backtop


Print 141 comment(s) - last by Diggity01.. on May 15 at 7:59 PM

LG Display just recently unleashed its 5.5" QHD panel for smartphones

It looks like the arms race in high-resolution displays for flagship smartphones is just getting started. At the low end of the scale, we have Apple’s relatively tiny 4” iPhone 5s with a screen resolution of 1136x640. In this day and age, the top Android competition is sporting 5” or larger displays with Full HD support (1920x1080).
 
However, screen resolutions on smartphone are about to take an even larger jump thanks in part to LG Display. The company just yesterday announced its new 5.5” Quad HD (QHD) panel that is aimed directly at the smartphone market. The new display, which is a mere 1.2mm thick with a 1.1mm bezel, offers a screen resolution of 2560x1440 (1.8 times greater than a Full HD panel). For those keeping score, this works out to 538 pixels per inch (PPI) compared to 432 PPI for the Samsung Galaxy S5.


LG Display's new 5.5" QHD panel
 
The first smartphone to launch with the new QHD display will be LG G3, which is set to launch in this quarter.
 
Huawei Consumer Business Group CEO Richard Yu, however, isn’t exactly bursting with excitement on the industry’s move towards even higher resolution display on relatively small devices. Huawei just launched the Ascend P7 that makes use of a 5", Full HD display. When asked about the move to QHD from competitors, Yu replied in an interview with Tech Radar, “I don't think we need QHD displays on mobiles. Your eyes totally cannot identify between full HD and 2K on a smartphone. You can't distinguish the difference, so it's totally nonsense.”


The Huawei Ascend P7 uses a 5" Full HD display
 
Yu added that two of the biggest knocks against QHD displays are cost and power. The cost factor is an obvious one with it being new-to-market technology that hasn’t sufficiently ramped up in scale. The power factor is also a big concern, because the appeal of pretty, high-resolution display is diminished if it drains your battery at an alarming rate.
 
Yu bluntly added, “[Your] eyes cannot see the difference, so why should we do that? I think it's a stupid thing."
 
What do you think? Are QHD displays on sub-6” smartphones “a stupid thing” or do you think that customers will actually notice the difference in screen/image quality?

Sources: Tech Radar, LG Display



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Finally a person talking sense
By CSMR on 5/9/2014 8:10:32 AM , Rating: 5
First sensible statement I have ever heard from the mobile phone industry on screen resolution. We need non-nonsense people like this in the west.




RE: Finally a person talking sense
By bug77 on 5/9/2014 8:23:13 AM , Rating: 4
The irony is this comes from a company that does most of its business in China. The country that made Mediatek build octacore chips for mobile, because the people there buy core count above anything else.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By Khato on 5/9/2014 12:52:53 PM , Rating: 3
Oddly enough the desire for octal-core chips in the Chinese market has nothing to do with beliefs about performance - it's all about their culture with respect to numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Numbers_in_Chinese_cu...

The octal-core craze and intentional avoidance of quad-core models makes far more sense in light of such.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By hpglow on 5/9/2014 1:20:16 PM , Rating: 2
Why can't they just call a 4 core a 5 core? They skip the 4th floor on buildings it goes 1 2 3 5. All because number 4 and the word death are both pronounced "shi". Death is just a gauraneed part of life.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By GulWestfale on 5/9/2014 3:06:22 PM , Rating: 2
arctic silver themal paste went from "3" straight to "5" because of superstition in asia (i think "ceramique" was 4, at least unofficially).

as for the topic:
sure, QHD doesn't really make sense, but then neither does a 16MP camera with a sensor the size of a pinhead. but for marketing reasons, it does matter, and i think HTC will be forced to get into the QHD game at some point. perhaps they are simply calling it nonsense now because they have not been able to get their hands on a sufficient quantity of screens yet?


By Nightbird321 on 5/9/2014 3:36:04 PM , Rating: 3
We'll wait to see if there is an iPhone 13...


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By Souka on 5/12/2014 4:02:36 PM , Rating: 2
yet the iPhone 4, and 4s, did just fine in China

I guess superstition doesn't apply to Apple products?


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By chick0n on 5/11/2014 10:47:47 PM , Rating: 2
Its just like how some buildings in nyc doesnt have floor 13, so tell me, what makes you guys so superior over the chinese?


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By Samus on 5/11/2014 11:18:44 PM , Rating: 2
If only we could stop putting 500PPI screens in phones and push for at least 150PPI displays in laptops. 11"-15" 1366x768 screens are getting completely ridiculous. How hard can it be to put in at least 1440x900 or 1680x1050?


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: Finally a person talking sense
By FITCamaro on 5/9/2014 11:09:25 AM , Rating: 4
I'm glad he said it. I'm tired of ePenis with resolution on a smart phone.

I'm just fine with a 720p screen on my Note 2.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By bupkus on 5/9/2014 12:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
Speaking as one who has diminishing eyesight as well as financial resources, I use my nook hd+ like a much bigger screen by using x2.50 cheater glasses; so using a high resolution screen gives me not only very big hands but a much larger tablet to view.
Bet you never thought of doing that, did you?

<?>In fact, I'm thinking of bike helmet mounting my super-res phone in front of my face to view movies and remote computer screen images. My only problem is how to use touch technology. </?>
Yah, I know; movies are transmitted in low-res formats for economy of bandwidth. Hey, it's my f'in joke. 8=)


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By kmmatney on 5/11/2014 7:22:14 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously. I have an LG 5.5" phone with a 1080p display - it is nice. However I can't say the resolution is any better than an iPhone screen. The size of the display is nice, but the resolution is overkill. I do normal work on a 24" 1920 x 1200 display, and my laptop has a 17" 1080p display. Packing that into 5.5" is already pretty crazy, let alone going to higher resolutions.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By althaz on 5/12/2014 2:48:14 AM , Rating: 2
1080p is absolutely worth having on 4.5" or above screens, IMO. But higher than that on sub 6" screens isn't worth it, IMO.


By zephyrprime on 5/9/2014 4:53:39 PM , Rating: 2
That's false. The large majority of time I am on my phone is not to talk. Even txting isn't so important. Flip phones just don't cut it for web surfing, social media, picture taking, or gps use.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By kizle on 5/9/2014 12:50:21 PM , Rating: 4
Im am saying this for ages!
But noo, ppl dont care, they just want biggers numbers for bragging rights.
1080p is too much for a smartphone imho, but above 4,7'' is acceptable and yes, he's right, bellow 6'' qhd is retarded for at least a couple reasons.

1° batery life its already a joke with 1080p smartphones, it will be ridiculously worse.
2° new cpus means more gpu power, but in reality you will have the same performance in 3d games due the retarded resolution, in some cases even worse gaming performance.

Not to mention, an insane batery drain while playing, i can even bet you are unable to charge a phone like that while playing.
This is already happenning with the ipad 3.

Currently i have a nexus 5 and imo they should focus on the battery technology or in a new type of LOW power screen, till then its retarded to think otherwise.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By Silver2k7 on 5/9/2014 6:06:25 PM , Rating: 1
I agree battery life is a joke with smartphones.
Please bring us back to 7 days of batterylife.
or maybe 8 if thats a lucky number in asia :)

Also bring out the 2160p-4K resolution to computer monitors 23"/24"/26"/27". 4K monitor and IPS and a resonable price at perhaps $400-$750.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By kizle on 5/9/2014 9:23:13 PM , Rating: 2
Yeh, true facts, PC gaming can easly handle screens with more resolution and yet the screens (23' to 30') above 1080p are from expensive to insanely expensive.

Meanwhile they are focusing resourses on devices with 5 inch screens with qhd, just for marketing purposes. :\


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By TomFahey on 5/11/2014 5:15:38 AM , Rating: 1
Except you will de facto have better performance in 3D games because you'll be playing it with much higher res textures. Now whether the frame rate will be able to keep up is another matter, but the whole point of increasing the resolution is for a higher fidelity image, hence why people bother to buy gaming pc's that can run games at high resolution, rather than just playing at 640x480.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By kizle on 5/15/2014 3:34:56 PM , Rating: 2
Those texture aesthetics dont really matter with screens bellow 6'', they already have 1080p and even some AAA pc games dont have textures for higher resolutions than 1080p let alone mobile games.
Not to mention 6'' 1080p its already above 350 ppi, more than enough to the naked eye.

hell, even "next generation" consoles are struggling to run some games at 1080p, and they want higher resolutions to mobile gaming?
That kills the chance of having ports of those games in the future, the gpus wont be hable to handle them if this goes on.

And also doesnt matter if you are struggling to play mobile games at 30/60 fps and having like 1h till the battery drains completly.

I rather have a smooth fps gameplay and hours of battery than an aesthetic difference i will struggle to see and game developers wont bother do even do.


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By name99 on 5/10/2014 1:48:24 PM , Rating: 1
"First sensible statement I have ever heard from the mobile phone industry on screen resolution. We need non-nonsense people like this in the west."

Uhh. Apple has been saying this since they released retina iPhones.
(Yeah yeah, I know. Apple is the devil...)


RE: Finally a person talking sense
By kizle on 5/15/2014 3:44:26 PM , Rating: 2
True facts, but then again they never bothered with higher resolutions in the iphones because they have 4' screens, and HD its enough.
I dont like apple, but in that i agree with them.
Having QHD is retarded below 6'' inches, and imho even in tablets, but hey thats my opinion.


Good for a 3D display
By SublimeSimplicity on 5/9/2014 9:42:54 AM , Rating: 2
For auto-stereoscopic 3D displays, you need extra resolution, because you sacrifice it to dedicate some pixels to each eye. QHD would allow you to do 1280x1440 with 1 viewing sweet spot or 1280x720 with 3 viewing sweet spots. With a front facing camera to do eye tracking they could really optimize it and they could have infinite sweet spots for 2 viewers at 1280x720.




RE: Good for a 3D display
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 10:17:54 AM , Rating: 3
This I agree with. For a phone display, the advantage between 1080 and 1440 is tiny. But for something like oculus it could be huge. The display is much closer to your face and you only get half the resolution. So for the sake of VR, we need these guys working on these displays.


RE: Good for a 3D display
By inighthawki on 5/9/2014 11:25:07 AM , Rating: 2
What you said makes no sense. VR doesn't achieve 3D via alternate scanline render per eye. It's done either through a single wide display where each eye gets half, or two independent displays. The fact that each eye gets "half resolution" compared to the device as a whole is not relevant, because you cannot just give the pixels back to the other eye. They are in a different physical location.


RE: Good for a 3D display
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 11:38:13 AM , Rating: 2
I know how it works. You misunderstood me. The 3D image has half the horizontal pixels of the display. Since you need to to display it for each eye. Oculus had a ton of issues with the 720p displays being very pixelated because the perceived image was only 640x720. Even 1080p is kinda small for a display 2 inches from your eyes.


Of course it is
By piroroadkill on 5/9/2014 8:13:36 AM , Rating: 4
I have 0 desire for obscene res phones.
Honestly, 1280x720 at 4.7" is about perfect anyway, why waste money, power and have slower devices by having more?




RE: Of course it is
By inperfectdarkness on 5/10/2014 6:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
"Your eyes totally cannot identify between full HD and 2K on a smartphone. You can't distinguish the difference, so it's totally nonsense."

From the article.

And to be fair, he's 100% correct. And that's because FULL HD and 2K are THE SAME FRICKIN' RESOLUTION!!!

Am I the only person who LOL'd at this comment? That's like saying "no one can tell the difference between WUXGA and 1200p." Well no crap. How much stupid was in his Chinese-knockoff Wheaties this morning?


RE: Of course it is
By Milliamp on 5/11/2014 10:03:10 PM , Rating: 2
From the wiki page 2K can mean different resolutions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2K_(resolution)

1920×1080 (1080p/full HD) is on the list but so is 2560×1440 (QHD). I think when most people say "2k" they don't usually mean 1080p. Given the context I think its fair to assume he probably means QHD.

I also completely agree with his point. The S5 at 1080p is 432 ppi which is already overkill only because the 1080p makes sense as a standard format and common aspect ratio (16:9). The same phone in QHD would be 575 ppi when ~350 is generally agreed on as "retina" for a mobile phone.

Not only does it not matter outside of marketing and cost more its actually a worse overall product due to power consumption.


Audiophile
By Flunk on 5/9/2014 7:59:27 AM , Rating: 2
Since its already been proven that at about 400dpi it's not possible to distinguish pixels, even at the eyes minimum focal length I suspect that this is quickly going to devolve into a pissing contest similar to audio. Where most people do not care and a small group of "videophiles" is willing to pay ridiculous premiums for something they can't possibly perceive.




RE: Audiophile
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 8:12:57 AM , Rating: 1
IT probably is overkill... People said that about 1080 phones though. I for one can see the pixels on a 326 ppi iPhone, and cannot on the 400+ ppi Androids. For my eyes 1080 is good enough adn anything over 400 ppi is enough.

With that said, I am already planning on getting a G3. Not for the higher res, but for the rest of it. I love my G2, but a bit larger screen would be great. Also we are seeing alot of rumors about sd and removable battery and even a metal model. Even if none of those 3 turn out to be true, we can probably expect the G3 will lead the pack in battery life like the G2 did. It's looking like somewhere between a really great phone and "hands down the best combo of features on any phone ever" depending on if the alleged specs are true. - Either way, its mine.


RE: Audiophile
By titanmiller on 5/9/2014 12:35:19 PM , Rating: 3
Not true...at all. If you have a high contrast circle for example, you can easily see the jagged edge at 400ppi when the curve is at a certain angle relative to the pixel pitch.


the stupid bus
By Shadowmaster625 on 5/9/2014 8:23:39 AM , Rating: 3
Apple for once is actually doing the smart thing by holding at that resolution for a 4" screen. For a 5" screen you need not more than 720p. You need to get over 7" before 1080p starts to make sense. Anything more is just a waste of power. Even if I could possibly tell the difference, it is not worth having to possibly plug the device in before the end of the day when I otherwise would not have had to plug it in.




RE: the stupid bus
By retrospooty on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: the stupid bus
By bug77 on 5/9/2014 9:22:34 AM , Rating: 2
Lets' put it this way: even if you can spot the difference between 720 and 1080 on a smartphone, does it make any practical difference? On a desktop, that means more real estate, but you don't want things getting smaller on a smartphone screen. It may look nicer to some, but that's about it. (I haven't seen a QHD screen on a phone yet, I'm just comparing to what the difference between 720 and 1080 looks like.)


RE: the stupid bus
By retrospooty on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: the stupid bus
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: the stupid bus
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 12:27:10 PM , Rating: 4
Well probably not. Even if you could read the last line on an optometrists chart, and have great vision. That's way bigger than these pixel sizes. People are far more likely to notice a better quality display with accurate colors and contrast than the minute pixel density at these scales.

Dont be so quick to tell people how bad their eyesight is when u have no idea. That's just an empty insulting attack on a person, it has no place in this discussion.


RE: the stupid bus
By retrospooty on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: the stupid bus
By retrospooty on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: the stupid bus
By quiksilvr on 5/9/2014 12:01:07 PM , Rating: 2
I'm just confused as to why anybody really cares. It's not like you HAVE to get a 2K screen, 1080p, 720p or whatever screen. Manufacturers make phones in all shapes and sizes to give people CHOICES as to what they want.

I believe people exist out there that want a 2K 5.5" phone. I also believe people want a 4" 640p phone. But at least on the Android side, no one is forced to use one size and one resolution.


RE: the stupid bus
By retrospooty on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
By m51 on 5/9/2014 8:39:40 AM , Rating: 2
Although QHD may not be of any visual benefit to smart phones it still has marketing leverage in the numbers game for the large uninformed segments of the market. So large amounts of money will be spent on developing it and the related production capabilities.

The silver lining is that the money involved will power the development and cost reduction of very high pixel density screen technology which IS very useful for immersive VR headsets like the Oculus Rift.

Would I buy a QHD phone? no.
Am I glad to see it hit the market? YES!




Bring it on!
By fleshconsumed on 5/9/2014 9:44:00 AM , Rating: 2
I don't really see the benefit of QHD on a phone, but I'm all for it on high end phones. Why? Because if QHD makes it to the high end phones, it means the budget phones that I buy will have to be 1080p to keep up with competition. So yeah, bring the silliness on!




My take
By atechfan on 5/9/2014 10:05:27 AM , Rating: 2
I could care less about 500 PPI on a phone. It's gone well past diminishing returns at that point. But I am glad that someone is making screens in that density. Why? VR goggles. That is where you really need it. VR is supposed to provide a life-like experience, and jagged lines will ruin that. With the screen 2 or 3 inches from the eye, they'll need this kind of res to do VR justice.




It's stupid.
By zephyrprime on 5/9/2014 4:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
It's stupid.




Now that is a BIG phone
By Fritzr on 5/10/2014 11:18:39 AM , Rating: 2
Huawei just launched the Ascend P7 that makes use of a 5’, Full HD display.

I'm guessing that a 5 foot display is an error and it was supposed to be 5"




Stupid
By p05esto on 5/10/2014 8:50:29 PM , Rating: 2
I've thought it's been stupid for a LONG time now. And on tablets as well. After a couple thousand pixels on a 10" tablet you can't tell the difference anymore. I'd much rather have lower costs and better battery life than some 2000+ pixel screen on my tablet or smart phone. I think my current phone (Lumina 928) has a fraction of these new screen pixel density and I'm perfectly happy. Make my battery last longer!!!




Ships with x4 magnifiying glasses
By s_p_kay on 5/11/2014 11:00:56 PM , Rating: 2
Hah, This really is a someone speaking the truth in the industry. The resolution on my LG G2 is the same as on my LG G pad 8.3 and even on the larger screen the resolution (FHD) seems to be just about the limit of where you could see any diffence, i.e. the 1920x1080 on an 8.3" display appears to be very near the eye's resolution sensitivity. I don't see (no pun intended) any real value in upping the res on a phone size screen other than winning a spec sheet checklist contest. But maybe if I put on a pair of x3 or x4 magnifying reading glasses I may see some difference!




Doesn't matter
By Concillian on 5/14/2014 3:34:35 PM , Rating: 2
My LG G2 was out of commission for a couple days and I was using my old HTC EVO. I noticed the weight and thickness difference more than anything else. I definitely appreciated the G2s significantly better battery life, I'll tell you that.

Screen.. Meh, wasn't a big deal losing a boatload of resolution. I was glad to get the G2 fixed, but not so much because of the resolution improvement.




By Diggity01 on 5/15/2014 7:59:37 PM , Rating: 2
I'm only speculating , but if I had to guess, I would say that the pixel density race in smart phones is a means of developing the technology (and getting paid for it) so that further down the road VR headsets like the Oculus Rift will finally have a display screen that the human eye will perceive as HD at such a short viewing distance. In the mean time it's just a useless trend that will make people want to upgrade to the latest smart phone.




short of 4k he's right
By surt on 5/11/2014 1:49:58 PM , Rating: 1
At 4k you can eliminate scaling artifacts, but between 1080p and there, you're only going to introduce scaling issues, so the display is going to look worse. I'll stick to a FullHD phone, thanks.




QHD?
By BRB29 on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: QHD?
By DFranch on 5/9/2014 8:13:00 AM , Rating: 4
That's debatable. The 41MP camera doesn't drain battery any faster, and has a visibly better photo results than any other camera phone. The downside is the size of the bump on the back of the phone. A QHD screen just drains battery faster and it's questionable if it can be seen with the naked eye.


RE: QHD?
By BRB29 on 5/9/2014 8:31:10 AM , Rating: 3
Compared to the 4MP HTC One camera, that 41mp barely edged it out. Let's be real about that. My Canon 5D MK3 even with the best L series prime lens won't saturate the 22MP sensor, and that's a full frame sensor. It's only when i step up to Zeiss or Leicas that I feel it needs a better sensor.

41MP camera does drain batteries faster because it's 41mp of processing lol. Come on man. There's bound to be more post processing as well or the pictures will look incredibly noisy.

I think the 41mp camera is great but I doubt anybody will know the difference if they scale it down to 20mp. With the size of the sensor and lens, they don't need anything close to 41mp.

QHD is not useful for 5" screens unless you have like 20/5 vision. I think OEMs will push QHD anyways. It's a good marketing feature, and another excuse for a new phone, and a good reason to put in the latest processors with twice the flops.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 8:52:15 AM , Rating: 2
LOL... I can just hear the chants...

"What do we want? LESS, when do we want it ? NOW"


RE: QHD?
By degobah77 on 5/9/2014 11:35:15 AM , Rating: 1
When do the advancements stop? When does the need to sell new shit to stupid people who think they need new shit stop?

I guess no resolution will ever be good enough. Until there are infinite pixels and infinite DPI, we just need more for the sake of needing MORE. MORE MORE MORE!

God forbid the human race want something less, right?


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: QHD?
By degobah77 on 5/9/2014 11:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
I'm just asking will it ever be good enough so we can move on to other things? I'm getting sick of the constant milking of consumers by marketing ever increasing resolutions beyond what most people can even perceive. Every year it's the same damn thing.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: QHD?
By degobah77 on 5/9/2014 12:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
What is the perfect resolution that needs no improvement because no one, and I mean no one, can tell a difference between the newest push of the envelope and the last? Is that what we're striving for?

It just feels like we're all turning into spec junkies, regardless of whether there's any perceived improvement, we KNOW there is, and then the purple dragon flies just a little further ahead...


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 1:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
Dood, if you cant see a difference, then don't buy it. No-one is forcing you. To answer your short-sighted question, they will stop bumping up the res when it stops mattering and no-oone can see a difference. 1080 wasnt that mark. I am guessing 2560x1440 will be about it for phones and phablets.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: QHD?
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 4:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well this quote is a bad example. It was often attributed to Gates but the man himself claims he never said it, and the earliest citations that he did are dubious. I'm on my phone so i cant paste any links but you can google the quote and look for yourself.

That said there's a ton of other asinine quotes made by a variety of tech "geniuses" that history has proven to be ridiculous. So your point holds.


RE: QHD?
By MozeeToby on 5/9/2014 8:56:21 AM , Rating: 2
The analogy I like to use is with chip manufacturing. Everyone talks about the resolution of the individual elements (14 nm fab has transistors 14nm across) but ignores the fact that the placing of both the individual components of the transistors and the transistors themselves is much, much more accurate than that.

All you need to do to demonstrate this on a smartphone is draw a black diagonal line on a white background. Even at "retina" ppi's of 300+ you'll still see aliasing on that line.


RE: QHD?
By melgross on 5/9/2014 10:31:52 AM , Rating: 2
No, you are wrong. No one can see this. It's just for marketing, nothing else.


RE: QHD?
By bildan on 5/9/2014 10:48:50 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're right. Remember the early days of printers. 300 DPI was said to be all anyone would ever need, then 600 DPI. I think some inkjet printers are now at 1600DPI.

200- 400 PPI is just getting started.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: QHD?
By atechfan on 5/10/2014 10:19:56 PM , Rating: 2
It is far easier to spot dots on paper than pixels on a screen at the same size. There is some bleeding together of pixels that tends to blur the lines between them. So a 300 DPI printout is going to have a lower perceived quality than a 300 PPI screen.

Love how you put diminishing returns in quotes. Do you even know what the term means? Phone screens have definitely reached the point where any further improvement will be noticed by fewer and fewer people. Nothing wrong with improving, as long as the other parts of the phone keep up. Improving res before the GPU is ready for it will hurt user experience more than help it.

But like I said before, I am glad the res issue is still being pushed by some manufacturers, because there are areas that can still benefit greatly from more pixels, like future VR goggles.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2014 8:48:18 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Phone screens have definitely reached the point where any further improvement will be noticed by fewer and fewer people.


Can you back that up with quantified facts or accredited studies?

I've already proven that normal every day people can point out in a double blind test which screen is HD and which is UHD. Overwhelmingly so and with great accuracy.

All you're doing is assuming.

quote:
Improving res before the GPU is ready for it will hurt user experience more than help it.


wow...

The current GPU's shipped with smartphones are overkill, if anything.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6877/the-great-equal...

I mean look at this! And you think pushing a few extra pixels in a 2D environment will even break a sweat?

How did you people even end up in a tech site, and why? Seriously...


RE: QHD?
By datdamonfoo on 5/9/2014 5:27:43 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry, but you are COMPLETELY wrong about the HTC one vs. the Lumia 1020. The 40 MP camera obliterates the HTC One in every measure. I personally have a Lumia 1020 and the pictures it takes are amazing compared to any camera phone I've seen, including other Lumias, Android phones, and iPhones.
Here's the HTC One vs. the Lumia 1020.
http://allaboutwindowsphone.com/features/item/1959...


RE: QHD?
By Zak on 5/9/2014 11:03:47 AM , Rating: 2
I can't think of a face palm big enough. You're comparing a sensor to a display.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 8:37:22 AM , Rating: 1
People said the same things about 1080p on smartphones.

You can have whatever opinion you want, I'll just tell you this: QHD will become the standard in Android flagships and, eventually, Windows Phone.

Of course Apple will probably take another decade just to hit 1080p, but they don't count when it comes to quality displays anyway.


RE: QHD?
By BDawg on 5/9/14, Rating: 0
RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 9:14:32 AM , Rating: 1
Anandtech has taken a clear pro-Apple bias over the past few years. I hardly even visit the site anymore for their smartphone reviews because of it, sadly.

Having said that, when I compare my workphone iPhone 5c with any other smartphone, the difference is staggering. I don't care what a review site says, the iPhone display LOOKS visually inferior in every way to the eye.

It's tiny, the resolution sucks ass, and the colors are muted and less vibrant than other displays. Text is jaggy as hell, etc etc.

It's about the whole EXPERIENCE to the end user. You can say the Apple displays are great in this category or that, but at the end of the day they just don't "look" as good as pretty much any Android or Windows Phone flagship or even a midrange phone.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 10:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
"Anandtech has taken a clear pro-Apple bias over the past few years."

I hate to say anything negative about Anandtech as it has been my home page for 16 years now and will continue to be... But you are right. I remember the day the iPhone 5 came out, there were 14 front page articles on it at Anandtech. I remember specifically because when I looked there was 11 and I made a comment saying WTF? 11 articles for one phone? Could we not just make 1 all inclusive article? And not an hour later there were 3 more. When the s4 came out, 2 articles. Any other phone, 1 article.

The iPhone does a good job with color calibration, but that is only one aspect. They are smaller, lower res and most importantly lower dpi than all of its competitors. For the most part AMOLED screens pop out at you with vibrant color and great black levels, but the color cal is brighter than actual reality. Some like it some dont, its a matter of taste not "quality".


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 11:21:33 AM , Rating: 2
For me this is when it became all too obvious:

http://www.anandtech.com/show/7543/a-post-about-re...

Seriously, just read this. Unbelievable.


RE: QHD?
By Dorkyman on 5/9/2014 3:42:01 PM , Rating: 2
I have an Android phone with removable battery and storage. I used to think it was cool to be able to carry an additional battery or two with me, but I never do it and also see the value of building a larger battery into a fixed case (because the fixed case allows one to do so).

Storage is another matter. My phone had an 8GB card, which I thought was plenty, and it was--for a while. Now I'm up to 32GB and it's over half full. Being able to upgrade in this fashion is a valuable feature.


RE: QHD?
By AFUMCBill on 5/10/2014 11:04:51 PM , Rating: 2
Besides being able to carry an extra battery or two, you might have seen the usefulness of a phone with a user replaceable battery. I like the idea of having devices that I replace when I chose, not when the imbedded battery finally dies.


RE: QHD?
By DerekZ06 on 5/9/2014 2:08:12 PM , Rating: 2
Anandtech uses measured quantifiable data to declare which device is better through benchmarks and specialized equipment. They can't measure which display LOOKS visually better in every way to the eye.

I can just imagine the comments if on the review Anandtech stated, "Even though our equipment tells us the iPhone display performs better, the iPhone display is tiny, the resolutions sucks ass, and the colors are muted and less vibrant than other displays. Text is jaggy as hell, etc etc."

I guess we should just damn them either way.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 4:41:26 PM , Rating: 2
The thing is, most of the population aren't color calibration experts or work at touching up photographs.

People love to laud the technical scores of the iPhone display, but I'm sorry, it just LOOKS like crap compared to a large gorgeous OLED display.


RE: QHD?
By Labotomizer on 5/9/2014 8:59:49 AM , Rating: 2
There are lots of things that could be improved that would have a bigger impact on image quality then the move to QHD. Considering there are not phones with a QHD screen currently I'm not sure how you can state that it's a "noticeable" difference. That would indicate you have been in a position to notice the difference. Which is a lie.

On a 5" 1080P screen (even on a 5.7") can you honestly say you can see pixels on the text? No, you can't. Because it's physically impossible to do so.

Focusing on power savings, color balance and saturation, sunlight performance would be better for the consumer and provide a noticeable improvement to the existing screens. The move to QHD is NOTHING but a marketing move. How can you purposefully be so blind as to ignore that while dissing Apple and their customers in the same breath?

Yes, this move will happen. And that's fine, I don't have a problem with the natural evolution of screen resolution. But to say that it will be a noticeable improvement is just lying to yourself.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/14, Rating: -1
RE: QHD?
By Labotomizer on 5/9/2014 9:15:47 AM , Rating: 5
And resolution is your monitor? Because if you're looking at a 1080p monitor comparing screenshot pictures that aren't zoomed up to NATIVE resolution the comparisons mean absolutely nothing. So yes, I'm accusing you of lying. Unless you're holding both devices in your hand you can't compare the two. And because we're talking about you, you're going to lie and say you can see a difference anyway. So not like it matters.

So, you hold your phone up to your face with the text zoomed all the way in often?

And NO ONE has said the same thing about a 4k resolution TV. We're talking about a 50+" device versus a 5-6" device. There is a world of difference.


RE: QHD?
By Labotomizer on 5/9/2014 9:24:00 AM , Rating: 2
And to set the record straight, I'm not saying I will avoid a phone because it has QHD and yes I do agree that 5"+ phones will have a QHD display because that's the evolution of things. I'm also saying I won't lie and say it's a noticeable improvement over 1080p.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 9:37:40 AM , Rating: 2
You know what, I can't see the pixels on my 1080p television either.

But just answer me this, why does a 4k TV look so much better? You can tell, it just looks a LOT better than 1080p!

And yet people will argue with me all day long that it's just a marketing gimmick, there's no benefit, you can't see pixels bla bla bla.

Oh and I love how everyone on the Internet is just automatically an expert on the human eye.

I'm just...tired of it.


RE: QHD?
By Labotomizer on 5/9/2014 9:49:46 AM , Rating: 5
Yes, you should stop trying to be an expert on the human eye. Good call.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 2
Ah so we're trolling now is that it?

Question still stands. If everyone is convinced there's "no benefit" in beyond 1080p, why is there such a clear improvement in visual quality when one exceeds it?


RE: QHD?
By heffeque on 5/9/2014 11:27:49 AM , Rating: 4
Don't feed the troll, Labotomizer. He must be in his teens and this must be the only place where people actually pay attention to what he says. Don't encourage that behavior.
In real life, people probably already know that he's extremely exaggerated and doesn't actually know what he's talking about, but on the internet, people that don't know him might actually think that he has a clue.


RE: QHD?
By Nutzo on 5/9/2014 10:41:01 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
But just answer me this, why does a 4k TV look so much better? You can tell, it just looks a LOT better than 1080p!


So a newer top-of-the-line 4k TV with better color repoduction, a brighter backlight, and better image processing looks better than your old 1080p TV that's out of color calibration, has a fading backlight, and outdated image processing technology?

Wow, it must be the 4k resolution, even though the show your watching is only 1080p


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 10:46:07 AM , Rating: 2
Way to make up a bunch of stuff that's NOT true, that I never said, to beat me over the head with.

I don't care how you couch it, 4K res is noticeable.

How about a double-blind test if you can't take my word for it?

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/4k-resolution-20131...

"The results are now in, and an overwhelming majority of participants correctly identified the 4K TV, indicating that there exists a perceptible difference even from as far as 9 feet away on a 55in screen."

But I'm sure you'll just troll this too.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 9:27:27 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
And NO ONE has said the same thing about a 4k resolution TV. We're talking about a 50+" device versus a 5-6" device. There is a world of difference.


Yes there is. You hold your phone MUCH closer to your face. Making high resolution even more important.

Look you can continue to be a technophobe and fear clear improvements. Me and the rest of the smartphone buying public has better things to do than rail against this stuff.

quote:
And resolution is your monitor? Because if you're looking at a 1080p monitor comparing screenshot pictures that aren't zoomed up to NATIVE resolution the comparisons mean absolutely nothing. So yes, I'm accusing you of lying.


Wow.. you really are an idiot aren't you?

1080p = http://www.celldekho.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...

QHD = http://www.celldekho.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/0...

Hey asshole, do you notice a difference now?

http://www.androidauthority.com/quad-hd-vs-1080p-c...

How about now?


RE: QHD?
By bug77 on 5/9/2014 9:38:54 AM , Rating: 2
Got it now.

Basically you haven't seen them side by side, you're just saying magnified images look better.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 9:49:24 AM , Rating: 2
Think you need your eyes checked. I think years of straining at that tiny iPhone has damaged them.

I never said I PERSONALLY compared them side by side. I don't have to, the difference is clear from the images as well as reviewers who HAVE compared them.

Go back into your cave and beat rocks together, luddite.


RE: QHD?
By Labotomizer on 5/9/2014 9:51:02 AM , Rating: 2
What reviewers? The G3 hasn't even been formally announced yet, let alone been in someone's hands. And it's the first phone to have it.

It amazes me how you can insult Apple's blind following of marketing and yet you do the exact same thing.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 9:53:34 AM , Rating: 2
???

I just linked you the review of a QHD phone display. I'm...confused.

I didn't know we were talking EXCLUSIVELY about the G3...

What is going on here? Ack! Blind following? How in the hell is supporting technology a "blind following"?


RE: QHD?
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 10:12:03 AM , Rating: 2
Unless your eyeballs can zoom the difference is negligible. I'm always a big fan of advancing tech, so I appreciate that the envelope pushing is continuing, I'd rather they put this much effort into battery tech than bumping screen res to the point where I need a magnifying glass and lossless image compression to spot a difference.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 10:31:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather they put this much effort into battery tech


That's a Red Herring by a mile. Who is "they"? They, being the people who manufacture panels for smartphones, should switch gears and develop battery tech?

quote:
Unless your eyeballs can zoom the difference is negligible.


Oh my...

/facepalm

While it is true our human eye cannot zoom (change focal length), it CAN re-focus to different distances.

If your argument had any merit, there would be NO point in Anti Aliasing. Because hey, we can't "zoom" in to see jaggy lines right??


RE: QHD?
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 10:51:40 AM , Rating: 2
Oh geez man, is it possible for you to respond without sounding like a pretentious twit? You're doing yourself no favors by trying to talk down to everyone like some wise old tree dispensing unfathomable knowledge. Nobody's buying it.

Well the money that LG spent on their display tech would probably serve us better if they used it to buy higher capacity batteries instead. Not really a big leap.

It's about diminishing returns. I'd wager if a 1080 and 1440 display, with equal contrast and color balancing were compared in a user test, I'd be shocked if 1 person in a 100 could tell them apart.

Here, I'll do your response for you:
/facepalm
Get your eyes checked!
Apple and Microsoft are for u cool losers.
Oh boy, you're quite the moron.

There, now u dont need to.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 10:59:43 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Well the money that LG spent on their display tech would probably serve us better if they used it to buy higher capacity batteries instead. Not really a big leap.


Again that makes no logical sense and sounds like something a small child would say.

I'm sure if there were better batteries available, LG would use them if there was a need and they were cost effective.

Also do you even KNOW that the G3 will need better battery life? Sounds like just an assumption based on...nothing.

quote:
It's about diminishing returns. I'd wager if a 1080 and 1440 display, with equal contrast and color balancing were compared in a user test, I'd be shocked if 1 person in a 100 could tell them apart.


And exactly what are you basing this on? Not saying you're wrong, but it sounds pulled out of your ass.


RE: QHD?
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 11:11:00 AM , Rating: 2
Ha! Wow. When you sell yourself on an argument you go all in, dont ya. Here, let me explain it like a child then so u can keep up.

"That go kart I made is pretty keen. But the engine I'm using needs to be faster!"
"But Billy! With these terrible tires, if you go any faster you wont make it near as far!"
"Oh good point, Jonny. Let's see if we can improve these tires, then work on a better engine."
"Awesome Billy! Hey, lets go to Reclaimer's house."
"Naa, he's a giant prick."
"Right again, Billy. You know I was only foolin."

I did pull that study out of my ass. But it holds up just as strong as posting pics of magnified images. That's like posting pics that the Hubble took and saying. "clearly you need your eyes checked cause obviously there's stars in that black spot in the sky."


RE: QHD?
By Nutzo on 5/9/2014 10:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd rather they put this much effort into battery tech


The biggest problem with current smart phones is the battery life. I'd gladly trade a little resolution for an extra 5-10% battery life.

For a 5" screen, I find that even 1280 resolution is fine. 1080p is overkill on anything under 10", as the difference is negligible.
At this level, the quality of the screen (color accuracy, brightness, black levels, etc) are more important than the actual resolution.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 11:14:44 AM , Rating: 2
"The biggest problem with current smart phones is the battery life. I'd gladly trade a little resolution for an extra 5-10% battery life."

All the better reason to go with LG. The G2 was the battery life king of last years phones. It has a new built in G-Ram chip that holds the screen image without refreshing like other phones and the result was a 25% improvement in efficiency when the screen is not refreshing (like when reading a webpage or a book) where others are constantly refreshing the same image. A 25% improvement when idle on the same page and a 10% improvement overall. This screen will also likely have a more efficient base and I am sure the LG G3 will be at or very near the top of the hill again with battery life and it will be better than the G2 which was already stellar.


RE: QHD?
By Nutzo on 5/9/2014 5:50:12 PM , Rating: 2
Except the LG phone does not have an SD card slot, and I prefer a removable battery, or at least an easily replaceable battery for when it eventually goes bad.

If they started to make phones with at least 32GB or even 64GB standard, without charging an extra $200 for the phone, then I would be willing to give up the SD card.

As for the battery, getting another 10% isn't enough to give up the ability to replace the battery. If they more than doubled the life of the battey, so I could get 2-3 days on a charge then I'd be willing to reconsider.

Batteries have a limited number of charging cycles, usually around 500. If I charge my phone every day, the battery will start to fade before it's 2 years old. Give me a larger battery, that I only need to charge every 3 days, and those 500 charges are now good for over 4 years. I doubt the phone would last 4 years, so at that point it becomes a lifetime battery since I won't need to replace it.


RE: QHD?
By av911 on 5/9/2014 1:47:07 PM , Rating: 1
"1080p is overkill on anything under 10", as the difference is negligible."

You people must be blind. STFU if your eyes are that bad.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 2:04:05 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly... And stay off the road, you have eyesight issues.


RE: QHD?
By Nutzo on 5/9/2014 5:58:16 PM , Rating: 2
Not saying you can't see a difference, but for most people the only thing 1080p does on a small screen is drain thier batteries faster, and cause lag in thier scrolling.

I have users at the office that set thier 1080p 22" LCD's to 1280x768 because everything is too small, then they complain that it's blury.

Adjusting the font size doesn't help as we have some older software (Windows 95/98) that doesn't resize with the settings.

If I could buy lower resolution screens for some people I'd do it. Like a 22" @ 1280x800


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 10:03:30 PM , Rating: 2
You cant compare monitors in windows to this... Windows scales horribly, they are putting the res low because text is too small not because of the IQ. Smartphones and tablets on any modern OS dont have that issue. The other thing is distance. You dont hold a monitor 12 inches from your face.


RE: QHD?
By bug77 on 5/9/2014 10:20:08 AM , Rating: 2
Can you not see the images are magnified? Of course there's a difference. We were just saying it may not be apparent to the naked eye.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 10:25:25 AM , Rating: 2
If going from 1080p to 4k is apparent to the human eye, why wouldn't QHD be? Even if it's more subtle, it's still an improvement.

Sorry if you believe that someone researched this technology as one big marketing ploy, than you probably think the same about quad core CPU's, faster RAM speeds, or SSD's etc etc.


RE: QHD?
By bug77 on 5/9/2014 10:38:33 AM , Rating: 2
Now you're just mixing smartphones with TVs. A classic symptom of running out of arguments.

Why is it so hard to admit: you haven't seen the difference, you've just read that other have seen it.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 10:50:45 AM , Rating: 2
A classic symptom that you're an idiot.

Smartphone VS. TV is a perfectly valid argument, all the same principles apply.

In fact it only further bolsters my argument because image quality is even MORE important on a smartphone due to the much closer viewing distance.

Do you just not understand this stuff, or as usual, are looking to troll?


RE: QHD?
By ritualm on 5/9/2014 12:01:54 PM , Rating: 5
I'd actually upvote you if you, for once, stop calling everyone else an idiot just because you think they disagree with you.

I'm far more likely to click "Worth Reading" on tonyswash's posts than I would with all of your posts, sir, because you are a pretentious condescending twit. You suck off Google, Android and Samsung as if they're paying you a living wage, and you have the gall to act like Testerguy whenever someone makes a pointed remark against your wrongheaded arguments.

I've seen more level-headedness out of North Koreans than you.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 2:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
"I've seen more level-headedness out of North Koreans than you."

Ouch... But if you really wanted to insult him, you would say "I've seen more level-headedness out of extreme left wing liberals than you."

:P


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 7:27:09 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
I've seen more level-headedness out of North Koreans than you.


Nice of you to preach down to me, then end it with a racist statement. You're the very picture of tolerance and respecting others, I see.

Yeah I'm sure ALL "North Koreans" are like Kim Jong Whoever. Good call!


RE: QHD?
By flyingpants1 on 5/10/2014 10:45:24 AM , Rating: 2
A lot of them are, dude.


RE: QHD?
By Labotomizer on 5/9/2014 9:49:03 AM , Rating: 2
Sure, it looks like the FHD screen is brighter and has better colors. Given the choice I would take the FHD one.


RE: QHD?
By cwolf78 on 5/9/2014 11:34:42 AM , Rating: 2
I honestly don't see a difference. The side-by-side (non-zoomed) shots look identical and the zoomed-in shots both look pixelated.

I have a HTC One M8 with an "inferior" 1080p screen with a "mere" 441 ppi and I sure don't see any pixels. Coming from the Galaxy S III I see a huge difference, but I think that's more to do with the pentile matrix than the increase in resolution (blue text on a white background was horrid on that phone.)

That being said, until I see some battery life benchmark comparisons between a FHD and QHD phone that are nearly identical save for the display I say the jury is still out on if QHD is worth it on a phone or not. If battery life somehow manages to be the same or within a couple percent I say no biggie - but there's usually no such thing as a free lunch.

I'm also curious what the performance degradation is going to be like going to QHD. You know most if not all games are going to be upscaled, but even if the phone UI, web browser, etc are rendered at native QHD I think there's going to be a performance penalty involved. I'm going to try to get my hands on the HTC One M8 Prime when it comes out to compare to my M8. I have a feeling it's going to feel slower even with the SD 805 in it but I'm willing to be proven wrong!


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 11:42:42 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
That being said, until I see some battery life benchmark comparisons between a FHD and QHD phone that are nearly identical save for the display I say the jury is still out on if QHD is worth it on a phone or not.


Hey that's fair and I understand.

But the same was said about 1080p phones. There ended up not being any real-world penalty in increased res, because other components became more efficient.

Also there are BIG gains in panel efficiency technology that just hit tablets. When they get scaled down to phones, we'll be seeing more increases.

quote:
I have a HTC One M8 with an "inferior" 1080p screen with a "mere" 441 ppi


Hey come on now, nobody said 1080p was already inferior.

I just don't see the point of people railing against the future. QHD will happen, so I don't know...just get over it guys.


RE: QHD?
By ritualm on 5/9/2014 12:12:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
do you notice a difference now?

Yeah, I see a big difference, and it has nothing to do with actual display resolution at all.

Android phonemakers are abandoning the small flagship phone market in droves. In fact, every single flagship phone in the past 6 months out of Googleland (other than the rarefied Sony Z1 Compact) is 5"+, and the trend is heading towards 5.5".

Which means I can no longer hold any Android phones with one hand.

Kindly tell me, what's the point of a 5"+ QHD phone when you can't hold the damn thing with one hand anymore? These aren't media consumption devices, these are phones, we use them to make calls, not argue "who is more wrong" on Facebook.

I'm at the point where, if the phonemakers don't wake up and offer a flagship phone for the under-5" market in the next 6 months, I'm going back to the iPhone. Meanwhile, you can get bent/banned for all I care - your opinion is completely irrelevant.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 4:49:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'm going back to the iPhone.


That's ALSO growing in size because nobody wants tiny phones anymore? Good call buddy!

quote:
Kindly tell me, what's the point of a 5"+ QHD phone when you can't hold the damn thing with one hand anymore?


I see people talking with one hand on Galaxy Note's and even Galaxy Mega's all the time. Wtf if the deal with your hands?

quote:
I'm at the point where, if the phonemakers don't wake up and offer a flagship phone for the under-5" market in the next 6 months


Yeah they should "wake up" and take a HUGE step back in product development...

Seriously you have the nerve to say I'm off. You, my friend, are stuck in the past.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/9/2014 4:51:39 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
These aren't media consumption devices


This statement alone shows how badly out of touch you are when it comes to smartphones.

Just get a flip phone or "feature phone" if all you want to do is make calls!


RE: QHD?
By ritualm on 5/9/2014 10:03:43 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
This statement alone shows how badly out of touch you are when it comes to smartphones.

Rule #1 when arguing on the internet: never say something that can be quoted verbatim directly against you.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Android/comments/2523sc/do...

You're beholden to Google/Android as if you're their spokesperson. Reclaimer77 - or rather, Testerguy3 - please bend over, as Andy Rubin needs to relieve himself into your idiotic ass.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 7:35:00 AM , Rating: 2
What does that link have to do with this discussion? I'm confused. It's just a bunch of comments by people.

This has nothing to do with Google or Android. I even said, Windows Phone WILL use QHD too. It's just a matter of time.

This is the SAME as people arguing against 1080p on smartphones. Why can't you see that? They were wrong about that, they're going to be wrong about this too.


RE: QHD?
By ritualm on 5/10/2014 3:39:02 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
What does that link have to do with this discussion? I'm confused. It's just a bunch of comments by people.

What does your comment have to do with this discussion? I'm confused. It's just a bunch of nonsense by a biased idiot.
quote:
This has nothing to do with Google or Android.

This has everything to do with Google and Android right now. Many people are displeased with the general creep towards ever-bigger phones.
quote:
This is the SAME as people arguing against 1080p on smartphones. Why can't you see that? They were wrong about that, they're going to be wrong about this too.

Says the guy who was wrong on everything related to Elon Musk, Microsoft, and now Android.

And continues to be wrong.

And calls everyone else an idiot because they called out what Testerguy3 said is wrong.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/10/2014 6:21:59 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Many people are displeased with the general creep towards ever-bigger phones.


Why are you confusing resolution with screen size? The two are not mutually exclusive. One could make a QHD 4" screen if they wanted to.

And you know what, "many" people might be displeased. But the majority isn't. Even Apple, the "Holy Grail" of small phone makers, is going large.

quote:
Says the guy who was wrong on everything related to Elon Musk, Microsoft, and now Android.


"Everything" I've said has been wrong on all of those subjects, even if it's an opinion.

Riiiight. Okay well enjoy your trollfest.

And I don't call everyone an idiot. Only those who seemed to deserve it at the time.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/10/2014 6:31:31 PM , Rating: 1
"This has everything to do with Google and Android right now. Many people are displeased with the general creep towards ever-bigger phones"

Enough already. You are clueless on this. You want smaller, buy smaller... Screens are getting bigger because that is what people are wanting. Even iPhone is going big... If Apple can admit it, you can too. Dont like it, buy something else, but you are arguing againt the inevitable and its not like you dont have choices. Take your wee hands and get out your credit card and buy a small phone and stfu...mmmkay?


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2014 8:42:00 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Take your wee hands and get out your credit card and buy a small phone and stfu...mmmkay?


AHAHAHA!!!

Win lol


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/11/2014 1:02:23 PM , Rating: 2
Seriously... WTF is he even arguing about? OK, we get it, he doesn't want a bigger phone. Putting up false reasons why things are getting bigger is pointless, its a free market. There is ONE factor driving larger screens People want larger screens. If the OEM's were pushing larger screens and people didn't want them, they wouldn't sell well and OEM's would then make smaller screens. Like we both said, even Apple is going large after a stubborn few years holding out. Why? Because its a gimmick? because of bragging rights? No, its because they are losing customers to large screen phones. Apple has internal data and feedback that shows why they went big - its been published. Most people that left the platform did it - not because they didn't like it, not because of the "walled garden", not because of quality, or apps or anything else. Most people that left Apple left because they want a bigger screen.

Get over it. There are still TONS of small screen options on all platforms. Buy one of them and get a grip.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 4:58:45 PM , Rating: 2
"Kindly tell me, what's the point of a 5"+ QHD phone when you can't hold the damn thing with one hand anymore? "

My wife is 5 foot zero inches tall and has small hands to match... She had no issues holding her Note 2 and that was alot bigger than todays smaller bezel flagships.

So... What is wrong with either your hands or your technique that makes you "no longer hold any Android phones with one hand"?

IF you say you just dont like it that big, fine, but dont say you "cant hold it", come on.

So.. What is the point of a 5"+ QHD phone ? People WANT it even though you dont. So... You dont have to buy it.

What is the point of an SUV when you drive a sedan? Different needs for different people.


RE: QHD?
By ritualm on 5/9/2014 9:56:00 PM , Rating: 2
retro, Android phone users are being pushed towards bigger and bigger phones, just because 'bragging rights'. It used to be that 5" is the high-end. Now, 5" is the budget market, with everyone nudging towards 5.5" and 6". If you want a small Android flagship phone, especially under 5", Google et al. says 'no, you're getting a 5"+'.

Which leaves them with either iPhone or Windows Phone.

I like having QHD on new stuff. What I really don't like is being forced to use increasingly bigger phones just to get there. But the horde of Android folks keeps saying "dude, give it up! 5.5" is the future, get with the program!" If you pay attention, there are a lot of folks like me who are dissatisfied with the direction these phones are going.

You're right, I don't have to buy it. In fact, I'm drawing a line in the sand and getting off Android this year, because the phonemakers keep thinking "bigger is better" with wanton disregard for actual usability.

Superior specs don't make a phone better.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 11:01:59 PM , Rating: 2
"retro, Android phone users are being pushed towards bigger and bigger phones, just because 'bragging rights'"

Come on... give people some credit. That isnt why they are getting bigger. They are getting bigger because people want it. With all that todays smartphones do, ios, andoid, wp, even bb, to put all that great functionality into a tiny screen is a waste and people are realizing that more and more. I have a 5.2 incher and i am going to get the g3 at 5.5 because I want it a bit bigger... not as some sort of rediculous status symbol, its a tool to me and a bigger screen makes it a better tool period. Its secondary funtion is entertainment, and a bigger screen makes that better too.

Note: even Apple as stubborn as they are are going 4.7 and soon after 5.5 for the iPhones. Its a done deal. There are small screen options, buy what you want, but the mainstream is going big because people want it bigger. You are gonna have to deal with it.


RE: QHD?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/11/2014 9:00:49 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
retro, Android phone users are being pushed towards bigger and bigger phones, just because 'bragging rights'.


Okay I've seen you twist a LOT of subject into some bizzare anti-Android rant, but this is seriously pathetic.

You clearly don't understand how capitalism and markets work, my friend. Nobody is being "pushed" towards anything!

If nobody bought larger phones in sufficient numbers, you wouldn't be seeing them in such numbers. Hello?

Google's first and only flagship, the Moto-X, the phone they poured BILLIONS of dollars into marketing and researching and making. The one they designed custom chips for, custom "active display" technology, and a new audio chip interface that listened for user commands. It was hailed as THE best experience on an Android phone one could buy.

It had a 4.7 inch screen!

And guess what? It flopped.

You people keep saying you want smaller phones, then make all kinds of excuses for why the small phones that are offered "aren't good enough".

It is YOU (the consumer) that has sent OEM's the message of larger screen sizes. Because that's what everyone is buying!


RE: QHD?
By Nutzo on 5/9/2014 10:35:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
People say the same thing about 4k. And you probably said the same thing about 1080p.


And 4k on anything smaller than a 40" TV will hardly be noticable to most people, so for most people it's a waste.

Now if you're sitting 8 feet away from an 80" TV, then 4k might be worth it.


RE: QHD?
By retrospooty on 5/9/2014 11:07:04 AM , Rating: 2
It really just boils down to individuals. For TV's it depends on how far your couch is from the TV and how your eyesight is at that distance. For a smartphone it depends on how far you hold your phone (8-16 inches is common and a wide range of difference) and how your eyesight is at that distance. Some people hinestly cannot see the difference from 480p to 1080p at 12 inches. Thier near range site is poor and they cant tell - so for them, its not worth it... For others, like me, I can CLEARLY see a quality differecne from 720 to 1080 at 12 inches on a 5 inch screen... CLEARLY. So for me that was a good jump. I am getting a G3 regardless based on its other attributes, but I will be comparing my G2 to a G3 screen side by side to see what I think.


RE: QHD?
By cknobman on 5/9/2014 9:30:35 AM , Rating: 2
Seriously, are you that dense?

A 41 MP camera takes pictures (which are digital files BTW) that are far higher in resolution. This allows you to zoom without losing clarity, take your digital file and put it on a screen that can take advantage of the resolution, print the image to far greater sizes without seeing pixelation, etc.....

QHD resolution on a screen where the pixel density is already higher that the human eye can detect has debatable advantages at best.

Real reason QHD is coming to phones? Its the next gimmick, tech spec, marketing item they could come up with to get people to keep buying phones!


RE: QHD?
By scbundy on 5/9/2014 9:39:24 AM , Rating: 2
The big advantage of the 41mp camera most people overlook is the 3x lossless zoom.


"If you can find a PS3 anywhere in North America that's been on shelves for more than five minutes, I'll give you 1,200 bucks for it." -- SCEA President Jack Tretton














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki