Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Should the pixel density of smartphones' screens go higher than 1080p?
- Thread starter Beeplance
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
There is a point to 1080p on ~5" displays. It's the same point why "retina" displays were great for smaller smartphones like the iPhone 4. It allows you to read smaller text so much better, requiring less zooming in.
That said, there isn't much point going higher for smartphones. We will most likely see the smartphone size stabilize somewhere between 4-5" displays with barely any bezel. 1080p is perfectly fine for that.
That said, there isn't much point going higher for smartphones. We will most likely see the smartphone size stabilize somewhere between 4-5" displays with barely any bezel. 1080p is perfectly fine for that.
What confuses me is that people are saying it is pointless, yet everyone who owns a 1920x1080 screened smartphone says they can notice the difference.
So it isn't pointless then...
So it isn't pointless then...
I hope you realize flexible displays were never going to be used in phones/tables the way you described. You'd never flexible "Everything" batteries, the mainboards, glass, display. It would make for a very flimsy device.
So does a magnifying glass, but pinch to zoom can be altered. Dynamically.
And before you say "but detail is lost!" that is a function on the graphic you are zooming on, nothing to do with the pixel density of the screen.
----------
Sure, on a TV. So can I.
On a 4-5" screen? Not likely.
You know the difference between pixel density vs view distance, and just the 720p/1080p numbers, right?
Depending on your TV and viewing distance (e.g., smallish TV from 8 feet away), more than 720p can be pointless too. 1080p on a smarphone is bordering on pointless. 4k video is just a complete and utter waste of resources. I'll take even 5% better battery life over 4k on my mobile every single time, thanks.
Try zooming in on a web page with vector-based text. It stops at a certain point. You also can't pinch to zoom while a video is playing in the YouTube app or any full screen video. Nor can you pinch to zoom on the home screen, notifications, app icons, etc. So it is not as dynamic as you like to think it is.
Am I saying people would often hold up a magnifying glass to their iPad? Of course not.
But you people continually miss the point I was trying to make. Personally, I just like the idea of having monitors and screens being as detailed as the world we live in. Is that such a hard concept to grasp?
But hey, if you prefer limitation, go right ahead.
It doesn't exactly mean it's impossible. It's more of a nerd's dream than anything.
People on here keep misunderstanding our dream/ideal/fictional/futuristic device as us saying we think it is completely feasible with current technology.
This is a (trivial) software design issue/fix, not a hardware problem. The GPU can scale the output (i.e., provide zoom) almost for free in terms of battery / cpu cost compared to what is already going on in the phone. I.e., the feature could be added to any of the iDevices going back to the iPhone 1 with zero hardware change and no additional cost.
I don't "miss your point". You're simply wrong.
If the screen displays more pixels than you can see with the naked eye, more is not better.
All you're going to do is burn battery.
In technology, as with everything else, bigger number is not automatically better. The "good enough" number depends on how big the display is. on 4-5 inches, that number is nowhere near 4k.
There are real COSTS involved with going higher, in terms of expense, processing speed, battery consumption, etc. If you feel throwing money and battery life out the window for no perceivable benefit is great... i'm guessing you're the type who buys 10 megapixel $100 point and shoots... and thinks they're comparable with a DSLR...
Last edited:
Imagine if in the future, you holding up a smartphone with a 1080p display and compare it to one with a 4K display, but not being able to spot the difference between both screens since our eyes can only discern pixels to a certain degree... then,
what's the point of 4K displays on such small screens?
what's the point of 4K displays on such small screens?
How so?
If there is zero perceivable difference between device A and device B and device A has 1.5x the battery life and is half the price, then device B is 100% irrelevant.
Unless you're going to upgrade your eyeballs, your "dream" device is not going to be any better.
----------
what's the point of 4K displays on such small screens?
to sell to strausd at 3x the price.
4k monitors and TVs will not become mainstream for quite a few years, let alone come to consumer smartphones anytime soon. By the time we do see 4k on phones, do you really think we will have not made any advancements in battery technology? Besides, a company like Samsung, HTC, or LG would not release a device with horrid battery life. You are only thinking of the technology currently available. Think ahead to when 4k is actually cheap enough to be mass produced for such a device.
Once more 4k content is produced and distributed to consumers, it will become more relevant.
----------
1080p televisions were at about the same price as 4k televisions are right now. Samsung and Sony currently have them at about ~$5500. A 4k monitor from ASUS is $3500. There's a cheap $700 4k TV from Seiki Digital coming out. 4k will be dirt cheap (replacing 1080p) by the time it comes to smartphones.
You seem to be against 4k in general.
You proved my point by forcing a theoretical world in which 4K displays on phones only work with current battery technology. You are also limiting this scenario to a very basic display where nothing exists outside pixels.
What if the entire screen could act as a finger print scanner by using the available pixels as the resolution for the scanner? Then having a higher resolution scan of a finger print could yield higher accuracy.
What if the screen itself acted as a projector? What if the back lighting came through to project the pixels onto a wall at 60+ inches? 4K displays wouldn't be so bad.
But of course, I am talking about a theoretical world where the possibilities are endless. Not once did I say that I think we should have phones with 4K screens next year. You have to wait until technologies make it both possible and beneficial.
You are just stuck in your little box with no room for new and unheard of technologies. This might come as a shock to you, but you have no idea what technologies could exist 15 years from now. Don't be so limiting.
Yes, let me go back to my post where I said I would buy one at 3x the price. Oh wait...
You know, if you are going to make blatant lies, at least have a little something to go on. This part of your post wouldn't have been quite so far fetched if at one point I actually said I would be willing to pay more, without ever going into more detail as to how much more I would pay. Then it wouldn't be as bad of a lie. But come on man, even you can do better than this. Well, I take that back
----------
He has no imagination and thinks he can see the future. Don't waste your time.
1080p isn't pointless, you can easily see the difference between 720p and 1080p, and the 1080p looks amazing on the S4.
However, 4K likely would be pointless on a phone screen because there's only a certain number of pixels the human eye can actually see. It's a lot more than Apple thinks, especially since "retina" isn't even 720p, but it's also probably significantly less than 4K when you're talking about phone screens.
Going above 1080p will happen soon and you will probably see a small improvement, but by the time we get to 4K it will be very negligible.
Apple's Retina Displays are supposed to have such a high pixel density, not resolution, that the human eye can't see the pixels from a certain distance, or so Apple claims.
The reason the iPhone has such a low resolution is because all Apple needs is 326ppi. The screen on the iPhone is small enough that the resolution doesn't even need to be 720p to achieve that density.
But if you compare Apple's 326ppi screen to Samsung's or HTC's 400ppi+ screens you do notice a difference. Apple is talking rubbish.
If you don't see a difference between 720p and 1080P on a 5" screen, you should seriously wear glasses.
I guess I worded that incorrectly...I just meant Retina iPhones have all come with 326ppi displays and so that's what Apple needs to maintain.
Not necessarily because the resolution is higher - take the 4S vs the 5. Noticeable difference in display quality, yet they have the same resolution.
All the "retina" term means is that pixels are impercievable to the naked eye at a specified viewing distance. Why do people try to say Apple meant more than that? Apple didn't say "retina" devices have the best screens ever and nothing will ever surpass them.....
I have both the 5 and the One - there is a difference, but I would't go so far as to say its a major improvement......quite frankly, I feel most of the difference is the "feel" of the larger screen which makes it seem like there is a bigger difference in quality than there actually is.
All-in-all, both displays are stunning - anything more at this point, is specs for specs sake - and I'm SURE companies will be rushing to get better specs into their phones so yahoos like many here can continue to tout the superiority of his/her phone - as if it matters at all.
What you said is the main reason why we saw NO tangible increases in laptop screen resolution until last year, except even here you are wrong - they didn't use the "good enough" number at all, they used the DOLLAR SIGN instead.
We'll find a use for 4K on a 5" smartphone display. It's folks like you who are impeding technological progress by clinging to your mindset that "what we have right now is good enough, we don't need more".
How much a person can see varies by the individual and their viewing distance. For instance the EVFs on some modern digital cameras have 2600 pixels-per-inch, which can still be picked up easily because the eye is less than an inch from the display. (note that these incorporate special optics to compensate for the fact that the human eye normally cannot focus at such a close distance)
Apple said that the iPhone retina display was more than could be seen by most people at 12". This statement probably isn't that far off. Hold the phone a little closer though and you can see a bit more. And conversely some people can just naturally see more detail at the same or even a further distances.
But yeah, the kind of density you would need for a 4K display.. without increasing the size of the device... would almost certainly be lost on all but a few.
I've actually read a few articles saying our eyes can see upwards of 800+ dpi/ppi.
At what distance?
PS. it's a common misconception that PPI and DPI are equivalent to one another. In truth you usually need a much higher DPI to achieve the same amount of detail. This is because printers rely on dithering to achieve different shades.