Common Sensi, 16 Oct 2013I'm seeing alot of complaints about 2k being too much. As I did when they first announced Full... moreThe 4k video recording allows you to use 2X digital zoom and retain 1080 resolution, that's the big plus because 4k itself is overkill for anyone not pushing their nose up against the screen.
4k makes sense on large monitors instead of using multiple screens, but this also is meaningless on a small screen.
Most online content will try to render at native resolution with bars, which means you'll constantly have to zoom to accurately hit a button or link..or read text.
And most media will have to be upscaled to fit, which LOWERS the quality of the video AND drains the battery faster. Games will also need to be set at lower graphical settings to make up for a resolution boost that your eyes will not be able to appreciate.
Common Sensi, 16 Oct 2013I'm seeing alot of complaints about 2k being too much. As I did when they first announced Full... moreNo. Demand is only because people are brainwashed. I have both 1080p and 720p phones and I actually prefer the latter one because I dont need a phablet and lower rez gives more fps, especially in games.
you argue about this being much, and is not, and most of you argue that is useless to have 88cores or 250 GB on a phone, and it actually is not, most people currently have no idea what to do with so much, and it even sounds absurd but that doesn't mean is useless, the fact that they will use this kind of screen is very welcome, i for one would be sad if we would stay forever stuck with 1920x1080 screens.
you all remind me of people on 1996, when someone would point out about a hard drive of 8TB it was an absurd idea, useless, "what would you do with so much?" now we have office rooms where servers may have more than 5 8TB hard drives, and they keep upgrading their storage.
ok you people point out that people cant notice the pixels, and it is true, but it is not about the pixels themselves, is about the image quality, our eyes perceive color as the reflection of light done by molecules, this same process is used by astronomers to tell the configuration of a planet's atmosphere, so the thing here is, the more pixel density the better and more accurate image we will see;
so, while it is TRUE we can NOT see the pixels, it is also true that with more pixel density we will get better image quality.
now the good thing about this, is that not only this will push the development of higher resolutions on small screens, but also higher resolutions on big screens, this is good specially for medicine, and eye/vision research, also keeping in mind this:
we still have a long way to go to get even close to be able to fully reproduce the quality of real view on a synthetic screen.
so, while currently not very useful, it is FAR from being absurd, we just don't have the right software to fully use this, just like we don't have the software to fully use an 8 core processor, yet their existence opens the path to development, is better to have and no need, than need and not have
AnonD-124110, 16 Oct 2013You can actually see individual pixels on both resolutions.
It is just too hard and not worth... moreThe reason a 441 ppi LCD fares better than a 441 pen title, it's because the pen tile numbering is wrong. A 441 PPI pen tile is actually the equivalent of a 330 LCD, which is why it looks slightly better than I phone's display as far as fidelity goes.
Then again anything more than 300 PPI while definitely visible enters the realm of diminishing returns, which is why IMO why s4 looks gorgeous compared to HTC. Worse fidelity but it matters little at this point, much better contrast/colors that's what matters far more at anything higher than 300 PPI.
Common Sensi, 16 Oct 2013I'm seeing alot of complaints about 2k being too much. As I did when they first announced Full... moreRetina Display is just a marketing ploy by apple, and is only valid for the most average eyes. However, there IS a point where the ppi is high enough you would need "eagle vision" to discern pixels, and 400ppi is certainly above that. Anything higher is just part of a ppi arms race based on pure marketing.
That said, 1080p 5 inch screens, at around 440 ppi, make sense because 1080p is the next standardized resolution above 720p, and 720p for 5 inch screens is still low if you want most people to not see pixels.
But that's enough. These 1080p 5 inch screens already got well above the true retina trheshold. Increasing the ppi further is stupid and a waste.
when apple use capacitive and multiouch screen everyone try to follow
While people busying to try to increase screen size, apple came out with retina display
while people trying to beat PPI war apple came out with 64 bit processor
while people trying to add RAM to cope with 64 bit processor, apple will come out with 2gb different type of ram to work with 64 bit processor like 4gb of old gen ram
AnonD-27765, 16 Oct 2013Unless you're an eagle with a telescopic vision, it's not possible to see individual pixels ev... moreThis Retina bullshit is a marketing name by apple, and although 326ppi is the threshold for the most average vision, you don't need "eagle vision" to perceive pixels beyond that. In fact a LOT of people have better vision than that. That said, 400+ ppi is in fact something that would require an eagle vision to discern pixels, so yeah, this is all a megapixel arms race at this point.
1080p on a 5 inch screen is already overkill, BUT it was the next step from 720p while keeping the resolution compatible with some standard, instead of coming up with some weird intermediate resolution that would require everything to be up or down scaled. Since 720p on a 5 inch screen is still not enough for most people to not perceive pixels, the 1080p screens are understandable, even if some of this definition is already being wasted.
AnonD-27765, 16 Oct 2013Nice. And we also need 100MP on cameraphones. 41MP is just not enough anymore.hahaha, definetily
I'm seeing alot of complaints about 2k being too much. As I did when they first announced Full HD on smartphones. Yet nowadays when a phone doesn't have Full HD capabilities. People & reviewers tend to complain. Using terms like "Outdated" when referring to phones with 720p resolution. Even the latest Galaxy Note 3 is receiving praises for it's 4k video recording capabilities. Regardless of the fact that the majority of households don't even own 1080p televisions let alone 4k televisions. So you may call it useless now. But I'm sure you'll demand it later. Smh.
[deleted post]Unless you're an eagle with a telescopic vision, it's not possible to see individual pixels even on 326ppi screens. That is why Apple doesn't join in this stupid PPI race. And this is not an advancement in technology. It's called overkill.
Weldone Vivo, any advancement in technology is dearly welcomed! if there's any walls or barriers to be taken off, so shall it be!
This is almost like feeding strawberrys to pigs, in other words a waste of time and effort. 2K resolution or even 4K resolution if it ever happens is pretty silly really! the fact is the human eye wont detect any improvement from 720p or 1080p if you like, certainly not on any 5" or even 6 or 7" screen, i think this race is nearly over guys.
What a totally pointless 'innovation'.
There comes a point when, firstly, the human eye can't tell and secondly, all of the media and entertainment we run on our phones looks worse. Not to mention the strain this screen would have on battery and graphics processing.