“To show off their work, the University of Michigan researchers created their school’s logo on a display only 9 microns tall (a strand of human hair is about 100 microns wide, so the display itself could fit inside the period at the end of this sentence),” Schramm reports.
“Crazy. You have to wonder what an iPhone-sized display would look like with a resolution like that (or if we’d even tell the difference, given that our eyes have a limit on the amount of detail they can discern),” Schramm reports.
Read more in the full article, with links and photo of that tiny Michigan logo, here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Arline M.” for the heads up.]
LG will unveil the LEX8 Nano tech-powered 3D TV at IFA 2010. The display adopts the NANO Lighting Technology, which produces LG’s brightest, clearest and smoothest picture yet. The new LG LEX8 also features an improved localized dimming in both 2D and 3D (Apple & LG working together)
Said that YESTURDAY! May be related.
Next step. Special surgical procedure (or genetic engineering) to improve human eyesight. Better yet, direct machine-brain interface, so that you don’t need any stinkin’ display.
” width=”19″ height=”19″ alt=”smile” style=”border:0;” />
RETRACTION: LG nano whatever…cool
LG nano “lighting” NOT COOL. As I now understand it….
“An extremely thin film printed with minuscule dots positioned in front of a full array of LEDs disperses light more evenly and effectively across the screen-” — so what????
I thught this REPLACED LCDS, BACKLIGHTING, etc. I thought after SONY stopped FED TV, and Canon SED TV (both BETTER THAN LCD), this was a REAL innovation. But it’s NOT! I quess this might replace the color filter…big deal!
I want total led-tv. That’s led, not oled. Led sub pixel lighting.
Two ways to do it:
1. Individual RGB sub pixel leds. NO LCDS. NO COLOR FILTER (hard to do)
2. Sub pixel leds (WHITE), with color filter. (easier to do)
ALL light SHOULD COME FROM THE LEDS. NO LCD! NO POLERIZERS! SHEESHH! If I can’t get FED or SED TV, can I at least get sub pixel led displays?
Visual Acuity for the average person is *about* 275 microradians. This equates to *about* 300 ppi at about a foot distance. People with significanly better than average acuity can see up to a factor of two beyond this — so *about* 600 ppi. I actually worked with a person a few years back who had so called “20/10” eyesight. What he could see was scary.
This “about 300 ppi” is for standard vision evaluations. This does not take into account such things as edge effects.
If you’ve ever see images from NOAA’s GOES satellites of the New Oleans areas you can see the bridge across Lake Pontchartrain in those images. The interesting thing is the pixel resolution on the GOES satellite is 1 km. Clearly that bridge is NOT 1 km wide.
The same goes for human vision. People can “see” much finer resolution than the gross “visual acuity” number. A commonly accepted value for this is approximately 35 microradians. This equates to roughly 2390 ppi at 12″. This does not take into account those people with exceptional vision.
Therefore to be beyond what the vast majority of people can see in any fashion the screen resolution at 12″ needs to be about 2400 ppi or better. Anything less than this is not really a “waste”. Anything significantly more than this can be considered a waste.
For those who are comparing this to print… The high end printers typically use 2540 dpi in their prints (the high end Linos and such). This value is certainly beyond what the vast majority of people can see without the aid of some magnifying device.
S. O. M.!
After a recent visit to the Spy Museum in DC, I am interested to know what MDN readers think the possible uses for this would be in spying?