Casio goes insane with 2-inch, 960 x 540 pixel LCD

To put Casio's achievement into perspective, those 7-inch PMPs and UMPCs generally equipped with 800 x 480 LCDs are now kicking the dirt in embarrassment at being outdone by the pixel density of Casio's new 2-inch display. Using a proprietary Hyper Amorphous Silicon TFT (HAST) LCD, Casio achieves a 960 x 540 pixel resolution resulting in 546 pixels per inch supporting 16.8 million colors -- hoozah! Although not announced, we'll undoubtedly see these in future NTT DoCoMo superphones just as soon as these displays hit mass production.

[Via Akihabara News]

[Aex Dorman @ Sep 25th 2008 2:01AM]

Ermm, wow.

[High Ranks make you sterile @ Sep 25th 2008 2:03AM]

"(Note: Picture not to scale.)"

[djpurpose @ Sep 25th 2008 4:04AM]

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.

[Techie @ Sep 25th 2008 4:10AM]

Actually I'm more surprise on where Engadget get these pictures.

[NHAnimator @ Sep 25th 2008 8:05AM]

"(Note: Picture not to scale.)"

Crap. That kiwi looked tasty.

[maveric101 @ Sep 25th 2008 10:21AM]

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.

[Simon @ Sep 25th 2008 6:40PM]

I want a display like that on my ipod.

[Johan S @ Sep 25th 2008 8:41PM]

This is AWESOME!

[loosely_coupled @ Sep 25th 2008 10:12PM]

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.

[czert @ Sep 26th 2008 9:13AM]

@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).

[Gavin Greenwalt @ Sep 27th 2008 2:33PM]

@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.

[BB @ Sep 25th 2008 2:09AM]

Go go crazy japanese technoid!!

[Freakin Ijit @ Sep 25th 2008 2:10AM]

How about in VR goggles?

[Bad Beaver @ Sep 25th 2008 4:45AM]

Sweet idea!

[vagvoba @ Sep 25th 2008 9:33AM]

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.

[maveric101 @ Sep 25th 2008 10:08AM]

@ vagvoba

so? if you can't see the pixels, then curves would look perfectly smooth. i have no problem with that.

[Jason Litka @ Sep 25th 2008 11:09AM]

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.

[Johan S @ Sep 25th 2008 8:35PM]

@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.

[Nimalan @ Sep 25th 2008 2:14AM]

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...

[Mush @ Sep 25th 2008 2:15AM]

wow oO"

[Poom @ Sep 25th 2008 2:20AM]

OMG I can't wait for this to be on cellphones!!!! Woah I'm really loving this. BYE BYE QVGA!!! Please...

[Shinigami @ Sep 25th 2008 6:14AM]

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.

[Meltz @ Sep 25th 2008 2:21AM]

Man, imagine that kind of pixel density on like, a 52-inch tv!

[Muhammad-Oli @ Sep 25th 2008 3:29AM]

That would be awful...

[Muhammad-Oli @ Sep 25th 2008 3:30AM]

No wait. My bad. That would awesome!
(confused density with resolution)

[holycow @ Sep 25th 2008 2:25AM]

Holycrap?

[ryan @ Sep 25th 2008 3:39AM]

i believe the term is "holymanure" in your case my friend.

[Santiago @ Sep 25th 2008 2:30AM]

Totally impressive! I didn't expected it from.. Casio.. wow!

[Adam kernes @ Sep 25th 2008 2:31AM]

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.

[who? @ Sep 25th 2008 2:53AM]

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... ;-(

[maveric101 @ Sep 25th 2008 10:11AM]

why is he low ranked? people here can be so judgmental.

[collegekid13 @ Sep 25th 2008 2:39AM]

no pixel count can make that fruit look good. yuck

[Timothyx @ Sep 25th 2008 2:53AM]

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...

[Amz @ Sep 25th 2008 3:36AM]

@ Timothyx: I love fruit, but that fruit does look terrible, like it's plastic, or at least covered in it.

[Hinhale @ Sep 25th 2008 8:29AM]

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.

[iofthestorm @ Sep 25th 2008 2:46AM]

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!

[maveric101 @ Sep 25th 2008 10:16AM]

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.

[maveric101 @ Sep 25th 2008 10:19AM]

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.

[iansilv @ Sep 25th 2008 2:55AM]

This would make my databank watch unbelievable!

[PhatPhil @ Sep 25th 2008 3:39AM]

Full HD on a 4" PMP soon...

[Chris @ Sep 25th 2008 3:55AM]

HD is not really HD anymore with such a leap on tiny screen resolution

[Sirius @ Sep 25th 2008 4:06AM]

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? :)

[Information Central @ Sep 28th 2008 12:16PM]

Only on Engadget, the only source that hasn't given up on this early-'90s alphabet soup.

[Leo @ Sep 25th 2008 4:11AM]

it's announced
http://world.casio.com/corporate/news/2008/qhd_lcd.html

[kadajawi @ Sep 25th 2008 5:29AM]

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.

[tekdroid @ Sep 25th 2008 6:53AM]

Shrink it down and make it sunlight-viewable and in a calculator-watch of reasonable price-taggage and you've got my sale, Casio. Ta luvs.

[Jonathan-DBOSS @ Sep 25th 2008 7:07AM]

2 inch porn never looked better.

[megamouse @ Sep 25th 2008 8:08AM]

spot on!

[Information Central @ Sep 28th 2008 12:18PM]

That's what SHE said.

[Charlie Styr @ Sep 25th 2008 8:42AM]

Erm, This is great and all, but when can I have a 20" display supporting 1080p?