5 inch, 444 ppi displays to appear in the second half 2012

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And we are not there yet. The human eye has a resolution of 530 ppi.

You mean Steve Jobs lied ???

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You mean Steve Jobs lied ???

Watch out fellow. You are teeter tottering on the edge of the abyss. They have mandatory sentences for people who suggest such blasphemy.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And we are not there yet. The human eye has a resolution of 530 ppi.

At 20" with normal vision.

Which is why I'd like at least 300ppi eInk, and preferably 600ppi or more. (Since it's not often I hold a book 20" away. 12"-15" is more like it.)

My little 5" CyBook Opus is 200ppi and (IIRC) 8 grey levels. Three times the resolution would be great!

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

At 20" with normal vision.

And the new iPad's screen has the resolution of human eyes with sight deficiencies?

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Which is why I'd like at least 300ppi eInk, and preferably 600ppi or more. (Since it's not often I hold a book 20" away. 12"-15" is more like it.)

My little 5" CyBook Opus is 200ppi and (IIRC) 8 grey levels. Three times the resolution would be great!

Sure, but on top of the 600ppi resolution we should also have more levels of gray, 64 would be nice.

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And the new iPad's screen has the resolution of human eyes with sight deficiencies?

Well, it's 264 ppi, about half the theoretical resolving power. But you could argue that each of those pixels is made up of three sub-pixels, raising the resolution (in one direction) to 792 s-ppi.

I must admit that I couldn't see the pixels myself on a iPad 3, even looking much more closely than 20", perhaps because most of the time the pixels next to each other weren't in high contrast. It wasn't mine, so I didn't have time to look at black text on white background.

However, I suspect I could tell the difference, if I had a direct comparison, between a screen with 264ppi and one with 444ppi. I can certainly tell the difference between printed output that's 300dpi or 600dpi.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

Well, it's 264 ppi, about half the theoretical resolving power. But you could argue that each of those pixels is made up of three sub-pixels, raising the resolution (in one direction) to 792 s-ppi.

If you argue this point then you have to lower the number of colors that the screen is capable of reproducing.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I can certainly tell the difference between printed output that's 300dpi or 600dpi.

For pure laser printed text output that should be easy.
It is straight b&w so, yes; 600 vs 300 is clearly discernible.

As you pointed out, low-contrast and color output is entirely different; good anti-aliasing and sub-pixel addressing makes a bigger difference that raw resolution. Especially for real-world text displays.
(Microsoft proved that ten years ago when they introduced Cleartype and MSReader with qvga 4in displays.)

The value of these new LG displays is not in their pixel density or text sharpness: the value is the same as 1080p HDTV displays, the ability to display fullHD video *without* rescaling. That is pretty much the same reason Apple chose QuadXGA as the resolution for the new iPad; being able to simply and cheaply (in graphics power terms) scale iPad graphic resources and video through pixel doubling instead of a pricey video scaling chip.

Device designers considering these new displays will have a new trade-off option: use a lower resolution and cheaper display with video scaling in software (eating up CPU/GPU cycles) or a dedicated scaler chip, or go with the newer and pricier panel. Depending on the product's positioning, the FullHD panel may be a better choice on the merits.

And of course, they get to hype the (marginal) "benefits" of the higher pixel density.

[WillAdams]

For b/w output, the eye can discern the difference between 1270 and 2540 dpi output (which was an option on many Linotronic imagesetters).

See Fred Smeijers' _Counterpunch: making type in the sixteenth century, designing typefaces now_ for a discussion of this and electron microphotographs which show the curls of steel taken off a punch.

For a visual display of this, get an original of a Doré engraving, then make a greyscale scan of it at the pixel density of an iPad and compare the two --- even better would be to get an engraving which is done w/ two black plates --- the Beinecke did a lovely book which features such printing for their _The Grand Tour_ show.

[SeaKing]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

For pure laser printed text output that should be easy.
It is straight b&w so, yes; 600 vs 300 is clearly discernible.

As you pointed out, low-contrast and color output is entirely different; good anti-aliasing and sub-pixel addressing makes a bigger difference that raw resolution. Especially for real-world text displays.
(Microsoft proved that ten years ago when they introduced Cleartype and MSReader with qvga 4in displays.)

The value of these new LG displays is not in their pixel density or text sharpness: the value is the same as 1080p HDTV displays, the ability to display fullHD video *without* rescaling. That is pretty much the same reason Apple chose QuadXGA as the resolution for the new iPad; being able to simply and cheaply (in graphics power terms) scale iPad graphic resources and video through pixel doubling instead of a pricey video scaling chip.

Device designers considering these new displays will have a new trade-off option: use a lower resolution and cheaper display with video scaling in software (eating up CPU/GPU cycles) or a dedicated scaler chip, or go with the newer and pricier panel. Depending on the product's positioning, the FullHD panel may be a better choice on the merits.

And of course, they get to hype the (marginal) "benefits" of the higher pixel density.

I still prefer the Microsoft Reader (.lit file) for reading on a computer screen. That is the standard I use to judge any other style.

But coming back to size, I read once that they worked hard to produce type that would print really small but clear letters in phone books.

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

And we are not there yet. The human eye has a resolution of 530 ppi.

At what distance?

[WillAdams]

SeaKing wrote:

>But coming back to size, I read once that they worked hard to produce
>type that would print really small but clear letters in phone books.

Yes, but back then it was a matter of balancing the interactions of:

- a film of ink on a bit of lead making an impression on paper
- a camera lens
- film
- making a printing plate
- printing from said plate

So mostly it was hugely exaggerated ink / light traps and sturdy forms which would hold up to the several stages of reproduction.

Some brief details here:

http://nicksherman.com/articles/bellCentennial.html

William

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

You mean Steve Jobs lied ???

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by Andrew H.

At what distance?

The one who determined this calculated it at 20 inches.

[SeaKing]

I like the Samsung 5.0" Player except for the 800x480 screen which is now less than $200. It has GSP built in, etc. It is big enough to use for a eReader but I want something larger.

I want at least 1024 on the wide side like the Samsung Note 5.3 "phone has, which also has GPS built in but cost like about $550.

Has anyone seen anything about Samsung doing like Apple does with the iPhone and the iPod Touch and stripping out the phone part of the Note and offering just a WiFi version of the Note but much cheaper?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

Has anyone seen anything about Samsung doing like Apple does with the iPhone and the iPod Touch and stripping out the phone part of the Note and offering just a WiFi version of the Note but much cheaper?

Sort-of:
http://reviews.cnet.com/mp3-players/...=mncol;rvwBody

http://www.zdnet.com/reviews/product...black/35191695