Nintendo Announces Dual-Screen Portable

In small, low-res handheld screen, it is more benefical to use two screens, than to split the one screen in parts.
 
No its not .

Your example is flawed.

It be like keeping the 50 inch screen for myself and giving my friends another 50 inch screen.

You miss it again. I am comparing your 50" with 3" buddy, note the difference in size.

See the thing your missing is that they are two screens of equal size.

The thing you're missing is your example is 50" screen and this is 3" screen we are talking about. Doubling 50" screen, you gained 100% of viewing area, even doubling 3" screen you also gained 100% of viewing area. One you gained 50" another you gain 3". Note the large size different.

One screen of 4.5 inchs would have icons and other status bars on it.It would clutter it up so even though the two 3 inch screens may equal 1 4.5 inch screen There would be more room for the actual playing field.

Like I said, this is a stab at Gameboy. So I guess you're complaining about Gameboy now huh ? I always complained about small viewing area of Gameboy. But I don't see you complaining about it before.

Not to mention being able to display secondary views or in a link up co op game a view of what your friend is doing and where they are.

I don't disagree with having an own screen for multiplayer.

By splitting a 4.5 inch screen in half either verticly or horizontally the viewing area will become less than that of the two 3 inch screens.

If you don't like 4.5" screen, you can combine that two 3" screens into one bigger screens, that will give exact same viewing area as when it was split into two.
 
In small, low-res handheld screen, it is more benefical to use two screens, than to split the one screen in parts.

?? Isn't there a choice for high res handheld screen ??
 
V3 said:
In small, low-res handheld screen, it is more benefical to use two screens, than to split the one screen in parts.

?? Isn't there a choice for high res handheld screen ??
?
I mean relatively low res, and that the fact that screen is small, so no matter what the resolution, a small text is very difficult to read on handheld screens.
 
Let's all remember that the area gained from going to 4.5" to 2x3" is not THAT much. It won't make a whole lot of difference in the end, what will make a difference is the fact that those full-screen games will have a bloody break in the middle...
 
london-boy said:
Let's all remember that the area gained from going to 4.5" to 2x3" is not THAT much. It won't make a whole lot of difference in the end, what will make a difference is the fact that those full-screen games will have a bloody break in the middle...
If fact it's a loss, if you're talking about screens of equal-dimension: 20.25 sq.in. versus 9 + 9 sq.in. But fairly square screens don't take to splitting down the middle well, so to emulate what they want from their two 3" ones, they'd need an stretched widescreen-aspect LCD to mount vertically. From THAT respect, it becomes a very custom job, and likely a lot more expensive than two individual ones that are typical to most devices out there. (And will be less prone to injury as well, and less prone to failure in general.) Two screens I think is mainly a price option, and the only option if they ARE going to clamshell the device and give the screens variable positioning that way, but if they lock them together at close proximity... I'll regret that they didn't opt for the method that gives developers more options and makes everything look better. (Though likely becomes more challenging to program for. ;) )
 
cthellis42 said:
If fact it's a loss, if you're talking about screens of equal-dimension: 20.25 sq.in. versus 9 + 9 sq.in.
Your area calculation is a bit wrong; 3" or 4.5" are the diagonals of the screen, not the side. But I think the ratio is right, one 4.5" screen is 12.5% larger than 2 3" screens of the same aspect ratio (20.25/18=1.125). If the screens have different aspect ratios it changes of course, so I made this table of screen area in square inches for easier comparison:
Code:
         1 x 4.5"  2 x 3"
   1:1    10.1      9.0
   5:4     9.9      8.8
   4:3     9.7      8.6
   3:2     9.3      8.3
  16:10    9.1      8.1
  16:9     8.7      7.7
Please correct me if I've screwed it up.

As you can see, 2 3" screens with an aspect ratio of 4:3 or 5:4 will have roughly the same area as one 16:9 4.5" screen. If Nintendos Dual-screen Portable will have roughly the same screen area as the PSP, maybe it will have roughly the same number of pixels as well? If they go for 1:1 aspect ratio, two screens with 256x255 resolution would have exactly the same amount of pixels as the PSPs 480x272 screen. 2 times 272x240 would of course also have the same number of pixels. If the 2 screens are going to have the same total # of pixels as the PSP, they might be somewhere in the neigbourhood of the following resolution:
Code:
   1:1      256x255
   5:4      286x228
   4:3      295x221
   3:2      313x208
  16:10     323x202
  16:9      340x192
Of course, Nintendo could use two screens with different resolution, although I somewhat doubt that. Disclaimer: This is only meant to be speculation, I don't know anything about what Nintendo really intend to do. :)
 
So a 4.5" screen IS ultimately bigger than two 3" screens put together...? Not like i really care about half inch differences....
 
london-boy said:
So a 4.5" screen IS ultimately bigger than two 3" screens put together...? Not like i really care about half inch differences....

Hey, don't make it that short; 2 * 3" is likely to have a bit more resolution-wise...
 
london-boy said:
hupfinsgack said:
Hey, don't make it that short; 2 * 3" is likely to have a bit more resolution-wise...


Why would it? (Serious question, i've switched my Sarcasm Menu off...)

Well, forget it, my brain's out of order today, too much learning can seriously damage your mental capability.
 
Thanks to MagicBox for compiling the news:

Konami announced they will support the Nintendo dual-screen portable, corresponding titles are currently under development.

- Nintendo has revealed new info regarding to Nintendo DS. Shigeru Miyamoto will reveal new titles for the system at E3. Game software will be released in the form of flash cards, which have low manufacturing costs similar to discs. Further function of the system will be revealed at E3, include wireless function and third party software.
 
V3 said:
It actually will use that Matrix 3D memory technology, that Nintendo license sometimes ago.

Any specification and details about that?

IGN.com said:
More details on Nintendo's mysterious new DS portable system have come our way via the latest issue of Japan's Famitsu magazine.

The magazine clears up some confusion regarding the system's game storage media. Rather than standard cartridges, the DS will make use of thin card-type media. Apparently, this form of media uses a new type of semiconductor whose production cost is close to that of optical disk (DVD, CD, etc.). In addition, the media allows for quicker turnover times over cartridges in case of reorders for product.

Details on the system's appearance and functionality are also discussed by the magazine. The DS will make use of an LCD screen different from that of the Game Boy Advance. The possibility for connectivity with the Game Boy Advance has yet to be determined. However, Nintendo isn't so reserved on the idea of wireless LAN support, saying details on this feature will have to wait until E3. This seems to confirm that the system will indeed have wireless LAN.


And, just in case you were wondering, Nintendo plans on making use of rechargeable battery to power the system.


The magazine also reveals some details on software development. Development for the system has begun, with Miyamoto himself taking part. Nintendo feels that it will be able to reveal specifics on third party support at E3.


Pricing and launch details will have to wait until E3 and beyond. Nintendo plans to announce the price at E3, but this announcement could slip to the summer depending on the state of the LCD market. As for a launch date, Nintendo is currently planning for a worldwide simultaneous release at the end of 2004. However, this could change, again depending on the state of the LCD market. The company plans on revealing solid details on the launch of the system following its May financial report.

IGN.com said:
The new Nintendo DS was briefly discussed and it was confirmed that EA is in the midst of assessing the status of the new system.
 
So Nintendo goes its own way just like they did with GCN media... Is there any special copy protection?

I don't think Matrix 3D memory is exclusive to Nintendo, so I don't think its like GCN media.

As for copy protection, I assume there is.
 
Gamespot takes on 3D screen.

RUMOR #2: The Nintendo DS will incorporate 3D technology from Sharp.

Source: UK-based online game mag Gamesindustry.biz.

The official story: A Sharp spokesperson did not confirm nor deny the story. However, given the company's history with Nintendo, the rep added such news would not be a surprise. E-mails to Nintendo were not returned.

What we heard: Sharp actually stopped by the GameSpot offices to show off its impressive 3D technology, which displays two slightly askew images on a single screen to create the illusion of three dimensions. Apparently someone heard the words "two" and "screen," thought "DS," and started posting away. They might have also remembered the two companies' industry-shattering 1989 collaboration, the Sharp NES TV, and figured one loopy idea warrants another. Still, Nintendo and Sharp's silence could mean they're hiding something... that or they can't be bothered to respond to pesky reporters' idle gossip. It's doubtful that Nintendo could incorporate such premium technology into the DS and keep its price low enough to arouse interest in such a, err, unique system.

Bogus or not bogus?: The thing already has us seeing double--making it 3D would make millions cock-eyed. Bogus.

Given that they've seen the technology and after reading their comment I wished it to be bogus too.
 
V3 said:
Given that they've seen the technology and after reading their comment I wished it to be bogus too.

Well, I said before that I'd be a cool gimmick. But there're some issues.

hupfinsgack said:
But there're some issues with that Sharp 3d technology:

1) the viewing distance to the screen has to be a constant distance, otherwise you'll lose the 3d effect
2) you'll have to look straight at the display or at small angle, otherwise you'll lose the 3d effect
 
Back
Top