gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (11/09/90)
> 640x480x256 is marginal for adequate imaging. 640x480x1k is better, > 640x480x16k is virtually indistinguishable (oxymoron, i know) from > television. Sound odd? Perhaps. I think maybe you have been watching too much television. Color television resolution is actually pretty bad (something like 320 lines of resolution). With a color lookup table, a 640*480*256color display can simulate a 640*480*16million color display. On a good monitor (for instance on my AppleColor monitor), the resolution is approximately 4 times that of a good color television. When I view 4 GIF pictures it looks like a 4-channel television screen.
gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu (11/13/90)
Why don't we see monitors that are 2048*1532, at 150 dpi? Would the
radiation from the high-frequency modulators fry your brains?
Is there a problem with the physics of monitor phosphors?
I think it's time to shrink the size of pixels on video displays, to
provide better visual presentation. Xerox once did a study showing
that there was a non-linear improvement in readability at 80dpi. We
need to find out where the next threshold is -- is it 160dpi?
Don W. Gillies, Dept. of Computer Science, University of Illinois
1304 W. Springfield, Urbana, Ill 61801
ARPA: gillies@cs.uiuc.edu UUCP: {uunet,harvard}!uiucdcs!gillieshenry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) (11/15/90)
In article <3300214@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: >Why don't we see monitors that are 2048*1532, at 150 dpi? ... They do exist. They are very expensive due to the small market and the difficult technology. Actually, there are monitors with even higher resolution and tighter dot spacing, but the less said about the price tags on them, the better... -- "I don't *want* to be normal!" | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology "Not to worry." | henry@zoo.toronto.edu utzoo!henry
andrew@alice.att.com (Andrew Hume) (11/15/90)
In article <1990Nov14.180502.27107@zoo.toronto.edu>, henry@zoo.toronto.edu (Henry Spencer) writes: ~ In article <3300214@m.cs.uiuc.edu> gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu writes: ~ >Why don't we see monitors that are 2048*1532, at 150 dpi? ... ~ ~ They do exist. They are very expensive due to the small market and ~ the difficult technology. Actually, there are monitors with even higher ~ resolution and tighter dot spacing, but the less said about the price ~ tags on them, the better... perhaps i am jaded but they don't seem to expensive to me. megascan has at least two monitors of interest: a bitonal screen at 300 (yes, 300 like your laser printer) DPI, 4096x~3300, and a 2560x2048 8bit gray scale (150-200DPI). the costs aren't outrageous, $3500 and $5000 respectively. I am currently trying to demo the 300dpi one as an alternate screen for my gnot.