Slashdot Mirror
Nano-Pixels Hold Potential For Screens Far Denser Than Today's Best
Zothecula (1870348) writes "The Retina displays featured on Apple's iPhone 4 and 5 models pack a pixel density of 326 ppi, with individual pixels measuring 78 micrometers. That might seem plenty good enough given the average human eye is unable to differentiate between the individual pixels, but scientists in the UK have now developed technology that could lead to extremely high-resolution displays that put such pixel densities to shame."
The human eye is limited to certain pixel densities at certain distances. Technology such as this can create QHD displays in Google Glass applications where the pixels are much closer to the eye. In fact, it may be possible to implant this inside the eye and have augmented reality without p*ssing off the people around you.
To Terminate, or not to Terminate, that's the question - SCSIROB
If the average human eye can't tell the slightest difference, what's the point of making displays that dense?
I would guess there may be applications for things like VR/AR headsets, where you're using a very small screen to cover a large field of vision.
However, I more or less thought the same thing about Apple's retina displays - I can see some restricted uses, but for the general case I don't notice the pixels on my non-retina phone so I'm not sure why I'd want to waste the battery power moving even more pixels around.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Small point: If they keep making the pixels smaller, holographic displays could be possible.
Virtual reality, perhaps? Combine this with an eye tracker to render portions of the screen selectively, since doing the whole screen at full resolution would be prohibitive. You might have to combine this with real-time region updates. Sounds like an interesting problem...
Ezekiel 23:20
Try drawing a non-aliased almost horizontal black line on white background on a retina display at normal viewing distance; you won't have any problems noticing the staircasing.
This should be very interesting for making tiny projectors.
Less exciting; but sufficiently dense pixels might also make subpixel defects less obnoxious, even if the actual resolution requirements are low enough that multiple physical pixels are driven as a single logical pixel to reduce computational costs or display link bandwidth. And more acceptable defects means fewer scrapped panels.
If the average human eye can't tell the slightest difference, what's the point of making displays that dense?
The whole retina thing is just a marketing ploy. Perhaps some wants to hold the phone closer than what Steeve decided was the optimum range. There is no denying text is sharper and you need to zoom less when having better than retina resolution.
In any case, I'm not average.
Even if you can't tell the individual pixels apart, you always want anti-aliasing. Aliasing is technically a frequency domain thing. No matter how high the sample rate (the spatial resolution in the case of displays) is, aliasing will always be visible if you sample frequencies that are higher than half the sample rate. The correct solution is to use a display resolution just high enough that individual pixels can't be distinguished and apply anti-aliasing. The point of higher display resolutions is not to do away with anti-aliasing!
At this point, we're making consumer grade hardware strain to drive 4K monitors. Pixel density doesn't matter if the device can't easily run at that resolution.
Is that why more and more camera manufacturers, while sensor resolution becomes higher and higher, find anti-aliasing filters unnecessary?
VR and AR are something, as are things like the Google Glass, but another one is EVFs (electronic viewfinders), which typically use microdisplays.
Then again, these microdisplays already feature pixels FAR smaller than what they're claiming these new "nanopixels" are.. the article is kind of confusing. They seem to be claiming pixel sizes a bit less than half what an iPhone has, but there are already smartphones out there with pixel densities almost double the iPhone (like those phones with 1440p displays), and microdisplays go many *times* more dense than that, so... what's new here exactly?
But the LG G3 is already down to 47 micrometer. And it's mostly about battery life.
Not having an explicit anti-aliasing filter is tacit admission that there is an implicit anti-aliasing filter somewhere else. In other words, the optics are shit.
There is a limit, but it is way above the 326 PPI of a "retina" display. You only have to compare such display to other phones with higher PPIs (pretty much any medium to high end model made in the last couple of years) to see that.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
At last we will be able to make VR Headsets for Eagles
The human eye CAN tell the difference. What it can't do it distinguish individual pixels, just like you normally can't see individual frames when a movie or game is faster than 24fps. If your eye-sight was so poor that you coun't see better than 300dpi at one meter, you would not be allowed to get a drivers license in most countries. Road signs are designed to be read by the minimal allowed vision at a certain distance, that means you must be able to read half a meter high letters at 1km, which requires 1/5cm resolution, which is the same as 600dpi at 1m, and that is minimum.
Pixel master race.
Why do they mention that and fail to mention devices which present even higher density displays? My Nexus 5 has 445ppi display density.
I find it annoying that despite the existence of common devices which are "better" that the "best" is still considered to be Apple's. Nothing like product endorsement which wasn't [likely] even paid for. At the very least, they should have included the trademark sign to indicate they were making a commercial reference in their endorsement. (They did, at least capitalize "retina" in retina display... that's not quite the same thing and kind of makes it worse.)
They're drawing pictures with AN ATOMIC FORCE MICROSCOPE, and we're discussing it like it's going to be on the next generation of smart phones.
This technology is at the "hey, look at the shadow of this Maltese cross created by the cathode rays!" stage.
You will still piss off people around you, they are only less likely to detect it. Big difference.
I can understand the benefit of higher resolution capture capability to microscopic applications, but displays? Do you look at your display through a microscope?
The human visual system is good for at most a resolution of around 1.2 arcminute per line pair. That's an outstanding eye, with outstanding conditions. Granted, looking at a light source like an iPhone screen is in general what I would call excellent conditions, except in the shadow detail areas. If they go OLED, even that will improve.
But the bottom line is, do the math. It's pretty simple geometry. If you exceed what the human visual system can perceive, all you're doing is making marketing hype.
Same thing applies to movie theaters -- where the hype is now 4k. Even Sony admits unless you are sitting in the first few rows of the theater, 4k is overkill and 2k is plenty. If you like the back row, a 4k projection won't give you any improvement over a 720p HDTV signal.
I'm just sayin'... Do the math.
I mean, really: Emacs looks great in character mode and 80 columns. Why all this other faffing about?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I already can't see the pixels even up ultra close on an iphone 5, I have difficulty on my Samsung Galaxy S3 and both of those displays are only "fairly good" by the new mid 2014 phone standard which is up to over 500ppi
You want to impress me, get OLED happening everywhere, I've done the reading, I understand the tech, the colour range, refresh rate and incredibly black blacks are awesome.
Also, 2d / 3d graphics processors are going to melt pushing this many pixels sooner or later :/
It's good that they're working on this, getting better pixel densities will no doubt have applications somewhere (such as VR, google glass type hardware), but really, I don't want to start seeing 4k phone displays.
So.. you mean I might live to see a 35" monitor with over 300 dpi? (ok, I'll settle for a doubling of the current 100dpi).
Read. He says that if you can have a light emitting grid below the object of interest you could do some neat tricks with illumination.
Of course, if you could actually get pixels much smaller than a wavelength, the big application would be true holography. You aren't drawing images at that point, you're drawing interference patterns.
I don't know if you read books or anything on your devices, but I've found that reading on an iPad Air to be *significantly* better than my previous devices. Less strain to read, I can make the text smaller without it getting blurry.
I didn't see the point in high density displays either until I took the same pdf on an older and a newer device side by side. The different is striking.
Of course, if you don't use your device for such things, then I agree, the higher density doesn't grant you much.
SO...... if you paint a white single-pixel width 15 degree line without any anti-aliasing onto a black background, what does the PPI need to be at so you don't notice any jaggies?
300? 600? 1200? 2400 or more?
Why OpalCalc is the best Windows calc
How about a super high resolution watch or phone that along with a pair of glasses that magnify the image to look like a big screen?
Greed is the root of all evil.
On my screen, the sample pictures they show in the article look just as pixellated as any other picture.
The contentious point in Google Glass is the camera in front, not the display.
I think you missed three orders of magnitude there - 30nm vs 78microns.
If the average human eye can't tell the slightest difference, what's the point of making displays that dense?
Maybe eagles want to watch TV too.
20/20 vision is defined as 1 arc minute of resolving power. It is rare for anyone to achieve resolving power more than twice that.
1 arc minute translates to 87 dpi at 1 meter, although I have no idea why you mix inches and meters here. It is 95 dpi at 3 feet; 100 dpi is the commonly used number. People with 20/10 vision can resolve 190 dpi at 3 feet, 175 dpi at 1 meter.
No one living sees better than 300 dpi at 1 meter, so it is not likely to be the standard in ANY country, much less "most". 600 dpi for road sign legibility is even more absurd.
At 1km, 20/20 vision can resolve a "dot" about 29cm in size. That's 3.5 dots per METER. 1/2 meter letters would not be legible. 20/40 vision, a common driving standard, would be closer to 2 dots per meter, or the feature size you are quoting.
See http://www.safetysign.com/cont...
A road sign that should be legible at 1km should have a minimum letter size of 1.1 meters, not 0.5 meters.
2 dots per meter at 1km is 2 dots per mm, 50 dpi, at 1m not 600 dpi. In order to resolve text at that size someone would need 250 dpi of acuity which no one has.
Carewolf, everything you said was wrong. You may need a new calculator.
Don't even need to get much subwavelength, half wavelength is already enough for a 180 degree viewing angle.
That said, materials which can do this are hardly new ... OASLMs were first used for holographic displays approximately 2 decades ago AFAIK.
I don't know if you read books or anything on your devices, but I've found that reading on an iPad Air to be *significantly* better than my previous devices.
I don't own a tablet - I use a desktop machine for every day work, a laptop around the house and an Android smartphone. I wouldn't really want to read books on my smartphone except in an emergency - screen's too small to be comfortable. And I don't want a bigger smart phone because then it wouldn't be convenient to carry around and I honestly can't think how a higher resolution display would make my phone better.
On the other hand, my wife does have a tablet... She occasionally reads books on it, but it mostly gets used for facebook, web surfing, photo browsing, etc. My experience of using it for reading books isn't great - if I want to sit in the garden in the sun I find the screen too reflective, and if I want to sit in bed at night then a backlit screen is really glaring.
I think, if I were going to buy a device to be an ebook reader, I would have to buy an epaper device to be really comfortable with it, and epaper is a bit too limited to use the device for non-book uses. So since I can't get a device that would be a reasonable all-rounder then I'm not likely to buy one soon. The perfect tablet for me would probably be one that has an LCD display on one side and an ePaper display on the other so I could just turn it over to choose which display was most suitable for the current situation - no one makes such a thing.
In truth, the prevalence of DRM on ebooks is likely to keep me from being especially interested in buying an ebook reader. Whilst I do consider tablets to be quite "shiny" and nice for surfing the web on, when I look at what I'd use it for honestly, I really don't think I'd get a lot of use out of it so there's not a lot of point in me buying one.
http://blog.nexusuk.org
Aye. My Nexus 5 has a 1080x1920 445 PPI display. Although I didn't know that until just a minute ago when I looked it up, it's not something they make a big deal of in their marketing..
iPhone 5 only has 326 PPI you say? And they brag about the iPhone 6 getting a 416 PPI display?
I'll never understand marketing...
"Total destruction the only solution" - Bob Marley
Very interesting.
The eye tracker thing is interesting; only update what I'm looking at. Unless there are idle cycles, then go ahead and update the rest of it.
I was thinking of a fractal style display environment, where oop and inheritance are taken to ridiculous levels. Each item to be updated is the child of a child of some child region possibly, although I was thinking more of in game objects instead of predefined areas. Like all the mice or grass waving or whatever.
Assuming we are stuck with a single master thread in games for the time being, you're going to run out of time long before you updated just the changes in a cycle, even if the changes were few. So this fractal structured graphics thing updates the highest parents first, then drops a level and runs their child commands, which might be the basic outlines of leaves or other terrain, with the details, broken into how ever many levels of detail as the programmer saw fit, encoded within. The GPU may, or may not, get to those children in time, if it does not; you would see blurry graphics, at least for that frame.
On the next update, the GPU gets it's new changes, and still has a list from the prior cycle that didn't get drawn. Some of those get drawn on this new cycle, and eventually, the GPU catches up. If it doesn't catch up, then that is the best you will be able to run this game with the graphics card you have. Instead of game programmers having predefined fall back modes, (like a poor-good graphics slider), they throw everything they want at the GPU, and it will take care of rendering what it can. And unless your GPU is just really bad, then you will be able to see something besides big color splotches, and hopefully play the game with degraded quality.
But you never again miss a frame, and if you stop and stare, the detail will fill itself in on your glorious VR holographic screen with no additional help from the programmers. Then, you'll drop a grand or more on a video card..
In my experience things like contrast, backlight quality and _the_lack_of_glare_ are more important for readability than pixel density.
A high enough pixel density combined with good anti-aliasing and subpixel precise rendering makes a huge difference though - not that I'd call the existing solutions good (unless I've missed something).
I'd be plenty happy if I could buy a 24" desktop monitor with 2560×1600 pixels (125 DPI).
Back in 2004 (10 years ago!) I had a Sager laptop with 135 DPI (1600×1200). That was an awesome display, but it seems like we have not made any progress since then: It's either barely stretch for 100 DPI on the desktop or 400+ DPI on a tiny mobile phone. Why can't we get 150 or 200 DPI on the desktop? Am I really the only one who cares?
--Udo.
One possibility would be improving the color range, even if the resolution isn't improved. Rather than cramming in three phosophors per pixel, perhaps we could have four, or more. There's a considerable chunk of color space not well represented by RGB color.
I don't know how much of a difference it would make to TV viewers or gamers, but I know that artists would be grateful for a better color range. The conversion from RGB to CMYK is always a bit of a crapshoot; things that look great on your screen don't look as good when they come back from the printers, and there's a whole range of stuff it doesn't occur to you to try because you can't see it.
I could even imagine that it might be handy for medical imaging and other applications where you want to cram as much information onto the screen as possible: more pixels may not improve things but more colors might. Though more pixels could achieve that as well: it would be nice to be able to zoom in by bringing your face closer to the screen without simply seeing bigger pixels. Head motion is kinaesthetically appealing: you can move in and out without losing your sense of overall place.
Sharp already makes a four-pixel TV, with an added yellow (which is especially helpful in skin tones). I think it would be neat to be able to produce true indigo, violent, and cyan. If this lets you add more phosphors without costing resolution, it might not be a killer app, but it could be a desirable thing.
You need these high-res displays so that you can enhance video like they do on TV, where you get a grainy 640x480 video feed of a car several blocks away and you zoom in and read the license plate. It's not possible without using a high-res display, preferably one that is semi-transparent, like the ones on CSI Miami.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Wait, are you suggesting there are _other_ uses for augmented reality? Sir, you've just blown my mind.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
I wonder how big images to be displayed on such a screen would be, or more important: what camera do you need to be able to support such resolutions?
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Yep, you're right.
This is an important point. Today, most screens are designed for only 2d in mind, meaning the light is being sent out omni-directional.
If pixel density increases past what can be seen by the human eye, they could develop 3d displays using polarized films that could allow for directional displays. This means they would be similar to today's planar holographs, where as you move your head you would see a different version of the image.
This would be a huge advancement in display technology and such science fiction concepts as holodecks could be possible for numerous people to walk around a boxed display and see accurate 3D.
The human eye can see individual frames in one aspect. It has been known for quite a while that humans can recognize a single frame at over 300fps. They injected a single frame that was in high contrast to the current video, and not only were people able to recognize when it occurred, but they were able to recognize the simple shape being displayed.
Humans don't see motion as "frames", but our visual system is great at picking out something when it's drastically different. The only reason we don't see "frames" past a certain fps is because it gets "close enough" that the brain kicks in and perceives it as a smooth motion.
Perception is a tricky thing. Do not mix up what we see with what we perceive.
I can understand the benefit of higher resolution capture capability to microscopic applications, but displays? Do you look at your display through a microscope?
no, but do you look at your kitchen table or your hand through a microscope? The resolution of the world is very very small and it contributes to the appearance of items on a macro (human) scale. The engineer in me gets the argument that 1080p is already fulfilling and surpassing the use case of reading text, but i'd be interested to see what kind of magic can be pulled off when we have enough pixels to really mimic the way light is scattered off of microcopic surfaces.
So next generation of Oculus Rift can get better image quality.
Other applications may be more light-weight devices for disabled people as well.
A higher density also means better images at short distance between eye and screen (you may want to add some optics to relieve eye stress though).
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
That is entirely true. And I had spent a long time looking at ePaper devices. Unfortunately, the devices I was looking at turned out to be far more expensive than comparable tablets, and with ePaper you were locked into only reading books. (Or view web pages, email, etc, assuming they even provided that functionality). I didn't want to be restricted to just books, so I went with the tablet instead.
Some company in India actually came up with a design similar to what you describe. I forget the name now, but they called the display a Qi Display. The last time I looked into it, there were issues with quality, so I stopped paying attention.
You could have mentioned a bunch of non-Apple phones available right now, with far higher ppi than those two Apple devices - without fancy future "in 5 years"-tech. And I'm not talking obscure brands either. But I guess that was kinda the whole point right? A small advertisement with a tech article hardly anyone on here will read.
300 dpi at one meter? Are you high? NO ONE can come anywhere close to that. You fail basic reality.
FYI, 20-20 vision resolves roughly 16 dpi at 6 meters, and you don't even need 20-20 to drive.
I think both AMD and nVidia are pushing displays manufacturers toward higher-DPI panels.
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
Interesting.
I for one would simply like a high res monochrome LCD (or greyscale, if monochrome implies 1bit).
It was prevalent in the 80s and 90s, works unlit, is usable outdoors and gives you much longer battery life to boot. I wouldn't give a damn about black and white if I had a long-lived, always usable device. Hell, a 1989 Game Boy is still a better gaming device than a smartphone and I tried to read a book on one (read the first chapter before being bored with it. Blocky font with very few pixels per character is not exactly ideal)
Is that why I've looked at some shots on the web that were very high res and very noisy?
Maybe you have to do the anti-aliasing / proper reconstruction in the RAW importing software.
Currently we do have auto-stereoscropic displays (no glasses), but they only account for stereopsis, not accommodation (different focal distances for the eye). In current 3D displays, the 3D cue of stereopsis conflicts with the information from accommodation to a flat plane, and the 3D effect is significantly diminished (and can even cause discomfort or headaches). With an ultra high pixel density display base, lightfield displays become practical, and they can reproduce both stereopsis and different focal depth per image element. Current prototypes I've seen at SIGGRAPH have been very low resolution, as you need a patch of 2D pixels under each microlens (lightfield displays are based on a microlens array with multiple pixels under each lens). I imagine a 1920x1080 microlens array with 32x32 pixels under each microlens. If the display is also high-dynamic range and with extended color gamut, it would be the ultimate visual equivalent to a window into other worlds.
"Politicians and diapers must be changed often, and for the same reason."
Human visual acuity in a healthy human eyeball can discern features as tiny as 30-arcseconds in size. If you holding a retina display device 30 centimeters away from your face, 30 arc-seconds is only 48 micrometers at that distance, while retina displays use a resolution of 78 micrometers. Further, because the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem suggests that you will need at to sample at at least double the highest frequency of a signal to receive the signal with minimal distortion, suggesting that a true retina display would need pixels that are only 24micrometers in size, and not 78.
So basically, increase the resolution by a factor of slightly more than three, and then you're looking at something that you could truly call "retina".
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
There isn't much of a point in pushing display densities much beyond 300dpi for hand-held applications since most people can barely tell the difference but Apple was the first one to make a big deal out of it. Announcing higher resolutions sold many of the previous models and will sell future ones too - with the progress stagnation that has hit smartphones and tablets for much of the past two years, higher resolutions and the IGP power to drive them are almost the only two things that have improved by a fair amount.
Personally, I would be far more interested in seeing 1920x1200. 2GB RAM and 32GB SSD become the norm below 10"/$300. Right now, the N7-2013 is still practically the only tablet below $300 with those specs and price point. Most other devices below $300 launched in 2013-2014 have specs closer to the more ancient N7-2012 or sometimes even worse, which is sad, a shame and ridiculous. If analysts and manufacturers are surprised to see tablet sales dropped, they have not been paying attention to the crap the market has been flooded with for most of the past two years; no surprise sales are dropping when there is nothing worth upgrading to on the market.
That's what magnifiers and optical microscopes are for.
Even if you cannot individually identify pixels, you can still notice the marginally sharper text/line-art edges, smoother gradients, reduced stair-casing along polygon edges in 3D applications, etc.
But beyond 300dpi at typical tablet/smartphone reading/playing distances, I doubt that many people would really care about difference between 300-350dpi and 400-450+dpi.
I mean, really: Emacs looks great in character mode and 80 columns. Why all this other faffing about?
Most people don't find ASCII pone all that exciting.
Graphics artists claim they can sure tell. In my own experience I would tend to side with them, provided every other component of the artistry is up to that level of quality also... I mean, it's no help with a lousy scan or 16 bit color (not resolution!). It's not immediately apparent however until somebody shows you what to look for, and then it does become obvious, if, perhaps very subtle. It's exactly the same as Hi res audio.
After dismantling one of my phones after a broken screen, higher pixel densities can probably be used to increase the resolution of projectors as well (most I come across don't pass 1024x768, the few that do are extremely expensive).
I'm concluding this after finding 3 layers in my phone's display, the digitizer then the screen and finally a backlight. I've been tempted to dismantle other screen of this type and get a 5W LED behind it to build my own projector, biggest problem was how to drive the display from something other than a phone.
However, one doesn't read highway signs at arm's distance.
Also, lower resolution reduces the amount of information which one can fit on a given highway sign and diminishes legibility by obscuring finer details.
The human can distinguish the difference in character shapes at resolutions up to ~2,000 dpi --- see Smeijer's book _Counterpunch_ for an examination of this.
Current smart phones aren't quite able to adequately represent typeface designs w/ subtle curves such as Optima at text sizes, and engravings become a pixellated blurry mess compared to the sharp originals, some of which require extraordinary printing techniques such as two black plates to capture.
Sphinx of black quartz, judge my vow.
Somehow I think the capture technology is more important for that use case than the display technology...
I was thinking about this too, but I don't know what size pixels would they have to reach to make holographic displays possible. Any ideas?
These comments are mine; I do not speak for my employer.
I don't own a tablet - I use a desktop machine for every day work, a laptop around the house and an Android smartphone. I wouldn't really want to read books on my smartphone except in an emergency - screen's too small to be comfortable. And I don't want a bigger smart phone because then it wouldn't be convenient to carry around and I honestly can't think how a higher resolution display would make my phone better.
I took my HTC One (m8) smartphone on a long flight a month or three ago. Ended up reading almost an entire fiction book on the flights on a little 5" screen. This is a 1920x1080 display packed into a 5" screen.
It actually worked quite well - far better then I was expecting. The higher DPI on the modern phones (441ppi on the HTC) makes for easy reading.
Wolde you bothe eate your cake, and have your cake?
Unimaginative gits.
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear