backtop


Print 82 comment(s) - last by Yojimbo.. on Oct 2 at 7:28 PM

New display will vie with LG, Samsung, and others for dominance

While Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (KSC:005930currently dominates the thriving smartphone commodity display market, a number of Asian rivals are aiming to unseat the South Korean giant.  Among them is Japan's Sharp Corp. (TYO:6753).

Sharp announced this week that it would be mass-producing a monstrous 443 ppi (pixels-per-inch) 1920x1080 pixel smartphone screen.  The 5-inch screen could appear in devices as early as the holiday season, but will likely show up in greater quantities next year.  The new display features a brand new pixel technology dubbed CG-Silicon, which Sharp promises brings smartphone displays in line with their full-size counterparts.  Sharp's display likely makes use of the company's new "Igzo" power efficient thin-display tech, as well.

The release marks the latest round in a game of brinksmanship by Japan and South Korea's top display makers.  Early this year South Korea's LG Electronics Inc. (KSC:066570) announced production of a similar 5-inch 440 ppi unit, which will likely launch in a similar window.  LG calls its display technology "Retina" displays.

Sharp Aquos
Sharp is thinking small with its latest 5-inch 1080 display. [Image Source: IntoMobile]

Sharp is reportedly looking to displace LG in Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) coveted iPhone, using a slightly smaller display unit.  The company announced in August that it would be shipping displays for the iPhone 5 en masse.  LG announced similar shipments, indicating that Apple would split its demand between the two manufacturers.

A third player is Japan's Toshiba Corp. (TYO:6502), which recently demoed a 498 ppi 6-inch display.  Toshiba's display could be the most impressive of the bunch -- unfortunately it's not yet quite ready for the market.  

Sources: Sharp, UnWired View



Comments     Threshold


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

Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 11:31:00 AM , Rating: 0
There's no point is such pixel density on such tiny screens. It's a fascination with a spec that has no practical benefit.

Hell, you're pushing it on a normal 15.6" laptop to have pixel density like that. Watch what at least 50% of the people in the world do when they run into that kind of pixel density on a screen that size...they turn the resolution down so they can read on-screen text easier. Especially considering that probably 90% of the world's PC users don't know there are options to adjust on-screen font size on their dekstops, and futzing with the scaling control in your browser can generally be a PITA.

Cut that pixel density in half, or more, and your enjoyment of the device wouldn't change a bit. Even for movies.




RE: Pointless
By FaceMaster on 10/1/2012 11:41:34 AM , Rating: 2
I always assumed it was so that you could double the size of everything and have much smoother text. The jump had to be made some time between now and that perfect vision of the future that we all have in our mind. Why not make the jump and encourage them to make faster hardware to keep up? It's about time these benefits lead to 4K screens on PCs.

http://1.androidauthority.com/wp-content/uploads/2...


RE: Pointless
By Flunk on 10/1/2012 11:51:15 AM , Rating: 2
Is a 15" 4k screen even practical? Would we be able to see a difference? Does anyone care? (it seems not seeing as low res 1360 x 768 screens are apparently the norm on notebooks).

I'm all for improved technology but it seems like we're just about to hit the wall on display technology (just like we did with sound) where people just stop caring. If you can make a sound system that can produce 99% of the range of possible sounds for $2 and one that produces 99.5% of the range of possible sounds costs $150, which will people buy? The answer to that has already been decided.


RE: Pointless
By Shadowself on 10/1/2012 12:15:48 PM , Rating: 2
So that must be why there is a very thriving market for 7.1 sound as well as 5.1 sound. Also it must be why some theatres have up through 22.2 systems. Even cable and satellite systems are now advertising delivery at 5.1 sound. (Too bad its already been decided in favor of cheap TVs that can, at best, do stereo sound.)

It also must be why there is a thriving market for digital music at up through 192k samples per second. (Too bad that CD is just 44.1k samples per second and compressed MP3s are even worse.)


RE: Pointless
By FaceMaster on 10/1/2012 3:28:52 PM , Rating: 2
Isn't that 44100 Hz and about 1400 Kbps with CDs?


RE: Pointless
By SPOOFE on 10/1/2012 3:29:46 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Also it must be why some theatres have up through 22.2 systems.

I don't think you have much of a point; theaters are huge rooms that most people don't have. And your point about 7.1 vs. 5.1? If the former were such a huge difference, wouldn't it have displaced the latter?

I think the "good enough" argument holds a lot of water. Only those with the sharpest ears, clearest eyes, and most critically discerning brains can derive anything interesting from extreme examples of sense-appealing technology. Most ultra-expensive technology is sold to people that want to spend a lot of money on something that a Commoner can't buy.


RE: Pointless
By getho on 10/1/2012 7:24:25 PM , Rating: 3
The argument you're trying to rebut is valid

http://people.xiph.org/~xiphmont/demo/neil-young.h...


RE: Pointless
By BZDTemp on 10/1/2012 12:32:28 PM , Rating: 2
I for one do not see the walls you're talking about.

For sure many are fine with what they have but the same could be said when people had monochrome monitors with maybe 80x25 text capability.

Be it monitor resolution, sound quality, the meat in burgers or the fabric used in your bed sheets there is always differences in quality and performance. Some may be perfectly happy with listening to a music box where you can make out the rhythm and lyrics while others want a setup that let's them hear all the details of the recording.


RE: Pointless
By geddarkstorm on 10/1/2012 12:58:17 PM , Rating: 3
We heard similar arguments at the advent of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, and they were wrong then. People do indeed care.

If you've used a high pixel density screen you'll understand why people like them so much, and why there is a push. Things like aliasing are no longer as much of an issue, and the clarity of text is vastly improved. Color and hue gradients also can get improved.

I don't see how we could go past, say, 4k though. Once you're in the 330+ ppi, you may start hitting diminishing returns, but we aren't even near that in laptop/monitor displays (think about printers which use 500-1,000 dpi; displays aren't anywhere near our print media in terms of that sort of quality).

Finally, the push for better resolutions and the hardware to support them trickles down to those lower cost pieces of equipment too. Ten years ago you couldn't buy a speaker system for $2 that would produce 99% of the sound range. That has only become possible because people pushed the bounds and customers bought more expensive 99% equipment, until technology advanced that those old top of the lines became the standard for everyone.

Same happens here with display tech. So I say bring it on! We need it. Desktop/laptop monitor tech is woefully lacking and behind tablet/phones, but hopefully the push going on in that market will spill over to our desktop/laptops in short order (as has indeed begun with that Macbook retina display).


RE: Pointless
By GTVic on 10/1/2012 2:46:29 PM , Rating: 2
Printers are a bit different. You need a higher starting resolution because a printer achieves colour variation by decreasing the number of 'pixels'.

For example, if you want 50% grey you would space your black toner particles twice as far apart which inherently reduces your resolution.

This is why an 8 colour inkjet plotter with extra lt.cyan, lt.magenta, lt.grey and dk.grey ink cartridges produces prints that are noticeably improved over a typical 4 colour printer.

From a CAD perspective, when there is a display that can render say a 1mm line and a 1.1mm or 1.2mm wide line at any angle without any stair stepping and without using anti-aliasing and the viewer can visibly see the change in width then I would say the DPI is high enough. 443 dpi (17.5 dpm - dots per mm) is close but you may need up to double that, somewhere between 20-30 dpm I think would do.


RE: Pointless
By SPOOFE on 10/1/2012 3:32:04 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
We heard similar arguments at the advent of Blu-Ray and HD-DVD, and they were wrong then. People do indeed care.

That's why Blu-Rays are outselling DVD's 3-to-1, right? Right? Oh wait....


RE: Pointless
By Solandri on 10/1/2012 6:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
For blu-ray players, I think it's more the fact that they can play DVDs but don't cost much more than DVD players.

Two of the network TV stations in Los Angeles broadcast in 720p. The other two broadcast in 1080i, which most TVs scan to make equivalent to 1080p. 100% of people I've asked have been unable to correctly say which stations use 720p and which use 1080i. People don't care.


RE: Pointless
By FaceMaster on 10/1/2012 3:31:07 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Is a 15" 4k screen even practical? Would we be able to see a difference? Does anyone care? (it seems not seeing as low res 1360 x 768 screens are apparently the norm on notebooks).


Hmm, I don't see how it could benefit 40" screens either! Oh wait, yes I do. Your argument is invalid.


RE: Pointless
By SPOOFE on 10/1/2012 3:34:03 PM , Rating: 1
Benefit? Sure it can. Benefit in a way that actually nets a noticeable increase in sales any time soon? Doubtful. Your argument is invali-i-i-id, durrrrrr!!


RE: Pointless
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 4:45:44 PM , Rating: 2
15" 4K isn't all that useful, but 27" 4K is.


RE: Pointless
By macca007 on 10/2/2012 3:01:43 AM , Rating: 2
hell yes please, Make it 120hz as well and cost under $1500 and I am sold! I know it will happen in a few years but when do we want it NOW! ;)


RE: Pointless
By zephyrprime on 10/2/2012 11:33:00 AM , Rating: 2
We haven't reached the wall yet but we probably will within 10 years time. The only reason it will even take so long is because people care little, not because the technology can't do it. The limit is the resolution of the human eyeball. Apple is correct in targeting display DPI at the natural capabilities of the retina. However, their "retina" displays need to about double in resolution before we actually hit the limit (sampling should be double the frequency to have not noticeable artifacts).


RE: Pointless
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 12:02:55 PM , Rating: 2
It's also equally pointless to stuff 1TB drives, 2.8GHz quad core CPUs, or 4GB of RAM into a laptop.

There is certainly a point of diminishing returns, and >400 DPI is probably it.

If a user is turning down the resolution to make on screen text easier to read then the OS is doing it wrong and rendering the text too small.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 12:43:54 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's also equally pointless to stuff 1TB drives, 2.8GHz quad core CPUs, or 4GB of RAM into a laptop.


No...at least, it depends on what you're doing with it. If you're using your laptop to do real work on the go when you're away from the office, it may pay dividends in productivity to have bigger specs. Or if you do gaming on your laptop. If you're just doing email and web surfing...then not so much. But if you're that kind of PC user, the same also applies to your desktop.

quote:
There is certainly a point of diminishing returns, and >400 DPI is probably it.


That point would vary based on screen size. On a phone, I think you're being too generous by a multiple of 2 at least.

quote:
If a user is turning down the resolution to make on screen text easier to read then the OS is doing it wrong and rendering the text too small.


Walk around any office building where people have high-pixel-density monitors. A keen eye will spot that *lots* of them are running at lower-than-optimal settings for that reason. It's not the OSs fault either...the OS is defaulting to making the most of the hardware...and the OS doesn't have any idea what font size you, personally, actually want to view things at - especially if you don't go and do any font size adjustments.

VAST numbers of people will even live with running their widescreen monitors at 4:3 resolutions just to get text to where they want to read it. Frequently, pointing out to them that they're running at the wrong aspect ratio, let alone resolution, will get you an "I don't care just don't f%ck with it."


RE: Pointless
By GTVic on 10/1/2012 2:54:14 PM , Rating: 2
The reason why high-dpi displays have the issue of either living with too small text or having to reduce the resolution is that high DPI in the PC world is not high enough.

PC high-dpi displays are at most 50% more pixels than a standard display. If you have a legacy application that doesn't scale well, you would see a huge improvement if the resolution was doubled, making everything half the normal size, and the OS could simply double the size of the window. Higher DPI displays would allow the OS to increase a Window by any arbitrary percentage and achieve a good result.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 4:31:55 PM , Rating: 2
No, and no.

DPI is plenty high enough. And it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with "legacy" applications.

The first problem is that vast numbers of people, probably the vast majority, have no idea about going into their settings/preferences in Windows and changing the text size.

The second problem is that changing it there doesn't change all text everywhere...do that and the text on your icons on the desktop is big, but then if you go and launch your web browser the text is all still small. Sure, then you can go and fiddle with your scaling in your browser, but again, vast numbers of people don't know how to do that, and secondly it's a PITA. And people get scared when you tell them to go and change settings of any kind anyway.

It's infinitely easier for these people to just turn down their resolution...one action that makes their text big everywhere, and then they just live with their displays being "out of focus" and/or displaying things at the wrong aspect ratio. It's easier for them than doing things the "right way."

If MS put a button on the desktop that scaled all fonts in every application, maybe we wouldn't have this problem. But they didn't, and we do.


RE: Pointless
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 3:53:28 PM , Rating: 2
You think > 200 dpi is the point of diminishing returns on a phone, why?

I hold my phone much closer to my face than my desktop LCD; The LCD is about 21" away while my phone is normally only 10" away. You have it reversed, I think; desktops probably don't see much better than 200 dpi while on a phone 400dpi is probably the best you can reasonably expect a ROI.

Most people aren't using a laptop to do real work on to go away from the office. Most people who own laptops are taking notes during meetings or running powerpoint presentations or entering data in the field (insurance agents, for example).


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 4:09:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You think > 200 dpi is the point of diminishing returns on a phone, why?


Because I can see the (lack of) difference with my own eyes on a screen the size of a cell phone. Doesn't make any significant difference. Look at two phones side by side...the difference is negligible, if noticeable at all.

On my 24" monitor on my desk, if you cut it in half from 1920x1080 I'd throw it away. The larger the screen the higher pixel density needed.

Basic physics. And no, the difference in distance from your eyes isn't that significant in the range you're talking about. Screen size is vastly more important than those ~10" or so.


RE: Pointless
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 4:42:49 PM , Rating: 2
Uh, you're clearly confused. Human vision doesn't work the way you describe; screen size is irrelevant, it's distance from the eye that determines how small the pixel can be resolved.

1920x1080 at 24" is only 92dpi; at 92dpi you would need to be about 30" away for it to be "immaterial" the way you expect, and diagonal length is irrelevant. The closer the screen, the higher the pixel density needed.

That's why eye charts use smaller letters to simulate distance.

If you want to believe that 200dpi is the point of diminishing returns for phones, then 92dpi is the point of diminishing returns for desktop displays.

Me, I gladly welcome 3840x2160 24" displays. I can clearly and measurably resolve 200dpi on my desktop and can clearly resolve at least 300dpi on my phone.

You can keep your 92dpi LCD, I expect more.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 5:19:42 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Uh, you're clearly confused. Human vision doesn't work the way you describe; screen size is irrelevant, it's distance from the eye that determines how small the pixel can be resolved.


Um, no. Screen size means everything, and the ability for an eye to resolve something is a function of it's size and it's distance. Not just one over the other.

I've asserted that the difference between your 10" and 21" distances isn't the significant factor, and I stand behind that.

Turn the resolution down on your 24" display from 1920x1080 to 1280x800 and tell me that "screen size doesn't matter."

Likewise, turn your 400dpi screen down to 200dpi on your 5" phone and try to tell me it makes any functional difference at all.

You've lost the plot.


RE: Pointless
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 5:29:09 PM , Rating: 2
Are you sure you aren't confused?

quote:
Turn the resolution down on your 24" display from 1920x1080 to 1280x800 and tell me that "screen size doesn't matter."


You've just increased the pixel size by 50% (assuming you meant 1920x1200 -> 1280x800). You can't make the screen size smaller, but you can definitely make the pixel size larger, which is exactly what I said:
quote:
it's distance from the eye that determines how small the pixel can be resolved


20/20 vision means you can resolve 1/16" at 20 ft, or a pixel at 300dpi at 10".

The difference between 400dpi and 200dpi is approximately the same as moving your phone closer by half (5" to my eye!) I can absolutely see the difference. Are you saying you can't see the difference between a phone held up at 10" and a phone held up at 5"?

Once you bring an iPhone up to 5", you should be able to see the pixels, meaning your point is wrong; there is in fact a functional difference between 200dpi and 400dpi.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 6:41:39 PM , Rating: 2
You've made my point for me.

On a large screen at 21" (to use your specs), DPI is *very* important.

On a phone, your variance of 11" from a 5" screen to a 24" screen isn't nearly as important as the pixel density. You're messing with the wrong variable.

And since no one uses a phone at 5" from their face, what difference does it make if you can see the pixels at that distance? You call that a "functional" difference? Only if you're horrifically short-sighted.


RE: Pointless
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 7:12:05 PM , Rating: 2
Your point would be made if you also said a 24" 4k monitor is pointless being that it is geometrically equivalent.

My point is that the difference between 400 dpi to 200 dpi is as big a change on a 5" screen as 200dpi to 100dpi on a 24" screen.

If you can see the difference on a 24" screen, you can see the difference on a 5" screen.

Apparent screen size, for example, is identical between a 24" screen at 4 feet and a 5" screen at 1 foot. Those are the distances where you can no longer "resolve" a pixel on a 1080p display.

Now while you don't normally hold a phone much farther or closer than 1', you definitely sit closer to your 24" display than 4', which means 1080p is woefully underspecced.

To get a similar "quality of life" out of a 24" display, you would need about a 4k monitor.

Are you going to now argue that you cannot visually appreciate a 4k 24" monitor? Because that is the "equivalent" geometry to a 5" 1080p screen which you say is pointless.

Me, as I've directly measured, can clearly see the pixels on a bog standard 1920x1200 24" display and can also clearly appreciate a 3840 x 2160 4k resolution.


RE: Pointless
By TakinYourPoints on 10/1/2012 7:28:07 PM , Rating: 2
Holy crap you're an idiot


RE: Pointless
By Solandri on 10/1/2012 8:29:41 PM , Rating: 2
Screen size is irrelevant. What's important is the angular separation between pixels. This is purely a function of DPI and distance from the eye to the screen. Screen size never factors into it.

150-200 DPI is a good target for screens viewed from about 2-3 feet away. 20/20 vision is the ability to distinguish two lines one arc-minute apart, or half an arc-minute per pixel (two black lines need a white line in between). So viewed at 36" the smallest distinguishable pixel is:

36" * tan(1/120 degrees) = 0.005236 inches, or 190.9 DPI. Any higher DPI than this is pointless at 36" inches - you can't see the difference with 20/20 vision.

If you squint at your phone from 12 inches away, this increases to 573 DPI. If you sit at a table with your big monitor 4 feet away, this drops to 143 DPI. Do note that this is for the very threshold of seeing - as in have to stare at it for a while to say for sure there are two lines and not one. In practical terms, moderately lower DPI is sufficient.

Along the same token, a TV viewed from 10 feet away only needs 57 DPI for 20/20 vision. For 1080p, that's a 39" screen. Similarly, a 4k screen (4096x2160) viewed from 10 feet would need to be 81" diagonal for you to just barely benefit from the resolution. For this reason I'm very skeptical of the market for 4k displays outside of theaters, work monitors, and for videophiles creating a cult over imperceptible improvements similar to audiophiles.

http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/


RE: Pointless
By TakinYourPoints on 10/1/2012 8:45:53 PM , Rating: 2
^^^ Exactly this. As many people here have been saying, the need for higher pixel density is partly the product of viewing distance.


RE: Pointless
By geddarkstorm on 10/1/2012 1:00:43 PM , Rating: 2
I dunno about you, but more speed and multitaskability is always better.

Also, who is turning down their resolution to read the OS? I've never seen anyone do that, and I certainly have never heard of anyone hacking their phone or tablet to turn down the resolution.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 1:04:25 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Also, who is turning down their resolution to read the OS?


*LOTS* of people. Go wander around an office building or small business and you'll likely be astounded at the number of people running a 1920x1080 monitor at 1280x800 or something because it makes the text bigger.


RE: Pointless
By geddarkstorm on 10/1/2012 1:12:25 PM , Rating: 1
I'd love to see actual numbers and statistics, rather than anecdotal sayings. Everyone around here uses computers, and there are many large labs full of dozes of them; no one turns down their resolution from anything I've ever seen. Again, I've never seen this practice occurring over the range of several hundred computer uses of various ages in this institution.

Additionally, a 1920x1080 monitor usually has around the same pixel density for its size as a smaller diagonal 1280x800 monitor. So are people also reducing the resolution on those small diagonal but same pixel pitch monitors too? Maybe it's a harkening back to when the older generation learned to use computers with CRTs at 640x400 and that's what they are comfortable with?

And one can scale up text without having to turn down resolution, especially in Windows 7 and up, so...


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 1:17:46 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I'd love to see actual numbers and statistics, rather than anecdotal sayings. Everyone around here uses computers, and there are many large labs full of dozes of them; no one turns down their resolution from anything I've ever seen. Again, I've never seen this practice occurring over the range of several hundred computer uses of various ages in this institution.


Firstly, I don't believe you...secondly, I've been seeing this happen for years, although it really blossomed around the time that full-HD monitors started showing up. The usual complaint, if you get any, is something like "my monitor is out of focus" - which is a result of running an LCD monitor at less than it's optimal resolution. Back in the day of CRT monitors, if you had a 22" Trinitron but wanted to run it at 1024x768 instead of 1600x1200, it was fine...it wasn't "out of focus" - but LCDs are only "in focus" at their optimal setting.

quote:
And one can scale up text without having to turn down resolution, especially in Windows 7 and up, so...


I've noted that several times. Most people don't know you can do that. And it doesn't help in every aspect of the system anyway.


RE: Pointless
By geddarkstorm on 10/1/2012 1:24:18 PM , Rating: 1
Well, I also do not believe you. Or rather, I think you are conflating issues.

I can see this out-of-focus issue occurring when people upgrade to a larger monitor (again, pixel pitch will probably not be changing!), and they set their monitor to the resolution they are familiar with for no other reason than it's what they recognize. A very different psychological issue, and one seen commonly when people change any of their hardware/software, not just monitors -- people gravitate to trying to set everything up back to the familiar, even if that is non-optimal.

Again, the smallness of text isn't really going to be changing when you jump up an LCD monitor size with its higher resolution but same pixel density; but jumping from a CRT to an LCD is a different matter. CRTs were nice in that you can change the resolution without any focusing issues.

So, I must say, show me the data. I don't believe your interpretation or anecdote, and you don't believe me, so only hard facts will do.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 3:13:48 PM , Rating: 3
Go walk around. The practice is so common that it's laughable for someone to claim they need "data" in order to believe it.

Me: Lots of people wear pants.

You: I don't believe you unless you show me data.


RE: Pointless
By Camikazi on 10/1/2012 1:29:48 PM , Rating: 3
I've noticed it in many companies as well, resolution lowered and refesh rate at a low setting making my eyes hurt. The places where it doesn't happen is where the computers are controlled by someone who knows how to work Group Policy and disables that ability. If you go somewhere where there isn't someone who controls the cmop and you will see it often.


RE: Pointless
By geddarkstorm on 10/1/2012 1:40:43 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe that group policy is what makes the difference; as indeed this institution is well managed on that front; but even for people's personal computers I have not seen this occur. Different sampling population most likely. Therein, to understand this we need actual data, not dueling anecdotes.

Why would people lower refresh rate, that has nothing to do with text? But, that feeds right into the psychology of trying to make things match the familiar.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 3:31:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
But, that feeds right into the psychology of trying to make things match the familiar.


And knock it off with that inane bit of twittery that you invented. It doesn't have anything to do with "psychology" - it has to do with the fact that people have trouble reading text on their displays.


RE: Pointless
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2012 2:12:30 PM , Rating: 2
You can make the text bigger without running an overall lower resolution. Maybe there's those kinds of morons where you work, but not in my office.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 3:34:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
You can make the text bigger without running an overall lower resolution


I've noted that several times. I've also noted that vast numbers of people have no idea how to do that, and also that it doesn't affect *everything* your PC displays...both of which combine to cause people to just turn their resolution down.

quote:
Maybe there's those kinds of morons where you work, but not in my office.


Those kinds of morons are everywhere...big corporations, small businesses, home users...everywhere.


RE: Pointless
By SPOOFE on 10/1/2012 3:36:38 PM , Rating: 2
So your office is filled with a different kind of moron, eh?


RE: Pointless
By FITCamaro on 10/1/2012 5:13:11 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah we have a lot of liberals at work unfortunately.


RE: Pointless
By zephyrprime on 10/2/2012 11:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
No it is not. Lots of people need that sort of power in a laptop. I personally have more than 8 TB of data spread across 2 computers. Computer screens will probably top out at the ~700DPI range since that matches about 2x the resolution of the human eye at 1 ft.


RE: Pointless
By BZDTemp on 10/1/2012 12:14:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
There's no point is such pixel density on such tiny screens. It's a fascination with a spec that has no practical benefit.


I strongly disagree.

Super small pixels means clearer text and graphics are possible - of course one can waste the resolution by simply scaling graphics to emulate a lower resolution but if the text and graphics is drawn taking advantage of the small pixels there certainly is a gain.

Look at the output from a dot printers - the early ones was 300dpi and I am sure anyone prefers reading output from more current ones which deliver 2400dpi or even more.


RE: Pointless
By dgt224 on 10/1/2012 12:54:57 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Look at the output from a dot printers - the early ones was 300dpi and I am sure anyone prefers reading output from more current ones which deliver 2400dpi or even more.


But the original 300dpi printers printed binary pixels - black or white. A 2400dpi printer doing the same thing prints an 8x8 pixel array for each 300dpi pixel, which lets it do 65-level grayscale at 300dpi. A 300ppi 24-bit display provides grayscale resolution similar to a 4800dpi printer with binary pixels, in addition to displaying color.

In practice, I find my 264dpi iPad's pixels are right at the resolution limit of my mediocre, post-cataract-surgery eyes. I could easily see the difference between 300dpi laser printer output and 600dpi; I suspect the difference between a 264dpi full-color display and a 433dpi display would be almost undetectably subtle. YMMV.


RE: Pointless
By geddarkstorm on 10/1/2012 1:04:03 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I could easily see the difference between 300dpi laser printer output and 600dpi


If that's so, then shouldn't you be able to see the difference between 264 and 433 dpi? Run any sort of 3D graphics, or read lots of books, and you will definitely notice the difference.

After 433 or 500 or so, then probably not so much.


RE: Pointless
By mcnabney on 10/1/2012 1:27:54 PM , Rating: 2
DPI and viewing distance go hand in hand. Knowing a DPI is useless until you also know from what distance it will be viewed. For example:
The iPhone retina display has a dpi of 326 - which makes the ideal viewing distance 10.5". At that distance you can just barely see all of the detail that the screen offers. You gain nothing by being closer, and you lose detail being further away. So for a smartphone, 300-400 dpi is an excellent dpi for the usage distance.
Now this 443 dpi screen is really pushing it. The ideal viewing distance will be 6.5". Pretty close to the face. Since it is 5" I would expect it to be held 12-16" away - so a lot of the detail this screen can deliver will never be seen. This is actually a bad thing since the screen will need more power to operate and a beefier GPU will be needed to throw that many more pixels. Do you really want to take a big hit on battery life to render pixels you won't even see? It also raises the price considerably just to maintain the same performance.


RE: Pointless
By geddarkstorm on 10/1/2012 1:37:52 PM , Rating: 2
Ideal viewing distance is only one metric, and it isn't even that accurate for how people perceive quality (as we've seen from the blu-ray/HD-DVD emergence days and the tests done then). Run a 3D game; aliasing is reduced the more you increase ppi, and thus you don't have to use things like anti-aliasing algorithms. This will be noticeable whatever your viewing distance, as long as you aren't so far away that all the details are lost, and applies to text, color gradients, and even sharpness of contrast.

A device will never be used only at it's ideal distance, and edge cases are important to user experience. If you've ever looked at the retinal macbook display next to a standard one, you'll very much know what I mean -- the difference is huge along any working viewing distance, not simply the ideal.

There are indeed trade offs that you point out, and those are absolutely true. But, technology keeps getting better, and does so faster the more we push. None the less, I very much agree with you that after 330-443 ppi you are hitting diminishing returns and probably aren't going to be increasing quality significantly outside of 3D graphics or art applications. But this 443 ppi is itself not pointless, as the title of this thread claims.


RE: Pointless
By mcnabney on 10/1/2012 8:23:30 PM , Rating: 2
I would point out that IBM's beautiful and OLD 4K 22" monitor (3840×2400) was only 204 pixels per inch. Do you really think that workstations need TWICE the dpi?

Even the 85" 8K uber-display that has been making rounds at electronics conventions only offers ~60dpi.


RE: Pointless
By someguy123 on 10/1/2012 8:26:19 PM , Rating: 2
high PPI is not going to magically fix AA problems. that's essentially bruteforce supersampling. the whole reason the industry dropped FSAA in favor of multisampling is because it was incredibly resource heavy. If you are running a game at an obscene resolution you are also drastically increasing the computational complexity. Basically trading object, shading, physics and AI complexity for AA.

Text rendering already looks pretty good on cellphones. I've gone through the galaxy S to S3 and for text rendering the difference is hilariously marginal (400 to 720).

blu-ray and HDDVD introduced higher bitrate mpeg standards and h264 for long running video on top of increased resolution. You're also talking gigantic screens versus 3~5 inches of cellphone real estate. Even with all this it was a tough sell for years.

Increasing resolution is only the logical step forward when we have so much excess battery and computational power that it becomes relatively negligible. I don't see the point for years to come considering the size of these screens and general battery life.


RE: Pointless
By Schmide on 10/1/2012 1:49:54 PM , Rating: 2
2 words.

TV Hat

Kindo kidding btw


RE: Pointless
By TakinYourPoints on 10/1/2012 2:23:58 PM , Rating: 2
Wrong. The closer the display will be to your eyes the higher the pixel density needs to be in order to smooth out text and graphics. Since small screens like tablets and smartphones are the ones that need to be closer to your eyes, it follows that they need to have higher pixel density. The same logic also applies to laptops. Things start to diminish with desktop monitors and HDTVs.

quote:
Hell, you're pushing it on a normal 15.6" laptop to have pixel density like that. Watch what at least 50% of the people in the world do when they run into that kind of pixel density on a screen that size...they turn the resolution down so they can read on-screen text easier.


This is why resolution independence or some workaround for it needs to happen. The retina display Macbook Pro gets around the issue in the same way that the iPad and iPhone do, by keeping everything the same size while using 4x the pixels for text and graphics. It looks excellent.

Windows still needs to incorporate something like this: http://techreport.com/review/23631/how-windows-8-s...

The Zenbook Prime has a great display that is let down by the scaling options in Windows. I believe that this will get addressed as time goes on since high PPI on the PC will increase eventually.


RE: Pointless
By EnzoFX on 10/1/2012 2:47:35 PM , Rating: 2
Read scalable UI. People still spreading this ignorance?


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 3:15:20 PM , Rating: 2
Read: People Don't Know What That Is Or How To Use It And They Don't Care.


RE: Pointless
By jRaskell on 10/1/2012 5:30:22 PM , Rating: 2
So I shouldn't have the opportunity to utilize an ultra hi-res display to it's fullest potential because the average Joe is too ignorant and apathetic to do so?


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 6:44:41 PM , Rating: 2
Congratulations on missing probably several points.

Point the first: 1080p resolution on a phone-sized screen is irrelevant. DPI density is too small to make any difference.

Secondly, while lots of people turn down their resolution on their desktops/laptops to get bigger fonts...lots don't. At no point did I say that "we shouldn't make monitors in high resolutions." I said many people do silly things with their resolution settings because they can't read the text.

If you know what you're doing with your display settings, and you can continue to read on-screen fonts without issue, then just res yourself up as much as you want. Because at no point did I ever even hint at anything different.


RE: Pointless
By EnzoFX on 10/2/2012 1:23:47 AM , Rating: 2
err what. This is smartphones we're talking. The UI should be fully scalable. The desktop os comparison holds no water.


RE: Pointless
By nafhan on 10/1/2012 3:20:08 PM , Rating: 2
I kind of disagree that there's NO point. You hit around 500 - 600 ppi and no one will ever see pixels. I'd call that very little practical benefit rather than no practical benefit.

****On side note: something even worse than users who don't adjust font size: people who don't adjust the default resolution to match that of the LCD screen. Over the years I've seen a number of people running high res. widescreen displays at 1024x768. Yuck.


RE: Pointless
By Motoman on 10/1/2012 4:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
That's not a side note - that's the primary issue I've posted about.

Ask them why and they'll tell you it's so they can read the text. Set their monitor to the proper resolution and they'll get pissed at you and change it back.


RE: Pointless
By nafhan on 10/2/2012 1:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
WHY DO YOU WANT THINGS TO BE STRETCHED OUT AND BLURRY!!! :)


RE: Pointless
By Alpha4 on 10/1/2012 4:55:27 PM , Rating: 2
I can attest to observing users dramatically reduce display resolution on their windows laptops to expand font sizes, but I have faith that the majority of developers will finally wise up and implement proper scaling and allow DPI adjustment.


RE: Pointless
By michael2k on 10/1/2012 5:16:59 PM , Rating: 2
I don't.

I expect Microsoft to implement DPI doubling and screen scaling, first, before I expect developers to figure it out.

In other words, the Apple approach will win because it doesn't rely on third parties to get religion.


RE: Pointless
By TakinYourPoints on 10/1/2012 8:47:55 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I expect Microsoft to implement DPI doubling and screen scaling, first, before I expect developers to figure it out.

In other words, the Apple approach will win because it doesn't rely on third parties to get religion.


This is what will most likely happen. Numerous third parties cannot be depended upon to enforce a unified standard.


RE: Pointless
By Yojimbo on 10/2/2012 7:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
the iPhone 4, which i use, has a 326 PPI. I remember when i bought it 2 years ago noticing a difference between the ability to read text on the iPhone 4 and the Samsung Galaxy S. I often hold the phone 3-4 inches from my face in order to read things. I don't know if I would be able to tell a difference or not between this 443 PPI display and the 326 PPI display of the iPhone 4, but if you cut 443 in half, like you suggest, you get 222. And I believe I could tell the difference between 222 and 326, judging from my experience with the Galaxy S.


"If a man really wants to make a million dollars, the best way would be to start his own religion." -- Scientology founder L. Ron. Hubbard














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