Whats next after square pixels?

[j03h4gLund]

It seems like square pixels are old technology? Is there anything newer? Something like :

would be great for games and videos wouldnt it?

What is the latest and greatest out there? Are graphics engines built on top of pixel technology?

Im confused.

 

[William Gaatjes]

Think about resolution. ^_^

When the resolution is high enough, the shape of a single pixel is no longer important.

See for example the old 7 segment display.

This display is made up of line shaped segments. The benefit is a reduction in the needed pixels that needs to be addressed. The drawback is that you can only have a limited amount of symbols.

For some background information :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven-segment_display

EDIT:

Some more examples,

Alphanumeric display :

Dot display.

"High res" lcd :

 

[j03h4gLund]

So then square pixels is what we will have forever?

 

[PottedMeat]

is there any point? the square pixel is just a easy to deal with representation of what is really being displayed. on old trinitron screens a 'pixel' was made up of red/green/blue lines next to each other - similar to lcds. shadow mask screens had rgb triangles.

 

[martixy]

Depends on technology. But generally as pixels are not meant to be individually recognizable it's pretty much irrelevant.
Here are some examples of odd shapes.

 

[Murloc]

it's probably the simplest way, and since the resolution is going up it doesn't really matte because they blend in your vision and brain.

 

[bendixG15]

TVs also have rectangular pixels, which is how they strech the picture to fit.

 

[exdeath]

It seems like square pixels are old technology? Is there anything newer? Something like :

would be great for games and videos wouldnt it?

What is the latest and greatest out there? Are graphics engines built on top of pixel technology?

Im confused.

Ironically, in the image you posted, the triangles and "non square pixels" are made up of dozens of square pixels and show up just like you wanted on your square pixel screen. :awe:

 

[Cogman]

circular pixels? At such high resolutions why do you really need to worry about the shape of the pixels?

 

[Rubycon]

Increasing the density makes the shape a moot point. Also scalers will actually work similar to changing resolution on a CRT. The pixel density in the iphone4 is one example where they are practically indistinguishable to the naked eye.

The prices will come down - eventually.

 

[Throckmorton]

Increasing the density makes the shape a moot point. Also scalers will actually work similar to changing resolution on a CRT. The pixel density in the iphone4 is one example where they are practically indistinguishable to the naked eye.

The prices will come down - eventually.

How high will resolution need to be for scaling to finally look good?

 

[Rubycon]

How high will resolution need to be for scaling to finally look good?

Scaling will look good at any resolution given a high enough pixel density. Of course this depends on the scaling algorithms used.

 

[Mark R]

How high will resolution need to be for scaling to finally look good?

As long as the resolution is sufficiently high that individual pixels cannot be distinguished, there should be no significant artefacts from the scaling process.

So, in the case of the iPhone4 display, scaling artefacts are for all practical purposes, not visible. This is due to the resolution of the displaying being such that it exceeds the resolution of the eye/retina.

For reference, human vision has a maximum resolution of about 0.01 degrees (100 pixels per degree). A screen designed for viewing at a distance of 45 cm, like the iPhone4, should have a pixel pitch of 75 µm (or 320 ppi). Correspondingly a screen designed for viewing at 2.5 m, should have a pitch of 430µm (equivalent to a 38" HDTV)

 

[esun]

There are two reasons I don't believe anything but square pixels will become popular (at least not for the foreseeable future).

1) We know how to manufacture them currently. Moving to a new pixel shape would likely require some new research and new manufacturing processes that would cost extra time and money. Since square pixels are good enough, it doesn't make sense to upend the current design for something that would likely cost more.

2) Software must assume a certain pixel shape when rendering images. Having a variety of pixel shapes would require some pain in the process of rendering images as additional work would have to be done to support various different pixel shapes. Since the advantage provided is marginal, it wouldn't make sense to go through the hassle of writing that software.

 

[exdeath]

Displays are also addressed in rows and columns. Given this, a square is the largest/best/most efficient way to make the most possible surface area out of the display for a given pixel. If you made a bunch of circles, you'd have gaps and unused space. This is why aperture grill >>>>>>>>>>>>> shadow mask.

Unused space = lower density = less pixels per given display.