07-15-2003, 07:00 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Show Me The Pixels! The Importance of PPI
I was thinking about the issue of enhancing the Pocket PCs resolution again, especially in light of the recent announcement yesterday of small PDA screens reaching 800 x 600 resolution soon. I can't find a reference to this on Google, but I remember reading that the clarity of printed text on a page is equal to around 300 ppi. That sounds about right to me - 300 dpi laser printed text looks much better than 150 dpi, but about the same as 600 dpi text, so I think that's the human sensory threshold. So let's break this down...
� The Pocket PC at 320 x 240, with a 3.5" screen has a 110 ppi.
� The Pocket PC at 320 x 240, with a 4" screen (Genio) has a 100 ppi. That 10 ppi makes a difference if you can believe it - I even noticed it when I looked at the screen. Text looked a little bit "blockier". People also comment regularly that the text on the iPAQ 1910 looks a little sharper and crisper than the text on the iPAQ 5450.
� The newest Sony Clie at 320 x 480 with a 3.5" screen (I scoured Google and couldn't find the exact screen size, but it's got to be close to that) has double the number of pixels a Pocket PC, so the ppi value is around 164 or so. Looking at text on the Clie is nicer than looking at text on a Pocket PC.
If we were to get the Pocket PC to 640 x 480 resolution on a 3.5" screen, we'd hit 229 ppi. :-) 300 ppi is the holy grail of LCD display crispness, and I think smaller devices will reach it before desktop monitors do. Although the screen resolution of Pocket PCs is certainly "good enough" for most things, I was really blown away by the crispness of the text on the Clie devices. Same thing with the Zire 71 - the text was very sharp and easy to read.
The problem is that we can't just up the resolution - if we double the resolution on the Pocket PC, everything will get twice as small. That might be useful for some people, but it's not a good solution overall. What we really need is a resolution-independent operating system. One that has a relative size setting for a variety of resolutions, with font and icon settings that will grow proportionately. It's just like having a higher resolution on your desktop screen - the more pixels are using to draw each item, the crisper and cleaner it will look. But the more pixels is used to draw something, the smaller it gets - I know, it makes no sense. :|
This issue affects every desktop computer too - Windows desperately needs the same functionality. 1600 x 1200 resolution on a 15" screen requires excellent eyesight to use, because there's no easy way to say "make everything on the screen bigger". You can adjust the DPI, but while it makes everything bigger, it also drops the quality of the displayed items.
This whole topic makes my head hurt (hopefully I got it all right), but the bottom line is that we need 640 x 480 on our Pocket PCs, and an operating system that will support it in a slick fashion. Microsoft, we're waiting. :way to go:
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:27 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 319
|
|
If my calcs are close the display on my digital camera is 330ppi. Of course it is TFT, not transflective.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:41 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 80
|
|
Sharp cl model (Linux) has 640x480. PPC should not have problem getting it.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:44 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 173
|
|
This is why many people push flash-- it's already perfectly scalable and very powerful. And people have wanted a scalable GUI OS for decades, yet, sprite-based OSes have still pushed forward. I guess 'cause they're just way less processor intensive (floating point vs. integer calculation)
I think your estimates that 300dpi would look incredibly slick rely on proper anti-aliasing. If there's no ClearType-type of text rendering, it still won't look as good as an inkjet print (remember, a laser printer has always had perfectly rounded text edges, even at 150dpi, it's the graphics that didn't look good. Text on a laser printer is done with lasers that can do infinite-resolution curves, it's the ink jets that are the paper-equivalent to a computer display)
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:46 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 32
|
|
Well, I responded to the earlier thread about the resolution deal. I brought up the Sharp Zaurus SL-Cxx line which have a 3.7 inch screen and are 640x480.
I had a SL-C700 and a Clie SJ33 and an Ipaq side by side at a store in Japan (cant remember which model of ipaq exactly though) and the 640x480 made a HUGE difference in the crispness of the fonts and icons. Everything was just significantly sharper and it's not even just a slight thing. The difference was day and night. In the order of how good the fonts/icons looks, it went from Sharp C700 to Clie SJ33 and finally to the Ipaq.
I dont know if anyone has access to the SL-Cxx series, but take a look and I'm quite sure that the difference will be immediately apparent.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:46 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 27
|
|
Screen size
As you pointed out, screen size is also very important. I use my Tungsten C very little because although the PPI and resolution are good, the actual screen size is too small. Day to day, using a Pocket PC, even the Genio, is easier for me than higher-res but smaller screens ...
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:49 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 468
|
|
I understand that Longhorn (the next version of Windows) should have a new graphics system for driving ultra-high-res screens on the desktop. That ought to be pretty nifty.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:53 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fitch
I think your estimates that 300dpi would look incredibly slick rely on proper anti-aliasing.
|
Correct. I like what I see with the Sony devices, so I know they're on the right track - text looks AWESOME on them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Fitch
If there's no ClearType-type of text rendering, it still won't look as good as an inkjet print (remember, a laser printer has always had perfectly rounded text edges, even at 150dpi, it's the graphics that didn't look good.
|
Are you sure? I could have sworn I used to be able to tell 150 dpi laser printing from 300 dpi laser printing - but maybe it was using TrueType fonts not on the printer, which makes them essentially graphics. I think. :|
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:54 PM
|
|
Philosopher
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 541
|
|
I've noticed Opie (ie what Zaurus uses, along with iPaq if you flash it) seems to be pretty resolution independant, most properly coded programs can scale as needed, even to landscape. All you need to do is click the little launcher button, and hit rotate, and your in landscape mode. Can't test with any larger resolution screens, obviously.
|
| |
|
|
|
07-15-2003, 07:57 PM
|
|
Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 15,171
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Are you sure? I could have sworn I used to be able to tell 150 dpi laser printing from 300 dpi laser printing - but maybe it was using TrueType fonts not on the printer, which makes them essentially graphics. I think. :|
|
I've gotta ask the same question. There's no such thing as an infinite-resolution laser printer. While TrueType fonts would be sent as vectors, not rasters, to the printer, the printer would most definitely rasterize it. This is why you can see a HUGE difference between 300dpi engines and 600dpi engines. It's very noticeable close up. A 300dpi LCD could absolutely benefit from ClearType (to give the impression of even higher resolution), but it should appear amazingly sharp even without it.
--janak
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
