or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple again rumored to switch to IGZO displays for 'iPad 3'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple again rumored to switch to IGZO displays for 'iPad 3' - Page 2

post #41 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

JeffDM is right, there's very little explanation of IGZO displays on the web. From bits and pieces here and there it appears the claim to fame isn't a better quality display but rather a 30% or more reduction in power requirements to light up those millions of tiny pixels.

There is enough technical info available, but most required a sub to the scientific publication.

This one is free, and isn't too technical, as the math is at a low college level. Other than that, it can be easily seen that IGZO has a better color response, which is very important.

So, thinner, brighter, less power, and better color.

http://www.eecs.umich.edu/omelab/dow...20Displays.pdf
post #42 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

The "rapid" incremental updates only serves nerd and so called experts who prefer an 1.2 ghz ARM instead of an 1 ghz ARM. These experts don't have a clue since they only look at the .2 number and believes its better.

Consumer electronics needs to move away from it. Apple wont even publish these details since they are irrelevant.

While Apple prefers to use the experience as the metric, they do publish, and even publicize the specs. So they did say the A4 was a 1GHz chip, and what the gpu was. They did say the A5 was dual core at 1GHz with the much better gpu, etc. I expect they will do the same here.

While, so far, the leap from one generation to another has been major, eventually the steps will become smaller. When that happens, the publicity over the number of cores will cease, as we'll likely stop at 4. But gpu increases, RAM, cache, clock speed, etc will all continue to increase. Sure, it will be mentioned.
post #43 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That doesn't bother me as much as another problem with all the search engines. Let's say I give it a string of 4 words (word1, word2, word3, word4). The results will often have hits that do not include all 4 words. It really bugs me when I carefully craft a search string that SHOULD yield relevant hits - and then it provides me with responses that do not fit because they do not include all of my search words. Yahoo! and Bing have the same problem. It's extremely irritating.

Usually (at least, it's supposed to), if you put a + between the words rather than a comma or a space, all the words will be used. But not neccessarally in that order. So if all four words are in the article, there's still no guarantee it will be what you want.
post #44 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I see you accepted my advice to make more liberal use of ad-homs. Well -done!

Yeah, guys, while Gatorguy and I have this thing going, please refrain from some of the wilder insults, it's not helpful.
post #45 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So no word on color quality or viewing angle?

Color is better, as is viewing angle. There is a possibility that blacks may be better as well, but that may take a couple of generations.
post #46 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


Actually, it's not.

"You're stupid because you're French" is an ad-hominem.

"You're stupid" is not - particularly when his post establishes that it's a factual statement.

My rules are that it's fine to say that someone's post is stupid, or that their idea is stupid, but not that they are stupid.

We all say stupid things at times (yeah, even me, hard as that may be to believe).
post #47 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There is enough technical info available, but most required a sub to the scientific publication.

This one is free, and isn't too technical, as the math is at a low college level. Other than that, it can be easily seen that IGZO has a better color response, which is very important.

So, thinner, brighter, less power, and better color.

http://www.eecs.umich.edu/omelab/dow...20Displays.pdf

I don't see evidence of "better color", neither subjective, measurable or more accurate in your link. In fact the study conclusions don't mention thickness or color at all. I do recall from other supposedly reliable mentions that thickness is a consideration, but it wasn't the display itself that was thinner. On the contrary, some current screens are significantly thinner. Instead, because there's fewer transistors in a 300+ppi IGZO-layered display compared to a traditional TFT-LCD screen of the same resolution, it means reduced power draw as well as a brighter display without those transistors in the way. At least that's the way I read it.

A by-product of the improved brightness is that Apple could avoid needing a second backlight source for a hi-res display in the iPad 3, allowing the iPad itself to be thinner than it otherwise would need to be to accommodate the extra hardware.

So Mel, if I'm correct ( I believe I am) it's not the display itself that would be thinner. It's the brighter light transmission characteristics of an IGZO-type display that requires less backlighting, and reduces both power needs and hardware needs while achieving good display qualities.

By the way, the same IGZO technology can be used in both OLED and LCD screen applications according to what I've found. Apple would be unlikely to use the OLED display simply due to current cost differences, making LCD their rumored choice.

In any case tho, thanks for taking the time to try and find an appropriate and understandable link Mel. Unfortunately that one will still be beyond most members here I suspect. I hope I've at least given an accurate poor layman's explanation.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #48 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I don't see evidence of "better color", neither subjective, measurable or more accurate in your link. In fact the study conclusions don't mention thickness or color at all. I do recall from other supposedly reliable mentions that thickness is a consideration, but it wasn't the display itself that was thinner. On the contrary, some current screens are significantly thinner. Instead, because there's fewer transistors in a 300+ppi IGZO-layered display compared to a traditional TFT-LCD screen of the same resolution, it means reduced power draw as well as a brighter display without those transistors in the way. At least that's the way I read it.

A by-product of the improved brightness is that Apple could avoid needing a second backlight source for a hi-res display in the iPad 3, allowing the iPad itself to be thinner than it otherwise would need to be to accommodate the extra hardware.

So Mel, if I'm correct ( I believe I am) it's not the display itself that would be thinner. It's the brighter light transmission characteristics of an IGZO-type display that requires less backlighting, and reduces both power needs and hardware needs while achieving good display qualities.

By the way, the same IGZO technology can be used in both OLED and LCD screen applications according to what I've found. Apple would be unlikely to use the OLED display simply due to current cost differences, making LCD their rumored choice.

In any case tho, thanks for taking the time to try and find an appropriate and understandable link Mel. Unfortunately that one will still be beyond most members here I suspect. I hope I've at least given an accurate poor layman's explanation.

Look at the chart. It's very easy to understand if you know something of how color works. The way you see it isn't totally correct. I don't think you actually read the report. If you did, you would understand why it was better. The report very clearly shows that this has better transmission qualities across the visible light spectrum. When compared to LCD filters, it is significantly better.

I've already pointed out in a post here that this tech can be used with either LCd or OLED panels. LCD panels will be seen first.

The entire display would be slightly thinner, but most of the difference could be attributed to the backlight.

I forgot to mention that these displays are much faster than conventional displays, and allow higher resolutions.
post #49 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Look at the chart. It's very easy to understand if you know something of how color works. The way you see it isn't totally correct. I don't think you actually read the report. If you did, you would understand why it was better. The report very clearly shows that this has better transmission qualities across the visible light spectrum.

Like you once did, I work with color and accurate reproduction of it every day as I've mentioned to you before.

I'm sure you know better, but just to make sure:
Better color transmission properties ((by the way, your article indicated some potential concerns in the red channel, so there's some inconsistency considering the entire visible spectrum) does not necessarily guarantee better subjective color quality/accuracy.

Honestly I more expected a thank you for attempting a plain-English explanation where no one else did rather than your condescending "it's easy to understand if you know something about color", implying I don't and that you were completely right about everything you claimed after-all. Adding that I probably didn't even read the report was just another attempt to project superiority I suppose. FWIW, I read and even understood the basics of much of it, in spite of not being quite as smart as you. I even thanked you for the find.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #50 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Like you once did, I work with color and accurate reproduction of it every day as I've mentioned to you before.

I'm sure you know better, but just to make sure:
Better color transmission properties ((by the way, your article indicated some potential concerns in the red channel, so there's some inconsistency considering the entire visible spectrum) does not necessarily guarantee better subjective color quality/accuracy.

Honestly I more expected a thank you for attempting a plain-English explanation where no one else did rather than your condescending "it's easy to understand if you know something about color", implying I don't and that you were completely right about everything you claimed after-all. Adding that I probably didn't even read the report was just another attempt to project superiority I suppose. FWIW, I read and even understood the basics of much of it, in spite of not being quite as smart as you. I even thanked you for the find.

There doesn't appear to be a problem with red. It's better than the result with usual filtering.

Condescending? Maybe, though I didn't mean it that way. But the charts are so simple to understand with even just a quick reading of the respective text, that I can't see how it could be missed unless someone can't read the charts, or understand the charts, or what they mean.

The claims are in the report, though couched in the language of the researcher, rather than expressed in the way a popular writer would express it in some declaratory article. There are other articles that I can't link to because they require membership, that go further into the technical aspect. But some people don't want that anyway, they just want to be told the basic results.

And I suspect that we may be the only ones reading this thread right now.
post #51 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There doesn't appear to be a problem with red. It's better than the result with usual filtering.

Condescending? Maybe, though I didn't mean it that way. But the charts are so simple to understand with even just a quick reading of the respective text, that I can't see how it could be missed unless someone can't read the charts, or understand the charts, or what they mean.

The claims are in the report, though couched in the language of the researcher, rather than expressed in the way a popular writer would express it in some declaratory article. There are other articles that I can't link to because they require membership, that go further into the technical aspect. But some people don't want that anyway, they just want to be told the basic results.

And I suspect that we may be the only ones reading this thread right now.

I just think we should be careful in making claims about the benefits of InGaZnO (IGZO) that go beyond even what Sharp extolls in their PR releases.

The major benefit I find stated with some authority in study papers is better light transmission due to reduced transistor sizes/counts allowing more light to pass. That produces reduced backlighting, hardware, and power requirements, increased brightness, potentially reduced production costs at some future point and possibly improved black levels with that reduced backlighting.

Personally I think we should leave it at that as there's no validated citations for a wider viewing angle than IPS displays currently offer, or better overall color reproduction than current LCD or (S)AMOLED displays (unless you can provide them. I can't). Claiming those benefits without some proof is potentially misleading readers into expecting something other than what's promised by the technology. We need to be careful when tossing "facts" around.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #52 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

I just think we should be careful in making claims about the benefits of InGaZnO (IGZO) that go beyond even what Sharp extolls in their PR releases.

The major benefit I find stated with some authority in study papers is better light transmission due to reduced transistor sizes/counts allowing more light to pass. That produces reduced backlighting, hardware, and power requirements, increased brightness, potentially reduced production costs at some future point and possibly improved black levels with that reduced backlighting.

Personally I think we should leave it at that as there's no validated citations for a wider viewing angle than IPS displays currently offer, or better overall color reproduction than current LCD or (S)AMOLED displays (unless you can provide them. I can't). Claiming those benefits without some proof is potentially misleading readers into expecting something other than what's promised by the technology. We need to be careful when tossing "facts" around.

Again, look at the color filter chart. You can see for yourself the improvement of IGZO over conventional filtering. Not only are the cutoffs sharper, they are in more proper places in the spectrum. The authors also suggest, at the end, that the system could be simpler as well.
post #53 of 54
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

JeffDM is right, there's very little explanation of IGZO displays on the web. From bits and pieces here and there it appears the claim to fame isn't a better quality display but rather a 30% or more reduction in power requirements to light up those millions of tiny pixels.

If they go to a retina display they will need that power savings.
post #54 of 54
The number one problem for the iPad is the responsiveness of the unit, anything Apple does to improve performance is an update worth noting. In any event Apples rapid (yearly) updates have been any thing but minor, the strides made with respect to processing power in handheld devices has been amazing. We basically run a UNIX machines in our pockets that have impressive performance. well for a pocketable cell phone but things could be much better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by shompa View Post

The "rapid" incremental updates only serves nerd and so called experts who prefer an 1.2 ghz ARM instead of an 1 ghz ARM. These experts don't have a clue since they only look at the .2 number and believes its better.

Consumer electronics needs to move away from it. Apple wont even publish these details since they are irrelevant.

That is not correct at all. Apple doesn't publish specs because they don't want to compete on specs. The problem is for many of us performance is important. Beyond that the most important spec that they don't publish, RAM size, directly impacts users in the performance of apps like Safari.

Your position is foolish as it doesn't reflect what Apple is actually doing, they are shipping the highest performance systems going and have manage to keep a performance lead through more than a couple of revisions now. This performance has directly impacted user acceptance of the hardware that iOS runs on.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple again rumored to switch to IGZO displays for 'iPad 3'