On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 00:02:14 -0400 "Steven Milburn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> This question is probably just because I misunderstood something you said > before, but I'll ask anyway :) > > If it is acceptable to use QVGA, couldn't that basically be done without any > hardware changes? I believe I remember you saying the glamo does scaling, > so couldn't you let SW treat the display as qvga, and just have the glamo > 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 screen 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 see all the pixels on a vga screen of that size. i bet to most people its all a blur - a qvga screen looks identical to them. only to a minority who have very good eyesight does it really make a difference, but this is just my "bet". i'm asking the question - and hoping for real honest answers. > --Steve > > On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 10:42 PM, The Rasterman Carsten Haitzler < > [EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Thu, 05 Jun 2008 11:50:43 +0200 Marc Bantle <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled: > > > > > > > > quick question - would you prefer a qvga lcd (save a bit of cost) since > > we'e > > > > going to need to software-drive all graphics - the fewer pixels you > > have to > > > > fill, the better for speed. i'm really tossing up if the speed of qvga > > is > > > > worth the loss of resolution. i'm just not sure. > > > > > > > > > > > Would that be 320x240 (QVGA [1]) or 480x320? > > > > qvga is 320x240. wqvga... that's a whole world of resolutions (400x240, > > 432x240, 480x272, 480x320). :) > > > > > I think the latter would be acceptable in terms of usability. > > > OTOH it would also > > > > but it's not a drop-in replacement as its widescreen. we c ould go for 2.8" > > vga > > or 2.8" qvga. drop-in replacement. anything else mans new case/design etc. > > etc. > > > > also remember just getting supply of a screen is hard. you also need it at > > a > > decent physical size. > > > > i'm asking the question if going down to a (relatively) low resolution > > screen > > would be an ok compromise. > > > > > - create extra maintenance cost for system and app themes > > > > one way or another we will need to be able to do multiple resolutions in > > the > > long-run. > > > > > - narrow on-screen information for people with good eye-sight > > > (granny won't be affected ;-) > > > > > > Sofar I haven't suffered from lacking graphic speed on my > > > GTA01. It seemed that waiting for UI feedback was mainly > > > cause by other background processes (e.g. SD-read or such) > > > My interest are standard smartphone and geo apps and for > > > those I'd rather go for resolution. > > > > again - it depends what you want to do. :) gta01 actually performance > > better in > > many ways graphically :) > > > > -- > > Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Openmoko community mailing list > > community@lists.openmoko.org > > http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community > > > -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community