3 ms·

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.