to discover how to make a different shaped tv.
"The logo… is on the TOP!"
Originally Posted by Marc Rogoff
I suspect that the "New Shape" is in fact the flexible screen tech they recently showed as a prototype. This would afford the consumer the possibility of altering the aspect ratio to suit what they are watching? If this is the case then they would be one up on Apple. I sincerely hope not...
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).
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I am suffering from inner conflict, I as an Apple person hate Scamsung but really want to get one of their fridges
Simple solution: You go find the fridge from which Samsung stole their design and buy that instead.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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 only read one! Every day is the most enjoyable day.
Samsung are a bit more than that. They are huge (biggest company in South Korea I believe) and they make pretty decent stuff. My fridge, microwave and PC monitor are all Sammy and never had any problems with them.
I think the reason they copied the iPad was some kind of cultural difference which meant they didn't see anything wrong with it, but now that they have been successfully sued, I'm sure if they try to innovate they will be successful.
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.
Simple solution: You go find the fridge from which Samsung stole their design and buy that instead.
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!
But not "unprecedented". Gotta hold 'em to their own words. They'll never learn otherwise.
Now 4Kx4K would be unprecedented and a new shape. Stupid, but unprecedented.
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.
Probably glass top, no bezel and all the engine in a sound like bar at the bottom.
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.
Not found anything quite like their [ refrigerator ] 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 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.
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.
Unless there is a toggle on / off for the transparency in which case there maybe some applications for such technology.
The unprecedented new shape will be a trapezoid with the top wider than the bottom. The government will demand it be adopted, and Faux Newz commentators will champion it because it will make their heads look bigger.
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.
Thanks. I might have to do that just so I can be hip to what the kids are all jiggy about. Dy-no-mite!
but 2.4:1 is a poor AR for anything other than 'Scope movies, and not all movies are 'Scope. There is nothing native for it, or even a hint of anyone supporting it natively. 16:9 is a very reasonable catch-all AR for many video formats, I don't see any reason to move away from it.
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.
I am suffering from inner conflict, I as an Apple person hate Scamsung but really want to get one of their fridges
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.
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.
Unless there is a toggle on / off for the transparency in which case there maybe some applications for such technology.
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 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 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.
Comments
I am suffering from inner conflict, I as an Apple person hate Scamsung but really want to get one of their fridges
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.
Originally Posted by gresh28
So they had to come all the way to Australia to discover how to make a different shaped tv.
"The logo… is on the TOP!"
Originally Posted by Marc Rogoff
I suspect that the "New Shape" is in fact the flexible screen tech they recently showed as a prototype. This would afford the consumer the possibility of altering the aspect ratio to suit what they are watching? If this is the case then they would be one up on Apple. I sincerely hope not...
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).
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I am suffering from inner conflict, I as an Apple person hate Scamsung but really want to get one of their fridges
Simple solution: You go find the fridge from which Samsung stole their design and buy that instead.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
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 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!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
But not "unprecedented". Gotta hold 'em to their own words. They'll never learn otherwise.
Now 4Kx4K would be unprecedented and a new shape. Stupid, but unprecedented.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Big Ginger
It will be something using this technology:
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/43951/samsung-transparent-smart-windows-display
Probably glass top, no bezel and all the engine in a sound like bar at the bottom.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Not found anything quite like their [ refrigerator ] 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 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.
The unprecedented new shape will be a trapezoid with the top wider than the bottom. The government will demand it be adopted, and Faux Newz commentators will champion it because it will make their heads look bigger.
Thanks. I might have to do that just so I can be hip to what the kids are all jiggy about. Dy-no-mite!
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
but 2.4:1 is a poor AR for anything other than 'Scope movies, and not all movies are 'Scope. There is nothing native for it, or even a hint of anyone supporting it natively. 16:9 is a very reasonable catch-all AR for many video formats, I don't see any reason to move away from it.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
I am suffering from inner conflict, I as an Apple person hate Scamsung but really want to get one of their fridges
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips
Unless there is a toggle on / off for the transparency in which case there maybe some applications for such technology.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb
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 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.
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.