LG Intros 2560x1440 Quad HD Smartphone Screen

Status
Not open for further replies.

Spooderman

Honorable
Jan 13, 2013
208
0
10,680
0
This seems somewhat pointless, since you're going to be holding it maybe about a foot away from your face at all times. Also, there's no way the chipsets in current phones will be able to perform at that resolution.
 

Deus Gladiorum

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2013
1,434
0
19,960
292
Honestly, who cares? In my experience, anything with a ppi between 100 - 150 is what you need to view something at the sharpest possible image from around a foot away. A ppi higher than that just results in wasted image quality. A ppi lower than that creates aliasing. So why the hell do you need anything that's over 500 ppi? You're not going to notice any difference from a foot away compared to the same size screen with a lower resolution.
 

Deus Gladiorum

Distinguished
Jun 29, 2013
1,434
0
19,960
292
Honestly, who cares? In my experience, anything with a ppi between 100 - 150 is what you need to view something at the sharpest possible image from around a foot away. A ppi higher than that just results in wasted image quality. A ppi lower than that creates aliasing. So why the hell do you need anything that's over 500 ppi? You're not going to notice any difference from a foot away compared to the same size screen with a lower resolution.
 

wanderer11

Honorable
Jun 11, 2012
2,908
0
13,460
247
Many people don't want a 27" monitor due to space constraints. It make certain games hard, such as CSGO, because I have to look away from the crosshairs to see the map. I also don't see how the extra row of 160 pixels is worth more than double the price (2560x1440 vs 2560x1600).
 

sanctoon

Distinguished
Jul 29, 2008
77
0
18,630
0
Two words: "Oculus Rift". This in a 7" configuration would be great for the 1st gen consumer model. If the price is right, considering they target a $300 MRSP
 

noob2222

Distinguished
Nov 19, 2007
2,722
0
20,860
40
Still, as GigaOM points out, why would anyone want to view a full PC version of a Web page within a 5.5 inch screen anyway? Perhaps desktop Web pages should stay on the desktop sporting 13 inch screens above, and let the smartphones and tablets make do with the mobile-optimized versions designed for small screens. Thus, the new 5.5 inch QUAD HD panel seems more like a "because we can" product to taunt competitors more than a "because consumers need it" product.
who wants to view a stupid mobile web page designed for 300x200 pixels? I HATE MOBILE PAGES, including tomshardware mobile, but there are far worse. Some don't even offer a redirect. I bought a smart-phone to view web pages that don't look like my motorola v3xx.

Aside from that, 1440 seems a bit overkill, needs a good video gpu to handle content.
 

jn77

Distinguished
Feb 14, 2007
587
0
18,990
2
I have been looking at 24inch 4k monitors now and no one makes them, yet tablets that are 10 inches can do it, 30 inch monitors can do it, and now 5.5 inch phone screens can do it, it seems a little backwards. I don't have the space for a 30 inch monitor on my desk.

And 4k on a 24 inch monitor would be great for photography work.

Look at it this way, 10 years a go, a 24inch CRT weighted 60 lbs and cost about $2500.
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9
"Still, as GigaOM points out, why would anyone want to view a full PC version of a Web page within a 5.5 inch screen anyway?"

Not being able to envision or accept that someone might want something you have no use for is a sign of a narrow-mindedness.
 

Grandmastersexsay

Honorable
May 16, 2013
332
0
10,780
0
Not only is this pointless, but the negative effect this would have on battery life would be drastic.

At 30 years old, I can not hold my S4's 1080p screen close enough that I can see pixels. My eyes just cant focus closer than four inches.

4K displays may have some benefit for large computer monitors. However, they are pointless on phones, TVs, ect.
 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9


While I prefer the 16:10 format of the 2560x1600 display, the pixel density of the 2560x1440 27" is significantly better than the 30" 2560x1600. For me, the 27" is the minimum size screen that a 16:9 is acceptable for use as a monitor, and since the pixel density is so much better, it is what I have chosen.

The fact that I can buy 2 decent 2560x1440 monitors for almost the same cost as 1 2560x1600 also factors in to my decision.

 

Marcus52

Distinguished
Jun 11, 2008
619
0
19,010
9


Speak in the first person to be more accurate :) . It is appropriate for you to say "I" can't see the difference, but you have know idea what other people can observe, or what they are sensitive to. General analysis of human sight always comes with caveats, as well; blanket statements about what the "human eye" can see are usually wrong.

I don't have a cell phone (yet) and don't use any device with such a small screen. However, I've read a Tomshardware editor say he couldn't see the pixels of a 30" 2560x1600 display. That just floored me, because I can see the pixels on a 27" 2560x1440 display, which has a better pixel density. Now, we aren't talking 300 PPI as opposed to 500 PPI here, but we are talking over 108 PPI for the 2560x1440 27", and I can certainly see the pixels on this screen (and my vision is far from perfect). Whether I could see them with a PPI of 150, I don't really know, but I bet I would still want a higher density than that. 500 PPI? I'll just have to see it to judge it properly.

Useful or not, it IS progress in technology, and that's good. One thing I can think of - LG might actually be able to create a screen of this size and resolution that has dead or stuck pixels at 500 PPI that simply can't be noticed, that turns out to be cheaper to make than a screen with far less resolution needing every pixel to display perfectly. But it harms no one, and the market will certainly determine its value - not many people will actually buy a phone if the screen causes the battery life to plummet unacceptably.

Even if it is turns out to be just an exercise in manufacturing technology, implying that no one does or should care is simply wrong. We aren't all carbon copies of you, and I, for one, care.

 

bison88

Distinguished
May 24, 2009
618
0
18,980
0
and yet this entire time they've told us it makes no sense to have 2560x1440, 2560x1600, or even up to 4K and higher resolutions on a 24" monitor? It must be 27/30" or higher, yet for these stupid small phones it makes sense?

Unbelievable. The entire industry LCD industry could careless about everything but the phone industry. Just admit it that if it isn't phone related you don't care before you say something stupid about how unreasonable higher than 1080p resolutions are on < 30" monitors.
 

Grandmastersexsay

Honorable
May 16, 2013
332
0
10,780
0
4K displays in general are about marketing. People understand simple concepts like resolution. There are much better ways to increase image quality on current gen displays than increasing pixels.
 

ramicio

Distinguished
Nov 8, 2011
17
0
18,510
0
To those who are being naysayers about not needing anything more than so many PPI at a distance, you're full of it. Edges will still show pixels. We still have leaps and bounds to go before we make pixels COMPLETELY disappear.
 

InvalidError

Titan
Moderator

If you put a N7v1 and a N7v2 side by side, scale text to a comfortable reading size on both and compare, the difference is not particularly obvious. From a distance of 2', I cannot easily tell the difference between the two except in 3D games where aliasing is very obvious on the N7v1 but barely noticeable on the N7v2.

The smoother battery drain is probably the only thing most people would really notice from cramming an even higher resolution on an even smaller screen.
 

MagicPants

Distinguished
Jun 16, 2006
1,315
0
19,660
127
Great news for fans of the Occulus Rift, since it uses cell phone parts a screen like this would look phenomenal. It should completely remove the screen door effect.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS