On 03/10/2012 01:59 PM, Warp wrote:
> There's more multimedia out there than just Lord of the Rings movies.
> Things like TV series, documentaries, comedy routines and so on do not
> require a movie theater sized screen. They can very well be enjoyed from
> a 4-inch screen while sitting on a train.

I was about to make some comment about how excruciatingly loud trains 
are - and then I remembered, that's only UK trains. Other parts of the 
world have a train system with actual /investment/...

>> Now, imagine watching a movie on a screen that's so tiny that you have
>> to hold it a few inches in front of your face to even be able to /see/
>> it.
>
> And again with the exaggerations. Just stop it, please.

What makes you think this is an exaggeration?

Just to make sure I'm not under-estimating or over-estimating how big an 
"inch" actually is, I just took a ruler to my phone. The screen is 1.5 
inches across by 2 inches tall. Now, I can see the menus on this thing 
without holding it to right up to my face. But that's because it only 
displays up to 4 options at once. If you were to take an image designed 
to be viewed on a TV-sized screen and shrink it down to this size... 
well, you wouldn't be able to see a hell of a lot, no matter how amazing 
the spatial resolution is.

I actually have memories of trying to operate a Sinclair ZX Spectrum on 
one of those old portable CRT things. Because it's CRT, the unit is 
huge, but only has a piffling 6-inch display at the end of it. It made 
the text nearly illegible. Now, admittedly a cheap CRT displaying an 
RT-modulated signal is not exactly the height of visual precision. But 
it would seem to me that you aren't going to see much with /any/ display 
technology at that size. (We've all seen inch-sized photographs on real 
photographic paper, right?)

I take your point; if you're only watching IQ, then mainly you're 
listening to the witty banter. Not being able to properly see the 
expressions on people's faces probably isn't /that/ critical. It just 
puzzles me that anybody would think that "full HD" on such a tiny 
surface would be worth the effort.

Post a reply to this message