Print 37 comment(s) - last by Monkey's Uncle.. on Aug 22 at 7:44 PM

LG shows off new 538 ppi display for smartphones

LG has announced the launch of a new high-resolution screen designed specifically for smartphones that is a first for the industry. The screen is a Quad Hi Definition 5.5-inch smartphone display with a resolution of 2560x1440.

According to LG, the display is only 1.21 mm thick and will have a minimum bezel of 1.2 mm. Those dimensions make the new screen 12% better compared to the previous 5.2-inch display used on the G2 smartphone it launched last month. The new screen also promises to be significantly brighter with a rating of 430 nits.
The resolution of the screen is a remarkable 538 ppi.

“LG Display, which pioneered the high resolution mobile market with introduction of the world’s first Full HD smartphone panel in 2012, again opens new possibilities with the successful application of QHD technology,” said Dr. Byeong-koo Kim, Vice President and Head of LG Display’s IT and Mobile Development Group. “With this breakthrough, LG Display will continue to raise new standards for mobile resolution and lead the mobile display market.”

The new screen uses a Low Temperature Poly-Silicon (LTPS) substrate. LTPS displays are expected to ship at a record 765 million units in 2014.
Earlier this year, LG showed off a 5” flexible OLED screen that is designed for mobile devices.

Source: Android Central

Comments     Threshold

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

Really necessary?
By techxx on 8/21/2013 10:24:00 AM , Rating: 5
I would like to see this resolution in the mainstream PC monitor market before these little screens!

RE: Really necessary?
By MrBungle123 on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: Really necessary?
By inighthawki on 8/21/2013 11:14:38 AM , Rating: 5
Are you referring to gaming? That's the only thing that would've brought a gtx680 'to its knees' at that resolution. Even Intel integrated graphics on Haskell should be enough to run even a 4k display in any non gaming scenario.

RE: Really necessary?
By laulie on 8/22/2013 4:57:33 PM , Rating: 1
like Kathleen said I cannot believe that some one can profit $9168 in a few weeks on the internet. did you look at this web page............ a

RE: Really necessary?
By mrwassman on 8/21/2013 4:28:12 PM , Rating: 2
Magnifying glass? Maybe. If I have 4 equally sized windows open on a 23-24" 1920x1200 display (or a program that has many subwindows), it would be nice to have all the icons and text represented with more pixels. Subpixel rendering works pretty well but than there is the price.

The price difference between 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 (More than likely the same pixel density, just a little more screen) shouldn't be so different. I understand they are a different "class" of monitor but even the low-end models are ~2X the price.

I don't think it takes a "very powerful" computer to run 2560x1440. Power must be relative to age and anything "modern" can (or could very inexpensively) handle the extra pixels. Correct me if I'm wrong.

RE: Really necessary?
By gwem557 on 8/21/2013 4:35:29 PM , Rating: 3
Then you were doing something wrong. My single gtx680 currently pushes my 2560x1600 monitor even during gaming, just fine at high settings.

RE: Really necessary?
By therealnickdanger on 8/22/2013 9:19:27 AM , Rating: 2
He forgot to mention the Willamette CPU powering the computer.

RE: Really necessary?
By Stuka on 8/21/2013 11:17:53 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. My 5" 1920x1080 has pixels which only become distinguishable with an aliased black and white transition.

I suppose it would be nice to have a completely smooth line without using anti-aliasing techniques. But, in practice, we're just talking about a lot of extra video processing and memory utilization for very little visual gain.

RE: Really necessary?
By Shig on 8/21/2013 12:21:05 PM , Rating: 2
There really isn't enough information to really say. I agree with everyone else that after 400ppi it's not very useful, but they didn't mention contrast ratio or refresh rates or any other in depth picture stats.

RE: Really necessary?
By ShieTar on 8/22/2013 4:12:57 AM , Rating: 3
I disagree with everyone else. Good magazines are printed in 720 DPI because it looks better than 360 DPI, and there is no reason why electronic screens should not profit in the same fashion. All that is required is Software which is capable of using the resolution instead of coming with fixed point-size UI-elements and fonts.

RE: Really necessary?
By retrospooty on 8/22/2013 8:55:10 AM , Rating: 2
Ya, I guess that the best way to put it is that it is about quality to the specific viewer. If you can personally see a difference in quality, its worth it. If your eyes cannot detect it, its not.

RE: Really necessary?
By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 7:42:30 PM , Rating: 2
My eyes can't so it would be a waste for me.

RE: Really necessary?
By inperfectdarkness on 8/21/2013 3:56:27 PM , Rating: 1
I'll add the LAPTOP market to that. God I'm so sick of not being able to find anything better than 1080p for a laptop screen.

Who in their right mind cares about this?
By SAN-Man on 8/21/2013 10:28:13 AM , Rating: 5
We don't even have this capability mainstream on the desktop.

I can't imagine it being useful at all on a phone.

RE: Who in their right mind cares about this?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 7:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
Except our desktop monitors are viewed from a foot or more away. We view our smartphones inches from our faces.

Why don't you people understand that? The closer the viewing distance, the more detail you want and the more you BENEFIT from it.

RE: Who in their right mind cares about this?
By troysavary on 8/21/2013 9:41:44 PM , Rating: 1
Firstly, what kind of idiot walks around with his phone right up to his face? I tend to hold it at chest height so it is really not much closer than my monitor. You must be one of those morons who is always so engrossed in his phone you run into shit all the time.

Secondly, with high res on a monitor, you can easily have 4 wondows open and not overlapping. When was the last time you needed (or even could) open 4 windows on a phone. ultra high res on a PC is WAY more usfull to anyone productive than the same res on a phone. Not all of beat off to our phone specs.

RE: Who in their right mind cares about this?
By Reclaimer77 on 8/21/2013 9:50:53 PM , Rating: 2
Uhhh I wasn't aware I was saying one is "more useful" than the other. Sure it would be great to have a monitor with super high resolution. It would also be crazy expensive.

And holding your phone at "chest height" is still far closer than your average desktop monitor distance. Are you really going to argue that? Come on, be serious. When I said "inches" I, obviously, didn't mean TWO!

Your hostility over this is comical kid.

RE: Who in their right mind cares about this?
By troysavary on 8/21/2013 10:12:11 PM , Rating: 2
OK, you didn't say "more useful", you said "more benefit", but last time I checked, that meant pretty much the same thing. When someone says "inches", mist people would assume 2 or 3 inches, as opposed to chest height, which is more like 12 or so inches from the eyes, the same distance you said a monitor would be. Just because you obviously can't back up what you said and now want to backpedal doesn't mean you are any less wrong.

By retrospooty on 8/22/2013 3:00:59 PM , Rating: 2
Do you really need to nitpick over details like that? Obviously what was meant is that people hold their phones much closer to their eyes than their desktop monitors and therefore it requires a much higher DPI to have an equal quality image. That is very true.

By coldpower27 on 8/22/2013 10:19:52 AM , Rating: 2
Totally agreed, I view my 30 inch PC LCD from roughly 3x the distance that I view my phone.

There is a need for displays of this caliber on your phone. I can still discern slight aliasing on iPhone 5's Retina Display. So bring on the the High DPI displays! :)

By Monkey's Uncle on 8/22/2013 7:44:54 PM , Rating: 2
I am over 40 and need bifocal glasses. I can't see something that is inches from my face so those itty-bitty pixels won't make any more difference to me than my SGS4 screen.

just what we need for VR
By robl on 8/21/2013 11:22:29 AM , Rating: 3
Get a couple of these in my Oculus rift please!!

Super-high DPI is quite useful when the display is 1 inch from your eye ...

RE: just what we need for VR
By Guspaz on 8/21/2013 12:10:56 PM , Rating: 3
Yep. The consumer version will probably end up with a 1920x1080 or 1920x1200 display, but this new one is the perfect size for a v2 consumer Rift.

RE: just what we need for VR
By brasstax on 8/22/2013 12:05:57 AM , Rating: 3
Agreed, my first thought when I saw the resolution here. Even still, probably not anywhere close to what is really needed for Oculus long term. I'd guess a 10MP display might start to narrow the definition gap assuming non-linear pixel density across FOV continues to be acceptable.

now show me...
By aliasfox on 8/21/2013 10:55:29 AM , Rating: 2
Now show me a 4x4 array of this LCD - 10240 x 5760 on a 22" 16:9 display? Yes please.

Totally pointless
By piroroadkill on 8/21/2013 10:59:06 AM , Rating: 2
Do not want. Cost and power drain, SoC working harder, for what? For shit my eye can not possibly ever discern.

To display overly compressed video that can actually fit down a 3G pipe. Even my home connection couldn't provide anything close to what would be required to give this screen the full amount of data to do it justice in real time.

First order of the day - ban all laptops with 1366x768. In fact, ban 16:9 PC displays entirely. 1.6, 8:5 ratio displays please.

I will admit to being intrigued by 3:2 of the Chromebook Pixel.

Nice work
By amypaige654 on 8/21/2013 4:52:06 PM , Rating: 2

Earning money online was never been easy as it has become for me now. Just visit the below mentioned link and you will know that earning at home from internet is not difficult. A little effort and handsome earning dream is just a click away. ...

538PPI ?
By retrospooty on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
By klstay on 8/21/13, Rating: -1
RE: Ridiculous
By McGaiden on 8/21/13, Rating: 0
RE: Ridiculous
By Etsp on 8/21/2013 11:56:12 AM , Rating: 3
Your very good points are offset by your extreme hostility. Try calming down a bit before you post next time.

RE: Ridiculous
By retrospooty on 8/21/2013 12:13:08 PM , Rating: 2

I do agree with him, it's not about "PPI" specifically, but there is a point of diminishing returns. PPI is a decent scale to go by, as you have to use some measurement that isnt "it just looks better". Some people cant see much difference beyond 300, and for some its more like the mid 400's, perhaps some are even higher, but beyond the mid 400's, you are really looking at diminishing returns. Very minimal improvement for large effort/cost. I cant see much need for higher than 1080p at 5.5 inches or less. But if they want to build it and people want to buy it, go for it.

RE: Ridiculous
By olivaw on 8/21/2013 8:07:23 PM , Rating: 2
So, only "A) the content on the TV and B) the surroundings" are the factors? How about we add:
C) focusing distance of objects
D) stereo vision (for most of us, anyway)
E) temporal construction of depth based on head and eye movement
F, G, H.... ????

I can tell you that your experiment would fail.

And what will I do if you come with more ignorant crap about it? Why? Nothing!

RE: Ridiculous
By bildan on 8/21/2013 6:46:01 PM , Rating: 1
Not ridiculous.

B&W laser printers mostly use 600dpi and magazine covers are typically 1400dpi.

RE: Ridiculous
By olivaw on 8/21/2013 8:17:03 PM , Rating: 2
Please remember that since printers are only able to set a pixel to on or off, not 20%, 30%, etc. like an LCD, they need a lot of extra resolution because of the patterns needed to trick the brain into thinking that colors that are, in fact, solid seem to be otherwise through dithering.

With B&W laser of old that were 300dpi, gray scale is atrocious, but pure B&W is quite good.

"You can bet that Sony built a long-term business plan about being successful in Japan and that business plan is crumbling." -- Peter Moore, 24 hours before his Microsoft resignation

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki