Touch screen low resolution with dual view

I have a Prestige Lux on order with a dual view screen, and while in the showroom I noticed a fairly alarming (for me) thing. The touch screen is very grainy and low resolution. I didn't know what to make of it initially, because in the showroom there was also a Pure and its screen was much sharper.

After some thought I realized this is dual view that makes the screen grainy. The way they did it is to make each alternate row of pixels visible from opposite directions, so in reality you only see half of the pixels from each side.

This is quite a showstopper for me, the difference is like night and day. I hate low resolution screens with a passion, plus I have surround cameras in the package which will be only half the fun with half the pixels

I don't really need the dual view screen or the TV that comes with the Lux package, but unfortunately there is no way to opt out of them. So I think I will be switching back to regular Prestige and adding all the relevant options separately and leaving out dual view. It will cost a bit more and hurt the resale value, but I'll get a proper screen at least.

It's a shame LR did it this way, you pay more for the Lux pack and you get a poor man's screen in reward.

Has anyone noticed the same? Maybe it's a one-off and dual view screens on other Evoques are high res?

I await to take delivery of a Dynamic Lux and your comments concern me. I have actually not seen one working so I cannot comment, however I do believe that you have to press a button to turn the dual view on. If this remains off, I hope that the display is crystal clear. Perhaps someone can verify this.

(13-01-2014 07:41pm)Fordste Wrote:  I await to take delivery of a Dynamic Lux and your comments concern me. I have actually not seen one working so I cannot comment, however I do believe that you have to press a button to turn the dual view on. If this remains off, I hope that the display is crystal clear. Perhaps someone can verify this.

Unfortunately the structure of pixels is hardwired into the display and cannot be turned off. When you "turn off" dual view, all it does is that both rows of pixels display the same thing, effectively showing the same image to both sides. This does not change the fact that on each side only 1/2 of the pixels is visible. If it was possible to turn it off I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I've actually had a very careful look at the dual view screen in the showroom. By moving your head from side to side you can see rows of pixels disappearing while other rows are appearing.

That's how the structure looks like (L - pixels visible to left side only, R - pixels visible to right side only)

LRLR...
LRLR...
LRLR...
LRLR...

The same bit of non-dual view screen looks like that (B - pixels visible to both sides):

BBBB...
BBBB...
BBBB...
BBBB...

As you can see, on this small bit of the screen there are 8 pixels visible to each side in dual-view, while there are 16 in non-dual view. Hence much sharper image.

The proper thing to do for Land Rover would be to double the horizontal resolution of a dual-view display, which would keep the resolution perceived on both sides the same. It seems they haven't done so, effectively halving the resolution in dual-view models. At least in the one I've seen in the showroom (it's a 2014 Dynamic Lux model as far as I remember).

(13-01-2014 09:02pm)kaalus Wrote:  Unfortunately the structure of pixels is hardwired into the display and cannot be turned off. When you "turn off" dual view, all it does is that both rows of pixels display the same thing, effectively showing the same image to both sides. This does not change the fact that on each side only 1/2 of the pixels is visible. If it was possible to turn it off I wouldn't have a problem with it.

I've actually had a very careful look at the dual view screen in the showroom. By moving your head from side to side you can see rows of pixels disappearing while other rows are appearing.

That's how the structure looks like (L - pixels visible to left side only, R - pixels visible to right side only)

LRLR...
LRLR...
LRLR...
LRLR...

The same bit of non-dual view screen looks like that (B - pixels visible to both sides):

BBBB...
BBBB...
BBBB...
BBBB...

As you can see, on this small bit of the screen there are 8 pixels visible to each side in dual-view, while there are 16 in non-dual view. Hence much sharper image.

The proper thing to do for Land Rover would be to double the horizontal resolution of a dual-view display, which would keep the resolution perceived on both sides the same. It seems they haven't done so, effectively halving the resolution in dual-view models. At least in the one I've seen in the showroom (it's a 2014 Dynamic Lux model as far as I remember).

Thanks for the update.

It's good to see that it looks like we are paying quite considerably more money for a somewhat inferior product. Well done LRJ, keep up the good work

Other manufacturers seem to have embraced new technology in their infotainment systems including album art work, internet enablement etc, it looks like LRJ are falling behind.

Touch screen is also has low resolution due to dual view. Both views are take equal resolution.

(13-01-2014 06:51pm)kaalus Wrote:  I have a Prestige Lux on order with a dual view screen, and while in the showroom I noticed a fairly alarming (for me) thing. The touch screen is very grainy and low resolution. I didn't know what to make of it initially, because in the showroom there was also a Pure and its screen was much sharper.

I noticed this when I sat in the new Sport at a country show. I was shocked to see how low resolution the screen was compared to my Evoque. If I was a passenger there's no way I'd enjoy watching a DVD on that screen - firstly because the resolution is crap and secondly becuase I'd feel very sick!

If you're used to the resolution of an Apple Retina Display, even the standard screen looks decidedly low rent and I agree the Dual View is compromised and to be avoided. The problem is that it's not just a question of having more pixels; you need the processing power and video channel capability to back it up.

The big issue to my mind with the surround cameras is that when you select reverse, you only get the reversing camera even if you have selected the surround cameras beforehand so there is no way to watch the wheels as you reverse into a parallel parking place.

It's one example of the bone-headed, asleep on the job approach to software development at JLR.

Another example. Although the TPM sensors transmit the actual tyre pressures to the car, they are not displayable anywhere and all you see is a warning when the pressure gets low.

(16-01-2014 07:52am)mark_n Wrote:  If you're used to the resolution of an Apple Retina Display, even the standard screen looks decidedly low rent and I agree the Dual View is compromised and to be avoided. The problem is that it's not just a question of having more pixels; you need the processing power and video channel capability to back it up.

The big issue to my mind with the surround cameras is that when you select reverse, you only get the reversing camera even if you have selected the surround cameras beforehand so there is no way to watch the wheels as you reverse into a parallel parking place.

It's one example of the bone-headed, asleep on the job approach to software development at JLR.

Another example. Although the TPM sensors transmit the actual tyre pressures to the car, they are not displayable anywhere and all you see is a warning when the pressure gets low.

Fully agree with that. In-car electronics seems like they came straight from the 1990s. How come a cheap chinese tablet at £49.99 can have a better screen than LR Evoque at £40k?

The best thing any car manufacturer could do is to build an Android tablet into the dashboard. Android is an open system so they could skin and lock it down to their liking, like Samsung, Motorola or HTC do with their phones. Compared with a standalone tablet, they could save on battery (not needed), case, cameras, speakers and probably many other components that make up today's tablets. All they really need is a CPU and a touchscreen. The cost would be tiny, probably less than £50 if they bought in bulk, even if they used high-end components (which I hope they would - no point skimping there to save £20).

Once this is done, just make a Java app to display car status, cameras and whatever else they want.

Imagine the benefits. Google Maps on your dashboard (instead of rubbish proprietary satnavs). High resolution responsive touchscreen with wide viewing angles. Playing videos in any format, audio in any format. Thousands of developers out there creating apps for your car.

(16-01-2014 07:14pm)kaalus Wrote:  Fully agree with that. In-car electronics seems like they came straight from the 1990s. How come a cheap chinese tablet at £49.99 can have a better screen than LR Evoque at £40k?

The best thing any car manufacturer could do is to build an Android tablet into the dashboard. Android is an open system so they could skin and lock it down to their liking, like Samsung, Motorola or HTC do with their phones. Compared with a standalone tablet, they could save on battery (not needed), case, cameras, speakers and probably many other components that make up today's tablets. All they really need is a CPU and a touchscreen. The cost would be tiny, probably less than £50 if they bought in bulk, even if they used high-end components (which I hope they would - no point skimping there to save £20).

Once this is done, just make a Java app to display car status, cameras and whatever else they want.

Imagine the benefits. Google Maps on your dashboard (instead of rubbish proprietary satnavs). High resolution responsive touchscreen with wide viewing angles. Playing videos in any format, audio in any format. Thousands of developers out there creating apps for your car.

Two chances of that happening. None and f@c£ all. Too much profit in installing the low res low quality kit they put in now