Why can't I have a smartphone display like this?

[dwallersv]

This is my Garmin eTrex Vista Cx from something like 15 years ago. So this is not new technology.

This is the most versatile, readable-in-all-conditions display I have ever seen. It has an excellent, bright, uniform backlight with saturated colors and very good contrast.

In sunlight, it has a reflective backing in the display that produces a brighter, higher-contrast display the brighter the incident light. This clip was shot around noon on a clear day, near summer solstice -- sun doesn't get any brighter.

Now here's the puzzle: It's not just sUAV pilots that would like to see their smartphone in the sun. Geez, it's pretty much everyone! So why? Why? WHY isn't this the standard display technology?

I've written Garmin. It's not super expensive. It's not limited to small size displays. It's nothing special -- an LCD technology.

I really don't get it. Anyway, watch this video clip, and be prepared to be completely dumbfounded...

 

[dirkclod]

Video Is unavailable dwaller .

 

[dwallersv]

Video Is unavailable dwaller .

Found the problem -- forgot to publish.

Should be working now.

 

[quick_dry]

that type of screen was the 'king' of screens when Windows PocketPC was around, screens like that would become BETTER in the sunlight and the device lasted longer as the backlight could turn off because of the reflective coating.

 

[Kilrah]

The problem is that on such transflective displays the color rendering is terrible and "unacceptable" for 99% of current uses. In our case it would be too since there's no way you could judge the exposure/quality of your footage on one. You've got at best the equivalent of a 256-color render, that works great with specifically designed interfaces but not for video/complex images.

You can find some here and there but they're usually tactical/rugged usage-specific devices. They're expensive not becasue the screen is, but becasue the device sells in tiny amounts to only specialized markets.

 

[Cut.Aussie]

I used to sell those Garmin, while the display was great for it's intended purpose you would not buy a modern smartphone with such a limited display

 

[rydfree]

That's nice if all you want to see is 16 colors . People want HD live video now .

 

[Johnmcl7]

The simple answer is that people prefer flashy over functional, some time back when Nokia released their ill fated Maemo devices (which were intended to rival IOS and Android) they opted for a display that was readable in sunlight but meant it was duller under artificial light. I thought it was a reasonable trade off but the display was slammed at the time for being 'inferior' to rival devices.

My previous and current Garmin watches use transreflective displays which I find superb, batterylife is measured in weeks rather than hours, the display is on all the time and it's easily readable. However it looks more basic than rival smart watches that have higher resolutions and it's a frequent criticism of the Garmin smartwatches, with the last one it was quite common for people to complain on the Garmin forum about how bad it was and that they were going to get a different device.

Also a while back, Dell and Apple both released the same 27in 1440p panel but Dell used a conventional backlight and coating to maximise the display gamut and minimise reflections. Apple on the other hand went with an LED backlight to make a narrower, sleeker frame and it had a glossy screen which made it look flashier in the flesh and you still see recommendations for Apple displays for content professionals however the Apple implementation supports a narrow colour gamut and suffers from reflections.

John

 

[Kestrel]

I have one just like it but in yellow. Still works.