Why was Pixel density so important for 2012 smartphones.

[Lil Frier]

^^^ If anything, it sounds like you've been taken in by the marketing hype. 468 PPI is e-peen territory.

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that I care about pixel density, only that people clamored for the "Retina display," but the competition's put it to shame, from a statistical point of view.

 

[Eug]

I think you misunderstood my point. I wasn't saying that I care about pixel density, only that people clamored for the "Retina display," but the competition's put it to shame, from a statistical point of view.

Ok, but still, I'm not sure the "put it to shame" really is true. The iPhone still has one of the best screens out there. The higher pixel density on competing phones doesn't actually help anyone. What might be desirable for some is physically bigger screens, but you don't need a higher pixel density for that.

More important (besides size) are the other characteristics of the screen as outlined earlier, and Brian Klug seems to think that Apple has amongst the best calibration in the industry for its screens, at least for a mass produced product.

To put it another way, I think realistically the main criticism for Apple's screens should at this point be size. I personally prefer 4.0-4.3" screens in phones (and find my 4.7" Android phone too big), but obviously, other people prefer bigger. But pixel density for iPhones is a complete non-issue.

 

[aShufflinZombie]

I don't think that pixel density was important in terms of specs; it costs about the same to make a 720p screen or 1080p starting around 2012.

Manufacturers saw this a way for them to increase specs while not greatly increasing costs.

 

[Strk]

I don't think that pixel density was important in terms of specs; it costs about the same to make a 720p screen or 1080p starting around 2012.

Manufacturers saw this a way for them to increase specs while not greatly increasing costs.

It's also something that is easily noticeable. You can make a spec list that sounds like a beast, but most people don't give a shit.

Ok, but still, I'm not sure the "put it to shame" really is true. The iPhone still has one of the best screens out there. The higher pixel density on competing phones doesn't actually help anyone. What might be desirable for some is physically bigger screens, but you don't need a higher pixel density for that.

More important (besides size) are the other characteristics of the screen as outlined earlier, and Brian Klug seems to think that Apple has amongst the best calibration in the industry for its screens, at least for a mass produced product.

To put it another way, I think realistically the main criticism for Apple's screens should at this point be size. I personally prefer 4.0-4.3" screens in phones (and find my 4.7" Android phone too big), but obviously, other people prefer bigger. But pixel density for iPhones is a complete non-issue.

It's definitely calibration. It's not like Apple builds anything. Other manufacturers have access to the same components.

 

[Lil Frier]

Ok, but still, I'm not sure the "put it to shame" really is true. The iPhone still has one of the best screens out there. The higher pixel density on competing phones doesn't actually help anyone. What might be desirable for some is physically bigger screens, but you don't need a higher pixel density for that.

More important (besides size) are the other characteristics of the screen as outlined earlier, and Brian Klug seems to think that Apple has amongst the best calibration in the industry for its screens, at least for a mass produced product.

To put it another way, I think realistically the main criticism for Apple's screens should at this point be size. I personally prefer 4.0-4.3" screens in phones (and find my 4.7" Android phone too big), but obviously, other people prefer bigger. But pixel density for iPhones is a complete non-issue.

None of that stuff is what the topic is about though, so it's not what I bothered to post about. The thread was an inquiry as to what was up with the pixel density obsession, so I posted about how pixel density was Apple's go-to display stat, but now that they're behind EVERYONE in pixel density, they don't brag about it. They just keep pushing the "Retina display" phrase, while people don't realize that for phones, it just refers to a low-resolution display with a "Retina" level of pixel density, which lags behind all of the flagships competing with the iPhone now.

As for responsiveness and all of that, it's a different matter entirely. Apple wins the responsiveness matter, from the last test I read about, while Nokia's devices carry the super-sensitive touch (something I think matters a bit more, since the difference in input lag between the iPhone and the competition probably isn't noticeable to the average consumer). The Lumia 920 also carried the notch that it had the highest refresh rate of any smartphone, but I'm not sure if that still holds true (and I'm almost positive it didn't carry form the IPS-bearing 920 to the OLED devices like the 820, 925, 928, and 1020).

 

[Bman123]

Pixel density makes a huge difference on the note 2 for example. 1280x720 on a 5.5 inch screen is horrible. Comparing a note 2 to a S4 made me want to get rid of my note 2 which I ended up doing anyways

 

[Eug]

Pixel density makes a huge difference on the note 2 for example. 1280x720 on a 5.5 inch screen is horrible. Comparing a note 2 to a S4 made me want to get rid of my note 2 which I ended up doing anyways

Of course. The Note 2 had too low of a pixel density, at 267.

For a phone you need something well over 300, and preferably non-pentile.

 

[aShufflinZombie]

The only thing that I can truly appreciate with increases in pixel density is native PC resolutions.

If I copy a 1080p movie to my One, it won't scale as it's the native res.

 

[Eug]

The only thing that I can truly appreciate with increases in pixel density is native PC resolutions.

If I copy a 1080p movie to my One, it won't scale as it's the native res.

Doesn't matter. Scaled down 1080p still looks totally great on a phone, and such video scaling is not CPU/GPU intensive.

Remember, we're talking "Retina" and above screen pixel densities here, not low rez low ppi pixelated screens. That was the issue with PC monitors, but it is not an issue with modern phone screens.

 

[WelshBloke]

This argument doesn't really make a lot of sense. Arguably, having lower-than-1080p screen resolutions is smarter to use on phones, because for video downscaling from 1080p is not an issue, and for 3D graphics, it's actually a big benefit because it means higher frame rates (and lower power utilization).

Furthermore, if your consolidation argument were true, then you wouldn't have both 1280x800 and 1280x720 as Android phone resolutions, for example.

On screen buttons?

Personally I'm OK with 720p screens as long as the screens a good size.

 

[Lil Frier]

On screen buttons?

Personally I'm OK with 720p screens as long as the screens a good size.

Yeah, I'm not really one to complain about how a display looks, personally. Even my sister's Lumia 822 (which is 800x480, if I remember correctly) doesn't bother me, it looks just fine. My 920's 1280x768 display looks awesome to me, given the sunlight readability.

 

[WelshBloke]

Yeah, I'm not really one to complain about how a display looks, personally. Even my sister's Lumia 822 (which is 800x480, if I remember correctly) doesn't bother me, it looks just fine. My 920's 1280x768 display looks awesome to me, given the sunlight readability.

Is the old Samsung S2 800x480? That screen looked fine but I can definitely see an improvement with 720p screens, 1080p not so much.

I can see the logic in locking in on the two HD display resolutions though.