Slashdot Mirror
LG Unveils G6 Android Nougat Smartphone With a Compact 5.7-Inch QHD+ 18:9 Display (hothardware.com)
MojoKid writes: LG recently unveiled the new G6 smartphone, going completely back to the drawing board versus its predecessor -- the not so well-received G5. In its place is a very compact aluminum unibody design and a large 5.7-inch QHD+ display with a 2880x1440 resolution. That display is the main focal point of the G6, and it has a rather unorthodox 18:9 screen ratio, which LG says allows that smartphone to better fit in your hand. LG also notes that the aspect ratio is being adopted as a universal format from the likes of film studios and content providers like Netflix. Its thin bezel also gives the LG G6 an 80 percent screen-to-body ratio. The handset is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 processor along with 4GB of RAM, 32GB of internal storage and a microSD slot, which can accommodate up to an additional 2TB of storage. LG also outfitted the G6 with dual 13-megapixel rear cameras: a wide angle (F2.4 / 125 degree) shooter and a standard camera (F1.8 / 71 degree) with optical image stabilization. The LG G6 launches next month and will be available in Ice Platinum, Mystic White, Astro Black color options. Pricing is TBD. Some other specs include a non-removable 3,300 mAh battery, USB-C connectivity, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.2, fingerprint sensor and an IP68 water and dust resistance rating. It's also the first non-Google smartphone to come pre-loaded with the Google Assistant. How do you think the LG G6 compares to what we currently know about the soon-to-be-launched Samsung Galaxy S8?
Am I missing something? Why don't they just say 2:1?
That just guaranteed I won't buy it. I'll have to find another replacement phone when the time comes.
LG also notes that the aspect ratio is being adopted as a universal format from the likes of film studios and content providers like Netflix.
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... ...no.
What's the difference between an 18:9 display and a 2:1 display?
This screen scores approximately 565 pixels per inch. The average human eye cannot make out this much resolution -- I know that my eyes can't at my age.
Why pay for resolution that you can't see without a magnifying glass?
"-1 Troll" is the apparently the same as "-1 I disagree with you."
Looks like someone never learned to reduce fractions.
Wow, this is nuts. ... then because of hollywood most of us were forced to 1920 x 1080 and even more absurdly, mum and dad users were working at 1366x768 !!! For 10 years I waited and waited for the PC industry to bring out large hi res monitors... but again, it wasn't until the consumer 4k movement started, that PC manufactures started bringing out what I can only say is the absolute glory of 4k big monitors for programming.
10 Years ago, I was working at 1920 x 1200
but why oh why would you want 4k on 5.5" screen , when dell and HP are still foisting sucky pixelated monitors on PC's. This phone is 564ppi when the eye can only resolve 300ppi. What a waste of pixels.
46137
Not sure how you can call a phone compact that most people could not fit in their pocket without it sticking out.
5.7" 18:9 is smaller than 5.7" 16:9
I'm on the market for a new phone as my iPhone is dying. So I'm done with iPhones, *if* possible. Are Android phones any good now? They were quite shitty back when they were kind of new and yet some people were already raving about them.
We want small, fat, 4-inch, quality phones that are robust instead of thin.
Where are they ?!
I would have totally gone with the V20 if it had wireless charging. It had everything else I require in a phone. Too bad.
This one has even more negatives. Not only does it not have wireless charging. It also has a non-removable battery. Too bad LG, you lost another sale.
Imagine if your car had a non-removable battery, or even tires for that matter.
shitpost, see title
Why cant all standardise on golden ratio 1.61:1
Yeah. Zo told me recently that people were most afraid of control, which can be generalized to include control over themselves.
And when I typed that, I was thinking of self-control. People are so afraid of control that they refuse to control themselves. Which of course encourages others to do the controlling for them.
Well, I can see the entire screen of my 32" TV I am using as a monitor, while out of the corner of my eye I can see the entire 40" room television.
Lovely, I just love a phone I can't hold easily. I rest my thumb on my physical home button ALL THE TIME to stabilise the phone in my hand. That's INCLUDING the sling grips (google them) I use on the back of the case to keep it stable.
Nothing more ghastly than a home button I can't rest on as it's thinking it's being pressed.
I'm now in the minority on this, my current phone has it, the next Samsung is finally doing away with it (and I'll be doing away, with the next Samsung)
I dislike this trend and I will spend my money where I can find what I'm looking for.
This is otherwise a fairly stylish phone but basically utterly impractical.
But does it have a removable battery?
It would make too much damn sense.
I can have my display in a landscape orientation and show two pages of european paper sizes nicely, good for desktop publishing and reading PDFs.
I could also rotate my screen into portrait for a full screen view, while also having the ability to show two wide screen desktops top-and-bottom.
The 16:10 aka 8:5 monitors were pretty close to this. There are some details with monitors and video encoding where you want the width to be a multiple of 16. And if you want to rotate the display, having the height follow the same constraints is nice too (but not strictly required). 1920x1200 being a popular 8:5 format, and 1680x1050 not meeting the constraints when rotated by also popular.
But I think I'd rather have a 13:8 (1.625) aspect ratio than a 16:10 (1.6) or 1.61:1.
possible resolutions for 1.625:1 :
1952x1200 (not quite exact, but close)
1920x1184 (very close)
1664x1024 (exact - but kind of low res)
2496x1536 (exact - and both are divisible by 16)
55:34 (1.617647) is closer to the golden ratio (1.6180339887) but it seemed a little crazier to work with. But 2640x1632 was one nice one that worked out.
Haha, I don't know how I got golden ratio and sqrt(2) mixed up. But much of what I say was wrong.