Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 18 submissions in the queue.
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This discussion has been archived.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: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:39PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:39PM (#170601)

    > 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

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @10:54PM (#170610)

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:00PM (#170614)

      > 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

        by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:12PM (#170621)

        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

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:15PM (#170622)

          I can not argue with that.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:15PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @11:15PM (#170623)
            Have a good day, then.