Reminds me of this article: https://www.monitornerds.com/oled-pc-monitors/ on the subject of where OLEDs are. Dell famously announced that 30" OLED display two or three years ago, and then revived it once or twice only to cancel. Seems like a shame, especially given how prevalent OLED TVs have become.
I looked at the keyboard and thought wow what a good looking notebook almost looks like a Macbook keyboard! Then I realized... oh wait that is a Macbook keyboard complete with command keys and system shortcuts in the top row.
The actual computer driving the display is probably in the pedestal. I was actually wondering at first why there was a glass case around it, but it's almost certainly so that you don't try to pick it up :-) When I worked for a hardware company we did the same thing at shows all the time.
I was super careful with my phone and always minimized brightness and I still got burn in after 18 months. Even my plasma tv is going strong 10 years with no issues.
My Nexus S singed its lockscreen padlock into the display in less than 6 months and the OLED turned yellow not long after as the blue subpixels degraded.
And it comes at the cost of having to process all of those pixels. I think I'd rather have a cooler laptop with longer battery life than a very marginal visual improvement to my screen.
That said, I'm all for progress and cramming that many pixels into such a small space is impressive, so kudos to BOE for that. This would be useful for VR.
Not only VR but when pixels are smaller than the area needed to produce light they can become invisible like adverts that wrap vehicle windows. Lets us have cameras and other sensors behind the entire screen.
> And it comes at the cost of having to process all of those pixels.
Totally agree. I wish they had stopped at 200ppi phones. I don't understand the logic to spend cpu/gpu horsepower and mwh on a mobile display. I like my phone (LG G6) but really wish I had the battery life and performance dropping the resolution to 1080p would give me.
Given a pixel isn't a perfect colour dot, it has subpixel patterns and there is space between pixels; there is an advantage to having substantially higher pixel count than we can perceive.
What we really need are better up-scalers and a smarter dynamic trade-off between spatial/temporal display resolution. E.g. upscale from half res using something like Edge-Directed Interpolation ( https://people.xiph.org/~ds/edi/info.html ), render unchanged elements at native res, reduce rendering resolution when needed to maintain always lock with screen refresh rate.
With cheap hardware neural network accelerators, we could make use of very high spatial and temporal resolution displays without needing to actually render at 8k/240hz etc.
Why is the contrast ratio listed as 1300:1? If it's an OLED screen, shouldn't it be infinite, since the pixels turn off? The AMOLED screens they show later are listed at >1m:1.
With OLED the black levels are affected by random pixel mura—which makes pixels that should be off show as slightly on. So you can cover that by biasing them up slightly so they are all slightly on and the blacks look more uniform—however the actual contrast ratio suffers. The higher the PPI for oled typically the worse the mura issue gets. So likely they will improve this over time to get the black levels down and effectively the contrast ratio will go way up.
Wow, that's an incredible pixel density. At what point does it start to approximate reality? For instance, is this enough that if you put one of these panels on the wall displaying a high resolution image, it could look like an ordinary window out into real life?
This might seem a bit sad, but one of my dreams is to replace a wall of my suburban Australian house with an edge-to-edge video screen that looks like a portal to a hi-def (seemingly live) scene of Utah. Sun rises. Weather rolls in. Sun starts to set. Animals wander past, etc. That would be some serious escapism for me when I don't have the time/money to justify the flights. So far, the best option has been wandering around Red Dead Redemption on a big TV...
Save the money and buy the flights. You don't need to justify a dream. I drive across the US once or twice a year to camp in the deserts of Utah and it is, indeed, a trip of a lifetime. My photos are here:
I have a wife and three young kids. I either have to burden my wife solo with the kids or I'm paying for five return flights plus car hire which means visits start at $10k/trip so are a bit tougher than they used to be pre-kids. My domestic dream is for when panels come way down in price so that a wall of screens is a done thing!
I've visited Southern Utah maybe 5-6 times from Australia, so far. Ideally I'd visit annually - my other dream is to run a regular tour taking Australians over and showing them around, mostly as an excuse for me visiting again and again! I tell people it's probably the best density for natural attractions in the world.
In terms of what you can visually resolve this is overkill; you only need ~300dpi at 18" to be beyond the resolving power of the average human eye.
But if you want to make a window you have to do something else entirely; your display has to show a holographic interference pattern at which point when it is illuminated correctly you can achieve a full parallax, full color, glasses free 3D display. In both theory and practice you can do this with an LCD but to start getting RGB capabilities you would need some incredible pixel densities on the order of 30,000dpi.
The fact that the bendable screen wasn't having the bend changed in real-time felt like a big red flag. They made the claim this could be used to "unfold" your phone into a tablet.
It should be a no-brainer to have the image changing and a small motor flexing the screen open and closed. I'm guessing this tech isn't actually ready yet.
I think the bigger red flag is that none of these screens showed moving images. Only a single demo with a very slowly blooming flower... and it didn't look great.
Is there any point in having an 8k screen right now? seems like there isn't even a lot of 4k content as is. So unless you are a graphic designer or something it seems pointless right now...or am I missing something here?
I feel like it's a push to the next big thing no one will really care about, like 3D Tv, because nothing better is in the pipeline to sell something you already have.
It's worth remembering that most films made in the past two decades have been mastered at 2K, most films are distributed to cinemas at 2K, and most cinema projectors are 2K. Yes, most films are mastered and distributed at a resolution barely superior to 1080p.
In most respects, for the purposes of media consumption on a rectangular screen of any practical size, 4K already exceeds useful detail levels. 8K is absurd. Technology and content innovation should focus on high frame rate and high dynamic range.
Correct, which is why I defined the two decade aperture, not a two year one. My point is that 2K is clearly sufficient because it has been satisfying moviegoers for a long time. And that the threshold of useful detail will be somewhere between 2K and 4K; exceeding 4K is pointless.
If the sole purpose of the display is to show pre-recorded content, then sure 8k won't be well utilized any time soon.
Pixel-dense displays were sought after long before HD was a thing. Photos, games, razor-sharp text..
I'm more interested in thinking about what devices could meaningfully use this density at this size. Like, it's obviously overkill for a laptop. Too big for VR. Too small for a television. Some other class of device that is viewed magnification?
48 comments
[ 4.7 ms ] story [ 106 ms ] threadhttps://www.androidcentral.com/google-pixel-2-xl-screen-burn
At Laptop distance you'd have to have very good eyesight, I can't see the pixels on my 14"@2560x1440 unless I lean right in and that's ~210dpi.
So not really, it's just another "Our number is bigger" metric...
That said, I'm all for progress and cramming that many pixels into such a small space is impressive, so kudos to BOE for that. This would be useful for VR.
Totally agree. I wish they had stopped at 200ppi phones. I don't understand the logic to spend cpu/gpu horsepower and mwh on a mobile display. I like my phone (LG G6) but really wish I had the battery life and performance dropping the resolution to 1080p would give me.
What we really need are better up-scalers and a smarter dynamic trade-off between spatial/temporal display resolution. E.g. upscale from half res using something like Edge-Directed Interpolation ( https://people.xiph.org/~ds/edi/info.html ), render unchanged elements at native res, reduce rendering resolution when needed to maintain always lock with screen refresh rate.
With cheap hardware neural network accelerators, we could make use of very high spatial and temporal resolution displays without needing to actually render at 8k/240hz etc.
If you don't move in front of it, possibly; but the fact that humans have depth perception will tend to spoil the illusion a bit.
https://www.instagram.com/desertdefender/
and some more here:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721576335549... https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721576262049... https://www.flickr.com/photos/defender90/albums/721576252403...
I have a wife and three young kids. I either have to burden my wife solo with the kids or I'm paying for five return flights plus car hire which means visits start at $10k/trip so are a bit tougher than they used to be pre-kids. My domestic dream is for when panels come way down in price so that a wall of screens is a done thing!
I've visited Southern Utah maybe 5-6 times from Australia, so far. Ideally I'd visit annually - my other dream is to run a regular tour taking Australians over and showing them around, mostly as an excuse for me visiting again and again! I tell people it's probably the best density for natural attractions in the world.
This is not all Utah, but includes a reasonable amount of it: http://www.isaacforman.com.au/outdoors/
When you can cram a few billion pixels onto the head of a pin.
But if you want to make a window you have to do something else entirely; your display has to show a holographic interference pattern at which point when it is illuminated correctly you can achieve a full parallax, full color, glasses free 3D display. In both theory and practice you can do this with an LCD but to start getting RGB capabilities you would need some incredible pixel densities on the order of 30,000dpi.
It should be a no-brainer to have the image changing and a small motor flexing the screen open and closed. I'm guessing this tech isn't actually ready yet.
It's worth remembering that most films made in the past two decades have been mastered at 2K, most films are distributed to cinemas at 2K, and most cinema projectors are 2K. Yes, most films are mastered and distributed at a resolution barely superior to 1080p.
In most respects, for the purposes of media consumption on a rectangular screen of any practical size, 4K already exceeds useful detail levels. 8K is absurd. Technology and content innovation should focus on high frame rate and high dynamic range.
http://gadgetflux.net/list-of-4k-mastered-hollywood-movies/
Pixel-dense displays were sought after long before HD was a thing. Photos, games, razor-sharp text..
I'm more interested in thinking about what devices could meaningfully use this density at this size. Like, it's obviously overkill for a laptop. Too big for VR. Too small for a television. Some other class of device that is viewed magnification?