Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Android AI Cellphones Google Operating Systems Software Hardware Technology

LG Unveils G6 Android Nougat Smartphone With a Compact 5.7-Inch QHD+ 18:9 Display ( 111

MojoKid writes: LG recently unveiled the new G6 smartphone, going completely back to the drawing board versus its predecessor -- the not so well-received G5. In its place is a very compact aluminum unibody design and a large 5.7-inch QHD+ display with a 2880x1440 resolution. That display is the main focal point of the G6, and it has a rather unorthodox 18:9 screen ratio, which LG says allows that smartphone to better fit in your hand. LG also notes that the aspect ratio is being adopted as a universal format from the likes of film studios and content providers like Netflix. Its thin bezel also gives the LG G6 an 80 percent screen-to-body ratio. The handset is powered by a Qualcomm Snapdragon 821 processor along with 4GB of RAM, 32GB of internal storage and a microSD slot, which can accommodate up to an additional 2TB of storage. LG also outfitted the G6 with dual 13-megapixel rear cameras: a wide angle (F2.4 / 125 degree) shooter and a standard camera (F1.8 / 71 degree) with optical image stabilization. The LG G6 launches next month and will be available in Ice Platinum, Mystic White, Astro Black color options. Pricing is TBD. Some other specs include a non-removable 3,300 mAh battery, USB-C connectivity, 802.11ac Wi-Fi, Bluetooth 4.2, fingerprint sensor and an IP68 water and dust resistance rating. It's also the first non-Google smartphone to come pre-loaded with the Google Assistant. How do you think the LG G6 compares to what we currently know about the soon-to-be-launched Samsung Galaxy S8?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

LG Unveils G6 Android Nougat Smartphone With a Compact 5.7-Inch QHD+ 18:9 Display

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Am I missing something? Why don't they just say 2:1?

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Meh. When they release a phone with a 100:50 ratio I'll be interested.

    • Re:18:9 (Score:4, Insightful)

      by by (1706743) ( 1706744 ) on Monday February 27, 2017 @07:44PM (#53942745)
      Likely just to make the comparison between the standard 16:9 easier. Comparing 16:9 and 2:1 is "less intuitive" than 16:9 and 18:9.
    • The original iPhone was 27:18 (or 15:10 or 3:2).

      We should probably approximate screen aspect ratios in decimal instead of as a fraction, it makes them easier for people to compare.

      16:9 -> 1.77:1
      16:10 & 8:5 -> 1.6:1
      18:9 & 2:1 -> 2:1
      21:9 & 7:3 -> 2.33:1
      4:3 -> 1.33:1
      5:4 -> 1.25
      64:27 -> 2.37:1
      CinemaScope -> 2.35:1 or 2.39:1
      15:9 & 5:3 -> 1.66:1
      IMAX -> 1.43:1
      11:8 -> 1.375:1
      CinemaScope 55 -> 2.55:1
      24:9 -> 2.66:1

      hopefully you take the longest over the shorted d

    • Am I missing something? Why don't they just say 2:1?

      Because that isn't 2674:1337 enough.

    • Because 18:9 is BIGGER than 2:1. BIGGER!

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Because bigger numbers are better! Only a loser will use a 2:1 screen. Real men? they have a 10,000,000:5,000,000 ratio screen!
      and it has a 330,000 uAh battery! DEAR GOD ITS HUGE! MOAR POWER!

      And all you thinkers can STFU! stop your freedom hating education and knowlege from getting in the way of FREEDOM!

  • by danomac ( 1032160 ) on Monday February 27, 2017 @07:30PM (#53942645)

    That just guaranteed I won't buy it. I'll have to find another replacement phone when the time comes.

    • LG V20 has a removable 3200mAh battery. But it's a beast (5.7" display)

      There are lots of other phones with removable batteries, but all the ones I found had smaller battery packs. (But perhaps better battery life in some cases)

      • The combination of removable battery and card reader was unique to LG over the past two model years of smartphones. They even based their marketing around providing both. It's a sad day for anyone who feels that both are essential to decent phone experience.

    • The G3, G4 and G5 are also supremely easy to repair. It's not just the loss of the removable battery, although that's also a huge issue. The G-series was a huge favorite for me because I could fix one in just seconds with nothing more than a precision Philips head screwdriver.

      But yeah, since I don't want a phone any larger than a G4 or G5 and I can't get both removable battery and SD reader, I guess I'm done upgrading my personal phone.

      • My G4 phone has been great. I'm now at 21 months of use (and I use my phone a lot for work, I drain the battery completely before the end of the day) and it's now just starting to show signs of battery degradation. I remember hardly using it at all the one weekend (2 days) and it only dropped to about 82% or so.

        I guess when the battery finally gives out on my G4 I'll have to consider one of those big arse batteries.

        I had two Samsung phones prior (S1 and S3) and both phones showed signs of battery fatigue at

    • I'd take IP68 over a removable battery any day. It's very difficult to have both.

      • You have options already if that's what you need.

      • My view is just the opposite. Dating back to my first cell phone in 96, I have never sent a phone swimming. (Knock on wood). I have frequently extended the life of a phone by replacing a dying battery that won't hold a full charge anymore. Non-removable battery is a no-go. Water resistance is a gimmick.
    • Same here—the speaker on my 2007 Samsung u740 (before they called it "Alias") died and I made the transition to a smart phone last April. My #1 requirement was a removable battery, and I found the G4 to be what I needed. (The G5 was nice, but too big for my Carhartt slacks' phone pocket, and I didn't feel like I needed the modular features.)

      I don't really know if I'll ever need to replace the battery as I rarely go outside the 30-80% charge range (using the Ampere app as a charge alarm,) but I want my

  • LG also notes that the aspect ratio is being adopted as a universal format from the likes of film studios and content providers like Netflix.


  • Stupid pixel race (Score:5, Insightful)

    by harrkev ( 623093 ) <[gro.ylimafnoslerrah] [ta] [dsmfk]> on Monday February 27, 2017 @07:35PM (#53942687) Homepage

    This screen scores approximately 565 pixels per inch. The average human eye cannot make out this much resolution -- I know that my eyes can't at my age.

    Why pay for resolution that you can't see without a magnifying glass?

    • What if you do have a magnifying glass?

    • What are you talking about. A flagship phone must have a 4K screen and 10 core SoC.

    • VR applications... Not saying that's the case here as they really do better with AMOLED, but even with a 2k screen in a viewer like Samsung Gear VR you'll see pixels and jaggies.
    • At 10 inches the average human eye can make out more than 650 ppi, and due to the shape and pattern of the subpixels the PPI would have to be a multiple of that to be completely unnoticeable.

      I have 20-10 vision and 534 PPI phone. I can discern the individual pixels.
      • by harrkev ( 623093 )

        Just some math for you, for giggles. Don't read too much into it.

        Back when I was a kid, computer display used fonts of an 8x8 pixel matrix, and that was perfectly readable.

        Now, using 8x8 characters, you can get 70 characters horizontally and vertically in one square inch (plus a bit of a border). This means that you can fit 4,900 characters in one square inch, and they SHOULD be legible (maybe not comfortably).


    • I went from a Note 2 (1280x720) to Note 4 (2560x1440) and I love the resolution. Everything is much sharper, and colors are super smooth precisely because I can't see the pixels.

      VR is another matter; 2560 is ok, 4k would be better, but the problem is Samsung's OLED screen has too much space between pixels. LCD screens look much better when under that kind of magnification.

    • by piojo ( 995934 )

      I'm speculating to some extent, but in many cases you don't actually WANT to see the pixels. You want to see a straight line where the pixels are actually jagged. You want to see smooth gradients, curves that curve, and circles that are the same thickness and smoothness at every angle.

      Of course, this problem was mostly solved by anti-aliasing and hinting, but my point is that you need many more pixels than the eye can pick out.

      • by rl117 ( 110595 )
        No need to speculate. Lookup Nyquist-Shannon sampling, e.g. []. The sampling frequency must be twice the maximum spatial frequency being sampled. This also applies in reverse on image reconstruction (display). The pixel frequency should be double the maximum spatial frequency the eye can detect, in order to avoid high frequency aliasing artefacts. Anyone complaining that "they can't see the pixels" clearly misunderstands the basics of digital imaging! Not being able to see them
    • Because the industry is gravitating towards people strapping magnifying glasses and phone to their face. 565ppi is not high enough.

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Print quality is 600 DPI for historical reasons, actually you only need about 500 DPI to look visually perfect up close. They went to 565 because that gives them a standard resolution.

    • Daydream.

      My phone's 1440x2560 (538PPI), and in regular use, it isn't much different than regular HD resolution.

      But when you use it for Daydream, it's pixelated as hell.

  • Wow, this is nuts.
    10 Years ago, I was working at 1920 x 1200 ... then because of hollywood most of us were forced to 1920 x 1080 and even more absurdly, mum and dad users were working at 1366x768 !!! For 10 years I waited and waited for the PC industry to bring out large hi res monitors... but again, it wasn't until the consumer 4k movement started, that PC manufactures started bringing out what I can only say is the absolute glory of 4k big monitors for programming.
    but why oh why would you want 4k on 5.5"

    • by rtb61 ( 674572 )

      Not so much a waste of pixels as a waste of processing power and battery life. There is really stupid waste in unnecessarily pushing around what amounts too invisible pixels. Basically marketdroid fuckwits in corporations taking over from engineers. Of course not user removable battery means a big no on the phone for me. When a phone manages to achieve an unstable state, nothing is more effective than popping the battery.

      • You mean those Chinese engineers whose native language actually does benefit from high resolution rendering?

        Admittedly LG are Korean which probably benefits less for most of its characters, but I expect they're still interested in the Chinese (and Japanese) markets.

    • by Desler ( 1608317 )

      10 Years ago, I was working at 1920 x 1200 ... then because of hollywood most of us were forced to 1920 x 1080 and even more absurdly

      1920x1080 as TV resolution is more than 20 years old at this point. It predates your 10-year-old 1920x1200 display.

    • This phone is 564ppi when the eye can only resolve 300ppi. What a waste of pixels.

      Soon, we will reach Peak Pixel and then there will pixel shortages, leading to the Great Pixel War of 2030.

    • by Lumpy ( 12016 )

      Mostly for stupid people.

  • "Compact" my ass. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SeaFox ( 739806 ) on Monday February 27, 2017 @07:48PM (#53942765)

    Not sure how you can call a phone compact that most people could not fit in their pocket without it sticking out.

    • I have pants with big pockets, you insensitive clod!

      • I have pants with big pockets, you insensitive clod!

        This is Slashdot. Cargo shorts are the preferred format for pants around here. Except for the non-conformists, who wear jorts.

    • by amiga3D ( 567632 )

      Camo pants have large side pockets on the legs. You can put a chain saw in them.

  • Lovely, I just love a phone I can't hold easily. I rest my thumb on my physical home button ALL THE TIME to stabilise the phone in my hand. That's INCLUDING the sling grips (google them) I use on the back of the case to keep it stable.

    Nothing more ghastly than a home button I can't rest on as it's thinking it's being pressed.

    I'm now in the minority on this, my current phone has it, the next Samsung is finally doing away with it (and I'll be doing away, with the next Samsung)

    I dislike this trend and I w

The other line moves faster.