On Fri, 6 Jun 2008 20:16:15 +1000 (EST) "NeilBrown" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> babbled:
> On Fri, June 6, 2008 3:39 pm, Carsten Haitzler wrote: > > > 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. > > Well, it's hard to know without having an actual device to look at, but > I'll try.... > > My notebook has a 15 inch 1920x1200 monitor which comes to 147dpi. > The Freerunner is 285dpi, the pixels are very close to half the width/ > height of my pixels. > > So at first I thought "wow, that's tiny. I don't think I need them *that* > small" - and I have better than average eye sight. > > Then I resized my browser to 640x480 and found I could read it quite > well, though lots of web pages don't quite fit. > I took a screenshot of the window and displayed it at 50% in the GIMP. > So presumably that is how the image could look on the Freerunner. > > If I hold this image at the same distance from my eye that I usually > use a notebook (say 55cm) the text looks like it would be too small > to comfortably read, though the reduction of resolution has made it > blurry and I cannot be sure. > If I hold it at the distance that I would typically read a book, which > is closer to 35cm, the text is still a bit small, but I think I would > be quite happy reading it - except that the low resolution has made > it quite blurry. If it were still 640x480, but the same size I think I > could read it quite happily. > > So my conclusion is that for reading textual content, the higher resolution > probably is worth it for me. I doubt it would be of much value for > photo for videos. I just tried watching a video at [EMAIL PROTECTED], > and it was quite acceptable for the physical size. > > The question then becomes - how often will I be reading pages of text > on my Freerunner. I really don't know. > > However maps are very similar to textual content - sharp contrast and > the potential for lots of information in a small space. > > I tried a similar experiment comparing a google-maps image > 320x240*147dpi and simulated [EMAIL PROTECTED], and the 320x240 felt > very constrained - not enough information on the display. > The 640x480 felt more comfortable and - I think - would have been > readable if I had the real resolution. cool. someone actually has done a did some experiments on themselves! well done! this is just the kind of stuff i was hoping for. this is one of the best responses. it's subjective, but using objective measurements as best possible with the equipment you have. good! so yes - the blurry scaled down in gimp @ qvga would be a qvga screen on a freerunner. vga would be sharper. then again - until u have a 285dpi screen it's hard to really compare! :) but this is the best you can do! nice! :) opinion noted for the future! :) > Maybe you could ask again we have all had our Freerunners for > a couple of months. > > What was the story with 320x240x25fps video again? Is it possible > with the available memory bandwidth? argh! :) -- Carsten Haitzler (The Rasterman) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list community@lists.openmoko.org http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community