Japan Display Inc. announces 651ppi display

By on June 7, 2012, 5:30 PM

Not to be outdone by LG’s recent announcement of a 440ppi mobile display, Japan Display Inc. says they have managed to double the number of pixels per square inch found on the iPhone’s retina display, resulting in 651ppi and an image that is much sharper than anything else currently available.

The JDI display in question measures only 2.3-inches but features a resolution of 1,280 x 800. VR-Zone points out that the company used polysilicon TFTs as the driver element and that the panels had to be manufactured in a low-temperature environment.

The company claims that image quality on the screen is comparable to film-based photographs. There’s no doubt that packing more pixels into a display will result in sharper images and text, but can the human eye even distinguish the difference? JDI says yes and they even claim to have results from a study conducted on the sensory evaluation of letters appearing on the screen.

It’s unclear how JDI plans to use these screens or how long we will have to wait to see them hit consumer electronics but one thing is for sure; 2.3-inches isn’t large enough to make an impact in the smartphone market. But if they can make a display of this size, then surely they could double it to 4.6-inches, right?

JDI launched in April 2012 as a joint effort between Sony Mobile Display, Toshiba Mobile Display and Hitachi Displays. The company will demo the new display and results from the aforementioned study at the Society for Information Display’s Display Week 2012, an event that runs through tomorrow in Boston.




User Comments: 31

Got something to say? Post a comment
Guest said:

Reading this on my 2560x1440 27inch monitor and I can't imagine needing a higher pixel density. Especially not on a 2 inch screen. hmm

Jibberish18 said:

I think higher pixel densities is starting to prove more and more useful/important. Although not required I think it makes a big difference.....maybe not on a 2" screen but I'd still love to see how it looks in front of me compared to something else that's normal.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Reading this on my 2560 X 1600 U3011 and I can imagine needing a higher pixel density. Especially on a 2 inch screen. Hmmm.

1 person liked this |
Staff
Steve Steve said:

Reading this on three Dell U3011 displays at 7680 x 1600 and it looks really stretched lol

Guest said:

@amstech: You could be right. My 27 inch 2560x1440 has a higher pixel density than your 30 inch 2560x1600, and it really is prettier, I have seen both monitors side by side. On a 2 inch screen however, you wouldn't even be able to see the pixel. I'm just saying it's not useful unless you use your device from a millimeter away from your face - even then. I'm not saying that's a bad thing though.

Trillionsin Trillionsin said:

@amstech: You could be right. My 27 inch 2560x1440 has a higher pixel density than your 30 inch 2560x1600, and it really is prettier, I have seen both monitors side by side. On a 2 inch screen however, you wouldn't even be able to see the pixel. I'm just saying it's not useful unless you use your device from a millimeter away from your face - even then. I'm not saying that's a bad thing though.

reading this on my (800 x 480) Super AMOLED Plus capacitive touchscreen and I can see the pixels. hmmm

Guest said:

30 inch 2560x1600 is 100ppi.

27 inch 2560x1440 is 108ppi.

2.3 inch 1280x800 is 651ppi.

A 651ppi screen is 6.02 times the pixel density of a 27 inch 2560x1440 monitor and 6.51 times the pixel density of a 30 inch 2560x1600 monitor.

I have a stuck pixel on my 108ppi monitor, and without knowing where it is I would never see it. In fact I literally have to set a black background and search from a few inches away just to see it. I have perfect vision (according to my last eye test a few months ago).

I'm not saying stop advancing in technology, I was merely pointing out the obvious. Maybe they should be focusing on high resolution screens with high refresh rates instead.

Rather than having to settle on a TN monitor with horrendous viewing angles to have 120hz for gaming. Luckily for me I picked up a Yamakasi Catleap 2B monitor and am running my 2560x1440 IPS screen overclocked at 120hz.

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

@Steve - send me two of those Dell 30's and it'll stop looking so stretched

@Guest - Wow - I hadn't seen folks getting those to 120 yet - was it a difficult OC? I've been reading up on those Catleaps and A***** ( don't remember the exact name) and they're very, very interesting.

Technochicken Technochicken, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Note:

double the number of pixels per square inch found on the iPhone's retina display

should read

double the number of pixels per square inch found on the iPhone's retina display

or

double quadruple the number of pixels per square inch found on the iPhone's retina display

Twice the pixels per inch (651 vs the iPhone's 326) is four times the pixels per square inch.

Guest said:

@LNCPapa: See 120hz.net

Since the 2B versions are no longer being made, 120hz.net organized a group buy and I was lucky enough to get one. They're expecting more in week or two. The important component is the PCB, they are also having it reverse engineered and plan to reproduce them. So if you're not lucky enough to buy one, you can get a regular Catleap and swap the PCB later. The PCB should theoretically be compatible with Dell and even Apple displays since they all use the same LG panel. Of course those could require some modding.

Your best bet is finding a good Catleap and then swapping PCBs will be simple. Make sure to stay away from multi-input versions, as they cause extra input lag, stick with the basic model (Catleap Q270 SE).

The limiting factor to the overclock is your graphics card. Some cards can hit 135hz, some can only hit 85hz. However an AMD driver was recently released that should let most AMD users hit 125hz. Check out their site, read up about it. Gaming at 2560x1440@120hz with a constant 120fps is unbelievable!

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

That's precisely why I've been looking at these - I want to get a 120Hz monitor but I'd also really like something higher than 1920x1080. I thought I read that most people are getting 2C models now so I guess that's why they're only talking 97-104Hz with those.

madboyv1, TechSpot Paladin, said:

Ha ha, here I am with my U2410 and my U2211H and I go "ooh ah, this 2410 is biiig compared to my 2211 and my old syncmaster 914..." and Steve goes and talked about his triple 3011s. I too would love to see higher density screens. I am afraid 27"+ screens would be too big for my desk space (let alone multiple ones), but at the same time 2560x#### screens sound so appealing.

Guest said:

Guest said: "Reading this on my 2560x1440 27inch monitor and I can't imagine needing a higher pixel density. Especially not on a 2 inch screen. hmm"

Obviously you have no clue what the difference is between pixel density and resolution.....sigh

Guest said:

Guest said: "I'm not saying stop advancing in technology, I was merely pointing out the obvious. Maybe they should be focusing on high resolution screens with high refresh rates instead."

Another one who doesn't get the difference between resolution and pixel density....sigh

A higher resolution for the SANE sized monitor IS(!) a higher PPI. Why on earth would you like to have a higher resolution with the same PPI? Who likes to look at a 40" screen while sitting at a desk? Who likes to have a laptop with a 23" screen? You obviously never looked at a retina display and then at your 100ppi monitor to understand what kind of a huge difference it makes.

Guest said:

Guest said: "2560x1440 IPS screen overclocked at 120hz."

120hz is pure overkill and only reduces the life cycle of your monitor.

gwailo247, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

We all know this was done so that they can make the pixels covering genitals in JAV even smaller.

DanUK DanUK said:

Would love to see this implemented, bet multimedia on a display with that pixel density would look superb.

Guest said:

**** off.

Guest said:

@Guest, Today at 4:00 AM & Guest, Today at 4:07 AM: Thank you captain obvious, would you like a gold star? The fact that I specifically mentioned the ppi along with the monitor size and resolution shows I know what I am talking about. Then you pick one poorly worded sentence below that. You're a troll, go away.

Guest said:

lol@trolling guest above:

100PPI would look the same on a 2 inch screen as a 50 inch screen, the resolution would just be larger. However you wouldn't be looking at a 50 inch screen from the same distance as a 2 inch screen.

Guest said:

@guest who thinks 120hz is overkill: Use a 120hz monitor for fps gaming on a computer that keeps a constant 120fps, then try playing that same game on a 60hz monitor with 60fps. You will buy a 120hz monitor on the spot. You don't realize you missing out when using a 60hz monitor, not until you see how fluid a 120hz monitor is.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

^ I have a 120hz 23" and while its overall a little smoother, the difference isn't much if you have the power to lock games at 60FPS. My U3011 offers a far superior gaming experience.... It's 95% as fluid/smooth.

With a 120hz panel, your stuck at a lowly 1080p as well.

You get what you pay for.

For an eyefinity/3DS setup I wouldn't use a U3011. The bezel is too thick and those large resolutions are still a little ahead of its time. Maybe in a couple years when they have 4K 120hz panels :P

LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Think you should read the rest of the thread first amstech. First, your U3011 is only 50% as smooth... technically. Second, the discussion we're having is about a Catleap running at 120Hz - the Catleap 27 is a 2560x1440 monitor.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

This comment "First, your U3011 is only 50% as smooth... technically" doesn't address anything I said nor does it counter any points I made.

You carefully read before your post.

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

Anyways, not trying to be prick just saying!

"Edit on last post"

"You should read carefully before you post"

Guest said:

Shouldn't the "pixels per SQUARE INCH" read instead as LINEAR inches?

Why do people get ppi mixed up like that? After all, even FAX machines are 200 dpi, but if they were 200 pixels total per square inch they would only have 14.14 pixels on each side from top to bottom! Let us just test that here for a moment-

..............

There you go, 14 pixels, if a person wants to check it out, the "dpi" (or "ppi) concept is not the same as pixels per square inch. One letter of the alphabet alone could use up 14 or more pixels. Square inches are not the same as dpi.

Guest said:

sorry last guest you are mistaken, dpi stands for dot-pixel-inches and is the SI unit for splungeness in color printing

Guest said:

I guess people forget about the IBM 22 inch 3840x2400 LCD monitor from like 2003(?) that is over 600ppi. We did this nearly ten years ago (of course it was probably 20k to buy, now like $350). Why can't we see just 2560x1600 or x1440 monitors with 120hz... bah.. oh well.

spydercanopus spydercanopus said:

You're gonna want that PPI when you upgrade your 'iContact Lenses'.

Guest said:

I missed that before..... DPI stands for Dots Per Inch. :/

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.