Slashdot Mirror
LG Aims To Beat Apple's Retina Display
angry tapir writes "LG Display has introduced a 5-inch full HD LCD panel for smartphone displays — the highest resolution mobile panel to date. The widescreen panel is based on AH-IPS (Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching) technology and has a 1920-by-1080 pixel resolution or 440 pixels per inch (ppi), according to LG. That compares well to Apple's Retina display, which has 264 ppi on the new iPad and 326 ppi on the iPhone 4S."
If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?
#DeleteChrome
More pixels than the human eye can perceive? While taking more processing resources...
Apple doesn't make their own displays.
pixel density. it will be heaven to have clean graphics and now that portables get higher resolutions then desktops, people will start asking why. only thing i ask is more antiglare displays.
AMOLED screens are where the future is. Samsung saw this, and invested £££/$$$ into it many years ago, and are now in a position to reap the benefits of it.
Although Super LCD 2 panels look really nice too (HTC One X. I'd say it beats the "retina" display in iPhone4/S)
Seriously, phones and tablets are getting ~1080P screens but most of the laptops on the market are stuck with the crappy 1366x768 even though they're MUCH larger and it would make a visible and FUNCTIONAL difference.
You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
They need to focus on their shitty TVs. Two years ago, they had amazing televisions. About the best price and performance crossover as possible. Their newest models are more expensive, perform poorly, and strip out most of the features that made the last two years worth of them so great.
The entire "point" of the "retina" display was that for the average 20/20 vision user holding the phone a foot away, you didn't NEED more pixels. You, the user, literally couldn't see anymore pixels even if they were there, your eyes don't have the resolution. And the claim was, and is, fairly correct for the most part. So display makers, take heed. We don't NEED your extra ultra high resmolutions anymore. We are human, we are physically incapable of appreciating a 4k 40 inch tv from the average viewing distance of most people's couches, just as we are physically incapable of discerning this stupid piece of crap display.
But you know what we CAN see? A damned whole lot of other things. Like hundreds of millions of more shades of color than most displays can produce. Adobe Colorspace RGB is an actual THING, professional artists actually buy and use monitors that can display the full range of color visible to humans all the time. Oh, and we can also see a much, much, MUCH larger range of brightness at any one time as well. Your proudly displayed "million to one contrast ratio!" between your maximum and minimum brightness still SUCKS compared to what humans can see.
So please, stop with the bullshit ppi race, we can't see it. And instead concentrate on things we actually can see.
On the other hand, Samsung makes the hype labeled Retina Display.
I don't care about the rest. An i3 is fine for a cpu, I only need a couple gig of RAM. A full 1900x1200 screen would be awesome though, and currently there are only two laptops on the planet that I know of that still have them available.
This is perfect test; if you can't see movement at 20cm distance then it is at your eyes limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SubPixel.gif
Now only need someone to try it on the displays.
The new LG display is a prime example of technology marketing by the numbers. Japanese hi-fi manufacturers popularized this approach in the 70s and 80s. They hyping the numbers in their products' specifications, implying, but not actually demonstrating, superior performance. Historically, this has worked very well for consumer electronics sales. People ate it up then and still do. This is just more of the same from LG. Having a pixel density of 440 PPI is totally meaningless in terms of real world experience, but it sure sounds impressive on paper. They'll sell them by the bushel.
All the way down
Compares WELL to a retina display? You mean WELL in the sense that this display blows it away?
you must be an apple fanboy
~ 5" diagonal, in a 16:9 aspect ratio means the visible display area will be about 2.45" (62.5mm) wide x 4.36" (110.7mm) high. Add a 1/4" (6.3mm) border/bezel on the left and right sides and you have a phone at least 2.95" (75mm) wide. That's just too big for comfort for most people. Add a speaker on one end of the display, and some buttons on the other end, and it's going to be at least 5" (127mm) high, which is also pushing the limits for convenience.
And as others mentioned, 440ppi is well beyond the angular resolution of the human eye, even at 12 inches (30cm), and most people start to have difficulty focusing closer than 12 inches. At a typical viewing distance of 15"-21" (37.5cm-52.5cm), they're way beyond visibility, making the extra resolution useless.
As for not having to down-convert 1080 content to 720 (or similar), it does save, but since the conversion is usually done on the device sending the data to the phone, not on the phone itself, the higher resolution simply means larger files, more bandwidth used, and more battery power and GPU power needed to decode and display 1080 content.
As a technical achievement, I appreciate it, but as a practical matter, I see few uses for this display.
make imaginary.friends COUNT=100 VISIBLE=false
A "degree" is a unit of angle equal to 1/360 of a circle; an arc one degree long is about 1/57.3 of the distance from the eye. If a display is held 12 inches from the eyes, one degree is about 0.21 inch. This means the angular density of a 326 dpi display is 68 pixels per degree.
A "cycle" is a white pixel next to a black pixel, and thus a run of 50 cycles is 100 pixels. That's a bit more than 68, but then 100 pixels assumes "excellent acuity" at "maximum theoretical" conditions.
I see a lot of whining about unneeded resolution. I have rarely come across resolution that was beyond my perception. Once was at an Ansel Adams exhibit. It is pretty amazing what you can do with fine grain film and an 8 x 10 negative. I see the dots on televisions, monitors, digital cinema. I can tell the difference between 300 dpi and 300 dpi with resolution enhancement. My sweet spot is probably between 1200 and 2400 dpi. We're not even close yet but we are getting there.
The HTC Rezound's 1280x720 4.3" display is 342 ppi, so technically it is a "retina" display already on an Android phone. :-)
Just because you can't resolve a single pixel doesn't mean you can't detect jaggies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_scale#Vernier_acuity
This term "Retina Display" makes me angry
Apple's response was to announce the new iPhone 5 would include speakers that produce sounds only a dog can hear.
OS X Lion is loaded with high-dpi widgets and other evidence showing Apple is planning high-dpi displays soon, and Mountain Lion is even more so. It will likely start with a MacBook Pro 15" at 2880x1800. The 27" iMac would need 5120x2880, so that's probably going to wait on faster graphics.
It supersedes it... Big difference.
The GP could have been modded ironic. Still this is informative.
I'm looking for other features than Hi-Res screen:
good battery life : a least 10 days with 1h talk a day
shock proof : from 1.5m high on concrete, 10 times
waterproof : short immersion, rain, condensing humidity
back to small size, yet with decent num pad
standard mini USB, for power and data link
Well, that shouldn't be too difficult, considering a 2560 panel has, what, 10000 pixels per inch? Those things are like 25.4*15.9=404 inches over 2560*1600=4096000 pixels. Shitty apple display tech should be easy to beat.
Dell has 30" 2560x1600 monitors for $1400 and frequently on sale for less.
If you're a professional, you should have no problem affording and/or justifying that expense for the gain in productivity.
More resolution is great, and I'm sure it's in the works, but there are alternatives to the 1080 crap monitors out there.
..don't panic
I am quite nearsighted, which means at about 8 inches, I have extraordinary visual acuity. It borders on being a super power.
So I could almost fill my field of vision with a movie, and still not be able to pick out pixels and such.
Of course, I can do that now, with my glasses on, on my 23", so... Still, neat.
Then there is the recently discovered fact that we "white" people are about 6% Neanderthal while black Africans are not. So are those Indians.
And don't get too involved in the history of the West of England, South Africa or the United States. There was an awful lot more interbreeding than you bigots like to imagine. The average white inhabitant of the English town of Bristol inherits about 8% of Afro-Caribbean genes. The average white South African? The average redneck? I'm guessing the same. The South African white supremacists had ways of dealing with the embarrassing off-white babies so many of them had when the right recessive genes lined up on the chromosomes.
So, basically, go back to wearing funny hoods and burning crosses, ae1294. That old DNA sure is no friend to the John Birch Society.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
try rotating that 16:9 into portrait mode- a godsend and you get a lot more vertical pixels at the loss of a few horizontals..
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Anyone ever heard of a company called RIM? They have a handset (Alpha/Dev) in the developer wild, the Blackberry 10 alpha handset that beats all PPI wars:
A 4.2-inch HD LCD 1280 x 768 (356dpi)
http://crackberry.com/blackberry-10-alpha-dev-device-specs-and-features
I am a moderate to heaver android cell phone user.
I'm 9 month use into the factory supplied battery (1550 mAh) on my android phone (HTC sensation) and in the last week realized it was seriously failing, getting about ~2hours of moderate use before
Last week I switched over a cheap ebay one that I got several months ago as an emergency spare, that is supposed to be the same capacity, but I know is a cheap knock off and only ~1200 mAh. This one was now lasting longer.
Today I am on a new, good brand name, reliable vendor battery (claimed 1900mAh, same physical size as the factory one) and I am 6 hours in (without any top up charge) and only at 60% capacity.
So check you battery, especially if over 6 months old if you are a heavy user, they don't last for ever.
Your search results show three models available new, two of which are more expensive than the macbook pro 17".
It's interesting to see how many has been buying Apples claim that 326 dpi is as resolved as the eye can see, and that any more would be a waste, when nobody in their right mind would buy a 326 dpi printer. Pretty much anyone can see the difference between a 300 and 600 dpi laser printer, and that's just in the roundness of the letters.
so we can cram 1920 x 1080 in 5" but were cool with ~ 2560 x 1600 @ 30"?
Its really not about seeing individual pixels but better clarity for smaller text. Screens have not yet reached the visual clarity for printed media for text size vs clarity, so there is still room for improvement.
The goal of high res displays is to increase the amount of "visual information" available on a 4-5" display not about individual pixels. More is better.
Its Apple's dumb ass marketing spin on the idea of not seeing individual pixels that created a trend of idiots claiming "I cant' see individual pixels so its stupid to move forward". Of course Apple's problem is that in spite of increase pixel density they keep their text, icons, and UI the same size as the previous generation instead of putting more visual information on the screen so that all you achieve is slightly smoother edges.
It is tiresome to read the typical Slashdot comment template, "Innovation X has reach the "insert narrow-minded limitation" so we no longer need to innovate."
I haven't thought of anything clever to put here, but then again most of you haven't either.