LG's Upcoming Smartphone G6 Will Have 5.7-inch QHD+ Display Featuring 18:9 Aspect Ratio (koreaherald.com) 132
Song Su-hyun, reporting for The Korea Herald: LG Electronics' upcoming flagship smartphone will have a 5.7-inch Quad HD liquid crystal display panel with a ratio of 18:9, LG Display said on Tuesday. LG Electronics confirmed it will be the G6 smartphone slated for launch next month. The new display panel, dubbed "QHD+," will be the world's first 18:9 QHD LCD, according to LG Display. The 18:9 ratio will provide users with greater immersion than previous displays and allow consumers to multitask by using the dual-screen feature.
18:9 (Score:5, Funny)
Also known as 2:1
Re: (Score:1)
Great, that pretty much ensures black bars on every video. I like consistency.
Re: (Score:3)
On properly formatted movies, cinemascope films (2.35:1) would show smaller black bars than on a 16:9 display.
Re: (Score:2)
Does anyone stream videos in original cinemascope? I have stacks of blu-ray discs and only a few of them are in 2.4:1.
Re: (Score:3)
If the movie is filmed in it, the Blu-Ray discs almost always preserve it. DVD does too more often than not, but there aren't a lot of pixels for good image quality. Most movies are still done in 16:9, but a lot of directors are still enamored with the size. I own quite a few movies in that format - you see it more for action/sci-fi and almost never for romantic comedy.
Re: (Score:2)
The trick is if the stream/file has a resolution of 1920x1080 (black bars included in the encode), then stretching it to 2880x1440 will result in black bars on all 4 sides.
Your stream/encode needs not have the black bars for you to use the full screen, or you need an additional software step to detect the black bars and crop them before resizing to full screen, or a display option to scale content to the width of the screen, then crop to the height of the screen.
Re: (Score:2)
if the stream/file has a resolution of 1920x1080 (black bars included in the encode), then stretching it to 2880x1440 will result in black bars on all 4 sides.
When viewing on TV, there's usually an option to zoom to the right position. I don't know why the Blu-Ray spec didn't include more aspect ratios or at least some hinting on what portion of the frame is actually used.
When ripping to a file, I usually crop that out in Handbrake and I think the same is usually true in streaming video on the web (mostly to save bandwidth).
And then there are movies like Life of Pi that are filmed mostly in 16:9 except for one scene where the image goes outside of a 2.35:1 frame
Re: (Score:2)
I'll bet it compresses quite well.
Re: (Score:3)
Does anyone stream videos in original cinemascope? I have stacks of blu-ray discs and only a few of them are in 2.4:1.
I use an old Pentium PC for video streaming. For some reason the videos all come out 2.3999999957:1.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Because it's a 23-year-old joke? A significant portion of Slashdot reader weren't even born when the Pentium fiasco went down.
Re: 18:9 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Not really an issue for video unless it's showing pixel-accurate things like text (lower thirds, screencasts, etc). Otherwise, you get pretty much the same clarity on the resized video - none of it is ultra-sharp to begin with. Just like most TVs have 1920x1080 panels but still overscan the incoming signal and most people don't complain that it's not being displayed 1:1 unless they're plugging a PC into it.
Re: (Score:2)
This is 2017. Display scaling hasn't been an issue for any resolution in a long time.
Uh, has the math changed on 1080/480 or 1080/720 or 1440/1080 since I last checked?
If you're not scaling with integers, it's going to look like poo.
Re: (Score:1)
In this case, probably not. The DPI of these pixels at normal eye-hand distance is smaller than any human can resolve. It's useless resolution for video. Very high contrast things like black on white text or lines may benefit a little.
I'm only 52 and can't benefit from even the 1920x1080 that my phone offers without putting on reading glasses.
Now, if they give you a cable that can deliver the signal to your QHD TV, there is some value.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, this used to be the case. However, now that you need a damn microscope to even see a pixel, it does not matter so much any more.
Re: (Score:2)
I hold my phone pretty close, also it's one of the larger phones out there. (I would've bought a Note 7 had they not been exploding.)
Even if you can't discern the individual pixels, you can see the glaring error introduced by trying to turn 3 pixels - [black][white][black] - into 4 pixels.
Worst case scenario? Sure. Happens tons in graphics, text, games, etc. (I for one already hate font blurring schemes like cleartype. Simple monochrome antialiasing is far preferable as it doesn't introduce fringing.)
Re: (Score:2)
True, this happens a lot in games, but mainly because of naive scaling algorithms, usually bilinear scaling. This tends to be really crappy in terms of signal distortion and only works well if the original image is heavily filtered. Which most game developers don't have a clue about, so there you go. Accurate rescaling uses sinc [wikipedia.org] filtering.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're not scaling with integers, it's going to look like poo.
That depends on whether the spatial frequency of the image is limited to Nyquist frequency [wikipedia.org] or not. If less than the Nyquist frequency, which would normally be true of a movie but might not be true of computer text, then the original signal (i.e., the original, nominally perfect, image that was sampled) can be recovered exactly from the upscaled image. Or to put it another way, your eyes won't notice (for good theoretical reasons) provided that your movie was encoded properly and your tv rescales it properly
Re: (Score:1)
I don't have enough information to support or disagree with your position because I didn't RTFA.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for sharing that with us.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks for RTFA.
Re: (Score:3)
That was my immediate impression too. Is there any reason they would call it 18:9 and not 2:1? Or 6:3, 12:6.
Is this like Heinz "57 Varieties", where the 57 was chosen at random because the owner thought it sounded good, and had nothing to do with how many varieties they actually had.
Re: (Score:3)
For easier comprehension and comparison by consumers to 16:9.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:18:9 (Score:5, Funny)
Also known as 2:1
No way. At 2:1 the screen would be too small to read. You obviously don't understand how ratios work.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah - I'm holding out for 36:18.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't care who you are, this is funny.
Funny ... I don't know why I mentioned that I don't care who you are.
Re: (Score:2)
From the article:
The 18:9 ratio will provide users with greater immersion than previous displays and allow consumers to multitask by using the dual-screen feature. The display ratio has evolved from 4:3, 3:2, 5:3, 16:9 and 17:9, reflecting demand for larger displays to consume multimedia content.
It makes my head hurt.
Re:18:9 (Score:5, Interesting)
18:9 would allow 16:9 content to be displayed full-size with these buttons placed to the side, no overlay. Calling it 18:9 makes it obvious the screen is slightly wider than 16:9. If you call it 2:1, that may not be obvious to people who don't know off the top of their head that 16:9 is a 1.78 aspect ratio.
Re: (Score:2)
why not just get a phone with those buttons outside of the display area? my droid turbo has its nav buttons off screen and a 16:9 1440p screen
Re: (Score:2)
why not just get a phone with those buttons outside of the display area? my droid turbo has its nav buttons off screen and a 16:9 1440p screen
Pretty annoying to have those pixels available and not be able to use them for image display.
Re: (Score:2)
but they are not pixels, just printed onto the glass
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, fine. Then I would immediately be wishing that the front panel space is used for display. The only substantial argument I can think of for non-mechanical off-screen buttons is, avoiding screen burn if the display type suffers from it. Better is to have a display that doesn't burn.
Re: (Score:2)
I bought a Nexus with a 16:10 aspect ratio, thinking exactly what you said. Some apps are nice enough to leave a black bar on the bottom with the home buttons. Other insist on the fullscreen. Worst offender is Hearthstone, which insists on the full 16:10, then puts its major UI where the on-screen navigation exists.. And it pops up all the time by mistake....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How about 2880:1440? Oh, whoops, ran out of fingers to count on.
18:9? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a photographer and I do a LOT of resizing.
1.7777..., 1.333333 ....
I have to use the maths, so I would use 2 (as you point out).
Re: (Score:2)
If you work in a pro photo editing tool, the cropping feature already has lots of preset ratios. They are in easy to read formats like "5x7" or "8x10". No need to do your own math.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you will find that it is 5"x7" or 8"x10" - America has yet to discover the millimetre - or maybe the millimetres get lost because Texas is so big?
Re: (Score:2)
Units don't matter when you're talking about an aspect ratio. I was putting them in quotation marks because it was a direct quote from the UI.
Re: (Score:2)
I shoot mostly Wide shots with aspect of 1.77777...
Sometimes I use the more "boxy" 1,33333...
why not 100:50 (Score:1)
That should be much better
18:9? Not 2:1? Someone missed 6th grade math? (Score:2)
18:9? Did someone miss sixth grade math or is this some odd nomenclature/jargon is the display industry?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe they missed math, but they didn't miss marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
They are usually the same ones you see commenting in support of articles about Vaccines causing Autism or who are suddenly experts on Economic and Political Theory.
Do you follow them around to verify all the opinions the individual people hold?
Why is it 18:9 and not ... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds bigger. ;)
Size Matters (Score:2)
"The new display is 1 millimeter thick, and the bezel width has been reduced 0.2 millimeter on the sides and 0.54 millimeter on the bottom compared to the company’s previous QHD LCD."
MAN, THAT 0.2mm REALLY SURE DID PISS ME THE FUCK OFF ALWAYS GETTING IN THE WAY... SURE GLAD THEY WERE ABLE TO REMOVE THAT UNNEEDED WASTE AND MAKE THE PHONE SMALLER
Re: (Score:3)
It is a really important advance - it is there to make sure the expensive case you bought for the old phone wont fit the new one.
Why 18:9? (Score:3)
Re:Why 18:9? (Score:4)
Actually, I would say that marketing understands that most *people* they want to get to spend money don't understand fractions, which is probably a good bet.
Re: Why 18:9? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Exec 1: So what went wrong this time? The phone looked great - lots of grunt, the latest dual cameras, real waterproofing after we ditched Exec 3's ridiculous modules idea. And that new 18:9 screen was fantastic, large yet easy to hold.. I don't understand, it had all the boxes ticked - the spec nerds should have loved it!
Exec 2: That's just it - the nerds we marketed it at all got so completely distracted by that unreduced 18:9 ratio, they forgot to buy the phone. Our sales were down 6/8ths.
Exec 1: Sigh. F
Re: (Score:3)
Amazon has a few good years for that phone brand, the nerds won't be pissed off until they release the Prime 4.
Re: (Score:2)
The prime will need to have a different aspect ratio... like 19:11...
Re: (Score:2)
In a way, it's worse, because ratios for theaters are 1.85:1 (vs ~1.78:1 for a 16:9 screen) and 2.35:1 (vs 2.33:1 for 21:9). The only real ratio that matched was the classic 4:3, which was cinema, TV, and computers back in the stone age.
I'm a fan of 1.41:1. The A sizes work the best, especially if you're going to go split screen (where you get exactly two portrait 1.41:1 screens in a landscape 1.41:1)
Re: (Score:2)
and computers back in the stone age.
RAM, hard disks, flash memory, multi-threading, multiprocessing (including SMP), hierarchical filesystems, networking, relational databases, distributed computing, cloud storage, wireless networking, cellular phones, fiber optic networks, high level programming, graphic user interfaces, tablet computers (1968), online shopping, and pretty much every other bit of computer technology we enjoy in the 21st century started off in the middle of the 20th century.
Re: (Score:2)
And all that shit comes from stones.
Re: (Score:2)
some of those were done on vacuum tubes (metal in a silicon-dioxide envelope), although most of them on diode and late transistor logic (silicon)
Re: (Score:2)
Which all comes from ___ (Hint: stone).
t's been a long time since I did the stroll (Score:2)
technically not everything is stone. It depends on how rigorous your definition of stone is. With a sufficiently wide definition, you run the risk of all matter that we have access to on Earth being either from the atmosphere or from rocks, stones, minerals (in geology parlance, everything is a rock). And then we have to ask if carbon and oxygen found in the atmosphere were ever part of a rock, given that volcanoes send out huge amounts of CO2 the answer is yes. Is the argon in our atmosphere from decayed p
Re: (Score:2)
The ratios are a little off to make the macro blocks evenly divisible by 16 pixels. This also makes the GPU happy. You probably lose a lot more pixels in the overscan on a TV anyway. The picture is still more or less true to the theatrical original.
Re: Why 18:9? (Score:2)
You probably lose a lot more pixels in the overscan on a TV anyway.
NTSC called; it wants the 90's back.
Re: (Score:3)
ATSC called, it has the same problem.
Run a test pattern through your Blu-Ray player if you don't believe me. I had to work really hard to find a modeline that got rid of overscan on my HTPC and 1080p TV (more to blame for my TV having bad EDID data).
If you have a 720p TV, the problem is even worse, because although it will take a 1280x780 input signal, it's usually displaying it on a 1366x768 panel and it won't usually take a 1366x768 signal at all.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a fan of 1.41:1.
I'm a fan of golden mean [wikipedia.org] myself. Theatre widescreen is kind of stupid, it is certainly not about best viewing quality or Imax would use it.
Re: (Score:3)
Sounds like marketing is doing what marketing does and making it understandable to the everyday person.
Re: (Score:2)
"Likely some marketing guy doesn't understand fractions"
Likely some pedant doesn't understand that it's easier for people, including pedants, to compare fractions with a common denominator.
I really loved my G4 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I really loved my G4 (Score:5, Insightful)
Yep, if it has all 3 then I'll be buying one.
Removeable battery and sd slot are basic requirements for me though.
Re: (Score:2)
It being LG.... (Score:2)
I'm suprised it isn't OLED.
Just don't ... (Score:2)
... leave it at a trade show booth and stuff.
Stupid (Score:3)
Again, LG is doing something stupid this year.
Last year they tried modules. They failed. Not that it was a bad idea, but everybody knew this was a one shot deal and that the G6 would not support G5 modules.
This time they do a stupid aspect ratio, which will mean many apps will suck on the G6. You've read it here first: the G7 will revert back to a standard 16:9 ratio like all other Android phones of this year. Developers will rejoice and say they were right in not modifying their app to support the 2:1 ratio of the G6.
Re: (Score:2)
Mandatory taller change parody [youtube.com]
Yay (Score:2)
Whoopie.
Yawn.
Don't buy yet (Score:2)
qHD vs QHD vs QHD+ when we have QCIF and QVGA wtf! (Score:4, Insightful)
QVGA is quarter not quad.
QCIF is quarter not quad.
qHD is quarter and QHD is quad? Come on! You are doing this deliberately aren't you!
Naturally (Score:2)
I have a 16:10 Samsung monitor (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
16:9 split down the middle is dual 8:9, like two 960x1080 portrait monitors. This gives plenty of vertical space for text.
Stop trying to reinvent the wheel. (Score:2)
Give us a powerful phone, with a screen and a camera. That can survive being dropped. And has a battery with excellent capacity. I don't care how many microns "thin" it is. I don't care if I can attach things to the back of it. I don't care if it has modules that come out of it. I don't care if you make it better by making the UI look like it was puked up by a rainbow eating unicorn.
With apple pushing for thinner.. (Score:2)
And hollywood pushing for wider, soon enough everyone will be carrying what can be described as glass and aluminum swords.
All you will need is an USB 3 hilt.
Frozen in place (Score:2)
Yes, I would like to touch one of these before I buy a replacement. So I am frozen for ANOTHER month or so...
My HTC ONE M8 is dying, battery fatigue. And having never used any Android phone other than an HTC, I'm taking a small leap. A replaceable battery is a key feature, and the G6 probably won't have one, but this feature is hard to find.
Other than that, I'm hoping to leap to the latest CPU and more RAM, but then the Snapdragon 8305 seems to be the high water mark for a while.
So I'm again frozen. feh.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The comedy Phablet market is saturated, but no-one is making small, quality phones apart from Sony.
I agree. I would really like a small 4"-4.5" display-class in the $200-$250 range. As someone who does not consume media on my phone, I find it infuriating that it is so difficult for companies to even consider that there are people out there who would buy phones like this. The only non-Apple device I have been able to find that even comes close to my requirements is the Sony Xperia compact phones, but at twice the price I would be willing to pay. The iPhone SE is even more expensive, as I rec
Re: (Score:1)
Except the last 3 LG phones all have removable battery, SD card, and headphone jack: G3, G4, G5
Though apparently they have a "bootloop" problem even after battery remove/replace. Never happened to me on the 4 or 5, but I also don't update beyond the factory firmware (I need root).