Could replacable OLED-screens be an option later on?

[Batou456]

I agree and dread it for when NGP is launched. I reckon that a lot of complaints are forthcoming.

After all the hoopla about their network getting smashed that invaded into the realm where their consumers and not just security watchers know, them getting smacked literally out of the door of claiming they had things together again, and that this has already led to a significant increase in people cashing out entirely or over to Microsoft [implication]they may not get complaints.[/implication]

 

[Link]

I'd love to see a Green designed Pandora where everything can easily be swapped out and upgraded, we really need to stop filling our landfills with electronics designed to last 2-3 years.

 

[Nintendo]

I feel like I could say with a certain degree of certainty there won't be a Pandora with an OLED screen. Perhaps Pandora 3 in 2020 or something but we can't even buy that stuff right now. I've sent Samsung Semi many emails and even tried going through a distributor. It's not in their interest to help the little guys right now. There are some amazing HD LCD panels coming out 'soon' that look pretty amazing. 1280x720 in a 4.x" panel would be pretty sweet. Perhaps overkill, but awesome none the less! Just to be able to list that in the specs would be a wet dream.

Interesting.

 

[xenomat]

...but every device the Pandora is capable of emulating originally ran on LCD tech or older, which means black was never really black.

All the classic computers ran with CRT Monitors, which means very good contrast and perfect black (if you know how to set/calibrate them correctly). Also every console was running on a CRT until X360/PS3-Generation. And i always preferred my CRT Monitor for it's great contrast over LCD (other then picture-stability, convergence etc.). Handhelds of course had just normal LCDs, some not even backlit.. but why not improve the old games with a better image?


And regarding "i can't see what all the fuss is about", well... i can and i'm very fastidious. That's why i call myself a Freak.

FWIW we're starting to see more LED panels with "region" lighting (so blacks are actually black now), perhaps another reason (apart from lifespan) why OLED will never go beyond mobile devices.

I got a TV with LED local dimming myself, and it reaches a good contrast range and nice black levels (after hours of setting up brightnes/contrast/colors). The quality is very good, but it is far from the perfection a display with self-luminous cells/pixels would achieve. With a backlit display, you can never reach a consistent illumination. If i had to buy a new TV right now, it would definitely be a panasonic plasma. In my opinion, LCDs with local dimming is even more of a bridge technology than i consider normal LCD to be.


Resolution-wise i have nothing to add to the discussion. I find 800x480 in this dimension to be very fitting.

 

[Grench]

Wife has a Samsung Galaxy S phone with an AMOLED screen. It's gorgeous. That said, I don't want one on the Pandora or Pandora II.


I want a Pixel Qi screen so I can turn the back light off and still see an image, use it in direct sunlight and still have a full color screen for games. Cutting 90% of the screen's power drain doesn't hurt either.


Of course I've never tried to game on a Pixel Qi screen. OPL should ask for an engineering sample and see if it is any good.

 

[Prometheus]

^ How is a Pixel Qi screen different to a standard transflexive screen? (I ask as the description simply sounds just like that. )

 

[Caine]

In theory the Pixel Qi screens sound quite interesting, but I have yet to see one in action to judge the screen quality.


Also, Pixel Qi screens are only being produced in 7" and 10.1" as far as I can tell. So unfortunately, it won't fit.

 

[Grench]

^ How is a Pixel Qi screen different to a standard transflexive screen? (I ask as the description simply sounds just like that. )

It pretty much is - until you turn the backlight off and it goes into reflective mode.


http://www.pixelqi.com/products

In theory the Pixel Qi screens sound quite interesting, but I have yet to see one in action to judge the screen quality.


Also, Pixel Qi screens are only being produced in 7" and 10.1" as far as I can tell. So unfortunately, it won't fit.

I just saw on their web site that they don't list their 4.x" screen anymore.


Tablets are all the rage. I find that hilarious - since they are not pocketable "murses" seem to be coming into fashion.

 

[Prometheus]

^ How is a Pixel Qi screen different to a standard transflexive screen? (I ask as the description simply sounds just like that. )

It pretty much is - until you turn the backlight off and it goes into reflective mode.


http://www.pixelqi.com/products

The Kindle comparison there is the best demonstration for me, since I have one of those. :lol: That looks really, really nice. Thanks for the link.

 

[sukhi2011]

The QLED screens are good for some time then they look half edged and they don't work so well,like the pandora screen is crystal clear,very smooth there are one of the best screens fpr portable system and they are long last,they never have problems hardly with the lcd screens any other screen have problems,which i think is bad and don't recommened,the companies should stick with lcd screens for portable systems,openpandora did the right having lcd screen for pandora,trust me the screen is looks amazing and it's outstanding n64 games.

 

[Nintendo]

I agree and dread it for when NGP is launched. I reckon that a lot of complaints are forthcoming.

After all the hoopla about their network getting smashed that invaded into the realm where their consumers and not just security watchers know, them getting smacked literally out of the door of claiming they had things together again, and that this has already led to a significant increase in people cashing out entirely or over to Microsoft [implication]they may not get complaints.[/implication]

I hope they bomb at e3.

 

[Poem58]

I have a Pioneer car head unit that uses an OLED display. Granted it's a few years old and the OLED tech was a lot less mature then, but while it has a wonderful contrast and brilliant colors, there is a major issue. Burn in. While it's not the traditional burn in, it's the same ghosting image but due to the fact that some pixels were used more often for things like the clock, CD/Mp3 folder icons etc. So basically there are some display modes I can switch to now that show the ghosting of the one I used the most. The Pixels in question can still go completely black and show no ghosting, but since the Pixels have been on more than the others (especially white using all three colors most) they no longer get as bright, thus giving the burn in effect. While this may not be a major issue for say a Pandora, I would suppose, over time, it would be possible if one spent a large amount of time displaying minimenu or the desktop that certain pixels could exhibit the effect, but newer panels may be better and less likely to do this.


Either way, I still like LCD just fine. Maybe being in the Black and White TV and Tube TV era for half of my life will always make me a bit less picky about display technology. After all, I actually liked the original Gameboy screen as long as I had some light. I even owned a pocket TV that flipped up to allow sunlight to pass through as a backlight and reflected the image off a mirror below for you to watch and thought that was awesome. I just wish SED had gone forward and been produced. If one of those could have been worked into a portable screen, then I would have been excited.

 

[Asiyura]

[…]


I just wish SED had gone forward and been produced. If one of those could have been worked into a portable screen, then I would have been excited.

This technology started lots of talks between my friend and me.


We were hoping that it would be commercialized during 2007.


But sadly they switched to work on OLED and lcd screens with LED backlight

 

[craigix]

I was rather disappointed to read that fractal compression has not really advanced much in the last 15 years.


I always imagined these fancy new codecs used it.

 

[Poem58]

I was rather disappointed to read that fractal compression has not really advanced much in the last 15 years.


I always imagined these fancy new codecs used it.

I had to look this up and found the following

Features


With fractal compression, encoding is extremely computationally expensive because of the search used to find the self-similarities. Decoding, however is quite fast. While this asymmetry has so far made it impractical for real time applications, when video is archived for distribution from disk storage or file downloads fractal compression becomes more competitive.[2][3]


At common compression ratios, up to about 50:1, Fractal compression provides similar results to DCT-based algorithms such as JPEG. [4] At high compression ratios fractal compression may offer superior quality. For satellite imagery, ratios of over 170:1[5] have been achieved with acceptable results. Fractal video compression ratios of 25:1-244:1 have been achieved in reasonable compression times (2.4 to 66 sec/frame).[6]


Compression efficiency increases with higher image complexity and color depth, compared to simple grayscale images.

So given this information a 90 minute movie clip at 30Fps would be 162,000 frames, at 2.4 sec per frame encoding it would take 108 Hours to encode and God forbid it took the longest example time of 66 sec/frame to compress as that would be 123.75 DAYS to encode. Please tell me my math is horribly wrong here. Of course this was a 1998 source article and processing times are likely many times faster now. I wonder how current codecs would have compared to this back then.


Thanks for bringing this up though Craig, I didn't even know about it.

 

[skeezix]

Fractal compression is sort of akin to jpeg and others in that -- there is an art form to writing the compressor, be it faster or more accurate etc, and still emitting codec-correct data; ie: the codecs are quite flexible, especially with containers or codecs capable of carrying may sub-codecs etc (like most of them) .. suddenly the encoder can change bitrate or codec or whatever, and do each codec dozens of different ways.. its very challenging stuff. But encoding can take reaaaaly long for the super awesome ones


Good call Craig, haven't thought about that one in ages


jeff