5-Inch Full HD Smartphones to be More Common in 2013

[acyuta]

Unfortunately, the evolution of smartphone display with bigger hands is far ahead of the slow evolution of human hands towards bigger sizes.

 

[chibiwings]

I wouldn't mind that size but due to my Fat Fingers i still prefer 7 inches.

 

[Marcus52]

[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]You think? Anything above 300ppi and the human eye isn't going to be able to tell the difference. The pixels are so tiny at that point that it won't matter how you blend them. The wasted resolution strains the CPU/battery unnecessarily when a lower resolution would have sufficed. It would have actually been better to run it at 720p so spare processing could have added smoothing techniques.Devices made by CEOs who just want to copy others and show higher numbers rather than designed by people who actually understand technology. Devices to be sold to customers who buy things because they're new and have fancy stickers rather than the best tech. They don't care if it doesn't fit in your pocket, just buy it already.[/citation]

Another internet x-spurt saying what he's heard from some other internet x-spurt, and actually has no basis in fact.

 

[wlachan]

Stop toying with toys. Just make me some 80" smartphones!!!

 

[InvalidError]

[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]You think? Anything above 300ppi and the human eye isn't going to be able to tell the difference.[/citation]
Actually, it can. While it cannot distinguish individual pixels even at 200dpi under most normal viewing circumstances, the smoother and crisper contours are still perceivable going from 300dpi to 600dpi to 1200dpi. Printing at 300dpi is enough to produce comfortably clear text and graphics but 600dpi simply looks more pleasant.

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]The human ear also can only hear up to about 20KHz (depending on age).and yet a clarinet produces overtones that are well above it and are responsible for making one clarinet playing a 'C' sound different than another clarinet.Obviously the ear can hear something above the 20KHz 'limit' or both insruments would sound the same.[/citation]
The human ear is a low-pass filter, an average ear truly cannot sense anything much beyond 20kHz. The reason why two different instances of the same instrument sound different is because they have different shapes and that leads to slightly different baseband tone and potentially very different harmonics profile which are very much within the audible range. Sound can also be affected by the way the player blows into it, the thickness and material the reed is made of, wear on that reed, etc. so you could have two persons play the very same physical instrument (with their respective preference of reeds) and have substantially different sounds.

For sight, resolution is limited by cone/rod density and the reason why we can "sense" higher resolution is because there is less aliasing (staircasing) between adjacent photoreceptors. This is much like increasing sampling frequency in audio from 48kHz to 96kHz: we still cannot perceive much beyond 20kHz but there is a lot less aliasing, distortion and loss of details beyond the 16kHz mark. While Nyquist says you need to sample at 2X the max input frequency to reproduce a signal, you need at least 3X to come anywhere close to faithfully doing so - this is part of why many audiophiles shunned CD-Audio.

 

[burmese_dude]

So iPhone fans... are you ready for 2014 or 2015 when iPhones will have 5"?

 

[emccalment]

My HTC Evo 4G is too big for me. I'd let the Note 2 slide because of the pen feature. If there's no pen and it's for my fingers I'd rather have like a 3.5" handset. I miss my old Nokia coffins. They made phone calls and texts really well. Battery life was like 2 weeks too.

Nowadays if I don't charge my phone every day, sometimes twice, I'm screwed. It's less durable as well.

 

[kinggraves]

[citation][nom]freggo[/nom]The human ear also can only hear up to about 20KHz (depending on age).and yet a clarinet produces overtones that are well above it and are responsible for making one clarinet playing a 'C' sound different than another clarinet.Obviously the ear can hear something above the 20KHz 'limit' or both insruments would sound the same.The same holds true for vision. There is a difference between the limit we consciously 'see'; and the part we see without knowing.Besides, I have a feeling that playing back 1080p content on a native 1080p screen is more efficient than having a processor recalculate each frame down to say 1280x720 or whatever your device has.Any engineers here who could comment on that ?[/citation]

Comparing the way an aural signal is received by the ear to the way a visual signal is received by the eye is absurd even in concept. Also, just play the content in 720p and save yourself some space/bandwidth.

[citation][nom]Marcus52[/nom]Another internet x-spurt saying what he's heard from some other internet x-spurt, and actually has no basis in fact.[/citation]

Until you provide concrete evidence or a degree in Ophthalmology your opinion has as much basis as any other "X-spurt".

[citation][nom]InvalidError[/nom]Actually, it can. While it cannot distinguish individual pixels even at 200dpi under most normal viewing circumstances, the smoother and crisper contours are still perceivable going from 300dpi to 600dpi to 1200dpi. Printing at 300dpi is enough to produce comfortably clear text and graphics but 600dpi simply looks more pleasant.[/citation]

PPI, DPI, and printing tends to end up with a lot of confusion. It usually takes a much higher DPI on a printer to recreate the quality of the PPI on a screen, as a printer cannot produce as many colors as a display with it's dots.

Either way guys, justify buying a new phone for the "better display" if you want. People that have reviewed the DNA's display vs other high PPI phones cannot tell much of a difference from a reasonable distance. If you have it unreasonably close or you have the vision of a superhero then maybe you won't see pixels anymore. Personally I think the GPU could be doing better things than trying to force a ridiculous resolution for clarity under 6". It's just a marketing pitch, like "Retina Display" was. These phones are "Full HD", buy now.

 

[jamesjones_det]

[citation][nom]Darkk[/nom]I have Samsung Galaxy Note II which sports a 5.5" screen. It's perfect size for what I use it for. On occasion it barely fits in my pocket but can't imagine 6.3" would do?[/citation]

That's Apple hoopla, the eye can't discern more then 300 ppi at a "certain distance", if you hold the phone closer then that optimal distance you can see pixelation.

Apple assumes the user holds the phone 5 inches or more away from their face, making 326 ppi optimal. While I agree more than that on a phone is probably worthless since you probably are not going to hold a phone more than 5 inches from your face, it still doesn't hurt to go over.

 

[jamesjones_det]

[citation][nom]kinggraves[/nom]You think? Anything above 300ppi and the human eye isn't going to be able to tell the difference. The pixels are so tiny at that point that it won't matter how you blend them. The wasted resolution strains the CPU/battery unnecessarily when a lower resolution would have sufficed. It would have actually been better to run it at 720p so spare processing could have added smoothing techniques.Devices made by CEOs who just want to copy others and show higher numbers rather than designed by people who actually understand technology. Devices to be sold to customers who buy things because they're new and have fancy stickers rather than the best tech. They don't care if it doesn't fit in your pocket, just buy it already.[/citation]

That's Apple hoopla, the eye can't discern more then 300 ppi at a "certain distance", if you hold the phone closer then that optimal distance you can see pixelation.

Apple assumes the user holds the phone 5 inches or more away from their face, making 326 ppi optimal. While I agree more than that on a phone is probably worthless since you probably are not going to hold a phone more than 5 inches from your face, it still doesn't hurt to go over.

 

[jamesjones_det]

[citation][nom]jamesjones_det[/nom]That's Apple hoopla, the eye can't discern more then 300 ppi at a "certain distance", if you hold the phone closer then that optimal distance you can see pixelation.Apple assumes the user holds the phone 5 inches or more away from their face, making 326 ppi optimal. While I agree more than that on a phone is probably worthless since you probably are not going to hold a phone more than 5 inches from your face, it still doesn't hurt to go over.[/citation]


grr... replayed to the wrong comment!

 

[heffeque]

[citation][nom]CaedenV[/nom]Cargo pants and shorts. [...] can be classy enough to match almost any occasion.[/citation]
Maybe in the USA. Take into consideration that not all countries wear tourist clothes on their daily lives.

 

[unoriginal1]

Maybe.. (hoping) Just maybe this will end the God Awful trend of skinny pants on men. Surely a 5" phone can't fit in those.. and frankly I'm tired of seeing em. Maybe I'm old fashioned :/ but why do guys want to wear women's clothes??

 

[hannibal]

Hopefullu we will allso have good 3.5", 4" and so on models... The thing to worry is that best hardware will only come in "big" packed. Some people like bigger phones, some smaller. But I think that allwants to have better screen, better battery, longer usage time etc...

 

[Guest]

I went 5.3 inches with the Note 1 from the now tiny Iphone 4 and never been happier. Looking forward to the Note 3 next year, my next upgrade!

 

[oblivionlord]

Smart phones have been out for a few years now. It's not like large screen sizes are the ONLY phones to choose from. I'm very content with my LG G2x with its dual core/4.0" screen. This phone came out April 2011.

Don't complain about the market only offering large phones when THERE ARE smaller phones available.

 

[Catoer Budi Prasetyo]

5" with around 200-220dpi already best to me. So then it might actually come cheaper, not dictated price with brand bloated specs. Don't need for more except phoning, messaging, and light gaming. I don't spend too much time staring at my smartphone, squeezing movies, or whatever that already fit my other electronic devices. That is why laptop and LCD TV are more suitable for the rest like pc gaming, office works, and watching movies.

It sounds personal, but many might think it as I do.