 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
> paper printout.
You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-) Also don't
forget LCD can display one of 16m colours on every dot, whereas print
needs to use dithering techniques.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 19/01/2011 11:28 AM, scott wrote:
>> I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
>> paper printout.
>
> You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-)
No. But then, I haven't seen *most* of the phones on the market, so...
Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
do this?
> Also don't
> forget LCD can display one of 16m colours on every dot, whereas print
> needs to use dithering techniques.
My computer monitor at home is LCD, and it uses dithering to display the
full 2^24 colours. (Quite irritating, actually...) But sure, the
expensive ones can do it properly. (And even my monitor can manage more
than just black and white without any dithering.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-)
>
> No. But then, I haven't seen *most* of the phones on the market, so...
>
> Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
> resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
> do this?
Cost, and maybe power consumption/battery life too. A lot of smart
phones with touch screens are up around 250 ppi, but I think the iPhone
is the only one at the moment over 300. As usual with almost every
product though, the technology will work its way down to the cheaper
handsets over the next few years. Do you remember when only the
high-end phones had cameras in them?
> My computer monitor at home is LCD, and it uses dithering to display the
> full 2^24 colours. (Quite irritating, actually...) But sure, the
> expensive ones can do it properly. (And even my monitor can manage more
> than just black and white without any dithering.)
It's unusual to find even cheap monitors now that don't do proper 24bit.
It used to be just because it was cheaper to only put a few thousand
6-bit DACs on the panel rather than 8-bit ones, but I guess the
difference has become negligible now.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Stephen <mcavoys_at@aoldotcom> wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 2:32 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> > But, in general, books tend to have very sharp text, no blurring,
>
> You are showing yor age Patrick ;-)
> Books printed on pulp paper with hot metal were not only blurry the
> lines of text were not straight.
>
haha, PWNED
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> On 19/01/2011 11:28 AM, scott wrote:
> >> I've yet to see any LCD that comes even close to the resolution of a
> >> paper printout.
> >
> > You haven't seen an iPhone with its 326 ppi LCD then? ;-)
>
> No. But then, I haven't seen *most* of the phones on the market, so...
>
> Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
> resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
> do this?
not quite the only device. My motorola milestone 2 has a 240 dpi and I suspect
it's cheaper for small screens to provide it...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Basically, my question is this: If the technology exists to make a high
>> resolution LCD, then why is the iPhone the only device on the market to
>> do this?
>
> 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"?
> Do you remember when only the high-end phones had cameras in them?
Remember? I *own* one of those phones! A little Nokia 3310. (I don't
*use* it any more, of course...)
>> My computer monitor at home is LCD, and it uses dithering to display the
>> full 2^24 colours. (Quite irritating, actually...)
>
> 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?
> It used to be just because it was cheaper to only put a few thousand
> 6-bit DACs on the panel rather than 8-bit ones, but I guess the
> difference has become negligible now.
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...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> 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
(particularly as they claim OLED was not capable of such high ppi) and
it happens to be the highest ppi phone display on the market IIRC. I'm
sure you can find almost all values of ppi from 100 up to 300 on the
market if you look.
> Remember? I *own* one of those phones! A little Nokia 3310. (I don't
> *use* it any more, of course...)
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).
>> 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.
> 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!). 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.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> I'm just wondering why nobody makes regular monitors at high resolution
> yet, if the technology exists.
326 dpi on a 20" display is 5500 x 3500 pixels. Can you get a regular
graphics card to do that, imagine the fill-rate needed! I don't think
DVI can go that high either, you'd need something special. Plus on the
display itself you'd need a monster backlight probably with fans,
yield/reliability would be very low due to the sheer number of
rows/columns (chances are relatively high that one would be broken
somehow and render the panel useless). Maybe in 10 years time or so,
but today it would be an astronomical waste of money to try and
manufacture such a device.
> That's one hell of an accident! o_O
At least I learned first-hand that Nokia can tell if the phone's ever
got wet :-)
> So that's a cheap display that *does* do proper 24bit? (You said
> "doesn't".)
I said it was *unusual* to find one that doesn't do proper 24bit.
>> 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...
It is, but you need a separate DAC for every column on the display, so
there's no other practical solution than making them the same width as a
sub-pixel and putting them along the bottom (or top) edge.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Le 19/01/2011 15:43, scott a écrit :
> 326 dpi on a 20" display is 5500 x 3500 pixels. Can you get a regular
> graphics card to do that, imagine the fill-rate needed! I don't think
> DVI can go that high either, you'd need something special.
DVI single link is limited to 165 MHz and 24 bits per pixels.
DVI dual link is not limited, excepted by the copper and both ends.
But the reality of a 20" display at 326 dpi, for 2D, is not useful.
For hand held, 326 dpi is fine (very fine).
For a 20" display, that would make the pixel unreadable.
(usual pixel size is between 0.2 and 0.3 mm, which is about the
classical 72 & 100 dpi of fonts)
Pushing to 200 dpi in 20" would still be a frivolous move.
--
A good Manager will take you
through the forest, no mater what.
A Leader will take time to climb on a
Tree and say 'This is the wrong forest'.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
