Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

LG Aims To Beat Apple's Retina Display

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the busy-times-for-pixel-collectors dept.

Displays 333

angry tapir writes "LG Display has introduced a 5-inch full HD LCD panel for smartphone displays — the highest resolution mobile panel to date. The widescreen panel is based on AH-IPS (Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching) technology and has a 1920-by-1080 pixel resolution or 440 pixels per inch (ppi), according to LG. That compares well to Apple's Retina display, which has 264 ppi on the new iPad and 326 ppi on the iPhone 4S."

cancel ×

333 comments

william shatner (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149583)

fristy frosty

Pixels (1, Funny)

spokenoise (2140056) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150085)

All the way down

Cool tech, but (5, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149587)

If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?

Re:Cool tech, but (2)

DinDaddy (1168147) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149611)

Also, the LCD panels Apple' displays are made from are available to all other phone manufacturers as well. They don't seem interested in that, so why would they go for something that is likely a higher component cost?

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Informative)

Spaseboy (185521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149645)

Apple locks up component supplies by negotiating massive amounts, this has been known for years. The retina displays may be available to other manufacturers, but most likely not until 2015 or so

Re:Cool tech, but (2)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149743)

Pretty sure that even in 2012 other manufacturers are not interested by that display anymore. It is already beaten both in density and number of pixels.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149767)

Really? What device is that?

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149815)

HTC Rezound, 4.3" and 720p display which came out like 6 months ago, among others of course...or just go back to reading Apple news and how all their stuff is the bestest evers

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150303)

Here's an idea, rather than letting the manufacturers get away with making the dick waving contest be about screen resolution, why not force them to fix the fucking smartphone battery life problem?

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150671)

mod this up, every screen seems to be "good enough" at this point, but when my battery lasts me maybe 6 hours max, that is what needs addressing

Re:Cool tech, but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149843)

Really? What device is that?

I don't know but I've heard tell that there's this great "new" service you can use to find things. They call it a "search engine".

Course if you're a fat, stupid, intellectually lazy American then you never make any effort that is not required of you. If that's you, you would rather ask stupid questions than find an answer all by yourself!

Yes I do know that you are obese. Don't bother to deny it, fattie. You're so fat that if you were a woman you'd have at least one half-black bastard child.

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Funny)

xevioso (598654) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149955)

This makes no sense. Silly foreigners have no idea how to tell a fat joke. The fat joke you just told has nothing to do with how fat a person is, and is merely a thinly veiled attempt at racism.

A proper fat joke would be something along the lines of "You are so fat, I swerved to avoid you while I was driving, but I ran out of gas."

Re:Cool tech, but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150215)

The fat joke you just told has nothing to do with how fat a person is, and is merely a thinly veiled attempt at racism.

"Racism?" When will you easily-offended bedwetting idiots learn what this word means? Damn. For such a tech-oriented site you guys sure do make some stupid mistakes.

Since hypersensitive nancyboys like you are not terribly intelligent (it atrophies if you don't use it): "American" is not a race.

Is that easy enough to understand? At most it would be NATIONALISM. Of course that discounts the possibility that the poster was also an American and might be sick and tired of the kind of gov't you end up with when fat easily offended morons are doing most of the voting. Then it would be more like a black person using the n-word.

You see, fatasses really could make different choices in life and lose the weight and keep it off. But fatasses have this weird psychosis going on where nothing is ever their own fault, not even things that are their fault. So they'd rather sue McDonalds or something. You don't want these cowards voting. And easily offended nancyboys cannot appreciate things like free speech. They just love getting people fired, censored, etc. for saying things they don't like. You don't want these morons voting.

Anyway, if the difference between "racism" and "nationalism" is too tough for you to discern because you entrusted your education to the media and the public school systems and never taught yourself anything, I have a solution even you can handle. You could use a generic catch-all term like "bigotry" and expand your severely limited vocabulary a little bit.

By the way, it is not really bigotry to refer to mainstream Americans as fat and stupid. Facts just are. They cannot be biased or bigoted. Mainstream Americans truly are a bunch of idiotic lardasses.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

Chuck Chunder (21021) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150349)

"Racism?"

Perhaps you should go back and read what he is referring to, ie the "half-black bastard" bit.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

xevioso (598654) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150573)

Right. This foolish person went on a rant about weight and Americans; I was referring to the poster's reference to "You're so fat that if you were a woman you'd have at least one half-black bastard child." which just makes no sense, regardless of if I am an American or not. It just doesn't mean anything, and is a poor attempt at a fat joke. Silly foreigners.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150585)

he is referring to, ie the "half-black bastard" bit.

There is no such thing as being half-black. Ether you are white or you aint.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150633)

You might want to re-read that "half-black bastard child" bit again...

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Insightful)

oxdas (2447598) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150169)

Nearly all the current retina displays are made by Samsung (with a small percentage made by Sharp). Do you really believe that Samsung (which shipped nearly 25% more smartphones than Apple last quarter) could not simply switch to the display they sell to Apple if they so chose? Samsung has chosen to go with their AMOLED displays because they offer more contrast and lower power consumption than the "retina display." AMOLED displays currently can not be produced at the pixel density desired by Apple, however, so Samsung is using more conventional technology on the display they sell to Apple.

Re:Cool tech, but (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149813)

What do you call that useless piece of flesh around a vagina? The woman!

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

larry bagina (561269) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149949)

Also, Apple controls the hardware, software, and UI guidelines. They double the ppi, update the OS to use double-sized image, tell people to do so, and they do.

If the software doesn't take advantage of the extra pixels, it's like buying a sports car with a lawn mower engine.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150061)

no.. it's like buying a sports car to drive down your 200ft driveway and get your mail. if you're going to use car analogies, at least have them make sense.

Re:Cool tech, but (2)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150593)

no.. it's like buying a sports car to drive down your 200ft driveway and get your mail. if you're going to use car analogies, at least have them make sense.

Why is it called a driveway if you are using it as a parking lot?

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149627)

Sorry I couldn't read your comment, can you increase the font size.

Re:Cool tech, but (2)

ae1294 (1547521) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150659)

Sorry I couldn't read your comment, can you increase the font size.

Not right now man. I am busy re-watching all my old porn vids looking for things I missed the first time around due to poor resolution from my PC. Now if someone could just fix the colour matching problem I could delete all this old flapping material and download some more. I wonder if fixmypc.com can help?

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Funny)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149629)

If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?

Bigger numbers. Also, it is beyond the resolution that the human eye can resolve at a typical usage distance. That doesn't necessarily mean that you can't see the difference if you're holding it wrong.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

codeAlDente (1643257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149853)

Then by holding it closer than a foot to your face (i.e., holding it wrong) you'll see a better picture? I don't hate the idea...

Re:Cool tech, but (1, Funny)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150075)

I've seen these 'retina' displays.. they're nice I suppose, but I can still make out pixels at a normal viewing distance.. maybe their test group was full of blind people.

Re:Cool tech, but (2)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150125)

The definition includes a qualifier on the sight of the person using it, although it does not mean that everyone will be in that range - people with better vision than the typically 20-20 will likely be able to make out pixels. For you folk, just move it further away :p

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

codeAlDente (1643257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150419)

It also includes (or it should include) a qualifier on viewing distance. The other qualifier that's not often mentioned is brightness. All else equal, brighter display = better acuity, up to a point of course.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150181)

It's because of douchebrains grabbing a fistful of numbers (typical visual acuity, typical distance, linear resolution), jamming them together any way they fit, and claiming to have answered the question as soon as a number pops out. Of course, they're off by a factor of 2 because "cycles/in" aka "line pairs/in" != "pixels/in", but try telling them that.

Re:Cool tech, but (-1, Flamebait)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150603)

You'll need those extra pixel density to see the bars of service you've got when you're holding it wrong.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150719)

that makes sense than! as long as we hold the phone the way apple wants us to..you know, not covering the antenna.. everything is fine! see, apple knows whats best for us, we just need to learn to listen!

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

noh8rz3 (2593935) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149635)

my phone has more DPI's than your phone! Burrn!

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149643)

Customers with better than 20/20 vision.

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Funny)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149655)

If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?

Single-pixel tracking GIFs that are only visible under a scanning electron microscope.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149829)

Hmmm..... can browsers be programmed to reject single-pizel sized images?

Re:Cool tech, but (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150131)

not really.

you have to request the image before you know it's just one pixel, and at that point it's already too late. The browser can refuse to display it, but that doesn't really matter. besides, it will just lead to images made of larger collections of full-alpha pixels.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

dougisfunny (1200171) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150199)

Would you reject them before or after they're downloaded such that you can determine they're only a single pixel?

That aside, a lot of web designers would use single pixel transparent gifs scaled to different sizes to effect changes in the layout such as shifting things over or down so many pixels. While this practice isn't ideal, blocking single pixel images would break this as well.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

codeAlDente (1643257) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150439)

That actually was the funny I was looking for.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150525)

Hmmm..... can browsers be programmed to reject single-pizel sized images?

No, but with Adblock Plus combined with one or more of the lists, and a good hosts file (look out for apk!), and maybe RequestPolicy, you can eliminate the need to do that. It also helps to use RefControl to defeat HTTP Referrer tracking and Redirect Remover to frustrate that method. Then you also avoid lots of garbage that goes beyond tracking images. For my own /etc/hosts file, I concatenated several popular ones (Google for them) and then uniq'ed the result. It's 1.5MB of bullshit-blocking goodness.

Why do I ruthlessly block all advertisements and make myself difficult to track? Because the moment they try to be sneaky is the moment I lose all respect for them and anything they hoped to accomplish. For me that moment was a long time ago, back when a 14.4 kbaud modem was FAST. This is not an industry that can regulate itself. When an advertiser is especially (more than usually) deceptive, the other advertisers don't speak out against them, complaining that this makes the industry look bad. That means they're giving their silent consent and are equally guilty. So I say fuck 'em. Fuck all of them. I can't support or respect what is not respectable no matter how justified and entitled they think they are.

If you're not using a Gecko-based browser you can always try something like Privoxy [privoxy.org] . It's related to the old (outdated) JunkBuster proxy if you remember that. The only disadvantage is that full filtering may cost you the ability to see partially-downloaded pages, making your browsing feel subjectively slower. I believe it can do basic ad blocking without this downside, however.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

Tynin (634655) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149697)

The only thing I can think of is that if it has an alternate output (HDMI) that it would save some resources to only output at the one resolution for everything... but even that seems to be at best, a poor implementation. Otherwise, it seems like it might be a marketing tool to show people with extra cash to waste that this product is even better than "insert alt. brand with lesser resolution". Because in market speak, bigger numbers are always better.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149917)

Because in market speak, bigger numbers are always better.

Are there any atheists in here? Any atheists at all who want PROOF that there is a Divine Being? I can give you proof.

Every marketer manages to look in the mirror without having an overwhelming urge to kill themselves with whatever fatal method is handy. They seem unaware that the entire American public wouldn't be so fat, stupid, and used to being lied to without them. They just blissfully keep lying, distorting, deceiving, manipulating, and omitting important information while somehow congratulating themselves because they somehow think they're "helping" anyone.

THAT, my friend, is proof of Divine intervention. It just wouldn't be possible if it was bound by logic. It is beyond all logic. I know a merciful, good, loving God would want all professional liars (marketers and PR types) dead, seeing how Satan is called the Father of Lies so marketers would be Satan's bastard children, but God has His reasons. What purpose it serves is simply beyond our comprehension. That is the only leap of faith.

Re:Cool tech, but (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149699)

Two things:

1) It gives them a "higher number" spec to shout about, because Android manufacturers consistently mistake "bigger" specs for "better" experience.
2) More justification for a higher price tag to bolster the sagging profit margins of most Android manufacturers.

Once again, they're getting it wrong, because these numbers aren't anything anybody but a slim portion of the market (e.g., Slashdot trolls) will care much about. But they seem to think it will help them sell more phones.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149897)

You left out the other one ....
        It will spur research into power storage. Actually maybe I should read the article: If they are offering a screen at double the resolution and the same power requirments then this would be a brilliant (no pun intended) advance. Surely they could offer the current resolution at half the power requirments.

What's that you say? Scaling? Bah!

Re:Cool tech, but (4, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149935)

1a) Yes its a spec
1b) Yes Android Manufactorers compete on specs
1c) No, some bigger specs do make better phones within reason. I'd gladdly take a 4 inch screen over a 3 inch. I'd gladdly take two cores for one. Apple increases specs ever version of the iphone, that doesn't make them idiots, does it?
2) No, Competition is fierce, so they must make a better product. Why is that a bad thing? The phone will be foreced to be sold at the same price point as last years best phone due to competition. Who loses in that scenario? Not the consumer.

Re:Cool tech, but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149961)

because Android manufacturers consistently mistake "bigger" specs for "better" experience

Yeah, and Apple fagbois mistake "being made by Apple" for "better". (Also, you lose the argument automatically for the marketing shitbag misuse of the word "experience".)

Re:Cool tech, but (-1, Offtopic)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150141)

because Android manufacturers consistently mistake "bigger" specs for "better" experience

Yeah, and Apple fagbois mistake "being made by Apple" for "better". (Also, you lose the argument automatically for the marketing shitbag misuse of the word "experience".)

Sorry, but you lose the argument automatically by being 5 years old and it being past your bed time. You also forgot to log in.

Re:Cool tech, but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150275)

Go kill yourself, Apple dick-licker.

Re:Cool tech, but (4, Informative)

SQL Error (16383) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149719)

If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?

You want the pixels to be smaller than the eye can resolve so that you can stop futzing around with anti-aliasing. That's why decent printers are 1200 dpi or more.

Re:Cool tech, but (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150443)

BS Inkjet printers, which by definition can never be decent printers, have resolutions that high because they have to create dither patterns to make most colors. A good dye sublimation printer produces images which are substantially better, and dye sub printers are generally 300 dpi. The best photographic-process printers might be capable of slightly higher resolution (perhaps 600 dpi), but most of those also produce 300 dpi. It is considered photographic quality for the purposes of human perception. Actual photographic processes produce film image resolutions that can't really be matched by printers at all, and standard prints generally produce images that match the level of detail around 300 dpi.

Re:Cool tech, but (2)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149771)

Maybe 1920x1080 eliminates the hassle of downconverting HD video to some lower value?

326 pixels per inch for this screen versus "For a human eye with excellent acuity, the maximum theoretical resolution is 50 Cycles per degree" (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eye#cite_note-30). Whatever that means.

(eh) I'll just keep using my e-ink kindle. Looks like paper with dots smaller then I can see.

Cycles per degree (5, Informative)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150455)

A "degree" is a unit of angle equal to 1/360 of a circle; an arc one degree long is about 1/57.3 of the distance from the eye. If a display is held 12 inches from the eyes, one degree is about 0.21 inch. This means the angular density of a 326 dpi display is 68 pixels per degree.

A "cycle" is a white pixel next to a black pixel, and thus a run of 50 cycles is 100 pixels. That's a bit more than 68, but then 100 pixels assumes "excellent acuity" at "maximum theoretical" conditions.

Re:Cycles per degree (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150737)

A "degree" is a unit of angle equal to 1/360 of a circle; an arc one degree long is about 1/57.3 of the distance from the eye. If a display is held 12 inches from the eyes, one degree is about 0.21 inch. This means the angular density of a 326 dpi display is 68 pixels per degree.

Dammit, I didn't know there was gonna be math on this discussion.

Is this going to be graded on a curve?

Re:Cool tech, but (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149783)

Hey, I need AT LEAST 450 fps to play Crysis. Duh.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149821)

It's like going from a 32" 720p TV to a 46" 1080p. The pixel density is about the same (although I didn't do the math) but the 46" is much better.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149953)

It hasn't, though. It still needs to improve by a factor or about 5 or so.

Re:Cool tech, but (4, Informative)

sootman (158191) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149973)

You beat me to it. What we need is a chart like this [carltonbale.com] but for handhelds. Then, print it out, wrap it around a 2x4, and smack OEM presidents in the head with it until they quit making tiny screens better and start shipping a goddamn laptop screen at something better than 1366x768.

Re:Cool tech, but (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150291)

Is this where I brag about my U820 (5.6" netbook screen, 1280x800) and my self-upgraded Thinkpad T51 (15" laptop screen, 2048x1536) and my T221 (22" desktop screen, 3840x2400)?

No, no, this is where I say... How in hell can you blame them for selling WHAT EVERYONE BUYS; every time they offer an ultrafine display (like the three I listed), it makes very few sales, because ALMOST NOBODY will actually pay a premium for better displays. Unless and until Apple, or someone equally awesome at marketing, tells them they need it.

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Insightful)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149975)

If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?

The Apple display is "Beyond what the human eye can resolve" while holding it at a certain distance. That means if you hold it closer, you will start to see the pixels. This makes the LG display able to be held closer to the eyes while still not being able to see the pixels. Does it mean much for the average user who always holds their phone at a distance of two feet from their eyes? Nope, but it is still bragging rights.
 
/Rant/
Now if only the folks that make monitors started playing this game, I would finally be able to get a monitor that has a higher resolution than my phone. Seriously, what's with the huge drop in screen resolution on both laptops (unless you buy the $5k model) and run-of-the-mill desktop screens? 1366x768? The nineties called, (Yes, I did warn them about the earthquakes in Haiti and Japan) they want their resolution back!

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

jo_ham (604554) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150183)

You might just be in luck with the 2012 refresh of the Macbook Pro/Macbook Air - all signs are pointing to them switching to resolution independence in OS X on high dpi displays.

DISCLAIMER: yes, yes, Apple are not the first, not revolutionary or innovative, never roller skate in a buffalo herd, never punch a nun after midnight etc etc.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150047)

Because that's just marketing rhetoric. There are lots of factors that determine how much detail your eyes make out.

Re:Cool tech, but (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150081)

"If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve"

It's not.

Re:Cool tech, but (5, Informative)

mdmkolbe (944892) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150205)

If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve

Sort answer: It isn't beyond the point a human eye can resolve if by that we mean the resolution beyond which there is no perceptable improvement.

Long answer: Apple's display has pixels that are 1 minute of arc in size when the screen is held 18 inches from the eye. Apple's marketing would like you to believe that 1 minute of arc is is the limit of the human eye, but that isn't quite true.

First, the pixels are rectangular and the 1 minute of arc was only on the sort side of the rectangle (at least when they first came out, they may have improved the specs).

Second, if you hold the screen closer than 18 inches (which I think most people do), the pixels are larger than 1 minute of arc.

Third and most importantly, the 1 minute of arc number is determined by how small the parts of a capital letter "E" can be for a person with 20/20 vision to determine what letter it is. (The entire "E" is 5 minutes of arc tall.) For other tasks (e.g. determining if two lines are parallel or where the point of a thin wedge ends), humans can detect features 10 or more (100?) times smaller than 1 minute of arc. Aliasing is easily detectable at 1 minute of arc given the right conditions.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

Savantissimo (893682) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150453)

"If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?"
You just need these [sears.com] 2.5x near-focus binocular spectacles. Stylish, too.

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

future assassin (639396) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150493)

what's more resolution going to get you?

Don't underestimate the sheeple's desire for bigger numbers. Just check out dpreview.com

Re:Cool tech, but (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150653)

Let me be the "apple hater" for a moment though

Why would the article say that "this screen stacks up well" when the truth is it is 2 fold stronger, regardless of if the human eye can handle it? This screen doesnt "stack up well" it is an amazingly better and I dont see why the writer of this headline would have said it the way he did

Pointless? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149593)

More pixels than the human eye can perceive? While taking more processing resources...

Apple's display? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149607)

Apple doesn't make their own displays.

Re:Apple's display? (-1)

dzfoo (772245) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149793)

If they design it and write the specifications, what's the difference? The component builder is just the hired help.

Re:Apple's display? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149819)

Apple don't design displays.

Re:Apple's display? (4, Interesting)

oxdas (2447598) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150251)

Apple only details specs, they do not design displays. The specs for the displays (size, pixel density, contrast, etc.) are sent to various manufacturers who design a display to meet the specs and submit examples to Apple. Apple then chooses displays that meet their targets and places orders. For the "retina display", only one company could originally meet all the requirements set by Apple, Samsung. Since then Sharp has also met their specs and will make some displays. LG is still trying to meets Apple's quality requirements. The result of this is that the vast majority of the "retina displays" were made by Samsung.

finally the war i wanted. (5, Interesting)

musikit (716987) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149625)

pixel density. it will be heaven to have clean graphics and now that portables get higher resolutions then desktops, people will start asking why. only thing i ask is more antiglare displays.

Great... BUT (1)

teh31337one (1590023) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149651)

AMOLED screens are where the future is. Samsung saw this, and invested £££/$$$ into it many years ago, and are now in a position to reap the benefits of it.

Although Super LCD 2 panels look really nice too (HTC One X. I'd say it beats the "retina" display in iPhone4/S)

What about laptops? (5, Insightful)

torkus (1133985) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149661)

Seriously, phones and tablets are getting ~1080P screens but most of the laptops on the market are stuck with the crappy 1366x768 even though they're MUCH larger and it would make a visible and FUNCTIONAL difference.

Re:What about laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149745)

I bet those larger HD screens would cost a lot more

Re:What about laptops? (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149799)

Some people didn't believe we are entering a post-PC world. Here's evidence.

Re:What about laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149887)

I had a dell laptop with a 1920x1200 screen almost 10 years ago. It's hard to find a desktop monitor with that resolution these days. It's rediculous that it's so hard to get a high resolution screen on a laptop.

Re:What about laptops? (4, Informative)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149959)

Yep, when your $600 phone has twice as many pixels as your $1500 laptop, something has most definitely gone terribly wrong.

Re:What about laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149929)

Seriously, phones and tablets are getting ~1080P screens but most of the laptops on the market are stuck with the crappy 1366x768 even though they're MUCH larger and it would make a visible and FUNCTIONAL difference.

Stop buying cheap laptops. There are plenty of decent laptops (all over the $1k mark) that have high resolution displays.

but all I want is an upgraded screen! (4, Insightful)

Chirs (87576) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149963)

I don't care about the rest. An i3 is fine for a cpu, I only need a couple gig of RAM. A full 1900x1200 screen would be awesome though, and currently there are only two laptops on the planet that I know of that still have them available.

Re:but all I want is an upgraded screen! (1)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150373)

But 1920x1080 is for all intents and purposes "close enough" to 1900x1200 (although I'm sure someone will reply and whine about aspect ratios and vertical pixels). And 1080p laptops, while not exactly ubiquitous, aren't too hard to find - Newegg lists 45, ranging in size from 13" to 18", with the cheapest ones being $800-$900.

Re:What about laptops? (3, Interesting)

adisakp (705706) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150067)

Seriously, phones and tablets are getting ~1080P screens but most of the laptops on the market are stuck with the crappy 1366x768 even though they're MUCH larger and it would make a visible and FUNCTIONAL difference.

I'd like to see larger resolutions on desktop LCD Panels as well. You used to be able to get 1600X1200 21" 4:3 monitors everywhere. Now nearly all consumer grade LCD's are 1920X1080 / 16:9. For coders that's a bad thing to lose 120 vertical pixels (it's probably 6-10 lines less code you can see).

An iPad can do on 2048x1536 on 1 9.7" display. It's sad when you get 50% more pixels in the short dimension on a tablet with a screen 1/2 as big.

Re:What about laptops? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150211)

21" CRTs (and especially those that could do it at useful refresh rates) were not consumer grade. Ever.
Consumers switched from 17" or 19" CRTs to 17" TFTs, decent 21"s started north of $500
Now check the price of a Dell U2412. Whoops.

Re:What about laptops? (2)

steelfood (895457) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150675)

A lot of it is the manufacturing. A larger screen means a bigger physical production line, which means defects are more costly.

A smaller screen means the production line size shrinks (as well the throughput increases). Or, more likely, the line size stays the same, but it gets more efficient (because defects tend to be random and localized, so the smaller the screen, the more you can cut "around" the defective part).

Re:What about laptops? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150225)

Most people are blind and/or don't care. Even with higher rez screens most change to non native resolutions to increase font/icon size resulting in blur rather than using dpi settings.

Re:What about laptops? (1)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150377)

Even with higher rez screens most change to non native resolutions to increase font/icon size resulting in blur rather than using dpi settings.

Or, in other words, that too is Microsoft's fault.

Focus on your shitty TVs. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149695)

They need to focus on their shitty TVs. Two years ago, they had amazing televisions. About the best price and performance crossover as possible. Their newest models are more expensive, perform poorly, and strip out most of the features that made the last two years worth of them so great.

Yes, because we need more pixels we can't see! (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149709)

The entire "point" of the "retina" display was that for the average 20/20 vision user holding the phone a foot away, you didn't NEED more pixels. You, the user, literally couldn't see anymore pixels even if they were there, your eyes don't have the resolution. And the claim was, and is, fairly correct for the most part. So display makers, take heed. We don't NEED your extra ultra high resmolutions anymore. We are human, we are physically incapable of appreciating a 4k 40 inch tv from the average viewing distance of most people's couches, just as we are physically incapable of discerning this stupid piece of crap display.

But you know what we CAN see? A damned whole lot of other things. Like hundreds of millions of more shades of color than most displays can produce. Adobe Colorspace RGB is an actual THING, professional artists actually buy and use monitors that can display the full range of color visible to humans all the time. Oh, and we can also see a much, much, MUCH larger range of brightness at any one time as well. Your proudly displayed "million to one contrast ratio!" between your maximum and minimum brightness still SUCKS compared to what humans can see.

So please, stop with the bullshit ppi race, we can't see it. And instead concentrate on things we actually can see.

Re:Yes, because we need more pixels we can't see! (1)

danbob999 (2490674) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149809)

It's not only about more pixels that you can't see. It's about more pixels that you can see. You can see a lot more stuff on a 5" display than a 3.5" display so yes, it would be a big improvement. Of course the trade-off will be the size of the phone, but this display, as well as many current 720p displays, will still be superior to the one in the iPhone 4.

Re:Yes, because we need more pixels we can't see! (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150137)

20/20 vision acuity can actually perceive something as small as roughly 30 microns across when it is only 12 inches away. That is roughly half the size of the pixels on the Retina display. In practice, the eye can discern even smaller variations than this, however... and so a pixel spacing of 15 microns or better is required to surpass the nyquist limit in any case where adjacent pixels can have potentially very high contrast. To cover all cases, including being equal to what even people with superior vision can detect, the Retina display should increase its resolution by a factor of about 5.

Re:Yes, because we need more pixels we can't see! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150395)

professional artists actually buy and use monitors that can display the full range of color visible to humans all the time.

BULLSHIT!

Go on, show me one monitor that can reproduce the color of, say, 500nm monochromatic light.

Apple doesn't make screens. (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149943)

On the other hand, Samsung makes the hype labeled Retina Display.

Max you can see (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40149989)

This is perfect test; if you can't see movement at 20cm distance then it is at your eyes limit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:SubPixel.gif

Now only need someone to try it on the displays.

numbers game (1)

spirit_fingers (777604) | more than 2 years ago | (#40149991)

The new LG display is a prime example of technology marketing by the numbers. Japanese hi-fi manufacturers popularized this approach in the 70s and 80s. They hyping the numbers in their products' specifications, implying, but not actually demonstrating, superior performance. Historically, this has worked very well for consumer electronics sales. People ate it up then and still do. This is just more of the same from LG. Having a pixel density of 440 PPI is totally meaningless in terms of real world experience, but it sure sounds impressive on paper. They'll sell them by the bushel.

Compares well? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150091)

Compares WELL to a retina display? You mean WELL in the sense that this display blows it away?

you must be an apple fanboy

Now if LG could only make a decent phone (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150159)

Last LG phones I had were sheer crap. Their TVs are crap. Not expecting much from this...

Too big for phone (1)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#40150311)

~ 5" diagonal, in a 16:9 aspect ratio means the visible display area will be about 2.45" (62.5mm) wide x 4.36" (110.7mm) high. Add a 1/4" (6.3mm) border/bezel on the left and right sides and you have a phone at least 2.95" (75mm) wide. That's just too big for comfort for most people. Add a speaker on one end of the display, and some buttons on the other end, and it's going to be at least 5" (127mm) high, which is also pushing the limits for convenience.

And as others mentioned, 440ppi is well beyond the angular resolution of the human eye, even at 12 inches (30cm), and most people start to have difficulty focusing closer than 12 inches. At a typical viewing distance of 15"-21" (37.5cm-52.5cm), they're way beyond visibility, making the extra resolution useless.

As for not having to down-convert 1080 content to 720 (or similar), it does save, but since the conversion is usually done on the device sending the data to the phone, not on the phone itself, the higher resolution simply means larger files, more bandwidth used, and more battery power and GPU power needed to decode and display 1080 content.

As a technical achievement, I appreciate it, but as a practical matter, I see few uses for this display.

Why do people hate resolution? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150457)

I see a lot of whining about unneeded resolution. I have rarely come across resolution that was beyond my perception. Once was at an Ansel Adams exhibit. It is pretty amazing what you can do with fine grain film and an 8 x 10 negative. I see the dots on televisions, monitors, digital cinema. I can tell the difference between 300 dpi and 300 dpi with resolution enhancement. My sweet spot is probably between 1200 and 2400 dpi. We're not even close yet but we are getting there.

HTC Rezound is 342ppi (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40150469)

The HTC Rezound's 1280x720 4.3" display is 342 ppi, so technically it is a "retina" display already on an Android phone. :-)

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...