Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 37
  1. amakh007's Avatar
    Posts
    69 Posts
    Global Posts
    72 Global Posts
       #1  
    I can't believe they wont put a high res screen in this thing! When I see my friends show their pictures on a high res Palm, I feel like the Treo 300 is outdated! I think people wont buy another low res screen on the next "upgrade"
  2. #2  
    Looks like I will have to skip a generation...
  3. #3  
    I think I agree with you, but as a devil's advocate, I must point out that Handspring is gunning to make the comparison with phones, not PDAs. They are not making a communicator, but rather a smartphone.
  4. KKenna's Avatar
    Posts
    418 Posts
    Global Posts
    419 Global Posts
    #4  
    Also, you should realize that, if the 600 has a 160x160 screen, it will be a smaller screen and give the impression of being higher resolution (same number of parts squished into a smaller space). I read in another post that it would be at least impractical if not impossible to put a 320x320 screen in the smaller space.
  5. #5  
    I still don't get one thing - I keep hearing that OS5 apps are all written for the higher resolution. Is that true? Will the new Treo be able to use those apps? Or are there OS5 devices with lower resolution screens that run OS5 apps?
  6. #6  
    Presumably the OS will downsample the images to display on the low-res (well, standard res) screen. Shouldn't be a problem. Much visual detail will be lost, though.
  7. #7  
    Originally posted by KRamsauer
    Presumably the OS will downsample the images to display on the low-res (well, standard res) screen. Shouldn't be a problem. Much visual detail will be lost, though.
    I really can't see that happening. The hires stuff will just go BONK and tell you to get a hires device. No problem, just run lowres stuff right? Well why would an author design an app for OS 5 specific features and not expect hires. I'm talking about graphics intensive stuff; games etc. Those are the things which will be broken. Then again, there will likely be issues with the slower processor on the Treo 600 as well. So who knows.

    Most other stuff will still run as usual in lowres. But it will pale in comparison to other OS 5 devices. I think when I really noticed the hires improvement was when I saw a spreadsheet screenshot.

    lowres:
    http://www.iambic.com/tinysheet/palm....asp?b=1&bi=12
    hires:
    http://www.iambic.com/tinysheet/palm....asp?b=1&bi=13
  8. #8  
    Are those really fair comparisons? Really - if you look at those two webpages next to one another, the hi-res one is about 50% or so larger than the other. Hardly a fair comparison.
    I'm not saying hi-res isn't better, or more needed; I'm just saying Iambic did a little resizing when they put those graphics up. Or something. Maybe the big one was supposed to representative of a big-a** Sony device, and the little one was a tiny Samsung Palm Smartphone. Who knows?
  9. #9  
    Originally posted by nrosser
    if you look at those two webpages next to one another, the hi-res one is about 50% or so larger than the other. Hardly a fair comparison.
    A 320x320 display has twice as many pixels in each direction as a 160x160 display no matter how big (in inches) the screen on which it is show is. The 320x320 really is "twice as big" as the 160x160.

    The 320x320 can be shown on a small screen (with high dpi) and appear to be smaller than the 160x160, but it still has twice as many pixels (in each direction).

    When you look at the two side by side on the same monitor (and therefore the same dpi) the 320x320 has to take up more room because it has more pixels. That is why it appears twice as big, because technically, it is.

    When you look at a hi-res device (TT), it looks so good because it is showing twice as many pixels (in each direction) in the same amount of space.

    160x160 on a smaller screen (Treo600) will look better than 160x160 on a slightly larger screen (Treo300), but 320x320 on either screen would look awesome. It would be a coup if they could fit the 320x320 on the new Treo.
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by nrosser
    Hardly a fair comparison.
    The hi-res one is 320x320 according to the image properties on my browser (there's also a 320x480 on the page). That's how it is on a hi-res screen.

    I don't understand all the talk about the screen being too small for 320x320. I mean, they make 640x480 screens as small as 1cm x 1cm with no problems. Resolution is independent of physical size. Heck even my old discontinued Powershot S100 camera has a 490 x 240 LCD viewfinder. I measured the physical screen size is 1.25" x 1".
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by BillFugina
    The 320x320 really is "twice as big" as the 160x160.
    I know you explained it in your post, but technically it's four times as big.
  12. #12  
    Originally posted by potatoho

    I know you explained it in your post, but technically it's four times as big.
    I know, that's why I put it in quotes. I was trying to keep it simple, but perhaps I've made things worse.

    I've seen a few posts that say something like, "but if they make it look better it doesn't really matter if it's not hi-res." I'm trying to get across that indeed it does matter: Hi-Res is four times better than low-res.
  13. #13  
    Originally posted by potatoho

    The hi-res one is 320x320 according to the image properties on my browser (there's also a 320x480 on the page). That's how it is on a hi-res screen.

    I don't understand all the talk about the screen being too small for 320x320. I mean, they make 640x480 screens as small as 1cm x 1cm with no problems. Resolution is independent of physical size. Heck even my old discontinued Powershot S100 camera has a 490 x 240 LCD viewfinder. I measured the physical screen size is 1.25" x 1".
    Resolution is definitely NOT independent of physical size.

    Just the fact that you were able to see a 640x480 image on a 1cm x 1cm screen doesn't mean that that screen has that many pixels. I very much doubt that it does. The display shows you the picture in its own way in however many pixels it has. Just like your monitor can fit an arbitrarily large image and it looks very good. Some detail would be lost anyway the smaller the display gets, so there is no point trying to fit those many pixels in a tiny screen even if possible.

    If the dot pitch is small enough in a display, then you'll get from it most of what you can get from that size screen. It's as simple as that.
  14. #14  
    Originally posted by potatoho
    my old discontinued Powershot S100 camera has a 490 x 240 LCD viewfinder. I measured the physical screen size is 1.25" x 1".
    Originally posted by silverado
    Just the fact that you were able to see a 640x480 image on a 1cm x 1cm screen doesn't mean that that screen has that many pixels.
    Potatoho, the 490x240 you mention is the actual specs of the screen, not the size of a picture you viewed on it, right?

    Well, actually I'll answered my own question. It is the actual specs. http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/s100/specs.html
  15. #15  
    Originally posted by BillFugina
    Potatoho, the 490x240 you mention is the actual specs of the screen, not the size of a picture you viewed on it, right?

    Well, actually I'll answered my own question. It is the actual specs. http://www.powershot.com/powershot2/s100/specs.html
    Great, thanks for the pointer! I looked at the price and it seems that this isn't an expensive camera. This clearly answers the first question.

    Now can someone find a pointer to such high DPI display that is touch-sensitive as well? If it exists, it would be good to know how much it would cost.
  16. #16  
    Originally posted by silverado
    Just the fact that you were able to see a 640x480 image on a 1cm x 1cm screen doesn't mean that that screen has that many pixels. I very much doubt that it does. The display shows you the picture in its own way in however many pixels it has. Just like your monitor can fit an arbitrarily large image and it looks very good. Some detail would be lost anyway the smaller the display gets, so there is no point trying to fit those many pixels in a tiny screen even if possible.

    If the dot pitch is small enough in a display, then you'll get from it most of what you can get from that size screen. It's as simple as that.
    Come on, I'm not making this up. These micro displays are everywhere. The 640 x 480 1cm^2 is almost laughable nowadays. They have those down to 5mm x 5mm now. They mostly use them for hi-res displays inside of glasses etc. But they could use them for lots of other things. I haven't been to COMDEX in many years, but they've always had these Japanese companies with dozens of hi-res microdisplays in any range of sizes.

    They're used everywhere from headsup displays on eyegear, to projection HDTV, to camera viewfinders.

    http://tmec.nectec.or.th/WaferTechno...comicrocom.jpg
    http://tmec.nectec.or.th/WaferTechno...wTechnolgy.htm
    http://www.microdisplay.com/
    http://www.emagin.com/svga+.htm

    I dunno, small color hi-res displays are cheap and abundant. Search for "microdisplays".

    The really neat stuff is OLED. Did anyone see that stuff demoed all last year, the color cellphone displays that were paper-thin. They had literally 180 degree viewing angle. From what I understand they hardly use any power, some kind of organic stuff.

    http://www.elpub.org/resources/resources.htm
  17. #17  
    Originally posted by potatoho

    I really can't see that happening. The hires stuff will just go BONK and tell you to get a hires device. No problem, just run lowres stuff right? Well why would an author design an app for OS 5 specific features and not expect hires. I'm talking about graphics intensive stuff; games etc. Those are the things which will be broken. Then again, there will likely be issues with the slower processor on the Treo 600 as well. So who knows.

    Most other stuff will still run as usual in lowres. But it will pale in comparison to other OS 5 devices. I think when I really noticed the hires improvement was when I saw a spreadsheet screenshot.

    lowres:
    http://www.iambic.com/tinysheet/palm....asp?b=1&bi=12
    hires:
    http://www.iambic.com/tinysheet/palm....asp?b=1&bi=13
    Yeah Hi-res is a nice improvement but only when it's on a larger screen. When you use hi-res on a tiny screen, it becomes really difficult to read because everything get shrunk:

    This is how it would look on a treo screen.
    Low Res Hi Res

    I dunno if my eyes could take that. I'd prefer the low res. . . Just can't fit that much information on such a small screen without it affecting readability.
    Last edited by Distrachi; 06/11/2003 at 02:21 AM.
  18. #18  
    Originally posted by Distrachi
    This is how it would look on a treo screen.
    Low Res Hi Res

    I dunno if my eyes could take that. I'd prefer the low res. . . Just can't fit that much information on such a small screen without it affecting readability.
    With all due respect, that is an improper conclusion.

    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.

    It's like this. Remember laser printers when they first came out at sub-300 dpi, and then 300 dpi, and now 600 dpi 1200 dpi etc. At first you could still see the jaggies on 300 dpi, and then finally at 600 dpi all fonts are crisp. And you found that hey, I can squeeze 20% more on my sheet and it still looks good. That's what it's like. The extra resolution improves legibility.

    Take a piece of 1980's era dot matrix printed stuff -- that's your lowres Palm screen. Then take the same information and print it on a 300 dpi laser printer -- that's your hires Palm screen. My numbers aren't accurate, but it's around the same in proportion to quality difference IMO.

    There was a time when hires screens looked like crap though. They always seemed to buzz and have weaker contrast. My black & white sidekick is kinda like that. I didn't care much for the hires screen. But I looked at some of the hires screens on current PDAs and they are awesome! They're so calm and vivid. No funky storms swirling around.
  19. #19  
    I was turned off by treo600 when i 1st heard it is 160x160 , whats worst it has no bluetooth.

    But I may changed my mind. but if I were to buy a treo 600, I would still get a pda, most probably a tungsten-C or a helix. I would have to bring 2 devices everyday to work. but on weekends, evenings and formal occasions, I can just bring the treo.
  20. #20  
    potatoho:

    Thanks very much for this valuable information! I've been asking for an "LCD expert" to chime in in another thread (the 20-some page one), but I'm glad to finally get a response here.

    Do you know how the requirement of the screen being touch-sensitive changes things? Do you know of any such touch-sensitive screens?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions