Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)
raster at openmoko.org
Fri Jun 6 07:39:05 CEST 2008
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 "Steven Milburn" <steven.milburn at gmail.com>
> This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said
> before, but I'll ask anyway :)
> If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any
> hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling,
> so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo
> scale it up?
> Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which
> leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)?
we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the
output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen
when we won't use it. also it does look "blocky". it isn't about glamo or not -
it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen...
really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really
honest. stop thinking "my specs are bigger than your specs". scan u REALLY see
all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a
blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very
good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my "bet". i'm
asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers.
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <
> raster at openmoko.org> wrote:
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle <openmoko at rcie.de> babbled:
> > > > quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since
> > we'e
> > > > going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you
> > have to
> > > > fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga
> > is
> > > > worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Would that be 320x240 (QVGA ) or 480x320?
> > qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240,
> > 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :)
> > > I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability.
> > > OTOH it would also
> > but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8"
> > vga
> > or 2.8" qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc.
> > etc.
> > also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at
> > a
> > decent physical size.
> > i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution
> > screen
> > would be an ok compromise.
> > > - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes
> > one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in
> > the
> > long-run.
> > > - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight
> > > (granny won't be affected ;-)
> > >
> > > Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my
> > > GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly
> > > cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such)
> > > My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for
> > > those I'd rather go for resolution.
> > again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance
> > better in
> > many ways graphically :)
> > --
> > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at openmoko.org>
> > _______________________________________________
> > Openmoko community mailing list
> > community at lists.openmoko.org
> > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at openmoko.org>
More information about the community