View Single Post
Old 01-06-2013, 06:53 PM   #61
rkomar
Wizard
rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.rkomar ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 1,741
Karma: 4368476
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Device: PRS-505, PB 902, PRS-T1, PB 623
Quote:
Originally Posted by fjtorres View Post
No.
There are two parts to the eink display; the eink film itself which is (techically) very high res, and the TFT backplane (LCD-derived tech) with the matrix of transistors that drives the actual pixels which is what determines the resolution of the panel. *That* is what determines the panel's resolution.

So there is a genuine generational difference between the SVGA pearl panels and the new XGA panels that goes beyond the frontlight/capacitance touch laminate.
Judging by how it works, I'm not sure if the pixel size can ever go below the thickness of the film (otherwise, I can't see the black/white gel being able to rotate over and back). So, finer pixels would mean a thinner layer of pigment, which would probably impact the contrast. I don't know how close the pixel size is to the film thickness, but I would suspect it's pretty close to it already.
rkomar is offline   Reply With Quote