[IvanK_net]

Too bad "tiny screens" pretty much do not exist anymore. Screens with hundreds of pixels on each side are very cheap already.

It reminds me people who research "colorizing grayscale photos", which do not exist anymore either (if you want a color photo of someone you met in your life, there probably exists a color photo of that person).

[joefourier]

> Too bad "tiny screens" pretty much do not exist anymore. Screens with hundreds of pixels on each side are very cheap already.

Find me a 0.66" OLED display for ~$1 that has hundreds of pixels on each side then.

> It reminds me people who research "colorizing grayscale photos", which do not exist anymore either (if you want a color photo of someone you met in your life, there probably exists a color photo of that person).

What train of thought led you to think people are primarily researching colorising new B&W photos? As opposed to historical ones, or those of relatives taken when they were young? You can take a colour photo of granddad today but most likely the photos of him in his 20s are all in black and white.

[IvanK_net]

If you know a person who is 70 years old, they were 20 in 1975 - color photos existed back then.

Every grayscale photo of someone famous has already been colorized during the past 50 years. If there are only grayscale photos of you, you were probably born before 1900, and all your friends or your children (who might want to colorize your photo) are probably dead, too.

[joefourier]

1. Improving the colourisation algorithms has value, it might be that the available colourised photos of celebrities have inaccurate colours or are of poorer quality than say, one done with a diffusion model that can be instructed about the colours of certain objects

2. Don’t forget about B&W films! Getting automatic methods to be consistent over a long length is still not 100% solved. People are very interested in seeing films from WW1 and WW2 in colour, for instance.

3. Plenty of people (myself included) have relatives in their 80s or 90s. Or maybe someone wants to see their ancestors from the 19th century in colour for whatever reason?

[eichin]

Color photos existed but color film and processing was very expensive (and while mono film development "middle school student can do at home" for a generation, home color work wasn't a thing until late 80s/early 90s as far as I recall.) So in practice, I personally have childhood pics of my dad with his mom and sister - that were shot black and white but colorized by being hand painted, and this was pretty common...

[zimpenfish]

> If you know a person who is 70 years old, they were 20 in 1975

Bloody hell, warn people before you post things like that.

[akavel]

There's a really nice, very low-power, 84x48 B&W LCD screen still widely available for electronics use, a clone of a Nokia 5110 screen - see e.g.:

- https://github.com/akavel/clawtype#clawtype

- mandatory "Bad Apple" vid (not mine): https://youtu.be/v6HidvezKBI

(for the "splash screen" linked above I used font u8g2_font_3x5im_te: https://docs.rs/u8g2-fonts/latest/u8g2_fonts/fonts/struct.u8... and a multilingual u8g2_font_tiny5_t_all: https://docs.rs/u8g2-fonts/latest/u8g2_fonts/fonts/struct.u8...)

[sophacles]

There exist plenty of reasons to colorize grayscale photos in 2026.

* a huge corpus of historical imagery

* cheaper grayscale cameras + post processing will surely enable all sorts of uses we haven't imagined yet.

* a lower power CCD and post-processing after the fact or on a different device allows for better power budget in cheap drones (etc).

* these algorithms can likely be tuned or used as a stepping stone for ones that convert non-visible wavelengths into color images.

And that's just off the top of my head as someone who doesn't really work with that stuff. I'm sure there are plenty of other reasons I can't think of.

[IvanK_net]

Grayscale cameras are not that much cheaper than color cameras. And if you decided to use a grayscale camera on purpose, you probably do not care about the color information (which would be totally "made up" by the colorizing algorithm).

Also, if there are only grayscale photos of you, you were probably born before 1900, and all your friends or your children (who might want to colorize your photo) are probably dead, too.

[sophacles]

What does the existence of a color photograph of my grandmother as an old woman have to do with my desire to colorize a grayscale photo of her as a child? Or colorize the photos of her wedding?

It's a very strange argument to make: there exist some photos therefore other photos may not be colorized!

[IvanK_net]

Did you colorize grayscale photos of your grandmothers wedding?

Seeing that a "neat tool" exists and using that "neat tool" are two diffrent things. Google Glass was neat, too.

[sophacles]

I have not yet, because my uncle hasn't scanned those photos yet. I have colorized the pictures of my grandmother as a child, and some previously unmentioned ones of the farm my grandfather grew up on. I've also colorized some photos of ancestors that no one alive this century has ever met.

Just because you don't want to use a tool, it doesn't mean others also won't.

[JoshTriplett]

Is there a particular reason you resent what other people enjoy researching and spending time on, enough so to post all this?

[IvanK_net]

I am just saying that the colorization was needed in 1995, when 90% of people had black-and-white childhood photos.

But today, only 1% of people has black-and-white childhood photos. I just makes me want to argue when people pretend that it is still needed as much as in 1995 :D

I was also arguing with my friends about buying laptops with an optical drive ten years ago :D

[nancyminusone]

what are you even talking about? enough people want to colorize pictures that there's a damn Know Your Meme page for it

https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/colorized-history

[compiler-guy]

Quick browsing at adafruit.com (or any other similar vendor), reveals plenty of displays that are 128, 240, and 320 pixels wide. At 6 pixels of width per character, that's only 21, 40, and 53 characters wide. Seems quite useful to me.

There are also several 32x32 led panels, which one could imagine needing some text.

Also, this kind of thing is just interesting, regardless of the usefulness.

[JoshTriplett]

> Too bad "tiny screens" pretty much do not exist anymore.

https://www.crystalfontz.com/product/cfal12856a00151b-128x56... - 128x56

https://www.crystalfontz.com/product/cfag12864u4nfi-128x64-t... - 128x64

There's a whole world of embedded devices with wide varieties of screen resolutions.

[IvanK_net]

That is not a tiny screen, it has over 7 thousand pixels.

I think you will not be able to read 5x5 pixel letters on that display (a letter would be about 1 mm tall).

[JoshTriplett]

0.27mm dot pitch, so each letter would be 1.35mm square in a box of 1.62mm square. I expect I could read it just fine at the distances I'd expect to look at such a screen.

I tested this on a phone, and was able to read it without much difficulty at roughly 18-30 inches.

[ranger_danger]

What is your definition of a tiny screen?

[alnwlsn]

I wish that were the case. I'm trying to make a tiny emulated z80 computer, and to fit a screen of 64x16 test on a smartwatch sized screen, I have to use a 4x6 pixel font, because the highest res, most available screen I can get in that size is just 240x280. High-res 400+ px smartwatch screens like the apple watch has - you can only get those if you buy 10000 at once and sign an NDA.

Actually, the 4x6 doesn't look half bad if viewed at wrist-level.

128x64 monochrome screens are very common in both LCD and OLED format.

[kevin_thibedeau]

Terminals are tiny screens.