27 
If you thought the pixel density wars were going to stall out with Apple’s 326ppi Retina display and its qHD cohorts, you are oh so mistaken. Sharp is working on their next-generation IGZO display technology, which includes a 6-inch display with a 2500×1600 resolution, good for a pixel density of 498ppi.
According to The Verge, the IGZO technology was born when semiconductor researchers discovered a crystalline structure with superior electrical properties, allowing for the creation of smaller transistors which improve both viewing and touch recognition. Toss in the fact that this technology uses less power and it sounds like a gift from the smartphone gods.
But it won’t only benefit standard LCDs. Sharp also had flexible OLED displays, which included 13.5-inch and 3.5-inch panels, each with densities of 326ppi (the 3.5-inch screen is pictured above). If they can do this now, just imagine what they’ll be able to do with a few more years of engineering. [Sharp via The Verge]
These Eye-Popping Rugs Are Actually Perfectly Flat
Royal Family Snapped In Eye-Bleedingly-Detailed Five Billion Pixel Image
A £200 LG 3DTV Is Your Eye-Popping Deal of the Day
If we can’t see the improvement, what’s the point in doing it. What they’re doing here is referred to as ‘next bench syndrome’, where engineers design products for other engineers (Oooh, look at my specifications)rather than because it has any practical benefit to the consumer. Although more accurate touch interfaces and lower power requirements are a plus.
Yeah, the new Ipad’s massive battery demonstrates this very well.
For me, I think around 260-300PPI is all that’s needed for portable devices. At distances of more than 20cm, you’re not going to notice the pixels.
What are you talking about? Do you have any understanding of the subject?
Humans can see objects as small as 0.5 arcseconds. Do you have any idea how small that is?
Here, let me put that into perspective for you. At 12 inches away you’d need 34358 PPI display in order to simulate quality your eye sees when looking at real objects. Questions?
No way. You must have misplaced a decimal point in there somewhere because there’s no way human vision is that good. If a hyopthetical screen like that existed, the actual pixels would be 0.739 microns across.
Yes, I have a question; do you have a source?
This guy (http://www.kybervision.com/Blog/files/AppleRetinaDisplay.html) claims that 20/20 vision translates to 1 arc minute, which at 12 inches, or 30 cm, makes for a pixel density of 286.5 ppi.
Disclaimer: I don’t know who this guy is but I was prompted to use Google following your incredible statement.
Yes, I have source(s).
First of all, I said “humans can see objects as small as 0.5 arcseconds.”
This is what’s known as minimum perceptible acuity.
Just one of sources is paper “Capability of human visual system” written by David G. Curry, Gary Martinsen and Darrel G. Hopper for Air Force Research Laboratory in which they discuss properties of “perfect display”.
Here’s a quote:
“A summary of comparisons made throughout this paper for various acuities and their corresponding typical pixel size and implied display resolution, actual or theoretical is provided in Table I. For displays that mimic real world visual scenes one needs data regarding maximum, not minimum, human visual performance characteristics. The present review and analysis indicates that, ideally, such a visual display system should be capable of the following performance:
1) Acuity: 0.5 arc-second of visual angle. For a 17-in. display at a typical, 20-in. viewing distance, this would correspond to an individual pixel pitch (diameter) of 1.2 microns.
Other sources would include paper “1000 X difference
between current displays and capability of human visual system:
payoff potential for affordable defense systems” written by Darrel G. Hopper for Air Force Research Laboratory.
Sorry if I’m being pedantic but do you have anything that I can get my hands on and read myself? Like a website or something. Something similar to what I posted above, which also happen disagrees with what you’re saying.
I would quote from papers that aren’t publicly available online. Both of those papers can be found by typing their titles into search engine like Google. Do it.
Now, quote from the same paper, page 64:
“3.2.4.2. Minimum perceptible acuity. Vernier acuity does not represent the maximum acuity of the human eye.
“Minimum perceptible acuity” is the ability of the eye to detect the presence of a single dark line several degrees of arc in
length against a bright background (e.g., a human hair on a sheet of white paper). The critical dimension for this measure
seems to be the width of the line itself. Normal values for minimum perceptible acuity range from about 3 arc-seconds at
0.10 nt to about 0.5 arc-second at 100 nt.”
And probably most important, page 64, 65:
“3.3. Required Display Resolution
As could be expected from the many ways for defining “visual acuity” discussed above, the determination of a single
figure-of-merit for the resolution required to match the maximum performance of the human eye is difficult. If a display
were to design to match the 1.0 arc-minute value, 20/20 Snellen acuity, a monitor placed at a typical arm’s length viewing
distance of 20 in. from the eyes should have individual pixels no more than 148 micrometers (0.00582 in.) across. This corresponds to a linear pixel density of 172 pixels/in. A 17-in display would thus have a resolution of 4.1 megapixels (format: 2335 x 1750).
A desired resolution of 0.5 arc-minute/pixel (matching minimum separable acuity under optimum conditions) would result
in a pixel size of 74 micrometers (0.0029 in) leading to a target display resolution format of 4670 x 3500 or 345 pixels/in. This would employ over 16 million pixels for a 17-in. display.
For display quality to match the maximum vernier acuity of the
eye (1.0 arc-second), the same display would require a pixel size of 2.5 micrometers (0.000097 in.) or 10,300 pixels/in. for a total of
14.7 billion pixels for the entire display.
Matching minimum perceptible acuity (0.5 arc-second) would correspond to a pixel diameter of 1.2 micrometers (0.000048 in) or almost 20,600 pixels/in. at a viewing distance of 20-in. To accommodate
minimum perceptible acuity, the number of pixels on a 17-in. desktop display would have to be increased by a factor of
more than 14,000 over that for the commonly cited “one arc-minute/pixel” value. For a display that would cover the entire
210 x 135° binocular field of view, nearly 1.5 trillion pixels would be required.”
Read on…
I’m not an ophthalmologist but I also think you might have confused your arc seconds with your arc minutes. According to the same article I posted above, the spacing of the photoreceptors in the retina is 0.5 arc minutes but, as I understand it, this is not the same as having 20/20 vision.
dat PPI!
http://i1.ytimg.com/vi/Hu6NE1h-q_Q/hqdefault.jpg