04-28-2005, 07:00 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
When Will We See More Than 16bit Colour?
I've been using a Dell Axim X50v lately (I switched back to it from the PDA2K) and as much as I love the screen, one thing about it still bothers me (other than the poor battery life): the fact that there's a crisp, high-contrast, beautiful VGA screen...capable of showing only 16-bit colour. For you non-math types, that's 64,000 colours. Odds are good that the computer you're sitting at reading this is displaying either 16.7 million colours (24 bit) or 4.3 billion colours (32 bit). Most computers have been at 24 bit colour or higher for the better part of a decade, so you may not remember what photos looked like in 16 bit colour...but I'm reminded of that every time I look at a photo or (especially) when I watch a video on the X50v. There just aren't enough colours to make the images/videos look like they're supposed to look. The colour banding is most evident with video files, but it's noticeable with photos as well - especially ones with a solid colour wall.
I have my doubts as to whether this is going to change anytime soon, because I don't think very many people notice/care about it. So let's satisfy my curiosity with a survey, shall we?
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:15 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 35
|
|
Christ all mighty, yes!
One of the biggest factors which put me off ever buying a PDA in the first place, was 16Bit displays.
Having seen them in action, they're not so bad... But I would kill for 24 / 32Bit...
I always put it down to LCD's being very expensive as it is, and therefore 32Bit displays being disproportinately expensive... But i'm not so sure on the matter.
I have an X50v, and it's just about the best PDA i've seen for mobile movie watching... I had quite a bit of tearing, for example, on my 2210. But movies still look lifeless and dull on a 16Bit display. It passes the time, but it always shocks me when i've been on a long train journey and then get back to a 32Bit workstation...
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:36 PM
|
|
Theorist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 260
|
|
Oh, I'm sure I'll get stampede for my opinions, but there are many more things I would like to see the Windows Mobile platform incorperate before Micorosft , or OEMs focus on this. I mean if it would be an easy fix than I am all for it, but if it's going to cost them alot of time and research than I would like to see other things done, like adding 4 gigs of internal flash memory to all pockets or even a built in micro hard drive, oled screens, maybe even a tad bit larger screen so when viewing things in VGA or watching videos it could be a bit more pleasent to the eyes, even adding a really nice and functional TTS (Text To Speach) capibilites right into the OS that you can actually understand and sound remotely real so no matter what application I am using, email, avantgo, ebooks, or even maps with a GPS unit I could have information read to me while I am on the go, and than of course there is always the battery life issue which can always be worked on. Heck if we are wishing than while not have capibilities so you can record direct media such as videos from TV, and other source, much like the new Archos models. I would love to see a consumer focused Pocket PC model avalable.
But of course if all of these ideas will be neglected by Microsoft and their OEMs, than sure. I'd love to see more bits in Pocket PC displays.
just my thoughts.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:36 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Feb 2002
Posts: 226
|
|
This survey doesn't seem like it's asking the right questions. I mean, OF COURSE everyone wants 24-bit color rather than "not having it". But what are the tradeoffs involved?
IMHO, you'd want two separate surveys, as follows:
1.) How much more would you pay more for a 24-bit color screen?
2.) What is an acceptable % decrease in battery life for a 24-bit color screen?
I know I'd be interested in seeing those results...
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:38 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 63
|
|
Without a doubt, YES!
I take a lot of photos and take advantage of using my Pocket PC to preview the digital output (a viewscreen on the camera is nice, but still small when trying to isolate quality in certain details).
Seeing the limitations in the Axim x50v (although it *is* glorious in comparison to my old iPAQ 3600) is frustrating.
__________________
um, Moo
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:44 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by QYV
This survey doesn't seem like it's asking the right questions. I mean, OF COURSE everyone wants 24-bit color rather than "not having it". But what are the tradeoffs involved?
|
Very good point - I'd love 24bit colour but not if suddenly I find myself with a PDA that runs for an hour before needing a charge.
And if the price premium is significant, well, maybe I could not afford it anyways 
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:45 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 109
|
|
Re: When Will We See More Than 16bit Colour?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Jason Dunn
Most computers have been at 24 bit colour or higher for the better part of a decade, so you may not remember what photos looked like in 16 bit colour...but I'm reminded of that every time I look at a photo or (especially) when I watch a video on the X50v. There just aren't enough colours to make the images/videos look like they're supposed to look. The colour banding is most evident with video files, but it's noticeable with photos as well - especially ones with a solid colour wall.
|
I think regular television is only 16bit colour depth in a practical sense, even though in theory an analog signal can have an infinite depth of colour. The banding you're seeing with videos may have more to do with compression/encoding than the limitations of the PPC screen.
If you're seeing a lot of banding in places where you know there should not be I'd check the dithering options in the player as well.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:52 PM
|
|
Mystic
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 1,734
|
|
I have my doubts whether I can see more than 65000 colours. The difference between 8 bit colour and 16 bit is certainly very dramatic, but 16 and 24 is not half as significant.
I would not prioritise this.
Surur
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:55 PM
|
|
Editorial Contributor
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 5,411
|
|
Sure no problem, I'd love every graphic file to take 50% more space than it does now, just like I was thrilled at having 640x480 resolution so those files can take 4 times as much space. After all memory in PDAs is plentiful and dirt cheap.
BTW, I don't think it is actually an LCD issue, but more the driver componenets. We are still dealing with mixing three colors, each of which could be set to an infinitely variable brightness. It's the discrete brightness levels that are determined by the number of bits you use to encode that level that are the limitation. If you use 4 bits, your red pixels can be one of 16 brightnesses. Same for blue and green (12 bits in all), so you get 16 x 16 x 16 or 4096 possible combinations.
__________________
Sometimes you are the anteater, sometimes you are the ant.
|
| |
|
|
|
04-28-2005, 07:56 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Re: When Will We See More Than 16bit Colour?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by rob_ocelot
If you're seeing a lot of banding in places where you know there should not be I'd check the dithering options in the player as well.
|
Then why am I seeing it in photos? I've replicated the exact same effects on a desktop computer by switching it to 16 bit.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
