Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

2.2 inch LCD Display featuring VGA Resolution

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the my-cel-phone-is-still-black-and-white dept.

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)."

9 of 320 comments (clear)

  1. Scalable UI by TimmyDee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I can see this being beneficial for pictures, video, and the like, but not UI elements. Phone OSes are going to need to build in scalable UIs and offer tools for their developers to do the same or we won't be able to use the things.

    --
    Per Square Mile, a blog about density
  2. At what point is DPI irrelevant by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That is, when does the average human eye stop distinguishing them as seperate points?

    I can tell 300 DPI from 600 DPI on a printout, but above that it looks about the same to me.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:At what point is DPI irrelevant by WillAdams · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.
  3. what i want... by here4fun · · Score: 5, Interesting
    So we could very soon see 2.2 inch Mobile phones with VGA resolution. See the photo where a full Windows browser is shown on 2.2 inch.

    While this is nice, what I really want is a better battery, better camera (can we get 2mp on a cell phone?), and more storage memory (how about a card slot?). I doubt anyone will run windows or play doom on their cell phone. But people might want to play mp3's, take pictures, or browse the web and check email.

    --

    Come and say hi. http://forum.penpals.com/index.php

  4. Re:This just sounds a bit excessive by GlassHeart · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Putting that res in a screen that small seems pretty pointless.

    You have something against sharper text and graphics? We're talking about a 300 ppi display, which matches the resolution of first-generation laser printers. Text will be readable at as little as 6 points (nearly 25 pixels!), and a web page just might be displayed decently.

    What's the downside?

  5. Re:This just sounds a bit excessive by Carnildo · · Score: 5, Funny

    What's the downside?

    You'll need a magnifying glass to read it?

    --
    "They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
  6. Re:Application? by clevelandguru · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Virtual Reality Head Mounted Displays.

  7. How about HMD's? by mhackarbie · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Sounds like this would be perfect for making Head Mounted Displays, so we can finally get some decent low cost Virtual Reality and/or 3D display hardware. Any reason why that wouldn't work?

    I know that the most sophisticated VR also requires complicated head position tracking hardware, which apparently is quite difficult to get right. Existing implementations often cause nausea and vertigo in some people.

    However, a nice, crisp 3D display with mouse-driven movement of the scene should be a perfectly acceptable low-cost alternative. You would have to strap it on your head and you would look like some kind of wired-up bug freak, but what's wrong with that?

    I sure as heck could use it in my molecular modelling work.

    mhack

    --
    Building a better ribosome since 1997
  8. Re:This just sounds a bit excessive by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Funny

    Give up, it just ain't worth it. ;->