No - the first point is that resistive touchscreens, which allow what you want, have been around for awhile. For better or worse, Apple chose differerent technology.
And yet it's very, very clear what I want is a capacitance multi-touch display that can interpret fine, slow inputs accurately. So how exactly has that been around since the 1990s?!?!
The technology already exists to do what you want, and has existed since the early to mid 1990'
And yet it's very, very clear what I want is a capacitance multi-touch display that can interpret fine, slow inputs accurately. So how exactly has that been around since the 1990s?!?!
The technology already exists to do what you want, and has existed since the early to mid 1990'
That has not been around since the 1990's. All I intended to respond to was:
"One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad."
Textbook annotations and slow precious drawing are each now possible, but not with a capacitive multitouch display. That's what I meant with the "advantages and disadvantages" comment about what Apple uses on their devices.
That has not been around since the 1990's. All I intended to respond to was:
"One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad."
Textbook annotations and slow precious drawing are each now possible, but not with a capacitive multitouch display. That's what I meant with the "advantages and disadvantages" comment about what Apple uses on their devices.
It could be a game changing technology - indeed, it might allow great pointing devices to be built very small.
I understand what you are saying is that touch overlay density can be increased dramatically because of the small size of the elements. This is great and I hope viable commercially soon.
However, just out of interest how much smaller 70 micrometres is compared to the current capacitive element size?
It could be a game changing technology - indeed, it might allow great pointing devices to be built very small.
Yes I did. It doesn't look to be an applicable tech for Apple who use a very nice glass display with a capacitance touch sensor. I see applications for pressure sensitive drawing applications, similar to how you can adjust the pressure with a paint brush, but I think that would be best relayed from the sytlus sensing pressue on the glass, not from a sensor under a piece or plastic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by re1sender
I understand what you are saying is that touch overlay density can be increased dramatically because of the small size of the elements. This is great and I just hope viable commercially soon.
However, just out of interest how much smaller 70 micrometres is compared to the current capasitive element size?
70µm (micrometers) equals 0.00275".
Accordng to tonton's earlier post the sensors spaced 5 pixels apart. We know the display is 3.5" on the diagonal and 480px x 320px so the ratio is 3:2 (1.50). That gives us a 2.91" x 1.94" or 73,900µm x 49,300µm. That means each pixel is 154µm apart, but the capacitance sensor is spaced 5x that, making it 770µm or 11 times less dense than the pressure touch in the article.
(It's late at night so my maths may be off. I'm more than happy for someone to check my work )
I understand what you are saying is that touch overlay density can be increased dramatically because of the small size of the elements. This is great and I hope viable commercially soon.
However, just out of interest how much smaller 70 micrometres is compared to the current capacitive element size?
What I am saying is that resistive touchscreens allow textbook annotation and fine drawing.
What I am saying is that resistive touchscreens allow textbook annotation and fine drawing.
Lots of things allow for accurate drawing but requiring the user to put force in a location instead of just focusing on accurate placement doesn't seem ideal.
As tonton noted, you can see the touchpanel grid under certain light. A higher density panel would effect the quality of image of the LCD unless we get a more invisible capacitance touch film. There are other potential options, like placing it behind the LCD or melding it with the glass on top, which could add more buttons off screens, but those seem less feasible to me.
I don't think we'll see the true potential of the tablet until it can truly mirror writing and drawing with fine stylus in hand.
Actually I don't think it's because of the visibility of the filaments. I think it probably has to do with cross-interference if the filaments are placed too closely together. My guess is that this is partially resolvable using a different conductor for the filaments, but in doing so, the sensitivity of the touchscreen might be affected. I'm not an engineer, so these are all just guesses based on my observations about how this all works.
Actually I don't think it's because of the visibility of the filaments. I think it probably has to do with cross-interference if the filaments are placed too closely together. My guess is that this is partially resolvable using a different conductor for the filaments, but in doing so, the sensitivity of the touchscreen might be affected. I'm not an engineer, so these are all just guesses based on my observations about how this all works.
For capacitive touchscreens, dermining exact coordinates is approximation in any case, and adding more data points may not necessarily improve accuracy substantially.
Thank you- and no amount of spin here or from Apple will change that. It's basiclly an extension of the iTunes store (an iPod) and, even worse, a hobby exactly like the Apple TV (another iPod) was when it was released. And look where that is today.
Now I will be accused of being negative and a troll but I could care less.
So you are saying that the iPod and iTunes Store are a hobby like the ATV?
I think what unimpressed geeks don't get (other than dates) is that most of the world is ready to enter the post-pc world. They don't need a "Start" button to launch an email application, they barely need an os let alone an email program. They need and want just a simple button that shows them emails and lets them easily reply and add stuff to emails. That's it.
The same with music and video. Now the iPod Touch does that. But what if you could play around with documents and presentations and creative stuff like simple photoshopping-like modification of media ... then you enter the other more creative parts of people's lives ... and still you avoid the whole notion of needing to think of an operating system or file systems or apps that need to be launched.
Just add smarter apps that run as functions, not apps and force the os farther into the background.
Sure the iPad os is simple now, but it is forcing a new ecosystem of innovation that Win7 or even MacOSX on a netbook could never do.
And if you are worried about Flash and a forward camera or other bells and whistles, wait a year before you buy.
Just gonna chime in to say that the only person I know that was in any way excited about this wanted to get it to edit her photos and everything and be able to plug her camera directly into it via USB. When she found out that she would be unable to do either of these things, she didn't want it anymore. Everyone I know has had the response of "Well I have an iPhone/iPod Touch and a laptop, so I really don't need it or want it." It will be a very niche product. It will be something for people who are constantly on the go traveling. Or tech enthusiasts. Personally, I am getting a netbook. I like having an actual keyboard, and the keyboard solution that Apple has provided for the iPad just turns it into a modest iMac. Honestly, it would have been really cool if they had developed a sort of hinge dock with a macbook keyboard and trackpad, so it could be a laptop as well. I would consider buying one of these if they did that.
Just gonna chime in to say that the only person I know that was in any way excited about this wanted to get it to edit her photos and everything and be able to plug her camera directly into it via USB. When she found out that she would be unable to do either of these things, she didn't want it anymore.
Just gonna chime in to say that the only person I know that was in any way excited about this wanted to get it to edit her photos and everything and be able to plug her camera directly into it via USB. When she found out that she would be unable to do either of these things, she didn't want it anymore.
It's not what I consider the best solution, as I don't like rigid adapters, but there will be a camera adapter kit on release.
As for the rest, I don't know if it's worth arguing either way. I don't know if it's comparable yet, but there were a lot of objections and many declarations of floppage when the iPod and iPhone were announced, and those products managed to be successful anyway. A lot of the objections to those products were addressed over time, at least most of my objections were addressed. So even if the first pass doesn't work out for a lot of people, maybe something will happen with the second revision.
As it is, I don't think I'm going to make a decision to buy or not buy until I actually try it.
As for the rest, I don't know if it's worth arguing either way. I don't know if it's comparable yet, but there were a lot of objections when the iPod and iPhone were announced, and those products managed to be successful anyway. A lot of the objections to those products were addressed over time, most of my objections were addressed.
Yeah I know about that. I even told her about it, and she didn't want the iPad anymore.
Show me the USB port. I am not talking about the adapter you have to buy.
It's still USB data signaling via the 30-pin connector. If you want the direct USB-A port or SD card port you'll have to pay for the adapter, but it's possible.
It's still USB data signaling via the 30-pin connector. If you want the direct USB-A port or SD card port you'll have to pay for the adapter, but it's possible.
That's my point though. You can't do it out of the box. People don't want to keep track of (or buy) adapters and accessories they otherwise wouldn't need. IMO, making the device thinner and sacrificing connectivity was a mistake. We will have to wait and see if that mistake will bite Apple in the ass.
Comments
No - the first point is that resistive touchscreens, which allow what you want, have been around for awhile. For better or worse, Apple chose differerent technology.
And yet it's very, very clear what I want is a capacitance multi-touch display that can interpret fine, slow inputs accurately. So how exactly has that been around since the 1990s?!?!
I like Office 2010 Beta. A lot.
Good. The current version is dreadful. I've found it harder tu use than the previous one.
And yet it's very, very clear what I want is a capacitance multi-touch display that can interpret fine, slow inputs accurately. So how exactly has that been around since the 1990s?!?!
That has not been around since the 1990's. All I intended to respond to was:
"One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad."
Textbook annotations and slow precious drawing are each now possible, but not with a capacitive multitouch display. That's what I meant with the "advantages and disadvantages" comment about what Apple uses on their devices.
Did you check out the pressure sensitive tech article? The BBC article is the best I've seen so far, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8504373.stm
It could be a game changing technology - indeed, it might allow great pointing devices to be built very small.
That has not been around since the 1990's. All I intended to respond to was:
"One of my hopes for the Apple tablet was that they tackled that problem and would have a great option for textbook annotations and slow, precious drawing on the iPad."
Textbook annotations and slow precious drawing are each now possible, but not with a capacitive multitouch display. That's what I meant with the "advantages and disadvantages" comment about what Apple uses on their devices.
Did you check out the pressure sensitive tech article? The BBC article is the best I've seen so far, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8504373.stm
It could be a game changing technology - indeed, it might allow great pointing devices to be built very small.
I understand what you are saying is that touch overlay density can be increased dramatically because of the small size of the elements. This is great and I hope viable commercially soon.
However, just out of interest how much smaller 70 micrometres is compared to the current capacitive element size?
Did you check out the pressure sensitive tech article? The BBC article is the best I've seen so far, at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8504373.stm
It could be a game changing technology - indeed, it might allow great pointing devices to be built very small.
Yes I did. It doesn't look to be an applicable tech for Apple who use a very nice glass display with a capacitance touch sensor. I see applications for pressure sensitive drawing applications, similar to how you can adjust the pressure with a paint brush, but I think that would be best relayed from the sytlus sensing pressue on the glass, not from a sensor under a piece or plastic.
I understand what you are saying is that touch overlay density can be increased dramatically because of the small size of the elements. This is great and I just hope viable commercially soon.
However, just out of interest how much smaller 70 micrometres is compared to the current capasitive element size?
70µm (micrometers) equals 0.00275".
Accordng to tonton's earlier post the sensors spaced 5 pixels apart. We know the display is 3.5" on the diagonal and 480px x 320px so the ratio is 3:2 (1.50). That gives us a 2.91" x 1.94" or 73,900µm x 49,300µm. That means each pixel is 154µm apart, but the capacitance sensor is spaced 5x that, making it 770µm or 11 times less dense than the pressure touch in the article.
(It's late at night so my maths may be off. I'm more than happy for someone to check my work
I understand what you are saying is that touch overlay density can be increased dramatically because of the small size of the elements. This is great and I hope viable commercially soon.
However, just out of interest how much smaller 70 micrometres is compared to the current capacitive element size?
What I am saying is that resistive touchscreens allow textbook annotation and fine drawing.
What I am saying is that resistive touchscreens allow textbook annotation and fine drawing.
Lots of things allow for accurate drawing but requiring the user to put force in a location instead of just focusing on accurate placement doesn't seem ideal.
Accordng to tonton's earlier post the sensors spaced 5 pixels apart.
Hey, that was just a guess. Actually it seems less than 10 but more than 5.
Hey, that was just a guess. Actually it seems less than 10 but more than 5.
It's the best we have to go with. It someone has a more accurate model to use I'll go with that, but until then you're estimate is top dog.
As tonton noted, you can see the touchpanel grid under certain light. A higher density panel would effect the quality of image of the LCD unless we get a more invisible capacitance touch film. There are other potential options, like placing it behind the LCD or melding it with the glass on top, which could add more buttons off screens, but those seem less feasible to me.
I don't think we'll see the true potential of the tablet until it can truly mirror writing and drawing with fine stylus in hand.
Actually I don't think it's because of the visibility of the filaments. I think it probably has to do with cross-interference if the filaments are placed too closely together. My guess is that this is partially resolvable using a different conductor for the filaments, but in doing so, the sensitivity of the touchscreen might be affected. I'm not an engineer, so these are all just guesses based on my observations about how this all works.
Actually I don't think it's because of the visibility of the filaments. I think it probably has to do with cross-interference if the filaments are placed too closely together. My guess is that this is partially resolvable using a different conductor for the filaments, but in doing so, the sensitivity of the touchscreen might be affected. I'm not an engineer, so these are all just guesses based on my observations about how this all works.
For capacitive touchscreens, dermining exact coordinates is approximation in any case, and adding more data points may not necessarily improve accuracy substantially.
What I am saying is that resistive touchscreens allow textbook annotation and fine drawing.
Do you think the problem of the capacitive screens could be because of a "deficient" targeting algorithm?
Thank you- and no amount of spin here or from Apple will change that. It's basiclly an extension of the iTunes store (an iPod) and, even worse, a hobby exactly like the Apple TV (another iPod) was when it was released. And look where that is today.
Now I will be accused of being negative and a troll but I could care less.
So you are saying that the iPod and iTunes Store are a hobby like the ATV?
I think what unimpressed geeks don't get (other than dates) is that most of the world is ready to enter the post-pc world. They don't need a "Start" button to launch an email application, they barely need an os let alone an email program. They need and want just a simple button that shows them emails and lets them easily reply and add stuff to emails. That's it.
The same with music and video. Now the iPod Touch does that. But what if you could play around with documents and presentations and creative stuff like simple photoshopping-like modification of media ... then you enter the other more creative parts of people's lives ... and still you avoid the whole notion of needing to think of an operating system or file systems or apps that need to be launched.
Just add smarter apps that run as functions, not apps and force the os farther into the background.
Sure the iPad os is simple now, but it is forcing a new ecosystem of innovation that Win7 or even MacOSX on a netbook could never do.
And if you are worried about Flash and a forward camera or other bells and whistles, wait a year before you buy.
Just gonna chime in to say that the only person I know that was in any way excited about this wanted to get it to edit her photos and everything and be able to plug her camera directly into it via USB. When she found out that she would be unable to do either of these things, she didn't want it anymore.
You can.
Just gonna chime in to say that the only person I know that was in any way excited about this wanted to get it to edit her photos and everything and be able to plug her camera directly into it via USB. When she found out that she would be unable to do either of these things, she didn't want it anymore.
It's not what I consider the best solution, as I don't like rigid adapters, but there will be a camera adapter kit on release.
See the bottom of this page:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
As for the rest, I don't know if it's worth arguing either way. I don't know if it's comparable yet, but there were a lot of objections and many declarations of floppage when the iPod and iPhone were announced, and those products managed to be successful anyway. A lot of the objections to those products were addressed over time, at least most of my objections were addressed. So even if the first pass doesn't work out for a lot of people, maybe something will happen with the second revision.
As it is, I don't think I'm going to make a decision to buy or not buy until I actually try it.
You can.
Show me the USB port. I am not talking about the adapter you have to buy.
It's not what I consider the best solution, as I don't like rigid adapters, but there will be a camera adapter kit on release.
See the bottom of this page:
http://www.apple.com/ipad/specs/
As for the rest, I don't know if it's worth arguing either way. I don't know if it's comparable yet, but there were a lot of objections when the iPod and iPhone were announced, and those products managed to be successful anyway. A lot of the objections to those products were addressed over time, most of my objections were addressed.
Yeah I know about that. I even told her about it, and she didn't want the iPad anymore.
Show me the USB port. I am not talking about the adapter you have to buy.
It's still USB data signaling via the 30-pin connector. If you want the direct USB-A port or SD card port you'll have to pay for the adapter, but it's possible.
It's still USB data signaling via the 30-pin connector. If you want the direct USB-A port or SD card port you'll have to pay for the adapter, but it's possible.
That's my point though. You can't do it out of the box. People don't want to keep track of (or buy) adapters and accessories they otherwise wouldn't need. IMO, making the device thinner and sacrificing connectivity was a mistake. We will have to wait and see if that mistake will bite Apple in the ass.