from the 8-megapixels-should-be-enough-for-anyone dept.
You can cross another resolution off the smartphone display list:
The third device from the Z5 series is the Xperia Z5 Premium, which includes the 5.5" 4k [3840×2160] screen, a 3,430 mAh battery, and the ability to expand its 32 GB of default internal storage by up to 200 GB through microSD cards. The 4k Triluminos IPS display promises to have a high color gamut, higher contrast and higher sharpness, as well. In the few moments I've spent with it at IFA, the screen did indeed look crystal clear.
[...] Xperia Z5 will launch globally in October this year, while the Xperia Z5 Premium should arrive a month later, in November. Both single-SIM and dual-SIM variants will exist for both models.
Some lucky Sony executive is shoving the Xperia Z5 Premium in his Google Cardboard. Next stop, the world's first 5K (5120×2880) smartphone.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @02:08PM
Yeah, except it doesn't actually run 4K. The panel is 4K and the camera is 4K and the camera and video app are 4K, every other app on this phone runs in 1080p.
(Score: 2) by dime on Friday September 04 2015, @02:40PM
So what you're saying is.. if you build it, they won't come?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @02:42PM
A 4k smartphone, probably going to be purchased by people running 1366x768 on their laptops.
Honestly, I think 1080 or even 720 are best for smartphones. I would love to have a 6" 720p phone with a 4000mah battery running CyanogenMod. It would last forever like a tricorder. Why waste battery life on pixel density for a phone?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Bot on Friday September 04 2015, @03:33PM
Indeed, what's the next step? 7+1 channel sound?
I second the idea of the normal res smartphone. My dream device has swappable battery, couple of sd slots (1 normal size sd) gnu linux userland w/sandbox for android envs, hardware keyboard, tilt screen for tabletop op, SDR (no independent radio chip with own secret sauce OS and access to the whole memory). Can be 1cm thick, no prob. If they don't build it no prob. One of the next gen raspberry/odroid with a smartphone battery pack, touchscreen add on and 4/5G modem is converging towards that, plus I'd probably get ethernet and video out.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 1) by hedleyroos on Saturday September 05 2015, @03:15AM
Because I want a subwoofer in my phone.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by joshuajon on Friday September 04 2015, @04:28PM
I'm unsure that a lower resolution will in fact reduce power consumption considerably. I've read a few discussions on android boards where users did exactly that and found no meaningful gain. If you still want to try it I think it's not particularly hard on a rooted android phone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by tangomargarine on Friday September 04 2015, @06:05PM
Yeah how about they leave out the Super Orgasm-Sized Resolution and instead put a battery in there that can actually hold a charge for a whole week.
No, that's just crazy talk.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Bot on Friday September 04 2015, @06:08PM
Reducing resolution via software is not quite the same as using native low res, there's an upscale phase and there are the old number of individual pixel to switch.
I don't imply it makes a difference, anyway.
Account abandoned.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @10:51PM
It's all about having less pixels to power and light up, not about scaling. The screen is the most power-hungry component of your phone. Unless the people on the Android forums were swapping their displays out with lower resolution screens, they are still lighting up the same number of pixels.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @11:50PM
Yes, more pixels means more light, unless they've somehow found a way to make the pixels smaller. Which, since the screen measures a whopping 5.5", they clearly haven't.
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 04 2015, @02:43PM
not even remotely. My 64 GB iPad holds a modest proportion of my favorite albums but not all of them.
Note that I don't buy music online, I only purchase complete albums at brick-and-mortar stores then I rip them.
I own roughly 400 CDs as well as some vinyl.
I at first used 192 kB/sec MP3s but am now using Apple Lossless Encoding, I think that's roughly 1400 kB/sec.
That I can tell the difference between a compact disc and 192 MP3 is the result of my passionate hatred for television.
I'd rather use FLAC but have not had the headspace to jailbreak my iPad.
While I do hope to purchase an Android tablet someday I refuse to do so until it comes with at least 64 GB of built-in flash. Memory cards are not for my music collection they're for things that I would be unconcerned were I to leave them at home.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @03:07PM
storing more than 380 hours of lossless music is sooooo critical.
(Score: 4, Informative) by bob_super on Friday September 04 2015, @03:47PM
It's gotta be lossless, otherwise you can't really enjoy it above your car or gym's 80dB noise floor.
/s
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:24PM
Sure. After all, there's already so much noise at those places, it is super important that you don't add even more noise. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by MichaelDavidCrawford on Friday September 04 2015, @10:00PM
Filter error: Your brain's auditory centers don't
But Seriously: It doesn't bother me to listen to Holst's "The Planets" during an artillery barrage.
What bothers me is to listen to lossy encodings of "The Planets" during an artillery barrage.
To do and notice:
Sit quietly in a crowded public place; a public park on Labor Day would work well, or a sporting event.
Fix your eyes on a single, distant spot, such as that sporting event's scoreboard.
Now focus your attention on individual, specific people all around you without moving your head in any way. Most people can do that; that's one reason I carry around an audio recorder all the time I am often able to tape people saying the most Damnfool crazy things.
That you can focus your attention on individual people in crowded public spaces is why lossy Planets bother me during artillery barrages, whereas a CD, FLAC or ALE of The Planets does not.
And yes, Vinyl really is far, far better that Compact Disc provided one uses a fresh needle and the record has not been played too many times. You are far better off to purchase Vinyl then run it through a professional audio digitizer to make FLAC or what have you than even to purchase CDs.
Have A Nice Day.
Yes I Have No Bananas. [gofundme.com]
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Friday September 04 2015, @03:12PM
At what pixel density in 5.5" device, does the human eye stop being able to discern any difference?
(Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Friday September 04 2015, @04:41PM
Screen size isn't relevant when talking about pixel density. Density is based on zize already, and I think Apple called 330ppi "retina", although I think quite a few people can see a bit better than that. That's certainly in the ballpark though.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 04 2015, @05:52PM
http://www.itcexperts.com/wp-content/uploads/Capability-of-the-human-visual-system.pdf [itcexperts.com]
Check out the second-to-last page for a range of estimates.
For VR, which can be applicable to a phone [wikipedia.org], view distance is close and lenses are used. 8K and 16K resolutions are industry targets:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/09/virtual-perfection-why-8k-resolution-per-eye-isnt-enough-for-perfect-vr/ [arstechnica.com]
http://vrfocus.com/archives/13220/abrash-vr-needs-hit-16k-match-retinal-resolution/ [vrfocus.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by Tork on Friday September 04 2015, @08:46PM
🏳️🌈 Proud Ally 🏳️🌈
(Score: 2) by acid andy on Saturday September 05 2015, @11:02AM
Depends how close you hold the screen to your eye ball, I guess.
If a cat has kittens, does a rat have rittens, a bat bittens and a mat mittens?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:02PM
What is 4K exactly? Can I get that in units of measure a normal male would comprehend? Like say number of blades on a razor? Is it like 6 blades or are we approaching 7?
Yes I jest. But it seems entirely and utterly pointless. Simply put, much like additional blades, ti is a marketing gimmick and won't actually improve the performance of the device.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:37PM
4K is 4000. It's a count, not a measure. In this case, the number of horizontal pixels.
Well, actually they rounded it up. Great for marketing; they say 4K, but you get only 3840.
Anyway, previous names went with the line number —like 1080p —, which would make this only 2K, but hey, marketing wants higher numbers!
Well, what you *can* do is to calculate the pixel density. As a rule of thumb, for 16:9, the height is half the diagonal, so the pixel density is 2160 pixels/(5.5"/2) = slightly below 800 ppi.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by takyon on Friday September 04 2015, @05:41PM
Anon is in jest. Anyway, another article puts this display at 806 ppi. I just found this [wikipedia.org]... guess we ought to call it XXXXHDPI pixel density!
"Cinematic" 4K is 4096×2160. Might as well call it 4.1K!
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by takyon on Friday September 04 2015, @05:18PM
The one good thing about high resolutions in this size is that it helps virtual reality. Not only can you pop your phone into a product like Google Cardboard or something more fancy, but having the panels on the market means that similar sized panels (~5.5 inches) will make their way into standalone devices like Oculus, GearVR, and Vive. VR-focused companies (especially AMD) are indicating they want to pursue 8K or greater in a smartphone sized panel, so they aren't stopping at 4K.
Now you have to believe in VR hype to care about that, but I think it could work out. Ubuntu Edge showed that a lot of people were willing to throw down $$$ for a smartphone desktop replacement. Instead of docking the thing to an external display, why not strap it to your face? Using the back-facing camera could allow the "projection" of a virtual keyboard. The "display" can fit in a small carrying case, and your computer goes in your pocket.
Pushing 4K in the premium tier of smartphones will push other resolutions down to the cheaper tiers. 2560×1440 will live alongside 4K for years, but will also move down to the mid-tier of phones. 1920×1080 will be found on the cheapest phones.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday September 06 2015, @02:50AM
Ubuntu Edge showed that a lot of people were willing to throw down $$$ for a smartphone desktop replacement.
You call 5000-odd people a lot? Compared to the number of smartphones sold, it is an absolutely tiny amount.
(Score: 2) by maxwell demon on Friday September 04 2015, @07:16PM
8.3 Megapixels.
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 04 2015, @04:47PM
Why is it on a phone and far too small?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 04 2015, @05:33PM
It's simply more expensive to make larger high resolution panels, and demand for smartphones and tablets eclipsed PCs.
HP, Dell, and Apple each have 27-inch 5K (5120 × 2880) displays for around $2,000. A typical use case for that would be editing 4K video, since you can have the full-sized video alongside controls and tools.
One obstacle to 8K (7680 × 4320) is the standards. DisplayPort 1.4a embedded (eDP 1.4a) was announced in February to allow 8K laptops and embedded (all-in-one) displays [macrumors.com]. That's not for external displays.
There are 6K camera sensors on the market, so the resolution might show up (or just skip right to 8K):
http://gizmodo.com/these-frames-shot-with-the-new-6k-red-dragon-camera-are-1188303726 [gizmodo.com]
http://www.theverge.com/2012/4/16/2953233/i-see-your-4k-and-raise-you-6k-how-red-is-winning-the-high-res-video [theverge.com]
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/netflix-tests-6k-production-waters-779131 [hollywoodreporter.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FrogBlast on Friday September 04 2015, @08:02PM
Then where are my dirt-cheap 1080p projectors?
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 04 2015, @08:53PM
http://www.amazon.com/Optoma-HD141X-Theater-Projector-Enabled/dp/B00MK39P92/ [amazon.com]
Define dirt cheap. Less than $500?
Projectors don't have anything to do with display panels so...
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by FrogBlast on Saturday September 05 2015, @09:34PM
Wow, that qualifies. Thank you. I've never actually found one for under $700 (on sale) before. Searching for projectors is always agony, too, because they often put 1080p in the title and bury (or don't even display) the actual native resolution.
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 06 2015, @12:12AM
I found a lot of examples of that in the $100-350 range. Included in a search for "1080" because it takes in a 1080p signal or something and promptly turns it into 640x480. The one I posted looks legit though. DLP and 3000 lumens would seem to be high-end specs as well.
Here's a few more to look at:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&IsNodeId=1&N=100007986%20600026051%20600012388%20600012389%20600012390%20600012401%20600012975%204115%204114 [newegg.com]
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16824116636 [newegg.com]
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by etherscythe on Friday September 04 2015, @06:14PM
https://www.google.com/get/cardboard/ [google.com]
Two birds, one stone!
"Fake News: anything reported outside of my own personally chosen echo chamber"
(Score: 2) by novak on Friday September 04 2015, @06:12PM
There's really only one reason for this to exist. 4K on a phone is beyond pointless. However, the idea that we might soon have 4K VR devices...
novak
(Score: 2) by takyon on Friday September 04 2015, @09:17PM
Do you know the Hz of typical smartphone displays? Is it 60 Hz?
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by novak on Sunday September 06 2015, @04:56PM
Yes, 60Hz is standard. Which could be considered slow for VR, although 60Hz with low persistence may not be bad (I think only Oculus runs faster).
novak
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 06 2015, @05:35PM
2160 × 1200 at 90 Hz for the first consumer version of Oculus. I was surprised they didn't spring for 2560 × 1440.
Given that 144 Hz and 200 Hz displays are a thing, I doubt it will be long before a ~4K VR product targets 120 Hz and up, although whether graphics cards will be able to push that many pixels is another story.
I haven't looked at many reviews of Cardboard/smartphone VR. Should do so to see what others are saying about 60 Hz strapped to their face.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by novak on Sunday September 06 2015, @06:57PM
I have no interest in smartphone anything, I might look into OSVR though- the first dev kit is shipping to developers now, at 1920x1080 (same as oculus DK2). I had high hopes for oculus but most of that died when facebook bought them out. I guess it's likely they'll put out some good hardware before getting "monetized," (spywareized) though, since there is still money to be made selling the product. Imagine how annoying adds could be on a device that can track your eye movement.
I think you're right that displays are getting ahead of GPUs in VR. Because of the high refresh rates, VR is extremely intensive in the GPU- though it also needs lots of pixels. I wonder if they didn't keep the pixel count lower just to make it a little easier to find GPUs that would run it.
novak
(Score: 2) by takyon on Sunday September 06 2015, @07:20PM
I'd be happy to see the amount of details lowered ("Ultra"/"High"/"Medium"/etc) in order to push 120 Hz at high resolutions. Smart use of lighting, textures, and LOD can deliver nice results. As someone else said, CRTs have been able to do 200 Hz+ at high resolutions in the past... at the cost of graphics complexity. I think the immersion/sensation of feeling like being there will be more important than the graphics detail. That necessitates keeping latency low at the cost of graphics, and even when graphics improve, the focus will be on keeping that high and stable frame rate target. The push for FreeSync/GSYNC on new monitors and laptops would seem to confirm this trend.
I think the Facebook hate is waaay overblown until we actually see DRM/ads/tracking on the consumer platform but I accept that some will never support the Zuck. It seems there will be good competition in the VR market, so you'll be able to blow off Facebook/Oculus and Sony, or even skip HTC/Valve for a device from a fourth party. Not to mention similar devices like Microsoft HoloLens and Google Glass 2: Don't Hate Us.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]