> They've "cheated" on the demo's the screens were fed with through a flex connector and had only a few still images on them
How is that cheating? Display technology goes through a bunch of stages before being ready for mass consumption and the first stage after getting 'off the drawing board' would be to feed it data and to see what it looks like with stills. Still images are much harder to get right than motion in display technology because you have just about forever to determine what it looks like. With moving images the eye is much more forgiving.
Hence the quotation marks "cheated" isn't in a bad way, just pointing that the driving part of the display isn't on a nice thin flex package, and we've yet to seen these displays produce high refresh rate images there's a reason why prototypes always show stills things go funky once you have to start turning 8 million odd pixels on and off....
Really, this is a huge step for display tech and it seems a bit much to demand systems integration at that same level right away as well. This is not a product, it's a technology demo.
Which is exactly what I'm saying, were quite a few years away from this being really commercial judging by the current track record of display tech probably about 10 years until its some what widely available in fully integrated systems.
How is that cheating? Display technology goes through a bunch of stages before being ready for mass consumption and the first stage after getting 'off the drawing board' would be to feed it data and to see what it looks like with stills. Still images are much harder to get right than motion in display technology because you have just about forever to determine what it looks like. With moving images the eye is much more forgiving.
Display calibration is always done with stills.