I'm doing design research in preparation for building my own high end mirrorless digital camera.
I'm interesting in how people prioritize size vs. resolution.
Assume your only options are these three panels, and assume they all have identical color accuracy, sunlight visibility, etc. Which would you pick and why?
vsg28 wrote:
You are going to build your own DSLR?
No, it's going to be mirrorless. Much more rugged build quality than a typical mirrorless, though (closer to a high-end DSLR).
vsg28 wrote:
I vote for Option 4: 1.04 million dots on 3" such as 60D (Articulating is a bonus)
That'd be ideal because not only is it higher resolution, it's 3:2 aspect ratio rather than 4:3, so the image can fill the screen. Unfortunately, that panel is Canon-exclusive so not an option
My focus would be on sunlight readability!!! I would review any transflective advancements vs transmissive modes and also design a timed high luminosity mode to the backlight.
Fine grain focusing that is particularly important to an EVIL camera would benefit greatly from having a higher pixel density in order to better convey the focal plane. That said, rchb has a point - if it isn't bright enough to see in peak sunlight the screen is useless. Color me interested to see where this is going, particularly with your CAD experience and detail oriented persona. Good luck amigo and keep me up to date!
The Apple iPad retina screens have about 260 ppi and you can't separate the pixels without a magnifier. Put another way, more than 260ppi is wasted on almost everyone even with excellent eyesight.
Alan321 wrote:
The Apple iPad retina screens have about 260 ppi and you can't separate the pixels without a magnifier. Put another way, more than 260ppi is wasted on almost everyone even with excellent eyesight.
But you are viewing a much larger screen area with the iPad...9.7", viewing 2048-by-1536. So you need 2048-by-1536 in the much smaller 22.3x14.9mm viewfinder area to provide equivalent angular pixel density...3 MPixel, where the best of the EVF LCDs today are only 1.5 MPixel !!!
Look at how much more blurry the iPad 2 display is, in comparison...
You certainly need higher DPI at EVF viewing distances than tablet viewing distances.
I don't have anywhere near the math skills to figure out exactly how much higher, but my gut tells me that same-number-of-pixels is overkill. The 1024x768 (2560 DPI) ECX331A panel in Sony's NEX-7 compares favorably to a 2048x1536 (260 DPI) tablet, in my opinion.
I'd like to thank lou f and Paul.K for their support and encouragement. I'm sure your rich, full lives made it difficult to find the time to contribute such helpful and on-topic comments.
Since Steve Jobs wrote all the OS X code himself, Carl Zeiss invented Zeiss's most enduring optical designs (who's Paul Rudolf?), and Jim Jannard laid out Epic's ASICs, I can see how not being a computer engineer precludes me from ever starting a camera company.
Not trying to discourage you at all. I did not know you were part of a team to build the camera and I also don't know the timeline of your plans either. It just seems like a hard start up so I wish you the best of luck. If you're asking about LCD size, it would SEEM to me that you are sorta far along in the designs. If not, I would take a step back and make sure you or your team fully understand the technical problem and engineering difficulties associated with building electronic devices, much more a high-end camera.
If you want the "right" number of pixels, match human visual acuity...any other pitch is "random."
Human acuity is 50Hz/degree of viewing angle.
DO the math at your assumed viewing distance and target that.
Picking a pitch driven by any other factor is your call, but why not start with a factor that has some science behind it instead of what other products choose
wilt wrote:
... where the best of the EVF LCDs today are only 1.5 MPixel !!!/
Haven't Sony and Seiko/Epson been trumpeting their 2+million pixel OLED/LCD[respectively] finders on various Sony, Fuji, and Olympus cameras currently on the market?
Keith B. wrote:
Haven't Sony and Seiko/Epson been trumpeting their 2+million pixel OLED/LCD[respectively] finders on various Sony, Fuji, and Olympus cameras currently on the market?
Nope, that's a marketing trick based on the difference between pixels and dots. A pixel is made up of three dots (a red, a green, and a blue).
Nikon could advertise the D800's 640x480 pixel LCD as "307,200 pixel" or "921,600 dot," so of course they choose the latter.
I believe Red's new OLED EVF uses the panel from French company MicroOLED which is the highest resolution on the market (1280x1024 = 1,310,720 pixels = 3,932,160 dots)
