What is Digg?37 Comments
- DocDEB, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11Does it come with a magnifying glass to see all that detail?
- Orbatos, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9This level of detail would allow for cleaner fonts with hinting, as well as generally better defined images and iconography.
- David1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9How long before they start making 40" Televisions where every 1.98" is 640x480...super high definition.
I give it 5 years...then we will all be encouraged to upgrade again. - Bleek-II, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7Yeah, I thought about taking that part out but then I realized that they were talking about the size of the pixels and the number per square inch.
- Spelvin, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9Detail is relative...A 40" high def TV say at 1080i is a heck of a lot more detailed than the 480p of this display. However when both are viewed from 12 inches away the phone may appear clearer. Try backing away from the 40" TV until it appears to be the same size as the phone and compare detail levels.
- Bleek-II, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6It would be like making a HD screen that's only 4 or 5 inches but I don't think anyone could see detail that small.
- PhireN, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4It's not really set, unless you have a laptop display. It depends on your screen size and resulotion.
Yes it is normally 72dpi, but most monitors today are at lest 96dpi.
edit: looks like boredzo bet me to it - t3hX, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4No, OS X has 96dpi as the default now.
- breakfast, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4"I think this is more of a tech demo. Such a display would be impractical"
I don't know exactly if this would be beneficial to it, but wouldn't it be good for a projector? Forgive me if that's just an ignorant statement, but I know a lot of projector's images are created by LCDs, and a higher resolution LCD in a smaller package is good news. - boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+372 on a Mac, 96 on Windows, 75 and 100 (I don't know how that works) in X11. Outline fonts make it almost a moot point.
In fact, monitors nowadays are all over 100 dpi. It's just that the operating systems' assumptions haven't caught up. Leopard (or some other future OS X) will have resolution-independent UI, tying the size of UI objects to some number of real-world measurements rather than some number of pixels. - thomashallock, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3To those who point out with higher resolution displays will come more squinting, think about it this way: Printers typically output between 300-600 dpi - 4-8 times the resolution of most displays. Do you have to squint to read their output? No, because your printer software accounts for the higher resolution. Does it look crisper than your display? Yes... because the resolution is higher. Wouldn't it be great if your display looked as sharp as a printed page? Usability of high-resolution displays is simply a matter of software keeping up with the hardware.
- samboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Within 10 or 15 years, I think computer displays will have 300-600dpi (dots per inch; 600dpi is the resolution of a laser printer) of resolution. Of course, fonts will become more detailed and will be easier to read. There will be issues with legacy applications which assume 75dpi resolution (the low resolution that current computer displays have), and CSS will have to be amended to support version numbering and to have "1px" mean "1px on a 75dpi display; 4px on a 300dpi display". The HTML image tag will probably have to have a DPI attribute added to it. Another development I would like to see is a laptop display that is just as readable in bright sunlight as it is indoors.
- Sam - TylerDurden0, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Now if we could just get an alarm clock that would do that...
*****'s sake, man. - liveinabin, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Very nice, but I'm sure the battery life still sucks. It's no good that they keep upping the features and specs of these devices when the existing battery technology simply isn't up to the job.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3wow now you can read numbers and letters.... really... well.... ??
- Teaboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2SVGA is 800x600, VGA is 640x480
- DROB003, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Is that sushi displayed on the two sample unit screens? Makes me hungry
- scottmoss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Wow... That is the largest dual screen cell phone I have ever seen! I hope it folds up to close (many times). To be honest who cares it's still less than 2 inches.
- boredzo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1t3hX: No, it's 72.
http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html
http://developer.apple.com/documentation/Cocoa/Conceptual/CocoaDrawingGuide/Transforms/chapter_4_section_2.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40003290-CH204-DontLinkElementID_93
By contrast:
http://www.google.com/search?q=site:developer.apple.com+%2296+dpi%22&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 - RichGC, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Getting a page not found on the link provided, but found the official press release here:
http://www.samsung.com/PressCenter/PressRelease/PressRelease.asp?seq=20060607_0000261768 - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1not a single comment about how we can now have video gaming headsets that are actually worth a damn?
- radu79, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I think this is more of a tech demo. Such a display would be impractical, most of the people can't see a normal font (about 8 pixels wide) displayed on that screen. And such a screen is too small for serious games or movies.
- chrismcelligott, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1QVGA is 320x200, actually its 320x240 but it's close enough.
- yichen, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Doesn't it need more CPU and battery resources?
- pauldonnelly, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@schleufer
No, you moron, displays will be bigger than a couple inches. The idea isn't to cram things onto a tiny screen, the idea is to make big screens with the same number of pixels per inch. - welshie, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1VGA is 640x480, but only a small pallette. If you want 256 colours on VGA, you had to drop down to 320x200.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_Graphics_Array - Cheeseness, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1A pleasant reminder of how deprived all those people with 'high definition' TVs really are.
640x480 being 10x more detail indeed.
That's a pretty neat density though. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I want screens like this on the next DS, but just a little bit bigger (3 or 3.5")
- ifonly, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Page Not Found
- chrisfoxinc, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0I would have thought that the real benefit would be when they find a way to laser-project this screen from the phone onto a larger surface.
- Indrek, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Edit: disregard this comment.
- gavroche, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0isnt it 72dpi?
- schleufer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+0Yeah, right. Nice try.
Digg is perfectly readable at 640x480 resolution on a *normal* (although older) monitor. Because the display is some 14 inches across. Yeah, it has jaggies, so what?
Now, squeezing that 640x480 into a 2 inch monitor... whoa... wait. Not so readable anymore. Even if the OS scaled everything up, to make the text readable, there would still be a massive amount of scrolling required to read a single post. But no jaggies.
Have you ever tried to view a web page on a Pocket PC with a 640x480 screen? That screen is about 4 inches. Text is unreadable until it is scaled up... and then you have lots of scrolling to do. - Lutja, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I always thought VGA was 320x200. 640x480 is SVGA
- weiran, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1I got that too...
- yichen, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Ye, Samsung thinks people would like to play Halo on this screen.
- gavroche, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1I remember when my computer screen used to be this.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is