Nano-Pixels Hold Potential For Screens Far Denser Than Today's Best 129
Zothecula (1870348) writes "The Retina displays featured on Apple's iPhone 4 and 5 models pack a pixel density of 326 ppi, with individual pixels measuring 78 micrometers. That might seem plenty good enough given the average human eye is unable to differentiate between the individual pixels, but scientists in the UK have now developed technology that could lead to extremely high-resolution displays that put such pixel densities to shame."
Tiny Projectors (Score:1)
This should be very interesting for making tiny projectors.
Re: (Score:2)
You'd think, but microprojectors/picoprojectors haven't really advanced over the past five years.
Re: (Score:2)
This might allow for very high-resolution interference fringes for holographic displays.
Re: (Score:1)
I am saying that the new technology will lead to advancements. Hence it is interesting for making (future) projectors.
Re: (Score:2)
The idea is, commercial affordable pixel densities have gotten higher and higher over the past few years, but tiny projectors haven't really improved. Why should further advancements in pixel densities start helping now? Perhaps it's something else holding them back.
Re: (Score:1)
"Why should further advancements in pixel densities start helping now?"
Because every bit helps.
Hardware Struggles Now Though (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
We're soon gonna see display using Displayport compression. Analogous to texture compression, small blocks are compressed but that is done in real time with dedicated hardware, with a supposedly very good algorithm. The goal is to enable power savings on mobile devices (including laptops), by reducing the insanely high bitrates for transmission between the GPU or SoC and the display. It will also allow a PC with Displayport 1.3 to output to an 8K display, even though the bandwith (increased from the current
Nice try (Score:1)
But the LG G3 is already down to 47 micrometer. And it's mostly about battery life.
VR Headsets for Eagles (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
That's what magnifiers and optical microscopes are for.
Even if you cannot individually identify pixels, you can still notice the marginally sharper text/line-art edges, smoother gradients, reduced stair-casing along polygon edges in 3D applications, etc.
But beyond 300dpi at typical tablet/smartphone reading/playing distances, I doubt that many people would really care about difference between 300-350dpi and 400-450+dpi.
Pixel master race (Score:2)
There are better than Apple's (Score:3)
Why do they mention that and fail to mention devices which present even higher density displays? My Nexus 5 has 445ppi display density.
I find it annoying that despite the existence of common devices which are "better" that the "best" is still considered to be Apple's. Nothing like product endorsement which wasn't [likely] even paid for. At the very least, they should have included the trademark sign to indicate they were making a commercial reference in their endorsement. (They did, at least capitalize "retina" in retina display... that's not quite the same thing and kind of makes it worse.)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I find it annoying that despite the existence of common devices which are "better" that the "best" is still considered to be Apple's.
Congratulations, you have just lived down to your nickname, and it has led you to whine about Apple's popularity — the only reason why everything is compared to Apple.
Oh good grief (Score:2)
This technology is at the "hey, look at the shadow of this Maltese cross created by the cathode rays!" [wikipedia.org] stage.
Re: (Score:2)
1.2 arcminute per line pair (Score:3, Interesting)
The human visual system is good for at most a resolution of around 1.2 arcminute per line pair. That's an outstanding eye, with outstanding conditions. Granted, looking at a light source like an iPhone screen is in general what I would call excellent conditions, except in the shadow detail areas. If they go OLED, even that will improve.
But the bottom line is, do the math. It's pretty simple geometry. If you exceed what the human visual system can perceive, all you're doing is making marketing hype.
Same thing applies to movie theaters -- where the hype is now 4k. Even Sony admits unless you are sitting in the first few rows of the theater, 4k is overkill and 2k is plenty. If you like the back row, a 4k projection won't give you any improvement over a 720p HDTV signal.
I'm just sayin'... Do the math.
Re:1.2 arcminute per line pair (Score:5, Funny)
For any particular reason? What use? (Score:2)
I already can't see the pixels even up ultra close on an iphone 5, I have difficulty on my Samsung Galaxy S3 and both of those displays are only "fairly good" by the new mid 2014 phone standard which is up to over 500ppi
You want to impress me, get OLED happening everywhere, I've done the reading, I understand the tech, the colour range, refresh rate and incredibly black blacks are awesome.
Also, 2d / 3d graphics processors are going to melt pushing this many pixels sooner or later :/
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, modern OLED screens are fine outside.
I'll believe it when I see it. Besides that, there's the power requirements. My phone needs to be charged daily, whereas my e-ink Kobo can go for a month between charges. Granted, the Kobo is monochrome and is only switching between pages. whereas the cell phone is contacting cell towers periodically, and such, but still, the display on the phone eats up an extraordinary amount of energy.
Re: (Score:2)
I can see why! (Score:2)
Monitors? (Score:2)
So.. you mean I might live to see a 35" monitor with over 300 dpi? (ok, I'll settle for a doubling of the current 100dpi).
Ideal PPI (Score:3)
300? 600? 1200? 2400 or more?
Re: (Score:2)
Whatever PPI is necessary to make it invisible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why?
Because you dont want to use the built in hardware antialiasing (or are apple and cannot do anything competent like that, limiting things to integer pixel scales)?
At what distance? I would suggest that at 100 meters, the PPI would be about 1, or less.
Want to try again?
Re: (Score:2)
1: Anti-aliasing may look smoother but it also looks more blurred than non-antialiasing. That's why I based my test on no anti-aliasing.
2: If Apple isn't do it, then it must be at least somewhat inherently tricky to get right. And at the least it breeds bugs. Kludges usually breed bugs somewhere down the line as a rule of thumb.
3: Anti-aliasing complicates the OS (such as using Cleartype which has to be adjusted for every monitor it
Doesn't seem to work (Score:2)
Where's the middle ground of usability? (Score:2)
I'd be plenty happy if I could buy a 24" desktop monitor with 2560×1600 pixels (125 DPI).
Back in 2004 (10 years ago!) I had a Sager laptop with 135 DPI (1600×1200). That was an awesome display, but it seems like we have not made any progress since then: It's either barely stretch for 100 DPI on the desktop or 400+ DPI on a tiny mobile phone. Why can't we get 150 or 200 DPI on the desktop? Am I really the only one who cares?
Can I have an indigo pixel? (Score:4, Interesting)
One possibility would be improving the color range, even if the resolution isn't improved. Rather than cramming in three phosophors per pixel, perhaps we could have four, or more. There's a considerable chunk of color space not well represented by RGB color.
I don't know how much of a difference it would make to TV viewers or gamers, but I know that artists would be grateful for a better color range. The conversion from RGB to CMYK is always a bit of a crapshoot; things that look great on your screen don't look as good when they come back from the printers, and there's a whole range of stuff it doesn't occur to you to try because you can't see it.
I could even imagine that it might be handy for medical imaging and other applications where you want to cram as much information onto the screen as possible: more pixels may not improve things but more colors might. Though more pixels could achieve that as well: it would be nice to be able to zoom in by bringing your face closer to the screen without simply seeing bigger pixels. Head motion is kinaesthetically appealing: you can move in and out without losing your sense of overall place.
Sharp already makes a four-pixel TV, with an added yellow (which is especially helpful in skin tones). I think it would be neat to be able to produce true indigo, violent, and cyan. If this lets you add more phosphors without costing resolution, it might not be a killer app, but it could be a desirable thing.
Image size and camera (Score:2)
I wonder how big images to be displayed on such a screen would be, or more important: what camera do you need to be able to support such resolutions?
Only 326 ppi huh? (Score:2)
Can be used foor true 3D display (Score:2)
The math of retina displays (Score:2)
Human visual acuity in a healthy human eyeball can discern features as tiny as 30-arcseconds in size. If you holding a retina display device 30 centimeters away from your face, 30 arc-seconds is only 48 micrometers at that distance, while retina displays use a resolution of 78 micrometers. Further, because the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem suggests that you will need at to sample at at least double the highest frequency of a signal to receive the signal with minimal distortion, suggesting that a true
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
I mean, really: Emacs looks great in character mode and 80 columns. Why all this other faffing about?
Most people don't find ASCII pone all that exciting.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: What's the point? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read. He says that if you can have a light emitting grid below the object of interest you could do some neat tricks with illumination.
Of course, if you could actually get pixels much smaller than a wavelength, the big application would be true holography. You aren't drawing images at that point, you're drawing interference patterns.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't even need to get much subwavelength, half wavelength is already enough for a 180 degree viewing angle.
That said, materials which can do this are hardly new ... OASLMs were first used for holographic displays approximately 2 decades ago AFAIK.
Re: (Score:1)
You need these high-res displays so that you can enhance video like they do on TV, where you get a grainy 640x480 video feed of a car several blocks away and you zoom in and read the license plate. It's not possible without using a high-res display, preferably one that is semi-transparent, like the ones on CSI Miami.
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I think the capture technology is more important for that use case than the display technology...
Re: (Score:2)
I can understand the benefit of higher resolution capture capability to microscopic applications, but displays? Do you look at your display through a microscope?
no, but do you look at your kitchen table or your hand through a microscope? The resolution of the world is very very small and it contributes to the appearance of items on a macro (human) scale. The engineer in me gets the argument that 1080p is already fulfilling and surpassing the use case of reading text, but i'd be interested to see what kind of magic can be pulled off when we have enough pixels to really mimic the way light is scattered off of microcopic surfaces.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a limit, but it is way above the 326 PPI of a "retina" display. You only have to compare such display to other phones with higher PPIs (pretty much any medium to high end model made in the last couple of years) to see that.
Re: (Score:3)
Aye. My Nexus 5 has a 1080x1920 445 PPI display. Although I didn't know that until just a minute ago when I looked it up, it's not something they make a big deal of in their marketing..
iPhone 5 only has 326 PPI you say? And they brag about the iPhone 6 getting a 416 PPI display?
I'll never understand marketing...
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't much of a point in pushing display densities much beyond 300dpi for hand-held applications since most people can barely tell the difference but Apple was the first one to make a big deal out of it. Announcing higher resolutions sold many of the previous models and will sell future ones too - with the progress stagnation that has hit smartphones and tablets for much of the past two years, higher resolutions and the IGP power to drive them are almost the only two things that have improved by a fai
Re: (Score:1)
You will still piss off people around you, they are only less likely to detect it. Big difference.
Re: (Score:1)
The contentious point in Google Glass is the camera in front, not the display.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, are you suggesting there are _other_ uses for augmented reality? Sir, you've just blown my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
So next generation of Oculus Rift can get better image quality.
Other applications may be more light-weight devices for disabled people as well.
A higher density also means better images at short distance between eye and screen (you may want to add some optics to relieve eye stress though).
Re: (Score:3)
If the average human eye can't tell the slightest difference, what's the point of making displays that dense?
I would guess there may be applications for things like VR/AR headsets, where you're using a very small screen to cover a large field of vision.
However, I more or less thought the same thing about Apple's retina displays - I can see some restricted uses, but for the general case I don't notice the pixels on my non-retina phone so I'm not sure why I'd want to waste the battery power moving even more pixels around.
Re: (Score:2)
VR and AR are something, as are things like the Google Glass, but another one is EVFs (electronic viewfinders), which typically use microdisplays.
Then again, these microdisplays already feature pixels FAR smaller than what they're claiming these new "nanopixels" are.. the article is kind of confusing. They seem to be claiming pixel sizes a bit less than half what an iPhone has, but there are already smartphones out there with pixel densities almost double the iPhone (like those phones with 1440p displays),
Re: (Score:1)
I think you missed three orders of magnitude there - 30nm vs 78microns.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, you're right.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you read books or anything on your devices, but I've found that reading on an iPad Air to be *significantly* better than my previous devices. Less strain to read, I can make the text smaller without it getting blurry.
I didn't see the point in high density displays either until I took the same pdf on an older and a newer device side by side. The different is striking.
Of course, if you don't use your device for such things, then I agree, the higher density doesn't grant you much.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know if you read books or anything on your devices, but I've found that reading on an iPad Air to be *significantly* better than my previous devices.
I don't own a tablet - I use a desktop machine for every day work, a laptop around the house and an Android smartphone. I wouldn't really want to read books on my smartphone except in an emergency - screen's too small to be comfortable. And I don't want a bigger smart phone because then it wouldn't be convenient to carry around and I honestly can't think how a higher resolution display would make my phone better.
On the other hand, my wife does have a tablet... She occasionally reads books on it, but it mo
Re: (Score:2)
That is entirely true. And I had spent a long time looking at ePaper devices. Unfortunately, the devices I was looking at turned out to be far more expensive than comparable tablets, and with ePaper you were locked into only reading books. (Or view web pages, email, etc, assuming they even provided that functionality). I didn't want to be restricted to just books, so I went with the tablet instead.
Some company in India actually came up with a design similar to what you describe. I forget the name now, b
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting.
I for one would simply like a high res monochrome LCD (or greyscale, if monochrome implies 1bit).
It was prevalent in the 80s and 90s, works unlit, is usable outdoors and gives you much longer battery life to boot. I wouldn't give a damn about black and white if I had a long-lived, always usable device. Hell, a 1989 Game Boy is still a better gaming device than a smartphone and I tried to read a book on one (read the first chapter before being bored with it. Blocky font with very few pixels per c
Re: (Score:2)
I took my HTC One (m8) smartphone on a long flight a month or three ago. Ended up reading al
Re: (Score:2)
In my experience things like contrast, backlight quality and _the_lack_of_glare_ are more important for readability than pixel density.
A high enough pixel density combined with good anti-aliasing and subpixel precise rendering makes a huge difference though - not that I'd call the existing solutions good (unless I've missed something).
Re: (Score:2)
After dismantling one of my phones after a broken screen, higher pixel densities can probably be used to increase the resolution of projectors as well (most I come across don't pass 1024x768, the few that do are extremely expensive).
I'm concluding this after finding 3 layers in my phone's display, the digitizer then the screen and finally a backlight. I've been tempted to dismantle other screen of this type and get a 5W LED behind it to build my own projector, biggest problem was how to drive the display fr
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Small point: If they keep making the pixels smaller, holographic displays could be possible.
Re: (Score:2)
If pixel density increases past what can be seen by the human eye, they could develop 3d displays using polarized films that could allow for directional displays. This means they would be similar to today's planar holographs, where as you move your head you would see a different version of the image.
This would be a huge advancement in display technology and such science
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Very interesting.
The eye tracker thing is interesting; only update what I'm looking at. Unless there are idle cycles, then go ahead and update the rest of it.
I was thinking of a fractal style display environment, where oop and inheritance are taken to ridiculous levels. Each item to be updated is the child of a child of some child region possibly, although I was thinking more of in game objects instead of predefined areas. Like all the mice or grass waving or whatever.
Assuming we are stuck with a single mas
What's the point? (Score:1)
Try drawing a non-aliased almost horizontal black line on white background on a retina display at normal viewing distance; you won't have any problems noticing the staircasing.
Re: (Score:1)
Even if you can't tell the individual pixels apart, you always want anti-aliasing. Aliasing is technically a frequency domain thing. No matter how high the sample rate (the spatial resolution in the case of displays) is, aliasing will always be visible if you sample frequencies that are higher than half the sample rate. The correct solution is to use a display resolution just high enough that individual pixels can't be distinguished and apply anti-aliasing. The point of higher display resolutions is not to
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why more and more camera manufacturers, while sensor resolution becomes higher and higher, find anti-aliasing filters unnecessary?
Re: (Score:1)
Not having an explicit anti-aliasing filter is tacit admission that there is an implicit anti-aliasing filter somewhere else. In other words, the optics are shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Is that why I've looked at some shots on the web that were very high res and very noisy?
Maybe you have to do the anti-aliasing / proper reconstruction in the RAW importing software.
Re: (Score:2)
If the average human eye can't tell the slightest difference, what's the point of making displays that dense?
The whole retina thing is just a marketing ploy. Perhaps some wants to hold the phone closer than what Steeve decided was the optimum range. There is no denying text is sharper and you need to zoom less when having better than retina resolution.
In any case, I'm not average.
Re: (Score:3)
The human eye CAN tell the difference. What it can't do it distinguish individual pixels, just like you normally can't see individual frames when a movie or game is faster than 24fps. If your eye-sight was so poor that you coun't see better than 300dpi at one meter, you would not be allowed to get a drivers license in most countries. Road signs are designed to be read by the minimal allowed vision at a certain distance, that means you must be able to read half a meter high letters at 1km, which requires 1/5
Re:What's the point? (Score:5, Informative)
20/20 vision is defined as 1 arc minute of resolving power. It is rare for anyone to achieve resolving power more than twice that.
1 arc minute translates to 87 dpi at 1 meter, although I have no idea why you mix inches and meters here. It is 95 dpi at 3 feet; 100 dpi is the commonly used number. People with 20/10 vision can resolve 190 dpi at 3 feet, 175 dpi at 1 meter.
No one living sees better than 300 dpi at 1 meter, so it is not likely to be the standard in ANY country, much less "most". 600 dpi for road sign legibility is even more absurd.
At 1km, 20/20 vision can resolve a "dot" about 29cm in size. That's 3.5 dots per METER. 1/2 meter letters would not be legible. 20/40 vision, a common driving standard, would be closer to 2 dots per meter, or the feature size you are quoting.
See http://www.safetysign.com/cont... [safetysign.com]
A road sign that should be legible at 1km should have a minimum letter size of 1.1 meters, not 0.5 meters.
2 dots per meter at 1km is 2 dots per mm, 50 dpi, at 1m not 600 dpi. In order to resolve text at that size someone would need 250 dpi of acuity which no one has.
Carewolf, everything you said was wrong. You may need a new calculator.
Re: (Score:1)
However, one doesn't read highway signs at arm's distance.
Also, lower resolution reduces the amount of information which one can fit on a given highway sign and diminishes legibility by obscuring finer details.
The human can distinguish the difference in character shapes at resolutions up to ~2,000 dpi --- see Smeijer's book _Counterpunch_ for an examination of this.
Current smart phones aren't quite able to adequately represent typeface designs w/ subtle curves such as Optima at text sizes, and engravings be
Re: (Score:2)
Humans don't see motion as "frames", but our visual system is great at picking out something when it's drastically different. The only reason we don't see "fra
Re: (Score:2)
300 dpi at one meter? Are you high? NO ONE can come anywhere close to that. You fail basic reality.
FYI, 20-20 vision resolves roughly 16 dpi at 6 meters, and you don't even need 20-20 to drive.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If the average human eye can't tell the slightest difference, what's the point of making displays that dense?
Maybe eagles want to watch TV too.
Re: (Score:2)
I think both AMD and nVidia are pushing displays manufacturers toward higher-DPI panels.
Re: (Score:1)