UCF Research Could Bring 'Drastically' Higher Resolution To Your Phone and TV (ucf.edu)

New submitter cinemetek quotes a report from University of Central Florida: Researchers at the University of Central Florida have developed a new color changing surface tunable through electrical voltage that could lead to three times the resolution for televisions, smartphones and other devices. Current LCD's are made up of hundreds of thousands of pixels that display different colors. With current technology, each of these pixels contain three subpixels -- one red, one green, one blue. UCF's NanoScience Technology Center (Assistant Professor Debashis Chanda and physics doctoral student Daniel Franklin) have come up with a way to tune the color of these subpixels. By applying differing voltages, they are able to change the color of individual subpixels to red, green or blue -- the RGB scale -- or gradations in between. By eliminating the three static subpixels that currently make up every pixel, the size of individual pixels can be reduced by three. Three times as many pixels means three times the resolution. That would have major implications for not only TVs and other general displays, but augmented reality and virtual-reality headsets that need very high resolution because they're so close to the eye.

Comments

THIS!!!!

[MikeDataLink]

This is something I have been hoping for for quite some time! This will lead to incredible resolution for VR headsets and that will make all of the difference in how immersive they are.

Re:THIS!!!!

[magusxxx]

I believe the politically correct term is 'whipper-snapper'.

Re:THIS!!!!

[mentil]

Assuming the response time is adequate enough. Mirasol (which also used structural color) had this problem at first. Hopefully the color isn't washed-out, another problem Mirasol had. Theoretically, the higher brightness allowed by this tech could lead to killer HDR, and brighter digital projectors (of particular importance for 3d films.) The higher backlighting efficiency should allow for lower-power displays, since the backlight wouldn't need to be so bright.

Re:THIS!!!!

[donaldm]

This is something I have been hoping for for quite some time! This will lead to incredible resolution for VR headsets and that will make all of the difference in how immersive they are.

A 4K 16:9 aspect ratio screen would suffice for most VR applications since the human eye would be really hard pressed to distinguish the individual pixels especially when the scene you are viewing is in motion. Even 1080p on a small screen is reasonably acceptable although you will always get the purists who want a different aspect ratio and an even higher resolution.

Even TV's which air now coming out at 4K (cheaper models don't support HDR) will be superseded in a few years as 8K starts to become mainstream. If you have the money you can get 8K monitors such as Dell UltraSharp which will set you back about $5000 USD but if you want bragging rights and future proofing that could be money well spent.

Of course, with 8K displays you will need a fairly powerful graphics card or cards if you wish to game on it but personally, I don't mind waiting since IMHO 1080p/1400p at 60fps is fine for most games although that does depend on the screen's refresh rate (in Hz) and how far away you are comfortably viewing it.

Re:THIS!!!!

[Z00L00K]

Most of the problems for VR isn't resolution, even if it's good to have a good resolution. It's latency that causes problems where the users are suffering from vertigo due to the lag it creates.

Re:THIS!!!!

[GuB-42]

AMOLED is preferred for VR headsets.
The main advantages of AMOLED are better blacks, which is important in a completely dark headset and faster response times, which is essential in VR.
Resolution is important too but it has to go together with fast graphics to ensure a low latency, otherwise you may get sick.

Re:THIS!!!!

[DontBeAMoran]

future proofing

There's no such thing. You can be "future safe for a while", but sooner or later the technology will catch up with whatever you bought.

Re:THIS!!!!

[Wycliffe]

Most of the problems for VR isn't resolution, even if it's good to have a good resolution. It's latency that causes problems where the users are suffering from vertigo due to the lag it creates.

It's not just resolution or latency. There is a missing quality somewhere that is hard to quantify. It's the quality that allows you to instantly tell the difference between a window, a mirror, and a monitor on the wall. I'm still waiting for the day that I can install a monitor in my wall that allows me to look out my fake window and look like I'm seeing the ocean or the grand canyon. Lake view or ocean view property becomes a lot less valuable once we have perfected fake windows.

Re: THIS!!!!

[Miamicanes]

Ummm... I have a friend with a second-generation Oculus Rift. It feels like you're sloshing around inside a lava lamp.

60fps isn't the fastest you can see... it's just near the point of "sort of good enough". You can ABSOLUTELY tell the difference between 60fps and 300fps... and can easily see the difference between 50-60fps and 100-120fps viewed side-by-side. Adding motion blur to 50-60fps reduces the difference for prerecorded content, but for realtime low-latency immersive content, the difference is HUGE.

The thing is, framerate is kind of like CPU speed. To really see an, "Ahhh! That's WAY better!" improvement over a given framerate, you basically have to double it. And it depends upon what part of your vision it's in, and the contrast. Pure white on pure black in peripheral vision? You can still see a difference between 600fps and 1200fps. Blurred brown & dark red on black viewed head-on with foveal cones? Even 60-vs-120 will be pretty subtle... unless you're a (rare) individual with abnormally-high density of foveal rod cells and viewing it in a room with dim ambient lighting(*).

---

(*) In which case the foveal rod cells can act like "blue-green" pseudo-cone cells (in fact, there are documented individuals who seem to have an odd form of protanomalous trichromacy without red-dimming, but are REALLY outright deuteranopes whose rod cells act like pseudo-green cones in dim light.

Rod cells also why some guys with protanopia can reliably distinguish between UNLIT red & green LEDs in dim light using peripheral vision, but not between ILLUMINATED red & green LEDs whose brightness has been adjusted to appear equal. When the LEDs are illuminated, their rods shut down. In dim ambient light, green triggers their rod cells more than red does, allowing them to look "different", even if they can't quite put their finger on WHY they look different.

Great

[rsilvergun]

now how about drastically higher resolution for my eyes. While they're at it get me a 32 core i10 or a Ryzen 13 or whatever that can push that many pixels.

Re:Great

[PPH]

The only stuff worth watching was all produced in black and white.

Now get off my lawn!

price

[fluffernutter]

I'm not sure if my eyes can see all of the resolution I have.. so I'll take the same resolution I have now, but at half the price please.

Re:price

[amiga3D]

I can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. 4K seems just a bit clearer than 1080. I remember when I got my 1080p HDTV in 2010 I was blown the fuck away by it coming from an old 32" NTSC set. Since then, it's not enough to get me excited. Yes, it's better. When my current set dies, I'll get one of the new ones.

Re:price

[MouseR]

While I'm still using 1080p, there is a whole lot more you can see in 4k. Like flying out-of-place hairs, reflects on the tip on black head pimples, old riddled skin of news presenter, herpes scars on porn... yeah... I'm still on 1080p.

Re:price

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty easy to see the difference between 720p and 1080p on 32" when you are two feet away in the store. When it's a dozen feet away in my living room, not so much. So my TV is 720p, but I see no reason to upgrade. New glasses were a better upgrade.

Re:price

[amiga3D]

The reason I upgraded? I noticed that on my NTSC set I couldn't see the score on the football game. It is in the corner and with HD broadcast the corner was out of sight on my screen. I didn't realize how cheap they had gotten, I got a nice 50" 240hz 1080p TV for 600 dollars on a Black Friday sale. It weighs a fraction of what my old set did and uses far less power. When I turned my old one on the lights in my living room used to flicker. I'll pop for a 4K when this dies or on this one's 10th anniversary, whichever comes first.

Re:Cost

[chill]

49-55" 4K LCD TVs are currently going for $350. That *is* an order of magnitude cheaper than prices only 2-3 years ago.

Even better!

[Okian Warrior]

Comcast will be able to compress the video streams even further, making room for more video channels.

This is a net win for the consumer! More video channels means better value!

Re:Even better!

[magusxxx]

One Hand: Comcast, The Other Hand: Better Value....You can only choose one.

Re:Even better!

[ilsaloving]

I fail to see how a change in the display technology will reduce the amount of data required to encode the content being displayed.

Re:Subpixels

[Anonymous Coward]

Because you are wrong and all LCD and OLED displays have subpixels.

Re:Subpixels

[Zanderama]

Current displays do still use subpixels, they're just smaller so harder to see - e.g. read this - https://support.apple.com/el-g...

Re:Cost

[ArchieBunker]

Yeah but that panel is going to look terrible compared to one from a reputable manufacturer. I'm actually on the lookout for an IBM T221 monitor for my desktop. Its the highest resolution 16:10 display ever made, and that was 15 years ago. The only drawback is a 50Hz refresh but I don't play any games.

More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[Zanderama]

Sounds potentially very interesting. Perhaps more than just smaller pixels (which are already retina-tiny and still getting smaller), if they can recreate the entire visible spectrum per pixel, that potentially results in "perfect" colour accuracy, rather than relying on mixing RGB colours - e.g. currently Yellow is made from Red + Green pixels. Could bring a whole new level of realism to display screens, even more than OLED and HDR. May even improve power efficiency over OLED etc, lighting one pixel rather than 2 or 3.

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[Immerman]

Except for the fact that many (I would assume most) colors don't actually fall anywhere on the color spectrum, but are instead a blending of multiple "pure" colors as perceived by our RGB retinas.

Consider even a pure-gas florescent tube - the color of the light given off is actually a combination of the multiple independent emission wavelengths of the element being excited - look at it through a spectroscope and you can see the individual pure colors - none of which closely resemble the color you see with your naked eye.

The most accurate perceived colors would probably actually be achieved by RGB subpixels that perfectly match the excitation frequencies of the cones in our eyes, combined with extremely fine-grained output levels. We can't actually see any other frequencies directly anyway - our color perception is based on interpreting the relative excitation of the three different "band pass filters" embodied in the different kinds of cones.

Though... come to think of it I'm not at all certain they have a simple band-pass style response curve - the detector molecules might actually have fairly complicated multi-peaked response curve.

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[religionofpeas]

The most accurate perceived colors would probably actually be achieved by RGB subpixels that perfectly match the excitation frequencies of the cones in our eyes

No, because our cones are blue, yellow-red and yellow-green, with considerable overlap, especially between the two latter ones. To produce a green experience, you need to stimulate the yellow-green cone, but not the yellow-red, and to do that, you need a green emitting pixel. If you try stimulating the yellow-green cone with its exact center frequency, you'll also stimulate the yellow-red cone, and produce a yellow-green experience.

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[slew]

FWIW as you noted, the cones in our eyes have "band-pass" filters in order form them so to accurate receive colors is not really that important the for the RGB spectra of the pixels match the LMS (long medium short) band-pass filters of the cones in your eye, only that the relative response is maintained.

Having said that the way you sense colors is not at all how your eye receives the stimulus from the cones in your eyes. First of all, the colors are not sensed as relative responses, but opponent color responses: L-M (aka R-G), L+M-S (aka Y-B) and intensity. This makes for some interesting colors that are not sensed (e.g., reddish-green and yellowish-blue) and even some "impossible" colors. This amplifies any mismatch in your "filters" so unless they are *exact*, you will sense the difference.

Fortunately (unfortunately?) the way we perceive colors is different than the way we sense colors. Your brain is really painting the colors for your perception in your visual cortex after it's done some "white-balancing" too so what color you remember is a significantly influence by your setting and context. Remember the blue/black dress that broke the internet (or was it gold)?

Long story short, what you think of as perceiving color is really only "hinted" at by the cone response in your eyes. Any ability to distinguish "shades" of color is really a contrast response, not a color frequency response.

Back to this new technology, of course if you are a "traditionalist" and still believe in absolute color and frequency responses and gamuts, probably won't like this new technology at all given these pathetic gamut tracings, but if you follow a bit down the rabbit hole of your visual cortex, and look at what was once possible with Kinemacolor a (simple two-color) processes and realize that what most people think of as color, really isn't how you perceive color at all, it is really all in your head.

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[thegarbz]

This exactly. The overlap of the cones is a good example of why you can't simulate pure colours through any combination of our existing spectral spectral responses. You can actually do this on a computer with mathematical convolution but our brains don't work like that.

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[Immerman]

You're right. I suppose the optimal would actually be a trio of colors that only stimulate one cone each - though that might well not be possible depending on the frequency response curve.

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[Kjella]

I'm kinda surprised that nobody has tried building a quantum dot display with more than three primaries yet, at least not that I've heard of. Like if you went hex with six primaries I think you should come very, very close to any point on the response curve. Maybe combine it with a hex grid instead of square pixels with every other triangle being the "new" primaries and the other three the old, something like this. That kind of Red-Orange-Yellow-Green-Turquoise-Blue display should kick ass. Now the obvious downside is that you'll only get half the intensity per channel, but then you can balance accuracy for intensity by either giving your intense pure red an extra boost in intensity with the orange channel or keep the red as it is. For blinding white or something like that you can still fire on 6/6 channels instead of 3/3.

Re: More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[wasteoid]

Geneticists need to create a plasmid that gives humans the ability to see the infrared or ultraviolet spectrum.

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[wonkey_monkey]

Actually the blue and green frequencies used are quite close to peak - there's too much overlap between red, green and blue on the green cone to choose anything better for the green cone (before red drops off enough, blue comes in and ruins it).

The red frequency used is quite far over towards infra-red from the peak, though.

https://jakubmarian.com/wp-con...

Re:More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[wonkey_monkey]

Blue and green are very close to peak (there's very little red/green response to peak blue, and peak green is about the best you can get without stimulating red too much, or blue at all), but red is over towards infrared from the peak, which avoids stimulating green cones too much.

https://jakubmarian.com/wp-con...

Re: More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[Miamicanes]

Approximately 10-20% of women actually have two variants of red and/or green cones... one inherited from each parent.

Somewhere between .1% and 1% of women are believed to be "perceptibly" tetrachromatic... half of their "red" cones are 'normal', while the other half are shifted far enough towards green to act like 'yellow-orange' cones (the same red variant that deuteranomalous men have as their ONLY red cones). The HARD part is testing for it, because nearly everything in modern life (including LED light & pigments) is optimized for RGB or CMYK color. The colors that a tetrachromatic woman can distinguish are LITERALLY outside the gamut of colors you can print or view on film or a monitor via conventional means. Trying to display them as RGB, or print them as CMYK, is like trying to find a combination of blue and red that makes orange... it can't be done.

Re: More important perhaps - no more RGB?!

[Immerman]

Except I'm petty sure film pigments are optimized for normal eyes as well. You're pretty much stuck with using ink/paints made in the actual colors you need, because pretty much every color capture/replication technology we have is based on simulating that color within the framework of a "normal" human eye.

And even with the right ink you're not going to be able to just print out a few dozen posters unless you're using an old-school printing press. Anything newer is going to expect CMYK control data, so you're going to have to replace one of those with your custom ink and submit a "hacked" print job - possibly a "black and white" second printing with custom ink over the top of your "normal colors" poster. Not something you can easily order from the budget printing shop on the corner.

Take your own advice

[MikeDataLink]

Current display technologies don't use these "subpixels". CRTs and plasma displays still use them, but those are pretty much obsolete now. Grab a magnifying glass and look closely at the picture on a CRT or plasma screen, and you can see the subpixels. If you use the magnifying glass on an LCD or OLED screen, you don't see the subpixels, because the color of the pixel is not made up of 3 subpixels, but just one.

Because you couldn't be any more wrong.

Umm, wouldn't it be 9 times the resolution

[slickwillie]

since screens have 2 dimensions?

Re:Umm, wouldn't it be 9 times the resolution

[Wookie Monster]

No, the subpixel division is just in one dimension, usually horizontal for subpixel font rendering to be effective.

Re:Umm, wouldn't it be 9 times the resolution

[Immerman]

You're on the right track, but going the wrong direction. It would be sqrt(3) times the resolution.

This change (if it would actually work as imagined, which it would not - color vision is considerably more complicated) would let each sub-pixel be it's own pixel, so you get 3x the pixels in the same area But resolution is a linear measurement. Pixel count goes up with resolution-squared, but we're calculating in the opposite direction.

Re:Umm, wouldn't it be 9 times the resolution

[bondsbw]

And there are alternative layouts like Pentile/RGBG. Though, either way it doesn't matter because it won't change existing display panels. This new tech would have new panels and presumably use square pixels.

Re: Umm, wouldn't it be 9 times the resolution

[wasteoid]

Should switch to hexagonal pixels.

You can't just change the color

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

You need to change the brightness of the color as well. Using the voltage to change the color would meant that you can't use it to change the brightness, which is the way current LCD's work.

Re:You can't just change the color

[Immerman]

Are you sure they can't? A component is after all capable of having more than one input driving it in different ways, and I think it's probably safe to assume this isn't a simple single-junction diode.

Re:You can't just change the color

[safetyinnumbers]

And if it really is any color on the spectrum, it can't do purple.

Re:You can't just change the color

[mentil]

Indeed, the research paper points this out as a problem.

White?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since "white" isn't on the color gamut but a blending of multiple colors, how do they do white?

Can you make them the same scale?

[complete loony]

That's assuming that this new pixel can be manufactured at the same scale. If you can make normal RGB pixels smaller, then this will never take off.

Or maybe it's time that we stopped...

[mark-t]

.... effectively shining flashlights into our eyes when we read computer screens and put some work into realizing a commercially viable cmyk display with decent resolution and refresh times on par with that of existing rgb displays.

Re:Or maybe it's time that we stopped...

[thegarbz]

That would make it hard to use in the dark.

Re:Or maybe it's time that we stopped...

[Kjella]

Photons are photons, the only theoretical difference is that a CMYK display that depends on reflection instead of emission would work relative to the amount of light available so it a dark place they'd be dark and in a very bright place like in sunlight they'd be bright. In practice though, we don't have surfaces that reflect all the possible combinations of light that you can emit, that is to say Pointer's gamut. But even within that gamut it's not a solid, you can't just pick a point and say I want exactly this color. What's possible is determined by what inks you can combine to get close and we don't magically get more. There's many Pantone colors you can't do with CMYK and many other real world surfaces like metallic you can't easily emulate with anything else. And that's for a static image.

I think the biggest difference is that with emissive technology you're in control, you create a structure and then either emit or don't emit light. With a reflective structure you have to alter it physically or chemically so that when light hits it, something different happens. We're making improvements in leaps and bounds when it comes to high intensity (HDR/nits), color space (Rec. 2020), spaltial resolution (UHD), color resolution (10 bit), color accuracy (better factory calibration, lifetime adjustment), frame rates (48/60 fps vs 24 fps) etc. so YMMV but I find we're making more and more naturalistic screens. Right now the standards are a bit of a mess but I expect that eventually the dust will settle and we'll have it all the way from content to display.

Re:Or maybe it's time that we stopped...

[mark-t]

Photons are photons, the only theoretical difference is that a CMYK display that depends on reflection instead of emission would work relative to the amount of light available so it a dark place they'd be dark and in a very bright place like in sunlight they'd be bright.

Which is an important distinction, since your pupils naturally expand or contract according to the amount of light available in your *ENTIRE* field of view, not just whatever from you are trying to necessarily consciously concentrate on reading or looking at.

If there is too little surrounding light, and reading an emissive display can be like reading while staring into a flashlight. You can turn down the brightness of the display, but at the cost of perceived contrast. While you would technically get the same lack of contrast if the same amount of light were hitting a reflective display, it seems that the brain is able to more easily accomodate for poor lighting conditions if one's entire surroundings reflect those conditions than it can if the lighting conditions come from just a small part of a person's field of view. I suspect this may be because of how the brain balances dependency on rods or cones for information depending on how much surrounding light is available, but not being an expert in this area, I cannot say for sure what the real cause is.

If there is too much surrounding light, an emissive display must produce more of its own light to have sufficient contrast to be perceived. This consumes more power, and in daylight conditions it can sometimes even be impossible for devices with limited power to generate enough illumination to create a usable display.

Reflective displays could solve both issues.

Re:Or maybe it's time that we stopped...

[mark-t]

You mean like how it is already hard to read in the dark? Same difference, really. There's no inherent reason that you need something you are looking at to produce its own light.

Great

[Archfeld]

A higher resolution is all well and good, but can it create something worth watching ? All this improvement in color and clarity and we're still watching half a day of reruns of bad reality shows, and the other half of paid advertisements.
A reboot of a re-envisioned show about a neverwas starring a wannabe and 2 neverwillbe's.

Reality

[sgunhouse]

Being able to change the color of a pixel isn't the same as letting it represent all colors. There are 3 dimensions to color space - whether you write is as red, green and blue or hue, saturation and intensity. If they can control both the brightness (intensity) and color (hue) of their pixel, they are still missing one dimension - saturation. Until they can deal with gray, olive (a grayish green), tan and all those other not totally saturated colors, it can't replace the current technology.

Seeing

[tquasar]

I doubt that I could discern the difference.

Re:Cost

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure the T220 makes sense today, when you can get a 4k monitor doing 60Hz for a reasonable price (about $300).

If you really just want high resolution, get something like this:

https://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=9SIA8X54TF1049

Re:Cost

[thegarbz]

The only drawback is a 50Hz refresh but I don't play any games.

The only drawback? It think you may want to look at this a bit more closely.

- 48Hz refresh rate.
- Strange connection options make driving the display tearing free a headache (no seriously there are people battling with connecting this at anything higher than 16Hz on various forums with a modern graphics card).
- Ghosting problems like most LCDs of that era.
- Uneven backlight like most LCDs before LED backlights were introduced (several years after the T221 backlight compensation was introduced in high end screens).
- 8-bit display processing meaning the monitor of that insane cost can't be perfectly calibrated. Also because it presents to the OS as 4 in one at 48Hz you can't calibrate the video output perfectly anyway without ending up with 4 different calibration curves depending on which part of the screen you're looking at.
- Contrast ratio is on par with displays of its time It has a fan so it's not even silent. Like WTF!
- It's really thick.
- It's very bloody heavy.

Don't get me wrong it was an astonishingly excellent display for its time. But it also represents a lot of what people hated about early LCD technology. If you're willing to give up a slight amount of vertical resolution and go for a 16:9 display instead you can find many that completely wipe the floor with this ancient relic from the past, not to mention displays with even more resolution so you can consider it not reducing it vertically but extending it horizontally.

Why?

[markdavis]

>" could lead to three times the resolution for televisions, smartphones and other devices."

Perhaps for "other devices", but for TVs and general phone use, it is a waste of time. Unless they plan on increasing the human eye and brain along with it.

Example: 99.9% of people won't notice any difference between quality 1080P and 4K at a normal distance for the size of the screen (perhaps 9-10 feet for a 70-80" screen). Same thing with a 5.5" phone held at a normal 16" or so (although reading/viewing static TEXT on devices is far different from moving video and does benefit from some increase in resolution, but we already have that now).

Please put the effort into things that actually matter to more than 0.01% of the population. Like better battery life, or better reception, higher bandwidth, wider viewing angles, lower power draw, lower weight, lower price, etc.

Re:Why?

[JustNiz]

>> 99.9% of people won't notice any difference between quality 1080P and 4K at a normal distance for the size of the screen

Disagree. I just went from a 1080p TV to a similarly sized 4K TV. The difference in visual clarity is massively obvious with the right content (i.e. blu-ray or better) The real problem is that 4K content is still a rarity.

Yes blu-ray is only 1080p but the TV does a good enough job of upscaling that even that source provides a noticable improvement with 4k.

Re:Why?

[markdavis]

I am more inclined to believe you are just in that very small 0.1% of people who can actually tell :)

I can tell too, but only with extraordinary content, and only with no motion (OR, if I stand three feet from my 80" TV). Neither is typical for most video, though. More useful for displaying stills.

Re:Why?

[JustNiz]

>> I am more inclined to believe you are just in that very small 0.1% of people who can actually tell :)

I seriously doubt that its .1%. The difference is freaking obvious.

>> Neither is typical for most video, though.

Yet. 4k will become the new 1080. Not least because it allows hollywood to re-sell all their old movies yet again, and implement better DRM.

Re: Cost

[DontBeAMoran]

If you're not worried about a TV not lasting a decade I feel sorry for everyone.

Three times the pixels means...what?

[iliketrash]

"Three times as many pixels means three times the resolution."

WRONG. Three times as many pixels means sqrt(3) times the resolution.

Re: Prepare to be disappointed...

[chaboud]

LCD monitors don't have per-pixel backlighting and are, in fact, transparent display panels in which black is not merely "just off". Black in an LCD requires alignment of polarized filter elements. It *may* be a stable state for a given panel, but even those panels will typically drive the element towards black to facilitate faster pixel response.

For OLED, black is the same as off.

Re: Prepare to be disappointed...

[Miamicanes]

They didn't have infinite resolution... they were STILL limited by dot pitch & shadow mask. An antialiased 720p 19" display would probably look *better* than a typical "Tempest" game's display did... and a 2160x2880 display could probably accurately emulate misconvergence.

Vector was impressive in the early 80s because RAM was expensive & bitmaps were blocky. Modern displays are higher-res than vector displays were even *theoretically* capable of displaying. You can get nearly-flawless "Vectrex" emulation with a "Retina" iPad Mini.

Re:Subpixels

[wonkey_monkey]

Here's me with modpoints, but they just don't have an option for "wrong."

Re:Cost

[ArchieBunker]

Its all 16:9, no deal.

Drastically higher resolution serves no purpose.

[MrL0G1C]

Drastically higher resolution serves no purpose. Whilst I disagreed with the people who were saying 4k looks no different from 1080p, clearly not the case, especially when it comes to fonts and jaggies, I do think that the diminishing returns are small enough that any additional resolution is not worth it because of the extra power draw and because with 3d software, higher resolution is at the expense of techniques which will work better towards a better quality experience.

So...

[BitztreamNotARealNam]

How's life in the hypocrite lane?

Re:Prepare to be disappointed...

[jdschulteis]

I think we should go back to vector displays because they have infinite resolution.

In case that isn't a joke:

Assuming a vector display involved an electron beam hitting a phosphor-coated screen, molecular resolution would be the best it could do. Long before that would come limitations on how tightly the electron beam could be focused, and how quickly the beam could be modulated and scanned.