the way i see it, it makes perfect sense to have 16bit depth to the colours
even if the screen is tiny. sure, 4096 colours might not be all bad, but
256 colours clearly isnt enough. especially as it remaps 24bit rgb values
(the java work with 24bit values) onto 256 colour using a 3:3:2 palette.
which, of course, looks ugly.
if im wrong and if its possible to actually set the palette somehow please
let me know. it would solve some 'problems' on P503i/F503i here. :)
At 07:06 11.03.01 -0600, you wrote:
>On Sat, 10 Mar 2001, JAPON.NET wrote:
>
>> Here you go
>>
>> 65,536 colors TFT
>> 120x160 dots
>> 2.1 inch screen
>> 8x8 text lines (10x9 for eMail?)
>
>With 120x 160 dots, you could hold a whole lot more. You only need
>6x11 to hold a recognizable English char (space included), so with
>that, you can have 20(char)x14(lines). I would imagine they will
>increase the pixel density. It just doesn't make sesen to have
>16 bits ( that is high resolution, my 20 inch is using 16bits
>coloring.) with little pixel size. If they double each dimension,
>that would be awesome. Also, with 3G coming, that is inevitable.
>It just doesn't make sense to see a cartoonish person on
>the video screen( 8 bits?, you are kidding me.)
>
>Hubert
[ Did you check the archives? http://www.appelsiini.net/keitai-l/ ]
Received on Tue Mar 13 18:07:46 2001