SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
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.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:52PM
Which is why we are all using OLED monitors. Without years of manufacturing 5" OLED phone displays we would never have made it to this point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:00PM
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:04PM
> Actually OLED monitor production has jumped up quite a bit since the smaller displays have been in big demand.
Actually there are no consumer grade OLED computer monitors on the market.
There are pro-monitors for $5000+ [bhphotovideo.com] though. Ooops.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:15PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:20PM
> Why were the goal posts moved?
They weren't. "Apple's iMac displays"
> HD LCD monitors existed back in the early 2000's, yet didn't become consumer grade until a decade later.
I am still using my Dell 2405 from 2005. Cost me less than $1000.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:35PM
>Which is why we are all using OLED monitors.
Sorry, if you haven't moved the goalposts, then I'm still not sure what it is you're measuring here.
I am still using my Dell 2405 from 2005. Cost me less than $1000.
Phrased like a rebuttal, yet it supports my point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:37PM
Sorry, if you haven't moved the goalposts, then I'm still not sure what it is you're measuring here. Sub-$5,000 OLEDs have been around for a while. I personally have been using a sub-$2k pro-display for over a year now. I'm just not sure why exactly you're ruling that out.
I misused a bracket, sorry.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:39PM
> I personally have been using a sub-$2k pro-display for over a year now.
Name it.
> Phrased like a rebuttal, yet it supports my point.
A consumer grade display widely available less than half the decade after the early 2000s that you claimed.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:54PM
Name it.
I don't feel like bugging our staff to settle a pointless debate on SN, but I used the same Google you could have used to find one: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&sku=1078805&gclid=CIqKmJjv9sQCFcRgfgodjQ8AVQ&is=REG&Q=&A=details [bhphotovideo.com]
That's not even the cheapest.
A consumer grade display widely available less than half the decade after the early 2000s that you claimed.
Right, and it wasn't greater-than HD res. Seriously, you're supporting my point.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:00PM
> I don't feel like bugging our staff to settle a pointless debate on SN, but I used the same Google you could have used to find one:
I fully expected you to name a 7-inch field display because a $2000 7-inch OLED monitor is basically the same thing as a 20+ inch monitor.
>> HD LCD monitors existed back in the early 2000's, yet didn't become consumer grade until a decade later.
> Right, and it wasn't greater-than HD res. Seriously, you're supporting my point.
Do people constantly accuse you of moving the goal posts and you can't figure why they make that accusation?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:12PM
I fully expected you to name a 7-inch field display because a $2000 7-inch OLED monitor is basically the same thing as a 20+ inch monitor.
You're talking about a monitor whose price plummeted not long after the release of the Playstation Vita and a couple of semi-successful Android phones. So... maybe you really are unaware of the curved OLED TVs etc being sold right now? I don't know. I honestly don't get where you're coming from.
Do people constantly accuse you of moving the goal posts and you can't figure why they make that accusation?
Monitor resolutions stagnated for a decade and saw a massive boost shortly after cell-phone displays were improved. Your response to that: "You're wrong, here's a piece of data that shows why you're right. " I really don't know what to do with that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:15PM
I can not argue with that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:15PM