Slashdot Mirror
Oppo's New Phone Hits 538 PPI
itwbennett (1594911) writes "Oppo Electronics has taken off the wraps on its first LTE phone, and it packs more technology than most if not all laptops. The Find 7 is a 5.5" phone and is the first to support 2560 x 1440 resolution [538 PPI] (by comparison, the Samsung Galaxy S5 has 441 PPI). 'Another striking and unique feature of the phone is its 2.5GHz quad-core Qualcomm Snapdragon 801 processor,' writes blogger Andy Patrizio. 'This is Qualcomm's first chip to feature its Gobi True 4G LTE World Mode, supporting LTE FDD, LTE TDD, WCDMA, CDMA1x, EV-DO, TD-SCDMA and GSM4. Translation: this phone will work on LTE all over the world.'"
It seems current phones like the two mentioned in TFS are approximately the same resolution as our vision. For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.
I guess screen resolution is now at the point cameras have been for a few years - any resolution higher than about 4 megapixels is wasted unless the photo is enlarged considerably. (Or one portion is enlarged aka "zoomed in").
One of these could easly reeplace a desktop computer for 99% of people in the world.
This is a stupid race for the higher number. Unfortunately they will find people that buy this thing because of this completely meaningless "feature". Unless people start carrying around large magnifiers, this will not even be visible in direct comparison.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Aside from the screen it doesn't really offer anything new. Most of the leading manufacturers have had similar devices for the last 5 months or so.
Okay, what about battery? Does it last a few weeks on a charge like a good old Nokia? If not, why not? Why this incessant focus on processing power? Having to charge my phone daily (or more frequently!) is where the pain is if you ask me.
https://xkcd.com/1204/
Who needs a 2560x1440(3.7m pixels) resolution on a 5" display? 1600x1080(1.7m pixels) is more than enough for anything that goes in my pocket. In fact, I was perfectly happy with my old 720p phone and even with great eye-sight, I can't tell the difference when comparing them side-by-side. What I want is a phone with great battery life and good performance in games. The energy and GPU time wasted in rendering approximately twice as many pixels(1.7m vs 3.7m) does nothing for me.
LTE = Limited Technical Evaluation
You don't really need to worry about it until the wireless carriers finish evaluating it.
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
It is ridiculous to put a such a high resolution display on a tiny screen. I just recently upgraded from a 720 Nexus 4 to a 1080 Nexus 5. I have great vision and side-by-side, I can't tell the difference between the two screens for fine text or pictures. While this phone is a great value, the battery life is terrible and the games run no better than their predecessor. If I had a choice, I'd much rather have the N5 with my old N4's 720p screen.
This phone will work on many different cellular network technologies, including LTE, all over the world.
If a manufacturer proposed an average (dual core - last year's model is fine, 1GB RAM, 800x480 screen) phone that was affordable (no, really, $500 isn't affordable) with a big ass battery I would be like SHUT UP AND TAKE MY MONEY!
I don't understand all these designers who are pushing devices *waaaay* past the capabilities of the batteries. Smart watches (other than the Pebble, they did it right!) are doing exactly this and it is making their product a complete joke.
It is a massive pain in the ass to charge these modern phones, and if your life is so predictable that you reliably have the privilege of plugging it in every 15-20 hours I feel sad for you.
Both these guys saying stupid and crbbing about battery life must be 40 plus?
For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.
No.
For most average human adults, the limit is about 300 dpi.
Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience, there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.
How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me. The percentage of people who can visually tell the difference between a 300 dpi output and anything higher than that is very, very small. The number of people who can spot the difference at 400+ is not even a consideration for discussion. I'm sure there are some who can but don't even vaguely think that they in any way represent the norm.
Any manufacturer who targets a screen resolution above about 350 or so is just targeting big numbers for the marketing benefit - the average user will never be able to tell the difference.
Sometimes people use their phones closer than 1' from their eyes, especially when trying to see detail (i.e. the times when high resolution helps). With that said, I really don't see any use for 538PPI. That thing has the resolution of my 27" monitor! Yeah, I'd like the monitor's resolution to be higher, I guess, but it's not needed. Meanwhile, that's 4x the resolution of my still-somewhat-large (4.8") phone. Now, I *would* like the phone's resolution to be a bit higher (it's just over 300PPI, but text vanishes into jumbled pixels before it gets too small to read) but most of the time I don't need it and probably wouldn't notice... aside from the higher power draw and worse framerates in games.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
It is the pixel angle that makes the difference. 300DPI at two feet away is not the same as 300DPI at six inches. Whether you can see the difference in resolutions has a great deal to do with how you use a device, and how far away you hold it. Print media typically expects to be viewed at arm's length -- about 18 inches. I see many, many people holding their cell phones far closer than that.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
based on that same train of thought, we should stop procuding any kind of digitally recorded sound with frequencies higher than 22khz as for most average human adults, the sound range is 20hz to 22khz
I must be some of those lucky super-humans then because I can clearly see a difference between my old Galaxy S3 (305 PPI) and Nexus 5 (445 PPI). I wear glasses and think I need to go get a new prescription soon, BTW.
Your experience as a graphic designer has mislead you. What you say might be true for print, but not for LCD/AMOLED screens. That's why ePaper displays often have relatively low PPIs but still look like paper - they have real ink blobs in them. It's to do with the slightly fuzzy edges of the spots in print, the slight bleed into the paper etc. smoothing the printed image out. Screens have hard edges to every pixel.
The human eye does not work the way a lot of people seem to think it does. 300 DPI is not some kind of ultimate limit, and printer manufacturers know this which is why they usually interpolate up to at least 600 DPI and most people can tell that it looks better for small text.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
I am kind of surprised to see that the majority of posts are railing against this phone, mostly over the display resolution being so high. I'm thinking most people never made it past the summary. On top of what the summary lists, it has 3 gigabytes of ram, 32 gigabytes of internal storage, micro SD that can handle 128 gigabyte cards, 5 megapixel front facing camera, 50 (sorta) megapixel rear camera, 3000mAh removable battery. Rapid charging technology - going from 0 to 75% charge on a 3000mAh battery is pretty sweet.
At a $599 retail price point? That's pretty remarkable. The only thing the article does not discuss in the graphics chip set but I'm willing to bet it's nothing to sneeze at.
Brought to you by Carl's Junior.
Yes that's right
That is false. You are thinking old people, who with time lose ability to hear higher frequency sounds. Average adults can often hear higher frequencies, and young people can hear even higher ones.
I still remember a case of walking around a certain field in the countryside with an old relative and he was complaining about the fact that there used to be a lot of grasshoppers in this place and now the environmental pollution killed them all since it's all quiet. At the same time, grasshopper noises where everywhere. I didn't have the heart to tell him that it's just his age and his reduced ability to hear higher frequency sounds.
most folks older than mid twenties have more like 80/100-2-15 khz. 20-20 is usualy found in the young or those tha have trained their ears and hearing. when young,i could consistently detect 4-6 hz -24-27khz.by 17 that was back to 15hz -21k. by age 26.25h -20khz (compressed air jack hammers and heavy metal gigs did my hearing no good. at age 53.40/90h - 14/17 khz. (two stroke strimmers and agricultural kit did not help) most folk measure lower than they would expect. but is very variable anyway,just likes eyes.
and phone cameras will be outputing 4k images. with 4k screens,less power used by gpu/cpu because its straight pixel for pixel. anything lower than 4k screen means more work for gpu.
How do you measure the amount of technology in a phone, or laptop?
Do you count the number of patents used? If there are 100 buttons does that count as 100 button technologies, or does it count only once?
If the cellphone uses SDR do you still count all the different transmission types?
Is it fine to have a comment made up entirely of questions?
300dpi for print is actually a lot lower than 300ppi for displays. Each dot for print is, depending on your technology, either black, cyan, magenta or yellow, or one of a very small (typically 4-16) shades of these colours. For a display, you have at least 2^16 shades of colour for each pixel. This is why the output from a 300dpi inkjet looks a lot worse than a 70dpi monitor. For print, you typically use 2400dpi, which comes close to approximating 300ppi.
Personally, I find you hit diminishing returns after about 200ppi. It's easy to tell 70-100ppi apart from 200ppi, but 400ppi is only better if you look really carefully. 600ppi is a marketing gimmick (and will need more frame buffer memory and more CPU power to use, so is likely to drain the battery faster). On the plus side, hopefully this will mean that the 225ppi panels will become cheaper and I'll be able to get a cheap phone with a nice screen...
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
In my time, young kid, there were grasshopper rodeos because bulls were smaller and less menacing. A grasshopper left to its own in the fields they would eat cows, children, telephone posts, and whatever crossed its sight.
Now, get off my lawn!
But I have to cut it first sir!
Would it do VoLTE or it's just a miniature computer with fancy Internet connection that gets turned off or downgraded when you happen to be in a "phone call" ?
LTE = Liberation tigers of Tamil Elam.
They used to be a good group, until they sold out.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
You're talking about static supersampled imagery for 300dpi, not motion video - which has a lot of characteristics w/ respect to motion, frame-rate, relative motion of the display to the eye, and sampling of raw imagery which make ~549dpi produce various visual artifacts at a distance of roughly 20cm.
How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me. The percentage of people who can visually tell the difference between a 300 dpi output and anything higher than that is very, very small. The number of people who can spot the difference at 400+ is not even a consideration for discussion. I'm sure there are some who can but don't even vaguely think that they in any way represent the norm.
What about all the giant squids browsing the Internet from R'lyeh? They've got eyes the size of dinner plates so their vision must have superb angular resolution?
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
300dpi for print is actually a lot lower than 300ppi for displays. Each dot for print is, depending on your technology, either black, cyan, magenta or yellow, or one of a very small (typically 4-16) shades of these colours.
You are confusing DPI (image resolution) and LPI (effectively printer resolution). They are not the same thing.
I have DK1 and ordered DK2.
DK1 is cool as a prototype, but the lack of positioning gets annoying at times, and the resolution is horrible.
DK2 fixes that, but it sounds like the resolution still needs improving.
This is the kind of thing I'd love to have in there. The Rift as it stands right now won't work well with many UIs, as it's too low res to render the details, and it seriously breaks immersion to see things pixellated.
So the more the better I say, if it's overkill for a phone then there are other uses for it.
I imagine getting these displays out to the market should help drop prices for supplies on VR headsets. I'm not sure why everyone is anti higher specs. Lets gree to raise the bottom line so it helps all products out
I have a 27" monitor with that resolution, and need to ctrl+ on most web pages, including this one.
Hopefully we'll see more about it on Slashdot once it starts shipping.
Sometimes people use their phones closer than 1' from their eyes, especially when trying to see detail (i.e. the times when high resolution helps). With that said, I really don't see any use for 538PPI. That thing has the resolution of my 27" monitor! Yeah, I'd like the monitor's resolution to be higher, I guess, but it's not needed. Meanwhile, that's 4x the resolution of my still-somewhat-large (4.8") phone. Now, I *would* like the phone's resolution to be a bit higher (it's just over 300PPI, but text vanishes into jumbled pixels before it gets too small to read) but most of the time I don't need it and probably wouldn't notice... aside from the higher power draw and worse framerates in games.
I actually feel bad for the technical outsider reading stuff like this describing the latest technology.
They have no fucking idea we're talking about a phone.
Seriously, rewind 10 years, and this reads like a spec sheet for the next COD desktop system.
Utterly fucking ridiculous what manufacturers think we need or asked for in a phone, with resolutions we cannot even see as humans, and dynamic audio range that only a dog could hear.
But hey, let's all feel good about paying hundreds of dollars for tech we can't use, let alone find an application for it.
I look forward when we can get back to manufacturing for purpose instead of fashion.
Your old sensei was lamenting the loss of young grasshoppers. You were being damned with faint praise, and he did not have the heart to be more direct.
My xperia couldn't hold charge for more than half a day. I eventually removed the google search widget, disabled google now and keep the things I really want - gmail, im and phone functions.
Now it lasts all day including an hour or two using Netflix.
It's bad that we have to root our phones to achieve this but the difference is night and day.
If you look a black and white print, there is no dithering and 600dpi is still clearly better than 300dpi. Try looking at printed text for instance. There is no visual improvement at 1200dpi or higher though, that only matters for dithering as you say.
Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience
Anybody who starts a phrase with "Speaking as a...." usually has no clue.
The difference between 300dpi and 600dpi dithered images on monochrome laser printers is easy to see.
there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.
Maybe the problem is with your printers and/or the medium you print on.
No sig today...
That is, of course, why 1200 DPI printers look no better than 300 DPI printers.
If you're BLIND, that is.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Printer resolution (LPI) and image resolution (DPI) are two different things.
If this thing had a MS or Apple logo on it, Slashdot wouid be all over it like it was a gift from their gods,
You're talking about desktop grade printer resolution which is not the same as commercial grade printer resolution (measured in LPI - lines per inch) and neither are the same as image resolution (DPI) which is a totally different thing.
Go back to your 640x480 crt
It's an aside point, but I don't think OpenGL games render in 1920x1080 on phones with that resolution, based on what I can tell by looking at my Nexus 5 it looks like games render in a much lower resolution and use FSAA and other filtering to smooth out the artifacts.
I don't think having a higher res screen would slow down games much, unless the game you're playing chooses it's rendering res based on the screen res rather than on how powerful the GPU is.
AMOLED for sure, since the 'PPI' is slightly misleading.
That is false.
What's false? GP's statement was that "for most average human adults, the sound range is 20hz to 22khz."
Is that false?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
based on that same train of thought, we should stop procuding any kind of digitally recorded sound with frequencies higher than 22khz
When did we start producing digital recordings with frequencies higher than 22khz (or thereabouts)?
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
We're talking about phones here, your angry spam is not needed.
Now slap a friggin' hardware keyboard on it and we'll talk. What's the point of yet another stupid buttonless bar phone? It's got a lot of pixels and a big fat processor so it has miserable battery life and absolutely zero usability improvement. It's like putting a solid gold screen door on a submarine, then. Put a Wacom style digitizer on the thing like the Galaxy Note while you're at it, please, so we can accurately poke at hilariously tiny controls and icons on the screen. I don't care if doing so makes the damn phone .0005" thicker or whatever.
Am I the only one who's noticed that our culture has seemingly started to revolve around SMS and Twitter yet somehow at the exact same time everybody started dropping keyboards off of phones? What's the deal with that?
I think it's a conspiracy. (Okay, okay, so the only 'conspiracy' is copycattingthe buttonless design popularized with -- but not invented by -- the iPhone. But still.)
Show some cojones! Have the courage to do something different for a change. I'd love a phone with a billion and three pixels available on the display, but I'd also like a phone that I can actually type on, select things, draw on it, etc. with all those pixels. If all you're doing is tapping and sliding and swiping and poking ineffectually at a million-pixel-wide but only physically 2-inches-across virtual keyboard the damn thing may as well be 320x240.
Doesn't really matter to the argument that because of ink absorption causing blurring, and the fact that most people using phones are doing so at 1/3-1/4 the distance of looking at printed images, that your comparison of PPI on phone screens and image DPI that will be used in high LPI printers really isn't equivalent or analogous at all.
while(1) attack(People.Sandy);
I hear Monster Cable is coming out with a line of gold-plated bifocals that allow the discriminating visualphile to be able to take full adcantage of the quality offered by 400 to 600 DPI.
Here is another story with visuals.
This is truly the year of the Linux desk -- on a phone.
Most smartphones can last as long as an old Nokia, just turn mobile data / wifi off and don't use much screen time. Seriously without it constantly downloading emails in the background they last for ever.
While a screen with decent resolution is nice, I really need (not want -- NEED) a phone with good vocal quality and zero latency on the voice side. Show me a phone, encoding scheme, network and carrier with _that_ and I'll sign a life membership. I have googled my pants off for "cell phone voice latency" test results with no meaningful hits. The conspiracy-theorist part of me says the cell phone mfgrs & carriers all know how horrible they are when compared to landline so they've agreed to not test or not alert the consumer to this measurement.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
Few adults can hear sounds above 18kHz. I remember making tone generators in Pascal as a kid, beeping out audible 22kHz notes that my older brother and my dad couldn't hear. Later on, I'd try similar programs on my mobile phone, but the damn device couldn't generate tones above 16.5kHz. Poor hardware, I thought, until I tried it on my 16 years old nephew.
Grasshoppers aren't nearly that high pitched.
It seems current phones like the two mentioned in TFS are approximately the same resolution as our vision. For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.
our eyes don't detect anything in dots per inch.
They detect in arc-seconds – i.e. they have angular resolution, not linear. To get to a linear resolution, you need to specify a distance. At about 10-12", that's about 300dpi, hence why the iPhone got called "retina". We're now getting well beyond that, and it's pretty pointless.
Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. Idiot.
160x144, bitches!
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins
48khz (up to 24khz effective) has been around at least as long as DAT. 24-bit 96khz has been around at least as long as DVD's. Then you have the SA-CD format, which is only 1-bit depth but in the mhz range, and now 192khz audio is starting to reach consumer-level devices and even 384 in studios I believe. Working with music, I can't imagine needing something better than 24-bit, because already my limitation is with the microphone, recording equipment, and playback speakers. I haven't tried 192khz+ yet but it's hard for me to think it would be even a 1% effective improvement over 96khz.
Anybody who starts a phrase with "Anybody who starts a phrase with "Speaking as a...." usually has no clue." usually resents having his little myths shattered.
The organization in Sri Lanka is not "LTE". Its "LTTE" . Idiot.
I must be some of those lucky super-humans then because I can clearly see a difference between my old Galaxy S3 (305 PPI) and Nexus 5 (445 PPI).
I wonder if that has anything to do with PenTile, the odd way they count "pixels", and color fringing around text. Maybe when an RGBG quad is considered 2 pixels, you need twice as many (at least in one axis) for text to have a really clean appearance.
image resolution is measured in Pixels Per Inch (PPI) not DPI. Feel free to open any image authoring package to confirm this. DPI is Dots Per Inch. Dots are something bubble jet printers drop onto a sheet of paper and haven't nothing to do with the size of the pixel currently being printed. You did get the LPI bit right though.
LTTE is Long TTerm Evolution, a standard for wireless communication of high-speed data for mobile phones and data terminals. It is based on the GSM/EDGE and UMTS/HSPA network technologies, increasing the capacity and speed using a different radio interface together with core network improvements. The standard is developed by the 3GPP (3rd Generation Partnership Project) and is specified in its Release 8 document series, with minor enhancements described in Release 9.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.
No.
For most average human adults, the limit is about 300 dpi.
Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience, there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.
How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me. The percentage of people who can visually tell the difference between a 300 dpi output and anything higher than that is very, very small. The number of people who can spot the difference at 400+ is not even a consideration for discussion.
When I was a graphic designer, I was told 300 dpi --- unless the image had type, in which case, 600. I've found some corroboration:
1. Experiments with Pixels Per Inch (PPI) on Printed Image Sharpness by Roger N. Clark
2. Guidelines for Author Supplied Electronic Text and Graphics
3. Digital Art Guidelines
Apparently the eye is more forgiving when looking at photographs than at text.
Videophiles tell me that the only reason I can't see the Emperor's New Clothes is because I'm a peasant, unlike them.
echo -e 'global _start\n _start:\n mov eax, 2\n int 80h\n jmp _start' > a.asm; nasm a.asm -f elf; ld a.o -o a;
That was 1280x1024 85Hz, weighed over 40#, used near 200W and sad to say, had better color resolution and latency performance than the majority of screens today for what it's worth.
DPI, PPI, and SPI are common terms for the same thing. Only the pedantic nitpick over any one of them being right or any being wrong when referring to image resolution.
The rule of thumb is 300 dpi for colour images, 600 dpi for greyscale, and 1200 dpi for bitmap. The less information per dot means more dots per inch are required to maintain the same effective resolution.
Probably not, because it isn't shiny with an Apple logo on it
See that @ sign in your subject line? It's left over from mine, part of @ 1'
A monitor two feet away with a 300dpi image has roughly the same angular resolution as a phone one foot away.
If that doesn't make sense intuitively, think of a billboard made up of 1/4 dots - from 50 feet away, it won't look pixelated. Compare looking at the same billboard from 1 foot away - the pixelation will be obvious.
To convert accurately requires geometry that I don't feel like thinking about right now, but you get the point - the closer the viewer, the more easily they can detect pixelation, so you need smaller pixels.
The summary is just plain wrong. While the latest snapdragon CPU and BBU do support all sorts of LTE capabilities, this phone does not.
First, the Find 7 has two variants. A US and International.
2G GSM: Both have Quadband GSM Support
3G WCDMA: International has quad band, US variant has pentaband. So basically, the international version has limitations that a device like the Nexus 5 does not.
LTE: International has 4 FDD LTE bands and 1 TDD band (5). US version has only 3 FDD LTE bands.
Now let's compare with the nexus 5:
North America:
GSM: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz
CDMA: Band Class: 0/1/10
WCDMA: Bands: 1/2/4/5/6/8/19
LTE: Bands: 1/2/4/5/17/19/25/26/41
Rest of World:
GSM: 850/900/1800/1900 MHz
WCDMA: Bands: 1/2/4/5/6/8
LTE: Bands: 1/3/5/7/8/20
Which has better all over the world support again?
It's interesting the question said "producing" and the things you mentioned are preproduction.
Also, a 48 kHz sample rate cannot try to APPROXIMATE a tone higher than 22kHz. At 22kHz, it's a square wave. That's nowhere NEAR accurately reproducing a 22kHz tone. A sample rate of 48 will represent a 12kHz tone with some accuracy. Look at the wave form to see what I mean.
While 538PPI might be a bit overkill on a classical phone, those same screens are also used in the latest round of virtual reality headsets and they have still a long way to go before they get anywhere near human vision limits. And to go even further, Nvidia has demoed some microlens lightfield glasses a while a go and those need even more resolution then a classical headset display and who knows, if resolution keeps growing, having a lightfield display in your phone might actually start to become viable (meaning you could have a real 3D with proper focus, could hold your phone close to your face to use it as VR glasses and other funky sci-fi stuff).
Nobody (or nearly nobody) is doing or wants 384khz in studios. 192khz is next to non-existant as well and it gets pretty heated in the forums when people discuss whether there's any benefit to 192 over 96 and it usually comes down to "it's good if your equipment supports it because it will be more accurate at lower sample rates". Some tracking engineers will record at 88 or 96, but it's usually 48k. The tradeoff between disk space and sound quality for higher sample rates just isn't attractive. When you have 30, 40, or more tracks plus alternate takes plus renders plus bounced down tracks, all at several minutes long, that gets huge really fast and you can't just burn a CD with those files for backups anymore. Having a bunch of in-flight projects on the computer at the same time, you have to be mindful of disk space. The CPU use required to process that gets really big too, especially if you use a lot of plugins and a lot of tracks, and most plugins don't even support 192, never mind 384. Forget about tracking a lot of them at once, the latency can get pretty big. I have not seen software that advertised support for 384. Also in the mix is the fact that many of the ADC/DAC interfaces in common use don't even support a 192khz samplerate, and you'd possibly need more digital clocks. That gets expensive real fast. Now, I know some people would do it and I'd see massive threads in the engineering forums if it became an advertised feature! There would even be one or two people who would claim you can hear a difference, and a huge argument about that.
24-bit is fairly standard and 32-bit is in use by a lot of people who want that nearly infinite headroom while mixing.
It all gets downsampled to 44/16 (CD, MP3, AAC, YouTube) or 48/16-48/24 (Dolby Digital, DTS) for the end product anyway. We'll see what happens with the next gen stuff like Pono or whatever Apple is doing, if it goes the way of SACD and DVD-Audio.
Exactly. Those squids are people too. We have way too many insensitive clods in here these days.
Most smartphones can last as long as an old Nokia, just turn mobile data / wifi off and don't use much screen time. Seriously without it constantly downloading emails in the background they last for ever.
In other words, turn your "smart" phone back into a "dumb" Nokia, and it'll run just as long.
Unfortunately, for those addicted to [random social media du jour app], being offline for more than 45 seconds isn't an option.
Ever.
LPI is lines per inch, and is used only when talking about text.
Printer resolution and image resolution (DPI -- dots per inch) are the exact same thing.
That is my experience, too. The step from 230dpi to 300dpi is clearly visible. The step to 350dpi is marginal if visible at all. So 300dpi is my limit. More may still be nice, but it is hardly worth it.
Now I am just waiting for a decent monitor with 300dpi. Even 4k does not reach that.
LPI is lines per inch, and is used only when talking about text.
No, it isn't. It's also used to denote the resolution of a halftone screen.
Printer resolution and image resolution (DPI -- dots per inch) are the exact same thing.
Your desktop printer and the press that I send jobs to are not the same thing. Don't confuse the two.
Zero latency is impossible due to both the speed of sound in air and the speed of light (which indirectly governs the speed of information-conveyance by electrons over a wire. For the sake of being pedantic, the actual electrons travel along the wire at a relatively slow speed).
Imperceptible latency is impossible with anything besides analog modulation schemes like FM, or uncompressed PCM. By the very definition of stream and block compression, you have to buffer SOMETHING.
That doesn't mean there's no room for improvement... but what you're asking for basically at odds with data compression.
It's the same reason why hearing aids are still overwhelmingly analog devices. Digital technologies -- especially cheap ones -- introduce unacceptable latency.
Wow, that really is a nice-looking phone. Somebody earlier said it was also available with a 1920x1080 screen but otherwise the same specs for $100 less; at $500 that's a top-notch piece of hardware that kinda makes me wish I was in the market for a new phone.
There's no place I could be, since I've found Serenity...
The rule of thumb is 300 dpi for colour images, 600 dpi for greyscale, and 1200 dpi for bitmap. The less information per dot means more dots per inch are required to maintain the same effective resolution.
I was watching your posts with great interest. But now I see you're a Brit. So sad.
Must be another bug!
Except when you're talking about printing where several of the resolutions meet and the different terms mean some very different things in practice. I'm printing at 300DPI why does my print look ugly, 300DPI is photo quality. Hell even this thread has caused this confusion, and we're amongst "experts" here.
Now if you'll excuse me I need to shutdown and open my CPU so I can install some more RAM.
Yes I joke but the majority of the populous would tell you that CPU, HDD and the fucking computer case all mean the same thing and you'd be a nitpicking pedant to correct them.
I understand the point you're trying to make but, in this case, it's not accurate. What you referenced were different things. What we were discussing are not different things.
I've corrected several people in this thread who have confused DPI and LPI because one is image resolution and the other is halftone print resolution. The two are different things. They are related in so much as they are involved in the quality of a final printed piece but they are different things.
DPI, PPI, and SPI are the same thing all measures of image resolution. They mean dots, pixels or samples per inch but that all is the same thing. They are a measure of how many units per inch are used to make up a digital image. They all mean image resolution.
A better computer example would be to discuss how RAM and Memory are two terms used to describe the same thing. It isn't quite the same thing but it's close enough to use as a parallel.
And I still got stuck with a 1920x1080 17" screen when I *upgraded* to a new laptop from my 8 year old 1920x1200 17" laptop!!
He was talking about high-quality professional printers, not crappy office equipment. Million-dollar machines. There's no need to submit artwork in any more than 300dpi, it's just wasted disk space. Pro designers don't have their work distributed with crappy printers.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
1) Awesome Screen, Check
2) Removable SSD card Check
3) Removable Battery Check
4) Cyanogenmod with correct driver support? Check.
5) Open Hardware/software without NSA sh*t, Check.
Writing A CHECK soon.
Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
Maybe knowing that the world wasn't dying (as fast as he thought) would have been more comforting?
At playback, capacitance and physical momentum will round off the corners of a square wave pretty much randomly, while filters can guess that it might be a pure, single tone - a sinusoidal wave (or make some other guess). The recording, the digital file IS sample-and-hold. There is one value per sample.
Starting with the set of squared waves in the recording, then guessing which of many sounds is represented by that sample, will produce _A_ sound. Guessing A sound is not reproducing the original sound. Here's a simple way you can prove it to yourself:
Generate a 23kHz tone. Save as a 48k file.
Generate another 23kHz tone and mix it with another 23kHz offset by 1/92k seconds. Save as a 48k file.
Note that you can visually SEE the difference in the two waveforms.
Check the md5 of the two files. Note that the recordings are identical, though you can see that the sounds were not identical. Sense the recordings are bit-for-bit identical, they will of course play back identically. Filters can be used to round off the edges or otherwise modify the sound, but the two identical files will give results, though they are supposed to represent different sounds.
I'm sure you can think of all kinds of theories to argue why you don't think the files will be identical. Or you can just tryit and see that they are in fact identical.
Maybe what I just said isn't right.
Clearly if you know that the original signal is a digital signal, a square wave, 1/2 B is fine - the recording will be forced to a square wave, which happens to be correct.
Similarly, if you know that it's a single, pure sinusoidal tone, at playback you can round off the edges of the squared recording to get the analogous pure sinuousoid.
If it's not a pure tone, I don't see how you could possibly infer the correct waveform from the squared samples, but the theorem seems to say that you can. That seems quite impossible, but maybe it's not.
For an adult human, 400-600 is about the limit of what we can detect.
No.
For most average human adults, the limit is about 300 dpi.
Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience, there is a reason that graphic designers have always targeted a print resolution of 300 dpi for colour images.
How 400-600 entered the conversation is beyond me.
Diagonals. Everything non-rectangular really. And that's just for monochrome.
Don't assume stuff that is valid for print to be valid for pixel displays. (also, there actually is print beyond 300 DPI...)
Print DPI (or LPI) are very different from display PPI: Print uses adaptive-sized, adaptive-positioned, overlapping, and even adaptive- shaped blobs of ink.
Displays use constant-size, fixed-position, non-overlapping squares (or rectangles) with discrete color-distribution
(no way to reorder subpixels: if a pixel is horizontal RGB, you can't make its right edge red. And making just its top
half yellow is even trickier. Print can do both.).
You need quite a bit more PPI than a good print's DPI to approach the same visual quality.
Speaking as a graphic designer with over two decades of experience...
WTF? Since when were graphic designers allowed on /.
Get 'em boys!
*grabs popcorn*
Now it suddenly makes sense to me, I "get it". Infinite samples of a repeating function will create a unique pattern.
We can trivially understand that it doesn't work for finite recordings by looking at the simplest case of one sample. A sound recording of duration 1/R second will generate one sample. The value of that single sample tells us virtually nothing about the sound.
Since real-life sounds are not infinitely long repetitions, samples of real sounds can be pretty good approximations, only.
You're getting closer.
You seem to be forgetting that the signal is bandpassed before encoding. Thus any frequency below the Nyquest limit maps to a unique pattern.
A sound recording of duration 1/R second will generate one sample. The value of that single sample tells us virtually nothing about the sound.
Obviously,
For that signal has a period twice the lowpass frequency.
But you know what? The ear can't distinguish those either. What does a sub-cycle-length 21 Khz tone sound like?
It doesn't sounds like a continuous 21 Khz tone.
Such signals, in the context of hearing exist only in theory.
Sub-cycle length sounds are not a normal case, of course. The denigrate example does, however, clearly illustrate the difference between a continuous tone of infinite length, which can be perfectly modelled, and a changing blend of sounds of finite length, which cannot be. Real-world sounds would consist of many samples, but not infinite, and would be appear nearly continuous for several cycles.
Re the low pass frequency, two samples of a DTMF tone around 20 kHz aren't unique at 44k sample rate either - the DTMF is indistinguishable from a pure sine wave with a small number of samples, I'm pretty sure
Sub-cycle length sounds would, I think, include a balloon pop or similar impulse sound - not the sounds typically heard in music, but certainly real-world audio.
600 ppi in printers is much lower than it would be in screens, because the points in printers are different color components. 600 ppi is effectively more like 150 or 200 ppi, which is pretty low res.
And I am sure most people can see the difference between 300 ppi and 450 on lcd screens, if they are focusing very closely on the pixels. but in actual application, it doesn't make much difference.
Let me clarify why this is never going to happen.
Latency: Digital communications has latency, there is no way around it. A lot of effort is spent creating codecs which can encode and decode voice in the fastest possible way. With top of the line modern codecs on a real-time 2-way digital radio system you're looking at 0.2-0.5 seconds of latency, and that does not take into account any transmission requirements. Furthermore this codec is linked to the communication standard. You're not going to find differences between phones if they use the same technology CDMA, GSM, etc because it's these standards which define the codec.
Also ... no one cares. No really, no one is actively looking at latency for mobile phones, only on 2-way radio systems. The reason is that mobile phones don't involve situations where you can read lips and hear voice at the same time, and don't involve cases where you can hear your output from the person standing next to you, otherwise you wouldn't be talking on the mobile phone to begin with. These are real use cases in the 2-way world where a lot of effort is being spent on reducing call setup time and latency. Honestly I've never heard of anyone who's complained about this over a mobile, it was only a problem for international conversations where the latency was bad enough to cause interruptions in talking because you weren't sure if the other person was finished or not.
Quality: Again never going to happen, but not because people aren't looking into the problem. The target is always the best possible call quality for the lowest possible size, and for very simple reason. If you can find a way to improve quality for a given size it means that you can reduce the size and allows you to squeeze yet another timeslot into the RF channel. Over the years the pressure has come from all sides. Governments are now actively in the process of getting rid of 25kHz analogue RF communications, mandating replacements with either 12.5kHz bandwidth or digital where you can squeeze multiple conversations into the same 25kHz license. All the lovely marketing materials will talk about timeslots and efficiency, not about voice quality.
In this case you're not alone. A lot of people complain about the quality of voice over mobile, however at the same time very very few people will complain about not actually being able to understand another person. This is why the issue is being ignored. The purpose is to get a message through, not to get super high-def surround sound experience making a person sound like they are in the room with you. If you can understand the other end of the line, well that's good enough for everyone in the industry and they will keep squeezing the quality to the breaking point. And when user expectations change to accept this, they'll squeeze it further.
So there you are, no great conspiracy theory. Just the dark reality that bandwidth is at a premium, the landline is undersubscribed, the mobile system is oversubscribed, and we the consumers should stop our whining and keep spending.
I believe you, though I have no formal knowledge about this. To me the other specs are more interesting - cross-provider LTE, potentially the new standard bearer for best Android smartphone camera, first Android phone (to my knowledge) with 3GB of RAM.
On the other hand, even with 300 dpi that puts the requirements for a screen pretty high, right? I mean the mainstream flagship Android phones these days have a 4.7 inch screen on bigger. If that's 2.5 inches horizontal and 4.0 inches vertical then 300 dpi requires just under 1280x800. For a screen with a 5.5 inch display to pass the 300 dpi threshold you need something between 1280x800 and 1920x1080. I'm not aware of many screens with non-standard display resolutions between those two points. So this 2560 by whatever may be marketing overkill for a phone this big, but full 1080p for phones with screens 5 inches or larger might actually make sense (?)
I bought one of those comically large phones for exactly this reason. I want to be able to read it at arm's length, and I can. I figured if I had a smaller screen and spent too much time hunched over squinting at the thing, I would end up squatting in a corner somewhere muttering that some tricksy person stole the precious.
Someone upthread made the comment that 300 dpi is the limit of human vision for detail [i]assuming the print is 24 inches or further away in a magazine or newspaper or screen[/i]. I think that explains the other person's confusion.
There's a difference between static and dynamic content. Aliasing artifacts that are perfectly acceptable at 300DPI on a non-moving line can be pretty annoying on a moving line. The same goes for other high-frequency features in images.