|
First Full HD LCD smartphone panel in the world by LG DisplayLG Display is back in the headlines with a first in the world where smartphone panels are concerned – we are talking about the Full HD LCD smartphone panel which has 5″ of viewing goodness for your eyeballs, resulting in what LG deems to be a “perfect cloud computing environment.” Obviously this 5″ Full HD LCD smartphone panel from LG is the highest resolution mobile panel to date in the market, enabling one to experience Full HD content in the palm of your hand, which is of the same quality as that seen on a TV and monitor. The LCD panel is based on AH-IPS (Advanced High Performance In-Plane Switching) technology, where it will feature 440ppi (which is higher than the Retina Display on the iPhone 4/4S just in case you were wondering) and 1920 x 1080 resolution, coupled with a 16  widescreen aspect ratio. Other hardware specifications include the panel being 0.5″ larger and having 2.2 times the pixel density, as well as 1.3 times more advanced in ppi compared to its predecessor, the 4.5” panel at 329ppi and 1280 x 720 resolution. Sang-Deok Yeo, CTO and Executive Vice President of LG Display, said, “As smartphones become increasingly valued for how well they do multimedia and with the rapid growth of LTE enabling faster large file transfers, our new 5” Full HD LCD panel is certain to prove a significant asset to the mobile market. With the world’s highest resolution smartphone display, LG Display continues to remain a step ahead in developing the most innovative in display technology products.” I guess the question that is lingering across everyone’s minds would be this – just when will this display roll out? We are looking at the second half of this year, but it will debut at SID 2012 Display Week in Boston from June 4th onwards.
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2012/05/first-full-hd-lcd-smartphone-panel-in-the-world-by-lg-display/
At 440 ppi we are looking at Full HD LCD TV quality in your hands. It seems like it will come with very little bezel, which means the smartphone will have the entire space taken up by the screen. For comparison's sake, the iPhone 4S has a pixel density of 326ppi.
EDIT: Okay it's a display but you get what I mean.
|
Not a smartphone but a display.
At first I was like holy bezel batman, though. Wonder what the battery effect implications are though :/
|
Ah, I doubt it would be easy to implement into smart phones as it is just a display. As for the battery I think it would have a large toll on the battery life and make it shorter than what it already is for most smart phones =.=
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
Yeah should add they have not designed the phone for it to fit, but the technology to sell to others, which is a good buisness move.
Looks crystal clear in the pictures, would love to see it in a phone ASAP!!
|
Lol, that's even more useless than the lights on gaming gear :D.
|
man i hate thos smartphone companys. instead of making a badass battery they always go on more hardware. 
i dont want to load my freaking phone every day. haha 
but always nice to see improvements for the future.
|
Well it's a display for a smartphone, meh. Still 440ppi and most smartphones using this panel will probably be around 5 inches anyway (which is the size of most modern smartphones or maybe 0.2" larger). Seriously, 440ppi is crazy... that's like having a portable HD TV in your hand.
|
Holy shi.... Wonder when they start including naquadah generators in the packages with this baby in phone you would sure need one :D
|
Full HD in the palm of your hand, now to get batteries that can power it 
|
Having a 720p screen on a phone is like having a portable HD TV in your hand...the pixel density doesn't have any baring on that. I'd be interested to know how visible the difference actually is, as it will put a huge demand on graphics chips and battery life.
|
I can't wait for this technology to become standardized and ready for the general public!
|
5930 Posts
For a lot of people I can't see how this is useful. If you don't see the screendoor effect (i.e. the case with most LCD screens these days that aren't pentile), what's the real point of increasing the PPI? The only reason I can think of is that you can display 1080P with 1:1 pixel mapping.
|
On May 28 2012 20:36 Womwomwom wrote:
For a lot of people I can't see how this is useful. If you don't see the screendoor effect (i.e. the case with most LCD screens these days that aren't pentile), what's the real point of increasing the PPI? The only reason I can think of is that you can display 1080P with 1:1 pixel mapping.
You'd be surprised at how many people actually want higher pixel density on their smartphones. I would take a 440ppi smartphone over a 300ppi any day.
You're blind if you can't tell the difference between 440ppi and 300ppi.
|
5930 Posts
I made it clear:
If you don't see the screendoor effect (i.e. the case with most LCD screens these days that aren't pentile), what's the real point of increasing the PPI?
It doesn't mean people will benefit from it. Even with my face fairly close to, say, an HTC One X, Sony Xperia S, or iPhone 4, I don't see the pixels so again - what does improving the PPI actually do?
So I'm not surprised many people like bigger numbers. I mean such huge resolutions are useful in the air control and medical market but for the phone market? I'm not so sure. Critically, I'd like to see LG fix the flaws in IPS technology first rather than enter the old numbers pissing matches that seems to plague smartphones these days.
On May 28 2012 20:45 affinity_12 wrote:Show nested quote +On May 28 2012 20:36 Womwomwom wrote:
For a lot of people I can't see how this is useful. If you don't see the screendoor effect (i.e. the case with most LCD screens these days that aren't pentile), what's the real point of increasing the PPI? The only reason I can think of is that you can display 1080P with 1:1 pixel mapping. You're blind if you can't tell the difference between 440ppi and 300ppi.
Not when my face is around 25cm from the screen. Context is everything. If I look a lot closer, I can see how bad iOS does subpixel aliasing but I'm pretty much grasping at straws at that point.
Edit:
Actually, thinking about it it'd be pretty darn good at doing LG's passive 3D considering how it works.
|
440PPI is like the difference between current smartphones and handsets back in the early 2000s. It's adding another 100 to 150 pixels PER INCH to your average modern day smartphone. That's a heck of a lot of pixels if you ask me and I think I would see a world of a difference lol.
|
5930 Posts
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.
Let me ask you, close do you look at your screen? Context is everything (this is a link to a blog of an retinal neuroscientist and not an underline), At standard viewing distances - that is 9 inches to 12 inches - you don't really get the screendoor effect and you're kidding yourself if you can see it at such a distance.
Yes that's a heck of a lot of pixels. Just like high end Intel processors have a crapload of threads. Still utterly useless because most people don't use it very often (if at all) in situations where its beneficial. ~300 PPI was huge because it completely eliminated the screendoor effect at commonly used viewing distances. 440PPI is not like the difference between current smartphones and handsets back in the early 2000s for this reason.
Its still useful, especially in LG's passive 3D technology which I think may be the main purpose for such technology, but the actual perceivable 2D benefits will be close to nill unless your face is right infront of the screen.
|
As if anyone could actually see the difference between 720p and full hd on a screen that small.
My note can play 1080p videos, but I never use it since 720p videos are so much smaller and I can not tell the difference anyway.
|
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.
I don't care. Some people will argue over 30 PPI differences and some people care more about CPU, browser speeds, etc. 440PPI is a HUGE difference from today's smartphones... much more than fanboy trolls who argue over 30PPI differences.
Yes that's a heck of a lot of pixels. Just like high end Intel processors have a crapload of threads. Still utterly useless because most people don't use it very often (if at all) in situations where its beneficial. ~300 PPI was huge because it completely eliminated the screendoor effect at commonly used viewing distances. 440PPI is not like the difference between current smartphones and handsets back in the early 2000s for this reason.
You are forgetting the fact that this is a 5 inch display (about the same as the Galaxy Note)... much larger than typical 3-4 inch displays of current smartphones. Also, if LG can produce these at different sizes, then we'll be seeing 7 to 10 inch tablets which use 440PPI screens. Yes, I WILL be able to see a HUGE difference at 440PPI on a 5inch+ screen. I'm not blind.
Its still useful, especially in LG's passive 3D technology which I think may be the main purpose for such technology, but the actual perceivable 2D benefits will be close to nill unless your face is right infront of the screen.
Well why do Apple boast so much about their iPad 3's high PPI display? (which, mind you, is manufactured by Samsung and LG).
|
5930 Posts
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.
|
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.
You just contradicted yourself. You said that at a viewing distance of 9-12 inches you would be "kidding yourself" to see the difference.
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?
264-132 = 132PPI difference
440-280 = 160PPI difference
I chose 280PPI as the average for smartphones starting from 2009. Could be lower or higher but you get the point.
|
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
