JDI develops a 2.3 inch LCD display packed at 651ppi

June 6, 2012 by Bob Yirka, Phys.org report

(Phys.org) -- Japan Display Inc. has created a small direct-view display that is packed with so many pixels that it features twice the resolution of the current iPhone 4 with its Retina display. And while the number of pixels is the same as what many believe the new MacBook Pro will have, the new display by JDI squeezes them into a much smaller screen, enabling the device to display lines without jagging, resulting in a display that is far sharper than anything else on the market.

The resolution format of the new screen is 1280 x 800 pixels, which means that each has to be incredibly tiny to fit on a 2.3 inch screen. While some may argue that the limit for what is discernible by the human eye has already been reached with the , JDI says that after conducting ergonomic visual tests with an unknown group of subjects, they have determined that people can see the difference and report that images appear clearer or are sharper to them than when viewing other high resolution displays and thus the company says the new technology should mark a new milestone in LCD . They add that the image produced by the new display is comparable to film based photography equipment.

To achieve this new level of clarity, the company used TFTs as the driver elements when making the screens at low temperatures and in addition to smoothing out jagged edges, the company says that characters are sharper and that when people look at images on the screen, they experience sensations similar to when looking at objects directly in the real world with the naked eye.

The announcement by JDI is likely to spur new sales of cell phones and likely as well which some suggest might be the final nail in the coffin for the . Of course, the user community will have to wait for manufactures to get their hands on the new technology and incorporate it into new devices.

JDI says it will be providing more information about their new screen as well as a demonstration of their new technology at the 2012 SID International Symposium, Seminar & Exhibition.

Explore further: The worlds smallest 3D HD display

More information: www.displaybank.com/_eng/resea … _view.html?id=227267

Related Stories

The worlds smallest 3D HD display

May 16, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- It seems like small displays are all of the rage these days, and they just keep getting more and more advanced. In October of last year Ortus Technology created a 4.8-inch liquid crystal display that showed ...

NLT announces naked-eye display with better 3-D view

May 18, 2012

(Phys.org) -- NLT Technologies has announced its development of an autostereoscopic multiview display based on the success of its HxDP technology. HxDP stands for Horizontally x times Density Pixels. The company reports impressive ...

300-dpi: Epson, E-ink give ePaper a resolution boost

May 18, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- For the most part when we think about E-Ink technology high resolution are not the words that come to mind. We all love our e-readers, such as the Nook and the Kindle, because they give us a library in the ...

Recommended for you

Cryptocurrency rivals snap at Bitcoin's heels

January 14, 2018

Bitcoin may be the most famous cryptocurrency but, despite a dizzying rise, it's not the most lucrative one and far from alone in a universe that counts 1,400 rivals, and counting.

Top takeaways from Consumers Electronics Show

January 13, 2018

The 2018 Consumer Electronics Show, which concluded Friday in Las Vegas, drew some 4,000 exhibitors from dozens of countries and more than 170,000 attendees, showcased some of the latest from the technology world.

Finnish firm detects new Intel security flaw

January 12, 2018

A new security flaw has been found in Intel hardware which could enable hackers to access corporate laptops remotely, Finnish cybersecurity specialist F-Secure said on Friday.


Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
The resolving power of the eye depends on distance, and is approximated by 25.4/tan(1/60) divided by the distance in millimeters, angle in degrees, and gives out DPI. Some people see better than this, some worse, and different colors are also resolved better and worse because of chromatic aberration. Pure blue for example tends to look blurry to the human eye.

For 300 mm or about a foot away, it comes out as 291 DPI. If you close in to six inches, assuming you can focus that close, you can distinguish about 600 DPI.

Still, even if you can't see the detail directly, there still exists various interference effects between the pixel grid, and the distribution pattern of your retinal cells which show up when the display is just somewhat sharper than what you can make out.

4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 06, 2012
This increased pixel density would be great for wearable glasses type displays.
3 / 5 (2) Jun 06, 2012
to give scale to the image above the text -- since the 3mm is a very clear gauge for distance than the text takes up 1/2 an inch -- or less than 14 mm

this is very small -- about 5.5 in font size for Calibri if you have MS office

So i have to agree -- you would probably not be able to tell a difference if you read the english alphabet -- its really really small -- however do to the iconic nature of the Japanese characters, it probably helps a lot.
not rated yet Jun 06, 2012
I would certainly pay more for 651 than 326 if it was ubiquitous because app designers would soon include detail intended for local magnification; make a great new use for those old slide film magnifiers.

And for the same reason I'd pay more even if it were over 1000 or even 1500 - again, as long as it is adopted by phone manufacturers.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2012
Please scale this tech up to 30". Even 300 dpi would be enough.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2012
You can of course turn the calculation into a magic number: 87.3 DPI-m which means that when you divide by meters, you get DPI.

It varies from person to person. I estimate I can see roughly 100 DPI-m because my monitor is very close to exactly 100 DPI and with a measuring tape I found I could no longer see any jagged edges on a diagonal line at 100 cm, give or take 2. That means, for me, a display that is 300mm away would need a resolution of at least 333 DPI.

Though that was with my right eye alone. With two eyes, it seems I can go couple centimeters further, but not much.
5 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2012
87.3 DPI-m could be theoretically right for our direct angular resolving power. However, color and pattern superposition, aliasing and multiple other effects still drove printer producers to 600-1500dpi, that is, for reflective paper. One could conjecture a similar >600 dpi sweetspot for future e-ink displays. However, for direct displays (TFT, OLED etc) we're limited by energy constraints, including the GPUs able to handle multiple Mpix on a phone battery.
1 / 5 (1) Jun 07, 2012
I got a 1 for an approximation that is correct ??
3 / 5 (2) Jun 07, 2012
However, color and pattern superposition, aliasing and multiple other effects still drove printer producers to 600-1500dpi

There's a difference in what a "dot" means from a printer. Put simply, the printer can only change the distribution of the dots it prints. The LCD has fixed distribution of dots, but it can vary their intensity. For a greyscale image, the pixel is the smallest dot it can draw, and the largest it has to draw to give you all the different intensity levels.

A simple printer that only prints dots of one size has to form different intensity levels by dithering. To get 256 levels from white to black, it needs a raster of 16x16 small dots, which means that for a printer capable of laying 2400 dots per inch, the resulting grayscale picture is only as sharp as 150 DPI on a comparable LCD.

In reality, printers can print dots of varying sizes, but you still need much more DPI out of a printer than from a screen.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.