Omnimaga
Calculator Community => OTcalc => Discontinued => Major Community Projects => [OTcalc] Z80-Hardware => Topic started by: alberthrocks on August 25, 2010, 01:46:58 am
-
As the title says: What do you want the screen resolution to be?
Consider the CPU speed, the cost of the screen, and the use of the resolution.
Especially consider the cost - you don't want the screen costing a half or a third of the total cost!
Note that the screen will be grayscale, and that the size should be similar (maybe 1/4-1/2 cm off) to the TI-83/84 screen size.
-
I put 240x160. Not huge, but its a very reasonable resolution for a calculator. Also cuts cost
-
1920x1080.
just kidding :P
I think for the OTZ80 calc, 240x160 seems fine. Not too big and not too small.
-
240x160 seems
fine great to me!
if it get's too expensive (which I am not sure about) then we might go one step lower but I think we Definetely want more then good ol' 96x64
-
I voted 192x128-it'll be good enough for a calc, cost less than the others, and make our lives easier when writing a compatibility layer for 8x programs. (multiple of 96x64)
Also, I think the screens themselves aren't grayscale, just the lcd driver does the same thing we do with calc grayscale, though a lot more efficiently.
-
Why not have hardware greyscale? Basically, it is the same thing we do with software grey, but the LCD Hardware Controller outputs lower and higher voltages, using Pulse Width Modulation (basically, the only way for digital stuff to do analog output) and that is exactly what we do with software Grey, except that the controller can do it much faster. Combining hardware and software can get you around 64-level greyscale with a fast calc.
-
Was I not clear? I meant the same thing you said.
-
I voted 192x128-it'll be good enough for a calc, cost less than the others, and make our lives easier when writing a compatibility layer for 8x programs. (multiple of 96x64)
Agreed :) And it's tied.
-
I voted for 240X160, although the next size down wouldn't be too bad either.
-
I voted 192x128-it'll be good enough for a calc, cost less than the others, and make our lives easier when writing a compatibility layer for 8x programs. (multiple of 96x64)
Also, I think the screens themselves aren't grayscale, just the lcd driver does the same thing we do with calc grayscale, though a lot more efficiently.
I dont know very much about screens, but this comment does it for me. I know how hard compatibility can be for some hardware.
-
Yeah we need a LCD driver that either has native grayscale (4 levels?) or supports good looking grayscale. Something like the original TI-89 HW1. By HW2, grayscale started to look a bit less good.
-
So, in the end, no one voted for 96x64 :D
Guess it really does suck...
-
Yeah it does. Few lines of text at once, unless you use small fonts, which are harder to read x.x
-
Right, so will this still use 5x7?
-
Idk. I guess anything that is easy to read on small screen but won't take too much space on the screen.
-
I heard somewhere (I think it was the Mosaic topic; I'm not sure) that someone came up with a 4x4 font. Does anyone have a link?
-
[[Post retracted because I obviously did not convey what I meant to say well enough, and it was unnecessary]]
Post retracted by: graphmastur. I actually intended to retract it before DJ gave that notice, btw. Alberthro explained it slightly better. I was concerned about having TI code on the OT calc, but it's all good now. ;-)
-
Well first of all, nobody voted 192x168, because there is no 192x168 option in the poll. Also, what this resolution in particular have to do with TI compatibility? No TI-BASIC compatibility is even planned in the first place. All that matters is having a not expensive screen, easy on the processor for the platform but large enough to allow more text at once while still keeping it easy to read.
Also, remember the larger the screen, the longer it takes to update.
94x64 = 6144 pixels
192x128 = 24576
240x160 = 38400 (about 1.5x slower than the previous res.)
320x240 = 76800 (now you know why Nspire raycaster isn't much more faster than it is despite running at 150 MHz)
That said, I voted for 240x160, because it seems more like a generic resolution, while not being overly large.
I think you are jumping on people who voted otherwise here just because they have a different opinion than you. If you didn't want people to vote that, then why did you kept the option included in the poll in the first place? Sorry, but while you improved a lot since the TIBD/UTI incidents in 2009, unlike a few others, on the point of respecting other people opinions and not imposing yours on them you still have a long way to go. Sorry for being rude but I don't tolerate posts like the above on the forums. At least Matthias1992 stopped doing those.
-
Well first of all, nobody voted 192x168, because there is no 192x168 option in the poll. Also, what this resolution in particular have to do with TI compatibility? No TI-BASIC compatibility is even planned in the first place. All that matters is having a not expensive screen, easy on the processor for the platform but large enough to allow more text at once while still keeping it easy to read.
Also, remember the larger the screen, the longer it takes to update.
94x64 = 6144 pixels
192x128 = 24576
240x160 = 38400 (about 1.5x slower than the previous res.)
320x240 = 76800 (now you know why Nspire raycaster isn't much more faster than it is despite running at 150 MHz)
That said, I voted for 240x160, because it seems more like a generic resolution, while not being overly large.
I think you are jumping on people who voted otherwise here just because they have a different opinion than you. If you didn't want people to vote that, then why did you kept the option included in the poll in the first place? Sorry, but while you improved a lot since the TIBD/UTI incidents in 2009, unlike a few others, on the point of respecting other people opinions and not imposing yours on them you still have a long way to go. Sorry for being rude but I don't tolerate posts like the above on the forums. At least Matthias1992 stopped doing those.
See, that's why I talk to alberthro. Also, I don't jump on people because of their choices. I actually would choose 192x128. (typo in the other post) Alberthro just explained a little better that there would be no TI code on the calc. That was what I was afraid of, you see. But with on on-computer converter, that is a lot better. I just wanted to make sure that people weren't expecting to run TI-basic directly on their calc.
Anyway, I was about to retract the post because alberthro explained it better. Also, I don't have the ability to edit this poll. That's probably because me and alberthro don't have mod status in the ot forum. meh... Oh well. I hint well, don't I? lol. but yeah, I just didn't want to have TI code on OT type thing.
-
Ah ok. As for mods that might become handy in the future. I would like to at least set permissions for specific project authors so they can sticky/unsticky/unlock/edit polls so it is easier for non-staff to manage (as well as giving less work on actual staff)
-
Ah ok. As for mods that might become handy in the future. I would like to at least set permissions for specific project authors so they can sticky/unsticky/unlock/edit polls so it is easier for non-staff to manage (as well as giving less work on actual staff)
Yep. Anyway, how complicated is that?
-
It depends. last time I tried doing that it seemed to mess some other things up. However, I was still not that experienced in SMF. It may just take quite a bit before I do it, since I work all weekend and don't do much forum management stuff on work days.
-
It depends. last time I tried doing that it seemed to mess some other things up. However, I was still not that experienced in SMF. It may just take quite a bit before I do it, since I work all weekend and don't do much forum management stuff on work days.
That's fine. It's not really necessary, just curious if it was possible. Anyway, thanks.
-
No problem :)
-
I would be alright with 192 x 128 or 240 x 160, and think we should go with whichever one is cheaper. 320 x 240 just seems a bit much, and 96 x 64 is far too small (we're trying to beat TI here, aren't we?).
Also, 100th post!
-
I was looking around, and I discovered 240x160 lcds are equally hard to come by.
We should hold a revote, but actually confirm that the resolutions are available before voting.
-
I was looking around, and I discovered 240x160 lcds are equally hard to come by.
We should hold a revote, but actually confirm that the resolutions are available before voting.
Good idea. I would also like to look at pricing overall, as well. I also want to look at how you access it. Ie, is it memory mapped or not.