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.
Related Stories
Electronics maker Sharp has accepted a $6.25 billion (700 billion Japanese yen) takeover bid from Foxconn, although the deal is now on hold. The $6.25 billion figure includes liabilities:
Ailing electronics maker Sharp has accepted a takeover bid from Foxconn, the company that assembles iPhones. After the deal was announced, Sharp's stock fell more than 14 percent. And Foxconn now says it will postpone finalizing the sale due to late-arriving information.
Thursday night local time, Foxconn issued a statement in Taiwan saying that it will now delay signing the deal, because of a document that Sharp shared with it on Wednesday, according to Focus Taiwan News, which adds that the sale was previously planned to be finalized by the end of this month.
[...] The Japan Times says the proposed deal would mean the loss of one of the country's crown jewels, calling it "the largest-ever acquisition of a Japanese electronics maker by a foreign company."
[cont..]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:47PM
Pixel density is "easy" to push way past the point of diminishing returns.
I would rather see:
(1) Increased Brightness for viewing in bright sunlight
(2) Wider color gamut and dynamic range for more accurate rendering
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:57PM
Displays that produce their own light are never suitable for viewing in full sunlight. Even a light bulb looks dim under those conditions. What would be needed is reflective displays like e-ink, but fast enough to work as screen.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by VLM on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:22PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transflective_liquid-crystal_display [wikipedia.org]
I have a roughly decade old Garmin 76cs GPS that I used for hiking and geocaching, still use sometimes. Its battery life is about 5 or 6 complete cellphone charges and it "charges" in about 15 seconds by replacing two AA batteries. The battery life is good enough that on a short camping trip you can just leave it on, it draws practically nothing when the backlight is off.
Also unlike using a phone, from memory its completely waterproof when properly assembled (battery door clamped tightly closed) and it floats in water. I don't think you can buy a phone like that. Its also pretty much indestructible, although I've seen pix online of people breaking them I have no idea how the heck they did that.
Its like a LCD that uses the sun as its backlight (kinda hard to explain). The brighter the sun the brighter the image.
I guess that tech isn't going anywhere, something to do with resolution, I think. I would estimate about 40 DPI. Not a typo, forty not 400 or something.
Paying for map updates kinda sucks. Using my phone, I don't miss that aspect at all. Also the geocaching app is more convenient on the phone than manual loading the GPS.
The thing I mostly use it for now, comically, is a spedometer/odometer on my bicycle. Its the nicest bike odometer ever made.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:06PM
The Nokia N900 had a 800*640 3.5" transreflective display, made by Sony. So long as the image on the screen had good contrast it was quite readable in direct sunlight, but the colour was washed out and you still needed to angle it just so to avoid reflections. I liked it at the time, but these days the screen on my Nexus 5 is good enough in sunlight and looks a hell of a lot better the rest of the time. I think the problem with transreflective displays is that they don't do either job as well as a display that sticks to being purely transmissive or purely reflective.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:50PM
There's dim and then there's unreadable.
Just because perfection is impossible doesn't mean there is not room for improvement.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:58PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 3, Insightful) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:02PM
A 5.5" 4K display scaled to 24" at the same pixel density would be a >17k display. So the achievable pixel density obviously isn't the problem, and the mobile phone screen developments therefore won't help your desktop screen.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Tork on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:06PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by gnuman on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:07PM
New factories will exist that can build to this level, and it will lead to greater general supply of higher density displays.
Bah.. what you'll get is larger supply of 5" displays. These will not translate to larger supply of 24" 4k or 8k displays.
(Score: 2) by Tork on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:24PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(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
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Wednesday April 15 2015, @10:55AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:52PM
Better lenses have a serious problems compared to higher display resolutions: You cannot put a nice number on them.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 2) by mtrycz on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:19PM
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!
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:29AM
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
(Score: 3, Insightful) by bart9h on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:57PM
Not saying that more density would be nice, but 300ppi seems good enough for me.
What bothers me is that it's basically impossible to find a good, modern phone with reasonable (for me) size: 4", or a just a bit more.
I have a Galaxy S3 mini (4", 233ppi), and I love it's form factor (apart from the hideous physical home button). I'd like to upgrade to a more powerful phone (2GB ram, for instance), but all good phones are huge. The smaller one I could find is the Moto X, but 4.7" still feels too big for me.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:22PM
Same here. Bosses got the S3, I went for the S3 mini. I can't operate the S3 keyboard single-handed* without getting immediate thumb strain.
*Oi, not like that. Perv.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2, Informative) by m2o2r2g2 on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:55AM
Sony Xperia Z3 compact. All the power of the flagship Z3 and a 4.6" screen.
I hate the ethics of the company but they make some damn good phone hardware. They are the only ones who don't neuter their smaller phones. The compact has the same chip as the fullsize.
I am still very happy with my original Xperia Z and if it ever dies then the Z3 compact is my number one choice. I was very envious of a friend that had the Z2 compact (which he dropped over the side of his boat).
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:21AM
No need to be envious. It isn't exactly the same, but you could just throw yours in the toilet.
(Score: 2) by Jaruzel on Wednesday April 15 2015, @08:29AM
Got a Sony Xperia Z3 Compact in my house. Stonkingly good phone. Ignoring it's Sony, and using as a Stock Android phone (Sony put hardly any crap into the OS) and you get a REALLY good phone that's well built and powerful.
This is my opinion, there are many others, but this one is mine.
(Score: 2) by bart9h on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:40PM
Too bad Sony doesn't make any phones with OLED display (that's what gsmarena.com/search.php3 told me)
(Score: 2) by TK on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:16PM
Also rocking the S3 mini (with CyanogenMod 11). The thing is absolutely dwarfed by my friends' phones, but it's so much easier to maneuver than them, and it fits in my pockets. In two years or so when I finally upgrade, I'll turn it into a remote or something. I just hope there's a similar size in the future, with an equivalent power level for the times.
The fleas have smaller fleas, upon their backs to bite them, and those fleas have lesser fleas, and so ad infinitum
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday April 14 2015, @07:59PM
Wake me when you can 3D print a 2.75" 8K screen. Well I'm off to take an inspiration nap. Yes I will be blogging my dreams for ya superpals.
(Score: 2) by Techwolf on Tuesday April 14 2015, @08:26PM
Newsprint are somewhere around 300 dpi. So we fiannially got a display where you can actully read the small print. Like so many websites llike to use tiny print. :-/
(Score: 1) by anubi on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:57AM
Now they will use even finer print.
When will business that places fine print on their business announcements be seen by the public like a job seeker wearing a bandit mask would be seen by a hiring manager?
Every time I see gray areas on a business communication, the hair along the back of my neck raises, and I wonder what kind of fast one the business is going to pull on me. I cannot read it without the microscope. If they are going to present me with something like that, they may just as well have smeared dog excrement over their business communication. Its received the same way.
I see grey print as a business's way of telling me that they aren't honest and upright, and they are hiding something.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
(Score: 1) by SanityCheck on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:05PM
Imagine trying to view a webpage not geared for mobile with this res?! Jesus h christ....
(Score: 3, Informative) by takyon on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:00AM
Mobile devices have always tried to adapt Web pages to the display automatically, and CSS @media rules can target device types, aspect ratios, resolutions, etc.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/@media [mozilla.org]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mtrycz on Tuesday April 14 2015, @09:23PM
In other news I still have to pay extra for consumer laptops, because OEMs don't think I need more than 720p.
And by "extra" I mean double-your-budget-to-a-different-class-laptop, and then it's still dificult.
In capitalist America, ads view YOU!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @12:05AM
768p the cancer that is killing laptops
(Score: 2) by SuperCharlie on Wednesday April 15 2015, @01:38AM
I was in the dark ages phone-wise until about a month ago and got an LG G3 which is a 5.5" 2560×1440 "2k" screen. Besides being razor clear, it does help with things like zooming in on pics and really really nice vids.. I regularly stream 720p from my home cloud and the clarity is really impressive. I think the point is to take the pc to your pocket and finding the balance of what is actually useful. What size screen, what resolution, what battery life, etc.. its all a balancing act that we are still in flux with trying out the various mixtures to see what can work and what is wasteful tech for tech sake. I dont know that I would want anything bigger or any more resolution.. but I like this "2k" resolution and the battery lasts all day in normal use. Maybe once we give 4k a good try there will be a decent reason for it. Ya never know till you try.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:06AM
2K [wikipedia.org] is roughly 1920x1080
That is a 1440p/2.5K/Quad HD/QHD screen ("Quad" due to it being 4 times a 720p screen, 720p being the lowest resolution to carry the "high definition" label).
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Touché) by physicsmajor on Wednesday April 15 2015, @04:17AM
You do realize that by praising the screen, then using 720p content as an example, you've effectively stated you can't see 75% of the pixels?
Anything over 720p on a mobile device is doing nothing but sucking battery life. You can't see it. Those who claim to are lying or praising other aspects of the screen (contrast, color, brightness, etc.). The physics of your eyes doesn't lie.
Give me 720p and better battery life all day long.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday April 15 2015, @02:43PM
720p ought to be enough for anybody
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 16 2015, @12:26PM
Anything over 720p on a mobile device is doing nothing but sucking battery life. You can't see it. Those who claim to are lying or praising other aspects of the screen (contrast, color, brightness, etc.). The physics of your eyes doesn't lie.
You're just wrong, I'm not lying or praising other aspects of the screen, by saying I can notice the pixels on a 720p screen. You might want to recheck that "physics of the eye" thing and how far away from a 720p display you'd have to be for that to be true, and maybe it is true for you, but not me. I would definitely notice the difference between 1080p and 720p on a 5" phone (I have a Nexus 5). Watching a video it wouldn't really bother me, it is when reading text the difference is important to me. I would have to look quite hard to notice a further increase over that though, so to me the difference between 1080p and QuadHD at that size probably wouldn't be noticeable, though make the screen bigger and I might, but then that goes beyond what I am comfortable holding.