4 ms·
I guess the main point is lower production cost. For 4k screen you need 4x more density pixels than a 1080p one, which is difficult to make with a high defect r
by est 12y ago
I guess the main point is lower production cost. For 4k screen you need 4x more density pixels than a 1080p one, which is difficult to make with a high defect rate, by cascading two 1080p LCD you get as-good results but the cost is very cheap.
Besides you don't need to 4x your display bandwidth, just double 1080p.
Just my guess.
- staz 12y agoI guess this would also be a nice improvement for smartphones' screens since you would only need to power half the number of pixels for the same equivalent density which will save on the battery
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- tormeh 12y agoNya, the light will have to travel through two LCD layers, if I've understood it correctly. You'd need a very powerful backlight.
- tgb 12y agoIn the video, some of the captures for the cascaded displays were actually brighter (eg: 4:20 mark). I'm not sure why and it looked like they were just using a single display's backlight. Anyone know?
- wmf 12y agoMy guess is the opposite; it seems like cascading two 1080p LCDs ought to be more expensive than a single 1440p LCD which may have equivalent spatial resolution. The demo video doesn't address this; it says the cascaded display is better than a "conventional" one, but there are a variety of conventional LCDs available on the market.