|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Comments on ‘Samsung to mass-produce 14in OLED TVs in 2010’Friday 26th October 2007 10:03 GMT problems with blue and green??Anonymous Coward • Friday 26th October 2007 10:40 GMT
Im still yet to see any power figures.. are they greener than LCD & Plasma, should we buy them? & encourage developement (dispite the blue shortlife), or reject this new tech? damn, no further questions icon... (despite 4; happy,love it proceed, iFan, and 4; hate it, iHate, unhappy, and stop it, icons!!) Not even SDdruck • Friday 26th October 2007 10:47 GMT
"not-quite-HD 940 x 540" You mean not even SD, given that PAL is 576 line. Do I detect a tongue-in-cheek?Alan Jenney • Friday 26th October 2007 11:20 GMT
"Not-quite-HD" at 540 lines? Do I detect a certain amount of tongue-in-cheek here? That's much less than many five-year-old LCD panels had. Mind you, the industry managed to sell millions of "HD-ready" panels over a couple of years that were 1366x768 or similar, knowing full-well that the HD standards were heading for 1080 lines. Now we're being convinced to buy "True HD" for a couple of years before the OLED version turns up. Can't waitFilippo Negroni • Friday 26th October 2007 11:40 GMT
Being the owner of probably the only digital camera with OLED display (Kodak LS633), I can vouch for the merits of such technology. I just hope they can solve the "ghosting" issues that it suffers from (more so than LCD and Plasma). 14" not until 2010?evilbobthebob • Friday 26th October 2007 13:43 GMT
A case of nice contrast, shame about the resolution Actually there is a way .....A J Stiles • Friday 26th October 2007 13:58 GMT
"Inch" is now officially a slang term without a legally-binding definition. It would be entirely legal to mark up a TV set with a 27cm. screen as "54 inches", as long as you mentioned somewhere in the sales literature the actual screen size (i.e. in some fraction of a metre). A friend of mine took her employer to court because they claimed her shoes breached the company dress code (which stated that heels should have a maximum height of three inches). She claimed that using a definition of 1 inch = 40mm., her shoes (with a heel height of 110mm.) fell within the code, and the court found for her. The company rulebook was reprinted the same afternoon. @ A J stilesGraham Dawson • Friday 26th October 2007 15:52 GMT
I'm afraid to say that court made a very bad and easilly appealable decision. An inch - like every other imperial measure - has an actual, legal definition in SI units and can't be arbitrarily re-defined to suit the whims of the moment. The period for commenting on this story has finished |
Review of the WeekiRiver Lplayer
Most Wanted TV
Data from Pricegrabber Review FinderAccessories
Price FinderTop Stories
Channels
On Other Register sites…
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||