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)."
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
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'.
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.
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