Slashdot Mirror
2.2 inch LCD Display featuring VGA Resolution
i4u writes "Casio announces a LCD display with the world's highest resolution.
The 2.2 inch LCD display features VGA resolution. The Casio innovation has 368ppi (pixels per inch). The power consumption and size is the same as with current QVGA (320x240) displays. Meaning current mobile phone models could directly be upgraded with a VGA display. So we could very soon see Mobile phones with VGA resolution on 2.2 inch displays.
Samsung had the World's highest resolution with 300ppi in early August. Casio took now the lead.
More details in Casio Press-Release (Japanese)."
so now we get resolution comparable to print
I had forgotten, but LCD projectors actually use smaller panels.
XGA panels can be had in the 0.7" to 1.3" range. I'd direct you to projectorcentral.com, but it seems to be down now.
The problem here is that with a projector, each color has its own monochrome panel and is marged using a prism.
it says it has the same current draw as QVGA but this one is full VGA.
You can also find out for yourself by doing some simple math: if this is approximately 2.2 inches with a 4:3 ratio it means it's going to be approx. 1.76in wide and 1.32in tall, which means that it has an area of around 2.3 square inches, which means that (at 368ppi, 135424 pixels per square inch) it would have 311475 pixels, which confirms full-VGA resolution (640x480 = 307200) due to probable slight measurement differences (I don't think it's going to be *exactly* 368ppi).
-- the cake is a lie
So, can we use this to FINALLY get a quasi-reasonable head-mounted displays?
I've always thought that one of the two reasons that wearables haven't really hit the mainstream was that the HMD's seemed to come with some weirdass resolution like 312 x 214 or some such nonsense. Aside from the obvious input issues, wearables are stunted by the number of freaky custom parts. HMD's with 15pin cables, let's go!
Actually, LCD is one of those weird acronyms. It can either stand for:
Liquid Crystal Display
-or-
Liquiod Crystal Diode
Because of this "LCD Display" can actually be a valid usage.
Big apple, new Yorik, undig it, something's unrotting in Edenmark.
A point is generally defined as 1/72 of an inch, and does not vary with display resolution. Thus, on a 96 dpi screen, 6 pt text is defined by about 8 pixels. On a 300 dpi screen, the same text can use about 25 pixels to define the glyph. The text itself stays the same size.
As for icons and graphics, they can be redrawn to better suit the display size. Compared to the other expenses involved in building a cell phone, redrawing 100 icons is not really a very big one.
However, a nice, crisp 3D display with mouse-driven movement of the scene should be a perfectly acceptable low-cost alternative.
IIRC, the nausea and vertigo were caused by the time lag between head movement and the corresponding changes in the displayed images, not by the image not being 'crisp'.
B.t.w., the LCD is one of the most expensive parts in modern cellular phones - I doubt if a headmounted gear with two LCD's would be 'cheap'.
The DPI of a monochrome laser printer does indeed mean the same thing as the DPI/PPI (pixels per inch) of a monitor.
They can not be directly compared when it comes to color printers and their need to mix multiple ink dots to represent most colors.
That is, when does the average human eye stop distinguishing them as seperate points?
In the advertising business we use 400 dpi as the standard. I can still see pixels but it takes a trained eye.
No sig for you. YOU GET NO SIG!
Actually, 300dpi is quite clunky for text, and a number of fonts _cannot_ be adequately represented by it (e.g., Optima or Eras --- Adobe even went to the effort of including two different outlines (one low-res, one high res) for early versions of these until hinting algorithms improved).
~360--400dpi is a watershed value and around there text, even with fairly subtle details starts to look right (Interestingly the NeXTLaserprinter could print in 300 or 400 dpi, and one can _really_ see the difference (says the guy who forgt to change the value once before running out resumes and had to reprint a set 'cause they looked bad).
600dpi is ``good enough'' for most things (and is approaching the ability of office paper to hold a dot faithfully)
At 1200 dpi, things are quite nice, but the human ability to create / render type actually approaches that of a 2540 dpi imagesetter --- see Fred Smeijers' book _Counterpunch_ for technical data and microphotography for details. F.W. Goudy often claimed to be able to distinguish by touch dimensions of ~one one-thousandth of an inch.
William
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Whether or not you can distinguishing between indiviudal dots isn't directly related to DPI, but to angular resolution. Read the Wikipedia article if you want to know more about angular reolution.
Basically, whether or not you can distinguishing between indiviudal dots is related to the combination of DPI plus the distance between image and your eye.
No, Mac OS X does not have scalable icons. The icons are bitmaps that are designed to look good when resampled. This comes up in every damn graphics thread.
BZZZT wrong.
Icon services in Mac OS/X up to 10.3 (Panther) support icons up to 128x128 pixels in size. The scaling algorithms are fast and dynamic, scaling between the large size icon and the smaller size icons as needed (this is why very small icon sizes still look good in OS X.
OS X 10.4 (Tiger) is supposed to include very robust support for DPI-independent rendering, greatly increasing the usability of high-resolution, high-ppi displays on the platform. As a result, the 128x128 icon limit seemed kind of small, so Tiger increases it to 256x256 pixels; however they are still raster images.
There are indeed advantages to using either approach for icons. Any robust vector format pretty much has to support embedded raster images anyway, thus a robust raster scaling algorithm in the renderer is necessary anyway. Leaving out all the vector stuff makes the code simpler, faster, and smaller with the only major disadvantage being that scaling icons beyond the 128x128 (256x256) is not going to result in really nice and crisp icons. The only time OS X overscales the icons is double clicking a launchable item, but the blurring effect is unnoticeable due to the alpha fade and quick animation.
The number for contrast has no dimension.
It is the light intensity ratio between the brightest white and the darkest black the display can reproduce.
It should have been be written as 450:1
Not to be too picky, but the phrase "LCD display" is redundant. As we are all aware of, the 'D' in LCD already means display, so there is no need to specify that it is a display. This is something which has bothered my for years, but I digress.
My Sharp Zaurus SL-C860 features a 3.7" VGA display. The text is amazingly sharp- though it might be hard to read because everything is so small (I believe the pixel density is around 216 pixel/inch). This new screen is nearly one-third the area of the Zaurus', yet features the same resolution. Just a few years back, we were all drooling over this IBM Roentgen display, with its 200ppi (in this article). Can't wait to see one in my next cell phone, complete with a fresnel lens so I can read the text!
--- At my sig, unleash hell.