3 ms·

So, assuming that’s what it is, subpixel resolution is now being advertised as the “true” resolution? Because when I buy a 1080p display, I’m expecting 1920x108

So, assuming that’s what it is, subpixel resolution is now being advertised as the “true” resolution? Because when I buy a 1080p display, I’m expecting 1920x1080 addressable pixels. Whether that’s implemented as 3840x2160 (2x2 subpixel) or 5760x1080 (3x1 subpixel) is not my concern. And if I bought a display advertised as 3840x2160, and my computer told me it was 1920x1080 (because it’s a 2x2 subpixel layout), I’d be upset.

addaon 6y ago
Unfortunately, there's plenty of precedent around this, especially with Pentile displays and similar.
- userbinator 6y ago
  Bad precedent, to be honest... Pentile was infamous for its inferior image quality on things like text and fine lineart. It reminds me of the LCDs on digital cameras, some of which use the same trick to reduce costs --- natural photos don't look any different, which is why it gets a pass, but text has a noticeable graininess to it as a result.
  - bscphil 6y ago
    > natural photos don't look any different They can! Not frequently, I'll grant. Once I was using Lightroom and was very confused by a pixelated looking edge of a yellow flower against a blue sky, the edge of which moved diagonally across the pixels. Eventually I realized it was the mosaicing! I actually ended up switching to RawTherapee for that picture, the AMaZE demosaicing algorithm handled it much better in that particular case. Lightroom in the last few years added a high quality demosaicing mode that you can selectively enable, and it handles the picture correctly. It's pretty slow though. In any case, reporting resolution using the single-color "pixels" is probably more justified for an image sensor (with its array of square light detecting sensors), than it is for an LCD screen, which is usually a square array of non-square sub-pixels.
- Dylan16807 6y ago
  Pentile is more complicated, since for most of them the advertised number of pixels matches the number of green elements, but not the number of red or blue elements.
dhosek 6y ago
In Apple ][ hires graphics, the 280 pixel-wide display area was really 140 pixels with the extra resolution coming from sub-addressing the RGB pixels on the display. On a black and white display you got the full 280 pixels but in color you would get weird color fringing happening. Even more fun was that one byte of memory was mapped to 7 "pixels" with the high bit indicating how the RGB sub-pixels would be split into the left and right halves of the pixel. Technologically it was rather cool, although it was a challenge to program against.
- mortenjorck 6y ago
  Wow, I never understood until reading this comment that this is why Apple II graphics often had that fringing effect. Those visual artifacts I remember from The Oregon Trail finally make sense.
glitchc 6y ago
People buy digital cameras this way, have for years.
- netik 6y ago
  Somewhat true, but the splitting of pixels / bayer filter work is something that gets corrected later in either post/RAW processing or otherwise. When we apply that work to screens, our eyes can't really post-process and correct for these errors.

addaon 6y ago

Unfortunately, there's plenty of precedent around this, especially with Pentile displays and similar.

userbinator 6y ago
Bad precedent, to be honest... Pentile was infamous for its inferior image quality on things like text and fine lineart. It reminds me of the LCDs on digital cameras, some of which use the same trick to reduce costs --- natural photos don't look any different, which is why it gets a pass, but text has a noticeable graininess to it as a result.
- bscphil 6y ago
  > natural photos don't look any different They can! Not frequently, I'll grant. Once I was using Lightroom and was very confused by a pixelated looking edge of a yellow flower against a blue sky, the edge of which moved diagonally across the pixels. Eventually I realized it was the mosaicing! I actually ended up switching to RawTherapee for that picture, the AMaZE demosaicing algorithm handled it much better in that particular case. Lightroom in the last few years added a high quality demosaicing mode that you can selectively enable, and it handles the picture correctly. It's pretty slow though. In any case, reporting resolution using the single-color "pixels" is probably more justified for an image sensor (with its array of square light detecting sensors), than it is for an LCD screen, which is usually a square array of non-square sub-pixels.
Dylan16807 6y ago
Pentile is more complicated, since for most of them the advertised number of pixels matches the number of green elements, but not the number of red or blue elements.

dhosek 6y ago

In Apple ][ hires graphics, the 280 pixel-wide display area was really 140 pixels with the extra resolution coming from sub-addressing the RGB pixels on the display. On a black and white display you got the full 280 pixels but in color you would get weird color fringing happening. Even more fun was that one byte of memory was mapped to 7 "pixels" with the high bit indicating how the RGB sub-pixels would be split into the left and right halves of the pixel. Technologically it was rather cool, although it was a challenge to program against.

mortenjorck 6y ago
Wow, I never understood until reading this comment that this is why Apple II graphics often had that fringing effect. Those visual artifacts I remember from The Oregon Trail finally make sense.

glitchc 6y ago

People buy digital cameras this way, have for years.

netik 6y ago
Somewhat true, but the splitting of pixels / bayer filter work is something that gets corrected later in either post/RAW processing or otherwise. When we apply that work to screens, our eyes can't really post-process and correct for these errors.