I saved the image. On analysis, the image is only 287x197 pixels, including the white background, . The picture itself is therefore only about 200x140. The screen actually gives 640x480.
So the spatial resolution as shown is about 3 times worse than the real thing. However, before you get too excited, the image was 8 bit, and all 256 shades of grey were used. The device seems to be specified as only having 16 shades - if I interpret the 15:1 contrast ratio correctly. Reducing the image to 16 shades of grey degrades it significantly. I tried it, and it does not look nearly as good. So, the answer seems to be that the nixon+presley picture shown is not what the device gives. It gives more pixels, but fewer grey levels. Jeremy ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bill Waugh" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 7:55 PM Subject: Re: [ql-users] small LCD screen > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Arnould Nazarian" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Sent: Saturday, January 24, 2004 4:13 PM > Subject: [ql-users] small LCD screen > > > > > > Hello, > > > > This small LCD screen http://www.earthlcd.com/SK1001.HTM can be bought > > in quantities of several thousand at 20 USD. AFAIU this is an > > interesting price. However I am amazed by the quality of the display > of > > Nixon+Presley in the example given. Can anyone confirm that it is > > possible to display such crisp images with such a LCD? > > > > Arnould > > Treated ourselves to a new tele this Christmas, no it's not LCD but if I > was rich enough it would have been, if you doubt how good they are walk > into your local Dixons/Curries and have a look ( leave your plastic at > home though, you could be tempted) > > All the best - Bill >
