On 19/01/2011 01:54 PM, scott wrote:
>>> As usual with almost every
>>> product though, the technology will work its way down to the cheaper
>>> handsets over the next few years.
>>
>> So the answer is "because it's new"?
>
> There's nothing fundamentally new about it, nor is it any particular
> step increase, Apple just made a big song and dance about it

I'm just wondering why nobody makes regular monitors at high resolution 
yet, if the technology exists.

> I have a 3330 at home too (I did have a 3310 but it had an accident with
> a river and then with a screwdriver and a soldering iron).

That's one hell of an accident! o_O

>>> It's unusual to find even cheap monitors now that don't do proper 24bit.
>>
>> Um... is that the way round you meant to say it?
>
> I think so :-) I just got one of the cheapest off Amazon for my mother
> and it claims to do full 24-bit colour (16.7m colours, no dithering) - I
> didn't check though.

So that's a cheap display that *does* do proper 24bit? (You said "doesn't".)

>> And here I was thinking it's because a liquid crystal's voltage response
>> is highly non-linear and it's hard to get the really small colour
>> graduations required...
>
> It's not hard, you just need more bits for the DAC, and that takes up
> valuable space on the glass (don't forget each DAC needs to be the width
> of 1 sub-pixel!).

And here I was thinking that the electronics is round the edges of the 
display...

> Most "24-bit" panels will have a 10-bit DAC for each
> sub-pixel, the 8-bit input is used to look up a 10-bit value in a LUT,
> then the 10-bit value is used to generate the correct voltage. The LUT
> factors in gamma and the non-linear LC response curve.

Hmm, I see...

Post a reply to this message