PDA

View Full Version : 443 PPI 5 Inch Display on its way...




Timzer
Oct 1, 2012, 10:38 PM
This (http://www.engadget.com/2012/10/01/sharp-443-ppi-5-inch-smartphone-display-ceatec-2012/) thing looks Insaaaaaaaane!!! And it's just gone into mass production (http://www.theverge.com/2012/10/1/3436644/sharp-starts-mass-production-of-5-inch-1080p-displays-for-smartphones). Obviously it's not gonna be on an Apple device. So it looks like an Android device will be the first to break the 440 PPI mark and achieve 1080P resolution, as I don't see anything else out there being on the receiving end of this beast of a display. The obvious guess would be the rumoured 5 inch HTC device. Can't wait to see this thing in person.



onthecouchagain
Oct 1, 2012, 10:54 PM
Brace yourself...

iOS fans screaming specs don't matter after years of touting Retina Display are coming.






But joking aside, impressive as that is, seems really unnecessary.

watchthisspace
Oct 1, 2012, 11:01 PM
Brace yourself...


But joking aside, impressive as that is, seems really unnecessary.

I agree. 720P seems to be the ideal res for 4~5" screens with Apple's Retina class PPI. But hey, if phone's come out with this screen or such high PPI display whilst still maintaining a similar power draw as a current 720P 320~330PPI display then awesome!

KnightMan
Oct 1, 2012, 11:05 PM
Holy Freaking Gyaaad! I can't even begin to think how sharp (pun intended) that will look. I think it's clear in the wake of all the incredible hardware out there, along with the pace of new devices, Apple will soon have to adjust their strategy of small increments in hardware and software features. The just might have to scrap the "S" rounds.

EDIT: After doing some reading, it seems the Oppo Find 5 will be the first phone to use this display.

matttye
Oct 2, 2012, 01:24 AM
Brace yourself...

iOS fans screaming specs don't matter after years of touting Retina Display are coming.






But joking aside, impressive as that is, seems really unnecessary.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't the eye stop distinguishing pixels after a certain ppi at a regular viewing distance?

Therefore such a high ppi really *is* unnecessary unless your phone is almost touching your nose while you're using it?

flameproof
Oct 2, 2012, 01:48 AM
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't the eye stop distinguishing pixels after a certain ppi at a regular viewing distance?

My eyes certainly do. But I believe birds and certain insects would appreciate a higher PPI rate.

MacRumorUser
Oct 2, 2012, 02:49 AM
If you can't see anything (pixeling) over 300dpi, do we need 440? Despite being 45% more dense, if its non user perceivable difference you have to ask why?

Clever tech, that seems a little unnecessary.

logicpro7
Oct 2, 2012, 03:10 AM
Hmmmm, Samsung S4 screen? :eek:

ChazUK
Oct 2, 2012, 04:38 AM
Will mostly end up being a waste of GPU resources when rendering anything at such a high pixel density.

Let's hope it is paired with something that has a bit of grunt.

onthecouchagain
Oct 2, 2012, 07:13 AM
Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't the eye stop distinguishing pixels after a certain ppi at a regular viewing distance?

Therefore such a high ppi really *is* unnecessary unless your phone is almost touching your nose while you're using it?


Yep. Third line in my post: "But joking aside, impressive as that is, seems really unnecessary."

cynics
Oct 2, 2012, 09:12 AM
I'll have to see it in real life before I say it's unnecessary. I can't see pixels on my 4S even with a drop of water on the screen magnifying it.

Renzatic
Oct 2, 2012, 10:13 AM
But joking aside, impressive as that is, seems really unnecessary.

This. I guess it makes sense if they assume you're gonna take a strong magnifying glass to it, and don't want you to see the individual pixels even then. But for everyday use? Hell. You can barely make out the pixels on the iPad and iPhone when you have the thing pressed against your face. Why does anyone feel the need to go with an even denser display?

edit: as I go back through the thread after posting, I realize I've only repeated everything everyone else said. TRUTH IS UNIVERSAL!

kdarling
Oct 2, 2012, 11:11 AM
If you can't see anything (pixeling) over 300dpi, do we need 440? Despite being 45% more dense, if its non user perceivable difference you have to ask why?

300 PPI is the normal definition for "print quality" at a distance of one foot. (Apple marketing used the same calculation method, but changed the name to "retina" so it sounded cooler and could be used in multiple situations.)

The closer you get, the denser it must be to stay "retina".

At 1" away, many people can theoretically see over 3500 PPI.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but doesn't the eye stop distinguishing pixels after a certain ppi at a regular viewing distance?

Depends on the "regular viewing distance" and whose eyes. (Many people have better than normal vision, many people do not.)

Here are some distances for various PPI to qualify as "retina":


PPI Dist Device
=== === =========
595 - 6"
357 - 10"
326 - 11" - iPhone 4 ('Retina')
162 - 22" - iPhone 3GS
132 - 27" - iPad
That's for normal vision. Someone with excellent vision might have to hold a "Retina" iPhone much further away.... up to 18" instead of just 11".

Therefore such a high ppi really *is* unnecessary unless your phone is almost touching your nose while you're using it?

It can make a visual difference. Many modern printers go way past 300 DPI printer/retina quality, for example.

matttye
Oct 2, 2012, 11:38 AM
Yep. Third line in my post: "But joking aside, impressive as that is, seems really unnecessary."

Wasn't sure if it was a "joke" or a joke :p

applefan022
Oct 2, 2012, 11:40 AM
iPhone 6? lol

matttye
Oct 2, 2012, 11:45 AM
300 PPI is the normal definition for "print quality" at a distance of one foot. (Apple marketing used the same calculation method, but changed the name to "retina" so it sounded cooler and could be used in multiple situations.)

The closer you get, the denser it must be to stay "retina".

At 1" away, many people can theoretically see over 3500 PPI.



Depends on the "regular viewing distance" and whose eyes. (Many people have better than normal vision, many people do not.)

Here are some distances for various PPI to qualify as "retina":


PPI Dist Device
=== === =========
595 - 6"
357 - 10"
326 - 11" - iPhone 4 ('Retina')
162 - 22" - iPhone 3GS
132 - 27" - iPad
That's for normal vision. Someone with excellent vision might have to hold a "Retina" iPhone much further away.... up to 18" instead of just 11".



It can make a visual difference. Many modern printers go way past 300 DPI printer/retina quality, for example.

So going by those numbers people with 'normal vision' would have to hold the phone closer than roughly 8" to distinguish pixels in a 440ppi display.

I guess I can sorta see the benefits, but I do think its more of a spec war than an actual useful feature.

Apple started it with the retina display, now everyone is going for high ppi screens. It's another spec they can add to their lists like megapixels and clock speeds that won't actually necessarily make the device any better for the average consumer.

kdarling
Oct 2, 2012, 05:44 PM
So going by those numbers people with 'normal vision' would have to hold the phone closer than roughly 8" to distinguish pixels in a 440ppi display.

Yep, that's about right. ~ 1 / (inches x .00028) = PPI needed

I guess I can sorta see the benefits, but I do think its more of a spec war than an actual useful feature.

I think some people are more sensitive to it, and appreciate the extra fineness.

Apple started it with the retina display, now everyone is going for high ppi screens.

Higher res screens were in use on smartphones for years before Apple finally came out with one in mid 2010.

By 2009 there were plenty of 285-298 PPI phones with WVGA resolution screens, including the Diamond, Diamond2, Touch Pro.

Heck, back when the iPhone first went on sale in 2007, you could buy a couple of WM phones with 310 PPI displays at 800x480 (Toshiba G900, Sony Ericsson Xperia X1).

Indeed, those were advertised as "print quality" screens back then. Which is no doubt why Apple felt the need to come up with a different term, like "retina", which they could be the first to use.

cynics
Oct 2, 2012, 05:50 PM
So going by those numbers people with 'normal vision' would have to hold the phone closer than roughly 8" to distinguish pixels in a 440ppi display.

I guess I can sorta see the benefits, but I do think its more of a spec war than an actual useful feature.

Apple started it with the retina display, now everyone is going for high ppi screens. It's another spec they can add to their lists like megapixels and clock speeds that won't actually necessarily make the device any better for the average consumer.

Spec war for who? You do know Apple doesn't manufacture it's screens right? This display could very well be in an Apple device one day.

Technarchy
Oct 2, 2012, 07:13 PM
Nice, but tell me about the battery, GPU, CPU, RAM and heat of the underlying components needed to power the display.

You just know someone is going to jump in head first, adopt this thing with not ready components, slap android on it, and release something wretched with bragging rights of super high PPI

AutoUnion39
Oct 2, 2012, 10:31 PM
Hopefully, the next big Samsung phone uses this display. I'm due for a new phone very soon :D I was toying with the idea of picking up a Note II next month, but it's a tad too big.

They could definitely just stretch the display on the S3 without making the phone physically bigger to support the larger size, so I'm down for a 5 inch phone

APlotdevice
Oct 3, 2012, 12:00 AM
I think where such high density displays will ultimately excel in is not detail but color reproduction. The current RGB subpixel design has trouble replicating some colors, particularly in the yellow spectrum. Display manufacturers have toyed with the idea of adding dedicated subpixels for some or all of the secondary additive colors (yellow, cyan, magenta). With a high density display they could do it without any noticeable sacrifice in detail.

matttye
Oct 3, 2012, 04:17 AM
Yep, that's about right. ~ 1 / (inches x .00028) = PPI needed



I think some people are more sensitive to it, and appreciate the extra fineness.



Higher res screens were in use on smartphones for years before Apple finally came out with one in mid 2010.

By 2009 there were plenty of 285-298 PPI phones with WVGA resolution screens, including the Diamond, Diamond2, Touch Pro.

Heck, back when the iPhone first went on sale in 2007, you could buy a couple of WM phones with 310 PPI displays at 800x480 (Toshiba G900, Sony Ericsson Xperia X1).

Indeed, those were advertised as "print quality" screens back then. Which is no doubt why Apple felt the need to come up with a different term, like "retina", which they could be the first to use.

My apologies, I thought Apple was the first to come out with such a high density screen. I never saw companies bragging about the ppi element of the screen before Apple came out with the retina display.

Then again, I wasn't really interested in smartphones until the first iPhone came out, so it makes sense I'd be ignorant to stuff that existed around that time!

matttye
Oct 3, 2012, 04:18 AM
Spec war for who? You do know Apple doesn't manufacture it's screens right? This display could very well be in an Apple device one day.

I know they don't manufacture the screens used in their devices. What I meant was there seems to be a bit of a spec war going on where each device manufacturer is trying to claim they have the highest PPI screen now, just like there have been wars in the past about other largely-insignificant specs such as camera megapixel count and processor clock speed.

Tarzanman
Oct 3, 2012, 10:14 AM
My apologies, I thought Apple was the first to come out with such a high density screen. I never saw companies bragging about the ppi element of the screen before Apple came out with the retina display.

Then again, I wasn't really interested in smartphones until the first iPhone came out, so it makes sense I'd be ignorant to stuff that existed around that time!

An ignorant iphone user? Egads! I am shocked that anyone who exclusively buys apple stuff might be uninformed and easily duped by marketing.

matttye
Oct 3, 2012, 10:41 AM
An ignorant iphone user? Egads! I am shocked that anyone who exclusively buys apple stuff might be uninformed and easily duped by marketing.

I guess you didn't look as far as my signature before you posted that ridiculous comment. ;)

kdarling
Oct 3, 2012, 01:02 PM
My apologies, I thought Apple was the first to come out with such a high density screen. I never saw companies bragging about the ppi element of the screen before Apple came out with the retina display.

I seem to recall a magazine ad bragging about those phones being the first with a "print quality" screen, but most people would never have paid attention back then.

The 2007 Toshiba G900 also had 3G HSDPA, WiFi, Opera browser, MS Office, a front-facing camera for video calls, and ... a fingerprint reader.

The fingerprint reader wasn't just for security. It could also be used as an alternative mouse pad for quick vertical scrolling on the web or lists.

Perhaps coolest (and weirdest) of all, you could use it as a fingerprint based app launcher, assigning different apps to different fingers!

Then again, I wasn't really interested in smartphones until the first iPhone came out, so it makes sense I'd be ignorant to stuff that existed around that time!

You're very gracious.

It's actually helpful that smartphone "newcomers" post such mistaken concepts now and again, because it provides a good opportunity to bring up history that might otherwise be forgotten.

Other misconceptions include ideas that that all other phones had keyboards, that Apple invented touchscreen phones, pinch zoom, apps or app stores or even the word "app", that Apple was the first to use Google Maps, and so many other things.

joshwithachance
Oct 3, 2012, 01:09 PM
While very impressive, a 1080p display on a smartphone is quite ridiculous and completely unnecessary.