Questions about Samsung S5 features??

[cool.dx.rip]

Hello,Here's my ques.1)Why high end phones have more ppi than human eyes can detect difference?2)Which is faster?2.5GHz Snapdragon 801 or 2.1Ghz Exynos Octa-core?3)what is ISOCELL in S5 camera?4)Why s5 4k video recording has 5 min limit?5)what is LTE Cat. 3 2X2 MIMO(in networks),GLONASS(connectivity),Rated IP67(in water and dust)?6)what does Wi-Fi a/b/g/n/ac means? http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-galaxy-s5-international-giveaway-349532/

 

[Ravynmagi]

1. Are you referring Apple's definition of Retina? Which I think is something about more than 300 DPI being unnoticeable? The problem with that is it's for a specific distance from the eye. I have noticed the difference between a 320 DPI phone and a 440 DPI phone. It's not big, but I can see it at close distances. I suspect it's going to get harder though with the 550 to 600 DPI screens that 1440p panels might provide.

2. Is this Snapdragon 801 vs Exynos 5422? I haven't read up on the 5422 yet, but if it's like Samsungs previous octocore chips, only 4 cores are used at once. When performance is needed, the bigger cores are used, then it falls back to the smaller cores when performance isn't needed to save power. I'm not sure how the 5422 will compare to the 80 yet.

3. No idea.

4. It's just a guess, but 4K videos probably require a lot of space.

5. Cat 3 I believe means it supports up to 100Mbps.
2x2 MIMO I also believe is two antennas and two bands.
GLONASS is a type of GPS.
IP67 is water proofing.

6. These are the different wireless standards. Most of us have 802.11n routers at home, the newest is 802.11ac. So the phone supports the latest and fastest wireless protocol and is also backwards compatible with older protocols as well.

 

[bearxor]

1)Why high end phones have more ppi than human eyes can detect difference?

I don't really want to turn the thread to focus about it, but just because you can't see individual pixels doesn't mean that a collective group of them can't be used to show extra detail.

There's even an argument for hitting 900. At 900, you could simulate a 300ppi screen and use three individual pixels to form one larger pixel giving you a far greater control over the color, since each pixel would be acting as a subpixel and would be colored by it's own three subpixels.

 

[s44]

if it's like Samsungs previous octocore chips

It's not

 

[Roland00Address]

It's not

It is still massively thermally limited so in reality you are not going to be using more than 4 cores, and your core a15s can not run as full speeds for very long without over heating. The a15s will be there for bursting, not for sustained use.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I don't really want to turn the thread to focus about it, but just because you can't see individual pixels doesn't mean that a collective group of them can't be used to show extra detail.

There's even an argument for hitting 900. At 900, you could simulate a 300ppi screen and use three individual pixels to form one larger pixel giving you a far greater control over the color, since each pixel would be acting as a subpixel and would be colored by it's own three subpixels.

But seeing more detail means you can see the individual pixels. Seeing individual pixels doesn't mean seeing the grid that they're laid out in. It's being able to see jagged edges.

I have yet to see anyone realistically claim they can tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p at the sizes of a phone.

 

[bearxor]

But seeing more detail means you can see the individual pixels. Seeing individual pixels doesn't mean seeing the grid that they're laid out in. It's being able to see jagged edges.

I have yet to see anyone realistically claim they can tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p at the sizes of a phone.

I didn't want to turn this in to one of THOSE threads.

You don't think you could see a group of 3-5 pixels on a 1440p screen?

How about this article?
http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/

I don't know anyone's whose seen a 1440p display yet.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I didn't want to turn this in to one of THOSE threads.

You don't think you could see a group of 3-5 pixels on a 1440p screen?

How about this article?
http://www.cultofmac.com/173702/why-retina-isnt-enough-feature/

I don't know anyone's whose seen a 1440p display yet.

There's a lot of debate about what actually the eye can see. I've seen articles saying Apple's retina actually has buffer room for better than 20/20 vision, even down to 20/12 or so. Plus, we're talking about the few select people who have perfect vision without even needing corrective lenses.

I'm not saying the correct number is 326ppi or 900ppi or whatever. My point is that a lot of people have been saying a lot, and we have yet to really see much truth. It's like that old 128kbs vs 320kbps blind audio test that some website setup and a bunch of self proclaimed audiophiles failed miserably.

We don't really know yet, and even if the eye can see 900 ppi, I highly doubt many people can tell the difference between 500 and 900 ppi.

I've seen you post those screen caps of "Asian text," but those were blown up images, and don't really definitively say anything. If we can actually perceive so much detail, then maybe all those whiners about pentile and 1080p are justified then?

 

[bearxor]

I'm a whiner about pentile, hah. Although it's pretty good at 1080p, but I also believe it's not TRUE 1080p in the traditional sense of the definition. For me, true 1080p requires there to be three subpixels for every pixel.

Here's the issue, I think. You're completely correct in that there is still a lot of this "up in the air". But it won't be resolved until it's really tested and out there in the wild. I'm not quite ready to throw my hands up at this point and say 'there isn't a significant portion of the population that can't see more than 500ppi'. I AT LEAST want to see it in person first before coming to the conclusion. So I won't hold back phone manufacturers that want to 1440p or 2160p screens.

My 900ppi scenario is more about accurate color reproduction than sharpness. Since each "mega subpixel" is lit by it's own three subpixels, it would provide a much greater range of control over color reproduction. So don't be surprised to be talking about 900-1100 ppi screens in a couple of years.

 

[openwheel]

There's a lot of debate about what actually the eye can see. I've seen articles saying Apple's retina actually has buffer room for better than 20/20 vision, even down to 20/12 or so. Plus, we're talking about the few select people who have perfect vision without even needing corrective lenses.

I'm not saying the correct number is 326ppi or 900ppi or whatever. My point is that a lot of people have been saying a lot, and we have yet to really see much truth. It's like that old 128kbs vs 320kbps blind audio test that some website setup and a bunch of self proclaimed audiophiles failed miserably.

We don't really know yet, and even if the eye can see 900 ppi, I highly doubt many people can tell the difference between 500 and 900 ppi.

I've seen you post those screen caps of "Asian text," but those were blown up images, and don't really definitively say anything. If we can actually perceive so much detail, then maybe all those whiners about pentile and 1080p are justified then?

Obviously you don't know much about the audiophile World. They are easily identifiable given proper equipments. I did a blind test at work and I was able to pick flac over 320kbps EVERY time. Co-worker had to buy me lunch and he is now a convert once I tought him how to identify difference in dynamic range..etc.