Eske Rahn, 14 Nov 2014How did you come up with the 15cm?? Try the test yourself. The finest score I got reported ... moreIt seems that we're not going to agree on this but it's ok, we don't have to.
brano, 13 Nov 2014300 ppi in enough!!! Nobody looks at the screen form 15-20 cm and nobody looks at it with a lo... moreI'm fairly nearsighted, so for me around 11cm is optimal (or two feet with glasses, but that doesn't really work with phones) and, reasonably, I'm far from alone.
As for CPU, rendering fast-paced stuff at half resolution and upscale in hardware will probably be just fine (but there will indeed still be a battery penalty, since smaller pixels transmits less light).
Dav, 13 Nov 2014So, we'll have 600 ppi in 2015, 700 ppi in 2016, up to 1000 ppi in 2019 and so on... What a us... moreSee my other comments...
ppi is not an ABSOLUTE limit, that is just a widespread urban legend!! The limit depends on the resolution RELATIVE to the viewing distance.
Test your own eyes, with the image from link provided and you will be amazed how fine details you can actually separate...
Eske Rahn, 14 Nov 2014How did you come up with the 15cm?? Try the test yourself. The finest score I got reported ... more(Typo 736, not 746, sorry)
Anonymous, 13 Nov 2014True but tell me, who looks at his phone's display from just 15cm? Normally you look at the sc... moreHow did you come up with the 15cm??
Try the test yourself. The finest score I got reported yet was 1/26000, most is around 1/15000-1/11000 and I'm so old that mine is down at 1/7000.
And that is the worst I got reported yet...
So even with my vision we are talking 24cm for 746ppi (2.54cm*7000/736), and for most between 40-50cm, and for the eagle-eyed guy 90cm...
But note that I'm not saying that we NEED resolution this fine, just that it is not beyond what we can see.
Will they patent 5 minute screen on time as well.
Insane pixel density! What for? It's far beyond human eyes capability in terms of resolution! A lot's of money spent for useless concept!
I prefer to see tech giant to be focused in energy storage direction.
AnonD-265341, 13 Nov 2014100% agreeSo do i.
AnonD-136279, 13 Nov 2014It's so Sharp, that if you slide your finger over the screen, it will bleed...Then will it be controlled by voice command.
None of the screen companies wants to go out of business, thats why they have to do something to make sure phone manufacturer will buy it
So, we'll have 600 ppi in 2015, 700 ppi in 2016, up to 1000 ppi in 2019 and so on... What a useless bullshit. "innovation" for nerd...
I suppose 99 % of humans not able to see more than around 300/350 ppi when looking at their smartphones will all be considered as sub-humans by all tech sites in the world as well as all brainwashed trolls passing by.
When a guy who will want a good 5 inch 720p/1080p screen, he will be treated like a douchebag. This is already observed in comments/forums, here and everywhere else, if you don't find useful and trendy screens above 400 ppi, you are considered stupid or worst.
And tech sites are not better when writers already consider screens with 300 ppi average or even subpar. Then I am a subpar human... Nerd eugenics?
Could be beneficial to a few, nonetheless. People who has some pleasureable hobby (or some nasty psychotic habit) of zooming their high resolution photos all day long or, say, advanced or professional photo editors might like this stuff and might just be into this :-)
brano, 13 Nov 2014300 ppi in enough!!! Nobody looks at the screen form 15-20 cm and nobody looks at it with a lo... moreAm with your words bro..... 300 or 322PPI is enough for phones..... If not 1080p and 720p videos look worst.... And will not be able to enjoy your old memories in new phones..... Seeing 5mp photos in 254ppi screen of my Lumia 1320 is worser than I thought.......
Sharp aqous softbank 303sh world's no. 1 smallest full HD screen 4.5 inches only and world's no. 1 highest ppi in Full HD screen category 487 ppi.. It's really sharp
I find the ppi count to be a pointless merit to determine the display. Regardless, if the resolution remains the same, the ppi will naturally decrease or increase solely based on the display. Regardless of the ppi count of this 4.1 inch display, it is still 2560x1600.
The part of the ppi of this 4.1 inch panel having a similar ppi as a 4K 6 inch display is not important at all. The resolution is what is important here. The 6 inch, 3840x2160 display will be able to display more detail if you play back a 2160p video on it. The same video will lose detail on a 1600p display, even if it has a higher ppi count because of its screen size, than on a 6 inch display. Which is why the ppi doesn't matter in monitors or actual tv's. No one will complain or say anything about a tv having 40ppi. It's all about the resolution and the content you play, having the same resolution.
Also, people aren't trying to see individual pixels. That is also pointless. Case in point being that if you have a 1080p display and playback 720p content on it, the display will upconvert the 720p content to 1080p and you still won't see the individual pixels, only that it will look noticeable softer.
300 ppi in enough!!! Nobody looks at the screen form 15-20 cm and nobody looks at it with a loupe. Adding more pixels just adds more battery drain and CPU overhead.
Eske Rahn, 13 Nov 2014Please stop spreading this urban legend...
The eyes limit is NOT on the absolute ppi resolu... moreTrue but tell me, who looks at his phone's display from just 15cm? Normally you look at the screen from 35-40cm and from that distance you can't see the difference, tests also confirm that. Unfortunately I can't paste web links but here's the conclusion part from an article I've just randomly googled:
"In conclusion, we ought to put a few disclaimers to all this. We've tried to keep it as scientifically accurate as possible, but we ought to remember that our eyes and our human vision is more complex and the actual way we see things is a lot about how the brain processes images. And that's something that is hard to measure right now.
With this in mind, we'll lay it out in very simple terms: theoretically, you need to look at your 5.5-inch Quad HD from as close as 6.4" for your eyes to start noticing pixelization (if you have 20/20 vision, if not you'd need it even close). At regular viewing distances it's practically impossible to notice the difference in sharpness between say the 1080p Galaxy S5 and the future Quad HD flagships."
It pretty much makes my point.
at least if the screen comes with death/stuck pixel, you won't notice it. last 2 phones I bought had more than 2 annoying stuck pixel and the store didn't want to replace it.
Anonymous, 13 Nov 2014And yet another absolutely not needed development. From 30 cm on a 6" screen you see Full... moreYes, quite correct. People also do not realize that the eye can reach its maximum ability to resolve only with high contrast detail, which in practice means black text on white background or something similar. Photographs and videos typically have much lower contrast details and will benefit much less from increased resolution.
People, stop wasting your energy complaining about eye cancer because of higher PPI on screens. First, its not true, you cant have eye cancer by looking at this kind of screens..
second, technology wont advance if we dont advance our thinking as well. So just, welcome innovation instead of bashing.
Log in I forgot my password Sign up