Quote:
Originally Posted by Demas
Now if you're willing to either: 1) Expand the definition of "accessible" to "working tech available to OEMs and in prototype" OR 2) Defer "currently" by a few weeks, then 3Qi is a contender, of course. The real innovation of 3Qi isn't necessarily a new LCD feature but a cost effective way of getting it.
|
Let's limit the scope to things that are close to or in consumer hands. We have seen prototypes of holographic storage and 400dpi e-ink displays, but they either are hampered by expensive or difficult technology. As for pixelqi, we still need to see it released to consumers before we can judge it in comparison to other devices. Just because a technology is licensed by third parties doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to be a hit for the consumer, though obviously it'll have a better chance than something existing only in a lab (Microsoft's Origami tablet form factor got released by several OEMs but was basically DOA and the Apple TV box didn't become the ipod for TVs).
If you're going to compare pixelqi to e-ink, then I would guess it would be best to compare them with pixelqi in reflective mode (else it'll just be a comparison to a backlit LCD screen). I would be interested to know if given the same room lighting conditions, how do the two screens compare in terms of contrast. I suspect e-ink is more reflective since the reflection occurs near the surface as opposed to LCD with the reflection layer in the back (I wonder if LCD reflectivity gets worse as resolution increases due less light getting through the denser components).
Is there any argument against the viewing quality of paper itself and I mean the quality of a laser printer print out? Who wouldn't love a nice white page with dark letters? Now, which technology better mimics the viewing properties of paper (lets discount, for now, stuff such as video, cost, and power since this topic is about eye strain)?