Seiko Epson's 500ppi 3D display for phones: how dense is dense enough?
By Paul Miller 
posted August 6th 2008 1:02PM
posted August 6th 2008 1:02PM
posted August 6th 2008 1:02PM
A look back on popular stories from today in a specific year.
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Nice link.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/english/NEWS_EN/20080806/156118/
Bill Gates would have been so proud...sniff.
Microsoft Foreverrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!
hes not dead or anything...
But he is retired. . . .
Really good, I hope that this technology will be introduced more early
Two years?! But I want it nowwwww!
Yeah maybe an Android phone would be released by then.
My frustration aside, I have to say the future for mobile handsets looks amazing. 3D XGA screens? Who would have thought...
But again, you'd think phones would get thinner and smaller, but with these new demanding hardware, more power and processing speed will be needed, and so it's unlikely phone's would be as light and thin as one would think by then.
What is this useful for?
You don't want a holographic phone?!! :o :o :o
Let me know how that works, then I'll buy one
What's it useful for? Really?!
Porn. Anything that displays video is useful for porn.
Indeed, I imagine that the XGA resolution is needed entirely because of the 3D effect. The lenticular surface divides the single high-resolution screen image into at least two different images, one for each eye say. Each one of those images is seen from a different angle, giving the 3D effect. If the original screen image was something like 640x480, then the apparent resolution of the 3D image would be half that.
If you want to have even more images available (so you can look at the object from different angles, say) then the loss factor gets even worse. A 1024x768 image divided up to provide eight different viewing angles is only 128x96.
Alright, that makes sense, thanks for clarifying
Not exactly. The image would lose pixel density as stated in the article, much like an interlace display would display every other pixel 60 times per second.
The lense wouldn't divide the resolution of the image. That would cause the dimensions to change, as you stated to a tiny 128x96.
Not quite. The lenticular lens is a compound lens made up of many tall thin lenses. It splits the underlying image into a number of images that are full height, but only a fraction of the full width.
So, a 1024x768 image split up eight ways would be 128x768, with each image horizontally compressed into the 128 pixel width.
The real question is: will they have a corresponding lenticular lens on top of the phone's camera, to allow you to do 3D video chat? That would be neat to try out.
Right, I phrased that rather badly in the rush for simplicity. Basic point is, having to fit multiple images onto the LCD simultaneously means that each image you get back at the other side of the lens uses only a fraction of that LCD's pixels.
From a reasonable focusing distance, the human eye can discern up to 1200 ppi or even 2400 ppi.
That is why the resolution of a good laser printer is 2400 dpi, and the cheapest inkjet printers are at 300 dpi
@Johann:
True, at least for static images, assuming you know what to look for. 300 DPI is definitely the sweet spot where things get "sharp enough," though. Higher resolutions just improve dithering, diagonals, and fine lines after that.
I don't know if it is as true for moving pictures, though. It is surprising how bad individual still frames of a DVD can look, for instance. You just don't have time to spot the flaws. Though, certainly, a good HDTV looks better than a good SD set, and 35mm and IMAX look better yet.
This resolution is approximately the same as the human eye's resolution. It doesn't make sense to make any higher resolution displays unless someone expects people to use magnifying glasses to read the display.
Before someone brings it up: the only reason why many color printers need higher resolution is that those use dithering (or error diffusion) to mix millions of colors out of 3-5-7 different ink colors. Color displays work differently so they don't need higher resolution to create true colors.
@vagvoba
I'm trying to figure out the point of your post. You feel no one should make a display that is higher than XGA resolution? I would hate to have to use an XGA PC monitor or TV.
Or are you really worried that companies are going to start releasing 500ppi TVs and monitors? If so who the f cares? I think it would be great to have a display that was so detailed my eyes were not able to discern every bit.. it would kinda be like real life!
No, he's using the term resolution, correctly, to mean linear resolution. That's stuff like pixels per inch (ppi); you can also correctly use resolution to speak of angular resolution, as pixels per radian, but that's rarely seen. (It makes sense in the context of cameras and projectors, while linear resolution is good for flat displays.)
You're used to the common, but not near so correct, usage of resolution for the image size in pixels, which naturally should be larger with larger sizes, keeping more or less constant linear resolution if the viewing distance is constant, and more or less constant angular resolution in any case.
ds:
You are wrong. The word "resolution" is often used incorrectly. For simplicity many companies started using "resolution" for describing the size of pixel array but it's completely inaccurate.
There is no such thing as VGA or XGA resolution. Those are image sizes and they don't tell anything about resolution. Resolution means pixel density, with the unit "points per inch" or ppi(dpi). For a typical computer monitor the resolution is around 100 ppi, about third-fourth of the human eye resolution in the typical viewing distance.
A quote from wikipedia:
"Note that the use of the word resolution here is misleading. The term "display resolution" is usually used to mean pixel dimensions (e.g., 1280×1024), which does not tell you anything about the resolution of the display on which the image is actually formed (which would typically be given in pixels per inch (digital) or number of lines measured horizontally, per picture height (analog))."
Wow you guys are ignorant. Did you read my post? I separated it into 2 parts accounting for both the actual definition of resolution and the accepted usage of resolution. I clearly understood the difference.
Instead of answering my question you are acting like you are correcting me. You aren't correcting anything.. read the damn questions. I was trying to figure out how you were using the term.
My question is still unanswered. Are you seriously worried that companies are going to start releasing 500 ppi TVs? Why would that be a bad thing. Why wouldnt you want a display that made you eyes the limiting factor like in real life? I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but that will be how it is one day.. theres no reason to stop increasing resolution. Higher resolution can lead to a lot of great things besides tiny text that must be read with a magnifying glass... oh hey look this article is an example of one of those things.
@vagvoba
Well I think I answered my own question. You seem to think pixels are too valuable to waste. This was your comment on the article about Japan's plans to improve HDTV. I see why you were low ranked there.
Don't worry man I promise there is no shortage of pixels in the world. Just because you apparently have terrible vision does not mean the world should stop making higher resolution displays.
"Complete waste of pixels.
Actually, for me even the standard definition is more than enough... Sometimes I have to go closer to the TV to be able to read the fine text."
@vagvoba
Oh yeah.. and I also ran into numerous posts made by yourself using the term resolution incorrectly. You actually used it in the same way everyone in the world uses it, and no one was a big enough twat to correct you because that is the way the word is commonly used.
This article is actually the first time you have ever used the word resolution correctly so I feel I was completely justified in asking for clarification on how you were using the word.
What's up with the Read Link?
Source code got typo'd.
@Lowest Ranked - I Wonder How Long I Can Make My Name Since Its National Experimental Name Day. Wow, That Was Long!
I ranked you up just because of your name.
lolzers! i can't wait till phanbouy comments and i can post something sarcastic. haha he's such a know-it-all and making jokes and stuff. well i'm funnier than him!
so you're saying you learned from "phanbouy fan" how to make an account to act as a faux-appreciator?
didn't you hear that Oscar Wilde called sarcasm the "lowest form of wit"?
"phanbouy fan" must watch a lot of sitcom TV
Any chance you could enable comments in the Vista TV Pack post?
Just to show how obscure the use of such dense pixel pitch, this is the equivalent of shrinking a 15 inch monitor down to 2.7 inch, while keeping the same resolution, 90ppi to 500ppi.
The probable use is some kind VR gear (I assume), which the Japs are really into, beside panties vending machine. :D
Fascinating. Makes me wonder (once this is released) how long it'll be before we have 3-D games that take advantage of a truly three-dimensional display.
Or at least emulators or something that take advantage of it. Game has a horrible camera angle? Just angle yourself until it's not as bad…
From a reasonable focusing distance, the human eye can discern up to 1200 ppi or even 2400 ppi.
That is why the resolution of a good laser printer is 2400 dpi, and the cheapest inkjet printers are at 300 dpi.
@Johan S
You have been lied to.
Yes and no. It's possible to resolve 0.001 lines in a really good high-contrast situation, and very short viewing distance. It may be that he was merely left to draw conclusions as to what viewing distances are reasonable.
That is so totally _not_ why laser printers are 2400 dpi, though. Dithering, Johan.
Lenticular lens. *tee hee*
(of or relating to lenses) (atm machine)
Lenticular lens split the screen into 2 interlaced vertical lines - that means half the resolution , not 1/8th. also , that means it's 3D only from a certain range of angles and distances. you can actually buy these lens and stick them on a low res LCD if you managed to get them flush.
Well I think I answered my own question. You seem to think pixels are too valuable to waste. This was your comment on the article about Japan's plans to improve HDTV. I see why you were low ranked there.
Don't worry man I promise there is no shortage of pixels in the world. Just because you apparently have terrible vision does not mean the world should stop making higher resolution displays.
"Complete waste of pixels.
Actually, for me even the standard definition is more than enough... Sometimes I have to go closer to the TV to be able to read the fine text."
@vagvoba
Thanks engadget.