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."

Comments

Problems...?

[Joce640k]

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

Re:Problems...?

[firex726]

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

Re:Problems...?

[poly_pusher]

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.

Re:Problems...?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative

[rolfwind]

exclusivity contract with Apple for the iPad/iPhone.

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

What about desktop screens?

[Lord Lode]

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

Re:What about desktop screens?

[zippthorne]

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...

Re:Why?

[isdnip]

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.)

Re:Why?

[gstrickler]

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.

Re:Vaporware

[naasking]

You can buy their screens for yourself.

Re:Vaporware

[caseih]

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.

Re:Why?

[Shoten]

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.

Possible issue as touch screen

[gstrickler]

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?