Quote:
Originally Posted by mdp
The following is vector text rasterized at 300DPI
the following, instead, is vector text rasterized at 100DPI
In one element of the below one are nine of the above one. I think they are unmistakable.
Instead, what we got out of photos taken on the Kaleido as implemented in the displays of the Hisense A5 Pro CC, this is the apparent difference
not the sharpest, still probably discernible and convincing. That is in no way a 300DPI to 100DPI resolution loss.
That sentence from Pocketbook seems, up to now, to be false to misleading, and a shoot in their foot.
Pocketbook must have meant the basic: that you need three filtered dots to - virtually - display one colour. I think it is important to """nitpick""" there: that means a resolution of 173DPI (300/√3 - three dots to make colour, not nine - or in the terms from Quoth, 100 in a direction but still 300 in the other one, so √(300*100)), not 100DPI.
When other commentators have mentioned such resolution downgrade, they have sort of communicated the idea that the system reduces the resolution when colour is involved. That would create the downgrade shown at the top, only tinted. Instead, it seems from the photos that the system produces an in-colour display output starting from a full resolution input. So, not the effect you are used to, but not the devastation I show above. |
Almost, except we need a picture that is not fuzzy. That makes a huge difference.
Edit: to further nitpick, even the fuzzy image is clearly a resolution loss of 300ppi vs 100ppi. It does no subpixel anti aliasing. There is clear big steps in the red, while the black is smoother.