Much of the coverage of Japan's Ceatec consumer electronics show has centred on Android tablets and Toshiba's glasses-free 3D TV line. But here's what caught our eye while perusing local newssite Impress' show highlights write-up. It's Hitachi's 6.6in tablet-oriented LCD panel that incorporates in-plane switching (IPS) …
Better than HD?
16:9 HD would be 1920 x 1080 or 2,073,600 pixels.
1600 x 1200 is 1,920,000 pixels.
So hardly better than HD.
Plus it's in 4:3 format. What (apart from the iPad) uses that these days?
Better than full HD ?
So full HD is 1920 x 1080. This LCD is 1600 x 1200, and it is better than HD ?? !!
Does it depend on what your definition of "better" is, to mis-quote a certain ex-president?
Also, the Reg often reviews cameras, and normally there are several pages of image from said cameras. Perhaps el Reg should've taken one of those cameras to the show to get a decent picture, or is the LCD really that washed out?
However, all that bitching aside, I want one of these. I think I can just about squeeze it into the front panel of my home server in-front of the drive bays; perfect size and good resolution.
Better than Full HD
"better-than-full-HD resolution of 1600 x 1200"
Full HD is 1900 x 1200, isn't it?
...Full HD is 1920 x 1080
I thought Apple had all the screen touchy/feely patents in the world?
It comes to mind that Apple is suing someone for using their touchy/feely screen technology.
The only thing that appears to be a little odd are the thick trim edging that surround the screen, unless this is because it is early in development.
Anyone know what the grey layers are on the diagram?
re: Grey layers...
I reckon it's a substrate or separation medium (read: very thin plastic or glass) to keep the layers seperate. Good thing: it's probably cheaper to make, thinner, etc. Bad thing- if the touch screen packs it in, the whole display has to be junked- there's no possible way I can see to scrub or remove the touchscreen without trashing the display layer it floats on.
Can someone explain the need?
I don't really get the focus on very hi-res screens for phones, etc. The screens are so small that you're getting far higher resolution than on a decent PC monitor, and I rarely hear people complain that 1600x1200 or 1900x1200 is too low-res for their PC.
Is there some particular benefit, or is it a numbers game and being able to claim "HD" resolution, regardless of practical issues?
Re: the need
There may be other considerations, but angular resolution is surely the big one. A handheld device may be just a few centi-cricket-pitches away from your eyes. A desktop screen could easily be four times further away, so the screen can be four times larger (in linear terms, not area) and still present the same angular resolution.
Oh, and I suspect that if 3800x2400 desktop screens were widely available then you *would* hear complaints from those who had to put up with 1900x1200. People often have multiple monitors for precisely this reason.
I object to the use of cricket-pitches as units. To those that don't know cricket it's about as utilitarian as an arseful of roasted snow.
Can we please use proper internationally accepted news-media units such as olympic swimming pools - which is a more versatile and familiar unit anyway also being the std unit of volume.
To use cricket pitches over swimming pools is crazier than a proctologist, or about as nutty as squirrel shit.
Whilst we are on units, time is now measured in 'advecs' - how long it takes an advertising exec to craft a lie, replace key words with suggestive yet technically meaningless made up ones, thus circumventing all regulation yet still delivering the intended outright lie to the pitchee.
The 'advec' is broadly equiv to the old units of as fast as a dog can raise its leg, or almost as fast as the partched fat kid when the syrup tanker hit the bucket factory.
Just because you can't see well doesn't mean nobody can
The text is so much clearer on an iPhone 4 compared next to a 3GS, it's striking just how much it looks like real paper instead of just a computer screen. I can't speak for everyone, but I squint less and read more comfortably for long periods than on a junk desktop monitor resolution, or even the 3GS's already decent resolution.
Finally a decent resolution screen for tablets.
This could make a killer 7" ebook/tablet screen. I hope it is low glare, has a wide viewing, has a bright LED backlight, appears in a reasonably priced product soon, and has a same DPI 10" screen version too, to humiliate Apple and Amazon :)
Actually, if you do the math, the display density is 303ppi, not 302ppi :)
303 and inches usually has a different meaning
It's for a nw 7" iPad.