backtop


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............ ahttp://miniurl.com/59fd


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.


"A politician stumbles over himself... Then they pick it out. They edit it. He runs the clip, and then he makes a funny face, and the whole audience has a Pavlovian response." -- Joe Scarborough on John Stewart over Jim Cramer














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