LG announces 5.5in 2560x1440 smartphone display

[Bateluer]

http://www.engadget.com/2013/08/20/lg-display-worlds-first-quad-hd-display/

LG Display has just laid claim to the world's first Quad HD (2,560 x 1,440) smartphone display, which also boasts the highest pixel density of a mobile device, clocking in at 538ppi. The firm's panel measures up at 5.5-inches and is only 1.21mm thick, and just 1.2mm at its bezel. According to LG, that makes it the world's slimmest and narrowest panel, stealing the crown from hardware it showed off last month. Thanks to its use of AH-IPS tech and Low Temperature Poly-Silicon (LTPS) substrate, the screen features 430 nits of brightness. If the Quad HD math is throwing you off, that's four times as many pixels as a 1,280 x 720 display. This isn't 4K on a portable display, but we'll take it.

I'm all for pushing tech to the limits here, but I'd wish these guys would go on a battery life race. Only manufacturer that seems to be focusing on battery life is Motorola.

 

[Ravynmagi]

My first impression is, dang that is some crazy pixels per inch. But then I realized the 1080p 4.7 inch phones are already up to 468 ppi. So this isn't quite that big of a leap (though a pretty nice leap).

I love pixels, but even I'm starting to think the 450+ area is probably about plenty now. Though I wouldn't have any major objections to 538 ppi phone if the the SoC and battery technology could handle it.

 

[Roland00Address]

I do not need or want this in a phone. 1080p is enough. Instead focus on energy consumption and brighter screens.

What I want instead

1) Give true scaling to Windows, something I think should have been done years ago
2) We need higher dpi monitors for laptops and desktops

I do love my Shimian 27" 2560x1440 display.

 

[Mondozei]

So this would mean that next year smartphones would be at around 1440p. Not that huge leap.

We have 3200 x 1800 resolution notebooks out already. We'll see 4K notebooks next year and, with some luck, could see some high-end tablets for consumers Q3/Q4 2014 that are 4K as well.

What interested me more was the narrower thickness and the brighter screen. It's possible that they'd make it more energy efficient too, since the screen is what drives most of the battery, so they could get a good reduction there hopefully.

(In terms of battery there's already a ton of research so I'm getting tired of people thinking nothing's done there. It's just that most of this research is about radically improving battery life, 10x or so, so it takes time to get all things right).

 

[Roland00Address]

(In terms of battery there's already a ton of research so I'm getting tired of people thinking nothing's done there. It's just that most of this research is about radically improving battery life, 10x or so, so it takes time to get all things right).

Of course the display makers are working on ways to improve battery life by reducing power consumption of the screens.

It is just counterproductive to do do by increasing resolution on lcd screens. LCD screens work via a screen door effect, the higher the resolution the less light you allow through the backlight. Thus with the same backlight a higher resolution means less end user brightness. There is also a direct correlation between brightness and battery life thus a higher resolution means less battery life for your phone due to more power being used by the screen.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Seriously, I'm looking at getting a 32" 1080p TV to use as a monitor (I actually use a 720 now)... 1080p is enough for any phone/tablet; makes for easy intersection with other media.

 

[StrangerGuy]

You all are luddites unless you want pixels down to the probability clouds of electrons.

 

[ViRGE]

You all are luddites unless you want pixels down to the probability clouds of electrons.

Well then sign me up as a Luddite. Because 2560x1440 on a cell phone is absurd. It goes well beyond the point required to make the individual pixels imperceptible.

 

[Dari]

Ridiculous.

 

[Puddle Jumper]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the standard res for Android flagships next year, everyone had similar reactions when LG unveiled their first 1080p screen.

 

[Red Storm]

Well it's not like the guys doing the R&D for these displays were pulled from battery research. Blame the battery engineers or the limits of modern technology or management for cutting corners.

I see nothing wrong with pushing the tech boundaries as much as we can. Again display and battery aren't the same people.

 

[dawheat]

I do think there are diminishing returns - so unlike the move to 720p and now to 1080p, this verges on specs for the sake of specs. However, all other things being equal, a higher dpi is never a bad thing, though I imagine it stresses the GPU quite a bit more.

As long as it doesn't negatively impact battery life or other more tangible benefits, then I'm for it. If it comes at the expense of battery life, then no thanks.

 

[MrX8503]

If it doesn't impact performance and battery life, then I'm ok with it. In saying that, it probably will, so I think 1080p is enough if it means more performance and battery life.

 

[A5]

I wouldn't be surprised if this is the standard res for Android flagships next year, everyone had similar reactions when LG unveiled their first 1080p screen.

Well hopefully the size will consign it to Galaxy Note-sized devices. 5.5" phones being mainstream seems a bit much.

 

[Brian Stirling]

Well hopefully the size will consign it to Galaxy Note-sized devices. 5.5" phones being mainstream seems a bit much.

This is becoming the next MP race! We now have a phone, with a tiny image chip, that's pushing out 41MP so why not keep upping the display resolution.

I'd predicted 1080 a few years ago and was laughed at and now its the standard resolution for high end phones. I think upping the resolution a bit more is OK but we are on the point of diminishing returns.

The whole retina display thing that Apple markets is based on the often accepted standard of about 300dpi as the point at which most people reach the max acuity, but the truth is many people can see or benefit from resolutions much higher than that and the upper bounds for this appears to be about 600dpi so a display pushing 568dpi, or whatever it actually winds up being, is still within the upper limits.


Now if only the PC makers would start to catch up to the smartphone makers and begin to offer 4K displays.


Brian

 

[elitejp]

I think the nokia eos 1020 is about one of the most interesting phones out right now. People probably spend as much time texting and talking on the phone as they do taking pictures so i think Nokia really hit a home run with this idea. No need to buy a point and shoot when youve got this. Plus user reviews are saying the camera is awesome. I guess its because i use the camera more than games so I really dont care if its a quad core or a hecta core or whatever. But l;ike another poster said if the phone manufacturer wants to offer better specs im all for it.

 

[JAG87]

538 ppi. Wow, just wow. The naked eye cannot distinguish any difference over 200 ppi. This is just a waste of processing power.

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/the_300_dpi_print_myth.html

 

[OS]

LOL gotta scrape all diminishing returns or else no upgrade cycles to sell.

Sure I'll take 1440p eventually, but I'm not paying extra for it.

 

[Red Storm]

LOL gotta scrape all diminishing returns or else no upgrade cycles to sell.

Sure I'll take 1440p eventually, but I'm not paying extra for it.

Who said you were?

 

[Brian Stirling]

538 ppi. Wow, just wow. The naked eye cannot distinguish any difference over 200 ppi. This is just a waste of processing power.

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/the_300_dpi_print_myth.html

And many people doing side-by-side comparisons of smartphones with 250ish ppi versus the newer phones with 350+ ppi have no problem at all picking the higher res ones as their favorite. Apparently there is some brain washing taking place that gets these people to pick the higher res phones when, clearly, they can not detect a difference above 200ppi.

Try again...


Brian

 

[openwheel]

will this phone include a loupe?

 

[GTRagnarok]

538 ppi. Wow, just wow. The naked eye cannot distinguish any difference over 200 ppi. This is just a waste of processing power.

http://www.have-camera-will-travel.com/field_reports/the_300_dpi_print_myth.html

Ummm...that's talking about paper prints. 200 ppi is about 800x480 at 4.7 inch. If someone can't tell the difference between that and 1080p or even 720p, then something's wrong.

 

[OS]

Who said you were?

How come 1080p phones aren't cheaper than 720p then?

 

[jacktesterson]

I've had 1080p and 720p phones beside each other. I even had a video on YouTube about it.

Besides the Text, there really isnt much difference. 720 is still plenty for 4-5 inch phones IMO.

 

[Red Storm]

How come 1080p phones aren't cheaper than 720p then?

Huh? Why should the higher resolution be cheaper?

He said he didn't want to pay extra because of it, and I asked when has he? Phones have been getting updated specs for years and they always launch at typical new phone prices.