4 ms·
One thing desktop displays desperately need is a way for each pixel to become brighter than its surrounding pixels at will. A lot brighter. Like, 50x brighter
by sillysaurus2 13y ago
One thing desktop displays desperately need is a way for each pixel to become brighter than its surrounding pixels at will. A lot brighter. Like, 50x brighter.
Dynamic brightness range is a necessary step for writing a 3D renderer that makes you feel like you're looking out a window. 256 levels of brightness aren't nearly enough.
We don't need the ability to specify that a pixel should be brightness level 64823 vs 64824. It doesn't need to be that fine-grained. What we need is the ability to overdrive the brightness of specific pixels. That way sunlight filtering through tree leaves will actually give the impression of sunlight filtering through tree leaves.
- bhauer 13y agoThat is a great point. I would really love that. Tangentially related, it reminds me that OLED has utterly failed to become a thing on the desktop, and it breaks my heart. It was a decade ago when I read that OLED was the next hot thing and it would bring unprecedented contrast and brightness to displays. Today, I like OLED mobile phone displays. But my Dell U3014s are disappointing crystal-over-backlight garbage. Not only that but expensive crystal-over-backlight garbage.
- Mikeb85 13y agoOLED will come. It's just now finding it's way into TVs, and still costs a fortune... When you think about it, a 5" OLED screen comes in a 700 dollar phone, most PCs cost that. Not many people would be willing to pay 2000 for a laptop with an OLED screen. Some people maybe, I know I would, but most wouldn't. I think in 2-3 years you'll see Samsung Chromebooks and Ultrabooks with OLED screens...
- MacsHeadroom 13y agoOLED is a thing, if you have a minimum of about $10k to drop on a small computer monitor. See: http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/product-BVMF170A/ http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-oledmonitors/p... The price will come down with time.
- cshesse 13y agoWhat I'd like to see is mobile displays that actually look good in sunlight. I think that could be the next major area of display progress.
- justincormack 13y agoThere were some displays that did that ten years back with a low res matrix of bright white LEDs behind I seem to remember.
- mistercow 13y ago>256 levels of brightness aren't nearly enough. It's not just the number of brightness levels. On an LCD display, if you brighten the backlight by a factor of 50, a black pixel will be about as white as a white pixel with the backlight at a brightness factor of 1. One of the most frustrating things about LCD displays is their inability to completely transmit or completely occlude light. This can be seen most obviously by trying to watch a movie in a dark room.
- userulluipeste 13y ago"We don't need the ability to specify that a pixel should be brightness level 64823 vs 64824." Actually what is needed is anatomically defined range - the "true brightness", like it is for the 24-bit "photographic" (tetra-chromatic) range of colors. This would be a limit defined by the anatomical limits of human eye. There is a limit of absolute darkness (relative to the eye) and there is also a limit in the brightness of the light that the human eye can safely be exposed to. In this defined range there is a limit in granularity that the human eye can distinguish. I am not aware if such a definition exists, but I am aware that a display to respect the "true brightness" is impossible (for the mere fact that the light reflected from our faces sheds upon the dark portions of the display, and those dark portions can not perfectly absorb the external supplement of light).
- userulluipeste 13y agoCorrection: trichromatic, not tetrachromatic (the post is too old to be edited).