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!<br>
<br>BTW, I would be perfectly happy driving VIDEO at lower resolution, but graphics, and especially text, really benefits from resolutions nearing the 300dpi range.<br><br><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
---------- Forwarded message ----------<br>From: "rakshat hooja" <<a href="mailto:rakshat@gmail.com">rakshat@gmail.com</a>><br>To: "List for Openmoko community discussion" <<a href="mailto:community@lists.openmoko.org">community@lists.openmoko.org</a>><br>
Date: Fri, 6 Jun 2008 12:12:24 +0530<br>Subject: Re: resolution preferences??<br>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. <br>
<br>Rakshat<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 11:09 AM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <<a href="mailto:raster@openmoko.org" target="_blank">raster@openmoko.org</a>> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 "Steven Milburn" <<a href="mailto:steven.milburn@gmail.com" target="_blank">steven.milburn@gmail.com</a>><br>
babbled:<br>
<div><br>
> This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said<br>
> before, but I'll ask anyway :)<br>
><br>
> If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any<br>
> hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling,<br>
> so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo<br>
> scale it up?<br>
><br>
> Or, is the question more about having qvga instead of the glamo (which<br>
> leaves you back with the SDIO interface shortage)?<br>
<br>
</div>we can just drive the vga screen at qvga. no need for scaling - just change the<br>
output at the lcd controller level. but it is a waste to pay for a vga screen<br>
when we won't use it. also it does look "blocky". it isn't about glamo or not -<br>
it's separate to glamo entirely. simply - how important is a vga screen...<br>
really? how many people out there can really see the difference? be really<br>
honest. stop thinking "my specs are bigger than your specs". scan u REALLY see<br>
all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a<br>
blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very<br>
good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my "bet". i'm<br>
asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers.<br>
<div><div></div><div><br>
> --Steve<br>
><br>
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler <<br>
> <a href="mailto:raster@openmoko.org" target="_blank">raster@openmoko.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle <<a href="mailto:openmoko@rcie.de" target="_blank">openmoko@rcie.de</a>> babbled:<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> > > > quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since<br>
> > we'e<br>
> > > > going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you<br>
> > have to<br>
> > > > fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga<br>
> > is<br>
> > > > worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure.<br>
> > > ><br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></div><br>