Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

max. display resolution to come

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 1:42:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Hi all,

what's your guess how far the resolution of displays will be improved?

The current state of the art is about 2.5" and < 250 000 pixels.

How are they counted? Is an RGB-pixel counted once or three times?


I'll guess:

* those numbers are real RGB-pixels

* the max. display size won't go much beyond 2.5",
limited by body size.

That's about 1.5" x 2.0" (38 x 50 mm)

* a reasonable max resolution is at about 300 dpi

(this once was a good printing quality, while it might
be insufficient for the close viewing distance on
displays?)

Taking 1.5" x 2.0" @ 300 dpi, that's about 270 000 pixels.
That's less than the VGA resolution: 480 x 640 = 307 200.

I'm surprised that current models are already that close to this value.
While there are some models which are at about 110 000 pixels (1.8"
display), there are others around which offer e.g. 2.0", 235 000 pixels,
as an example for the current range of products.


Will we get much higher resolutions in the future?
I do expect improvements in brightness, contrast, viewing angle, battery
consumption, but we might have almost reached the max. pixel count?

What's the best, reasonable display resolution to expect?

- Martin

More about : max display resolution

Anonymous
June 29, 2005 2:34:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Martin Trautmann wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> what's your guess how far the resolution of displays will be improved?
>
> The current state of the art is about 2.5" and < 250 000 pixels.
>
> How are they counted? Is an RGB-pixel counted once or three times?
>
>
> I'll guess:
>
> * those numbers are real RGB-pixels

No, three times.

> * the max. display size won't go much beyond 2.5",
> limited by body size.
>
> That's about 1.5" x 2.0" (38 x 50 mm)
>
> * a reasonable max resolution is at about 300 dpi
>
> (this once was a good printing quality, while it might
> be insufficient for the close viewing distance on
> displays?)
>
> Taking 1.5" x 2.0" @ 300 dpi, that's about 270 000 pixels.
> That's less than the VGA resolution: 480 x 640 = 307 200.

The Minolta A2 had a VGA resolution EVF (misleadingly described as
"900,000 pixels" on the camera box). This was a delight to use, and much
better than most cameras. I would like to see something like this as the
minimum standard for an EVF, and would definitely be prepared to pay the
extra (tell me how much first, though!). I don't use the LCD on the back
of the camera much, but the VGA display on the Epson P-2000 is 3.8 inches,
and rather nice. Scaling to 2.5 inches that would give 400,000 individual
pixels (133,000 RGB triplets).

David
Anonymous
June 29, 2005 2:44:20 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 10:34:47 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
> Martin Trautmann wrote:
> > The current state of the art is about 2.5" and < 250 000 pixels.
> >
> > How are they counted? Is an RGB-pixel counted once or three times?
> >
> >
> > I'll guess:
> >
> > * those numbers are real RGB-pixels
>
> No, three times.

Argl - so there's still plenty of improvements to come :-(

> The Minolta A2 had a VGA resolution EVF (misleadingly described as
> "900,000 pixels" on the camera box). This was a delight to use, and much
> better than most cameras. I would like to see something like this as the
> minimum standard for an EVF, and would definitely be prepared to pay the
> extra (tell me how much first, though!). I don't use the LCD on the back
> of the camera much, but the VGA display on the Epson P-2000 is 3.8 inches,
> and rather nice. Scaling to 2.5 inches that would give 400,000 individual
> pixels (133,000 RGB triplets).

Personally, I want a live view option for a digital slr, including a
flip and twist LCD. Although the viewfinder is much clearer and better
usable under many conditions, there are just too many examples where a
live view (livemonitor?) is useful.

So I'll have to ask for > 400 000 single-color-pixels or maybe even
900 000 pixels for 300 dpi. Ok, this may take some more time...

Thanks,
Martin
Related resources
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 2:57:18 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <slrndc4us4.c25.t-use@ID-685.user.individual.de>,
Martin Trautmann <traut@gmx.de> wrote:

[ ... ]

>Personally, I want a live view option for a digital slr, including a
>flip and twist LCD. Although the viewfinder is much clearer and better
>usable under many conditions, there are just too many examples where a
>live view (livemonitor?) is useful.

Not really possible with a digital SLR -- unless Cannon applies
the Pellix design to a digital SLR. (The sensor, which P&S digitals use
to both drive the display and to take the photo, is covered by the
mirror and the shutter with a digital SLR, so it receives no light until
the moment of exposure.

Someone posted a pointer to an add-on viewfinder which mounts on
the eyepiece, and looks through the lens as you normally do. That might
be the way to go if you *really* need this.

The Pellix design uses a partially silvered fixed mirror to
deflect a percentage of the light up to the viewfinder, while the
majority of the light goes on through the mirror to reach the film, once
the shutter is opened.

However, aside from having to cycle the shutter to do the
viewfinding with what you want, you also have to stop the lens down to
the proper aperture.

I think that such a system as you propose would make the
camera's behavior un-necessarily sluggish, and *I*, for one, don't want
it. I've had enough of the really sluggish behavior of P&S cameras like
the CoolPix 950 (which was my first digital (though not an SLR), and
which lost me quite a few good shots because of the time it took to do
its autofocus and exposure setting. (Yes, I learned how to work around
that, but I *far* prefer a real SLR -- digital or film.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 12:58:33 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 29 Jun 2005 22:57:18 -0400, DoN. Nichols wrote:
>
> >Personally, I want a live view option for a digital slr, including a
> >flip and twist LCD. Although the viewfinder is much clearer and better
> >usable under many conditions, there are just too many examples where a
> >live view (livemonitor?) is useful.
>
> Not really possible with a digital SLR -- unless Cannon applies
> the Pellix design to a digital SLR. (The sensor, which P&S digitals use
> to both drive the display and to take the photo, is covered by the
> mirror and the shutter with a digital SLR, so it receives no light until
> the moment of exposure.

In theory options could be

- a secondary sensor. But does it really show the same image as
the image sensor?

- a semitransparent mirror. But does it reduce viewfinder brightness?


In practice I'd just be happy to use a mirror lock-up in those moments
and use the ordinary sensor.

As far as I understand this is not done since the current sensors do
not permit continous reading, either because of lifetime, noise,
temperature or reading speed.

For the LCD reading in lower resolution would be sufficient - but it's
not a current design goal, I suppose, to permit those operations.

> Someone posted a pointer to an add-on viewfinder which mounts on
> the eyepiece, and looks through the lens as you normally do. That might
> be the way to go if you *really* need this.

This might help for some situations. But what I want may be
- LCD for difficult camera positions
- LCD for hi / low light display
- LCD for grid line display
- LCD for usage on tripod mount
- LCD for further infos, such as Macro AF point
....

Such an add-on solves some of it, while it can't permit the full range
of options which could be available.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:29:28 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

>On 29 Jun 2005 22:57:18 -0400, DoN. Nichols wrote:
>>
>> >Personally, I want a live view option for a digital slr, including a
>> >flip and twist LCD. Although the viewfinder is much clearer and better
>> >usable under many conditions, there are just too many examples where a
>> >live view (livemonitor?) is useful.
>>
>> Not really possible with a digital SLR -- unless Cannon applies
>> the Pellix design to a digital SLR. (The sensor, which P&S digitals use
>> to both drive the display and to take the photo, is covered by the
>> mirror and the shutter with a digital SLR, so it receives no light until
>> the moment of exposure.
>
>In theory options could be
>
>- a secondary sensor. But does it really show the same image as
> the image sensor?
>
>- a semitransparent mirror. But does it reduce viewfinder brightness?


The Canon EOS 20Da has live view on the camera's LCD:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 4:49:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:29:28 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
> >- a semitransparent mirror. But does it reduce viewfinder brightness?
>
>
> The Canon EOS 20Da has live view on the camera's LCD:
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp

Thanks, I know, there are some. But both this one here, as well as e.g.
the Olympus E-10/E-20 versions seem to be far from perfect.

Is it a semitransparent mirror?: "a partially transmissive mirror"

: Mirror: Quick-return half mirror
: (Transmission: reflection ratio of 40:60, no mirror cut-off with EF
: 600mm f/4 or shorter lens)

Is this a semitransparent mirror now, or is this a mirror lockup - or
both, while the lockup must be used in darkness only?


: 'Live View' mode
: FC 1, which provides 5x magnification (approximately 4% of the center
: of the image will be displayed on the monitor)
: FC 2, which provides 10x magnification (approximately 1% of the center
: of the image will be displayed on the monitor)

: While traditional digital SLRs lack a live preview on the LCD monitor
: due to the reflex mirror and shutter, the EOS 20Da digital SLR resolves
: this issue by locking up the mirror and opening the shutter to display a
: magnified live view of the subject on the 1.8? LCD monitor. (This
: feature is effective for night viewing conditions only. It cannot be
: used in bright light.)

http://web.canon.jp/Imaging/eos20da/catalog/index02.htm...
shows yet another limitation:

: Focus cannot be adjusted manually in ?Live View? mode when using the
: following lenses, which employ electronic manual focusing:
EF50mm f/1.0L USM
EF85mm f/1.2L USM
EF200mm f/1.8L USM
EF300mm f/2.8L USM
EF400mm f/2.8L USM
EF400mm f/2.8L ll USM
EF500mm f/4.5L USM
EF600mm f/4L USM
EF1200mm f/5.6L USM
EF28-80mm f/2.8-4L USM


I guess AF is disabled then, too. I did not find any further manuals for
this 20Da yet.

- Martin
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:44:23 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

>On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 12:29:28 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>> >- a semitransparent mirror. But does it reduce viewfinder brightness?
>>
>>
>> The Canon EOS 20Da has live view on the camera's LCD:
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp
>
>Thanks, I know, there are some. But both this one here, as well as e.g.
>the Olympus E-10/E-20 versions seem to be far from perfect.
>
>Is it a semitransparent mirror?: "a partially transmissive mirror"
>
>: Mirror: Quick-return half mirror
>: (Transmission: reflection ratio of 40:60, no mirror cut-off with EF
>: 600mm f/4 or shorter lens)
>
>Is this a semitransparent mirror now, or is this a mirror lockup - or
>both, while the lockup must be used in darkness only?


Who knows?

But this is DPReview, hardly a paragon of accuracy and objectivity.

;-)
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 6:44:24 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 14:44:23 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
> But this is DPReview, hardly a paragon of accuracy and objectivity.

Maybe - but it's by far the best I know.
Anonymous
June 30, 2005 11:16:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <cll7c1973fia3meaabm57nccll1g327472@4ax.com>,
Tony Polson <tp@nospam.net> wrote:
>Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:
>
>>On 29 Jun 2005 22:57:18 -0400, DoN. Nichols wrote:
>>>
>>> >Personally, I want a live view option for a digital slr, including a
>>> >flip and twist LCD. Although the viewfinder is much clearer and better
>>> >usable under many conditions, there are just too many examples where a
>>> >live view (livemonitor?) is useful.
>>>
>>> Not really possible with a digital SLR -- unless Cannon applies
>>> the Pellix design to a digital SLR. (The sensor, which P&S digitals use
>>> to both drive the display and to take the photo, is covered by the
>>> mirror and the shutter with a digital SLR, so it receives no light until
>>> the moment of exposure.
>>
>>In theory options could be
>>
>>- a secondary sensor. But does it really show the same image as
>> the image sensor?
>>
>>- a semitransparent mirror. But does it reduce viewfinder brightness?

The Pellix style camera which I suggested above was the first of
Cannon's production cameras with a partially silvered fixed mirror.
>
>The Canon EOS 20Da has live view on the camera's LCD:
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp

This is interesting -- but the description seems to be somewhat
self-contradictory.

"In addition the camera has a partially transmissive mirror which
enables live focusing on the LCD monitor (this can only be done
for short times and requires the mirror to be locked up)."

The "partially transmissive mirror" should not "require the mirror to be
locked up".

And the "can only be done for short times" suggests either
overheating in the sensor, or battery life problems, driving that large
a sensor in a continuous operation mode.

Enjoy,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnichols@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 3:52:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:

>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp
>
> This is interesting -- but the description seems to be somewhat
>self-contradictory.
>
> "In addition the camera has a partially transmissive mirror which
> enables live focusing on the LCD monitor (this can only be done
> for short times and requires the mirror to be locked up)."
>
>The "partially transmissive mirror" should not "require the mirror to be
>locked up".


Well, that's DPReview for you. The slick, glossy presentation looks
good but the words don't appear to make any sense.

> And the "can only be done for short times" suggests either
>overheating in the sensor, or battery life problems, driving that large
>a sensor in a continuous operation mode.

I would suggest anyone who is interested in the 20Da should not rely
on amateurish review sites, but should contact Canon instead.
July 1, 2005 4:29:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:0u7ac1t81fdr6ou4l0579ifh1s0pcrac8i@4ax.com...
> dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
>
>>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp
>>
>> This is interesting -- but the description seems to be somewhat
>>self-contradictory.
>>
>> "In addition the camera has a partially transmissive mirror which
>> enables live focusing on the LCD monitor (this can only be done
>> for short times and requires the mirror to be locked up)."
>>
>>The "partially transmissive mirror" should not "require the mirror to be
>>locked up".
>
>
> Well, that's DPReview for you. The slick, glossy presentation looks
> good but the words don't appear to make any sense.
>
>> And the "can only be done for short times" suggests either
>>overheating in the sensor, or battery life problems, driving that large
>>a sensor in a continuous operation mode.
>
> I would suggest anyone who is interested in the 20Da should not rely
> on amateurish review sites, but should contact Canon instead.
>
DPreview hasn't reviewed the 20Da yet, the info is from Canon's own website.
The "partially transmissive mirror" and rest are on Canon's own review. So
take it up with their translators.
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 6:08:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:52:26 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
> Well, that's DPReview for you. The slick, glossy presentation looks
> good but the words don't appear to make any sense.

> I would suggest anyone who is interested in the 20Da should not rely
> on amateurish review sites, but should contact Canon instead.

I would suggest that the makers should provide reasonable infos on their
own.

I remember,
I checked for Konica Minolta image stabilisations,
I checked for Olympus FourThirds,
I checked for 20Da live view.

None of the builders provided reasonable infos online.
KM replied to my direct request - which helped a little, while it did
not clarify the confusion.

Olympus did not reply yet (only a few days ago. I wonder how much they
are still in business).

I did not ask Canon, concerning the live preview. I once asked Canon
about the reason why CD printing is available with European iPs, while
it's disabled for the US market. I did not receive any usable reply that
time.

My summary: you won't get more infos by asking directly. As long as
there are poor infos online, you won't get better infos otherwise.


On the other hand I feel that dpreview gives his best to provide
detailed and rather unbiased comparisons. They provide much better, much
more infos than the maker does and should do.

So personally, I'll take dpreview as the best source up to now. Canon is
not better - or what kind of info could you catch from them? Although
dpreview may be wrong some (or even many) times, what's your
alternative?

- Martin
Anonymous
July 1, 2005 8:50:12 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:29:57 -0400, Darrell wrote:
>
> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:0u7ac1t81fdr6ou4l0579ifh1s0pcrac8i@4ax.com...
> > dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
> >
> >>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp
> >>
> >> This is interesting -- but the description seems to be somewhat
> >>self-contradictory.
> >>
> >> "In addition the camera has a partially transmissive mirror which
> >> enables live focusing on the LCD monitor (this can only be done
> >> for short times and requires the mirror to be locked up)."

> DPreview hasn't reviewed the 20Da yet, the info is from Canon's own website.
> The "partially transmissive mirror" and rest are on Canon's own review. So
> take it up with their translators.

I don't know this from Canon's websites. Did you find it anywhere?
dpreview states its own intro, including this "partially transmissive
mirror" and the 'Press Release' which names mirror lock-up only.

On the other hand I quoted this myself from the Canon specs:
: Mirror: Quick-return half mirror
: (Transmission: reflection ratio of 40:60, no mirror cut-off with EF
: 600mm f/4 or shorter lens)

Looks like partially transmissive, although they didn't explain (or I
did not understand) the purpose. This partially transmissive mirror
seems to be used within the 20D, 300D etc., too, which do not offer live view.


So dpreview seems to be right that the 20Da includes a partially
transmissive mirror, but got it wrong that this is used for live
preview.

- Martin
July 1, 2005 8:50:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Martin Trautmann" <t-use@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:slrndcat24.ofh.t-use@ID-685.user.individual.de...
> On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 12:29:57 -0400, Darrell wrote:
>>
>> "Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
>> news:0u7ac1t81fdr6ou4l0579ifh1s0pcrac8i@4ax.com...
>> > dnichols@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols) wrote:
>> >
>> >>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0506/05060101canon20da.asp
>> >>
>> >> This is interesting -- but the description seems to be somewhat
>> >>self-contradictory.
>> >>
>> >> "In addition the camera has a partially transmissive mirror which
>> >> enables live focusing on the LCD monitor (this can only be done
>> >> for short times and requires the mirror to be locked up)."
>
>> DPreview hasn't reviewed the 20Da yet, the info is from Canon's own
>> website.
>> The "partially transmissive mirror" and rest are on Canon's own review.
>> So
>> take it up with their translators.
>
> I don't know this from Canon's websites. Did you find it anywhere?
> dpreview states its own intro, including this "partially transmissive
> mirror" and the 'Press Release' which names mirror lock-up only.
>
> On the other hand I quoted this myself from the Canon specs:
> : Mirror: Quick-return half mirror
> : (Transmission: reflection ratio of 40:60, no mirror cut-off with EF
> : 600mm f/4 or shorter lens)
>
> Looks like partially transmissive, although they didn't explain (or I
> did not understand) the purpose. This partially transmissive mirror
> seems to be used within the 20D, 300D etc., too, which do not offer live
> view.
>
>
> So dpreview seems to be right that the 20Da includes a partially
> transmissive mirror, but got it wrong that this is used for live
> preview.
>
My old manual focus Pentax LX has a semi-transparent mirror as well. It is
used for it's TTL light meter. In the Canon in can be for either the
exposure meter or for auto-focus.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:53:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:

>>
>DPreview hasn't reviewed the 20Da yet, the info is from Canon's own website.


No it isn't.

The section of text in question is not from Canon, but from DPReview,
and it simply does not make sense.
July 2, 2005 3:53:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Tony Polson" <tp@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:27ibc11kak1lf591niksdh50fe1m71kg79@4ax.com...
> "Darrell" <spam@this.eh> wrote:
>
>>>
>>DPreview hasn't reviewed the 20Da yet, the info is from Canon's own
>>website.
>
>
> No it isn't.
>
> The section of text in question is not from Canon, but from DPReview,
> and it simply does not make sense.
>
I sure reads like the Googlish translated text from the Canon Japan website
when the original announcement was made. The English text has been edited
and corrected since February. The simple answer is the 20Da has "NO LIVE
PREVIEW" the semi-transparent mirror is not a Pellix mirror, therefore the
semi-transparent area must be required for either auto-focus or exposure
metering.
Anonymous
July 2, 2005 3:55:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Martin Trautmann <t-use@gmx.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Jul 2005 11:52:26 +0100, Tony Polson wrote:
>> Well, that's DPReview for you. The slick, glossy presentation looks
>> good but the words don't appear to make any sense.
>
>> I would suggest anyone who is interested in the 20Da should not rely
>> on amateurish review sites, but should contact Canon instead.
>
>I would suggest that the makers should provide reasonable infos on their
>own.
>
>I remember,
>I checked for Konica Minolta image stabilisations,
>I checked for Olympus FourThirds,
>I checked for 20Da live view.
>
>None of the builders provided reasonable infos online.
>KM replied to my direct request - which helped a little, while it did
>not clarify the confusion.
>
>Olympus did not reply yet (only a few days ago. I wonder how much they
>are still in business).
>
>I did not ask Canon, concerning the live preview. I once asked Canon
>about the reason why CD printing is available with European iPs, while
>it's disabled for the US market. I did not receive any usable reply that
>time.
>
>My summary: you won't get more infos by asking directly. As long as
>there are poor infos online, you won't get better infos otherwise.
>
>
>On the other hand I feel that dpreview gives his best to provide
>detailed and rather unbiased comparisons. They provide much better, much
>more infos than the maker does and should do.
>
>So personally, I'll take dpreview as the best source up to now. Canon is
>not better - or what kind of info could you catch from them? Although
>dpreview may be wrong some (or even many) times, what's your
>alternative?


There is no alternative. There needs to be one, because a sponsored
web site produced by one individual cannot be considered impartial,
let alone authoritative.

(Thanks for your detailed reply. Very interesting.)
!