Sidebar Sidebar
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?

strausd said:
You proved my point by forcing a theoretical world in which 4K displays on phones only work with current battery technology.
Click to expand...

Whatever battery technology we have, battery life will be a function of power consumption vs watt/hrs available.

If you use 2x the power you will have 1/2 the life, given equal battery tech. I'll take more life, thanks.

Animation speed will also be a function of processing power vs workload.

If you are unable to determine the difference between resolution X and resolution Y which is half on a given display device, there is zero point throwing resources at resolution X that could be otherwise used for increased speed, increased battery life, etc.

I'd rather the work put into 4k displays on mobile screens was put into holographic displays, contextual analysis/understanding of the phone's environment or SOMETHING ELSE, but I guess you're "too short sighted to see that".

----------
Explicitic said:
You seem to be against 4k in general.
Click to expand...

No. 4k for TV or larger screens is fine. I am not "against 4k in general". I'm the type who buys the highest resolution laptop I can, gets blue ray content, and lusts after a 4k monitor for my desktop.

But on a mobile device with limited processing power and battery life - having higher resolution well beyond what the human eye can see "just because" is a waste of time.

As above, there are other more useful purposes even an improved battery could be put to than pushing more dots around on a screen that no one can actually see.

There are also other implications other than battery life. Bandwidth - where do you think that 4k content is coming from? Over the network? 4k will take 4x as long as HD to transfer, consume 4x the storage, etc (given equal codec technology and network speed). It will produce 4x as much congestion on the already limited mobile network frequency available.

Yes, we will see faster networks in future, etc. I'd rather the additional capacity was put to better use serving more users or giving me FASTER transfers - not just getting chewed up by the same things in 4k resolution that is pointless on my mobile device.


Just because you "can" do 4k display, it doesn't mean it is appropriate for every display surface we use. There are many factors that will be impacted by "wasting" resources on something you don't need and can't actually see on a mobile screen.

Conversely, on some surfaces, 4k will not be enough. E.g., an actual DESKTOP display (i.e., no screen, my entire desk is a screen, maybe tilted towards me slightly). On a surface that size, multiple 4k displays worth of pixels will be needed due to the size and viewing distance.
 
Last edited:
throAU said:
Whatever battery technology we have, battery life will be a function of power consumption vs watt/hrs available.

If you use 2x the power you will have 1/2 the life, given equal battery tech. I'll take more life, thanks.

Animation speed will also be a function of processing power vs workload.

If you are unable to determine the difference between resolution X and resolution Y which is half on a given display device, there is zero point throwing resources at resolution X that could be otherwise used for increased speed, increased battery life, etc.

I'd rather the work put into 4k displays on mobile screens was put into holographic displays, contextual analysis/understanding of the phone's environment or SOMETHING ELSE, but I guess you're "too short sighted to see that".

----------



No. 4k for TV or larger screens is fine. I am not "against 4k in general". I'm the type who buys the highest resolution laptop I can, gets blue ray content, and lusts after a 4k monitor for my desktop.

But on a mobile device with limited processing power and battery life - having higher resolution well beyond what the human eye can see "just because" is a waste of time.

As above, there are other more useful purposes even an improved battery could be put to than pushing more dots around on a screen that no one can actually see.

There are also other implications other than battery life. Bandwidth - where do you think that 4k content is coming from? Over the network? 4k will take 4x as long as HD to transfer, consume 4x the storage, etc (given equal codec technology and network speed). It will produce 4x as much congestion on the already limited mobile network frequency available.

Yes, we will see faster networks in future, etc. I'd rather the additional capacity was put to better use serving more users or giving me FASTER transfers - not just getting chewed up by the same things in 4k resolution that is pointless on my mobile device.


Just because you "can" do 4k display, it doesn't mean it is appropriate for every display surface we use. There are many factors that will be impacted by "wasting" resources on something you don't need and can't actually see on a mobile screen.

Conversely, on some surfaces, 4k will not be enough. E.g., an actual DESKTOP display (i.e., no screen, my entire desk is a screen, maybe tilted towards me slightly). On a surface that size, multiple 4k displays worth of pixels will be needed due to the size and viewing distance.
Click to expand...

You keep on limiting yourself. You have no idea what technologies will be out 15-20 years from now. Stop acting like you know everything.
 
strausd said:
You keep on limiting yourself. You have no idea what technologies will be out 15-20 years from now. Stop acting like you know everything.
Click to expand...

The technology that will be out in 15-20 years from now has no bearing on the limitation of your eyes to see pixels on a 4"-5" screen.

Thats not a technological limitation, that's a physiological limitation.
 
throAU said:
The technology that will be out in 15-20 years from now has no bearing on the limitation of your eyes to see pixels on a 4"-5" screen.

Thats not a technological limitation, that's a physiological limitation.
Click to expand...

Good job reading my previous examples, oh wait...
 
Beeplance said:
With many high-end smartphones adopting 1080p Full HD display nowadays, it is only a matter of time before such a dense screen pixel technology becomes mainstream & common for most phones in the future.

Personally, I am contented with 1080p displays for smartphones around 5.5" or less, & I don't think there's a need to further increase the pixel density of screens in the future. Some people have even gone to the extent of suggesting that smartphones will have 4K displays soon, which I think is unnecessary & unrealistic.

Hence, I would like to hear the opinions of forumers here & what do you guys think about this. Do you think 1080p displays are sufficient or do you think it should be better? The only possible innovation in smartphone screen technology I can possibly think of is IGZO, within the next year or so, but that's about it. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...

Just for clarity, 1080p is not a pixel density. You can have a 32" 1080p screen right next to 320" 1080p screen, and the 32" screen will have the higher pixel density of the two, because it's packing in more pixels into a smaller screen.

1080p is different from retina displays (or anyone's high pixel-density displays), just as 1080p is different than IGZO (a different way to manufacture an LCD panel). The gains you get from A will be different from B will be different from C.

See here:

1080p will largely help video playback and game resolution show great detail.

Higher pixel-density will largely help smooth assets on a display screen (fonts, certain image elements in a page or app), allowing more to be crammed into the same space and still be legible.

IGZO means the usual miniaturization benefits Apple likes to see - thinner, lighter, less battery draw, etc.
 
Ah. The original post title and replies mentioning 'retina' are a very good examples of why/how apple (and other companies) are able to brainwash people into thinking that they are informed.

1. 1080p is a resolution, not a pixel density.
2. Retina display is a marketing term that doesn't mean anything. The number of PPI (aka pixel density) and the resolution (or physical size) are the numbers that you need to know when trying to figure out what kind of display a device is equipped with.

To answer the question, 1080p is approaching the practical limit for the given amount of storage space on phones today.

My camera takes photos that are 5184 x 3456 and approximately 3.5-4 MB apiece (as jpg). An image folder with just 300 images in it would take up over 1 GB. A 720p movie clocks in at ~ 4GB. Keeping just 3 movies uses up about 12 GB.

In order for me to fit most of the media I like on my phone (or tablet), I have to resize images and use lower resolution video files. Current screen pixel density does benefit resizing text on the display, but it is already nicer than I can afford (storage-wise) when it comes to visual media.

128 GB should be the new minimum storage for mobile devices with 1080p displays
 
Tarzanman said:
Ah. The original post title and replies mentioning 'retina' are a very good examples of why/how apple (and other companies) are able to brainwash people into thinking that they are informed.

1. 1080p is a resolution, not a pixel density.
2. Retina display is a marketing term that doesn't mean anything. The number of PPI (aka pixel density) and the resolution (or physical size) are the numbers that you need to know when trying to figure out what kind of display a device is equipped with.

To answer the question, 1080p is approaching the practical limit for the given amount of storage space on phones today.

My camera takes photos that are 5184 x 3456 and approximately 3.5-4 MB apiece (as jpg). An image folder with just 300 images in it would take up over 1 GB. A 720p movie clocks in at ~ 4GB. Keeping just 3 movies uses up about 12 GB.

In order for me to fit most of the media I like on my phone (or tablet), I have to resize images and use lower resolution video files. Current screen pixel density does benefit resizing text on the display, but it is already nicer than I can afford (storage-wise) when it comes to visual media.

128 GB should be the new minimum storage for mobile devices with 1080p displays
Click to expand...

It helps that the human eye can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p on the average phone size and at a normal viewing distance (8"-12" distance and up to a 5" screen).

1080p is only good for spec bragging rights on phones - unless you wish to output your 1080p videos onto a big screen HDTV (50"-55" from 6'-7' away).
 
Irishman said:
It helps that the human eye can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p on the average phone size and at a normal viewing distance (8"-12" distance and up to a 5" screen).

1080p is only good for spec bragging rights on phones - unless you wish to output your 1080p videos onto a big screen HDTV (50"-55" from 6'-7' away).
Click to expand...

Just putting the Galaxy S3 and S4 side by side would show that anyone can tell a difference between the two at normal viewing distances. On the S4's slightly larger, 1080p display you can read much much smaller text legibly than on the S3, thus requiring less zooming for websites that don't support mobile. Also everything looks sharper. But both phones have rather large displays.

As display size goes down, the need for higher resolution goes too. At 4-5" you would want a minimum of what the iPhone 5 has but as the screen size approaches 5" you'll want to throw that 1080p in. For display sizes smaller than 4", 720p would be excellent.

Rather than trying to cram higher and higher res displays on phones, manufacturers should work toward making phones with less bezel on them. I like the S4 because it doesn't have perceived wasted space making the phone bulkier than it needs to be.
 
kasakka said:
Rather than trying to cram higher and higher res displays on phones, manufacturers should work toward making phones with less bezel on them. I like the S4 because it doesn't have perceived wasted space making the phone bulkier than it needs to be.
Click to expand...

Actually, I wouldn't mind a bit more bezel on my phone. I had an HTC Desire Z before. Switched to an SGS3 last year. Love the phone, but occasionally my palm would accidentally register a tap on the edge of the screen.

I'll be interesting to see the next iPhone. The latest rumour has the screen size at 4.3". If they keep the same resolution, the pixel density would have to go down.
 
Irishman said:
It helps that the human eye can't see the difference between 720p and 1080p on the average phone size and at a normal viewing distance (8"-12" distance and up to a 5" screen).

1080p is only good for spec bragging rights on phones - unless you wish to output your 1080p videos onto a big screen HDTV (50"-55" from 6'-7' away).
Click to expand...

Then I must have eagle eyes.
 
kasakka said:
Just putting the Galaxy S3 and S4 side by side would show that anyone can tell a difference between the two at normal viewing distances.
Click to expand...

Yes, but what you're seeing is the added pixel density. Let me illustrate: The screen size of the S4 is 5.99" (just about 2/10" larger than the S3). The S3's Pixel Density (hereafter PD) is 306 with a 1280x720 resolution. The S4's PD is 441 with a resolution of 1920x1080. It's because so many more pixels are crammed into a screen that's close enough in size to the S3 that the S4 looks so much smoother (no jaggies for text and scalable assets). The iPhone 5 achieves this on a 4" screen with a 326 PD but a 1280x720 resolution. Each screen size is going to have a range of PDs that will appear to be smooth to the eye.

kasakka said:
On the S4's slightly larger, 1080p display you can read much much smaller text legibly than on the S3, thus requiring less zooming for websites that don't support mobile. Also everything looks sharper. But both phones have rather large displays.
Click to expand...

Yep, because of the much, much higher PD - 441 versus 306.

----------
Fireblade said:
Then I must have eagle eyes.
Click to expand...

Probably not, I mean statistically speaking. Keep in mind I'm not saying that you don't see a difference on the screens, but the difference you're seeing isn't caused by the resolution, per se, rather the pixel density.

Every display has a range of viewing distances away from which the average human user can see certain resolutions. Alot of folks don't like to be told that they're wasting their money on that new 42" 1080p HDTV, because they're just going to watch TWC HD on it in the bedroom from about 10-15 feet away.

People very often shop via specs, and no amount of common sense can persuade them otherwise.
 
mattopotamus said:
4k broadcast is many moons away. TV is not even broadcasted in 1080p yet.
Click to expand...

The sad truth of broadcasting.

----------
Irishman said:
Yes, but what you're seeing is the added pixel density. Let me illustrate: The screen size of the S4 is 5.99" (just about 2/10" larger than the S3). The S3's Pixel Density (hereafter PD) is 306 with a 1280x720 resolution. The S4's PD is 441 with a resolution of 1920x1080. It's because so many more pixels are crammed into a screen that's close enough in size to the S3 that the S4 looks so much smoother (no jaggies for text and scalable assets). The iPhone 5 achieves this on a 4" screen with a 326 PD but a 1280x720 resolution. Each screen size is going to have a range of PDs that will appear to be smooth to the eye.
Click to expand...

You posted the wrong screen resolution for the iPhone 5. The iPhone 5 does not have a 720P display. Its resolution is 1136-by-640.
 
Beeplance said:
But the whole point of increasing pixel density is so that everything looks seamless & we can't see pixels no matter how close we look. Isn't 1080p already good enough? How is developing 4K pixels for a tiny smartphone screen relevant? O_O
Click to expand...

+1

1080p is more than enough. Everything over 300ppi is overkill for a phone.
You won't see any difference between 300ppi and 400 or 500!
 
Pompiliu said:
+1

1080p is more than enough. Everything over 300ppi is overkill for a phone.
You won't see any difference between 300ppi and 400 or 500!
Click to expand...

Exactly, in fact it's detrimental, because more pixels have to be pushed.

IMO, 720 for 4.5, even 5" is just fine.
 
Pompiliu said:
+1

1080p is more than enough. Everything over 300ppi is overkill for a phone.
You won't see any difference between 300ppi and 400 or 500!
Click to expand...

You can't see the difference. I can, especially browsing the web, seeing smaller text. On my iPhone 5 or Nexus 4 I'd have to zoom in to read it, I can read that same text on my S4 with ease.

Cod3rror said:
Exactly, in fact it's detrimental, because more pixels have to be pushed.

IMO, 720 for 4.5, even 5" is just fine.
Click to expand...

Again for you. Other people wanted the higher res, especially seeing as the larger screens for Android were dropping the PPI lower and lower.

I'm not trying to sound like an Arse but you're judging other peoples experiences based off your own.
 
Higher pixel density of an "iPhone sized" smartphone - should take a back burner until some infrastructure is put in place for it.

How much more processing power do we have kicking around for more pixels?

Now how much battery life can we spare for driving those pixels with both processing and the light required?

Memory - your pictures, videos are going to get INSANELY larger with "4K" - which to keep things consistent - why don't we call it 2160?

Bandwidth - let's see how quickly you blow your cap away streaming some video to your device.

Yields / cost - it's going to cost more - and this time, it won't be as blatantly obvious to users as the jump to retina originally was.
 
Big-TDI-Guy said:
How much more processing power do we have kicking around for more pixels?

Now how much battery life can we spare for driving those pixels with both processing and the light required?

Memory - your pictures, videos are going to get INSANELY larger with "4K" - which to keep things consistent - why don't we call it 2160?

Bandwidth - let's see how quickly you blow your cap away streaming some video to your device.

Yields / cost - it's going to cost more - and this time, it won't be as blatantly obvious to users as the jump to retina originally was.
Click to expand...
1. It's a matter of when.
2. It can be mitigated.
3. 4K is easier to understand than 2160p.
4. This requires ISPs to not gouge its customers - unfortunately, this is also extremely unlikely to happen in any foreseeable timeframe.
5. Yields and cost are meaningless when it comes to technology adoption.

A lot of these end up being excuses to why the smartphone industry should stay at 1080p instead of moving forward. I hope you're happy with electric cars that need at least several hours for a full charge instead of 5-10 minutes!
 
What I was saying - there are other things needing more improvement - that likely have a MUCH larger impact on the user experience - then adding more than 1080p to a 4" display.

I'm not saying I want technology to stand still - quite the opposite. But you CAN impede progress by focusing too much on a single aspect.

And yes - given the cost of lithium batteries - I would much rather charge for 7 hours, then make use of a 10 minute charge if I didn't need it - that results in drastically decreasing the life span of that $8,000.00 battery pack! There are actually articles published about this exactly. Not to mention - peak charges you may get hit with from your electrical company if you're pulling beyond your service limits.
 
Dr McKay said:
You can't see the difference. I can, especially browsing the web, seeing smaller text. On my iPhone 5 or Nexus 4 I'd have to zoom in to read it, I can read that same text on my S4 with ease.



Again for you. Other people wanted the higher res, especially seeing as the larger screens for Android were dropping the PPI lower and lower.

I'm not trying to sound like an Arse but you're judging other peoples experiences based off your own.
Click to expand...

My experience matters a little more than other people's. Keep it at 720p.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back