Re: wherefore CGM?

Ian Graham (ianweb@smaug.java.utoronto.ca)
Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:41:27 -0500 (EST)


From: ianweb@smaug.java.utoronto.ca (Ian Graham)
Message-Id: <199612091441.JAA10535@smaug.java.utoronto.ca>
Subject: Re: wherefore CGM?
To: davidp@earthlink.net (David Perrell)
Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 09:41:27 -0500 (EST)
Cc: www-html@w3.org
In-Reply-To: <199612070344.TAA07274@armenia.it.earthlink.net> from "David Perrell" at Dec 6, 96 07:41:05 pm

> 
> Ian Graham wrote:
> > A recent Scientific American article (an isssue from
> > this past summer) described a new LCD display with
> > > 200 dpi resolution, in full color, and readable in 
> > daylight (I believe it was a passive panel that 
> > used reflective light) The researchers projected 600 
> > dpi before long. A display with the resolution of 
> > printed paper -- now that's an exciting prospect!
> 
> Wow. 600ppi at 24 bits/pixel? That's much better than print. That's
> enough to dither for true photo quality. Was there any speculation when
> we'd get an 17" x 11" display? (Hmm... that's about a 14Gb display
> buffer. Not much hope for smooth animation any time soon!)

No time frames, unfortunately.  It was still a research project,
and the demonstration panels mesures only  3" x3", or thereabouts
(palm-sized).  I'll try and find the article this week, and
will mail you the volume and issue number.

Ian

> 
> David Perrell
>