backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by cyberguyz.. on Apr 14 at 5:42 AM

Galaxy Mega devices get official

Earlier this month a rumor surfaced that Samsung would begin calling its big-screen smartphones or “Galaxy Mega”. At the time a device with a 5.8-inch screen in the device with a 6.3-inch screen were tipped. Both of those devices have now gone official.

The Galaxy Mega 6.3 will have a 6.3-inch HD resolution LCD screen with support for up to 720p HD content. The resolution of the Mega 5.8 is listed as QHD. Both of these smartphones will use Android 4.2 and dual-core processors. One difference between the devices is that the Mega 5.8 will use a 1.4 GHz processor while the Mega 6.3 uses a 1.7 GHz processor.

Both smartphones have a 1.9-megapixel front facing camera and an 8-megapixel rear-facing camera. Integrated storage for the Mega 5.8 is 8 GB while the Mega 6.3 will be available in either 8 GB or 16 GB configurations. Both devices also have a memory card slot with support for up to 64GB of additional storage.

Other common features between the two phones include Wi-Fi, Wi-Fi Direct, Bluetooth 4.0, GPS, GLONASS, and various sensors. The Mega 5.8 has a 2600 mAh internal battery and the Mega 6.3 has a 3200 mAh battery. The Galaxy Mega 5.8 measures 162.6 mm tall by 82.4 mm wide by 9 mm thick. The Mega 6.3 measures 167.6 mm tall by 88 mm wide by 8 mm thick.

Both Mega smartphones will land in Europe in Russia starting in May. Availability in other countries is unknown at this time. Pricing for the devices is unknown at this time.

Source: Samsung



Comments     Threshold


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

holy big pixels batman
By EasyC on 4/11/13, Rating: 0
RE: holy big pixels batman
By xti on 4/11/2013 10:41:55 AM , Rating: 5
EVEN MY TOILET HAS 1080P COME ONNNNNN


RE: holy big pixels batman
By EasyC on 4/11/2013 10:45:12 AM , Rating: 2
Feature phones have smaller pixels....


RE: holy big pixels batman
By zorxd on 4/11/2013 11:20:58 AM , Rating: 2
it's the number of pixels that count, not the size.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By BRB29 on 4/11/2013 11:24:42 AM , Rating: 2
According to a study surveying over 200 women, 96% agree that size matters.

And you got a small....pixel.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By Samus on 4/11/2013 12:23:43 PM , Rating: 2
I did that study back in college.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: holy big pixels batman
By CrazyBernie on 4/11/2013 12:16:10 PM , Rating: 2
Someone didn't eat his Sense of Humor or Sarcasm Wheaties this morning.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: holy big pixels batman
By xti on 4/11/2013 12:29:52 PM , Rating: 2
I am sure we can help you become funnier. That's what friends are for.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: holy big pixels batman
By BRB29 on 4/11/2013 12:57:25 PM , Rating: 2
an interwibble bully sighting!


RE: holy big pixels batman
By TakinYourPoints on 4/12/2013 1:33:20 AM , Rating: 2
People are so mean to cheese. He's just misunderstood, that's why his posts are always so angry and stupid.

You all need to leave the poor guy alone.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/12/13, Rating: -1
RE: holy big pixels batman
By cyberguyz on 4/14/2013 5:42:07 AM , Rating: 1
You sound pretty angry to me.

Just sayin...


RE: holy big pixels batman
By xti on 4/11/2013 3:33:52 PM , Rating: 2
but...you arent supposed to punch your friends!!! no Christmas card for you!


RE: holy big pixels batman
By ven1ger on 4/11/2013 6:04:23 PM , Rating: 1
Need to chill. This is a forum, it's not like anyone is forcing you to read the comments nor should you need to get personal about it. I think we all understand that it's sometimes difficult not to get hot under the collar when certain buttons get pushed or people start spouting idiot things around but I presume we're all mature enough to know when to back off a little and when we need to chill to keep things sane.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By Cheesew1z69 on 4/11/13, Rating: -1
RE: holy big pixels batman
By xti on 4/12/2013 9:59:51 AM , Rating: 2
we can sing kumbayah together dried milk.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By syslog2000 on 4/12/2013 5:42:50 PM , Rating: 1
Your ass has a throat? What form of devilry is this?


RE: holy big pixels batman
By quiksilvr on 4/11/2013 10:51:32 AM , Rating: 2
So long as its AMOLED Plus and not PenTile it should be fine. Furthermore having less pixels should greatly improve battery life.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By zorxd on 4/11/2013 11:23:37 AM , Rating: 2
From what I understand it's LCD not AMOLED.
Still, 1080p pentile would have been much better than qHD real stripe.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By GulWestfale on 4/11/2013 12:29:32 PM , Rating: 2
the low pixel density on both devices and the fact that it launches in russia before the US/south korea should have tipped you off that these are not meant to be high-end devices. they're basically little more than an S2x with a bigger screen. i'm guessing amazon and ebay will have them for around 300 bucks soon.


RE: holy big pixels batman
By Boze on 4/12/2013 1:16:25 PM , Rating: 3
QHD (2560×1440)

QHD (Quad HD), also sometimes advertised as WQHD[25] due to its widescreen shape, is a display resolution of 2560×1440 pixels in a 16:9 aspect ratio. It has four times as many pixels as the 720p HDTV video standard, hence the name.

This resolution was under consideration by the ATSC in the late 1990s to become the standard HDTV format, because it is exactly 4 times the width and 3 times the height of VGA, which has the same amount of lines as NTSC signals at the SDTV 4:3 aspect ratio. Pragmatic technical constraints made them choose the now well-known 16:9 formats with twice (HD) and thrice (FHD) the VGA width instead.

In autumn 2006, Chi Mei Optoelectronics (CMO) announced a 47" 1440 LCD panel to be released in Q2 2007;[26] the panel was planned to finally debut at FPD International 2008 in a form on autostereoscopic 3D display.[27]

Some examples of LCD monitors that have pixel counts at these levels are the Asus PB278Q, LG EA83, Dell UltraSharp U2711,[28] U2713HM[29] and XPS One 27", iiyama ProLite XB2776QS, I-O Data LCD-MF271CGBR, Samsung S27A850D, S27A970, and S27B970, HP ZR2740W, ViewSonic VP2770-LED, LG 27EA83, Nixeus NX-VUE27, NEC MultiSync PA271W,[30] and the Apple LED Cinema Display, Thunderbolt Display, and 27" iMac.[31]

Holy NOT Big Pixels, Dumbassman.


By Roland00Address on 4/11/2013 10:48:53 AM , Rating: 2
So about 174 or 175 pixels per inch for the 6.3" model, and 190 pixels per inch for the 5.8" model.

For comparison
Original Iphone to 3GS, 163 ppi
Microsoft Surface Pro, 208 ppi
HTC evo (the original one, 4.3, 800x480), 217 ppi
Samsung Galaxy Note I, 285 ppi
Samsung Galaxy S3, 306 ppi
Iphone 4 and 5, 326 ppi
Samsung Galaxy S4, 441 ppi

It is also probably going to be a crappy dual core and not something nice like the krait 400 if the soc is limited to 720p decode (unless the marketing material is flat out wrong, there are 1.4 and 1.7 ghz krait 400 cpus with adreno 305 which would make this phone faster than the galaxy s3)




By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 1:14:02 PM , Rating: 2
It's not a high end phone. It's a budget large screen phone. The high end are the S4 and the upcoming Note3 are both 1080p. Even MS WP8 will have 1080p by the end of the year... Leaving only lonely Apple at the shallow end of the res pool. :P


By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 1:58:45 PM , Rating: 1
I can see pixels on the iPhone 5. That and pixels or not, size aside 1136x640 is simply not enough for me. Its a good phone if it suits your needs though... Anyhow, you cant compare iPhone5, or S4, or any other high end to the Mega, its a low end phablet. Kind of like "My BMW M3 is better than your Nissan Sentra" Well, no kidding, its an economy car.


By TakinYourPoints on 4/11/2013 5:59:10 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I can see pixels on the iPhone 5.


Lies. Pixel density is so fine that you can't even make out pixels in the miniaturized app logos in folder icons. Just because you can make out the pixels in a crummy pentile matrix doesn't mean you can do the same with an IPS display.

First comparing iOS with Blackberry, now this, you just make things up for lols at this point.


By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 7:11:23 PM , Rating: 1
BS I cant. I see iPhone 5's every single day, helping user with varius issues... They are small, but you CAN make them out. Its definitively not as sharp as a Droid DNA. Try it next time you are near a cell carrier store... Hold your little starter smartphone up to a 1080p DNA, or whatever other 1080p Android and tell me you cant see pixels on your iPhone 5. If you cant, then Get your eyes checked.


By TakinYourPoints on 4/12/2013 12:52:36 AM , Rating: 2
I actually got my eyes checked 2 weeks ago, plus I wear computer glasses with slight magnification so those details are even more obvious at close range, but thanks.

A Droid DNA is very sharp, no question, it has a great screen. That said, you cannot see pixels or screen door effects once you're over 300 PPI, I don't care if you have 20/10 vision, no way. You need a loop or other magnifier for something like that.

The curves or details of a tiny fine print "o" or "a" on the iPhone are smooth with no visible pixels. Once you get past a certain point then you just can't tell. You can tell with a retina display iPad at 264 PPI, but obviously those pixels are very very small.

Now fuzziness in a pentile screen like the GS3 is apparent, but that is not because of its 306 PPI. It uses fewer subpixels, giving it a lower effective resolution than a "lower" resolution screen like on the iPhone 4, so it cannot render fine detail well. The result is fuzziness in small details and text. Seeing that fuzziness is different from discerning individual pixels, but there it is.

SO yeah, you can see the effect of fewer subpixels in your GS3, but again that's because pixels share subpixels, which is because Samsung uses substandard components and materials in their flagship devices.

In any case, it is amazing how far you go to stretch credibility and reality while showing such a weak grasp of technical knowledge. Every time you talk about anything to do with video scaling or resolution support I laugh. First the Blackberry comment, then your reality bending insanity on tablets, and now seeing individual pixels in 300PPI+ displays.

You've been on fire the last couple days, its up there with a 14 year old fanboy making things up to justify their console purchase.


By retrospooty on 4/12/2013 1:30:01 PM , Rating: 2
You are a complete moron. I am looking at an iPhone 5 right now, my co-workers phone. It is in front of my face as I type. I am looking at it with Anandtech's site loaded and I can make out pixels. I am not saying its too low of a DPI for enjoyable viewing, it looks fine, but I CAN make out pixels. All I am saying is 300-326 DPI is not the end of the rainbow here. Higher is better. I can see the DPI/sharpness difference when holding a DNA to an iPhone 5. I did it a a Verizon store over a month ago and I can see pixels on the 326 DPI iPhone. Not annoyingly so, but I can see them. The only Annoying thing about it is the size and lack of resolution to remote in to other computers and maneuver them. It just doesn't work well. Sorry you cannot accept that, but that is the way it is. You can enjoy your low res phone. I do not want it for alot of reasons, but the #1, by far is the lack of res. I could get past the rest, but 1136x640 just isn't enough for a high end phone to me. Period. I cannot comprehend why that chokes you up, but whatever... choke away.


By retrospooty on 4/12/2013 2:00:14 PM , Rating: 4
Here... Since you cant seem to accept me at my word you pompous ass.

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

"Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, has challenged Apple's claim. He says that the physiology of the human retina is such that there must be at least 477 pixels per inch in a pixelated display for the pixels to resolve (become imperceptible to the human eye) at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm).[11] The astronomer and science blogger Phil Plait notes, however, that, "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4's pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight [20/20 vision], the picture will look just fine....So in my opinion, what Jobs said was fine. Soneira, while technically correct, was being picky."[12] The retinal neuroscientist Bryan Jones offers a more detailed but similar analysis and comes to a similar conclusion: "...I'd find Apple’s claims stand up to what the human eye can perceive."[13]"

Even an Apple fansite agrees.

http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-en...

"Unfortunately, there’s no universally accepted limit to what the human eye can see. According to DisplayMate’s Dr. Raymond Soneira, the industry’s go-to guy on display technology, the resolution of a perfect human retina is 0.6 arc minutes per pixel. So for the iPhone 4S, for example, to be truly Retina, it would need to have pixels that are 40% smaller than it currently has.
Read more at http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-en... "


Plenty more links available on a simple Google search that collaborates what I said... Is that enough all knowing one? Whats this? You are wrong again? how could it be? And you call me a liar? Asshat.


By Roland00Address on 4/11/2013 3:48:41 PM , Rating: 2
So if the 6.3 is 1280x720 and not quarter FHD 960x540 that boosts the ppi to about 232 or 233 ppi


By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 4:10:38 PM , Rating: 1
I think that is some sort of a BS marketing trick. " HD resolution LCD screen with support for up to 720p HD content" is clever way of saying "not really 720p". They seem to be doing a good job of hiduing the res... Elsewhere the specs show QHD which is 960x540. Whatever though, its a cheapo low end phone. For that size a screen, even 720p isnt good. I guess its good for low end.


By theapparition on 4/11/2013 12:30:04 PM , Rating: 2
But for real comparisons, how does this stack up, price and feature wise, to what Russians and eastern Europeans can get now.

This isn't intended for other markets, so perhaps there's a reason for the paltry specs, or that cost is such an issue, they need to skip the high end specs and go budget.


By mik123 on 4/11/2013 3:59:21 PM , Rating: 2
Russians can buy iPhone 5 at Apple store in Moscow at the same price (perhaps $50 more) it's selling in US. Same with any other phone.


My phone is bigger than yours
By BRB29 on 4/11/2013 11:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
That's 2 big ass phones. Now I can't tell if they're talking on the phone or blocking the sun.




By Assimilator87 on 4/11/2013 11:35:34 AM , Rating: 2
Simpsons did it!


RE: My phone is bigger than yours
By Flunk on 4/11/2013 11:38:26 AM , Rating: 2
Why can't it be both?


Phone and Tablet, not Phablet
By mjv.theory on 4/11/2013 1:17:45 PM , Rating: 2
If these are spec'd and priced for low-cost/price-sensitive markets then they are probably looking to fulfil two needs with one device, rather than just aiming at buyers that want a large phone. It would probably suit many people in "developed" markets, but perhaps that would cannibalise sales of other product lines.




By TakinYourPoints on 4/12/2013 1:40:05 AM , Rating: 2
Yup! It actually fills in the need for web browsing and email in low end markets. With one of these there is less need for an additional PC (or upgrading one) in a household, it is cheaper than a tablet, and its always connected via cellular.


Distraction
By SwampEagle on 4/11/2013 1:56:33 PM , Rating: 3
Shane,

Please have a 5 yr old check your first paragraph for grammar.




Good idea...
By retrospooty on 4/11/2013 10:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
I wouldn't be in the market for one, but a large screen mid range device sounds like a good idea. For those that want a large screen, but don't really want to pay a premium for higher res, active stylus, etc.

I am still hoping the Optimus G Pro somehow makes its way to Verizon... Damn, what a sweet phone.
http://www.gsmarena.com/lg_optimus_g_pro-pictures-...




Nerd Nitpick
By amanojaku on 4/11/2013 11:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The resolution of the Mega 5.8 is listed as QHD.
It's qHD (960×540), not QHD (2560×1440). For a second there, I thought people were crazy to complain about "low" resolution of 2560×1440!




"Nowadays, security guys break the Mac every single day. Every single day, they come out with a total exploit, your machine can be taken over totally. I dare anybody to do that once a month on the Windows machine." -- Bill Gates

Related Articles













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