Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

LG's Upcoming Smartphone G6 Will Have 5.7-inch QHD+ Display Featuring 18:9 Aspect Ratio (koreaherald.com)

Posted by msmash on from the development-in-display dept.

Song Su-hyun, reporting for The Korea Herald: LG Electronics' upcoming flagship smartphone will have a 5.7-inch Quad HD liquid crystal display panel with a ratio of 18:9, LG Display said on Tuesday. LG Electronics confirmed it will be the G6 smartphone slated for launch next month. The new display panel, dubbed "QHD+," will be the world's first 18:9 QHD LCD, according to LG Display. The 18:9 ratio will provide users with greater immersion than previous displays and allow consumers to multitask by using the dual-screen feature.

132 comments

  1. 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    Also known as 2:1

    1. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Great, that pretty much ensures black bars on every video. I like consistency.

    2. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess 2:1 was turned down by marketing beacause it sounds 'small'.

      I was wondering what they mean by 'dual-screen feature'. Sounds like they've included an app, WOOT!

      No I didn't RTFA.

    3. Re:18:9 by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 2

      That was my immediate impression too. Is there any reason they would call it 18:9 and not 2:1? Or 6:3, 12:6.

      Is this like Heinz "57 Varieties", where the 57 was chosen at random because the owner thought it sounded good, and had nothing to do with how many varieties they actually had.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    4. Re:18:9 by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 5, Funny

      Also known as 2:1

      No way. At 2:1 the screen would be too small to read. You obviously don't understand how ratios work.

    5. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because people know 16:9.

    6. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's much like the megapixels effect... or multi-blade razors even...

      Typical consumers want something to one-up the existing model. Most lay-folk have heard 16:9 thrown around for a while... this will "top" that.

    7. Re:18:9 by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 2

      Yeah - I'm holding out for 36:18.

      --
      #DeleteChrome
    8. Re:18:9 by omnichad · · Score: 2

      On properly formatted movies, cinemascope films (2.35:1) would show smaller black bars than on a 16:9 display.

    9. Re:18:9 by omnichad · · Score: 2

      For easier comprehension and comparison by consumers to 16:9.

    10. Re:18:9 by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Does anyone stream videos in original cinemascope? I have stacks of blu-ray discs and only a few of them are in 2.4:1.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    11. Re:18:9 by omnichad · · Score: 2

      If the movie is filmed in it, the Blu-Ray discs almost always preserve it. DVD does too more often than not, but there aren't a lot of pixels for good image quality. Most movies are still done in 16:9, but a lot of directors are still enamored with the size. I own quite a few movies in that format - you see it more for action/sci-fi and almost never for romantic comedy.

    12. Re: 18:9 by CaptainDork · · Score: 0

      I don't have enough information to support or disagree with your position because I didn't RTFA.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    13. Re:18:9 by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I don't care who you are, this is funny.

      Funny ... I don't know why I mentioned that I don't care who you are.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    14. Re: 18:9 by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Yeah but good luck getting pixel-for-pixel clarity unless you've got exactly 1920 pixels across (or a multiple thereof).

    15. Re: 18:9 by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Not really an issue for video unless it's showing pixel-accurate things like text (lower thirds, screencasts, etc). Otherwise, you get pretty much the same clarity on the resized video - none of it is ultra-sharp to begin with. Just like most TVs have 1920x1080 panels but still overscan the incoming signal and most people don't complain that it's not being displayed 1:1 unless they're plugging a PC into it.

    16. Re:18:9 by Solandri · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Since Honeycomb, Google has insisted on Android supporting on-screen navigation buttons (home, back, app list) instead of using physical buttons. I've noticed that when an app is displaying 16:9 content, these buttons have to be overlaid on top, obscuring part of the content.

      18:9 would allow 16:9 content to be displayed full-size with these buttons placed to the side, no overlay. Calling it 18:9 makes it obvious the screen is slightly wider than 16:9. If you call it 2:1, that may not be obvious to people who don't know off the top of their head that 16:9 is a 1.78 aspect ratio.

    17. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is 2017. Display scaling hasn't been an issue for any resolution in a long time.

    18. Re:18:9 by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      I like 51.0:25.5. It sounds more sophisticated.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    19. Re:18:9 by sexconker · · Score: 1

      The trick is if the stream/file has a resolution of 1920x1080 (black bars included in the encode), then stretching it to 2880x1440 will result in black bars on all 4 sides.

      Your stream/encode needs not have the black bars for you to use the full screen, or you need an additional software step to detect the black bars and crop them before resizing to full screen, or a display option to scale content to the width of the screen, then crop to the height of the screen.

    20. Re: 18:9 by sexconker · · Score: 1

      This is 2017. Display scaling hasn't been an issue for any resolution in a long time.

      Uh, has the math changed on 1080/480 or 1080/720 or 1440/1080 since I last checked?

      If you're not scaling with integers, it's going to look like poo.

    21. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also known as 2:1

      It is easier to compare "18:9" to "16:9" when you don't reduce the ratio. You can tell that it is stretched a bit from a normal FHD, but only in one direction. Same reason all those 1920x1200 displays were advertised with a "16:10" ratio instead of reducing it to "8:5".

    22. Re:18:9 by omnichad · · Score: 1

      if the stream/file has a resolution of 1920x1080 (black bars included in the encode), then stretching it to 2880x1440 will result in black bars on all 4 sides.

      When viewing on TV, there's usually an option to zoom to the right position. I don't know why the Blu-Ray spec didn't include more aspect ratios or at least some hinting on what portion of the frame is actually used.

      When ripping to a file, I usually crop that out in Handbrake and I think the same is usually true in streaming video on the web (mostly to save bandwidth).

      And then there are movies like Life of Pi that are filmed mostly in 16:9 except for one scene where the image goes outside of a 2.35:1 frame. That movie also has portions in 4:3.

    23. Re:18:9 by Marc_Hawke · · Score: 1

      From the article:

      The 18:9 ratio will provide users with greater immersion than previous displays and allow consumers to multitask by using the dual-screen feature. The display ratio has evolved from 4:3, 3:2, 5:3, 16:9 and 17:9, reflecting demand for larger displays to consume multimedia content.

      It makes my head hurt.

      --
      --Welcome to the Realm of the Hawke--
    24. Re:18:9 by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      why not just get a phone with those buttons outside of the display area? my droid turbo has its nav buttons off screen and a 16:9 1440p screen

    25. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In this case, probably not. The DPI of these pixels at normal eye-hand distance is smaller than any human can resolve. It's useless resolution for video. Very high contrast things like black on white text or lines may benefit a little.

      I'm only 52 and can't benefit from even the 1920x1080 that my phone offers without putting on reading glasses.

      Now, if they give you a cable that can deliver the signal to your QHD TV, there is some value.

    26. Re: 18:9 by harrkev · · Score: 1

      If you're not scaling with integers, it's going to look like poo.

      Yes, this used to be the case. However, now that you need a damn microscope to even see a pixel, it does not matter so much any more.

      --
      "-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
    27. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It depends on the units though. If it's 2 giga millimeters vertical per every 1 giga millimeters horizontal, that could be pretty big. (18:9 giga millimeters would be ridiculous.)

    28. Re: 18:9 by sexconker · · Score: 1

      I hold my phone pretty close, also it's one of the larger phones out there. (I would've bought a Note 7 had they not been exploding.)

      Even if you can't discern the individual pixels, you can see the glaring error introduced by trying to turn 3 pixels - [black][white][black] - into 4 pixels.
      Worst case scenario? Sure. Happens tons in graphics, text, games, etc. (I for one already hate font blurring schemes like cleartype. Simple monochrome antialiasing is far preferable as it doesn't introduce fringing.)

    29. Re: 18:9 by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      If you're not scaling with integers, it's going to look like poo.

      That depends on whether the spatial frequency of the image is limited to Nyquist frequency or not. If less than the Nyquist frequency, which would normally be true of a movie but might not be true of computer text, then the original signal (i.e., the original, nominally perfect, image that was sampled) can be recovered exactly from the upscaled image. Or to put it another way, your eyes won't notice (for good theoretical reasons) provided that your movie was encoded properly and your tv rescales it properly.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    30. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      16:8 is clearly lower than 16:9.
      They should have gone for 18:9

    31. Re: 18:9 by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      True, this happens a lot in games, but mainly because of naive scaling algorithms, usually bilinear scaling. This tends to be really crappy in terms of signal distortion and only works well if the original image is heavily filtered. Which most game developers don't have a clue about, so there you go. Accurate rescaling uses sinc filtering.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    32. Re: 18:9 by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Thanks for sharing that with us.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    33. Re:18:9 by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      why not just get a phone with those buttons outside of the display area? my droid turbo has its nav buttons off screen and a 16:9 1440p screen

      Pretty annoying to have those pixels available and not be able to use them for image display.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    34. Re:18:9 by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      Because consumers are STUPID! Do you know that several companies make TOSlink optical audio cables... with gold-plated connectors? The ignorant consumer has been trained to think "gold-plated = better audio" just like they've been trained to think "bigger numbers = better". This is readily apparent with companies produciing 8K screens, which is twice the visual perception limit of the human eye! But hey, "bigger numbers are always better!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    35. Re:18:9 by Osgeld · · Score: 1

      but they are not pixels, just printed onto the glass

    36. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Also shows like House of Cards and The Crown as well as Jurassic World have been made in the 2:1 aspect ratio. So they should take up the whole screen (or close to it) when you watch them on a 18:9 (2:1) display.

    37. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      House of Card, The Crown and Jurassic World are all 2:1 aspect ratio so you may be able to watch those without black bars.

    38. Re:18:9 by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      I bought a Nexus with a 16:10 aspect ratio, thinking exactly what you said. Some apps are nice enough to leave a black bar on the bottom with the home buttons. Other insist on the fullscreen. Worst offender is Hearthstone, which insists on the full 16:10, then puts its major UI where the on-screen navigation exists.. And it pops up all the time by mistake....

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    39. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why would you encode blank space into a video?

    40. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most movies are still done in 16:9

      Correction: most tv shows are done in 16:9 these days.

      Almost all movies are still done at significantly wider than 16:9. Very very very few movies are actually 16:9, except when they've been cropped for DVD or Blu-Ray or HDTV release.

    41. Re:18:9 by infolation · · Score: 1

      On Slashdot Googolplexian*2:Googolplexian sounds more sophisticated.

    42. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit. Modern day scalers do a fantastic job at any resolution. This isn't simple pixel doubling/halving we're talking about.

    43. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except on a screen you can only have a single medium - visual. If it has speakers then it can produce a second medium- aural. That is dualmedia, not multimedia.
      Perhaps Note 7 was trying to also include thermal and accelerational mediums for a true multimedia but failed?

    44. Re:18:9 by arglebargle_xiv · · Score: 2

      Does anyone stream videos in original cinemascope? I have stacks of blu-ray discs and only a few of them are in 2.4:1.

      I use an old Pentium PC for video streaming. For some reason the videos all come out 2.3999999957:1.

    45. Re:18:9 by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Ah, fine. Then I would immediately be wishing that the front panel space is used for display. The only substantial argument I can think of for non-mechanical off-screen buttons is, avoiding screen burn if the display type suffers from it. Better is to have a display that doesn't burn.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    46. Re: 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're old and blind, we got it... Now STFU and let the cool people enjoy good technology

    47. Re: 18:9 by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Thanks for RTFA.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    48. Re:18:9 by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      I'll bet it compresses quite well.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    49. Re:18:9 by lsllll · · Score: 1

      Surprised nobody modded the parent funny.

      --
      Is that a roll of dimes in your pocket or are you happy to see me?
    50. Re:18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dedicated buttons can be used for notifications without having to have the entire screen turned on. They also never move around, so you always know where they are which is better for usability.

    51. Re:18:9 by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Because it's a 23-year-old joke? A significant portion of Slashdot reader weren't even born when the Pentium fiasco went down.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  2. 18:9? by msauve · · Score: 1

    Most people would simply say 2:1.

    --
    "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    1. Re:18:9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You beat me to the same comment! Or is it 256:128?

    2. Re:18:9? by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Why would anyone want a monitor with such small metrics?

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    3. Re:18:9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about 11:5.5, so they could say "But this goes to 11!"

    4. Re:18:9? by msauve · · Score: 1

      2^1024:2^1023?

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    5. Re:18:9? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I'm a photographer and I do a LOT of resizing.

      1.7777..., 1.333333 ....

      I have to use the maths, so I would use 2 (as you point out).

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    6. Re:18:9? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If you work in a pro photo editing tool, the cropping feature already has lots of preset ratios. They are in easy to read formats like "5x7" or "8x10". No need to do your own math.

    7. Re:18:9? by tomhath · · Score: 1

      If that wanted to use metric it would be 10:5

    8. Re:18:9? by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 1
      "5x7" or "8x10"

      I think you will find that it is 5"x7" or 8"x10" - America has yet to discover the millimetre - or maybe the millimetres get lost because Texas is so big?

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
    9. Re:18:9? by Streetlight · · Score: 1

      Even more sophisticated than my 51.0:25.5 ratio.

      --
      In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    10. Re:18:9? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Units don't matter when you're talking about an aspect ratio. I was putting them in quotation marks because it was a direct quote from the UI.

    11. Re:18:9? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      I shoot mostly Wide shots with aspect of 1.77777...

      Sometimes I use the more "boxy" 1,33333...

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  3. why not 100:50 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That should be much better

  4. 18:9? Not 2:1? Someone missed 6th grade math? by raymorris · · Score: 1

    18:9? Did someone miss sixth grade math or is this some odd nomenclature/jargon is the display industry?

    1. Re:18:9? Not 2:1? Someone missed 6th grade math? by kramer2718 · · Score: 1

      Maybe they like base 9 in Korea?

      --
      http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
    2. Re:18:9? Not 2:1? Someone missed 6th grade math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      18:9? Did someone miss sixth grade math or is this some odd nomenclature/jargon is the display industry?

      Most people, especially the ones espousing opinions on Science/Technology/Medicine stories, don't know how fractions and ratios work. They are usually the same ones you see commenting in support of articles about Vaccines causing Autism or who are suddenly experts on Economic and Political Theory.

    3. Re:18:9? Not 2:1? Someone missed 6th grade math? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Maybe they missed math, but they didn't miss marketing.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    4. Re:18:9? Not 2:1? Someone missed 6th grade math? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      nonsense given that screen ratio wasn't invented in Korea :p

    5. Re:18:9? Not 2:1? Someone missed 6th grade math? by Coren22 · · Score: 1

      They are usually the same ones you see commenting in support of articles about Vaccines causing Autism or who are suddenly experts on Economic and Political Theory.

      Do you follow them around to verify all the opinions the individual people hold?

      --
      APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
  5. Why is it 18:9 and not ... by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 1

    Why is it called 18:9, instead of 2:1?

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:Why is it 18:9 and not ... by garyoa1 · · Score: 1

      Sounds bigger. ;)

      --
      Wuddooeyeno? IITYWYBMAD? Like nuts? eclecticallyincorrect.com
  6. Size Matters by darkain · · Score: 1

    "The new display is 1 millimeter thick, and the bezel width has been reduced 0.2 millimeter on the sides and 0.54 millimeter on the bottom compared to the company’s previous QHD LCD."

    MAN, THAT 0.2mm REALLY SURE DID PISS ME THE FUCK OFF ALWAYS GETTING IN THE WAY... SURE GLAD THEY WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THAT UNNEEDED WASTE AND MAKE THE PHONE SMALLER

    1. Re:Size Matters by Anne+Thwacks · · Score: 2
      THAT 0.2mm REALLY SURE DID PISS ME THE FUCK OFF

      It is a really important advance - it is there to make sure the expensive case you bought for the old phone wont fit the new one.

      --
      Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
  7. Why 18:9? by kramer2718 · · Score: 2

    So I googled QHD (quad HD) and it has a base aspect ratio of 16:9.Ultra wide QHD has an aspect ratio of 21:9 (note that fraction isn't reduced either). This aspect ratio is in between 18:9. For some reason the smaller dimension seems to have stuck at 9 for QHD. Likely some marketing guy doesn't understand fractions. https://www.google.com/search?...

    --
    http://yetanotherpoliticalrant.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Why 18:9? by Junta · · Score: 3

      Actually, I would say that marketing understands that most *people* they want to get to spend money don't understand fractions, which is probably a good bet.

      --
      XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    2. Re:Why 18:9? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      In a way, it's worse, because ratios for theaters are 1.85:1 (vs ~1.78:1 for a 16:9 screen) and 2.35:1 (vs 2.33:1 for 21:9). The only real ratio that matched was the classic 4:3, which was cinema, TV, and computers back in the stone age.

      I'm a fan of 1.41:1. The A sizes work the best, especially if you're going to go split screen (where you get exactly two portrait 1.41:1 screens in a landscape 1.41:1)

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    3. Re:Why 18:9? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Sounds like marketing is doing what marketing does and making it understandable to the everyday person.

    4. Re:Why 18:9? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      and computers back in the stone age.

      RAM, hard disks, flash memory, multi-threading, multiprocessing (including SMP), hierarchical filesystems, networking, relational databases, distributed computing, cloud storage, wireless networking, cellular phones, fiber optic networks, high level programming, graphic user interfaces, tablet computers (1968), online shopping, and pretty much every other bit of computer technology we enjoy in the 21st century started off in the middle of the 20th century.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    5. Re:Why 18:9? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The ratios are a little off to make the macro blocks evenly divisible by 16 pixels. This also makes the GPU happy. You probably lose a lot more pixels in the overscan on a TV anyway. The picture is still more or less true to the theatrical original.

    6. Re:Why 18:9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I was just looking into wide screen monitors for the first time yesterday, and was somewhat surprised to find out that they aren't actually 21:9. That's an approximation that is easily comparable to 16:9 for marketing purposes. They're actually 64:27, which seems odd until you realize that's the next power of 4:3 after 16:9, and as other posters pointed out it approximates the 2.35:1 ratio of widescreen movies, just as 16:9 approximates that 1.85:1 ratios of regular widescreen movies.

    7. Re:Why 18:9? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      And all that shit comes from stones.

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    8. Re: Why 18:9? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      Considering that definitely includes most marketing people, it all sounds rather recursive...

    9. Re: Why 18:9? by Type44Q · · Score: 1

      You probably lose a lot more pixels in the overscan on a TV anyway.

      NTSC called; it wants the 90's back.

    10. Re: Why 18:9? by omnichad · · Score: 2

      ATSC called, it has the same problem.

      Run a test pattern through your Blu-Ray player if you don't believe me. I had to work really hard to find a modeline that got rid of overscan on my HTPC and 1080p TV (more to blame for my TV having bad EDID data).

      If you have a 720p TV, the problem is even worse, because although it will take a 1280x780 input signal, it's usually displaying it on a 1366x768 panel and it won't usually take a 1366x768 signal at all.

    11. Re:Why 18:9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      QHD (quad HD)

      as opposed to
      QHD (Quarter HD).

      Terminology was sent from God to confuse the unsuspecting - demonstrating that He moves in mysterious ways.

    12. Re:Why 18:9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Likely some marketing guy doesn't understand fractions

      Likely some Slashdot commenter doesn't understand marketing :)

    13. Re: Why 18:9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Is this where I put the yo dawg joke?

    14. Re:Why 18:9? by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      some of those were done on vacuum tubes (metal in a silicon-dioxide envelope), although most of them on diode and late transistor logic (silicon)

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    15. Re:Why 18:9? by radarskiy · · Score: 1

      "Likely some marketing guy doesn't understand fractions"

      Likely some pedant doesn't understand that it's easier for people, including pedants, to compare fractions with a common denominator.

    16. Re:Why 18:9? by Namarrgon · · Score: 1

      Exec 1: So what went wrong this time? The phone looked great - lots of grunt, the latest dual cameras, real waterproofing after we ditched Exec 3's ridiculous modules idea. And that new 18:9 screen was fantastic, large yet easy to hold.. I don't understand, it had all the boxes ticked - the spec nerds should have loved it!

      Exec 2: That's just it - the nerds we marketed it at all got so completely distracted by that unreduced 18:9 ratio, they forgot to buy the phone. Our sales were down 6/8ths.

      Exec 1: Sigh. Fine, I'll just move to Apple - their customers don't care about reduced ports or whatever.

      Exec 2: I'm going to Amazon myself. I hear their next phone will be called the Prime - the nerds will *have* to love that one.

      --
      Why would anyone engrave "Elbereth"?
    17. Re:Why 18:9? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      I'm a fan of 1.41:1.

      I'm a fan of golden mean myself. Theatre widescreen is kind of stupid, it is certainly not about best viewing quality or Imax would use it.

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    18. Re:Why 18:9? by An+Ominous+Coward · · Score: 2

      Amazon has a few good years for that phone brand, the nerds won't be pissed off until they release the Prime 4.

    19. Re: Why 18:9? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They usually take 1360x768 just fine though without overscan or the like. Kick it to 1366 and all kinds of weird cropping and scaling starts to take place

    20. Re:Why 18:9? by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

      Which all comes from ___ (Hint: stone).

      --
      It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
    21. Re:Why 18:9? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      The prime will need to have a different aspect ratio... like 19:11...

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  8. Saturated with Phablets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The comedy Phablet market is saturated, but no-one is making small, quality phones apart from Sony.

    The best phone form factor for me and a lot of other people who put their phones in their back jeans pocket is small and fat and sturdy, but NO-ONE MAKES THEM LIKE THAT.

    Capitalism is failing many, many people.

    1. Re:Saturated with Phablets by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Counterpoint: It's succeeding for many, many people. However, I do understand the plight. I'm at the other end of the spectrum. I want a flagship with 6" screen and they are putting out at best 5.7". Google Nexus 6/6p/Pixel XL dropped from 6" to 5.7" to 5.5". The regular Pixel at least dropped to 5" for those that want smaller screens.

    2. Re:Saturated with Phablets by butchersong · · Score: 1

      We definitely have plenty of large phones but there is one thing about LG that makes them stand out.. the LG button placement. If Google would use them for their pixel phone of copy the buttons on the back, that is a phone I could go for.

    3. Re:Saturated with Phablets by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was the Boot Loop defect that made them stand out. A large percentage of their phones die, and when they do, people are screwed. LG doesn't stand behind their products, don't buy one.

    4. Re:Saturated with Phablets by flex941 · · Score: 1

      So, still only Sony? What a world!

    5. Re:Saturated with Phablets by El+Cubano · · Score: 1

      The comedy Phablet market is saturated, but no-one is making small, quality phones apart from Sony.

      I agree. I would really like a small 4"-4.5" display-class in the $200-$250 range. As someone who does not consume media on my phone, I find it infuriating that it is so difficult for companies to even consider that there are people out there who would buy phones like this. The only non-Apple device I have been able to find that even comes close to my requirements is the Sony Xperia compact phones, but at twice the price I would be willing to pay. The iPhone SE is even more expensive, as I recall.

      I suppose I could buy something a couple or three years old, but then I want something that works on the newly acquired segments of spectrum in the US to ensure I have good coverage everywhere for voice, text, and wi-fi hotspot/tethering data. That seriously limits the possibilities.

  9. I really loved my G4 by kalpol · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Removable battery, SD card, AND a headphone jack. They apparently kept all this for the G5, so that is good news, and hopefully the G6 will be the same.

    --
    12:50 - press return.
    1. Re:I really loved my G4 by JustNiz · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yep, if it has all 3 then I'll be buying one.
      Removeable battery and sd slot are basic requirements for me though.

  10. It being LG.... by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    I'm suprised it isn't OLED.

  11. Just don't ... by CaptainDork · · Score: 1

    ... leave it at a trade show booth and stuff.

    --
    It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
  12. Stupid by fred6666 · · Score: 2

    Again, LG is doing something stupid this year.
    Last year they tried modules. They failed. Not that it was a bad idea, but everybody knew this was a one shot deal and that the G6 would not support G5 modules.
    This time they do a stupid aspect ratio, which will mean many apps will suck on the G6. You've read it here first: the G7 will revert back to a standard 16:9 ratio like all other Android phones of this year. Developers will rejoice and say they were right in not modifying their app to support the 2:1 ratio of the G6.

    1. Re:Stupid by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      Mandatory taller change parody

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  13. BOOT LOOP by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do some research on the LG G3, G4 and G5 defect around boot looping. The phones would self-brick and LG would not fix them outside of the two initial warranty periods, despite it being an admitted and clear design defect.

    Lost a lot of data from this problem, and had to buy another phone prematurely. DO NOT BUY LG.

    1. Re:BOOT LOOP by kalpol · · Score: 1

      Yeah mine failed. They extended the manufacturer's and purchase warranty to cover it although I expect those are all expired now. I am waiting to hear back on the replacement of my original phone since I purchased it out of the country. It was a defect of one of the earlier batches, and the problem was fixed in the later versions as far as I know (my replacement has been fine).

      --
      12:50 - press return.
  14. Yay by DougDot · · Score: 1

    Whoopie.

    Yawn.

  15. It's not wider at 18:9 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The article says the this 5.7" phone will be wider. Ah, no.
    It'll actually be taller and skinnier than a 5.7" screen that is 16:9 or 17:9.

  16. Don't buy yet by ukoda · · Score: 1

    I'm going to wait unit they release the 36:18 aspect ratio version...

  17. But can the bootloader be unlocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bought a G4 on the false promise that the bootloader would be unlockable eventually. LG never delivered on that promise, despite massive backlash from the enthusiast community. (The only model ever to be released with an unlockable bootloader was the H815, and it was sold without a warranty as a result.) I swore that I would never buy another LG mobile device due to this bait-and-switch, and I intend to honor that promise, irrespective of any other feature. I won't be told which software I'm "allowed" to run on my device, period.

    Why mobile devices still don't have a hardware toggle switch to lock/unlock the bootloader, much like those on 5.25" and 3.5" floppy disks, is beyond me. If manufacturers would simply put a switch beneath the battery cover, for example, much of this concern about bootloader unlocking, rooting, and malware would be irrelevant.

    1. Re:But can the bootloader be unlocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's part of the problem. Modern phones don't even have a battery cover anymore. Or buttons. Like my Nexus 5X that just bootlooped. To find the IMEI number you have to turn the phone on, because it's not printed anywhere on the phone (except in tiny print on the removable sim card tray). There are only 3 buttons. When your phone malfunctions you can't pull the battery, you can only hold the buttons down in different combinations and pray that it works. And when it doesn't, you're just screwed - send it back or throw it in the garbage.

    2. Re:But can the bootloader be unlocked? by nullchar · · Score: 1

      Except the last 3 LG phones all have removable battery, SD card, and headphone jack: G3, G4, G5

      Though apparently they have a "bootloop" problem even after battery remove/replace. Never happened to me on the 4 or 5, but I also don't update beyond the factory firmware (I need root).

    3. Re:But can the bootloader be unlocked? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Correct. I bought LG G3 specifically because it had all of those features and the Samsung S6 did not. G3 was a superb phone, I absolutely loved it.... until it boot looped. My wife's G3 also boot looped. Both phones crapped out a short time after warranty expired. I replaced one of them with a Nexus 5X.... and it boot looped. The common thread here is LG, their hardware is not reliable and has a high failure rate. It's very disappointing because I want to like LG, because they are the last major manufacturer to use removable batteries. They just don't seem to be capable of making reliable motherboards, the phones destroy themselves. At any mention of LG phones online, dozens of people chime in to report their repeated boot loops, phone replacements, and hassle.

      The V20 hasn't had as many issues so far (only time will tell) but LG's reputation will take a couple of generations to recover. At this point I'm still telling everyone I know to NEVER buy an LG phone, until they have proven the failure mode is resolved and they have a substantial track record of phones that can last 2 years or more. As far as I'm concerned, the LG boot loop is WORSE than the exploding Samsung Note 7, it just doesn't get the media attention because isn't a safety issue so there isn't a big recall. Would you rather have a 0.01% chance of your phone randomly exploding and becoming useless, or a >50% chance of it randomly boot looping and becoming useless? Either way you are stuck without a phone and you lose any data you haven't backed up. Although the Samsung might also burn your genitals, and that's definitely not good....

      Also, rumor has it the G6 will be unibody with glass front and back, so that removes their main selling point.

  18. qHD vs QHD vs QHD+ when we have QCIF and QVGA wtf! by KreAture · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Are we running out of letters?
    QVGA is quarter not quad.
    QCIF is quarter not quad.
    qHD is quarter and QHD is quad? Come on! You are doing this deliberately aren't you!

  19. Naturally by OneHundredAndTen · · Score: 1

    For the teeny weeny phone screens are the place where primarily to enjoy movies.

  20. I have a 16:10 Samsung monitor by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    It's a very nice aspect ratio compared to my laptop's 16:9 ratio. I hear that the aspect ratio of 3:2 is becoming popular, which is what some Chromebooks have, and maybe 4:3, the aspect our eyes can see. The 16:9 ratio came about because it is useful for viewing high aspect ratio movies and seems to be the norm for TV sets, but do folks watch many movies using computer screens compared to TV sets? I guess there was considerable discussion about what the ratio should be for TV sets when the flat panels were to be introduced and the compromise was 16:9.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:I have a 16:10 Samsung monitor by tepples · · Score: 1

      16:9 split down the middle is dual 8:9, like two 960x1080 portrait monitors. This gives plenty of vertical space for text.

  21. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  22. Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. by Bartles · · Score: 1

    Give us a powerful phone, with a screen and a camera. That can survive being dropped. And has a battery with excellent capacity. I don't care how many microns "thin" it is. I don't care if I can attach things to the back of it. I don't care if it has modules that come out of it. I don't care if you make it better by making the UI look like it was puked up by a rainbow eating unicorn.

  23. Re:18000:9000 would be more awesome ! by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

    How about 2880:1440? Oh, whoops, ran out of fingers to count on.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  24. Re:18000:9000 would be more awesome ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its over 9000!

  25. LG Never Again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See Subject

  26. With apple pushing for thinner.. by Z80a · · Score: 1

    And hollywood pushing for wider, soon enough everyone will be carrying what can be described as glass and aluminum swords.
    All you will need is an USB 3 hilt.

  27. Frozen in place by rickb928 · · Score: 1

    Yes, I would like to touch one of these before I buy a replacement. So I am frozen for ANOTHER month or so...

    My HTC ONE M8 is dying, battery fatigue. And having never used any Android phone other than an HTC, I'm taking a small leap. A replaceable battery is a key feature, and the G6 probably won't have one, but this feature is hard to find.

    Other than that, I'm hoping to leap to the latest CPU and more RAM, but then the Snapdragon 8305 seems to be the high water mark for a while.

    So I'm again frozen. feh.

    --
    deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
  28. t's been a long time since I did the stroll by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    technically not everything is stone. It depends on how rigorous your definition of stone is. With a sufficiently wide definition, you run the risk of all matter that we have access to on Earth being either from the atmosphere or from rocks, stones, minerals (in geology parlance, everything is a rock). And then we have to ask if carbon and oxygen found in the atmosphere were ever part of a rock, given that volcanoes send out huge amounts of CO2 the answer is yes. Is the argon in our atmosphere from decayed potassium?

    You can make transistors without silicon. Most of us know of germanium transistors, but there are more exotic semiconductors such as AlGaAs (aluminium gallium arsenide). And carbon is an interesting semiconductor, although it's rarely considered one. But when carbon is doped properly and put into a crystalline structure it can operate as a diode (and possibly as a useful FET, as the bandgap is large).

    / It's been a long time since I rock and rolled /

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire