Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The World's Smallest Full HD Display

CmdrTaco posted more than 3 years ago | from the i-can-see-clearly-now dept.

Displays 243

An anonymous reader writes "Ever heard of Ortustech? Probably not. But you have heard of Casio, right? Ortustech is a joint venture between Casio Computer and Toppan Printing to develop small and medium sized displays. Today, the company is announcing a doozy with its 4.8-inch 1920 x 1080 pixel HAST (Hyper Amorphous Silicon TFT) LCD with 160-degree viewing angle, 16.8 million colors, and a pixel density of 458ppi. Amazing when you compare that to the lauded 326ppi of iPhone 4's Retina display."

cancel ×

243 comments

Thats it? (1)

Codename Dutchess (1782238) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010816)

No other info? A link to a pdf in Chinese. Fantastic. Whats battery life like? Why do I need 1080p in something less than 5 inches? Who cares? All these questions, and more, I would love answered.

Re:Thats it? (4, Informative)

siddesu (698447) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010984)

The spec sheet is in Japanese, not Chinese.

It claims that the thing is 14 grams, that it supports 260,000 colors, at brightness of 300 cd/m^2 it uses 10 mA per hour @ 3V and that it can operate from -20 to +70C, and RoHC compliant.

Need any other info?

Re:Thats it? (0, Redundant)

Fleetie (603229) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011306)

10mA per hour, huh?!

Re:Thats it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011556)

Cool, so that's like 240mA per day then?

Not the same device! (5, Informative)

pepax (748182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011512)

The spec sheet is for something different: instead of 4.8'' it is 2.4''; instead of 16.8M colors it displays 260k colors, and it is only 320x240 pixels (at 170 ppi). It appears to be a spec sheet for their previous announcement. I can't find anything about the current announcement on the Ortustech website...

Re:Thats it? (1)

Pojut (1027544) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011056)

Why do I need 1080p in something less than 5 inches?

Marketability.

Re:Thats it? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011668)

It's a waste for a cell phone, but for a monitor for an HDTV shoot this will be quite useful. When you're shooting, you need to see what you're actually shooting, not a scaled down version, since the scaling can have all sorts of unexpected effects.

Re:Thats it? (4, Funny)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011320)

Gasp! You mean it links directly to the available factual information, instead of a blog article that's three sources removed from the original data? The horror...

Re:Thats it? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011570)

Uh, guys, if you actually read the pdf...

Not sure what "QVGA" means but it certainly doesn't sound like HD :P.

Re:Thats it? (1)

pepax (748182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011634)

Rest easy... There is factual information, but it has nothing to do with the actual article.

Fresnel lenses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010818)

Pretty soon, you'll have people watching 1080p using fresnel lenses to magnify these displays, like they had in the movies Brazil and WALL-E.

Re:Fresnel lenses (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010852)

The ElectriClerk [ahleman.com] - made out of a Mac SE, a Underwood typewriter and a Fresnel Lens

From the TFA (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010820)

"the iPhone 4s infamous Retina display packs in 326 pixels"

Why INfamous ? Can we mod the TFA as Troll or Flamebait ? :)

Re:From the TFA (2, Interesting)

captainpanic (1173915) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011254)

"the iPhone 4s infamous Retina display packs in 326 pixels"

Why INfamous ? Can we mod the TFA as Troll or Flamebait ? :)

Assuming you're not joking, I will reply and request a -1 Offtopic for myself rather than for you.

The use of a single subjective word is not trolling or flaming. It's just a poor choice of words and can happen to anyone.
If however the whole purpose of the sentence is to misinform, to be off-topic (like me in this post!) or to insult, then it can be called trolling or flaming.
Now, TFA has a lot of very objective information, and its goal seems to inform us.

On topic again: when would a display be "good enough"? When do we reach a point that we cannot possibly see the difference between a resolution, and an even higher pixel density?

Re:From the TFA (1)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011660)

That depends on how far away the display is from the eye. If you want something that is held at arms length the iPhone's display is probably already to that point, though there may be a subjective difference by going higher it isn't likely to matter much. If you want something that could be mounted on a pair of glasses however, you've still got a ways to go. I wonder what the minimum comfortable focus length is a single eye...

90 micron (1)

mrops (927562) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011694)

Long time ago I read eye can resolute at no more than 0.02 to 0.03 deg, that means at 30 cm, u need to have pixels no bigger than approx 90 micron (if I calculated it correctly for the lower range), this includes the padding between the pixels. At 30cm, that is already achievable, its 282 ppi. Less than iPhone 4's and this new displays ppi.

Re:From the TFA (0, Offtopic)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011286)

Why INfamous ? Can we mod the TFA as Troll or Flamebait ? :)

My guess is the submitter learned what the word infamous means from the movie "The Three Amigos"...

Too small.... (4, Insightful)

bernywork (57298) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010826)

4.8" ?? How about giving me 24" or 32" at the same res?

FFS, for so long now we haven't been going up in DPI on screens. We just got to a certain point and after that we just went "OOoohhh HD" or basically, "OOOhhhh shiny!"

WTF happened?

Re:Too small.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010914)

24'' 1920x1200 HP LCD is siting on my desk 2,5 years already.

Re:Too small.... (1)

PsyciatricHelp (951182) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011044)

I have been saying the same thing for a few years now. Why the Hell does my 40" not have 458ppi. http://xkcd.com/732/ [xkcd.com]

Re:Too small.... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010938)

4.8" ?? How about giving me 24" or 32" at the same res?

FFS, for so long now we haven't been going up in DPI on screens. We just got to a certain point and after that we just went "OOoohhh HD" or basically, "OOOhhhh shiny!"

WTF happened?

We more-or-less reached the limit of human visual acuity at normal viewing distances in normal viewing conditions?

What's the point of making a 32" screen with pixels so small you can only see them if your nose is pressed up against the glass?

Re:Too small.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010996)

We reached mine (with my 43 year old eyes) quite some time back. As I become more far-sighted I start to need reading glasses to read small text on screens like the Moto Droid. Once I put those reading glasses on, I am amazed at how beautiful these screens are, but without the assistance from the lens they honestly appear a little on the blurry side. I can't imagine trying to read the small type on a 4" 1920x1200 screen. That would be near impossible for someone like me.

Re:Too small.... (2, Insightful)

shadowrat (1069614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011226)

That's why the systems tend to define a resolution independent mechanism for specifying text sizes. nobody is going to read 24 pixel type on that screen. it would be 0.04".

Re:Too small.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011038)

I have a 1920x1600 24" LCD and I can see the pixels pretty clearly from a normal viewing distance. Without anti-aliasing it looks abysmal.

Double the DPI would be fine, I think, but the current DPI of monitors is too low.

Re:Too small.... (3, Insightful)

freeshoes (826204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011060)

One word, Glasses, with screens build in.

Re:Too small.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011250)

That's five words.

Re:Too small.... (0)

freeshoes (826204) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011310)

Glasses is the word, the rest is detail.

Re:Too small.... (0, Offtopic)

M8e (1008767) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011502)

I'm counting seven.

Re:Too small.... (1)

petermgreen (876956) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011324)

We more-or-less reached the limit of human visual acuity at normal viewing distances in normal viewing conditions?
I can't agree, I have an ultraportable with a 10 inch 1366x768 display and it's perfectly usable at that resoloution. Even allowing for the facts that desktop screens are for longer term use and that you typically sit a bit further away from them the pixel density on larger desktop screens is FAR lower than I would consider desirable.

Afaict what really happened is that marketing realised the lusers look at screen size rather than pixel count and density. Combine that with a move to a display technology with discrete pixels and manufacturers exploiting synergies with the HDTV market is that most screens availiable today are 19-24 inch with resoloutions of 1920x1080 or lower.

Re:Too small.... (2, Insightful)

JaredOfEuropa (526365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011050)

I'd like to have them smaller, in a 3" size, for use in VR glasses. Most current VR headsets go up to 640x480, higher resolutions are horribly expensive.

Re:Too small.... (5, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011198)

It's the data rate that's a problem.

Let's imagine 458dpi on a relatively "modest" screen that's 20in by 11.7in. That makes a display resolution of 9160 by 5358.

To update that screen at 60 frames per second would require a data rate of 6.9 *terabits* per second to the actual panel. Now you can say, "compress the data before sending it to the screen", but that would just increase the processing power needed, and at the end of the day, something still has to feed the raw panel the data at 6.9 terabits per second.

Big screens aren't getting higher DPI because (a) it's not needed (generally, you're looking at a big screen from a few feet away, and 100 dpi is more than enough) and (b) it would be fantastically expensive to do it and (c) no one has developed a standard to shift data from the computer to the display at the kinds of data rates that would be required to drive such a display.

Re:Too small.... (1)

macraig (621737) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011260)

This is THE most intelligent response to this complaint that I've ever read. Mod this post up to +6, please.

Re:Too small.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011440)

Fair enough but you have to admit that the fact it's nowadays impossible to buy a decent 2500x1900 display (approx, can't remember exact resolution but it's something my CRT could do 15 years ago) below a few thousand bucks is ridiculous. 1920x1080 may be fine for TV but it somehow came to the point when it's impossible to buy even monitors with a higher res.

Re:Too small.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011538)

Yes for big screens, but should small screens get such a high resolution too? A weak point of all smart phones is power consumption, what's the point of computing and displaying more pixels than the eyes can see? (assuming that the Retina display is indeed already above eye resolution)

I can clearly see the marketing interest to attract some people (the vision equivalent of some audiophiles we could say), but on my side I'd rather have less (but enough for the size) pixels and also less power consumption thank you.

Re:Too small.... (1)

hvm2hvm (1208954) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011620)

Other problems that occur are simple wiring/connection problems. You'd need to connect 9000 horizontal and 5000 vertical channels. And then manage to synchronize the inner pixels between them by sending the right waveforms in the channels. Just that would be a huge task, requiring a very careful planning of circuitry, and combined with the amount of data you mentioned, a very complex mathematical and physical task. Another problem I'd see with this is power, all those circuits would probably consum a ton of energy.

You're two orders of magnitude off (4, Insightful)

LeDopore (898286) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011658)

Ummm...

9160 * 5358 * 60 * 24 = 70410355200

That's 70,410,355,200 with commas, about 70 Gb/s (8 GB/s). That's about one order of magnitude faster than the current HDMI spec. It's technically feasible now, and will be easy to do in about 4 years.

By then, many digital cameras will have many tens of megapixels, so the resolution of the screen won't be unused.

What kind of applications would benefit from such uber-high def? One idea: I'm looking forward to the day we will be able to use commodity cameras and displays to get digital microscopy good enough to replace having to stare down an eyepiece. Imaging also being able to show other scientists what you're doing without having to switch seats, refocus, etc. Bring it on.

(And no, current HD is about 2-3 times too rough to do the really fine observations I need on a daily basis.)

Re:Too small.... (4, Informative)

SWPadnos (191329) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011366)

IBM made a much higher resolution display in 2001:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors [wikipedia.org]

This is a 22", 3840x2400 display. I still wonder why that kind of technology never caught on. I know the IBM displays (and the Viewsonics) were expensive, starting at $17000 or so (the VS was "only" $9000 new), but I had hoped that there might be economies of scale eventually. Sadly, these panels haven't been manufactured for about 5 years. Every once in a while there's a rumor that someone is making a new model, but it never seems to happen.

I'm also wondering just what happened for (almost) everyone to decide that 1080 is enough vertical pixels.

Re:Too small.... (1)

BlackBloq (702158) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011380)

You are really missing the boat on this one. This is about devices like camera's and stuff. Imagine you could see all of your 22 Mega pixel camera on screen at once. A photographer can read info from that extra information and use it. Same with science. Image field lab equipment, more cells on screen at once, no need to go to the real display (laptop/notebook). Same for Camcorders etc. So doing video recording you will be actually seeing all recoded pixels on the display;and that's rad.

Re:Too small.... (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011442)

You are really missing the boat on this one. This is about devices like camera's and stuff. Imagine you could see all of your 22 Mega pixel camera on screen at once. A photographer can read info from that extra information and use it.

Not really, because the pixels are so small they can't see them. A better histograph display would be a greater boon to the photographer, who is already using an SLR or an optical viewfinder to overcome the limits of pixels.

Re:Too small.... (1)

commodore64_love (1445365) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011562)

>>>We just got to a certain point and after that we just went "OOoohhh HD"

The screens are being produced for the general population, and they only have Blurays or HDTV (1920x1080) as their maximum resolution. No point going higher than that, just as there was no point making CRT TVs higher than approximately 700x525 back in the days of analog VCRs (1990s and earlier).

Of course if you need higher resolution, for CAD or CGI development, I'm sure those specialized displays can be bought and hooked-up to your computer.

Oh, look... (1)

amnesiacopera (1748256) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010834)

...Just in time for the PSP2.

Usable by humans (4, Interesting)

tomalpha (746163) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010836)

New tech is all good, but if this is now (supposedly) even more higher res than the human eye compared to Retina, is there any point?

Can you tell the difference?

Re:Usable by humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010892)

It will make it easier to hunt for humans when the robot uprising begins.

Re:Usable by humans (3, Interesting)

bemymonkey (1244086) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010952)

I could definitely go for a display like this, whether or not I can see the single pixels. Devices with displays this size usually run OS's that are relatively good at scaling - Android or iOS for instance.

Current screens, especially the huge 4"+ monsters on Android devices lately, are just too pixely at a measly WVGA, and I'd welcome higher resolutions such as 720p at 3.7" or so. Viewing web pages and large amounts of text is just more fun when you have enough pixels to play with - especially with web sites being designed for 1024x768 and higher these days.

The iPhone4 is close to perfect. Definitely the best display on the market, IMO, and mainly because of the nice pixel density.

No, I don't mind holding the phone 10" from my face in order to read text, as long as that text is nice and sharp, and I still have the option of zooming in with fantastic scaling. :)

Re:Usable by humans (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010980)

Actually yes. I can see some pixel borders on 326 DPI display that iDevices have when I'm looking really close up. Also I can clearly see differences in line widths so there is clearly room for some improvement, as technology has still not surpassed the limits of humans.

Re:Usable by humans (3, Informative)

Phrogz (43803) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010988)

The Retina theoretical limit is based on a 'standard' viewing distance for phone displays. If you wanted HD glasses (using a far focal point) you would need much higher res. Did not RTFA, but perhaps that is the sort of target for this.

Either that or it's just geeky dick wagging. :)

Re:Usable by humans (2, Insightful)

c (8461) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010992)

> Can you tell the difference?

There will always be someone who will claim to be able to tell the difference, and as long as that someone is as crazy as the average audiophile you'll see companies trying to develop 1200 dpi displays that you can wear on your wrist.

Re:Usable by humans (3, Funny)

Walterk (124748) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011040)

Of course you can tell the difference, as long as you wear special glasses with solid gold lenses as these conduct the photons better.

Re:Usable by humans (5, Informative)

Speare (84249) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011072)

I'm sure many will correct me if I'm wrong, but the basic gist of devices like the Retina display is to match or slightly exceed the theoretical limit of an eye's ability to resolve details at a normal usage distance. This is an argument directly related to the Nyquist theorem: to capture a signal, scan at a resolution at least twice your desired sensitivity. The Compact Disc chose 44050 Hz sampling rate because our ears generally cannot hear anything over 22000 Hz.

What the Nyquist theorem misses is that the mind is not just taking a single sample, but a time series of many samples. A good listener or an observant viewer can see qualitative differences in a square wave and a smoother sine wave, even near the limits of resolution. In the visual realm, there's a good example. As you move an image across different photoreceptors, the brain will synthesize additional resolution. Our eyeballs do this all the time: tiny involuntary movements called Nystagmus help our neural edge-detectors gather more data to aid in perception. You can experiment with this using a video editor and one of those "pixelating" filters: move an object behind a coarse pixelating filter, and you can easily determine more about the original object shape than you could with a fixed image. Nystagmus beats Nyquist, if you will.

I think there's plenty of room for higher resolution sampling: music is often sampled at 48000 KHz nowadays, and I think handheld displays will benefit from 400+ or even 500+ DPI easily.

Re:Usable by humans (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011166)

CDs are 44100Hz, not 44050.

Re:Usable by humans (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011086)

Perhaps a magnifying device will be attached to give you a bigger screen while still not being able to see the pixels ala the original Gameboy. Still this begs the question: how many people can afford the data transfer for a hd movie on a cell phone? Sure hope the price comes down but in the meantime I suspect it will be confined to wifi/physical connections to computer for transfer ala Facetime. I suspect the iPhone 5 or 4s or whatever they decide to call the refresh will have this or similar display. Also competitors like HTC might decide to throw it into their products just to shut Apple up from bragging how they have the best screen all the time.

Re:Usable by humans (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011118)

Depends on your viewing distance.

It's a step in the right direction: imagine this resolution on a 1" display. Now imagine two of those. Imagine some display holder that looks very much like a pair of glasses. And now imagine you wear those... the ultimate 3D display!

After that it should be come a relative small step to add some sensor to find the direction your head is turned and you have some great 3D VR goggles.

It may be a bit overdone for phone displays - but then the iPhone's "retina" resolution is of course based on something like arm-length viewing distance. Get closer and your eyes can manage more pixels.

Well... (1)

Ecuador (740021) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011120)

I am sure that with Casio's upcoming BionicEye artificial implantable eye bulbs, the difference will be astounding!

Re:Usable by humans (1)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011152)

Aliasing. Pixels too small to distinguish doesn't mean you've achieved display perfection, for much the same reasons that your games machine might do a 2x supersample, essentially rendering the game at double the display resolution to remove "jaggies".

Re:Usable by humans (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011158)

Absolutely! Normal printers manage to print at 600 dpi and there is a clear difference between text printed with that resolution and 300 dpi or even 150 dpi, which even that is higher than most LCD screens. The difference in readability is enormous. Imagine seeing the Times font look as crisp and readable on screen as on paper! Or not having to use stupid tricks like subpixel rendering to make fonts look good.

I can't wait for the day this technology becomes mainstream.

Re:Usable by humans (1)

migla (1099771) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011326)

The magic thing about a retina display is that if you get close enough it ceases to be a retina display.

I'd rather take two smaller displays of this super-retinal resolution, though, and have one for each eye...

Re:Usable by humans (1)

spankey51 (804888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011362)

Fit it with optics and integrate it into a pair of glasses... with this tech, surely VR glasses will be getting smaller and lighter while simultaneously improving resolution.

Re:Usable by humans (1)

Jazz-Masta (240659) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011406)

New tech is all good, but if this is now (supposedly) even more higher res than the human eye compared to Retina, is there any point?

Can you tell the difference?

Probably not. But guess what *magical, revolutionary* feature will make it into iPhone 5, TBA at the 2011 (or 2012) World Wide Developer Conference?

Enough already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010850)

300ppi should be enough for anyone! Or at least good enough for everyday use. I can imagine higher resolutions being useful in certain specialized professional applications.

What we really need in the consumer market are good value for money 1920x1080 pixel displays for laptops in the 12"-16" range. It would also be nice with a 4000x2000 pixel display for desktop computers.

Re:Enough already (3, Informative)

psergiu (67614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010880)

We will also need new video interfaces for a "4000x2000" display. A Dual-Link DVI or a DisplayPort interface can only drive up to 2560x1600. Dual-Link DisplayPort ?

Re:Enough already (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011504)

HDMI?

Too late! (3, Funny)

hcpxvi (773888) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010858)

Brilliant. It arrives just at the point in my life where my eyesight is deteriorating, so that I have no chance of benefiting from it. Sigh.

Re:Too late! (2, Informative)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011066)

I'm not sure how this works exactly, but there might be some benefit to the sharpness of these displays, even if your eyesight isn't great.

What about "normal-sized" HD screens? (1)

Vlado (817879) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010864)

While I applaud this development, I'm wandering about something else.

It was discussed here a few times, but it still strikes me as weird, that there do not seem to be more laptop screens of small-ish measurements (9", 13", 15") out there.

I was just recently buying a laptop. My current one is a 17" beast and I wanted to go with something smaller. But it's practically impossible to find anything below 15" that sports a full HD resolution. I would be willing to pay for that, but the offering available is just ridiculously low.

What gives?

Re:What about "normal-sized" HD screens? (1)

tengennewseditor (949731) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011094)

You can configure a Sony Vaio Z with a 13" 1920x1080.

Re:What about "normal-sized" HD screens? (1)

AndrewNeo (979708) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011132)

Marketing, or something like that. It's also near impossible to find a 15" laptop with dedicated graphics at your normal retail store (Best Buy, Walmart, whatnot)

Re:What about "normal-sized" HD screens? (1)

GIL_Dude (850471) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011134)

At work we have several standard models from which users (or their management) can choose from. A couple years ago we offered a very nice Lenovo T61p with a 1920x1200 display. I still have one of them as a test machine. Most of the people who ordered them wanted to send them back to us because "stuff is too small to read" (yes, for a good number of apps you can scale the display up but for many line of business applications you cannot). After awhile of this type of response we stopped offering anything over 1440x900 (which we now have in the Lenovo X201 and T410 series machines). While some folks have great vision and can benefit from the higher resolution / higher ppi / dpi displays, many (most?) business folks weren't able to reap that benefit. Perhaps that's why the manufacturers are loathe to put such displays into the 12" - 14" notebooks.

Re:What about "normal-sized" HD screens? (2, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011174)

These displays are basically integrated circuits. That means that the cost increases a lot faster than the size, unless you are willing to accept stuck pixels. The denser you make the pixels, the lower the yield. For small displays, the error rate may mean that you are throwing 20% of them away (or selling them cheaply to people who don't care about the quality). When you double the size of the display, your errors per unit area remain constant, but the area of display that you have to throw away for a single error doubles. For large screen displays, you are likely to be throwing away almost all of them, while making tiny displays with the same process would have you only discarding a few percent.

It's worth noting that IBM made a 225DPI 22" (I think, may have been 23") display back around 2000 (it predated dual-link DVI, so you needed to drive it from two DVI ports). I used one briefly, and it was amazing - text looked crisp even without antialiasing enabled. They sold them for $20,000, so very few people could afford them. They couldn't get the yields high enough to bring the price down, so eventually they discontinued them.

Small screens are great but... (1)

boondaburrah (1748490) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010868)

When will the pixel density of my desktop monitor go up? It's been stuck at about 100ppi for quite some time now, and it's not like the prices for displays have dropped whenever they come out with new technologies like this. Did people really stop caring once they could fit a movie on their screen?

Though I suppose it would be a bad idea (for my eyesight at least) to feed the habit of running text-based consoles at max resolution. Mmmm... Monospaced characters. I'm a real hacker now!

Re:Small screens are great but... (2, Interesting)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010906)

> When will the pixel density of my desktop monitor go up?

Not for a while if you own a mac.

For some strange reason, no matter the size and resolution of my monitor, Leopard insists that it's 96 dpi.

Ridiculous!

Re:Small screens are great but... (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011100)

What do yo mean "Leopard insists"? Genuine question, because I wasn't aware the OS had any mention of DPI (Adobe CS products have their "100%" zoom based on a stupid outdated number, but that's another matter).

Re:Small screens are great but... (5, Informative)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011274)

The OS doesn't mention DPI, but it still "knows" it. For example, a font of a certain point-size is, by definition, a certain size in other units. If I correctly recall high-school typing class, 10 points is 10 characters per inch wide and 6 lines per inch high.

Changing to a larger monitor of the same resolution should cause the same point-size to display with fewer pixels, as each pixel is now bigger.

Windows and X11 both allow you to set your monitor's DPI so that this stuff looks right. OS/X has some variable DPI stuff in the back end, but Steve won't let them expose it because they can't get it working right.

I had an unbelievably annoying experience in this regard last year. My Mac Mini with a 1280x1024 17" screen was working fine, but I needed a faster box and wanted a bigger screen. I went out and bought a 28" iMac..... only to discover that while the screen size increased, the resolution increase outpaced the physical size of the screen -- the net effect was that the writing on many dialogue boxes etc was so small that I couldn't read it. (My eyes suck, sue me)

To add insult to injury, there is also no official way on Leopard to alter the system fonts (like "Large Fonts" in Windows). Fortunately, I found some 3rd party software out there on the 'net that let me tweak the right prefs, and I now have a readable display.

But the DPI is still wrong.

Incidentally, I asked around in a bunch of mac forums and IRC channel. You know what the popular answer is among the fanbois? "Lower your resolution".

WTF?! That's stupidest answer ever! Yes, it DOES make the fonts bigger (actually illustrating the problem), but Christ almighty, especially when we're talking LCDs, what a moronic suggestion!

Re:Small screens are great but... (1)

cpotoso (606303) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011412)

Mod parent up! I also had a mac mini hooked up to a 40" HDTV and from the canonical 10 feet (actually more like 12 or 14) the fonts in Snow Leopard are completely illegible for dialog boxes et al. Unfortunately there is no way to make them bigger, even with 3rd party utilities (which make SOME fonts bigger but then things "fall off the box"). Apple's implementation is quite primitive, indeed. Steve: stop being so damn controlling and instead fix what's broken!!!!!!!!!!

Re:Small screens are great but... (2, Insightful)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011448)

Just to really drive this point home, NeXTStep had working device independence with Display Postscript. How did Apple manage to lose it in Display PDF?

Re:Small screens are great but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011616)

This.]

This is why WIn7 is most superior to anything else. I run my system at a DPI that is 150% the normal DPI so I can read everything from the couch on my HD TV the computer is hooked up to. Everything just fucking works and looks consistent.

Re:Small screens are great but... (1)

psergiu (67614) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010970)

MacBook Air 11.6" - 135.09 PPI
MacBook Air 13.3" - 127.68 PPI

Not much of a improvement over 100 PPI but ...

And there are PC laptops too with those densities at those screen sizes.

Re:Small screens are great but... (2, Insightful)

Alioth (221270) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011308)

No, because the data rates get too high. If you had a 450-odd DPI display, 20in x 11.7in, you'd need a data rate of about 65 gigabits per second at 60 Hz refresh rate going to the raw panel. This is more than ten times the data rate of DisplayPort. A completely new standard for connecting monitors would be needed and there would be significant challenges to overcome to make it work.

HD is the new digital (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010872)

For those old enough to remember, back when consumer CDs came out in the early 80s, everything was "digital". Even analog speakers were digital! Now, everything is HD. So, my 56" 1080p TV is just as HD as a 3" display on a phone. Whats funny is that my 56" display is more than adequate at normal viewing distances, phones and smaller computer monitors are still a ways away from "HD" stuff like approaching print resolution. Thats in the 600-800 ppi range.

How about a big screen for my PC? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010884)

I don't like using multiple screens, but I sure would like to see something like a 28 inch screen with a resolution of 2880x1620 or 2880x1800. Next step would be 3840x2160 or 3840x2400.

Re:How about a big screen for my PC? (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011148)

I sure would like to see something like a 28 inch screen with a resolution of 2880x1620 or 2880x1800.

Err, you aim too low! 27" LCDs from Dell, Apple, NEC all have a resolution of 2560x1440, which isn't far off the DPI of a 28" 2880x1620...

rip the description from engadget, AC (3, Informative)

acomj (20611) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010894)

The AC could of at least given a pointer to where the description was taken from

http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/25/ortustech-unveils-worlds-smallest-full-hd-display-puts-retina/ [engadget.com]

Re:rip the description from engadget, AC (1)

jdkramar (803337) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011004)

I also found it interesting that they ripped the text from Engadget but referenced the other article. And if we wanted to read Engadget's descriptions we would read them on Engadget.

Re:rip the description from engadget, AC (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011064)

The AC could have at least given a pointer to where the description was taken from

FTFY, you ignoramous.

You lost me when you used the word 'doozy' (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010944)

I knew then that there was no point in reading on...

Good job ripping off the exact text from Engadget (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010956)

/. Story:

"Ever heard of Ortustech? Probably not. But you have heard of Casio, right? Ortustech is a joint venture between Casio Computer and Toppan Printing to develop small and medium sized displays. Today, the company is announcing a doozy with its 4.8-inch 1920 x 1080 pixel HAST (Hyper Amorphous Silicon TFT) LCD with 160-degree viewing angle, 16.8 million colors, and a pixel density of 458ppi. Amazing when you compare that to the lauded 326ppi of iPhone 4's Retina display."

Engadget story reads the exact same way...

Sigh.

Can they produce them in quantity? (1)

jcr (53032) | more than 3 years ago | (#34010962)

I remember seeing prototypes of 250 DPI displays back in 1990, and 300 DPI in 1994, but the first one I saw shipped to a large number of customers was the iPhone 4's Retina Display. If this product is ready for mass production, that's great, but I'm going to reserve my enthusiasm until they're shipping it.

-jcr

Re:Can they produce them in quantity? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011192)

Nokia has been using 200+dpi screens for about five years. My Nokia 770 has a 225dpi screen, and the same one is used in a lot of cheap Chinese devices. The retina display is a bit higher resolution, but it's certainly not the first one to be in that ballpark.

Toppan who? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010966)

What is Toppan Printing's role in this venture?

I've seen their name associated to many other technical ventures, but they never seemed to have technical expertise in any of them. Are they simply funding Casio's development?

Amazing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34010968)

Amazing when you compare that to the lauded 326ppi of iPhone 4's Retina display

Not so amazing when you realise the iPhone 4 is a consumer product that has been out for months, and this is an OEM part that is just hitting the market.

Ever heard of annoying summaries? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011016)

Probably so. But you have heard of Slashdot, right? Well duh. Anyway, did you know that Slashdot has annoying summaries that begin with fluff like this?

Re:Ever heard of annoying summaries? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34011068)

You heard it here first: Taco is our fluffer.

I guess xkcd needs updating... (1)

noidentity (188756) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011062)

I guess this xkcd comic [xkcd.com] will need updating soon.

Help Needed (5, Funny)

louzer (1006689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011084)

I am kind of busy. Can anyone please do the Apple bashing for me?

Re:Help Needed (4, Funny)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011566)

Everybody is assuming that this will compete with Apple. Why, exactly? Apple's got a $60 billion cash stash. They bought Liquid Metal. They can simply buy Casio (or just this technology). Liquid Metal + 4.8" Super Retina = iPhone 5.

Oh great! (1)

cpscotti (1032676) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011112)

Now, will it be news every time anyone can make it smaller? like.. every 2 months...

Post the news when we accomplish the worlds smallest *violin*!!

$WIDGET1 eats $WIDGET2 for $MEAL. (0, Offtopic)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011144)

Am I the only one who is getting a little tired of this meme?

does it make any difference? (1)

zcold (916632) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011278)

I thought HD resolution would only benefit the eyes at 40" screens.... Any less and you might as well stick with 720p... Would there really be any discernable difference with such a small screen?

Re:does it make any difference? (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011612)

That's for the typical TV viewing distance of at least 5-6 feet. It has nothing to do with small, handheld screens.

overkill for normal use, but... (1)

MadCow42 (243108) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011370)

it may be overkill for normal use (assuming the Retina display is already beyond the eye's capability to see detail), but there are other applications of such high density.

If you paired a 458dpi display with a 40lpi lenticular lens, you could display a whopping 11+ images for true 3-D. 11 images means that when you rotate the display back and forth the objects rotate too... so you can look "behind" things just like if they were really there in 3D - you get 11 different perspectives to view from. 40lpi lenses are good enough for hand-held lenticular (basically the minimum for handheld viewing distances so it doesn't look chunky). You could even do 80lpi decently, with about 6 images - which is still decent for rotation.

I'd LOVE to get my hands on one of those - the real trick would be matching the lens to the display, and getting it close enough to the switching plane to be effective (instead of on to of an already-thick cover glass).

MadCow

Now for the bigger end please (1)

sunfly (1248694) | more than 3 years ago | (#34011676)

Why is my 24" screen stuck at "Full HD"? My 17" laptop screen from 5 years ago was higher resolution than that, and makes all these new panels look blurry. I can't wait for the higher dpi screens to move into sizes usable for monitors.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...