LG Aims To Beat Apple's Retina Display 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."
Cool tech, but (Score:5, Insightful)
If the Apple Retina display is already beyond the point a human eye can resolve - what's more resolution going to get you?
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Really? What device is that?
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Informative)
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
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:4, Insightful)
My Android phone lasts a week with light use, 12 days if it's just in standby. I can drain it in a couple of hours if I turn everything on (eg. GPS navigation).
The worst culprit for draining the battery was the screen auto-rotate. You'd think they'd turn it off when it's in standby, but, nooooo....
Re: (Score:3)
No
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Funny)
a name like that doesn't bode well for it's autocorrect capabilities.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Insightful)
You get 6 hours out of a +1GHz multicore computer with +1GB of RAM and a screen bright enough to overpower the sun? I completely fail to see how battery life needs addressing.
He gets 6 hours use out of a device that would be a lot more useful to him if it had longer battery life. As it would be a better device with longer battery life then battery life is something to be addressed.
Increasing display will further reduce battery life (possibly quite drastically) while probably providing zero benefit as human eyes are unlikely to be able to discern the difference.
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:4, Informative)
There are phones with excellent battery life:
1 Motorola Droid Razr Maxx 19.78
2 Apple iPhone 4 (with 3G off) 14.55
3 Apple iPhone 3GS (with 3G off) 13.4
4 HTC Legend 12.75
5 RIM BlackBerry Curve 9360 12
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Funny)
1 Motorola Droid Razr Maxx 0.82 days
2 Apple iPhone 4 (with 3G off) 0.61 days
3 Apple iPhone 3GS (with 3G off) 0.56 days
4 HTC Legend 0.53 days
5 RIM BlackBerry Curve 9360 0.5 days
Better?
Re: (Score:3)
If you think smartphones will ever last for days on a charge, you're delusional. Old dumbphones only lasted that long because they could only do 1/100th of what a smartphone can do.
If you DON'T think smartphones will eventually last days and weeks or longer on a single charge, then YOU'RE delusion.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep you're not using it enough. That's the problem here. People are running background services, spending all day reading the news, screen brightness turned all the way up, playing 3D games, and then crying foul that their batteries won't last a week.
I get about a day and a half out of mine. It drops down to about 35% by the end of the day, loses a few % overnight when it's sitting there idle with nothing but the alarm clock consuming CPU cycles, and then the remaining 30% lasts a few hours of use the next
Check your battery AND your phone... (Score:3)
I'm 9 month use into the factory supplied battery (1550 mAh) on my android phone (HTC sensation) and in the last week realized it was seriously failing, getting about ~2hours of moderate use before
Last week I switched over a cheap ebay one that I got several months ago as an emergency spare, that is supposed to be the same capacity, but I know is a cheap knock off and only ~1200 mAh. This one was now lasting longer.
Today I am on a new, good brand name,
Re: (Score:3)
Because they aren't.
If we take the 720p display on the Gnex, and assume that its Pentile resolution is equal to RGB resolution, it's got a lower pixel density still than the iPhone display.
Reason? The iPhone display is 3.5", as it has been for the past 5 yea
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
citations? as a digital colourist i would like to see some facts on these displays.
FWIW, the iPad 3's screen is poison for colourists. it's far too orange-biased. it looks beautiful with pics taken with the internal camera, but that means nothing if the pictures are displayed incorrectly, no matter how beautiful it may look. it's like mastering audio on a home theatre.
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Informative)
Apple paid them less than $8 billion in total revenue last year (less than $6 billion by some accounts). This was in their low margin components business as well. Samsung Electronics division made more than $140 billion in revenue and more than 70% of their profits came from their own phones and tablets. The takeaway here is that Apple accounts for less than 6% of Samsung's Electronics revenue and less than that of their profits.
Samsung Mobile Display is still a integral part of Samsung. It is 100% owned by Samsung Electronics and Samsung SDI. Samsung uses a complex circular ownership structure so the company at the top of the pyramid, Samsung Everland, can retain control of the entire company despite only owning a small piece. Either directly, or through Samsung Everland, Lee Gun Hee owns the majority stake in Samsung Life (and other subsidiaries), which in turn own the majority stake in Samsung Electronics (with other Samsung companies owning pieces as well). The company is firmly in the control of Lee Gun Hee and this family. I suggest you read up on the "jaebol" system in order to understand Samsung better. That is not to say that Samsung Mobile Display (or its parent Samsung Electronics) cannot push their own direction, but ultimately all these pieces must answer to same people.
I agree with your argument about sunk costs, but I can't seem to find anything to back up the claim that Samsung receives "massive subsidies" from Apple. In addition, because Samsung is not using the same technology in Apple's displays, it weakens the argument that Apple's volumes drastically decrease Samsung's costs in their own products.
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Informative)
"Retina Display" is not a type of display, it is a marketing term for a dense pixel display. While LG has made dense pixel display's for the iPhone, they do not appear on the iPad3, marketed under the name "Retina Display." I responded to a claim that Apple had somehow locked up the supply of "Retina Displays," which seems to me to be demonstrably false.
Re: (Score:3)
Only the non-Pentile crap ones. I think Samsung has a 720p non-Pentile display which will be super-sharp, but the pentile ones, not so good. For normal use, because the UI is scaled to the size of the display rather than everything being super tiny, it's great. But once something tries to use all the pixels individually, it breaks down to a horrible m
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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 (Score:4, Insightful)
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?
I'm so tired of this particular "observational" humor, that I will explain.
There are two ways to your house: the WALKWAY (you walk to your house) and the DRIVEWAY (you drive to your house) Simple enough for you?
And while I'm at it, the PARKWAY is typically called that because it goes through a PARK (or once did), not because you park your car there.
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:4, Funny)
You need one of those magnifying glasses from Brazil that you put in front of the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
Hmmm..... can browsers be programmed to reject single-pizel sized images?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
WTF? this isn't 1998.
IMHO any gif that has 1x1 dimensions right in the html code can be blocked by an adblocker.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:3, Interesting)
when will the "apple can do no wrong" idea disapareaR??
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Informative)
That's why decent printers are 1200 dpi or more.
Actually, printers are 1200 dpi because they need to dither. You can print a perfect photo at 150 - 300 dpi if you don't dither. (Like dye-sub printers do).
Re: (Score:3)
The pixels already are smaller than the eye can resolve at typical viewing distances. That's why it's called a retina display in the first place.
Also, that is not why printers are 1200 dpi or more. They're that high because of issues with color dithering. Plenty of other people already responded to you on this point.
Finally, if you want a valid reason for why extra pixel density matters, look no further than Vernier acuity [wikipedia.org]. People can distinguish curves and alignment differences in lines beyond the point wh
Re: (Score:3)
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 (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Dammit, I didn't know there was gonna be math on this discussion.
Is this going to be graded on a curve?
Re: (Score:3)
Is this going to be graded on a curve?
Yes, but it's an easy curve, and at the distances and angles we're talking about, the curvature is so low that it's close to a straight line (tan x ~= x). It's just unit conversion, something everyone learns in the first year of (for example) chemistry class anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Informative)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Because that's just marketing rhetoric. There are lots of factors that determine how much detail your eyes make out.
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
"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: (Score:2)
what's more resolution going to get you?
Don't underestimate the sheeple's desire for bigger numbers. Just check out dpreview.com
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Cool tech, but (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Apple's display? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple doesn't make their own displays.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apple don't design displays.
Re:Apple's display? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
might not have been the point you were making, but it is the argument many apple fanbois will use and gather from your comment
Re: (Score:3)
Sometimes I feel like a Samsung shill on this site (I am not and I have many less than cordial things to say about them and the "jaebol" system in general), but it's done exclusively to balance out the over the top Apple rhetoric. I would like to add that I think Apple selecting Samsung screens paints Apple in a positive light. Despite their many flaws, the fact that Apple is willing to buy perhaps its most important component from a company they are essential at war with all over the planet, speaks volum
finally the war i wanted. (Score:5, Interesting)
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 (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
There are quite a few high definition Korean monitors available cheap now. This page [swiftworld.net] has a decent round up. They all seem to be running the same LG panel, an IPS at 2560*1440. The prices start at about £200, or $300, which doesn't include any tax, and those at that price only have 1 hdmi, and don't include scalers (which makes them great for gaming, because of the lower screen lag).
Re: (Score:3)
Re:What about laptops? (Score:5, Informative)
but all I want is an upgraded screen! (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&tbm=shop&q=wuxga+laptop&oq=wuxga+laptop [google.com]
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
"(although I'm sure someone will reply and whine about aspect ratios and vertical pixels)"
yea like those asshats who write stuff for a living and those extra pixels is just enough to show a full page while editing full screen
pricks
Re: (Score:3)
a sneaky suspicion that it just so manufacturers can put a "FULL HD" sticker on the things.
you nailed it.. when the "Full HD" thing started the monitor manufacturer where putting it on anything with a resolution equal to or greater than 1920x1080 but then they got slapped on the wrist and told they can only put HD on ones that fit the aspect ratio and size.. so if you want to put "full HD" it has to be 1920x1080 not 1920x1200 or even 2650x1600. knowing labels make a difference for marketing and that it is considerably cheaper to make one type of panel than two... well we get the crap we have no
Re: (Score:2)
Or, in other words, that too is Microsoft's fault.
Re: (Score:3)
not when they become the new standard
Apple doesn't make screens. (Score:2)
numbers game (Score:2)
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 experienc
Too big for phone (Score:2)
~ 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 angu
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Tell that to the millions who bought the Samsung Galaxy Note [androinica.com]. And while that resolution may be a bit much for printed text, written text or images may come out much more accurately.
Re: (Score:3)
12" is a perfectly natural distance to hold a small device. Perhaps holding a device closer than 12" is awkward, but most people can focus closer than that. I'm over 40 and can focus both eyes from 9" to infinity. (Younger people could do better. At 10 I could focus at 1.5"-infinity.) I can also make out 1-pixel movements at 97ppi from 6 feet away. At 12 inches, that's the equivalent of over 580ppi. At 9 inches it's nearly 780ppi. The 440ppi of this device is not overkill.
And 3"x5" is not too big at all. I
HTC Rezound is 342ppi (Score:2, Informative)
The HTC Rezound's 1280x720 4.3" display is 342 ppi, so technically it is a "retina" display already on an Android phone. :-)
Vernier acuity (Score:2, Insightful)
Just because you can't resolve a single pixel doesn't mean you can't detect jaggies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vernier_scale#Vernier_acuity
Code name 11 (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Yes, because we need more pixels we can't see! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So please, stop with the bullshit ppi race, we can't see it. And instead concentrate on things we actually can see.
"Retina" is a claim for 20/20 at "standard" viewing distance - I'd call that barely acceptable from a specs standpoint.
My vision (used to be) 20/15 in one eye and 20/10 in the other. I'd say the pixel cramming contest can slow down when we've hit about 4x what Apple called "Retina" resolution.
Are you satisfied with audio equipment that can only reproduce 20Hz to 16kHz? That's about all the "average" person can hear.
Re: (Score:2)
It turns out that I just had my vision checked today, and even at 43 my left eye is 20/15 and my right eye is somewhere between 20/15 and 20/10. I have an iPhone 4 and a new iPad, and I'll tell you right now that I rarely find use for the density of pixels. Somewhere between the previous, clearly pixellated screen and the current retina display, there really is no difference - or at least no usable one until the pixels are no longer RGB stripes. I used to have a 15.4" 1920x1200 laptop screen and - to be h
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting. After clicking through to get the real 128 pixel sizing, I can still barely see movement on my 97ppi (0.262mm pitch) monitor from 6 feet (1.82m). So I'd need about 350 ppi (0.0725mm pitch) to seem perfect from my usual 20in (0.5m) viewing distance. That would be a resolution of about 2912x4368 on a 3:2 15-inch screen, or just over 12.7 megapixels.