Beta
×

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!

Super LCD Screens: 200 PPI

Hemos posted more than 14 years ago | from the no-more-pixelation dept.

Graphics 263

crovira wrote to us with an article from the NYT (free reg. req'd.) Apparently, both Toshiba and IBM are dissatisified with the current state of monitor development. To that end, they've created some wondrous toys like 16.5" LCD screens that display 200 PPI. They've run into a most curious problem however: Legacy software/drivers. Click thru to read more - and if IBM should want to send a couple screens my way, I'd see what we can whip up around the office *grin*.

cancel ×

263 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

1st (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288907)

1st post

Cool (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288908)

Maybe tihs will drive the price down on some of the _inferior_ LCDs.

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288930)

And would you call those things you mention *portable*?

Release the screens at a reasonable cost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288931)


And you can bet that drivers will be forthcoming.
If there were a 1600x1200 LCD with 200 DPI for
$500 I'd buy it even without drivers.

Once more drivers are available they can raise the
price again.

Mark

Re:Compatibility Mode (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288932)

Of course if you are running something such as XFree or Windows, there will probably be a driver. After all, if you have drivers for those two, you've got better than 90% of everything supported.

:-)

Of course if you are running something such as Windows, there will probably be a driver. After all, if you have drivers for that one, you've got better than 89% of everything supported


Sorry, sorry.
I couldn't help but going there :-)

Re:Huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288933)

Errr. Unless you've read something I haven't, I can't see how:

For picture quality, however, many computer screens are put to shame by the cheapest discount store portable TV.

could possibly make you think that "...they were referring to those discount flat panel Phillips HDTVs...". I'd hardly say that at "...around $1200..." they're the cheapest TVs, let alone portable.

Nick.

Re: Larger fonts are easy to get in gnome, etc. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288934)


I turn my default font up from the flyspec 8 font
they have to a bold 12 (looks perfect at
1600x1200). All the gnome-aware apps respect it,
though some stupidly have hard-coded dialog box
sizes.

Who needs anti-aliased fonts with 200 dpi.

Mark

c is for cookie that's good enough for me (n/t) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288935)

(n/t) == "no text"

XGA status! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288936)

So why aren't consumer computers using XGA video cards! It seems strange that we are still stuck at VGA or SVGA cards.

Re:Graphics Cards!!!!!!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288937)

Many, if not most of these are _digital_, while the old monitor in front of you is analog--there is a D/A conversion in the graphics card or in the monitor box. Plus there are a whole lot more pixels. A maxed out graphics card for one of these babies might have 64 meg of VRAM. Egad. Without the D/A conversion, things like autoaliasing work differently too, so they will have some really low level impacts on the design of drivers. You probably won't be at all happy if you just plug one of these babies into your box.

Re:A small extrapolation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288938)

This technology will significantly increase the potential feeling of reality derived from a virtual environment

It'll also cause people to upgrade their vidcards to 128MB or more.. ;)

Re:Not a legacy driver problem, per se.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288939)

True, it's not a _driver_ problem. The problem is that nearly all windowing systems are built around the "grid of pixels" assumtion. Here is an area where I like Apple's chances with MacOS X. Since they are using PDF as their low-level graphics API the capability is already there to take advantage of these high DPI displays without squishing everything into oblivion.

Re:Drivers are usually written by the manufacturer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288940)

This is true but the drivers aren't the problem (despite the fact that the article made them out to be). What is the problem is that windows does not scale its icons for higher resolutions. So, while the "my computer" icon may take 1/8 of the desktop in 640x480, it is very small in 1280x1024 and would be really damn tiny in... say... 3600x2880... That problem will not be solved in the drivers, thus, for those of us using windows (don't flame me.. :) we will have to wait 5 years for Microsoft to come out with the first extremely buggy fix for the problem.

Re:3-D (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288941)

There is some emerging #-D technology (haven't seen it--only read about it) where you use 2 chips on the graphics card and a ton of memory, in such a way that each generates one picture and then you interleaf pictures. Takes 65 or 70 frames per second from each processor, so it takes a fast monitor sync (!!!), but the result is supposed to be like the old two colored glasses, except you don't need glasses--you just have the two images blurred together into a 3-D effective image. It is supposed to be really cool for molecular modelling, etc., but it will be a year or so before you want to fork outthe cash for this--unless you hit the lottery or some such. (Apple is supposed to be working on this with ATI for a future graphics card, for instance).

Re:Release the screens at a reasonable cost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288942)

Your 1600x1200 lcd with 200dpi would be 10".

Re:resolution/crack rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288943)

You sir, are an idiot.

I can show you a HDTV signal running on a PC monitor at 720 lines progressive, and then show you the same signal degraded down to 525 lines interlaced (NTSC television), and you are going to tell me the the TV looks more "realistic"?

Have you even seen an HDTV signal yet?

Heck, even a 640x480x32bit picture on a PC monitor looks more "realistic" than a still TV picture.

You are the kind of person who probably thinks that letterboxing of movies is "cutting off" part of the picture.

*rolls eyes*

Re:But a cheap hack is available now! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288944)

Ooog -- sounds like OS/2 2.x which had dialog boxes that would scale with the screen resolution. So, at 640x480, you got a 12 pt font, but running 1024x768, the dialog text WAS REALLY BIG. The moral of the story don't assume anything -- go with a vectors to begin with.

BTW, X isn't easier. Everything is pixel dependant, although you can trick the fonts by specifying a really huge point size. Someone (errm, the Open Group) needs to roll up their sleeves and fix X windows.

Re:resolution/crack rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288946)


Sit two feet away from a TV screen for a while, then get back to us.

Re:resolution/crack rocks (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288947)

If you stand up, people will be able to hear you talking out of your ass more clearly. I've watched DVD movies on both a computer monitor and a TV and if you would rather watch it on a tv, you are plain dumb.

Re:XGA status! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288948)

Yeah, my PS/2 Model 85 has an XGA-2 ! video card and a kick ass SLC processor. Plus it snaps apart into little pieces in 2 minutes.

Meanwhile, all I hear is lamers bragging about their NVidia and Matrox SVGA cards and their "K" 7s (which they probably got at "K" Mart). Their cases are probably held together with screws too, the loosers!

Re:reasonable size? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288952)

You do realize that a 1600x1200 screen at 200 dpi would be about 10 inches diagonal, right?

The more things change... (0)

CodeShark (17400) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288955)

The more they remain the same. Between '89 and '94, I was involved in several projects which have essentially been superceded by the development of the WWW and browser software.

The reason most of these projects suffered either significant changes of function and purpose and/or were abandoned came down to one issue: the availability of a common interface with which to program our software for multiple interfaces and interface resolutions. We even experimented with database driven technology so that after an initial q & a with a user, the system would auto-configure for the best resolution it could find.

The bottom line was that with open standards (such as Open GL, etc.), we would have succeeded. So I wish IBM and Toshiba luck in bringing this to market, and offer them one simple word of advice: let the Open Source movement help you succeed, and don't try to bottle up the technology genie just for short term profit. IMHO companies that work with us in this new era of computing freedom-of-choice will be handsomely rewarded over the long haul.

This is news??? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#1288956)

I read about this more than a month ago. I thought the link came from slashdot, too. What's up with this?

Big problems with software... (1)

Rob Parkhill (1444) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288968)

It's interesting that one of the big problems is with software. Those tiny 16x16 pixel icons all but dissapear when you have a 200dpi monitor.

Perhaps those gigantic 128x128 pixel icons in MacOS X don't seem so huge now. And with their Display PDF system, a properly designed icon should be scalable to any size you want.

And with the Mac's popularity in the imaging business, I wouldn't be surprised if the first major customer of these 200 dpi displays is Apple. Just imagine an iMac with a 17" display and a 200 dpi resolution.

Will bandwidth be a problem? (1)

substrate (2628) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288969)

I'd like to see monitors with high DPI, it'd make it more possible for me to avoid sending things to the printer down the hall. Resolution in the 200 dpi range might be enough to enable this though.

I see a weak spot though and thats the bandwidth required to keep screen response reasonably interactive. Comparing a high end 100 dpi monitor to a 200 dpi monitor means that 4 times the memory bandwidth would be required to maintain the status quo. This requirement is pushed all the way up from the underlying hardware into the software technologies such as the X servers or whatever it is that handles display primitives in Windows.

I don't follow the windowing developments under Linux very closely, with the V3.X servers running on a TNT with 16 megs of memory linux graphics are a lot slower performing than they were under Windows 98. Will V4.X achieve parity (or perhaps go beyond parity) and would it keep up with a 4X throughput increase?

Alternatively you could argue that adaptive resolution would be a useful approach at cutting bandwidth. Text is usually black and white and suffers greatly at todays resolutions while colour images are acceptable at todays resolutions. If the display could handle addressing multiple pixels for colour information to form a less fine resolution the overall bandwidth could be greatly reduced.

Display PostScript (1)

ansible (9585) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288974)

That was the whole impetuous behind Display PostScript, pioneered by the NeXT computer / OS. It made for a very cool display / printer integration, because what you saw on screen was exactly what you'd get on paper. It took care of all the scaling issues for you. NeXT was very much ahead of it's time in the late eighties.

Unfortunately, it was perhaps too computationally-expensive for the machines available at the time. You gotta remember that back in 1989, a 16MHz 68020 was considered a high-end microprocessor.

Display PostScript would be a lot more viable today, except for 3-D games. Most graphic accelerators now have way more power than they need to keep up with 2-D display tasks. And the CPU power is there too, even with a low-end, non-OC Celery.

Re:IBM misses to boat -- again (1)

bonk (13623) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288983)

You forget one thing. More pixels = more electricity (most likely) - a big challeng in portables is not sucking too much power out of it. I don't want to have to replace/recharge the batteries on my Palm every 4 hours. Likewise, I don't need that kind of resolution on my notebook at the moment, and I'd rather have longer runtimes than more pixels.

Re:Resolution independent GUIs (1)

MS (18681) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288990)

I fully agree...

...but wait, doesn't the tecnology aready exist?
What was NextStep about? Didn't the neXT-Station write to the b/w Monitor (actually four levels of grayscale) through PostScript? So Prsentations on screen where really WYSIWYG as the same language was used to write to screen as to the printer. And we know of laserprinters having 300, 600 or 1200 dpi!

The tecnology exixts! Don't reinvent the wheel.

:-)
ms

Re:Resolution independent GUIs (1)

MS (18681) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288991)

I fully agree...

...but wait, doesn't the tecnology aready exist?
What was NextStep about? Didn't the neXT-Station write to the b/w Monitor (actually four levels of grayscale) through PostScript? So Presentations on screen where really WYSIWYG as the same language was used to write to the screen as to the printer. And we know of laserprinters having 300, 600 or 1200 dpi! (the more dpi, the better the resolution, without raster-graphics becoming infinitly small)

The tecnology exixts! Don't reinvent the wheel.

:-)
ms

Ummm, ever seen WebTV?? (1)

brad.hill (21936) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288996)

It sucks. The text has to be HUGE and it's still illegible. The biggest limitation is the poor quality of your average TV picture tube.

I used to watch TV on an old Apple RGB monitor from the 80's, and it had significantly better image quality than any standard TV.

Also, the reason that Sony Trinitron televisions look better than other TVs is because their phosphors are more accurately and regularly lined up, not just splatted all over in huge fuzzy blobs like most TVs.

The main reason that TV looks more "realistic" is that the image is constantly changing whereas computer monitors for the most part display still images.

Future prices (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | more than 14 years ago | (#1288997)

I didn't catch a price in the article. They make references to it being unreasonably high but no numbers. The standard progression in computers, and electronics in general, are that things debut at high prices to hit people that *have* to have something new and don't mind paying big bucks (think HDTV). From there, as newer technology hits the market, the people who have to have the newest thing are looking elsewhere and you have to lower prices to hit a more mainstream market.

In computers, your yields are going to rise as you learn to make your product more efficiently and with higher quality. Since you're throwing out fewer units, you don't have to pass as much of that cost on to the consumer. From what I understand, yields on LCD screens are terrible and don't get much better over time. Now triple the number of things that can go wrong and see what the yield looks like. It's a cool product and I'm sure we're all salivating, but I doubt that it will be a mainstream consumer item for *years*. By that time, we may not even be using LCD displays.

-B @ 800X600

Re:resolution/crack rocks (1)

W3S (24423) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289002)

I disagree. If you sit as close to your TV as you do to your monitor you will definitely notice the pixelation. However this lower resolution comes with the benefit that for your dollar you can get a much larger TV.

NYT Registration? (1)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289003)

I'm wondering why both my home and work computers are viewing the NYT links without registration...

Problems with hi-res monitors (1)

tenor (29482) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289005)

As I see it, there are a few problems with introducing a 200ppi monitor right now:
  • Current video cards are assuming that your monitor has about 80ppi. So, for a 21" monitor with a viewable area of 20", a height of 12" and a width of 17", you would have 204 sq. in. of screen. At 80ppi that would be 16320 pixels. But at 200ppi that would be 40800 pixels. The video driver would choke on that many pixels! Rendering would be dog slow on all but the fastest video cards. And even then they would need modified drivers...
  • As the article mentioned, current desktop technology, such as Windows and X, depend on pixelized icons. That would shink the icons down to an unreasonable size. To compensate, we would have to modify X to either scale the icons by a factor of 2 in each direction, or we would need to turn X into a vectorized renderer. Ouch. Windows et al. will have the same problems, of course. I would really like to see X go the way of Mac OS X...

I'm sure there are other problems, but those two right there are enough for us to work on for years!

Re:Would Display PDF help? (1)

lonely (32990) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289009)


AFAIK the new MacOs X uses PDF for just this reason. Totally scalable images and stuff.

Re:Drivers are usually written by the manufacturer (1)

whileone (38498) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289012)

he dosn't mean 'driver' like device driver...

he means that running windows on a 4000x3000 display is really a pain, everything gets tiny. remember the actual screen size stays around 16" diagonal, you just double or triple the pixel density. since all(almost) icons are represented with bitmaps they don't scale up. sure, *we* can fix that with themes. aparantly the new mac os uses vectors for all that stuff, it wouldn't break a sweat. but windows users are the largest market. it's hard to justify the cost for 30 million(? mac + X)users when they could sell 300 million in all of the windows instalations...

Huh? (1)

draco ni (42765) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289016)

>For picture quality, however, many computer
>screens are put to shame by the
>cheapest discount store portable TV.

Is this guy crazy? Sure, my cheapie monitor can do 1024x768, that's obviously "put to shame" by some TV that can only do 400 lines, NTSC...

*shakes his head*

Could it be...... cookies? (1)

georgeha (43752) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289017)

I'm wondering why both my home and work computers are viewing the NYT links without registration...

I usually can do that also, I just assume my browser has a cookie for whatever registration I last used.

George

Re:Custom made for OSS (1)

anonymous loser (58627) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289027)

Having the source to NT isn't surprising at all. They're a microsoft partner. Companies do it all the time. However, I agree completely on the other points. Linux GUI developers (read: anyone working on GNOME, KDE, GTK, etc.) should be looking at a scalable vector-based graphics API now, because it will take a long time to roll over legacy apps. The longer the infrastructure is in place, the less painful this transition will be.

Re:Photolithography etching has got to be expesive (1)

anonymous loser (58627) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289028)

That's the same process used to etch wafers for ICs. How much did you pay for that AMD?

Re:Huh? (1)

Alton (80146) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289034)

I read that line and thought the same thing.. and then I realized what the writer was thinking. It basically boils down to the writer not having a clue.
Have you ever tried to take a clip from a TV show, and watch it in full screen on a monitor? You get huge distortion because of the difference in # of pixals. To someone who doesn't know better, the program looks better on the TV. It does.. but if that same program were originally in 800x600, or 1280x1024, etc, then it would look astoundingly better on the monitor than it does on the TV. The writer obviously didn't realize this.
I have a feeling that as we move towards more HDTV, that any program that wants to be broadcast in HD will have to spend more time doing makeup for the actors because we will be able to see much more detail on thier faces.

Re:Not a legacy driver problem, per se.. (1)

lovebyte (81275) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289035)

Indeed, you are perfectly correct. I have plugged in a 21 inch SGI monitor to my linux box and Jesus! thinks look small. Since my eyes are fine, I got used to it and I now enjoy it. But each time I go to see the lab workers (next door to my office) who can only "enjoy" a crappy 800x600 cheap monitor, I tend be shocked.

Use of technology? (1)

slashdot-terminal (83882) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289037)

I am curious why people have to think that compatablity with older hardware is such a problem. I think that the less you have to spend the better off you are in general. Plus with more compatability comes lesser price and better transition.

Re:Could it be...... cookies? (1)

slashdot-terminal (83882) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289038)

'm wondering why both my home and work computers are viewing the NYT links without registration...

I usually can do that also, I just assume my browser has a cookie for whatever registration I last used.

George


Actually I have never even entered a login id on this machine and the links are displaying. I believe that the NYT may have actually dropped (at least temporarly) the need of a registration.

A little overboard! (1)

slashdot-terminal (83882) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289039)

I propose

Ok with you there.

Multiple Alpha processors,(screw that SMP stuff. Three-way!) a G400 and two of these babies? Complete with MD, DVD-R and a *nix kernel with all of the 'legacy' support ripped sound good? We'll hand roll it all in assembler for
performance!


Uh huh. Ok now let's look at all that dye stained money that you seem to have. That's nice and Ski masks wow that must have been some bank robbery.

Seriously how does the processor actually influence that quality of the display except for generating the screen's content. You could just as easily hook one of those up to a 386 or 486 running dos or windows 3.1 or with Xfree 86 and still get a good looking display.

IBM misses to boat -- again (1)

.havoc (84318) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289041)

In the article, the project manager states that the technology will bring the resolution to the desktop. Screw that! You think people are going to leave this kind of resolution on their desktop? Heck no! This is going to cause a major shift in the handheld market. It's going to change the way we look at notebooks. It's going to change the way we look at PAPER! If this technology ever hits the streets, look for it to be used in ways you never imagined. (Sorry for the skeptasism, but so many promising technologies never make it out of the lab.) Sony's personal HUD system? full graphics pager on your watch?

If IBM and Toshiba will make the necessary information available, and make the licensing fees reasonable, they'll have a market for this product.

Wooooohooooooo (1)

Esperandi (87863) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289044)

Finally, some actual companies are getting into the mix on monitor development! If they stay in it, we might actually see sane monitor prices! If anyone out there works at a company that makes monitors, please cut your gentials out because I don't want the gene pool to be infected with your lazy, mediocre kind.

Seriously, monitor developers haven't done jack shit for decades until someone shits out megabucks LCD screens. Now the monitor industry is no doubt sitting back and settling in for another 20 year price freeze where nothing new comes out and no prices move.

Its a good thing that IBM and Toshiba are greedy, otherwise we'd be stuck with the situation, but thanks to them, we'll get price cuts and cooler screens!

Esperandi
Greed IS Good.

Windows already is (I bet you love that) (1)

Esperandi (87863) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289045)

Microsoft Windows is already resolution-independent. Ask anyone who has had to deal with twips or the other few resolution-independent Microsoftian units... also, most fonts are truetype remember, vector-based, so they're already resolution independent.

Esperandi
/.s gotta love it when they find out they need to catch up to something Windows did years ago.

Sizes in Windows (1)

Esperandi (87863) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289046)

Sizes of things like button bars in Windows are set up as "dialog units" which are resolution-independent, so its not a problem... if a program is hard-coded down to the pixel level it would be a problem definitely, but I think theres a lot of flexibility in Windows. All the units are twips, points (1/72s of an inch), and etc. Even when you want to hard-code the pixel value, you have to convert the pixel value to screen coordinates first... you can have different ways of mapping the coordinates to the screen, all kinds of stuff. Windows looks real cakey and smiley and happy on the surface, but you start programming with the API directly and you see its true face... and but gawd its ugly.

Esperandi

Limited Market? (1)

sloth jr (88200) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289048)

10 years ago, some manufacturers were selling 300dpi monitors (okay, not LCD and not color). Didn't find the market they wanted (obviously DTP), so I don't believe you can find one now.

CAD and medical imaging seem like similarly constrained markets, so I wonder if this'll take off or not.

Re:Drivers are usually written by the manufacturer (1)

|ckis (88583) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289049)

Because regardless of the drivers, Windows (and most *nix's if I'm not mistaken) draw the widgets, icons and fonts at a certain pixel size. I know in Windows you can turn on large icons and increase the screen font size which would help. I've never done it, but I'm sure the same can be done in Linux. The place where real problems would arise would be things like button bars in programs that are hard coded to be a certain size. Also pictures would appear tiny in web browsers, etc.
-

technical question (1)

Greg_Girty (90984) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289051)

This is only slightly offtopic, so I'll ask anyway...

Q: How to they get different intensities of colour in monitors?

My understanding of LCD is that they are either on or off. Crystals are aligned with a magnetic field, and the alignment causes them to be visible (or not) through a polarizing filter.

Is my understanding wrong? I'd appreciate someone who knows more about the technology elightening me.

Re:SP25 Maybe? (1)

Rodge2 (97678) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289053)

Why is this a "2"? It's nothing but a lame ass remark.

Re:Entirely new system (1)

gfxguy (98788) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289054)

Because no one would buy something that doesn't run the software they've invested hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in.

Because I like my sound card and the 3D capabilities of my video card and would not enjoy having to wait for competition in this new market for this new hardware. Kind of like waiting for hardware companies to wake up and smell the coffee with respect to Linux.

I don't disagree with you, really, but a whole new system like you want will only be successful if it's got some capability to run old stuff. Hell, I still run old DOS games.
----------

Well, for that matter, (1)

s13g3 (110658) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289064)

I'd learn to code if it would convince IBM to throw a few of the things my way. Actually, what I'm really interested in (an' I dunno if this has been posted before (prolly) but I'll submit it anyway) is an article I saw in Popular Science I think it was on a company that has apparently perfected true 3D displays that projects the image just two inches above or in front of the screen (depending on the image type desired and placemnt of the monitor). The company mostly does medical equipment, and is based out of New York. They were projecting that the screens would be on user's desktop (not just in the medical field) and at a fairly affordable rate within two years.

Hi-res LCD revisited (1)

DeepDarkSky (111382) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289066)

Did we see this a couple times already?

In any case, I can't believe the NYT article thought that "many computer screens are put to shame by the cheapest discount store portable TV". What kind of monitor are they using? This may have been true back in the Apple ][ days.

Most important, though, If they can get this to a size suitable for a webpad or an eBook of some sort, with a certain low-power consuming CPU, then you have your ideal portable electronic reading (as in words, and not viewing, as in pictures, although it'd be good for that too)device. From the article, though, it seems that size is not the issue, rather it's the cost. But hopefully, that will come down soon enough.

I think that like the Crusoe chip, its immediate application would best be in small mobile devices. This way, they could keep the cost down. Much like the way the original LCD screens were first used as displays for smaller portable computers way back, it will be the same path for the hi-res LCD screen.

Now, if they could just make the LCD made out of some flexible fiber/polymer material (I know they are already working on it), we would have web pads that can be rolled up...that'd be awesome.

Re:A small extrapolation (1)

DeepDarkSky (111382) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289067)

I thought we already think of computer screen like that. It is, after all, our interface to the computer, and the computer is our interface to the Internet, and therefoer the world. So by this reasoning, it would just mean that my view of everyone in the world will not be as blurry anymore.

Computer games is about learning and entertainment. Well, more specifically, it's about learning, training, and role-playing, which can all be loosely categorized under learning.

Computer games are the interactive lesson books, made fun by positive reinforcement of winning (the endorphin rush after fragging someone, the adrenaline pumping as you turn the corner and faces someone with a much bigger gun than you). There are, of course, philosophical and moral lessons that we are constantly bombarded with in computer games.

Computer games is an art, and art, imitates life.

And computer games, after all, are a higher level of interface between us and the rest of the world than the input/output devices. (A little extrapolation: since computer games ARE computer art, and since the Internet has become, for many of us, the main channel of communication, and since Internet computer games only seem to grow in numbers, it would seem that in the future, we would all communicate with each other, collaborate with each other by being plugged in and playing computer games all the time. So in that sense, you are right, computer art will ascend to great heights).

I want some of the weed he smoked! (1)

-brazil- (111867) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289068)

"For picture quality, however, many computer screens are put to shame by the cheapest discount store portable TV." ????

I'd really like to see that discount store....

What about E ink? (1)

ballestra (118297) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289072)

Could be old news to most, but EInk [eink.com] is developing a high resolution display that promises to be closer to the look of paper, use less power, and be cheaper to manufacture than LCDs. It seems a bit pie-in-the-sky compared to evolutionary improvements to LCD technology, but I hope they can get it to work. It would be interesting to see the two (actually three) technologies side by side some day. I want both: LCD for movies and games, EInk for reading, writing, browsing, etc. Then again I can't imagine what it would look like to watch a movie on a display that looks like printed paper. It might look really cool.

Re:Huh? (1)

Nerds (126684) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289077)

I think they were referring to those discount flat panel Phillips HDTVs you often see in the corners of discount stores under the used cat toys. They're down around $1200, now.

Re:Huh? (1)

Nerds (126684) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289078)

Well, those people in the commercial moved it around the house pretty easily...

Re:Huh? (1)

Nerds (126684) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289079)

Were you sick the days they explained hyperbole and humor in grade school?

Re:Huh? (1)

kwsNI (133721) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289084)

No kidding. I want to find one of those discount stores. I think their selling HDTVs and don't realize it. My .32 dot pitch monitor has a better resolution than my Philips (quasi-high-quality) TV.

kwsNI

Entirely new system (1)

Dungeon Dweller (134014) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289085)

Make them for an entirely new system, designed from the ground up with the newest technologies. I think that it is about time that entirely new systems not based on the old x86 systems succeeded in the mainstream. I realize that it would be quite a feat, but just think about the raw power you could get from new chips and equipment that didn't have to be compatible with old chips/code/peripherals.

Just a thought.

Re:Vertical Horizontal refresh and LCD (1)

Roger_Wilco (138600) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289089)

Second is their a new all digital standard for connecting these to video cards

It's not a standard, but the new 22" Apple LCD monitors (not all that new) work with a special digital video card, providing a digital signal to the monitor (this is what I remember, I can't find any mention of it on the site). You can only get the monitor with a G4 desktop and card. Quite likely the accompanying MacOS has special drivers for it.

This is for kwsNI (1)

Uruk. (149810) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289094)

I think there selling OpenHDTV [dorsai.org]

thank you

Economies of scale (1)

JimPooley (150814) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289095)

OK - so these screens are going to be very expensive at first, but I would imagine they'd come down in price as current flat screens have come down in price.
Of course, for anyone in design, CAD, or publishing, or people who do a lot of word processing, screens like this would be ideal - the higher the resolution of the text, the easier it is on the eye.
And Quake at that resolution would be pretty nifty too!

Vertical Horizontal refresh and LCD (2)

PG13 (3024) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289098)

Two questions

First of all with my limited experience doing low level graphics I seem to remember only being able to write to the screen during the horizontal or vertical refresh of the monitor. Do these new LCDs emulate this to allow legacy software and etc...

Second is their a new all digital standard for connecting these to video cards. With no analog components this would seem to get better quality and allow me to have a longer monitor cord.

Re:But a cheap hack is available now! (2)

Bitscape (7378) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289102)

That's great for window manager settings, but the tough part is applications. The icons under Netscape 4.x would become hideously small, as would text on a lot of these sites that hard code font size (heck, it even gets hard to read on "normal" monitors when you jack up the resolution).

Maybe if you're only using gtk/qt based apps, someone could throw together a theme to size up their widgets. Anyone know if the theme support is flexible enough to allow an easy scaling up of all apps that use these toolkits?

Re:Resolution independent GUIs (2)

Rollo (9875) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289103)

Ah, an opportunity to plug the Berlin windowing system! How sweet!
In Berlin, rendering the vector-based description of the GUI to actual pixels is done at a very late stage, thus allowing almost anything (CRT, LCD, sport arena jumbotrons(!)) to act as visual device - just rewrite the rendering and output modules & off you go.
With the varying resolutions on screens (PDA->CRT->this new LCD), this is the natural next step in GUI development.

Legacy software & drivers ?? (2)

jabber (13196) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289108)

Ok corporate, listen up..

OPEN THE HARDWARE SPECS, and sit back to watch the magic happen.

Coolness. Apple to the rescue? (2)

Anonymous Shepherd (17338) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289112)

It's not so much a legacy driver problem, so much as a lack of foresight on the OS people's side! NeXT has had a solution for this problem for over a decade, and it looks like MacOS X will also be able to overcome this hurdle very easily; Display Postscript and Quartz, the PDF version of the above. I guess you could call this legacy software...

I'd imagine an Apple handheld using a 3x4 inch 200dpi display(that's 800x600! wow) would be awesome. Or a 19" LCD for their pro series desktop, when they can scale to that size... 3000x2200 here! Or imagine nextgen gameboys with monocle displays; a 1x1" display would easily match today's gameboy resolution of 144x144 pixels. Or a PDA with a monocle display!

I wonder how Apple is going to try to capitalize on their ability to display 128x128 pixel icons and their Quartz Display PDF capabilities? Right off the bat the icons would be larger than 5/8, which is about right, if on the small size. I'm not sure it was explicitly mentioned, but Toshiba are only shipping 4" and 6" screens; were IBM's not limited to that size, by omission of detail?

Wow. Cool.

-AS

Would Display PDF help? (2)

Slamtilt (17405) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289115)

Just a question - if the problem is icons sized in pixels, would systems that use something like Display PDF help, since (presumably) they would know about point sizes, and thus render big enough to see? If so, Apple might be interested...

Re:Drivers are usually written by the manufacturer (2)

Plasmic (26063) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289119)

By making icons and text vector graphics (or something along the same lines), you could make it entirely scaleable. That is, "rendered" real-time, although I'm sure that term isn't quite applicable.

Hmm.. better example: If you go into Adobe Photoshop and use the text tool to write "Hi Mom" and then resize the image (without flattening the layers) to be four times the pixel depth, which makes the image larger, you don't lose any image quality. It's not just zooming in, it's using the algorithms that define the curvature and lines of the letters (or vector graphics) to re-calculate the shape down to more specific pixels. It isn't "zooming in" in the traditional sense.

Re:resolution/crack rocks (2)

Basje (26968) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289120)

That's exactly why picture quality on a television is better than a computer screen. Because tv-screens are so crude, they 'blend' together pixels, creating a smoother picture. Ordinary television has a resolution of about 600x400, in computer terms, yet it looks more realistic.

This is because your brains do something similar: images are picked up in pixels (a limited number of light sensitive cells) and combined into an image. The individual pixels aren't important, but the overall image is. So your brain doesn't process the individual cells. It rather combines the signals from clusters of cells, with some cells physically located together, participating in different signals. Several of these signal channels (nerves) interact together.

So, the quality of screens depends on your definition of quality. Do you think it's better if it's more realistic, or better if you can put smaller elements on it, whether you can discern them or not? I think it's not a set criterium, but rather dictated by purpose and circumstances.

----------------------------------------------

resolution/crack rocks (2)

adimarco (30853) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289123)


Not largely relevant to the rest of the article, but...

For picture quality, however, many computer screens are put to shame by the cheapest discount store portable TV.

Uuuuh.... what? Someone needs to lay off the crack rock. The average computer monitor is like .27dp these days. Nice ones are .25 or lower. Television screens would be whole numbers on this scale...

Anthony

Custom made for OSS (2)

sugarman (33437) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289125)

Seems like this is the ideal position for the OOS communtiy to jump in.

<i>At I.B.M., Dr. Wisnieff's laboratory rewrote the underlying code of Windows NT to inflate its display pixel counts. Lotus, a unit of I.B.M., also created a high-resolution-compatible version of its word processor.</i>

With the open availability of specs, OSS programers should be able to step in and provide a solution without something as drastic as a rewrite of NT. (The fact that an IBM lab has access to the NT source strikes me as odd for a whole other reason. Woder is they can fix the rest oif it while they are at it :-)

It also should serve as a heads-up for all app developers, as something that will become an issue in the future. These monitors are going to be designed for the medium end desktop, and Linux has the ability to be ready for when these things arrive, without having to re-write everything.

Drivers are usually written by the manufacturer (2)

gorilla (36491) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289126)

In the Windows world, and increasingly the Unix world, drivers are written by the manufacturer.

Given this, why should this cause a holdup?

More info (2)

noeld (43600) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289127)

The LCD pages have a news article [lcdpages.com] up about the IBM 200 PPI Display [ibm.com] . They call it "active matrix liquid crystal display (AMLCD)"

They (IBM) also have an interesting bio up on Robert L. Wisnieff Manager, Advanced Display Technology Laboratory [ibm.com] . Interesting if you can ignore the market spin at least :).

Noel

RootPrompt.org -- Nothing but Unix [rootprompt.org]

Re:Not a legacy driver problem, per se.. (2)

hattig (47930) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289130)

Probably why Apple has gone to display PDF in its next operating system then?

They have obviously seen this thing coming along - in a couple of years most laptops will have min 1600x1200 screens, probably 2048x1536 even, and do you want to hunt for those icons on that screen (shhh, don't even think of 200x100 character terminals).

This calls for a scalable desktop - one where things are specified in DPI and not pixels. Apple has done it. Windows hasn't, and won't until people start moaning (my taskbar is 1/8" high, I can't read the text...) but what about X?

~~

Re:Legacy software & drivers ?? (2)

Cuthalion (65550) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289132)

<i>OPEN THE HARDWARE SPECS, and sit back to watch the magic happen.</i>
<br><br>
That doesn't even help you much. They can't sell stuff cheap enough for people to afford unless they can go for the big markets. That means Windows. And I don't see people fixing Windows to do pixel-quadrupiling-of-all-apps-that-don't-know-bet ter.. unless those people work for MS or Toshiba or IBM.

Re:Entirely new system (2)

Cuthalion (65550) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289133)

Multiple Alpha processors,(screw that SMP stuff. Three-way!) a G400 and two of these babies
  1. SMP does not mean two processors. It just means that the multiple processors do not take on master and slave roles (symmetric). Three alphas could be symmetric. (I dunno if there are any power of 2 constraints on current bus architectures.)
  2. The G400 only goes up to what, 2048x1536 or something? That's not enough for a 200dpi 16" monitor 2560x1920 pixels. Also, the second output of the G400 only goes as high as 1024x768.

Indeed, video card technology needs to move forward a bit before this is useful. At these resolutions, you're using 7 GB/s of video memory bandwidth just to output at 60 fps, 24bpp!

Re:Vertical Horizontal refresh and LCD (2)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289136)

I seem to remember only being able to write to the screen during the horizontal or vertical refresh of the monitor


Careful, you're dating yourself there. Modern systems use a technique called double-buffering, where the screen shows one frame of video memory, and the system writes to a second. You then flip on the vertical retrace interrupt. (Acutally, the old Atari 800, Commodore 64, Atari ST, and Amiga all could do this, it was just the PC that was limited to one video frame (at any decent resolution)).


The other limiting factor is memory bandwidth: If you have to pump "N" pixels a second out, that consumes much of the available bandwidth to the video RAM, leaving less for the CPU. However, modern video cards use very wide memory (128 bits or more) to allow more pixels per memory access, thus allowing more bandwidth to the main processor. So this too is less of a limiting factor.


However, I have experienced the very problem described in the article: I run 1600x1200 on my system at home, and certain foolish operating systems *cough*windows*cough* make teeny little icons. However, certain other systems *cough*xwindows*cough* allow me to tell the system the dots per inch, and most things work out well.

Re:Entirely new system (2)

technos (73414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289138)

I propose

Multiple Alpha processors,(screw that SMP stuff. Three-way!) a G400 and two of these babies? Complete with MD, DVD-R and a *nix kernel with all of the 'legacy' support ripped sound good? We'll hand roll it all in assembler for performance!

But a cheap hack is available now! (2)

technos (73414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289139)

Windows tried, at least.. I remember discussion of using an alternate representative unit in Windows95.. They ended up using a modified, braindamaged 'TWIPS' system again..

Doing it wouldn't be hard. Just assume a 800x600 grid, regardless of screen size, and specify coords based on it. You wouldn't break legacy applications, because they'd see a 800x600 screen.

X is even easier! Toss a 'target sized theme' on BlackBox or Enlightenment. Or, better yet, write a userland application that dynamically resets the WM fonts, terminal fonts, and icons based on resolution. You'd have to restart the WM every resolution change to reread the altered settings, but that is a small price to pay for 4000x3000!!

Re:A little overboard! (2)

technos (73414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289140)

The topic wasn't what was needed to look good, but complete cutting edge redesign

After looking at the interesting stuff Transmeta has patented on round-robin streaming to arbitrated processors, I'd like to see one in action. And what processor would shine the best in an application unconcerned with x86 support? Well, the Sun Ultra or Compaq Alpha, and I just have a Alpha preference.

It was a silly response, granted, but it was a silly idea I was responding to..

Re:Entirely new system (2)

slashdot-terminal (83882) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289144)

Make them for an entirely new system, designed from the ground up with the newest technologies. I think that it is about time that entirely new systems not based on the old x86 systems succeeded in the mainstream. I realize that it
would be quite a feat, but just think about the raw power you could get from new chips and equipment that didn't have to be compatible with old chips/code/peripherals.


Well unfortunately most people don't want to buy totally new things. I ceternally don't. I would love to get the maxium life out of anything until it is completely broken and then if I have to then buy something. I guess some people never really care.

Re:Huh? (2)

slashdot-terminal (83882) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289145)

Well, those people in the commercial moved it around the house pretty easily... Well, those people in the commercial moved it around the house pretty easily...

Well that would work really good until you get massive concussions and skull factures because your flat pannel TV fel onto your cranium.

Re:Graphics Cards!!!!!!!! (2)

slashdot-terminal (83882) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289146)

Many, if not most of these are _digital_, while the old monitor in front of you is analog--there is a D/A conversion in the graphics card or in the monitor box. Plus there are a whole lot more pixels. A maxed out graphics card for one
of these babies might have 64 meg of VRAM. Egad. Without the D/A conversion, things like autoaliasing work differently too, so they will have some really low level impacts on the design of drivers. You probably won't be at all
happy if you just plug one of these babies into your box.


Well if they make one that fits into an ISA slot I will be a happy person.

PostScript does that (2)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289148)

PostScript has a lot of features in that respect. And since this display would require a video card with an ungodly amount of RAM and it'd have to push an ungodly number of pixels, why not build a fast PostScript interpreter right into the Display? That could be cool...

Re:Drivers are usually written by the manufacturer (2)

Mendax Veritas (100454) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289150)

Because, as the article said, some objects on the display are sized in pixels, and shrink to ridiculously small sizes on a 200-ppi display. A 32x32 icon would be about 0.16 inches, too small for most people to make it out. Similar problems would occur with images in web pages. (I already have trouble, even on a 1024x768 laptop, reading text embedded in some web page images.)

You may be thinking that the driver could just automatically resize icons and bitmaps when drawing them, but that poses a problem for the rest of the display. If a program wants to draw a 202x202 box and then put a 200x200 inside it, it will be a problem if the driver decides on its own to inflate the bitmap to, say, 400x400. Suddenly it isn't fitting into its rectangle anymore. And if the driver inflates everything, scaling all coordinates to some more viable size, then you aren't really using the display's full resolution -- the rest of the system thinks the display is really 96 ppi or something, and the driver is inflating and interpolating (which takes time to do well, and doesn't look as good as a true 200 ppi image).

MS Windows is already capable of resizing icons to whatever size you like (in Win98 and Win2K, at least) -- play around with the icon size control in the Appearance tab of the Display control panel to see the effect. But this doesn't seem to affect all icons -- only those on the desktop, and presumably those of any other program that goes out of its way to look up the desired size in the registry and rescale all its icons. And it doesn't help with non-icon images. And the resulting images are kind of ugly.

So I really don't think that it answers the issues to say that the display manufacturer should deal with this problem at the driver level. The real issue is that everyone is used to dealing with computer displays in the range of 70-100 ppi, and the farther you go beyond that, the more problems you're going to have. Ultimately I think we need to get completely away from the notion of measuring things in pixels, or defining stored images as arrays of pixels. Once you do that, the problem more or less goes away.

I love NYT reporters (2)

friedo (112163) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289151)

ultimedia Web sites and DVD drives are increasingly turning the computer into a new version of the television set. For picture quality, however, many computer screens are put to shame by the cheapest discount store portable TV.

Funny, I think the resolution of broadcast quality NTSC video on a 30 inch television sucks ass compared to a finely tuned, 1600x1200 21" computer monitor. Modern monitors are far superior to consumer televisions for the simple reason that you sit a lot closer to them. That, and the fact that broadcast standards (ie NTSC, PAL, etc) are a bitch to make high quality.

Compatibility Mode (2)

Sir Logic (119380) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289152)

It seems like that could have a couple of compatibilty modes.

I mean really, most displays will at least display standard VGA... That way if you don't have a proper driver, you can go to the lowest common denominator.

Of course if you are running something such as XFree or Windows, there will probably be a driver. After all, if you have drivers for those two, you've got better than 90% of everything supported.

A small extrapolation (2)

lohen (122373) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289153)

This technology will significantly increase the potential feeling of reality derived from a virtual environment. The computer screen will seem like a window into another world, and computer art will be able to ascend to grand new heights. However, computer games addiction rates might also increase. As all computing technology improves, people will lose all capacity to handle the world outside of a computer. They will be reduced to formless, drooling blobs, their eyes never budging an inch from the images on their screens. Or did I just describe you?

Photolithography etching has got to be expesive (2)

348 (124012) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289154)

Much of their initial work focused on the screen's wiring, which is, in fact, etched onto the surface of a piece of glass. One problem with scaling up from current screens is that their wires are created using molybdenum and tungsten, metals that are relatively poor conductors of electricity. Those two metals were originally chosen because they worked well in the wire etching process. After some work, the I.B.M. lab eventually found a way to create faster wiring by developing a new photolithography etching process that substitutes aluminum and copper.

This is going to keep the costs way up there for at least several years. If they are targeting the 30M+ Win customers they are going to need to get the price to come way down. Pretty cool though, I've seen some of those displays they have in the newer A-10 jets, they are very sharp and surprizingly tough, the overall resoulution was sorta like looking at a magazine photo.

SP25 Maybe? (2)

348 (124012) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289155)

(A Microsoft spokeswoman said the company had no definite timetable for introducing a solution in Windows.)

Maybe it's that the fleet of developers are busy working on SP2??

Re:Not a legacy driver problem, per se.. (3)

jilles (20976) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289156)

"The problem isn't in the display driver!"

Nope, it's the assumptions that programmers make about screen resoultion. The solution might lie in using 'third generation 2d engines' as discussed in a story on slashdot one or two weeks ago. Apple's MacOS X will use such an engine. Basically it's vectorbased graphics they are using. This means that the GUI is resolution independent and that anything you display on it will scale nicely from a ancient 14 inch monitor to a modern laser printer.

It wouldn't surprise me if these screens will be available for mac os X first.

I don't think you've read the article (3)

Frac (27516) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289157)

The issue at hand is not that "corporate" is not willing to open up the specs. The real problem is the fundamental way most OSes realize their GUI on the display. They were designed with the "traditional" monitors in mind. With new monitors from IBM/Toshiba that supports double the resolution in the same amount of space, everything - icons, menu bars, EVERYTHING looks half as small on the monitor. What we realy need is let go of everything bitmap, and implement the GUI in vector and True Type Fonts.

Not a legacy driver problem, per se.. (3)

technos (73414) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289158)

The problem isn't in the display driver! A good 16 LCD at 80ppi will pull 1280x1024. These folks have upped the resolution to 3200x2400. That's nearly impossible to read even on a 24 inch SGI monitor; everything is miniscule! Imaging trying to read that image, complete with tiny 10pt fonts and 80x80 icons, condensed into 16.5 inches! Thats the problem!

Quake ought to look good on that sucker..

Resolution independent GUIs (4)

tdanner (31731) | more than 14 years ago | (#1289160)

The time has definitely come for GUI architects to begin the changeover to a resolution independent architecture. When 72 dpi are available, it makes sense to plan things down to the pixel. When 200+ dpi are available, the user should be presented with a completely scalable GUI.

For example, SGI has long provided scalable icons for its IRIX desktop file manager. Apple's new Quartz graphics API and Aqua GUI look like they may have the start of this flexibility. OpenGL may be a good base to work from as well.

As someone who spends way too much time reading text on computer monitors, I look forward to any improvements in their readability!

Tim

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>