Re: Future of LCD resolution

[Antoine Leca]

Another one that may be of interest to everyone that should have an insight
about the future of graphics...

Another information is that Mr Hill (and as I understand most of the MS people
involved in TrueType and typography at large) work in a division called eBooks.

Bill Hill <address@hidden> wrote on OpenType:
> 
> This is a bit off-topic, so hit delete NOW if you aren't interested in an
> update of where we see screen resolution going over the next two years, and
> how it will impact type.
> 
> John is right, LCD resolution is increasing faster than CRTs could ever hope
> to.
> 
> My Toshiba laptop (two years old) has 88dpi. ClearType makes text on it
> highly readable over long periods, you have to see it to believe it.
> 
> But:
> Even smaller PocketPC devices like the HP Jornada are now shipping with
> around 106dpi. The SGI flat panel is expensive, but it's about 110dpi,
> although it seems better because they've put a lot of effort into
> backlighting, etc.
> 
> Dell is now shipping (note, shipping - you can buy right now) its Inspiron
> laptops with 117 dpi. ClearType'd text on that is awesome. Cost is not much
> more than a regular laptop.
> 
> By next year, we will see laptops on general sale with a resolution greater
> than 150 dpi (I know more specifics, but can't give detail...).
> 
> I have a 200dpi prototype screen from Toshiba, who have a low-temperature
> polysilicon TFT process that creates the brightest, clearest screen I've
> seen yet. With Windows 2000 and ClearType, the text is unbelievable. I've
> seen the same thing on IBMs 200dpi Roentgen display, running Windows 2000.
> 
> I have seen other LCDs with reflective displays: 200dpi you can read in
> direct sunlight.
> 
> So resolution of LCDs is pretty much set to at least double over the next
> two years.
> 
> 200dpi by itself is still not quite good enough. 200dpi with ClearType gives
> text that's better than any newspaper, most books, and many magazines.
> 
> When you see the most complex Kanji glyphs rendered on a screen at 9 POINT,
> with no stroke reduction, then you believe.
> 
> It's still only a blip on the radar (because the existing installed base is
> small) but desktop flat panel sales are growing at an average rate of 300
> percent.
> 
> Manufacturing issues which would have made costs prohibitive are being
> overcome.
> 
> This may be obvious, but I think it's worthwhile pointing out. In the past,
> Windows dealt with resolution as a "nominal" value, for example, 72, 96 or
> 120 dpi, because you can take a CRT and create a virtual pixel grid on it
> (although the possible resolution you can achieve has probably already
> gotten close to its practical upper limits).
> 
> Resolution on LCDs is NOT nominal. It's real, and exact. 117dpi means
> exactly117pixels per inch (or 351 RGB subpixels). Not 120, not 96. If you
> try to drive such a screen at anything other than its native resolution, you
> hit scaling issues which almost always make text look bad.
> 
> LCD pixels (and sub-pixels) have hard edges (because of the wiring tracks
> between cells). There's no "free anti-aliasing" of the kind that you get on
> CRTs because of light bleeding to adjacent pixels - the CRT equivalent of
> dot gain on a printing press. This is one reason existing anti-aliasing
> techniques do not work well on LCDs. On LCDs, pixels are hard, and square
> (or rectangular, in the case of sub-pixels).
> 
> One of the desirable benefits of Windows 2000 is that you can set the
> resolution of text to the ACTUAL resolution of your screen.
> 
> It's a different world.
> 
> I apologize if this sounds like a commercial, but these actual
> characteristics of LCD displays were analyzed and used to invent and develop
> ClearType. We've kept Microsoft's patent attorneys VERY busy for the last 18
> months, which is why we've been somewhat reticent...
> 
> Hope this was worth reading,
> 
> bill