1600x1200 17" OLED by next year from Samsung

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: zephyrprime
You guys have to change your attitudes about screen resolutions. We're going to soon be in a world where resolution will be measured in DPI rather than absolute numbers in the same way they are on printers. Pretty soon, screens are gonna be 300 or 600 DPI. Resolutions like 1600x1200 be perceived as being ridiculously low quality in the same way we currently perceive 256 color VGA to be low quality. Ultimately, screen pixels will be too small to see with the naked eye and visible jaggies on lines will be ancient history.

OS's and applications will simply have to adapt to the higher resolutions. They will have to incorporate vector icons rather than raster icons and they will have to start drawing accoring to inches and % of the screen rather than absolute pixel height & width.

OLED's will be in high demand for notebooks because they offer big power savings and significant space savings.

Thank you for bringing some sense to this thread. I can't wait until it happens.

 

[mstegall]

i am confused why are they going to be measured in dpi?

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: mstegall
i am confused why are they going to be measured in dpi?

Because when you get much beyond 300dpi, you start talking about numbers like 4342x3700. It's easier to express in DPI.

 

[JackBurton]

How do OLED displays look with resolutions less than native?

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
How do OLED displays look with resolutions less than native?

Probably the same as any other fixed pixel display. It all depends on the quality of the internal scaler. I'll bet that 800X600 looks pretty good if you need to go down in resolution for gaming since the scaler will just need to double the pixels in that case.

 

[Nebor]

Originally posted by: JackBurton
How do OLED displays look with resolutions less than native?

That's an interesting question. Will we have video cards capable of pushing games at 600dpi?

 

[sxr7171]

Originally posted by: Nebor

Originally posted by: JackBurton
How do OLED displays look with resolutions less than native?

That's an interesting question. Will we have video cards capable of pushing games at 600dpi?

I doubt we will see video card capable of calculating every individual pixel at 600 dpi in the near future. If you had such a display say of 16" x 9" you'd have 9600*5400 resolution. It's too much to have to calculate anyway. You could have it calculate a whole number fraction like every fourth pixel giving you 2400X1350, then if you use supersampling 4xAA the card can actually address each pixel using the output from the AA algorithm. It use some other more efficient 4xAA algorithm and address each pixel that way as well.

Still, I think 2400x1350 with 4xAA is hoping for too much in the near future as it is. I'll bet that it address 2400x1350 without AA and the display will just upsample in it's own hardware. Again if you use whole number fractions you can have it "blow up" the video card output but your resolution effectively goes down to 1/16th of the possible resolution of the display. Alternatively the display hardware can do some sort of intelligent interpolation, but the result depends on the quality of the algorithm of this intelligent interpolation. I'm sure there will be all sorts of personal philosophies on which way is the best way to run the monitor and people will have their stance on this. I'll bet fights will take place with people on both sides, and finally some sort of display will come with the processing power to implement a powerful interpolation/upsampling algorithm that satisfies 98% of people or video cards start outputting in 600dpi using some sort of algorithm or best yet applications and fonts come with actual 600dpi resolution and our video cards can actually process all of that in real time (and have massive amounts of memory to do so).

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: VIAN

Ummmm, 1600x1200 eliminates the vast majority of the jaggies....Plus, being an LCD, if I run it at a non-native, non-equally divisible resolution, I get free AA (e.g. at 1024x768)

1600x1200 does get rid of some jaggies, but not all. The thing that we are supposed to do is increase resolution in the same size medium, but that's not what's happening.

For ex. LCDs

15" is 10x7
17" is 12x10
20" is 16x12

For ex. CRTs according to optimal resolution

15" 8x6 - I'm guessing here.
17" 10x7, with some having 12x10
19" 12x10
22" 16x12

OLEDs are having 1600x1200 pixels in a 17" space which means better picture quality, because the pixels will be closer together, compared to previous technologies that are not able to do that.

About that free AA - you don't get the crispiness of the native resolution, even though it still looks pretty decent.

12x10 is not a 4:3 aspect ratio and will look like crap on a CRT, it's 5:4. Made for 17, 18 an 19" LCD's.

I think 1152x864 is what your looking for on a 19".

Anyway I see no use for such an LCD. 17" and 16x12 will have you sitting 4" away to see text. My prefered LCD size is 19" with it's native 12x10. Nice and big. Only thing I wish for is 10ms reponse and true black.

 

[sxr7171]

Keep in mind that there are 15.4" widescreen laptop displays that have 1920x1080 resolution. If I were ever getting a larger widescreen laptop that would be my display of choice.