Samsung, LG May Release 1080p Phones in 2013

Status
Not open for further replies.

Bloob

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2012
632
0
18,980
0
Good for them, I guess. Personally I'm having trouble seeing pixels on anything higher than WVGA. I'd rather have less power consumption.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0
Not sure of the real world benefit of this feature. I have better eyes than most of the people I know, and even I occasionally have trouble reading web pages on my GSIII depending on color contrasts and fonts. More annoying is how difficult it is to click on links without zooming in. 1080p is a pretty significant pixel bump over 720p. The screen is going to have to be a lot larger than the GSIII for the majority of the public to be able to use it.

On a sort of related note, why on earth are mobile device resolutions continuing to increase at these absurd rates while desktop monitors seem to be going in the other direction? My 3 year old 1920x1200 panel is practically an extinct species with 1920x1080 becoming the standard. Something is seriously screwed up when your 5" cellphone has the same or better resolution than 99% of desktop LCD panels under 27".
 

assasin32

Distinguished
Apr 23, 2008
1,356
22
19,515
96
Still wondering what the point is of having a 1080p display on a 5in screen. Heck most of my family's (entire family not just house hold) are still using non-HD TV's and non HD computer monitors minus me who is using a 1080p monitor which off hand I think is a 23.5in.
 

zander1983

Distinguished
Mar 26, 2009
424
1
18,860
30
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]...On a sort of related note, why on earth are mobile device resolutions continuing to increase at these absurd rates while desktop monitors seem to be going in the other direction? My 3 year old 1920x1200 panel is practically an extinct species with 1920x1080 becoming the standard. Something is seriously screwed up when your 5" cellphone has the same or better resolution than 99% of desktop LCD panels under 27".[/citation]

Could not agree more! I'm in the market for a 27" 1440p screen and nothing decent under $600!

Mr Samsung and Mr LG, slow down with the mobile displays and get your 1440p+ HD screens out of the factories!
 

teknic111

Distinguished
Dec 8, 2007
168
2
18,685
0
[citation][nom]assasin32[/nom]On a sort of related note, why on earth are mobile device resolutions continuing to increase at these absurd rates while desktop monitors seem to be going in the other direction? My 3 year old 1920x1200 panel is practically an extinct species with 1920x1080 becoming the standard. Something is seriously screwed up when your 5" cellphone has the same or better resolution than 99% of desktop LCD panels under 27".[/citation]

This is so on point and monitor manufactures need to address it!

I have been rocking the same 24" Dell LCD with 1920x1200 resolution for nearly 7 years!!! Have LCD manufactures digressed over this time? Is there even any reason for me to upgrade???
 

panini

Honorable
May 7, 2012
30
0
10,530
0
Anything above 350ppi is a waste imo. When your eyes stop distinguishing the pixels, the resolution stops mattering. It's like saying you can watch 720p video or 1080p video on a 1" display. Both will look identical without a magnifying glass.

IMO, Galaxy Nexus and iPhone are at the sweet spot.
 

tomfreak

Distinguished
May 18, 2011
1,334
0
19,280
0
[citation][nom]kinggremlin[/nom]why on earth are mobile device resolutions continuing to increase at these absurd rates while desktop monitors seem to be going in the other direction? My 3 year old 1920x1200 panel is practically an extinct species with 1920x1080 becoming the standard. Something is seriously screwed up when your 5" cellphone has the same or better resolution than 99% of desktop LCD panels under 27".[/citation]its because of Microsoft, if u adjust the screen resolution, the default setting of the windows makes the font size tooo small to be able to read.

There is no pre-set setting in windows for u to choose screen size + viewing distance + resolution then the windows take care of it. NO SUCH thing exist.

then we have AntiAliasing = makes high resolution much less useful.
 

christarp

Honorable
Mar 9, 2012
136
0
10,680
0
[citation][nom]livebriand[/nom]Now if only desktop screen resolutions would start budging...[/citation]
Apple is doing just that. Unfortunately windows isn't designed with high resolutions in mind and makes it impossible to use at higher PPIs. Windows 8 doesn't even fix this afaik. Until windows 9 we're unfortunately going to be stuck with macs as the only computers with super high resolutions.
 

echondo

Honorable
May 29, 2012
250
0
10,810
6
[citation][nom]christarp[/nom]Apple is doing just that. Unfortunately windows isn't designed with high resolutions in mind and makes it impossible to use at higher PPIs. Windows 8 doesn't even fix this afaik. Until windows 9 we're unfortunately going to be stuck with macs as the only computers with super high resolutions.[/citation]

You've got to be fucking kidding me.

DISPLAYS DO NOT CARE WHAT OS THEY ARE USED FOR. There are gaming machines running 5760x1080 eyefinity/surround monitors! There are single 2560x1600 monitors for sale that run more than fine on ANY OS OUT THERE.

Get your head out of your ass, Apple hasn't done shit for the monitor industry.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0
[citation][nom]Tomfreak[/nom]its because of Microsoft, if u adjust the screen resolution, the default setting of the windows makes the font size tooo small to be able to read. There is no pre-set setting in windows for u to choose screen size + viewing distance + resolution then the windows take care of it. NO SUCH thing exist.then we have AntiAliasing = makes high resolution much less useful.[/citation]

Bull. This has nothing to do with MS. I have a 15.6" Thinkpad with a 1920x1080 resolution screen and it looks great to me. The equivalent ppi for a pretty common 24" desktop monitor would 2880x1800. You can't even buy a 30" with that resolution.
 

kinggremlin

Distinguished
Jul 14, 2009
574
41
19,010
0
The current standard for 30" monitors is 2560x1600. Newegg has one monitor listed with a higher resolution (3840x2160). Few problems with it.
1) It's not available for sale yet
2) It's 56", so not exactly going to fit on a typical desk
3) It costs a bit over $35,000.
 

freggo

Distinguished
Nov 22, 2008
2,019
0
19,780
0
To keep prices down all Monitor manufactures simply use TV resolution screens.
That way the electronics to drive the display etc can all be standardized.

There are only a handful of 1200/1440 and 1600 line Monitors out there, at a premium price due to the small quantities of course.
One 4k TVs become more mainstream that will most likely change. Unfortunately not any time soon of course; also in Japan and Korea 4K cameras and Monitors are already shipping.
 
G

Guest

Guest
27" worth of screen is a whole different cost to manufacture than 5".

The reason why we are stuck on 1920x1080 is that it is the standard 16:9 Format and it is what the public are happy to purchase due to the cost!

Far Far more people will buy the cheap 24" 1920 "HD" resolution monitor for £110 than the better £500 2560 resolution monitor!

Its called supply and demand! Besides, for £330, you can get three 24" 1920x1080 monitors and rock out with Eyefinity!
 

christarp

Honorable
Mar 9, 2012
136
0
10,680
0
[citation][nom]echondo[/nom]You've got to be fucking kidding me.DISPLAYS DO NOT CARE WHAT OS THEY ARE USED FOR. There are gaming machines running 5760x1080 eyefinity/surround monitors! There are single 2560x1600 monitors for sale that run more than fine on ANY OS OUT THERE.Get your head out of your ass, Apple hasn't done shit for the monitor industry.[/citation]
Someone doesn't understand what PPI is and how it affects the size of things...
 

christarp

Honorable
Mar 9, 2012
136
0
10,680
0
[citation][nom]echondo[/nom]You've got to be fucking kidding me.DISPLAYS DO NOT CARE WHAT OS THEY ARE USED FOR. There are gaming machines running 5760x1080 eyefinity/surround monitors! There are single 2560x1600 monitors for sale that run more than fine on ANY OS OUT THERE.Get your head out of your ass, Apple hasn't done shit for the monitor industry.[/citation]
Actually, i'm going to go further into this. As I said before, you don't know what PPI is clearly. Windows doesn't handle high PPI good at all. It just doesn't. Resolution means nothing with what I'm saying.

OSX has a setting that you can change to adjust the size of everything in relation to screen size, totally resolution independent. Windows cannot do this (apart from changing text size on things and making everything look extraordinarily wonky). You can have those 5760x1080 resolutions because you then have a screen thats effectively like 4 feet wide. The screens still have a low PPI, and look shoddy.

This is a macbook pro with a retina display running windows 7.

http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6008/DSC_7428_575px.jpg

It's entirely unusable. That's why you won't see high end displays on windows for now. I'm not talking about resolution at all. You're the one talking out of your ass.
 

nibir2011

Distinguished
Aug 28, 2011
131
0
18,680
0
[citation][nom]assasin32[/nom]Still wondering what the point is of having a 1080p display on a 5in screen. Heck most of my family's (entire family not just house hold) are still using non-HD TV's and non HD computer monitors minus me who is using a 1080p monitor which off hand I think is a 23.5in.[/citation]


Why we need more pixels in smaller devices? It is a question of many people the answer is We use these devices very close to our eyes. In this whole world a typical human eye is the highest possible resolution for any image so it means we can see almost anything if its wavelength fall within our eye sight limit. As we use these smaller devices very close to our eyes we can actually see the pixels in the screen. But when we are using a large display like a 21 or 23 inch or whatever, we can not differentiate between the pixels. you can almost (yeah almost as our eyes do not have magnifying power) compare this situation with a microscope viewing in microscope as amplification is increased the more detail of a particular item can be seen. the same thing is happening for small displays too.
 

Bloob

Distinguished
Feb 8, 2012
632
0
18,980
0
[citation][nom]christarp[/nom]Actually, i'm going to go further into this. As I said before, you don't know what PPI is clearly. Windows doesn't handle high PPI good at all. It just doesn't. Resolution means nothing with what I'm saying. OSX has a setting that you can change to adjust the size of everything in relation to screen size, totally resolution independent. Windows cannot do this (apart from changing text size on things and making everything look extraordinarily wonky). You can have those 5760x1080 resolutions because you then have a screen thats effectively like 4 feet wide. The screens still have a low PPI, and look shoddy.This is a macbook pro with a retina display running windows 7.http://images.anandtech.com/doci/6 [...] _575px.jpgIt's entirely unusable. That's why you won't see high end displays on windows for now. I'm not talking about resolution at all. You're the one talking out of your ass.[/citation]
Control Panel -> Display -> Larger, but I do agree, Windows doesn't scale well at all.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS