3 ms·
For most this is a distinction without a difference. References to CRT phosphors is now irrelevant. Use of direct emmission (not backlight) mini-LED does make
by karmakaze 4y ago
For most this is a distinction without a difference. References to CRT phosphors is now irrelevant.
Use of direct emmission (not backlight) mini-LED does make this relevant, but only at the highest fidelity levels that I have trouble conceiving a case for, e.g. VR with lower resolution mini-LEDs and wanting very square corners of boxes sacrificing crispness--effectively you'd render extra pointy corners to make them appear normal 90' corners given the natural rounding to be expected from pixel-centered light sources.
- iopq 4y agoQD-OLEDs have a triangle layout, so it's relevant
- karmakaze 4y agoThis seems like subpixel anti-aliasing which I thought was the greatest thing for LCDs. Then Apple comes along with Retina displays and uses grayscale anti-aliasing and super-resolutions. The only time I find that it matters is on those rare occasions where I attach an HD LCD rather than a 4k+. It would likely matter more with larger FOV than a TV or monitor such as VR. Densities keep going up, so will matter less and less.
- kimburgess 4y agoWhere this space does (or may) get interesting again in scanning fiber displays and other experimental optics for HMD's: https://blair-neal.gitbook.io/survey-of-alternative-displays/experimental-other/scanning-fiber-optics https://blair-neal.gitbook.io/survey-of-alternative-displays.... Not only does this break from the the display being a rectilinear grid, but this can also vary over time. This enables the actual physical display surface to be foveated, rather than lensing between a foreground/background layer, or just having foveated rendering that still renders on uniform resolution display.