Slashdot Mirror


Pixel Qi Says Next-Gen Displays Meet or Beat iPad 3 Screen Quality

New submitter seb42 writes "Pixel Qi announces new screens that can match or exceed the image quality of the screen in the iPad3, with a very low power mode that runs at a full 100X power reduction from the peak power consumed by the iPad3 screen. Hope the Google tablet has this tech." The claims are pretty bold, and specific: "We have a new architecture that matches the resolution of the ipad3 screen, and its full image quality including matching or exceeding contrast, color saturation, the viewing angle and so forth with massive power savings."

157 comments

  1. Problems...? by Joce640k · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What's their refresh rate? Is the 100x power saving only in direct sunlight with the backlight turned off?

    --
    No sig today...
    1. Re:Problems...? by poly_pusher · · Score: 2

      If they made a screen which had the qualities mentioned in the article and was also able to be backlit or reflective for outdoor use this would be an even bigger deal.

    2. Re:Problems...? by firex726 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Yea, I hear all this bitching about battery life, but mine lasts for ages; I just have to leave it turned off.

    3. Re:Problems...? by poly_pusher · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Well crap, it looks like that's what they may be claiming to have done. The graph shows lower power usage in outdoor environments compared with indoor. My understanding is that creating a display which can reflect light in bright environments or be backlit in darker environments was a very big problem. Maybe that's what they have figured out.

    4. Re:Problems...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, except for having ridiculous (and I mean that in a good way) pixel density, that's exactly what Pixel Qi displays to date have all been about -- with one caveat.

      The problem, with a conventional LCD, is the color filters -- each one blocks out perhaps 70% of white light (you can block more for better gamut, less for worse gamut, but reduced light consumption). That means you get, at best, 30% albedo for your display in a white state, and that assumes your filter doesn't cost any extra on the second pass (a theoretical brickwall filter) -- real filters will lose some. So, ditch the color filters and win, but this makes your display black-and-white. Pixel Qi gets best-of-both-worlds capabilities by generating colors in the backlight (using a diffraction grating), allowing low-res (since you need multiple subpixels to make one pixel) backlit color display, or high-res (1 subpixel = 1 pixel) reflective grayscale display. That's the catch -- of course, with a powerful enough backlight, you can still make the colors shine through in daylight (though they will be washed out by the reflective light, reducing saturation), but then you don't get the power savings.

    5. Re:Problems...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA

      http://pixelqi.com/blog1/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/nextgen_pixelqi_display.jpg

    6. Re:Problems...? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They are readable under normal (indoor) light. That's the way screens should be, like looking at colour magazine or book.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    7. Re:Problems...? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, just amazing, someone is able to come out with some new technology. I just can't believe it, its like amazing, almost like magic, as though no one ever comes out with new technology. I mean, like the iPad 3 hasn't even been released, oh wait it was released a month ago and probably designed about 6+ months ago. Good grief...not sure why someone coming out with some type of new technology is such a surprise...

    8. Re:Problems...? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      The "100X power reduction" line makes no sense. 1 power reduction means no power. 100X means it's making 99X power. I know that they mean either 100% power reduction or 0.01% power usage, but c'mon, just say that.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    9. Re:Problems...? by omfgnosis · · Score: 1

      Expressing relative figures compared to current is always problematic. "100% power reduction" is even more problematic. "100% power reduction" also means no power.

      This comment is 350% more efficient.

    10. Re:Problems...? by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I bought 2dB of potatoes today!

    11. Re:Problems...? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      I'm trying to decide if your comment or jones_supa's below is funnier. Bravo to both of you!

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
    12. Re:Problems...? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      This made me chuckle. Well done.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  2. it's even better than that. by ne0n · · Score: 0

    Comes with full cold fusion blueprints too IIRC.

    --
    $ :(){ :|:& };:
  3. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  4. If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative by rolfwind · · Score: 3, Interesting

    exclusivity contract with Apple for the iPad/iPhone.

    Get some nice margins in before it becomes just another commodity component on the electronic marketplace.

    1. Re:If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      I'd be fine with this. Let the Macheads subsidize the future for the rest of us.

      If the technology makes Pixel a butt-ton of money (but we have to wait a few years to get it in other devices), so much the better in my book. Just the fact that "Apple uses it" will create an insane demand for it to be in everything with a screen.

    2. Re:If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the fuck would they do that??? I'd rather become the supplier of 10 laptop companies than signing only one.

    3. Re:If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative by am+2k · · Score: 1

      Why the fuck would they do that???

      More volume & money than the other 10 combined?

    4. Re:If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Apple is outselling everyone in the tablet market, but in the (much bigger) laptop market they're still only at around 10%.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    5. Re:If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You think Apple pays high margins for their components?!? Hilarious. They negotiate for the lowest possible margins and pass the savings on to Steve Jobs^w^w their bank account. Although I'll give Tim some credit: finally returning value to shareholders was long overdue.

  5. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The original screens were in no way vaporware. I have three and love them all. (No, the picture quality is not on par with a normal screen, but the power savings and daylight use far far far outweigh that (minor) drawback.)

  6. Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they're so good, why isn't Apple buying from them?

    1. Re:Why? by isdnip · · Score: 3, Informative

      Apple isn't using them because a) they're not out yet, b) they aren't mass-produced the way Apple needs them, and c) Apple has volume contracts for screens with its great friend Samsung.

      (Yes, the irony is real -- they are suing Samsung while simultaneously buying tons from them.)

    2. Re:Why? by toriver · · Score: 2

      Screen-maker-Samsung is not the same company as cellphone-maker-Samsung though they have the same owner.

    3. Re:Why? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      There are two other important reasons. Although the image quality is similar in terms of resolution and even colour the Pixel Qi screens are not glossy and ultra-bright like Samsung's are, so they don't fit with the Apple gleaming-white-shiny look. Actually most manufacturers prefer to have their screens set to brightness level 11 and glossy, but I'm sure someone will be willing to give the Pixel Qi panel a try.

      The other reason is that the OS would need some modification to deal with the different requirements of this screen. I have no idea how easily iOS could do that.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    4. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh, that makes them the same company.

    5. Re:Why? by gstrickler · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not glossy is a huge advantage if you ask me. I HATE glossy screens. Sure, they're sharp, but the reflections are annoying. In side-by-side comparisons at an Apple Store with glossy and non-glare screens, I found I can set the brightness lower on the non-glare screen, the glossy has to be brighter to overcome the reflections. So, that makes the non-glare not only visually preferable, but lower power in practice.

      And, as someone with sensitive eyes, I don't want a screen at 500nits. 300+ is handy in bright sunlight, but indoors, my screen is usually around 150nits daytime, 60-80 nits nighttime. And with a good AR coating, you don't need extreme brightness even in sunlight.

      So, while I have yet to see a Pixel Qi screen in person, I am very much looking forward to seeing their technology.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    6. Re:Why? by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      eehhh NO... From a jurisdiction point of view, no. Let's say that I own corporation A, and corporation A has a controlling stake in corporation B. Then A is entitled to all of its profits, but not its liabilities since corporation B is its own legal entity. Let's twist this even further shall we...

      Let's say corporation A, owns controlling stakes in both B and C. Along comes a company and sues C, but buys from B. Since each of these corporations are independent, and B or C have zero legal ties to each other then suing C and buying from B is in fact two separate corporations...

      Welcome to the world of conglomerates!

      THUS... they are not the same company.

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    7. Re:Why? by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      glossy is nice if you're in a totally dark room wearing a gimp suit, otherwise it's crap.

      and from what I gather from pixel qi is that it's not exactly just the resolution of their screens they need to get up, but production lines and affordability, same thing with mirasol. nice tech but so what if it's not on the screens I could buy.

      a perfect screen when it's black would eat up all the light that goes to it.. that's sort of obvious. I find that even matte(marketed as such, and definitely not as glossy as tv's which are really glossy) tv's reflect too much(sure the reflection is smudged, but it still reflects somewhat, noticiable with bright lights in the room).

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    8. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And d) their web site is so ugly that Apple blocks it at the firewall.

    9. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having worked with e Pixel Qi screen (on the XO-1) I would love to have a iPad sized (and res) screen like that to play with outside

    10. Re:Why? by Desler · · Score: 1

      No, it doesn't. That's not how huge multinational conglomerates work. They are basically semi-autonomous companies under an umbrella company but they most likely interact very indirectly at best. This is why it's also silly to try to conflate Sony BMI with the division that makes Playstations when they are very far removed from each other.

    11. Re:Why? by Shoten · · Score: 3, Informative

      Look for "Samsung" on the stock exchange. No, not NYSE or NASDAQ; they are only traded in Korea. And there's only one of them on KOSPI (the Korean stock exchange), under the identifier "005930". The rest is all wholly owned subsidiaries, all of whom belong entirely to the same master corporation and report to the same single CEO and Board of Directors. It's one company. All major multinational corporations work this way, and a lot of smaller ones do too. For example, most power companies work like this...there'll be a company that handles fossil-based (aka, coal oil and gas) power generation, another for nuclear generation (if applicable), another still for transmission and distribution...but they all roll up under the main organization.

      --

      For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
    12. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's especially not how Korean companies work. They take "huge multinational" to a ridiculous level. Each of the major Korean companies has their fingers in hundreds of different pies, including their government's.

    13. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm with you on the brightness. I like my monitors areound 90-100 nits. It's getting harder to find monitors that will go that dim now while still having decent color.

    14. Re:Why? by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Funny, I actually love glossy screens. They provide better contrast ratios and color depth. So crisp and clean. But that's ok, I know other people that hate them too. It all comes down to personal preference. Though it would be interesting to see the breakdown of that on the next slashdot poll.

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    15. Re:Why? by gstrickler · · Score: 2

      Actually, they don't have better contrast, or color depth, or gamut. What they do have is greater color saturation, sharper edges, and often higher brightness. They're also notorious for greater delta-E (color accuracy). The "sharper edges" isn't a major advantage. What most grabs people's attention about them is the higher brightness and greater saturation. It's like the difference between Kodak and Fuji film, Kodak was more realistic and "natural", but many people preferred the over-saturated colors of Fuji film. Higher brightness is an attention getter, but it can be an advantage or a disadvantage.

      I also hate finger prints on my screen, and glossy screens make those more obvious.

      However, after spending some time on a MBP with a glossy screen, I think I could tolerate it, but I definitely prefer an AR or matte screen. Glossy screens and dark/black backgrounds are not a good combination, but if you use bright backgrounds, they're not as bad. The only bad scenario for a matte screen is very bright ambient (e.g. sunlight) directly hitting the screen. If you can turn so the light must reflect off a non-mirrored surface, the matte screen will be great. True AR coatings are superior to frosted "matte" surfaces. They're somewhat more expensive, but they're the best option overall.

      --
      make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    16. Re:Why? by maccodemonkey · · Score: 2

      Glass is required for the digitizer in current capacitive touch screens.

      So like it or not, you're getting a glossy glass covered screen in a tablet (which this display is intended for it seems.)

    17. Re:Why? by toriver · · Score: 1

      No. E.g. in order to make the various companies competitive, the cellphone-maker-Samsung does not get any preferential treatment from screen-maker-Samsung, but competes for the production on the same "level" as e.g. Apple. Likewise, screen-maker-Samsung does not automatically get the business of cellphone-maker-Samsung which can go to Sharp or whomever if they so desire.

      They are both fully owned by an umbrella corporation, though. But I assume they keep the company boards separate to avoid insider knowledge from spreading.

    18. Re:Why? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Not glossy is a huge advantage if you ask me.

      Unfortunately, it's only an advantage to the person buying the screen, not the person selling it. There was an article on Slashdot a few years ago with a test in a shop with glossy and non-glossy screens on otherwise identical laptops. The glossy one outsold the matte one about 2:1, yet when interviewed a month later the people buying the matte one were all happier with their purchase. In a bright shop environment, the glossy screens look better, it's only in normal use where they're worse. This is especially relevant for a company like Apple that sells a lot of computers and tablets based on demo units in stores...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:Why? by ToasterMonkey · · Score: 1

      (Yes, the irony is real -- they are suing Samsung while simultaneously buying tons from them.)

      How the heck is THAT irony?

      I mean you don't call it ironic when someone sleeps with their ex do you, and that arrangement is a lot more black and white than the relations between huge companies.

    20. Re:Why? by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      There are ways to get glass to be non-reflective too.
      Personally, I've got matte screen protector films on my Ipad and Iphone instead. Makes the screens much, much more enjoyable.
      The biggest problem it that, since the diffusing layer is so far from the actual screen due to the thickness of the digitizer/glass in front of the screen, it gets a bit "sparkly" and fuzzy.
      A small price to pay to get a matte screen though...
      If there was a good smartphone or tablet on the market with a matte screen as standard, I would switch the same day it was released.

      At work I got rid of my 27" Imac and switched to a HP desktop with two matte 21.5" IPS-screens instead, just to get rid of the horrible reflective screen.
      Looked into getting a 27" matte film to put on the screen first, but they where ridiculously expensive and the "sparkle"-effect is apparently really bad with those.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
    21. Re:Why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What are the names of these independent companies then? Oh, they're all just "Samsung" and you're a fucking moron.

  7. Yay future by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    So... something that's not out yet is better than something that is? Shocking.

  8. Translation Required by NicknamesAreStupid · · Score: 0

    '100X' is blog-talk for 0100, 0o04, 4, or 0x04.

    1. Re:Translation Required by Savantissimo · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      1997.

      --
      "Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?" - Patrick Henry
  9. What about desktop screens? by Lord+Lode · · Score: 3

    /me wants 24" or smaller desktop screen with 2048*1536 pixels or more.

    1. Re:What about desktop screens? by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why they don't already have these, the technology exists for pixel density that high. Just make a 4x1080p monitor that has 4 inputs. Everyone with the Nvidia/ATI multiscreen setups will gobble them up.

    2. Re:What about desktop screens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      They did it once.

      Sorta.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors

    3. Re:What about desktop screens? by zippthorne · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Digital TV happened. Now monitors and TVs come off the same assembly lines, and 1080p is "good enough" for most people buying screens (that's High Def, right, so that's the best!)

      On the plus side, it means that you can get a decent computer monitor for under $200. On the downside, better monitors have become a niche product, and there seems to be positive feedback - the price difference pushes more people to the "standard" models, further nichifying the high resolution models, increasing the price gap...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    4. Re:What about desktop screens? by jpapon · · Score: 2

      Or just get the Dell 27", it's a great display. 2560x1440 is nice, and the brightness and viewing angle are amazing. The only problem I have with it is that it consumes way too much power. The thing keeps my hands warm in winter...

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    5. Re:What about desktop screens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, do you live under a rock? They have and do, for years even.

    6. Re:What about desktop screens? by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      Ok let's rephrase this. How about these screens at affordable prices?

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    7. Re:What about desktop screens? by gwking · · Score: 1

      I think he lives under the rock where people read what he wrote before replying. :) He said the high res at a lower size; you linked to all 27" screens, he said 24" or smaller, which would be my preference too. I really like the quality of my 4S screen, my desktop 24" Samsung is nice, but after using the 4S screen I notice the pixel-yness on the 24" at only 1920x1280.

    8. Re:What about desktop screens? by foniksonik · · Score: 1

      How often do you plan on replacing your screen? It's actually the only part of a PC you can amortize over >4 years. Get a good warranty, say 5 years or so and spend the money. You'll get to enjoy it for a long time.

      --
      A fool throws a stone into a well and a thousand sages can not remove it.
    9. Re:What about desktop screens? by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      27" is too big for what I want and that really isn't near the resolution I want either. Also some may think the Dell quality is good but it really isn't up to par with what I want.
      I would be willing to pay $800 for a 4x180p 24" 120hz screen. I figure it would be worth 4 $200 screens. Maybe the market just isn't there for screens like that, but it doesn't seem to stop video card makers from putting out $2k cards so I'm still a little surprised there aren't any monitors like that out there.

    10. Re:What about desktop screens? by Desler · · Score: 1

      Because they are mostly a niche product.

    11. Re:What about desktop screens? by loosescrews · · Score: 1

      You can get them for around less than $350 shipped from South Korea. Just do an ebay search for '2560 1440 27"'. You should find a lot of really nice high resolution IPS monitors.

    12. Re:What about desktop screens? by busyqth · · Score: 1

      Good to know.
      These look like dead-pixel rejects, but the first LCD monitor I bought was back in the dead-pixel-expected days, and it (and it's two factory dead pixels) is still in use.

      So if saving $500 is worth a few dead pixels, then you've got a bargain.

    13. Re:What about desktop screens? by dbIII · · Score: 1

      On Friday I just replaced two Sony Trinitrons from my office desk - one was dated 1997 and the "new" flat one was from 2000 :)

    14. Re:What about desktop screens? by loosescrews · · Score: 1

      While it is true that some of monitors listed have dead pixels, some don't. Just add "Perfect Pixel" to your search to find ones guaranteed to be free of dead pixels. These can be found for under $400 shipped. While I am sure it is obvious, I forgot to mention in my previous post that you need to sort by price low to high.

    15. Re:What about desktop screens? by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

      Everyone with the Nvidia/ATI multiscreen setups will gobble them up.

      this is an obvious fail. what about full screen video?

    16. Re:What about desktop screens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't have a lot of experience with it, but with AMD's Eyefinity this shouldn't be an issue. The driver presents all of the monitors as one display to the OS, so things should work naturally.

      I don't know if NVidia has a similar feature.

    17. Re:What about desktop screens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In addition to the fantastic T221 everyone knows (I got one, they rock), there's a variety of 19"-22" 2048x1536 LCDS that were big in the medical market, about 10 years ago. You can semi-regularly find these used on ebay -- I got one for $110 shipped a few months back. The trick is, they have 2 single-link DVI inputs (it was made before dual-link DVI), each driving a 1024x1536 stripe, and these must be synchronized; if your video card doesn't support this, or you run out of ports, you may need something like a Matrox Triplehead2go splitter box to feed it off a single DL-DVI.

    18. Re:What about desktop screens? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      It's a question of yield. The smaller the pixels, the lower the tolerance to fabrication errors, and so the higher the defect rate. This is why you initially see higher resolutions in smaller screens for TFTs. If you can get the defect ratio down to one in a million, then you can probably get three working 800x480 screens for every one with a dead / stuck pixel. There are also lots of customers for control panels in industrial equipment where a stuck pixel doesn't really matter, so you can also sell the defective ones. Try scaling this up to a desktop screen and you've now got 3-4 stuck pixels in every 27" monitor you make, and no one will buy them.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:What about desktop screens? by jpapon · · Score: 1
      You'd never get a 24" 4x 1080p (so 3840x2160) screen for $800, especially not one with 120hz refresh. The Dell I mentioned (U2711) goes for about $800, and has significantly fewer pixels then what you're asking for. Also, you say the Dell quality isn't up to par with what you want, but the U2711 is widely regarded as one of the best monitors on the market. It's also an IPS panel, which is far superior to the TN/ TFT stuff you see everywhere.

      Also, I believe a 3840x2160 @ 24" screen is really overkill... you're approaching (if not past) the spatial resolution of the human eye, unless you're sticking your face 12 inches from the screen.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    20. Re:What about desktop screens? by jittles · · Score: 2

      I just recently started working for a new company that gives me a hardware budget that I can use to buy any hardware I want. I used the money to buy a 27" Dell Display at 2556x1440 (or whatever it actually is), and its the best decision I've ever made. Yes it consumed most of my budget for the year, but it is so wonderful to have so much useable space on the same screen. I have a second display, which is almost completely unneeded anymore. It gets used rarely. I wish that I would have gone to the massive 27" forever ago.

    21. Re:What about desktop screens? by jittles · · Score: 1

      The quality isn't what you want? What monitor has better picture quality? HOnestly? I've seen the 27" Apple Cinema displays, I used to work with them daily. They aren't any better than the Dell picture-wise. And the Apple display only has one input!

    22. Re:What about desktop screens? by toddestan · · Score: 1

      Those are pretty nice screens, but I would prefer something more like 2048x1536 at 20" or so. The problem with LCD monitors nowadays is the DPI. In order to get decent resolution the screens become too large.

    23. Re:What about desktop screens? by dargaud · · Score: 1

      /me wants 24" or smaller desktop screen with 2048*1536 pixels or more.

      A thousand times yes. There are a few gigantic ones with resolution above 1920x1200, but nothing that would fit on my desk. And the price jump from 1920x1080/1200 to anything above that is huge.

      --
      Non-Linux Penguins ?
    24. Re:What about desktop screens? by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Apple Cinema displays have the quality of displays sold 5 years ago while being sold as if they are 5 years ahead of their time.
      I prefer ViewSonic displays. They always have a model or two with bleeding edge performance for gaming as well as having top end image quality. The price is usually reasonable too. I have been buying them since they came out with the first LCD with 2 ms response time and buy a new one whenever there is a significant improvement. I have six now, all running off the same machine. The latest I bought was their 24" 120hz 3D LED model. I went to a LAN recently and sat right next to someone with the newest Dell 27" and the quality was good but not as good as the ViewSonic. Out of all their monitors I've bought I haven't had 1 dead pixel yet either.

    25. Re:What about desktop screens? by locopuyo · · Score: 1

      Your lack of knowledge in this post is an obvious fail ... The point would be for full screen video using multimonitor setups with "NVIDIA surround" or AMD "Eyefinity".
      It simulates having one higher resolution screen using multiple monitors. The problem is you have bezels, 1 ultra high resolution screen would solve that.

    26. Re:What about desktop screens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Reading comprehension fail. This is what he said:

      I don't understand why they don't already have these, the technology exists for pixel density that high. Just make a 4x1080p monitor that has 4 inputs. Everyone with the Nvidia/ATI multiscreen setups will gobble them up.

      Now where did he say he wanted a 24" screen? Oh, right, he didn't and you're a fucking idiot.

    27. Re:What about desktop screens? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $400-$500 isn't affordable? Sounds like you need to get a real job or maybe ask your mommy and daddy to help you out.

    28. Re:What about desktop screens? by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

      [puts on logic cap]yeah but if it has four inputs then woudln't it act as four separate screens? [removes logic cap]

    29. Re:What about desktop screens? by jittles · · Score: 1

      Then the person you were sitting next to didn't have their display properly configured. Were you both running 1080P? Because that's all the ViewSonic does, and the Dell will definitely look blurry at such a low resolution! AFAIK, only Dell and Apple sell displays with a resolution greater than 1080P. (or 1920x1200 if you prefer 16x10)

    30. Re:What about desktop screens? by White+Flame · · Score: 2

      The IBM T221s mentioned here are 3840x2400 at 22". I've got 2 of them, don't do any OS scaling (plus even reduce the font size in most apps), and they're really nice, if your eyesight isn't bad.

    31. Re:What about desktop screens? by jpapon · · Score: 1

      Yeah... and they cost a hell of a lot more than $800.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    32. Re:What about desktop screens? by White+Flame · · Score: 1

      Not really; check eBay. Many of them go for <$1000.

    33. Re:What about desktop screens? by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Most people don't buy TVs at monitor sizes, so I don't think there's that much overlap.

    34. Re:What about desktop screens? by mattack2 · · Score: 1

      Possibly the same resolution as the Cinema HD on the computer I'm now using? 2560 * 1600 is the highest resolution it does.

  10. yea yea yea... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

    another "we have this", "We have that", but in fact you have nothing available but more viper vaporware.

  11. Apple is Gold Standard? by AramblingMan · · Score: 1

    Is Apple the uncontested standard for screen specs? Its not exactly innovative if pixel qi picks their competitor's product and says hey we just beat them by an inch. Perhaps they should follow Apple's lead and set a different standard. The power savings issue is nice but not all that breathtaking like a retina display.

    1. Re:Apple is Gold Standard? by zippthorne · · Score: 1

      If they did that, they'd be working on Mirasol...

      --
      Can you be Even More Awesome?!
    2. Re:Apple is Gold Standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. They have to have been working on this for a while now.
      2. Apple doesn't make LCDs

      So, if you ignore facts, then sure. Your right ;)

    3. Re:Apple is Gold Standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The one way to guarantee a product gets a slagging on line these days is to say you're better than Apple. You'll immediately attract every Apple fag condeming you as worse than Hitler.

    4. Re:Apple is Gold Standard? by jedwidz · · Score: 1

      Gotta say that, as much as I love the iPad 3 screen, calling it a 'retina' display was little more than a sneaky marketing ploy. The pixel density (264ppi) is a lot less than the 'original' retina display on the iPhone 4 (326ppi).

      For me that makes the difference between seeing the pixels and not seeing them.

      We can expect higher-definition tablet displays still to come.

    5. Re:Apple is Gold Standard? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta say that, as much as I love the iPad 3 screen, calling it a 'retina' display was little more than a sneaky marketing ploy. The pixel density (264ppi) is a lot less than the 'original' retina display on the iPhone 4 (326ppi).

      For me that makes the difference between seeing the pixels and not seeing them.

      Pixels per inch is not the one and only figure of merit. Viewing distance matters too. Do you hold your iPad as close to your face as you do an iPhone? (Doubt it.)

  12. Not quite by maroberts · · Score: 2

    They've shipped 2.5 million to 3 million screens but they don't seem to have got the world beating product that shifts by the tens of millions out yet.

    The problem is that Apple have a lead and by the time PixelQI get the product to market, Apple will be on the next generation of their product.

    --

    Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
    Karma: Chameleon

  13. I was going to write a fake headline for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?

    1. Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this by toriver · · Score: 1

      This is the new Slashdot where they will post "Water: now wet!" if it can get some ad impressions.

    2. Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this by JDG1980 · · Score: 2

      I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?

      So Slashdot shouldn't post any articles on new and more advanced products? Does that mean when Intel comes out with the Haswell, or AMD with the Trinity, Slashdot shouldn't have articles on those either? After all, "of course" as next generation products they will be better than the current generation. (Well, hopefully - the Bulldozer was inferior to Llano and even Phenom II in some ways.)

    3. Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this by jones_supa · · Score: 1

      I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?

      That's not the point here. What makes the story interesting is that another rather small company is rivaling Apple's cutting edge technology.

    4. Re:I was going to write a fake headline for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then how do you explaing computer screen resolutions getting worse and worse over the years? That's why this is news - it's no longer just Apple bucking the trend.

  14. Re:Vaporware by Briareos · · Score: 1, Troll

    If only they had been in real, useable products instead of overhyped shite like the OLPCs...

    --

    "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  15. Important comparison factor missing by ilyag · · Score: 1

    How does the screen compare on price?

    1. Re:Important comparison factor missing by seb42 · · Score: 1

      "How does the screen compare on price?" The beauty of Pixel Qi is they use the existing LCD Fab, it does cost a million dollar or so to start a run of displays. So price is dependent on the how many displays you want to make in one go. I have this ($275) 1st gen pixel qi 10.1 screen replacement screens in my netbook, works great only issue is one of the viewing angles is bad, I think from the left. http://www.makershed.com/Pixel_Qi_display_p/mkpq01.htm Out in the sun with the backlight off it goes from 1024x600xRGB (transmissive) to 3072x600 (reflective) sort of grey scale. So the battery life is very good with the back light off or down low. I do wonder what touch screen tech Pixel Qi people recommend to use with the new display.

  16. Power consumption of Qi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't a 100x power reduction (I assume you mean 100%) mean that the Qi works on 0 Power?

    1. Re:Power consumption of Qi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they actually mean "hundred times". Anyway, when you can switch the backlight off outdoors, you already get huge power savings.

    2. Re:Power consumption of Qi by V!NCENT · · Score: 1

      Times hundred reduction, means devide by hundred. Go back to highschool.

      --
      Here be signatures
  17. The only remaining downside is shipping. by shess · · Score: 0

    How much volume did Pixel Qi do last year? One week of iPad3 sales? One day? One *hour*?

    Hell, even OLED displays have beaten these guys into volume production, and I didn't think that would ever happen.

  18. Re:Vaporware by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 2

    I have a Pixel Qi screen in my Adam tablet, (Notion Ink). If I wanted to leave the screen off most the time, I'd have to pick a high-contrast theme for ICS, which I haven't really run into 'themes' at all. It works well for e-Reader apps if there is a lot of light, (outdoors on a sunny day) but everything else requires that I have the backlight on. The viewing angles are also not up to par.

    However, this screen is a couple years old now, so maybe Pixel Qi have come up with some new magic.

    (You do notice the battery savings with the screen turned off though.)

    --
    --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
  19. They really don't say much. by wjcofkc · · Score: 1

    I am all for advancing display tech. But I'll believe it when I see it. Pixel Q has made a lot of headlines over the last few years with little to show. All they do in this release is say how much better it is than iPad 3 display --- over and over again. Trying to generate some hype maybe? They could have been a little more subtle with their hype and drawn comparisons from other screens on leading devices.

    --
    Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
    1. Re:They really don't say much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Based on the description && details sounds like an e-ink color display. If so, would explain the "hype" with delay.

    2. Re:They really don't say much. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They already have products that you can buy right now. Even Slashdot has ran a story about DIY retrofit screens. Also the Notion Ink Adam had a Pixel Qi display. You can see their full product line-up at their homepages.

    3. Re:They really don't say much. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Yes, and so far the products they've released don't actually do all they've claimed (or rather, they do it all poorly) - at least judging by Adam, which I own.

  20. Yes But by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It will be nothing in comparison to the New, New, New IPad

  21. That sounds great! But... by sootman · · Score: 2

    ... I won't believe it until I see it.

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  22. Soo.. by Wovel · · Score: 2

    Make a shipping product or it doesn't really exist.

  23. But what about Laptop screens?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Pixel Qi is just for other companies making touchpad computers.

    What I want to know is when and who will bring out a laptop with this resolution screen?

    1. Re:But what about Laptop screens?!?!?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are rumours that Apple is working on "retina" displays for their Macbooks. Once they are out, we'll probably have to wait a year or two before PCs can match them. Fortunately you can install Linux or Windows on a Mac these days, so as far as I am concerned the PC makers can go screw themselves by then.

  24. Re:There is no such thing as an iPad 3. by diamondmagic · · Score: 1

    It's officially "iPad, third generation", a.k.a. iPad 3.

  25. For a b!ch3r, you sure can't b!ch3 right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just to educate you .... the iPad 3rd Gen is called iPad HD.

  26. Re:Vaporware by caseih · · Score: 4, Informative

    There are a few examples of this screen out there but I think the reason it's so hard to get a hold of is that the current Pixel Qi screen, well, kind of sucks. The color saturation, contrast, etc just aren't that great. Turns out the screen isn't that good at any of the things it was hyped to be: good color inside, good b&w outside.

  27. The better case to kill Apple's volume practices. by sethstorm · · Score: 1


    c) Apple has volume contracts for screens with its great friend Samsung.

    Start bringing the penalties for monopoly powers to Apple (which would kill this practice PDQ), expand the monopoly definition to include Apple's characteristics (no, successful is not one of them), or otherwise make blocking competitors by volume a non-starter(perhaps by stating that such products must be equally available to all at a given price - which would also apply to Apple).

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  28. transflective displays are easy to make by YesIAmAScript · · Score: 2

    That's a display that can be viewed with reflected light (light from the front) or with a backlight (light from the back).

    You've probably owned at least one. Blackberries and iPods used to have them.

    The problem is that they don't have good contrast ratios. This is because when you make the display reflective, it reflects room lighting. This raises the black level (darkest a pixel can be), and so the contrast ratio (which is brightest to darkest pixel) drops.

    So displays went to transmissive only to increase contrast. That's why you can't see the display on your portable device if the backlight is off anymore.

    It's rather unlikely Pixel Qi has overcome this issue. More likely they just use testing environments that make it look like their displays are better than they actually are in normal use. That's de rigeur in the LCD (or displays in general) business anyway.

    --
    http://lkml.org/lkml/2005/8/20/95
  29. Re:There is no such thing as an iPad 3. by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    The latest iPad is called "The New iPad." Why do the Slashdot editors have so much hate against Apple?

    Why does Apple have so much hatred for names that make sense? You can choose to buy into their marketing tricks, or just call it iPad 3. Everyone will understand you either way.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  30. Re:The better case to kill Apple's volume practice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Actually, wouldn't Samsung need to be the one to be punished? In order for there to be an antitrust concern re Apple, it would have to involve a competitor to Apple. It's Samsung's competitors that are being blocked, not Apple's. After all, Apple doesn't care where it gets the parts they need; they only care about price (and quality of course). Volume pricing is a cornerstone of business; what you're describing is essentially government mandated price fixing, something which is illegal.

  31. Possible issue as touch screen by gstrickler · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Touch screens may complicate things for Pixel Qi, their screens have always relied on AR coatings. Touch screens need a capacitive (better) or resistive layer over the screen, and they need an oliophobic coating to resist finger prints. How will those affect the Pixel Qi screens?

    --
    make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
    1. Re:Possible issue as touch screen by Scorch_Mechanic · · Score: 2

      Not all "touchscreen" technology actually requires you to "touch" the screen. My PRS-T1 uses infrared light to detect when and where I'm "touching" the screen, and it does everything "real" touchscreens can do, and a few things they can't (depending on the technology used).

      You raise a valid point, but the implementation of the screen itself my obviate the problem anyways.

      --
      You should turn signatures off.
  32. So their 'Next-Gen' display will 'meet' the iPad3? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I would expect next-gen displays so significantly BEAT what the iPad 3 has, not just MEET.

  33. Any manufacturers put this in their products yet? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    rant/

    Alright, I'm getting figuratively sick and tired about seeing all these posts about the supposedly amazing "Pixel Qi screen" plastered all over tech news sites for at least 3 years now.

    I have yet to see ONE SINGLE MAJOR MANUFACTURER include these screen by default in their products. It's driving me crazy!

    Any tablets made by major brands such as Samsung, Sony, LG, or even Apple out there with this? No? Any computers with this? NO?!

    WHY THE HECK DO TECH NEWS SITES KEEP GOING ON ABOUT THIS PRODUCT THAT ISN'T EVEN OUT ON THE *MAINSTREAM* MARKET YET???

    Until I see some sort product that can be bought at a Best Buy, Fry's, or *insert favorite tech store here* with a Pixel Qi screen already installed, I can't regard Pixel Qi as a serious brand and type of screen.

    And NO! I don't feel like taking the risk of cracking open my computer or tablet to exchange the OEM screen with the appropriately sized Pixel Qi screen, even with instructions on how to do it.

    If I am a mainstream consumer, I want to buy it without doing any dirty work. Though most on the folks on /. probably get a serious kick out of getting the chance to crack open their laptop or tablet to put in a superior part. .../rant

    *deep breath* Alright, I'm good now.

  34. Back-lighting consumes power by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 1

    No matter it's 70% or 30% or even 90%, back-lighting itself wastes a lot of power

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Back-lighting consumes power by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Pixel Qi displays have a pure reflective mode with no backlight.

  35. Re:Vaporware by jones_supa · · Score: 1

    Turns out the screen isn't that good at any of the things it was hyped to be: good color inside, good b&w outside.

    Those are not the main qualities Pixel Qi displays are designed for. Their big thing is very good sunlight readability outdoors.

  36. Really? Time brought new tech? Wow. by Petersko · · Score: 1

    Assuming it's not vaporware, it's a little late to the party. I predict next year there'll be better screens yet. Look at me go.

    Anyways, they're sticking it in golf stroke training systems and carwash controls, so maybe they'll find a niche. But as for tablets, wake me when one thrives for a couple of months in the market.

  37. Really? by Oceanplexian · · Score: 1

    I'm as excited as anyone at the prospect of a better performing high-res screen and despite PixelQIs history of delivering, this doesn't actually exist until I'm looking at the teardown pictures.

    It seems that history repeats itself. Apple invents and mass-produces a new technology. they release it into something perfectly usable that you can go down to your local shop and buy with real money. A matter of weeks/months/years later, everybody else starts claiming they've come up with something revolutionary and better without any physical proof that it exists.

    Finally, after months/years of waiting, the competition finally comes up with something that was 20% of what was promised, 100% more expensive, and then oh, look, Apple has already released the next-gen product at my local Walmart and it creates yet another paradigm-shift in new technology.

    tl;dr to Apple's competition: Shut up about your new product until it's deliverable.

  38. Sunlight-readability by jones_supa · · Score: 2

    This iPad vs. Pixel Qi comparison picture really shows the important difference. The Qi might not have the best colors, but for text and simple images it is good. The iPad and most other laptops and tablets are hard to use outdoors. See this demo image, too.

  39. Re:Any manufacturers put this in their products ye by tftp · · Score: 1

    Though most on the folks on /. probably get a serious kick out of getting the chance to crack open their laptop or tablet to put in a superior part.

    The screen that your laptop came with is *already* superior, unless you are in the 0.01% of people who use their laptop on a beach.

    There certainly are valid applications for such screens. For example, outdoor hardware - for construction, surveying, military. It might be good even in a common car. A typical notebook isn't one of them.

    I personally wouldn't be interested in a tablet or an ebook reader that works best under the sunlight. I just don't read in those conditions. I read in the evening, with external lights off.

  40. Re:Oh yeah... by noh8rz3 · · Score: 1

    my dad can beat up your dad!

  41. But, but... that's UMPOSSIBLE! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Everyone KNOWS that Apple INVENTED high resolutions display. THEY ARE STEALING APPLE'S HI-TECH!!!

  42. And I say... by Anonymousslashdot · · Score: 0

    My 20-year old Sony Trinitron beats iPad 3 Screen Quality. If I had a strange name like "Pixel Qi" or "Kim Dotcom" would this make a slashdot story ?

    1. Re:And I say... by maroberts · · Score: 1

      My 20-year old Sony Trinitron beats iPad 3 Screen Quality. If I had a strange name like "Pixel Qi" or "Kim Dotcom" would this make a slashdot story ?

      If you can show us a picture of you on the beach using your Sony Trinitron display, then I think you'd get into Slashdot :-)

      --

      Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
      Karma: Chameleon

  43. Re:The better case to kill Apple's volume practice by Americano · · Score: 1

    In what way is Apple's contract with Samsung for screens "monopolistic"? Samsung can set prices with other customers however they see fit, and they are also free to spin up new plants to produce more screens for other customers - there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing that, and suggesting that it's some sort of "monopolistic" behavior that's stopping them is just plain foolish.

  44. Re:There is no such thing as an iPad 3. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah, they should go with intensely meaningful names like "Prissy Platypus," "Lusty Leopard," and "Zesty Zygote."

    Enough with the silly names already, Apple - take a lesson from the pros in the Open Source movement, they'll show you how to really name a product for strong sales!

  45. Re:There is no such thing as an iPad 3. by toriver · · Score: 1

    Does it make sense? The iPad 2 does not say "iPad 2" anywhere, just "iPad". My MacBook Pro is not called the MacBook Pro 4 for being the fourth generation of that product. At work, my HP EliteBook probably has some five-digit number to differentiate it from its siblings, but I could not care less. If you buy a 2012 Ford Focus, it does not say "Ford Focus 25" or whichever model they are at now.

    So the newest model is the 2012 release of the iPad.

    But I do look forward to the jokes that will surround the Samsung Galaxy S IV. "What, are you supposed to plug it into your blood stream now? Haha!"

  46. Re:Vaporware by Briareos · · Score: 2

    Great, so how do I swap the screen in my existing laptop with theirs? An external USB-attachable display isn't going to cut it, and a handful of no-name tablets and one obscure notebook isn't going to cut it, especially not internationally.

    Unless Apple, Lenovo, Dell, HP, Sony etc. sell devices with their screens they might as well not exist...

    --

    "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

  47. Re:Vaporware by JoSch1337 · · Score: 2

    My experience come from owning a notion ink adam tablet with the pixelqi screen.

    It is readable outside in sunlight.

    BUT it is only readable when there is MUCH sunlight and it is NOT very good even under those optimal conditions.

    The contrast is extremely bad, hence you get best results with most sunlight but they are still not optimal. Plus, even with most sunlight, the viewing angle is still extremely narrow and when you tilt the screen just a bit too much, the content becomes unreadable.

    I am not surprised why we do not see these "magical" displays in more hardware.

  48. Re:Any manufacturers put this in their products ye by xigxag · · Score: 1

    They are not just claiming better visibility but substantial power savings. That would be a boon to any laptop, provided the screen met or exceeded specs in other areas.

    --
    There are two kinds of people: 1) those who start arrays with one and 1) those who start them with zero.
  49. Re:Vaporware by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

    Are you an ODM? If not, then you're complaining to the wrong people. Pixel Qi has been shipping devices to anyone who places an order with them, including a couple of large consumer device manufacturers and has even been selling replacement netbook screens to consumers for a couple of years. I've not owned one, but I played with one at FOSDEM a year ago and they seemed pretty nice. Contrast isn't great in the low power mode, but it's a lot more visible in direct sunlight than any laptop screen I've ever owned...

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  50. "And so forth" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    by "And so forth" I have to assume they do not want to talk about color accuracy? These low power sunlight readable screens would make a great eReader, but if the color accuracy is not great, would not work well in an actual iPad.

  51. Re:The better case to kill Apple's volume practice by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    Actually, wouldn't Samsung need to be the one to be punished? In order for there to be an antitrust concern re Apple, it would have to involve a competitor to Apple. It's Samsung's competitors that are being blocked, not Apple's. After all, Apple doesn't care where it gets the parts they need; they only care about price (and quality of course).

    Apple's competitors are being blocked from Samsung product for a long enough time to cause harm - not the other way around. What I am suggesting is to expand the criteria to include Apple or its practices - with the result of them being legislatively incentivized to stop.

    Volume pricing is a cornerstone of business; what you're describing is essentially government mandated price fixing, something which is illegal.

    Buying out the first year to exclude competitors isn't a cornerstone of business. Nor is my solution price fixing - it is guaranteeing same-day availability to more than just Apple and favored clients of Apple.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  52. Re:Any manufacturers put this in their products ye by dargaud · · Score: 1

    I personally wouldn't be interested in a tablet or an ebook reader that works best under the sunlight. I just don't read in those conditions. I read in the evening, with external lights off.

    Because you are used to do it like this. If I had a laptop with a screen perfectly readable in sunlight, you can bet your ass off that I'd be working on a bench in the park below my office instead of in my office.

    --
    Non-Linux Penguins ?
  53. Re:Vaporware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Redefining available to mean something it doesn't doesn't make them vapourware.

  54. Re: by davide+marney · · Score: 1

    I have a retrofitted PixelQi display in my netbook, and it extends my PC usage by about 25%. This really surprised me; I didn't think being able to read in sunlight would matter so much. Actually, "sunlight readable" doesn't quite capture it: the more light you throw at it, the BETTER it reads.

    --
    "We receive as friendly that which agrees with, we resist with dislike that which opposes us" - Faraday
  55. Huh? by Tug3 · · Score: 1
    "Next-Gen Displays Meet or Beat iPad 3 Screen Quality"

    Well, they bloody well should! - I mean iPad 3 is being sold in stores and has a current generation display.

    --
    If all else fails, pull the plug and get out...
    The Life is out there...
  56. The new sharp pannels by kyuubi1 · · Score: 1

    Sharp has come up with panels which uses IGZO oxide semiconductors and UV2A x 3 photo-alignment technology giving out a whooping 1280 x 800 pixel resolution on a 7-inch screen. They also claim to have a 90% power reduction from standard LCD panels. Well with that, I don't see any point in what Pixel Qi is doing.