dale.schumacher at gmail.com
Sat Jun 7 05:05:29 CEST 2008
When printer technology went from dot-matrix to laser-print (and later,
ink-jet) there was a substantial qualitative difference in the visual
appearance and quality of the output. One of the most attractive features
of the Neo, for me, is the corresponding jump in display resolution. I've
been waiting for this ever since laser-printing arrived!
BTW, I would be perfectly happy driving VIDEO at lower resolution, but
graphics, and especially text, really benefits from resolutions nearing the
---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: "rakshat hooja" <rakshat at gmail.com>
> To: "List for Openmoko community discussion" <community at lists.openmoko.org
> Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:12:24 +0530
> Subject: Re: resolution preferences??
> The difference between the VGA screen of the Neo and the QVGA screens I
> have are very clear to me (with the VGA being clearly superior) when kept
> side by side. But for most of my activities including reading long emails
> the QVGA resolution is enough. So unless we have the processing power to run
> at least 25 FPS VGA video, I would be happy with a QVGA as there is bound to
> be a price and performance improvement.
> On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:09 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <
> raster at openmoko.org> wrote:
>> 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
>> > before, but I'll ask anyway :)
>> > If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without
>> > hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does
>> > so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the
>> > 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
>> 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
>> all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all
>> blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have
>> good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my "bet".
>> asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers.
>> > --Steve
>> > 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>
>> > >
>> > >
>> > > > > quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost)
>> > > we'e
>> > > > > going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels
>> > > have to
>> > > > > fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of
>> > > is
>> > > > > worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure.
>> > > > >
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the community