Mystery Samsung device revealed with ultra-contoured display

Yesterday, large chunks of the interwebs were sucked into a whirlwind of excitement as tech blogger and Samsung aficionado Eldar Murtazin tweeted what he claimed was a leaked press image showing a new Samsung handset. Eldar’s pic was actually a fake – and not a particularly good one either, as Android Community pointed out – but he maintains that his image still looks like an actual upcoming device.  

Another day, another Samsung device leak - but these new images aren't from Eldar, and they appear to depict a very different class of Samsung handset to what we've seen so far. While there’s nothing to corroborate the authenticity of these images yet (the terrible image quality doesn’t exactly help), there’s no denying that they look rather interesting.

The device clearly carries Samsung branding, but beyond that the images raise more questions than they answer. The site that’s got hold of the photos, XDA.cn, suggests that this might be the new Galaxy S III, but the three large media-control hardware buttons below the screen (note the play/pause button in the centre) may indicate that this is a new dedicated media player device rather than a new phone; your guess is as good as ours as to whether or not that heavily contoured screen would benefit video playback.

 

A third image shows off the curvaceous shape of the handset more obviously, but the detail is a lot fuzzier. There also appears to have been some effort made to remove some text – possibly a watermark – from across the centre of the image here, possibly including the word ‘Software’ (it’s very difficult to clearly identify on such a low-resolution image).


Note: the red ring was added by XDA.cn to highlight the Samsung branding on the device.

Could this be the Galaxy S III? Or is it a new Samsung media player showcasing innovative display technologies? Could it just be an engineering prototype? Or is it just another fake? And would you even want a device that’s so unusually shaped? Let us know your thoughts on this mystery device below.

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

European group asks Google to pause new privacy policies

Next Story

Anonymous claims it hacked into FBI conference call

32 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

the device may be curved. but the lcd display is clearly flat. what's the freaking point other than to fool simple minded buyers.

The top half looks like its from the 21st century
The bottom half looks like its from the 20th century
The overall design looks like it was molded by a guy with parkinsons.

Overall, unimpressed

Those buttons are just hideous. In the age of touch screens a dedicated play button is completely unnecessary. It's possible they stuffed an lcd panel under the button though.

giantpotato said,
Those buttons are just hideous. In the age of touch screens a dedicated play button is completely unnecessary. It's possible they stuffed an lcd panel under the button though.

I prefer dedicated buttons. I can "feel" for them w/o having to look at the device.

I'm guessing the device can be bended 180 degrees to pack it together, and then put it into your pocket as Zain suggested. Or else the curve would just be retarded. Flexible thin OLED screens have already been invented by Sony (and possibly others).

Zain Adeel said,
the bends are very weird.
If the whole device is flexible then thats something awesome!!!!!

Yeah, these bends are ridiculous. If you want to watch a movie, you would have to straightened the bends first, and keep the device still.

FMH said,

Yeah, these bends are ridiculous. If you want to watch a movie, you would have to straightened the bends first, and keep the device still.

It is very, very weird. I guess we'll just have to wait and see. I don't think I'd want a device like this though...

That would be such an annoyance to use that touchscreen. Though it if creates some sort of crazy 3D perspective, then that's pretty neat.

Astra.Xtreme said,
That would be such an annoyance to use that touchscreen. Though it if creates some sort of crazy 3D perspective, then that's pretty neat.

How do you know it would be an annoyance? Have you ever used a curved touchscreen display before?

neufuse said,
in before the first "why are leaks always blurry with todays high resolution cameras" comment......

It's a requirement of a "leak"

neufuse said,
in before the first "why are leaks always blurry with todays high resolution cameras" comment......

If you knew anything about cameras, you'd know that "blurriness" has nothing to do with resolution. It has everything to do with with the amount of light available, shutter speed used, sensor/film sensitivity, and most importantly, how steady the camera platform is. Having a 50 MP digital back on a medium format body won't make a sharp photo if you've got a 2 second shutter speed and you're swinging the body around on a rope while taking a photo.

Now if the image was just super pixelated, you're question would be valid.

SirEvan said,

If you knew anything about cameras...

He didn't make any claims about cameras. Only commented on what others complain about.

Memnochxx said,

He didn't make any claims about cameras. Only commented on what others complain about.

True. I concede.

SirEvan said,

If you knew anything about cameras, you'd know that "blurriness" has nothing to do with resolution. It has everything to do with with the amount of light available, shutter speed used, sensor/film sensitivity, and most importantly, how steady the camera platform is. Having a 50 MP digital back on a medium format body won't make a sharp photo if you've got a 2 second shutter speed and you're swinging the body around on a rope while taking a photo.

Now if the image was just super pixelated, you're question would be valid.

*hits head on desk* I wasn't saying that is what I would say, I was saying thats what everyone else says... it wasn't a question it was a sarcastic comment... I've been doing photography for many years know I know all about CMOS and CCD sensors and how they work..... if you read what I said and thought about it, you wouldn't have a reason to try to mock me when I was mocking others who do say that

and more then anything they probably took the pictures from a slight distance, and enlarged them which caused a good bit of the blurryness due to the pixel smoothing to make them semi viewable on screen... ontop of light issues, possible bad quality lense, etc, etc

SirEvan said,

If you knew anything about cameras, you'd know that "blurriness" has nothing to do with resolution. It has everything to do with with the amount of light available, shutter speed used, sensor/film sensitivity, and most importantly, how steady the camera platform is. Having a 50 MP digital back on a medium format body won't make a sharp photo if you've got a 2 second shutter speed and you're swinging the body around on a rope while taking a photo.

Now if the image was just super pixelated, you're question would be valid.

Like it matters. Any camera should be capable of taking a better photo than any of these is the clear light that is available in the shot.

Switch any camera to auto, and a clear shot would have been taken of that phone.

And yes. I know / do photography too.

SirEvan said,

If you knew anything about cameras, you'd know that "blurriness" has nothing to do with resolution. It has everything to do with with the amount of light available, shutter speed used, sensor/film sensitivity, and most importantly, how steady the camera platform is. Having a 50 MP digital back on a medium format body won't make a sharp photo if you've got a 2 second shutter speed and you're swinging the body around on a rope while taking a photo.

Now if the image was just super pixelated, you're question would be valid.

dude my mom (who is tech illiterate.. and sometimes can't find the power button when we get a new camera) can take better pictures than that. I think I've said enough.

Nashy said,

Switch any camera to auto, and a clear shot would have been taken of that phone.

And yes. I know / do photography too.

Now it's time for me to bang my head on a desk. So, just putting a camera on auto makes it take a good picture? gonna try that next time theres barely any light outside and I'm pointing my camera out a moving vehicle. Auto will save me!

neufuse said,

*hits head on desk* I wasn't saying that is what I would say, I was saying thats what everyone else says... it wasn't a question it was a sarcastic comment... I've been doing photography for many years know I know all about CMOS and CCD sensors and how they work..... if you read what I said and thought about it, you wouldn't have a reason to try to mock me when I was mocking others who do say that

and more then anything they probably took the pictures from a slight distance, and enlarged them which caused a good bit of the blurryness due to the pixel smoothing to make them semi viewable on screen... ontop of light issues, possible bad quality lense, etc, etc

did you read my reply? My comment wasn't trying to make you look bad, it was mearly pointing out that your comment didn't really make sense, seeing as how resolution has next to nothing to do with blur. it'd be the same if someone came in here and said "my IPhone take clearer photos than that"...doesn't really make much sense..

SirEvan said,

Now it's time for me to bang my head on a desk. So, just putting a camera on auto makes it take a good picture? gonna try that next time theres barely any light outside and I'm pointing my camera out a moving vehicle. Auto will save me!

Wait, you're a photographer? Because what you just said is completely stupid. You are comparing taking a photo in low light from a moving car, compared to taking a low light photo of an object right in front of the camera lens.

You know as well as I, that with the amount of light shown in that photo, there is enough to get a decent one of better quality.

How many cameras now days are available without a flash?

If this person has a prototype model of an unreleased Samsung device, I assume they're going to have a decent phone, which comes with a flash.

Auto would have taken a good photo of this object, no matter how much the photographers of Neowin disagree.

So yes. Putting the camera into Auto would have done a few things.

1. Half Trigger - Lit the object for focus
2. Full Trigger - Used the flash, and put the shutter and aperture to the optimal settings. Which of course, with a flash, means a fast shutter speed, to reduce blur, since that's the aim of auto.

Not to mention there is clearly enough light in those photos to get a decent photo, you can even see the reflection of light on the devices screen.

So continue to bang your head on the desk. I'm wondering if maybe you're just not a good photographer, but think you are?

Don't take that personally, but these shots, should have been clear and crisp. There is no reason otherwise.

Just like UFO's really.

Nashy said,

Wait, you're a photographer? Because what you just said is completely stupid. You are comparing taking a photo in low light from a moving car, compared to taking a low light photo of an object right in front of the camera lens.

You know as well as I, that with the amount of light shown in that photo, there is enough to get a decent one of better quality.

How many cameras now days are available without a flash?

If this person has a prototype model of an unreleased Samsung device, I assume they're going to have a decent phone, which comes with a flash.

Auto would have taken a good photo of this object, no matter how much the photographers of Neowin disagree.

So yes. Putting the camera into Auto would have done a few things.

1. Half Trigger - Lit the object for focus
2. Full Trigger - Used the flash, and put the shutter and aperture to the optimal settings. Which of course, with a flash, means a fast shutter speed, to reduce blur, since that's the aim of auto.

Not to mention there is clearly enough light in those photos to get a decent photo, you can even see the reflection of light on the devices screen.

So continue to bang your head on the desk. I'm wondering if maybe you're just not a good photographer, but think you are?

Don't take that personally, but these shots, should have been clear and crisp. There is no reason otherwise.

Just like UFO's really.

Dude you got it all wrong. He's only saying the res wouldn't make the pics blurry. You sound offensive.

onionjuice said,

Dude you got it all wrong. He's only saying the res wouldn't make the pics blurry. You sound offensive.

The first picture should be enough to say that the photographer was not standing far away from the device.

My point stands. There is no reason why these photos aren't clear.

I don't mean to come across offensive, so I apologise to anyone who does take it like that. When I'm at work replying, I don't have as much time to check what tone my messages come across in.