|
On May 28 2012 22:12 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +Well why do Apple boast so much about their iPad 3's high PPI display? (which, mind you, is manufactured by Samsung and LG). Because the iPad 2 had a PPI of 132? At a viewing distance of 12 inches, you can still clearly see the pixels. The iPad 3 eliminates this problem. I thought I made myself clear. With ~300 PPI, at typical viewing distances of 9-12 inches, you cannot see a difference. I even linked an academic source that basically confirms this.
I want a randomized controlled trial at the very least, not some theoretical physics explanation.
|
5930 Posts
Well...do you think pentile is a huge problem in the Galaxy S3?
Your theory of a threshold existing for noticing a difference between two screens with different PPI's is false. Then how come I can immediately tell the difference between 30FPS and 100FPS when scientists have said that it is theoretically impossible to see the difference?
Because you're viewing it on an LCD that does sample and hold, presumably? That's why true 120hz monitors work well: the sample and hold duration is cut down enough that a lot of the artifacts - also referred to as ghosting - aren't left behind. Also, if this is a TV then the TV is doing a whole bunch of post-processing bullshit.
Edit:
Also can you link a source for that claim? It'd make some interesting reading. No, I don't want that website with a bunch of movie examples.
|
angry birds in HD bitches
|
The Verge had a first look on this display a few weeks ago:
http://www.theverge.com/2012/6/5/3066740/lg-5-inch-1080p-display-440ppi-ah-ips
LG shows off 5-inch, 1080p display prototype with 440ppi and advanced IPSBy Nathan Ingraham on June 5, 2012 09:58 pm Mixed in among the larger and more ostentatious displays LG showed off at Display Week (like its beautiful 55-inch OLED TV) was a small, but important prototype: a 5-inch screen with a full 1920 x 1080 resolution. That's a whopping 440 pixels per inch, far beyond any other smartphone-class display on the market (or most other displays period, for that matter). Unfortunately, this display is strictly a prototype, at least at this point — it was simply a stunning display floating in glass, playing some pre-recorded video sequences. Along with the extremely high PPI count, the display also features a AH-IPS (advanced high-performance in-plan switching) technology for extreme viewing angles, though it wasn't easy to see that in action that due to the way the display was mounted. LG first announced this display last week, but seeing it up close certainly helps to drive home how insane this resolution is on a screen of this size. While we're not convinced yet that smartphones need to regularly exceed the 5-inch mark, there's no denying that this screen was a stunner — we're looking forward to the day when it arrives in a shipping handset. ![[image loading]](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/4262800/LG_5-inch_HD_display_-_1_gallery_post.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://cdn1.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/4262795/LG_5-inch_HD_display_-_4_gallery_post.jpg) ![[image loading]](http://cdn2.sbnation.com/entry_photo_images/4262797/LG_5-inch_HD_display_-_3_gallery_post.jpg)
|
I don't know who would sacrifice battery life for a crisper picture given that a vast majority of people don't do graphically intensive things on their phone, and if they did, then the battery would drain even faster.
This is one of those things that only exist so that people can say they have it. And once every other year you'll watch a really beautiful video on a tiny 5 inch screen.
|
Meh, don't really care personally. I mean that's all fine and dandy, but I doubt I would be able to tell the difference at a distance as womwomwom said. Even if I could tell the difference up close, there's no way I would pay even $10 more for a phone with it. Not on something so small. And I don't want my phone any bigger either; it's going to get to the point where I can't fit it in my pocket. Not practical/important to me.
|
Before long we are gonna need an arc reactor to power that shit :/
|
The closer displays get to the 300+ ppi mark, the better, because it begins to emulate the resolution of printed media.
1080p is really equivalent to a 4x6 photo. When you really think about it in that form, HD really isn't that great. I cannot fathom why people want 1080p 50" screens when I can get a 1600p 30" screen, and so on.
We have an 80" smartboard in a classroom. The resolution is 720p. It is so god awful, and 1080p wouldn't even be that much better either. You may have a larger screen, but you can't really shrink your text any, because the aliasing doesn't work on pixels that are millimeters in size, rendering presentations and documents unreadable.
It makes such a huge difference when you are dealing with production.
|
5930 Posts
On July 06 2012 13:37 Mysticesper wrote:
The closer displays get to the 300+ ppi mark, the better, because it begins to emulate the resolution of printed media.
1080p is really equivalent to a 4x6 photo. When you really think about it in that form, HD really isn't that great. I cannot fathom why people want 1080p 50" screens when I can get a 1600p 30" screen, and so on.
Because you sit far away enough from the screen that the resolution becomes relatively unimportant. The same thing goes for 1080P projectors: they assume you are not sitting close to the screen.
Assuming we're dealing with screens above the $1,000 mark, I'd probably take a 50" 1080P plasma screen considering how much better the motion, contrast, and black depth is. If we want to get into the spergy territory, most 30" 2560x1600 screens probably can't actually run 24 FPS content properly (so you get frame skipping) or have good black depth (since they're all wide gamut CCFL monitors with 700:1 contrast) so they'd be comparatively bad for watching movies.
This thing is theoretically obsolete anyway since if we're going for a PPI pissing match, Sharp has a 498 PPI LCD screen using their new CAAC-IGZO technology (which apparently brings about more benefits than resolution but that remains to be seen).
|
On July 06 2012 13:37 Mysticesper wrote:
The closer displays get to the 300+ ppi mark, the better, because it begins to emulate the resolution of printed media.
1080p is really equivalent to a 4x6 photo. When you really think about it in that form, HD really isn't that great. I cannot fathom why people want 1080p 50" screens when I can get a 1600p 30" screen, and so on.
You do have to take into account, though, the fact that perception of detail increases over distance. While a 30" 2560x1600 resolution LCD display will obviously have far greater detail and clarity close up (i.e. sitting at a desk), as you move away you are less and less able to detect that clarity. Once you get to a few metres, it almost becomes an irrelevant difference due to the fact that the screen is so much smaller.
Sure, in an ideal world we'd have 52" TVs with 1600p resolutions, which would be the best of both worlds, but there is no advantage whatsoever in using a 30" 2560x1600 monitor as a TV over a much cheaper 52" 1080p LCD TV.
|
T.O.P.
Hong Kong4685 Posts
On May 28 2012 22:08 affinity_12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 21:16 Womwomwom wrote:
No, context is everything. I understand your job seems to be related to peddling everything LG and Samsung but let's have a proper discussion here. Nope. I like Dell solutions for most IPS options. It's not about LG and Samsung, I just like quality.
LG makes the panels for Dell anyways.
|
On July 06 2012 13:41 Womwomwom wrote:Show nested quote +On July 06 2012 13:37 Mysticesper wrote:
The closer displays get to the 300+ ppi mark, the better, because it begins to emulate the resolution of printed media.
1080p is really equivalent to a 4x6 photo. When you really think about it in that form, HD really isn't that great. I cannot fathom why people want 1080p 50" screens when I can get a 1600p 30" screen, and so on. Because you sit far away enough from the screen that the resolution becomes relatively unimportant. The same thing goes for 1080P projectors: they assume you are not sitting close to the screen. Assuming we're dealing with screens above the $1,000 mark, I'd probably take a 50" 1080P plasma screen considering how much better the motion, contrast, and black depth is. If we want to get into the spergy territory, most 30" 2560x1600 screens probably can't actually run 24 FPS content properly (so you get frame skipping) or have good black depth (since they're all wide gamut CCFL monitors with 700:1 contrast) so they'd be comparatively bad for watching movies. This thing is theoretically obsolete anyway since if we're going for a PPI pissing match, Sharp has a 498 PPI LCD screen using their new CAAC-IGZO technology (which apparently brings about more benefits than resolution but that remains to be seen).
The CAAC-IGZO sample display was much larger at 6.1" though. That's tablet computer zone.
LG's 440ppi display is 5", which will probably be the size of future smartphones.
|
5930 Posts
Which you can easily cut down if you really want to. The apparent claims of the technology is that the transistors are smaller therefore you can achieve even greater densities, decrease power consumption, and achieve thinner bezels if you really want to. Obviously someone is interested, Hon Hai bought a stake in Sharp and there's a billion Sharp x Apple iTV/iPad/iPhone rumours on the internet to make your head spin.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about their 13" 3840×2160 OLED screen using this technology.
|
On July 06 2012 16:07 Womwomwom wrote:
Which you can easily cut down if you really want to. The apparent claims of the technology is that the transistors are smaller therefore you can achieve even greater densities, decrease power consumption, and achieve thinner bezels if you really want to. Obviously someone is interested, Hon Hai bought a stake in Sharp and there's a billion Sharp x Apple iTV/iPad/iPhone rumours on the internet to make your head spin.
I'm surprised you didn't talk about their 13" 3840×2160 OLED screen using this technology.
The last time Sharp wanted to supply Apple with their display technology was in Q1 2012 for the iPad 3. Sharp failed the quality test. Samsung on the other hand, is the sole supplier of Apple's Retina displays for the iPad 3.
Obviously Samsung's quality control is much better than Sharp's. This is because Samsung has higher quality infrastructure for their manufacturing. Who cares if a company can do R&D well when they can't even produce properly working units of them?
Samsung and LG also have some surprises up their sleeves. You can be sure that Samsung and LG aren't just lying back in their comfy chairs all while Hon Hai and Sharp work together to beat them. All I know is that Hon Hai bought a 10% or slightly more stake of Sharp. Not sure if they will come up with any quality solutions.
|
5930 Posts
What has that got to do with anything? I know all you talk about are Samsung and LG, Korea, and how shit everyone else is (besides Dell apparently). But I do expect that someone with interest in technology talk about emerging technologies from everyone and not just Samsung and LG.
It hasn't even been a day since your return and you've already crap in a Korean whaling thread, bumped this thread, posted a thread about a nice 70" Samsung TV, posted a rather useless review of the Samsung Galaxy S, and thrashed the One X for the wrong reasons.
|
On July 06 2012 16:48 Womwomwom wrote:What has that got to do with anything? I know all you talk about are Samsung and LG, Korea, and how shit everyone else (besides Dell apparently but I do expect that someone with interest in technology talk about emerging technologies from everyone and not just Samsung and LG.
The bolded part of your post does not make any logical sense in terms of the English language. I guess English isn't your first language, so I understand.
I was just pointing out that Sharp's quality is poor. Their R&D is really good though, I admit.
Nothing to be all personal and sensitive about, really.
It hasn't even been a day since your return and you've already crap in a Korean whaling thread, bumped this thread, posted a thread about a nice 70" Samsung TV, posted a rather useless review of the Samsung Galaxy S, and thrashed the One X for the wrong reasons.
Is it really hard to write logical and comprehensible English? Your English is poor in the part bolded.
Anyway, I said in that thread that I'm against whaling. I think it's very disappointing that Koreans have decided to whale, however people need to face up to the reality that other nations whale too.
Anyway stop derailing this thread, or I will contact a moderator about this.
|
So will they call this a SuperRetinaRevolution and try to patent it? Or calling it what it is, full hd, is enough.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
