On 2007-01-22, Bruce Stephens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > but I imagine the costs (environmental and other) even out (physically > bigger screens probably don't cost much more than smaller ones; it > probably depends more on the number of pixels).
Yeah, I'd suspect so. It probably isn't easy to produce displays with lots of tiny pixels, and there are bound to be more defects. Infact, I wonder if we'll go back to analogue tech, one day. If it would be possible to produce thin pixel-less displays somehow, working like plotters. I don't know how you'd do that, and it might not work for non-vector graphics, such as moving video, but... it's an interesting prospect anyway. Maybe nano-machines arranging themselves in instructed shapes... :) (Infact, the E-paper techs I am aware of are quite "mechanical", and I wonder if you could control the ink balls floating freely instead of suspended in pixels...) > Quite true, although I'm not so confident about the relative costs. Well, there's the issue of bigger displays probably having more rejects, but the widescreen display is about least half smaller than a second display, there isn't a second PSU with its lossess and costs, less casing, and so on. -- Tuomo
