2K screen worth it?

[s44]

the battery life of our devices hasn't improved at all.

I guess you skipped all the S5 reviews.

 

[fr]

I based my statement on the endless complaints that smartphones (regardless of manufacturer) don't last much longer than a day unless you don't use it as a smartphone or have a large device with higher capacity battery like the Note. Since my first smartphone (the Evo 4g; I don't count the Palm Pre which was a piece of hot flaming garbage), we've seen huge advances in hardware (e.g., screen resolutions, CPU speed) but most of our phones still last about a day, give or take.

I can easily go 3 days without charging my G2. I have gone 5 days a couple times.

By comparison, I would only get 1 day out of my Galaxy S3 and 2 days out of my iPhone 4S.

 

[thecoolnessrune]

I wish someone would say that about something that would actually make a demonstrable difference that every user would notice, not just pixel hunters and e-peen geeks: Battery life. We're at a point where a large majority of the population won't be able to detect the difference between 1080p and 2k on a 5" screen yet the battery life of our devices hasn't improved at all.

The difference in usability and battery life with my first smartphone (HTC Touch Pro), second smartphone (HTC Thunderbolt), and third smartphone (Samsung Galaxy S3), isn't even comparable. Not only do my devices *easily* last longer than the previous, but the performance is way up. How on earth can you compare devices that can do more work than anything that came before it, having people using their phones harder than ever before, and then say that battery performance isn't up? Longevity isn't the only way, or even the right way to guage efficiency in the mobile world.

 

[Brian Stirling]

I have the 2560x1600 resolution on my Sammy Tab 8.4 Pro and it, like my horse, is amazing! We'll be seeing tablets with 4K screens soon enough and there will be a bunch of people asking why 4K is needed. Two years from now we're likely to see the first smartphone with 4K screens, but that will likely be the phablet phones first.

The Note 3 shoots video in 4K and before long many top smartphones will be able to record 4K video so it makes sense that they could offer a 4K screen to go along with it. It's probably true that even the best young eyes won't see much of a difference between 2560 and 4K on a smartphone of 5" but I'd bet huge money most folks would be able to tell the difference between a 1080 screen and a 4K screen at 5".

On another point ... since 4K video is the next format we'll be seeing on phones and that eats a sh*t ton of data (over 20GB/hour) the folks that have been arguing the uSD slots are stupid will have to reevaluate that notion. Can you imagine the data costs to push a few hours of 4K vacation video to the cloud?


Brian

 

[dawheat]

I have the 2560x1600 resolution on my Sammy Tab 8.4 Pro and it, like my horse, is amazing! We'll be seeing tablets with 4K screens soon enough and there will be a bunch of people asking why 4K is needed. Two years from now we're likely to see the first smartphone with 4K screens, but that will likely be the phablet phones first.

The Note 3 shoots video in 4K and before long many top smartphones will be able to record 4K video so it makes sense that they could offer a 4K screen to go along with it. It's probably true that even the best young eyes won't see much of a difference between 2560 and 4K on a smartphone of 5" but I'd bet huge money most folks would be able to tell the difference between a 1080 screen and a 4K screen at 5".

On another point ... since 4K video is the next format we'll be seeing on phones and that eats a sh*t ton of data (over 20GB/hour) the folks that have been arguing the uSD slots are stupid will have to reevaluate that notion. Can you imagine the data costs to push a few hours of 4K vacation video to the cloud?


Brian

Sorry, but horse?

 

[sweenish]

I based my statement on the endless complaints that smartphones (regardless of manufacturer) don't last much longer than a day unless you don't use it as a smartphone or have a large device with higher capacity battery like the Note. Since my first smartphone (the Evo 4g; I don't count the Palm Pre which was a piece of hot flaming garbage), we've seen huge advances in hardware (e.g., screen resolutions, CPU speed) but most of our phones still last about a day, give or take.

The EVO 4G didn't last a day. It was notorious for needing a mid-day charge if you used your phone in any capacity. It sounds like you've molded the past to fit your argument.

It's true that physical battery tech hasn't changed much if at all in all those years, but the hardware and software optimizations along with straight up battery capacity increases has shown very positive gains in cell phone battery life.

How else do you think the iPhone STILL gets 10 hours (actual usage) of battery life?

I'm all for battery tech advancing and getting that next breakthrough, but your falsehood riddled argument isn't going to get people on board or excited for that at all.

 

[Kenmitch]

If LG is selling the G3 with a 2k screen for $ABC, and Samsung is selling the S5 with a 1080p screen for the same $ABC price, which would you buy?

Whether or not you need 2k, you're still going to buy it.

Now if LG was going to charge a hefty premium for 2k, you might think twice. But I don't think they want to, or need to. Display quality and pixel density is increasing on its own, which is something we can all applaud. As high definition as our devices may be, we're still a decade away from mistaking a displayed image for real life.

I say we push the display industry forward instead of saying "1080p is all we'll ever need".

Looking at off contract pricing of LG's phones on AT&T for example they tend to be competitively priced. The flex is borderline but compared to the other offerings it's in line I guess. The G2 is the same price as the S3 currently....Maybe clearing out stock?

 

[WelshBloke]

Sorry, but horse?

You should look at his horse, his horse is amazing.

 

[Rdmkr]

pixelation is visible to me on a 5.2 inch FHD screen held close to my face; now you might say such a viewing distance is not normal but I find myself pulling the phone closer to inspect details quite a lot. in this way I think extreme PPI has some value. viewing distance is not a fixed constant. once you're past 300 ppi the extra detail is a redundant luxury, but it offers something of an extra "wow" sensation at times. I think most smartphone specs are in this territory already. what's the difference between 1.7ghz and 2.5ghz; it's not like you notice this much better than 300 vs. 500ppi. even battery life is not a big issue on my LG G2.

 

[Kenmitch]

pixelation is visible to me on a 5.2 inch FHD screen held close to my face; now you might say such a viewing distance is not normal but I find myself pulling the phone closer to inspect details quite a lot. in this way I think extreme PPI has some value. viewing distance is not a fixed constant. once you're past 300 ppi the extra detail is a redundant luxury, but it offers something of an extra "wow" sensation at times. I think most smartphone specs are in this territory already. what's the difference between 1.7ghz and 2.5ghz; it's not like you notice this much better than 300 vs. 500ppi. even battery life is not a big issue on my LG G2.

Wouldn't the viewing distance decrease with the higher the resolution?

Seems like the smaller the text the closer one would have to hold the phone to make it readable. I guess upping the screen size with the resolution can somewhat offset the effect. Once one gets to the maximum comfortable to them screen size the only choice is decreasing the viewing distance.

 

[sweenish]

Wouldn't the viewing distance decrease with the higher the resolution?

Seems like the smaller the text the closer one would have to hold the phone to make it readable. I guess upping the screen size with the resolution can somewhat offset the effect. Once one gets to the maximum comfortable to them screen size the only choice is decreasing the viewing distance.

Scaling says hi.

Phones have been doing it forever. Text will be the same size, just crisper.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Sorry, but horse?

Yep, horse...


http://www.weebls-stuff.com/songs/Amazing+Horse/


Brian

 

[Unoid]

I'd rather have 120hz and strobed backlighting than 2k+

LOW PERSISTENCE mobile displays!!!

 

[Bateluer]

Scaling says hi.

Phones have been doing it forever. Text will be the same size, just crisper.

I tried to explain this to a co worker after he spent 20 minutes telling me how LCD manufacturers needed to make ~20in+ LCD displays with 640x480 resolutions.

 

[shortylickens]

I would rather have a better battery.

Oh HELL YEAH!!

 

[Bateluer]

Oh HELL YEAH!!

People also want an uber thin phone. And we had those, recall the 6-7mm thick phones from 2 years ago? Then the same people immediately started bitching that the battery life on their wafer thin phone was atrocious.

 

[Brian Stirling]

People also want an uber thin phone. And we had those, recall the 6-7mm thick phones from 2 years ago? Then the same people immediately started bitching that the battery life on their wafer thin phone was atrocious.

Yes, we've had this argument many times before but the folks that insist that phones be the thickness of credit cards will then be the first to bitch about battery life. You'd think that on a tech website most of the people would have some comprehension of the effect of uber thin on battery size and therefore battery life, but no, they want a wafer thin phone and 2+ days battery life.

Screen resolution plays a bit of a roll but screen size is the more important metric for battery consumption. It looks like most of the flagship phones are going towards 3000mahr and that's a good thing in my book, but, once again, the thin is in crowd will bitch about thickness.

Looking down the road I can see 4K tabs then 4K phones but can't imagine any increase beyond 4K. I suspect that some, though likely not all, will see a difference from 2560x1600 to 4K resolution in a 5" smartphone but once at 4K, with resolution of about 900dpi, there will be no one that can discern any improvement beyond that and also suspect that high end TV's will top out at 4K for some time.

I do think we'll see 8K, or whatever they will call it being demo'd within 5-8 years but it will be quite a while before such TV displays are commercially viable and even then, the bandwidth to drive it at 8K will be insane. If 1080P video is 8GB+/hr and 4K is 30GB+/hr then 8K will likely be way over 100GB/hr -- imagine Netflix trying to stream that. Still, an 8K screen would be about 33MP and would be a good match for my Nikon D800E camera -- would make a sweet imager viewer.

Bottom line is technology isn't going to stagnate anytime soon and companies will continue to push improvements even if most people can't see the difference.


Brian

 

[Rdmkr]

in 2 years thin phones with good battery life will probably be widespread. it's not that unrealistic a thing to wish for.

I think I personally prefer a thinner and lighter phone if it costs +/- 25% of battery life; on most days of normal usage I don't find battery life to be a big problem. it's on weekends when I start using the phone as a tablet that things get narrow. but this is a problem that's easily solved by, you know, just picking up the tablet (or touchscreen ultrabook) instead.

 

[Bateluer]

I do think we'll see 8K, or whatever they will call it being demo'd within 5-8 years but it will be quite a while before such TV displays are commercially viable and even then, the bandwidth to drive it at 8K will be insane. If 1080P video is 8GB+/hr and 4K is 30GB+/hr then 8K will likely be way over 100GB/hr -- imagine Netflix trying to stream that. Still, an 8K screen would be about 33MP and would be a good match for my Nikon D800E camera -- would make a sweet imager viewer.

Sharp demo'd an 84in 8K TV at CES 2013. I was there. It was sealed inside its own opaque display crate with only the display viewable, but damn, did it look good.

 

[96Firebird]

Think I'm just going to go with the S5 instead of waiting for the G3. I really want a new phone before I leave for vacation, and like some have said, I'm not sure how well the GPU will hold up with a higher screen resolution. If the G3 ends up being spectacular, I'll sell the S5 and upgrade when it is released.

Keep discussing the 2K screen pros and cons though, interesting to hear opinions.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Sharp demo'd an 84in 8K TV at CES 2013. I was there. It was sealed inside its own opaque display crate with only the display viewable, but damn, did it look good.

Yeah, I'm sure all the manufacturers have in house prototype 8K displays but it will be a while before they're ready to demo a product thats near ready for sale. The issue is less about the ability to make the 8K display as it is the fact that there's no market for them now given the fact the 4K is only just now starting.

The lagging factor is the bandwidth needed to drive them and it will be a long while before cable and satellite companies can even dream of a couple hundred 8K channels each requiring 100GB/hour.

The USA is notably bad at providing bandwidth as we have virtual monopolies that stifle capacity increase. There is little the FCC can do given the control the big telecoms have in congress with the ability to kill legislation they don't like.


Brian

 

[magomago]

So 2K has a 77% higher pixel density vs 1080P, which sounds great, but remember, 720P to 1080P was 125% higher pixel density.

To get similar gains when upgrading from 1080P, we need around 4.5 million pixels...which is around 2900x1600.


For smart phones, you really lose nothing when you jump up to higher resolutions....EXCEPT for battery life. IIRC, I remember people complaining of Droid DNA battery life even though it was just below the average.

I would love a 2K or even 4K (I can dream, right?) phone, but I'm not sure if its worth the trade off in battery life. We can tweak SW all day long, but you can't use SW to tweak the power draw of a Screen for the same brightness unless you fundamentally change the technology of the screen...

So the real question is which is the bigger snail: Screen technology development, or battery technology development?

 

[Brian Stirling]

So 2K has a 77% higher pixel density vs 1080P, which sounds great, but remember, 720P to 1080P was 125% higher pixel density.

To get similar gains when upgrading from 1080P, we need around 4.5 million pixels...which is around 2900x1600.


For smart phones, you really lose nothing when you jump up to higher resolutions....EXCEPT for battery life. IIRC, I remember people complaining of Droid DNA battery life even though it was just below the average.

I would love a 2K or even 4K (I can dream, right?) phone, but I'm not sure if its worth the trade off in battery life. We can tweak SW all day long, but you can't use SW to tweak the power draw of a Screen for the same brightness unless you fundamentally change the technology of the screen...

So the real question is which is the bigger snail: Screen technology development, or battery technology development?

Higher res screens eat a little more power because the SoI has to process more but the display power itself is mostly driven by the size and not the resolution. Each generation of SoI reduces the amount of power (energy really) needed to do a given amount of processing so increasing the resolution is not an issue for the most part. It looks like many of the newer phones are coming in at 3000mahr or there abouts and that should be good for most people that aren't thin freaks.

I don't think we're going to see much improvement in battery technology for a while as the major push in battery development is in power handling and pack life and not energy density. This push is for automotive needs where handling 500KW is needed and 1MW or more desired. And the need to make these expensive car pack last 10 years or more. The mobile world will benefit from these advances but they'll have no effect on battery size for a phone.


Brian