Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!hellgate.utah.edu!caen!math.lsa.umich.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!julius.cs.uiuc.edu!ux1.cso.uiuc.edu!news.cs.indiana.edu!uceng!minerva!dmocsny From: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu (Daniel Mocsny) Newsgroups: comp.arch Subject: Costs of High-resolution graphical displays Message-ID: <6726@uceng.UC.EDU> Date: 16 Nov 90 16:14:56 GMT References: <16870003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> Sender: news@uceng.UC.EDU Organization: University of Cincinnati, Cin'ti., OH Lines: 60 In article <16870003@hpfcdj.HP.COM> jayavant@hpfcdj.HP.COM (Rajeev Jayavant) writes: >/ hpfcdj:comp.arch / gillies@m.cs.uiuc.edu / 7:22 pm Nov 12, 1990 / >>> Why don't we see monitors that are 2048*1532, at 150 dpi? Would the >>> radiation from the high-frequency modulators fry your brains? > >I haven't priced 2048*1532 monitors recently, but they were in at >least the $20K ballpark not long ago. You also now have roughly 4x >the pixels as before, so you have to render 4x as fast just to have >the appearance of equivalent performance. Graphics hardware cost >starts going up pretty fast compared to today's megapixel displays. This is an issue of some interest to me, because I consider display performance to be one of the major limiting factors in the usefulness of computers. (Consider the longevity of paper as a medium for information display, despite its many disadvantages. Its primary advantage is that it can display much more information simultaneously than any computer display, and at a cost that can be very low.) I am aware that graphics display technology has not enjoyed the same performance/price gains that computer technology in general has. Would some informed person care to comment on the reasons for this, and speculate on the likely future costs of display technology? In particular, what is the scope for cost reductions through miniaturizing? In audio technology, a $100 pair of headphones can easily out-perform a $1000 pair of loudspeakers. Can "eyephones" such as the Virtual-Reality people are working on improve display hardware performance/price similarly? If display technology does not keep up with progress in processors, memory, and storage, then in time it will emerge as the limiting factor in most applications. An 80x25 character display is reasonable when you only have a few KB of storage space available. But when every PC is packing >1 GB of disk and >64 MB of RAM, the display "window" becomes relatively smaller and more constraining. >You also now have roughly 4x >the pixels as before, so you have to render 4x as fast just to have >the appearance of equivalent performance. Schemes exist to reduce the processing cost of pixel scale-up. These take advantage of the resolving characteristics of the human eye. The eye has much higher resolution near its focus, and lower resolution in the periphery of the field of view. Thus, with eye-tracking technology, a wide-field display can give the appearance of high quality by rendering in maximum resolution the portion of the display near the viewer's focus. The rest of the display can be in lower resolution, without loss of apparent quality. To an observer staring over the shoulder of the computer user, such an efficient display would seem somewhat blurry, save for a circular region that would stand out in crisp clarity. The circular region would appear to flit around rapidly, as the user's eyes aimed at different portions of the display. -- Dan Mocsny Snail: Internet: dmocsny@minerva.che.uc.edu Dept. of Chemical Engng. M.L. 171 dmocsny@uceng.uc.edu University of Cincinnati 513/751-6824 (home) 513/556-2007 (lab) Cincinnati, Ohio 45221-0171