Casio goes insane with 2-inch, 960 x 540 pixel LCD
By Thomas Ricker 
posted September 25th 2008 1:54AM
posted September 25th 2008 1:54AM
[Via Akihabara News]
posted September 25th 2008 1:54AM
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.
Ermm, wow.
"(Note: Picture not to scale.)"
Here is to 4k displays. What really sucks is that they are able to achieve densities like this but my 22" screen is still limited to 1680x1050.
Actually I'm more surprise on where Engadget get these pictures.
"(Note: Picture not to scale.)"
Crap. That kiwi looked tasty.
seems everyone, including the editors, has forgotten these:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/sanyo-epson-announce-7-1-inch-1080p-lcd-by-far-the-worlds-smal/
7.1 in 1080p, and
and even more amazing, a 2.6 in 1024x768 screen.
back in 2006.
I want a display like that on my ipod.
This is AWESOME!
Yea, it's interesting, but I'd much rather see a 24-30" 3480x2400 (16:10) or 3480x2160 (16:9) WQUXGA Display aka "Quad-HD". For god sakes, the 30" Dell and Apple panels at 2560×1600 have been the highest commercially available resolution for years now.
My current 17" laptop screen, which is the highest res you can get is 1920x1200 (16:10) which is almost exactly what I had literally 7-8 years ago, except in those days the screens were 4:3 (1600x1200). And 10 YEARS AGO, IBM was selling professional WQUXGA displays, although they were really heavy and bulky and had terrible contrast. But still, where is the progress??
I understand that part of the problem is that both Microsoft and Apple STILL haven't made proper resolution-independent interfaces, so your average computer user equates high resolution with small text (ARGH!!) and thus buy horribly low-resolution displays without realizing they can just change display text size in the OS which is a partial fix to the problem, thus encouraging manufacturers make more low-pixel density displays.
But regardless, we need progress! and don't tell me that there is no difference between quad-HD and 1080P, because we are not talking about 60" displays we are sitting 20' back from, I'm referring to computer displays.
@maveric101: no, not really. The displays you refer to actually both have lower pixel per inch density (310 and 492 respectively) than this new one (546).
@DJPurpose
The reason you see these types of displays but not 4k 22" displays is because of defect rates.
If you make 30 2" screens and 10 of them have dead pixels you can just add that to the cost.
If you make 1 22" screen and you have 10 dead pixels you have to throw out the entire display.
Go go crazy japanese technoid!!
THIS IS MADNESS!!!!!
Okay, I'll bite.
Madness?
THESE! ARE! PIXEEEEEEEELS!!!!
*punt*
I'm not really interested in these absurd densities until I see them in e-ink devices with touch-screens.
Madness? THIS... IS... CASIO!
This is SPARTA!
Sorry, It had to be said.
And I should have refreshed the page before I replied... now after the other comments, I just look stupid haha.
How about in VR goggles?
Sweet idea!
That may be one of the applications where it makes sense.
No phone manufacturer would be stupid enough to put this display on a phone. The human eye's spatial resolution is lower than that of this display. It is simply an overkill for phones.
It will be used in visors, microscopes, VR goggles, etc. where this small size really matters.
@ vagvoba
so? if you can't see the pixels, then curves would look perfectly smooth. i have no problem with that.
That's what I was thinking. I used to have a set of screen glasses for a portable DVD player (which I still have) and my complaint was that they were WAY too low of a resolution. This would solve that nicely.
@vagvoba
From up close (8 inches away from eye), the human eye can resolve 1600 dots per inch. That's why laser printers advertise as having such high resolution.
A display of this high resolution can display wed pages and it will be readable.
So technically, if you put four of these screens in an array together, you get 1080p, at 4inches diagonally, unless you can make just one screen at that resolution, depending on the kind of yield they're looking at...
wow oO"
OMG I can't wait for this to be on cellphones!!!! Woah I'm really loving this. BYE BYE QVGA!!! Please...
Say hello to VGA, because you won't see QHD any time soon - first it gets into mass production, then it gets into Japan phones, and then, possibly, years later, we might be able to see it in one or few phones outside of Japan. Maybe.
Man, imagine that kind of pixel density on like, a 52-inch tv!
That would be awful...
No wait. My bad. That would awesome!
(confused density with resolution)
Holycrap?
i believe the term is "holymanure" in your case my friend.
Totally impressive! I didn't expected it from.. Casio.. wow!
Holy crap I thought my iPod touch had small pixels at 160 an inch. But 540, that's just stupidly small. I too, will like a 52" er for christmas.
No kidding. If the next generation of iPod Touch/iPhone screens could have this pixel density... Oh, man. We're talkin' like 1440 x 1280 resolution!!! That's pretty much the same as my computer screen! Too bad Apple won't do that for another 2-10 years... ;-(
why is he low ranked? people here can be so judgmental.
no pixel count can make that fruit look good. yuck
so you're a (fruit) salad dodger hey? if you're lucky you may live long enough to see a 52"er of this pixel count...
@ Timothyx: I love fruit, but that fruit does look terrible, like it's plastic, or at least covered in it.
I'd be willing to bet that's a macro shot of the top of a fruit cake, and what you see as "plastic" is a gelatinous sugar syrup coating.
More to the point, this is absolutely awesome! I'd be willing to settle for a 1080p netbook, even if this technology's potential is much greater.
Wow, just wow. That is just unbelievable. Now I want my full 1920x1080 HTC Touch True HD, and I want it yesterday. Hurry up, HTC!
i can't find the article, but engadget posted an article at least a year ago about some company who made a 7-inch 1080p display and i think a 3-inch 720p display.
found it:
http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/17/sanyo-epson-announce-7-1-inch-1080p-lcd-by-far-the-worlds-smal/
7.1 in 1080p, and
and even more amazing, a 2.6 in 1024x768 screen.
back in 2006.
This would make my databank watch unbelievable!
Full HD on a 4" PMP soon...
HD is not really HD anymore with such a leap on tiny screen resolution
You and everyone else know full well that we're going to have HD, SHD, XHD, SXHD, UXHD, QXGA, etc.. in the future, and of course all the wide(r) screen variants... WHUXHD anyone? :)
Only on Engadget, the only source that hasn't given up on this early-'90s alphabet soup.
it's announced
http://world.casio.com/corporate/news/2008/qhd_lcd.html
Something like this would be awesome in digicams... especially the new micro FT cameras. And also, the fonts can be super smooth on a cell phone with this display (though I'd rather have like a... 3.5" FullHD screen for smartphones.