Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 37 of 37
  1. #21  
    Originally posted by Distrachi
    This is how it would look on a treo screen.
    Low Res Hi Res
    That is not how it will look on a Treo Screen. Both of those pictures are 160x160. A high-res screen will have 4 times as many pixels as what you have shown here and will look 4 times clearer. What you've shown is two low-res pictures.

    You simply cannot produce two pictures that are the same size and at the same time show the difference betwen 160x160 and 320x320. Bitmap pictures are measured in pixels (never inches) and therefore a bigger picture (more pixles) will always be bigger.

    The size of the pictures in inches is determined by the screen on which it is showing. Because each of us has a different monitor, the pictures you prepare will measure different sizes in inches on each of our monitors.

    The only way to see what 320x320 will look like on a 1 inch screen is to look at it on a 1 inch screen.

    The only way to compare a Hi-Res, 1 inch screen to a low-res, 1 inch screen is to put the two screens side by side.

    You cannot show a Hi-Res picture and a low-res picture on the same screen at the same time without the hi-res picture being bigger.
  2. #22  
    potatoho wrote:

    In your example, you shrunk the 320 x 320 image down, but you didn't improve the dot pitch of *my* monitor. You'd have to do both to demonstrate what it would look like.


    The dot pitch only affects the sharpness. The point Distrachi makes is that the size of the information is uncomfortably small on a small screen. It's the same reason that many office workers will set their monitors to 1024 x 768 (or even 800 x 640) when higher resolutions are supported.

    I spent years trying to convince people that widescreen format videos actually give them more picture than pan-and-scan equivalents. And while that's technically correct, perception is reality: they still complain about the picture being smaller on the screen, with black borders. Like widescreen videos, higher resolutions benefit most from larger screens.
  3. #23  
    South Africa has a strong and vibrant GSM market. Most phones, even high end ones like the Nokia 9000, Sony P800 are free to the end-user depending on the contract. Phones are a pretty "trendy" item with lot of interest in the latest and greatest.

    Handspring are very poorly represented so people who see my Treo are pretty interested in contacts integration, GPRS, Palm OS apps, etc. The clincher for the Treo is the keyboard - a real winner for typing SMS / e-mail etc.

    However, since the Sony Ericsson P-800 has been making inroads into the market, A LOT of people comment on the poor screen definition of the Treo and the small screen size.

    For HS to bring out a new version, they MUST increase the res and at least keep the same size. I want to be able to read email, word docs, etc.

    IMHO, the size of the Treo is pretty perfect. It fits in my shirt pocket - wot a geek :^} and is a lot smaller than the P-800.

    So my 2c worth. Lose the flip lid, keep size the same but INCREASE RES and maybe screen size.

    That is all assuming they provide a GSM version.

    Regards
  4. #24  
    Originally posted by Gameboy70
    The dot pitch only affects the sharpness. The point Distrachi makes is that the size of the information is uncomfortably small on a small screen. It's the same reason that many office workers will set their monitors to 1024 x 768 (or even 800 x 640) when higher resolutions are supported.
    There are several factors. Screen size is relative to the distance from your eyes, too. The microdisplays are for eyeglass mounts, the hires 2" screens are for arm length, computer screens are for 2ft away etc etc.

    A big issue with computer screens regarding resolution is that often refresh rates, dot pitch, convergence, and signal quality really overwhelmed the debate over resolution. Switching to a higher resolution would often make your screen start buzzing, flickering, ghosting and all sorts of defects. Also the VGA interface is analog, and just adding a poor quality cable can affect the signal a lot. I once had a TV card which used an in/out and just doing that was enough to cause ghosting on my regular passthrough screen.

    PDA screens hook up digitally just like laptops, though nowadays there are also digital interfaced PC/Mac screens. I forget what it's called.. my NVIDIA card has the interface. They are more precise, and obviously a newer LCD or OLED is going to be better than my 3 year old ViewSonic.

    I spent years trying to convince people that widescreen format videos actually give them more picture than pan-and-scan equivalents. And while that's technically correct, perception is reality: they still complain about the picture being smaller on the screen, with black borders. Like widescreen videos, higher resolutions benefit most from larger screens.
    Ha ha, now we are on the opposite sides of the issue. I have a severe dislike of widescreen, because it shrinks everything down to try and fit it. I can only watch a DVD with the zoom button pressed. I'm totally serious. The black bars and tiny picture are just too distracting to me.

    I always refer to this page because it shows how movies shot in Super 35 come out better in fullscreen versus widescreen:
    http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm
  5. #25  
    Originally posted by silverado
    Do you know how the requirement of the screen being touch-sensitive changes things? Do you know of any such touch-sensitive screens?
    Trust me, I really know nothing about this stuff. I "believe" the touch sensitive digitizer is pretty much independent of the screen. It is a clear layer which is added on later and can often be of a different resolution than the screen itself.
  6. ignar's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    57 Global Posts
    #26  
    I'll pass the Treo 600 also if it doesn't have hi-res. Screen being small or not, hi-res definately delivers better image quality and more information. Take a look at Sony Clie series. Some models such as T or SJ don't have a much larger screen than Treo, but hi-res on those look great. OS 5 with low-res makes no sense.
  7. #27  
    potatoho wrote:

    Ha ha, now we are on the opposite sides of the issue. I have a severe dislike of widescreen, because it shrinks everything down to try and fit it.


    And that, my friend, is precisely the point. The solution is to get a bigger screen -- rather like web browsing at hi-res.

    ignar wrote:

    Some models such as T or SJ don't have a much larger screen than Treo, but hi-res on those look great.


    Yes, that's correct: they look great with hi-res and they have a larger screen than the Treo.
  8. #28  
    potatoho wrote:

    I always refer to this page because it shows how movies shot in Super 35 come out better in fullscreen versus widescreen:
    http://plum.cream.org/HP/dvd.htm


    Harry Potter films are composed for NTSC aspect ratio. Most films where high-volume video sales are anticipated are composed this way. So in the theater you get a lot of dead space on toward the edges, while the videos look great. That example wouldn't work with, say, a Terry Gilliam or Fellini film.
  9. #29  
    Originally posted by Gameboy70
    And that, my friend, is precisely the point. The solution is to get a bigger screen -- rather like web browsing at hi-res.
    Well like I said we are on opposite sides of the issue. I likes my TVs BIG and my PDAs small.. regardless of resolution.

    If these two things were really that similar, we'd be arguing that HDTV is not possible on current TV sizes, or some other blah blah screen-is-too-small-to-possibly-fit-more-pixels nonsense.
  10. ignar's Avatar
    Posts
    55 Posts
    Global Posts
    57 Global Posts
    #30  
    Yes, that's correct: they look great with hi-res and they have a larger screen than the Treo.
    I don't have Clie with me right now, but I used to be a Clie T-615 user and T's screen is only slightly bigger than Treo's. New Treo will have a smaller screen than current Treo, but I guess Hi-res will still serve well on it. I have three laptops, Thshiba Satellite, Dell Latitude and Fujitsu P. Screen resolutions and sizes of each are 1024x768 (15"), 1400x1024 (14.1"), and 1280x768(10.4") respectively. Toshiba's large screen is just a waste and looks bad compared to other displays. I love Fujitsu screen most. Some believe 1280x768 on the mere 10.4" is crazy, but once you see the crispness and brightness of P's display, you will be a believer. I use Treo since it's the best hybrid of Palm and mobile phone. It's not a great phone, and it's not a great palm either, but by combining both features in one device, it shines and finds its market. I want Treo stays that way and doesn't try to be a better phone by sacrificing a necessary feature like hi-res. (Face it, how many new Palm models have low-res?)
  11. #31  
    potatoho wrote:

    Well like I said we are on opposite sides of the issue. I likes my TVs BIG and my PDAs small.. regardless of resolution.

    If these two things were really that similar, we'd be arguing that HDTV is not possible on current TV sizes, or some other blah blah screen-is-too-small-to-possibly-fit-more-pixels nonsense.


    I'm not arguing that the screen size cannot support higher resolutions; other people are. I take it as a forgone conclusion that it is technically possible. I'm talking about human factors similar to your dislike of the widescreen format on TVs. You pointed out the reduction in overall image size as the problem. And you're right. It is a problem, and the only way to correct it is to get a screen large enough to offset that reduction. Otherwise you have to live with either a smaller image or a cropped image.

    A similar phenomenon happens with web browsing on a 2" screen: higher resolution displays more image detail, with all detail being correspondingly smaller. Hi-res looks better on bigger screens (even "only slightly bigger") because they're bigger screens. An image that's too small is too small, even if it's sharper, brighter or what-have-you. It's still uncomfortable.

    Having said all this, I should stress that I was only trying to clarify the point Distrachi made. There's no absolute for what constitutes "too small"; it's whatever you think is too small. I'm pretty agnostic about the resolution, myself. I'd prefer 320 x 320, but can live with 160 x 160.

    Besides, until we confirm the a priori that the T600's screen really is 160 x 160, this whole line of debate is circumspect. I hope the screen is hi-res just to show people the folly of jumping to conclusions.
  12. #32  
    Originally posted by Gameboy70
    Besides, until we confirm the a priori that the T600's screen really is 160 x 160, this whole line of debate is circumspect. I hope the screen is hi-res just to show people the folly of jumping to conclusions.
    I must conclude that the prototype shown in Dallas was 160x160. Whenever I've seen a hires PalmOS screen in person, the difference is so obvious (fonts, icons, button corners, arrows etc). It's just impossible not to notice. Both nrosser and craigdts have both spent time holding it and using it at the Dallas conference. The one they used, in my opinion, can't possibly be hires if they are both still unsure.
  13. #33  
    Originally posted by Gameboy70
    [i]

    ...Besides, until we confirm the a priori that the T600's screen really is 160 x 160, this whole line of debate is circumspect. I hope the screen is hi-res just to show people the folly of jumping to conclusions.
    Amen! But...if we don't jump to conclusions, there's not going to be much to talk about between now and its debut. Handspring/Palm/PalmSprings has been maddeningly stingy with the information. Basically all we have to talk about now are rants and wishlists. But I'll settle for that. It keeps my mind off the interminable waiting!
  14. #34  
    Originally posted by potatoho

    I must conclude that the prototype shown in Dallas was 160x160. Whenever I've seen a hires PalmOS screen in person, the difference is so obvious (fonts, icons, button corners, arrows etc). It's just impossible not to notice. Both nrosser and craigdts have both spent time holding it and using it at the Dallas conference. The one they used, in my opinion, can't possibly be hires if they are both still unsure.
    To all those doubters: Doesn't this prove the argument that hi-res will be useless on such a small screen? If it's so clear to Potato and others that it was standard res, that surely means there is room for improvement.
  15. #35  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    To all those doubters: Doesn't this prove the argument that hi-res will be useless on such a small screen? If it's so clear to Potato and others that it was standard res, that surely means there is room for improvement.
    I'm still trying to wrap my head around your post. Are you saying that hi-res is trumped by other screen improvements, because it likely has standard res, and yet the ones who've seen it in person still say it looks great?

    Going to OS 5 wouldn't be a cakewalk for me. It's several weeks of work to port the softwares I use today over to that platform, in particular the hacks which I use. Other stuff like my method for sublaunching is causing problems in the simulator, and so I'd have to find a solution for that as well. I think other power users are going to have to do stuff like that too; i.e. find replacement software.

    If there's no hi-res, it won't be worth it. They might as well have made an OS 4.x device. Possibly there will be some use for the higher speed processing, though I have doubts of that too since I think the Treo 600 is the slowest of the OS 5 devices. So, for me, that pretty much leaves the large battery and the new stylings as the sole attraction.
  16. #36  
    Originally posted by potatoho

    I'm still trying to wrap my head around your post. Are you saying that hi-res is trumped by other screen improvements, because it likely has standard res, and yet the ones who've seen it in person still say it looks great?
    No. What I'm saying is the following: People are claiming that high res will be useless because of the size of the screen. That the increased resolution will be beyond what someone would notice. The very fact that we know it is standard res confirms that we definitely can tell the difference. If eyes truly couldn't tell the difference, people who've handled the device would be saying it's high res or at least "I dont' know."
  17. #37  
    What I'm saying is the following: People are claiming that high res will be useless because of the size of the screen. That the increased resolution will be beyond what someone would notice.

    The claim is that increased utility of increased resolution would be beyond notice on an undersized screen. I use the browser on the T300 to google now and then, but I don't surf: not because of the resolution, but because of the screen size. Hi-res would be better, of course -- especially for photographs. But a 2" screen is just not my medium for prolonged web surfing, at any resolution.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions