Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by cmn32480 on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:25PM   Printer-friendly
from the how-clear-can-it-be dept.

Sharp has announced its intention to manufacture the world's sharpest display, a 5.5" IGZO screen with a 4K/UHD 3840x2160 resolution (806 pixels per inch), for some 2016 smartphones. Is 806 PPI too much? Tom's Hardware notes the drawbacks while celebrating the new milestone:

Although devices that are 1440p or even 4K will look even more stunning, there are indeed diminishing returns benefits-wise as the cost, the power consumption, or the GPU resources required to handle such high resolutions are significantly higher than the previous generations.

That's not to say that a 4K display today will necessarily cost more than a 1440p display did last year, but it does cost significantly more than a 1440p display being sold this year. Although the price ratios for components may remain relatively the same for the new technologies inside a new smartphone, if the benefits are increasingly smaller, then there's an opportunity cost, as well.

For instance, the extra cost to get a 4K display over a 1440p display this year could be used instead towards improving the device's camera. (OEMs could use a sharper lens, a larger sensor, improved OIS, and so on.) This sort of balance should always be taken into consideration.

[...] That doesn't mean higher resolution displays in smartphones are not useful. However, they could be even more useful for other applications; for example, 4K displays are ideal for VR. In order to have a VR experience that makes you completely forget you have a screen in front of your eyes, you'll need at least a 4K resolution screen.

Higher-resolution displays will also help lower the cost of lower resolution panels.

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by mtrycz on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:19PM

    by mtrycz (60) on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:19PM (#170554)

    Give me a 1.8f lens, and I'd be impressed.

    I still woudln't buy it (like I'm not buying 4k), but I'd be impressed.

    --
    In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:29AM

    by FatPhil (863) <pc-soylentNO@SPAMasdf.fi> on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:29AM (#170853) Homepage
    I'm not aware of a usable 1.8f lens ever being created. The largest aperture I can think of is a 1.4f lens from Zeiss: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmSDnPvslnA

    Were you perhaps thinking of an f/1.8 lens? You are aware that as the f-number increases, the aperture decreases, right? And in fact that the aperture is a ratio by division (hence the '/' sign, though historically also ':') of the focal length (hence the 'f')?

    The funny thing is that the "fastest" lens ever created, was, quite literally, a nonsense entry into a dick-waving numbers contest in the 1960s. Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose. (That "Super-Q Gigantar" never took any photos, it was not actually usable, so its f/0.33 shouldn't really count as a record.)
    --
    Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves