|
hopefully it also reflects that light well.
now as for their claims that their display is the first to reproduce true color (everything else "tricks" the eye via Red-Green-Blue)... well i think that's kind of pointless. Our eyes can only see rgb, so it doesn't matter. The highest-quality prints still use this trick, and they look stunning.
What determines color gamut in a display is the brightness of individual colors. E.g. a color may be composed of a really bright red and a dark green (e.g. 200 R 10 G). However, a regular monitor will only reproduce it accurately if it has a medium total brightness. If the display tries to reproduce it brighter, it finds it can't make the red bright enough. Similarly, if it tries to make it darker, it can't scale the green.
The quality of this new display will be determined by boring old things. Its new ability to actually reflect precise frequencies may have many technical uses (inside various instruments, for example) but is useless (and impractical) for a display.
Still, this tech is cool. P.S. Their displays are NOT flexible, just the crystals.
I think the best-looking displays i ever saw were those old watch LCDs that didn't have a backlight but instead a nicely reflective background. This tech seems essentially the same, but in color. It's too bad, though, that adding a backlight messes up the reflectiveness. In fact, I think this tech has no future because people won't abandon backlights. eInk is a special case because they promise flexibility and it has a lot of excitement around it. Fact is, if Sony made the Reader with a high-res LCD with the same reflective stuff as in my casio watch, its screen would turn out much better and its battery life would be the same.
|