Pixel Qi Says Next-Gen Displays Meet or Beat iPad 3 Screen Quality 157
New submitter seb42 writes "Pixel Qi announces new screens that can match or exceed the image quality of the screen in the iPad3, with a very low power mode that runs at a full 100X power reduction from the peak power consumed by the iPad3 screen. Hope the Google tablet has this tech." The claims are pretty bold, and specific: "We have a new architecture that matches the resolution of the ipad3 screen, and its full image quality including matching or exceeding contrast, color saturation, the viewing angle and so forth with massive power savings."
Problems...? (Score:5, Insightful)
What's their refresh rate? Is the 100x power saving only in direct sunlight with the backlight turned off?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Problems...? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problems...? (Score:5, Informative)
Well, except for having ridiculous (and I mean that in a good way) pixel density, that's exactly what Pixel Qi displays to date have all been about -- with one caveat.
The problem, with a conventional LCD, is the color filters -- each one blocks out perhaps 70% of white light (you can block more for better gamut, less for worse gamut, but reduced light consumption). That means you get, at best, 30% albedo for your display in a white state, and that assumes your filter doesn't cost any extra on the second pass (a theoretical brickwall filter) -- real filters will lose some. So, ditch the color filters and win, but this makes your display black-and-white. Pixel Qi gets best-of-both-worlds capabilities by generating colors in the backlight (using a diffraction grating), allowing low-res (since you need multiple subpixels to make one pixel) backlit color display, or high-res (1 subpixel = 1 pixel) reflective grayscale display. That's the catch -- of course, with a powerful enough backlight, you can still make the colors shine through in daylight (though they will be washed out by the reflective light, reducing saturation), but then you don't get the power savings.
Back-lighting consumes power (Score:2)
No matter it's 70% or 30% or even 90%, back-lighting itself wastes a lot of power
Re: (Score:2)
Pixel Qi displays have a pure reflective mode with no backlight.
transflective displays are easy to make (Score:3)
That's a display that can be viewed with reflected light (light from the front) or with a backlight (light from the back).
You've probably owned at least one. Blackberries and iPods used to have them.
The problem is that they don't have good contrast ratios. This is because when you make the display reflective, it reflects room lighting. This raises the black level (darkest a pixel can be), and so the contrast ratio (which is brightest to darkest pixel) drops.
So displays went to transmissive only to increase
Re:Problems...? (Score:4, Funny)
Yea, I hear all this bitching about battery life, but mine lasts for ages; I just have to leave it turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
They are readable under normal (indoor) light. That's the way screens should be, like looking at colour magazine or book.
Re: (Score:2)
The "100X power reduction" line makes no sense. 1 power reduction means no power. 100X means it's making 99X power. I know that they mean either 100% power reduction or 0.01% power usage, but c'mon, just say that.
Re: (Score:2)
Expressing relative figures compared to current is always problematic. "100% power reduction" is even more problematic. "100% power reduction" also means no power.
This comment is 350% more efficient.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This made me chuckle. Well done.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm trying to decide if your comment or jones_supa's below is funnier. Bravo to both of you!
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The original screens were in no way vaporware. I have three and love them all. (No, the picture quality is not on par with a normal screen, but the power savings and daylight use far far far outweigh that (minor) drawback.)
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
If only they had been in real, useable products instead of overhyped shite like the OLPCs...
Re:Vaporware (Score:4, Informative)
You can buy their screens for yourself [pixelqi.com].
Re: (Score:3)
Great, so how do I swap the screen in my existing laptop with theirs? An external USB-attachable display isn't going to cut it, and a handful of no-name tablets and one obscure notebook isn't going to cut it, especially not internationally.
Unless Apple, Lenovo, Dell, HP, Sony etc. sell devices with their screens they might as well not exist...
Re: (Score:3)
I have a Pixel Qi screen in my Adam tablet, (Notion Ink). If I wanted to leave the screen off most the time, I'd have to pick a high-contrast theme for ICS, which I haven't really run into 'themes' at all. It works well for e-Reader apps if there is a lot of light, (outdoors on a sunny day) but everything else requires that I have the backlight on. The viewing angles are also not up to par.
However, this screen is a couple years old now, so maybe Pixel Qi have come up with some new magic.
(You do notice t
Re:Vaporware (Score:5, Informative)
There are a few examples of this screen out there but I think the reason it's so hard to get a hold of is that the current Pixel Qi screen, well, kind of sucks. The color saturation, contrast, etc just aren't that great. Turns out the screen isn't that good at any of the things it was hyped to be: good color inside, good b&w outside.
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out the screen isn't that good at any of the things it was hyped to be: good color inside, good b&w outside.
Those are not the main qualities Pixel Qi displays are designed for. Their big thing is very good sunlight readability outdoors.
Re: (Score:2)
My experience come from owning a notion ink adam tablet with the pixelqi screen.
It is readable outside in sunlight.
BUT it is only readable when there is MUCH sunlight and it is NOT very good even under those optimal conditions.
The contrast is extremely bad, hence you get best results with most sunlight but they are still not optimal. Plus, even with most sunlight, the viewing angle is still extremely narrow and when you tilt the screen just a bit too much, the content becomes unreadable.
I am not surprised w
Re: (Score:2)
If true, I expect them to sign a lucrative (Score:4, Interesting)
exclusivity contract with Apple for the iPad/iPhone.
Get some nice margins in before it becomes just another commodity component on the electronic marketplace.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd be fine with this. Let the Macheads subsidize the future for the rest of us.
If the technology makes Pixel a butt-ton of money (but we have to wait a few years to get it in other devices), so much the better in my book. Just the fact that "Apple uses it" will create an insane demand for it to be in everything with a screen.
Re: (Score:2)
You think Apple pays high margins for their components?!? Hilarious. They negotiate for the lowest possible margins and pass the savings on to Steve Jobs^w^w their bank account. Although I'll give Tim some credit: finally returning value to shareholders was long overdue.
Re: (Score:2)
Why the fuck would they do that???
More volume & money than the other 10 combined?
Re: (Score:2)
Yay future (Score:1)
So... something that's not out yet is better than something that is? Shocking.
Translation Required (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2, Offtopic)
1997.
What about desktop screens? (Score:4)
/me wants 24" or smaller desktop screen with 2048*1536 pixels or more.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
They did it once.
Sorta.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_T220/T221_LCD_monitors
Re:What about desktop screens? (Score:4, Insightful)
Digital TV happened. Now monitors and TVs come off the same assembly lines, and 1080p is "good enough" for most people buying screens (that's High Def, right, so that's the best!)
On the plus side, it means that you can get a decent computer monitor for under $200. On the downside, better monitors have become a niche product, and there seems to be positive feedback - the price difference pushes more people to the "standard" models, further nichifying the high resolution models, increasing the price gap...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Possibly the same resolution as the Cinema HD on the computer I'm now using? 2560 * 1600 is the highest resolution it does.
Re: (Score:2)
Most people don't buy TVs at monitor sizes, so I don't think there's that much overlap.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I would be willing to pay $800 for a 4x180p 24" 120hz screen. I figure it would be worth 4 $200 screens. Maybe the market just isn't there for screens like that, but it doesn't seem to stop video card makers from putting out $2k cards so I'm still a little surprised there aren't any monitors like that out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, I believe a 3840x2160 @ 24" screen is really overkill... you
Re: (Score:3)
The IBM T221s mentioned here are 3840x2400 at 22". I've got 2 of them, don't do any OS scaling (plus even reduce the font size in most apps), and they're really nice, if your eyesight isn't bad.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really; check eBay. Many of them go for <$1000.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer ViewSonic displays. They always have a model or two with bleeding edge performance for gaming as well as having top end image quality. The price is usually reasonable too. I have been buying them since they came out with the first LCD with 2 ms response time and buy a new one whenever there is a significant improvement. I have six now, all running off the same machi
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Ok let's rephrase this. How about these screens at affordable prices?
Re: (Score:2)
How often do you plan on replacing your screen? It's actually the only part of a PC you can amortize over >4 years. Get a good warranty, say 5 years or so and spend the money. You'll get to enjoy it for a long time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You can get them for around less than $350 shipped from South Korea. Just do an ebay search for '2560 1440 27"' [ebay.com]. You should find a lot of really nice high resolution IPS monitors.
Re: (Score:2)
While it is true that some of monitors listed have dead pixels, some don't. Just add "Perfect Pixel" [ebay.com] to your search to find ones guaranteed to be free of dead pixels. These can be found for under $400 shipped. While I am sure it is obvious, I forgot to mention in my previous post that you need to sort by price low to high.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are pretty nice screens, but I would prefer something more like 2048x1536 at 20" or so. The problem with LCD monitors nowadays is the DPI. In order to get decent resolution the screens become too large.
Re: (Score:2)
It simulates having one higher resolution screen using multiple monitors. The problem is you have bezels, 1 ultra high resolution screen would solve that.
Re: (Score:2)
/me wants 24" or smaller desktop screen with 2048*1536 pixels or more.
A thousand times yes. There are a few gigantic ones with resolution above 1920x1200, but nothing that would fit on my desk. And the price jump from 1920x1080/1200 to anything above that is huge.
Apple is Gold Standard? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
If they did that, they'd be working on Mirasol [mirasoldisplays.com]...
Re: (Score:2)
Gotta say that, as much as I love the iPad 3 screen, calling it a 'retina' display was little more than a sneaky marketing ploy. The pixel density (264ppi) is a lot less than the 'original' retina display on the iPhone 4 (326ppi).
For me that makes the difference between seeing the pixels and not seeing them.
We can expect higher-definition tablet displays still to come.
Important comparison factor missing (Score:2)
How does the screen compare on price?
The only remaining downside is shipping. (Score:1)
How much volume did Pixel Qi do last year? One week of iPad3 sales? One day? One *hour*?
Hell, even OLED displays have beaten these guys into volume production, and I didn't think that would ever happen.
They really don't say much. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and so far the products they've released don't actually do all they've claimed (or rather, they do it all poorly) - at least judging by Adam, which I own.
That sounds great! But... (Score:3)
... I won't believe it until I see it.
Soo.. (Score:3)
Make a shipping product or it doesn't really exist.
Possible issue as touch screen (Score:4, Interesting)
Touch screens may complicate things for Pixel Qi, their screens have always relied on AR coatings. Touch screens need a capacitive (better) or resistive layer over the screen, and they need an oliophobic coating to resist finger prints. How will those affect the Pixel Qi screens?
Re: (Score:3)
Not all "touchscreen" technology actually requires you to "touch" the screen. My PRS-T1 uses infrared light to detect when and where I'm "touching" the screen, and it does everything "real" touchscreens can do, and a few things they can't (depending on the technology used).
You raise a valid point, but the implementation of the screen itself my obviate the problem anyways.
Really? Time brought new tech? Wow. (Score:2)
Anyways, they're sticking it in golf stroke training systems and carwash controls, so maybe they'll find a niche. But as for tablets, wake me when one thrives for a couple of months in the market.
Really? (Score:2)
It seems that history repeats itself. Apple invents and mass-produces a new technology. they release it into something perfectly usable that you can go down to your local shop and buy with real money. A matter of weeks/months/years later, everybody else starts claiming they've come up with something revolutionary an
Sunlight-readability (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
I have a retrofitted PixelQi display in my netbook, and it extends my PC usage by about 25%. This really surprised me; I didn't think being able to read in sunlight would matter so much. Actually, "sunlight readable" doesn't quite capture it: the more light you throw at it, the BETTER it reads.
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Apple isn't using them because a) they're not out yet, b) they aren't mass-produced the way Apple needs them, and c) Apple has volume contracts for screens with its great friend Samsung.
(Yes, the irony is real -- they are suing Samsung while simultaneously buying tons from them.)
Re: (Score:3)
Screen-maker-Samsung is not the same company as cellphone-maker-Samsung though they have the same owner.
Re: (Score:2)
eehhh NO... From a jurisdiction point of view, no. Let's say that I own corporation A, and corporation A has a controlling stake in corporation B. Then A is entitled to all of its profits, but not its liabilities since corporation B is its own legal entity. Let's twist this even further shall we...
Let's say corporation A, owns controlling stakes in both B and C. Along comes a company and sues C, but buys from B. Since each of these corporations are independent, and B or C have zero legal ties to each other
Re:Why? (Score:4, Informative)
Look for "Samsung" on the stock exchange. No, not NYSE or NASDAQ; they are only traded in Korea. And there's only one of them on KOSPI (the Korean stock exchange), under the identifier "005930". The rest is all wholly owned subsidiaries, all of whom belong entirely to the same master corporation and report to the same single CEO and Board of Directors. It's one company. All major multinational corporations work this way, and a lot of smaller ones do too. For example, most power companies work like this...there'll be a company that handles fossil-based (aka, coal oil and gas) power generation, another for nuclear generation (if applicable), another still for transmission and distribution...but they all roll up under the main organization.
Re: (Score:2)
No. E.g. in order to make the various companies competitive, the cellphone-maker-Samsung does not get any preferential treatment from screen-maker-Samsung, but competes for the production on the same "level" as e.g. Apple. Likewise, screen-maker-Samsung does not automatically get the business of cellphone-maker-Samsung which can go to Sharp or whomever if they so desire.
They are both fully owned by an umbrella corporation, though. But I assume they keep the company boards separate to avoid insider knowledge
Re: (Score:2)
There are two other important reasons. Although the image quality is similar in terms of resolution and even colour the Pixel Qi screens are not glossy and ultra-bright like Samsung's are, so they don't fit with the Apple gleaming-white-shiny look. Actually most manufacturers prefer to have their screens set to brightness level 11 and glossy, but I'm sure someone will be willing to give the Pixel Qi panel a try.
The other reason is that the OS would need some modification to deal with the different requireme
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Not glossy is a huge advantage if you ask me. I HATE glossy screens. Sure, they're sharp, but the reflections are annoying. In side-by-side comparisons at an Apple Store with glossy and non-glare screens, I found I can set the brightness lower on the non-glare screen, the glossy has to be brighter to overcome the reflections. So, that makes the non-glare not only visually preferable, but lower power in practice.
And, as someone with sensitive eyes, I don't want a screen at 500nits. 300+ is handy in bright sunlight, but indoors, my screen is usually around 150nits daytime, 60-80 nits nighttime. And with a good AR coating, you don't need extreme brightness even in sunlight.
So, while I have yet to see a Pixel Qi screen in person, I am very much looking forward to seeing their technology.
Re: (Score:2)
glossy is nice if you're in a totally dark room wearing a gimp suit, otherwise it's crap.
and from what I gather from pixel qi is that it's not exactly just the resolution of their screens they need to get up, but production lines and affordability, same thing with mirasol. nice tech but so what if it's not on the screens I could buy.
a perfect screen when it's black would eat up all the light that goes to it.. that's sort of obvious. I find that even matte(marketed as such, and definitely not as glossy as tv
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, they don't have better contrast, or color depth, or gamut. What they do have is greater color saturation, sharper edges, and often higher brightness. They're also notorious for greater delta-E (color accuracy). The "sharper edges" isn't a major advantage. What most grabs people's attention about them is the higher brightness and greater saturation. It's like the difference between Kodak and Fuji film, Kodak was more realistic and "natural", but many people preferred the over-saturated colors of Fu
Re: (Score:3)
Glass is required for the digitizer in current capacitive touch screens.
So like it or not, you're getting a glossy glass covered screen in a tablet (which this display is intended for it seems.)
Re: (Score:2)
There are ways to get glass to be non-reflective too.
Personally, I've got matte screen protector films on my Ipad and Iphone instead. Makes the screens much, much more enjoyable.
The biggest problem it that, since the diffusing layer is so far from the actual screen due to the thickness of the digitizer/glass in front of the screen, it gets a bit "sparkly" and fuzzy.
A small price to pay to get a matte screen though...
If there was a good smartphone or tablet on the market with a matte screen as standard, I wo
Re: (Score:2)
Not glossy is a huge advantage if you ask me.
Unfortunately, it's only an advantage to the person buying the screen, not the person selling it. There was an article on Slashdot a few years ago with a test in a shop with glossy and non-glossy screens on otherwise identical laptops. The glossy one outsold the matte one about 2:1, yet when interviewed a month later the people buying the matte one were all happier with their purchase. In a bright shop environment, the glossy screens look better, it's only in normal use where they're worse. This is espe
The better case to kill Apple's volume practices. (Score:2)
c) Apple has volume contracts for screens with its great friend Samsung.
Start bringing the penalties for monopoly powers to Apple (which would kill this practice PDQ), expand the monopoly definition to include Apple's characteristics (no, successful is not one of them), or otherwise make blocking competitors by volume a non-starter(perhaps by stating that such products must be equally available to all at a given price - which would also apply to Apple).
Re: (Score:2)
In what way is Apple's contract with Samsung for screens "monopolistic"? Samsung can set prices with other customers however they see fit, and they are also free to spin up new plants to produce more screens for other customers - there is absolutely nothing stopping them from doing that, and suggesting that it's some sort of "monopolistic" behavior that's stopping them is just plain foolish.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, wouldn't Samsung need to be the one to be punished? In order for there to be an antitrust concern re Apple, it would have to involve a competitor to Apple. It's Samsung's competitors that are being blocked, not Apple's. After all, Apple doesn't care where it gets the parts they need; they only care about price (and quality of course).
Apple's competitors are being blocked from Samsung product for a long enough time to cause harm - not the other way around. What I am suggesting is to expand the criteria to include Apple or its practices - with the result of them being legislatively incentivized to stop.
Volume pricing is a cornerstone of business; what you're describing is essentially government mandated price fixing, something which is illegal.
Buying out the first year to exclude competitors isn't a cornerstone of business. Nor is my solution price fixing - it is guaranteeing same-day availability to more than just Apple and favored clients of Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
(Yes, the irony is real -- they are suing Samsung while simultaneously buying tons from them.)
How the heck is THAT irony?
I mean you don't call it ironic when someone sleeps with their ex do you, and that arrangement is a lot more black and white than the relations between huge companies.
Not quite (Score:2)
They've shipped 2.5 million to 3 million screens but they don't seem to have got the world beating product that shifts by the tens of millions out yet.
The problem is that Apple have a lead and by the time PixelQI get the product to market, Apple will be on the next generation of their product.
Re: (Score:2)
This is the new Slashdot where they will post "Water: now wet!" if it can get some ad impressions.
Re: (Score:3)
I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?
So Slashdot shouldn't post any articles on new and more advanced products? Does that mean when Intel comes out with the Haswell, or AMD with the Trinity, Slashdot shouldn't have articles on those either? After all
Re: (Score:2)
I was going to write a fake headline for this, making fun of the idea that of course a next generation product will meet or exceed a current product. That's how technology works, for chrissake. Then I realized that was the real headline. Doesn't this story belong in the "Duh" section of slashdot?
That's not the point here. What makes the story interesting is that another rather small company is rivaling Apple's cutting edge technology.
Re: (Score:2)
It's officially "iPad, third generation", a.k.a. iPad 3.
Re: (Score:2)
The latest iPad is called "The New iPad." Why do the Slashdot editors have so much hate against Apple?
Why does Apple have so much hatred for names that make sense? You can choose to buy into their marketing tricks, or just call it iPad 3. Everyone will understand you either way.
Re: (Score:2)
Does it make sense? The iPad 2 does not say "iPad 2" anywhere, just "iPad". My MacBook Pro is not called the MacBook Pro 4 for being the fourth generation of that product. At work, my HP EliteBook probably has some five-digit number to differentiate it from its siblings, but I could not care less. If you buy a 2012 Ford Focus, it does not say "Ford Focus 25" or whichever model they are at now.
So the newest model is the 2012 release of the iPad.
But I do look forward to the jokes that will surround the Samsun
Re: (Score:2)
Though most on the folks on /. probably get a serious kick out of getting the chance to crack open their laptop or tablet to put in a superior part.
The screen that your laptop came with is *already* superior, unless you are in the 0.01% of people who use their laptop on a beach.
There certainly are valid applications for such screens. For example, outdoor hardware - for construction, surveying, military. It might be good even in a common car. A typical notebook isn't one of them.
I personally wouldn't
Re: (Score:2)
They are not just claiming better visibility but substantial power savings. That would be a boon to any laptop, provided the screen met or exceeded specs in other areas.
Re: (Score:2)
I personally wouldn't be interested in a tablet or an ebook reader that works best under the sunlight. I just don't read in those conditions. I read in the evening, with external lights off.
Because you are used to do it like this. If I had a laptop with a screen perfectly readable in sunlight, you can bet your ass off that I'd be working on a bench in the park below my office instead of in my office.
Re: (Score:2)
Times hundred reduction, means devide by hundred. Go back to highschool.