QVGA V/s VGA for GTA03 (was something about yummy CPU-GPU combos!)

[Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman)]

On Mon, 9 Jun 2008 18:16:11 +0200 "Peter J. Holzer" <hjp at hjp.at> babbled:

> On 2008-06-09 09:09:15 -0400, Ken Young wrote:
> > The question should be "Are you willing to give up the benefits of a
> > VGA screen in order to have smooth animation and fast video on a QVGA
> > screen, and a lower cost?".   It seems to me that the vast majority of
> > the people who have reponded here have said no, that's a poor
> > engineering trade off.
> 
> I don't have an openmoko yet, so I don't know how the display actually
> looks or how slow it is. I also don't know what I will use the
> freerunner for once I get it. But I image that the majority of uses
> involves text (email, news, ssh) which should really be displayed at 80
> chars/line. Probably simple graphics, too (e.g., maps). But I don't
> think I'll use it to watch videos or play 3d games - so high video
> performance isn't a high priority for me.
> 
> My gut feeling is that 640x480 at 2.8" is awfully small (I've
> printed a screen-shot of an 80x25 windows (with mutt displaying a
> message from this list) at that size - I can read it, but I think
> reading longer messages at that font size would be a pain). So I think
> the direction openmoko should be going in later models (GTA04?) is
> towards a larger display with at least the same resolution (maybe
> 640x480 at 4.2", or maybe a wider display (800x480?))

this is a core part of my point. i stare at this screen every day. i know its
dpi. most people imho will never make use of such a dpi as they literally can't
see it - they will NEED to use much bigger fonts just to see something other
than a blur. thus the resolution usefulness degrades rapidly. the "but i can't
do 80x24 without vga" is moot as it is a blur, unless you go up to a font size
where all you can fit is 60 wide or less.

i am surprised at the number of people who say their eyesight is so good they
will happily use tiiiny fonts on a vga 2.8" screen @ 285dpi. i accept that you
can - i am just surprised at the number of people who say they can actually see
this - compared to what i have actually seen in real life with much lower dpi
situations.

maybe it just needs people to actually use it for a while and they might begin
to see that a lower res screen may just be fine and not as bad as they think.
the things you want to do are possible at lower resolutions.

browsing full web pages scrammed into a 2.8" screen as many have suggested, is
really... pushing such a tiny screen far beyond its usefulness. web pages are
"designed" for 14" or 17" screens or so. squeezing them down into 2.8" is nigh
madness. it's possible - but vga vs qvga there isn't the factor (imho) :)

-- 
Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <raster at openmoko.org>