Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 17 to 24 of 24

Thread: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

  1. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,894
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked
    84 times in 64 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    I understand what you're saying, but based on there being no expectation that current tablet prices are about to fly through the roof, I would contest that high DPI screens would be particularly expensive to make in desktop sizes. Besides, if they were (say) 50% more expensive, that simply creates more choice in the market, since manufacturers would continue to offer budget panels alongside their high DPI offerings.

    Equally with a desktop OS, high PPI tends to mean smaller text. It shouldn't have to mean that - it would be relatively easy to have a phone/tablet-style feature that scaled text and start menu (and everything else) to a default size (it's not like your computer doesn't know what size monitor you're running), and that default size could then be customised so you can have everything as big or small as you choose. This could be done on traditional screens but on high PPI screens has the significant advantage that things won't look blurry when scaled up or down.

    As for gaming, we get back to the point that just because you have an uber-resolution display doesn't mean you have to use all the pixels. I actually think I undersold myself here before as I was working on the (current) principle that using non-native resolution = decreased IQ. One of the points with a high PPI display is that you can set the 'virtual' resolution to be whatever you want, yet because the pixels are too tiny to see individually, you end up with roughly the same image quality as an 'old-style' panel (e.g. 1680x1050) with a native resolution of whatever you set it to.

    Obviously if you were going to set your new super-high-def panel to a mediocre resolution all the time there wouldn't be any point buying it over a cheaper one with a mediocre resolution as native, but (hopefully) you see my point.

    So cost-effective gaming shouldn't be a reason to dismiss high PPI panels - they can simulate low-PPI panels without loss of IQ as compared to a low PPI running at native res.

  2. #18
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    So what you're basically saying is, high-PPI monitors are a worthwhile investment because we can use them at the resolution we're used to?

    What's the darn point then? As I said (and will probably repeat several times before this thread's done) super-high PPI really isn't going to make a huge difference to PC monitors beyond price and e-peen. A mobile phone or tablet may be held a few inches away from your face so you're more likely to see individual pixels; combined with the smaller screen size, a higher PPI is worthwhile.

    Scaling would be a problem unless the new resolution was exactly divisible by a standard resolution. So a halfway increase would cause headaches, you either have to run at a huge resolution or scale to something worse than you'd have had with existing tech.
    I would much rather panel MFRs wasted less time on unnoticeable features and worked on worthwhile stuff like accurate colour rendition, response time, contrast ratio, black levels, etc.

  3. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (27-02-2012)

  4. #19
    Seething Cauldron of Hatred TheAnimus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Posts
    17,168
    Thanks
    803
    Thanked
    2,152 times in 1,408 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    I find the super high PPI is better on my eyes if they have to be close to the screen. I am however, very slightly short sighted (can't see as well long) not enough to need glasses for driving, thou I normally wear them mind, stops head aches.

    But I digress.

    My Vaio Z series has an insaine 1080p resolution on a 13" screen. Its great for looking at photographs, editing in word. Downside is a lot of websites don't scale well, bitmaps look crap stretched etc, if I crank up the DPI setting.

    My dev desktop at home has a couple of dell 3008WFPs, they have a very slightly higher than average DPI, which I still let windows think is standard, its fine. I like it, I have them just out of touching distance away from me when using the setup. No RSI, No eye strain, it rocks.
    throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)

  5. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (27-02-2012)

  6. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,894
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked
    84 times in 64 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Quote Originally Posted by TheAnimus View Post
    I find the super high PPI is better on my eyes if they have to be close to the screen. I am however, very slightly short sighted (can't see as well long) not enough to need glasses for driving, thou I normally wear them mind, stops head aches.

    But I digress.

    My Vaio Z series has an insaine 1080p resolution on a 13" screen. Its great for looking at photographs, editing in word. Downside is a lot of websites don't scale well, bitmaps look crap stretched etc, if I crank up the DPI setting.

    My dev desktop at home has a couple of dell 3008WFPs, they have a very slightly higher than average DPI, which I still let windows think is standard, its fine. I like it, I have them just out of touching distance away from me when using the setup. No RSI, No eye strain, it rocks.
    This is the trouble with high-res displays and Windows 7 (and previous versions of Windows). Changing the DPI setting is not that great a way of compensating for high res screens. I'm hoping this will be fixed in future versions of Windows, to the point that the various elements that make up an image on the screen can be set to a particular 'density', so that we can use (theoretically) an almost infinite resolution, yet keep the same physical size Start Menu and text size - just with better subliminal quality.

    Quote Originally Posted by watercooled View Post
    So what you're basically saying is, high-PPI monitors are a worthwhile investment because we can use them at the resolution we're used to?

    What's the darn point then? As I said (and will probably repeat several times before this thread's done) super-high PPI really isn't going to make a huge difference to PC monitors beyond price and e-peen. A mobile phone or tablet may be held a few inches away from your face so you're more likely to see individual pixels; combined with the smaller screen size, a higher PPI is worthwhile.
    No - for the very specific use-purpose of gaming, best quality will be attained for most people by toning down the resolution. This is exactly the same thing that happens at the moment, anyway - those who have 1080p displays but mid-range graphics cards that can't play the game with high-enough-quality settings at that resolution have the option of scaling the resolution down. Higher-res displays would offer greater ability to adjust the virtual resolution without suffering scaling artefacts to anywhere near the degree currently suffered.
    I'm sure you know this, but I'm going to try to make it crystal clear:
    Quote Originally Posted by me on scaling artefacts
    For the purposes of this explanation, we will disregard the two-dimensional aspect of resolutions and focus entirely on the horizontal, for simplicity. Note that this can be directly applied to two-dimensional screen.
    • At native resolution, each physical pixel is the same size as each virtual pixel, so each virtual pixel maps to one physical pixel
    • The resulting image is sharp and clear because you can consistently have lines and detail that is one pixel thick
    • At virtual resolutions lower than physical resolution, each virtual pixel is larger than each physical pixel
    • In most cases*, each virtual pixel will map to either one or two physical pixels. This produces an unclear image because detail is not faithfully reproduced.
    • For example, a single virtual pixel will in some cases be represented by one physical pixel, and in other cases by two physical pixels.
    • Whether this is noticeable by the end user depends on whether they are able to see the difference in width between one (physical) pixel and two pixels.
    • With a current display, e.g. 24" 1920x1080p resolution, the DPI is ~92. This means the width of each pixel is about 0.4mm. This is a width that is distinguishable by the human eye (you can see the difference between 0.4mm and 0.8mm without needing to be excessively close).
    • At this point, we need to establish just what size pixels the human eye is able to resolve. I've not done the research into the technical aspect of this so I will use Steve Jobs' assertion that 300PPI at 12" is the eye's maximum resolving power.
    • We are clearly not going to be using our computer at 12". Please measure it yourself but I think an estimate of 30" is not unrealistic for those using a 24" desktop monitor**. Using the same assertion, 120PPI would be the eye's maximum resolving power at 30".
    • What this means is that we are able to see any individual pixel that is up to ~0.3mm in size, at a distance of 30".
    • This is not the end of the story, however. Suppose you have a physical pixel that is 0.2mm in size. Remember that a virtual pixel can map to either one or two physical pixels. Two physical pixels would be 0.4mm in size. Since you can resolve down to 0.3mm, you would be able to see the difference between 1 physical pixel and two physical pixels, which you would perceive as decreased sharpness.
    • This means that if you have a screen with physical pixels of less than 0.15mm in size, you would be able to scale an arbitrary resolution onto those physical pixels, and you would be unable to identify any scaling artefacts whatsoever.
    • This means you would be able to scale your games down to whatever resolution they are playable at with the quality settings you want, and it would be as though your monitor had that as its native resolution, it would be so sharp.

    The next question of course is what DPI would be needed to achieve such a pixel size?
    • To get a physical pixel size of 0.15mm, you would need a DPI of 240PPI, twice the DPI of the eye's maximum resolving power at 30". On a 24" screen, this would amount to a resolution of roughly 5020x2823.
    • Although this resolution would be the point at which a drop in quality due to scaling is no longer visible, 'mid-way' resolutions will reduce the effect of scaling by making the effective change smaller. The above resolution is the 'holy grail' in that under no scenarios at the intended sitting distance would pixels become visible, even when scaling.
    • A lesser but important milestone would be the resolution at which you can no longer distinguish pixels when the virtual resolution matches the physical resolution. This is the point of maximum benefit for those who would only run at native resolution (those who would not scale the resolution down), so everyone except gamers (I can think of no other categories at present). For this, we only need to match a DPI of 120 (the eye's resolving power), rather than twice the eye's resolving power, so the resolution would be ~2510x1412.

    *At virtual resolutions 1/2 the size of the physical resolution e.g. 960 pixels instead of 1920 pixels, perfect scaling will occur, when each virtual pixel maps to two physical pixels, and this will be as sharp a picture as if the virtual resolution were the native resolution because each virtual pixel is a consistent width. Also, at resolutions lower than 1/2 the size of the physical resolution, each virtual pixel will map to two or three physical pixels, etc.

    **Personally, using my laptop, I sit around 20" away when typing, which means I would gain benefit from a DPI 50% higher than that mentioned throughout my reasoning.
    Now that that's out the way, we can say that a DPI of 120 is sufficient for those sitting 30" away from their monitor, unless they wish to game at a lower resolution, in which case they should ideally have either a monitor that is at the resolution they wish to game at (causing limitations when their hardware is upgraded) or a monitor that has a DPI of 240. Those who sit further away can get away with a lower DPI without loss of image quality, and those who sit closer need a higher DPI.

    One further quick note on the eye's maximum resolving power:
    Quote Originally Posted by me again
    Raymond Soneira (someone important in display technology) has said he believes the eye's maximum resolving power at 12" to be 477DPI, not Steve's claim of 300DPI; this seems to apply to those with perfect vision rather than those with average vision, when 300DPI may be sufficient. Adjusting these figures for 477DPI instead of 300DPI gives a necessary DPI at 30" of ~191 and a 24" resolution of 3991x2245 for non-gamers with perfect vision. For myself, at 20" from my 15.6" laptop screen, I would need 3891x2189 to have a 'perfect' display, given that I don't game on it.
    Anyway, I hope I've explained that upgrading PC monitors to at least 120DPI, or 180DPI for laptops, would be at least as worthwhile as upgrading your typical 4.3" phone screen at 217DPI (480x800) to a 'retina display' at a DPI of 330 (960x640, 3.5" screen).

    Scaling would be a problem unless the new resolution was exactly divisible by a standard resolution. So a halfway increase would cause headaches, you either have to run at a huge resolution or scale to something worse than you'd have had with existing tech.
    I would much rather panel MFRs wasted less time on unnoticeable features and worked on worthwhile stuff like accurate colour rendition, response time, contrast ratio, black levels, etc.
    See my above points - I do agree with your statement here. As for wasting time on unnoticeable features, I agree but don't consider bumping the resolution to be an unnoticeable feature. Granted, it's an annoyingly unhelpful feature in Windows 7 due to poor display element scaling implementation, but with Windows 8 I strongly hope that we will be able to set e.g. the Start Menu to a particular size on screen, while supporting big increases in resolution.
    Last edited by miniyazz; 24-02-2012 at 08:34 AM.

  7. #21
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    Found the slide I was looking for, part of a presentation by Tim Sweeney about the future of gaming an such (easy enough to Google). But as I was trying to say earlier, the human eye has limits and constantly increasing specs beyond that, whether it's huge framerates or PPI, it's just completely pointless.

  8. Received thanks from:

    CAT-THE-FIFTH (27-02-2012)

  9. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,894
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked
    84 times in 64 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    I agree that there are limits to what is useful in terms of increased resolution. I just disagree about where those limits are

    I'm having some difficulty following that slide. He states that the eye is equivalent to a 30MPix camera. This needs some qualifier as it currently makes no sense.
    If he means there are effectively 30 million 'pixels' on a retina, this is irrelevant since only the fovea matters in this sort of comparison (the only bit that resolves fine detail).
    If he means 30MPix within a certain field of view, which field of view?

    Assuming for a moment he means 30MPix in a 30° field of view. According to Macular Pigment: A Test of the Acuity Hypothesis (published in Investigative Opthalmology, June 2007), the mean resolving power of the subjects was around 30 arcseconds, or 2 pixels/arcminute.
    So to calculate the number of pixels in a field of view:
    • number of horizontal degrees (e.g. 30) x 60 (number of arcminutes) x 2 (number of pixels per arcminute) x number of vertical degrees (e.g. 30) x 60 (number of arcminutes) x 2 (pixels/arcminute).

    So in a 30° FOV, the eye is equivalent to around 12960000 resolution (13MPix). Even accounting for 16:9 screens, the calculation would be 30 x 60 x 2 x 16.875 x 60 x 2 = 7,290,000, which in resolution terms would be a 3600x2025 display. (2560x1600 = 4096000)

    So I don't think his slide makes an awful lot of sense, and I don't think he's used the correct figures for his maths. Everything I'm reading points to needing a higher resolution to reach the point where further improvements are of no benefit - I just can't work out mathematically that 2560x1600 res is sufficient (for a typical viewing angle).

    If you want to argue that 30° FOV is too big (and for typical TV viewing, it is), go for it - I'm just using his example. For computer screen viewing I think it's actually fairly reasonable though.

  10. #23
    Senior Member watercooled's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    11,478
    Thanks
    1,541
    Thanked
    1,029 times in 872 posts

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    It's just a slide he has up while doing an extended talk, watch the video before disagreeing. And it's not just some figures he's pulled out of the air, they are commonly accepted.

    Obviously it's not as easy as comparing an eye to a camera, he's just using it as a metric to find the highest resolution we realistically need before we stop noticing any difference, just like FPS (as the slide shows); you can't see any difference above 75fps, not least because the monitor displaying it likely only refreshes at 60Hz, but people will still upgrade their GPU needlessly to take a game from 90 to 130fps. Some games do the sensible thing and implement FPS limiters for that reason, to cut down on heat/power/noise.

    Besides, as I keep saying, throwing a ton more pixels at a display does not imply increased image quality

  11. #24
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Posts
    1,894
    Thanks
    92
    Thanked
    84 times in 64 posts
    • miniyazz's system
      • CPU:
      • Acer Aspire 8920G
      • Operating System:
      • Windows 7 Pro
      • Monitor(s):
      • Optoma HD700X projector @ c. 90"
      • Internet:
      • Really, really ****

    Re: News - Sharp rejected as iPad 3 screen supplier

    It's an interesting watch, that video. But he doesn't actually give any information on where he's got his data from or how he's calculated his figures (and I wouldn't expect him to, he's doing a presentation, not publishing a thesis). I therefore find it hard to accept his word for it when I've found research providing visual acuity statistics and done the sums myself investigating the point at which higher resolutions per field of view are of no more benefit.

    I'm not dismissing what you are saying, and if you can either contradict my equations or direct me to something that show me to be wrong, I'll happily take a look (because I'm more interested in knowing the resolution to aim for than being right ), but apart from that, I think we'll have to agree to disagree!

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •