440 pixels per inch
Saturday, October 20, 2012 at 2:45AM We can't see 440 pixels per inch so I wonder why we need them, but I am all for better specs particularly on screens.
From the BBC- "HTC and Sharp have unveiled devices featuring next-generation screens.
HTC's J Butterfly phone has a 5in (12.7cm) display offering an industry-leading 440 pixels per inch.
This offers 25-40% higher resolution - meaning more detail - than comparable devices from Samsung, Apple, Nokia and LG.
Sharp's new Aquos Pad tablet is the first to use its new Igzo technology which promises sharper images while using less power.
Sharp has previously said at least one of its customers also planned to incorporate the innovation in its devices.
Several device makers have signalled plans to announce new tablets over the coming weeks."
All News
Reader Comments (3)
I think Asus understand that you need good resolution and fast screen refresh.
Once you have more than you'll ever need you can stop thinking about it.
Problem is they're not giving these things enough GPU power to go with it. When they quadrupled the pixels on the iPad 3 they only doubled the GPU power, and that's caused problems. WIth the Transformer Infinity they had 2.25x as many pixels but only clocked the Tegra 3 10% higher, which caused problems.
Also the iPad 3 is apparently a lot dimmer than its predecessor because all those extra pixel edges block out a lot more light. Not sure if the Infinity has the same issue; it has a Super IPS+ screen so it has brightness to spare but at the expense of battery life.
Until we have more GPU power than we'll ever need then these higher resolutions can actually be a negative.
The higher res would be good for reading and web browsing of course, and they don't require all that much GPU power. However it's gaming that generally pushes technology.
It'd be interesting to see one of these screens next to my S3 to see if I can tell the difference. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't for gaming or movies but for reading and web browsing perhaps I would.
I don't think the ipad3 being a bit dimmer is entirely due to the pixels, I would imagine that it is a battery saving technique? The conductive overlay on the inside of the LCD doesn't block that much light?
I recall that 300dpi was considered perfectly good enough for years by the publishing industry for high quality magazines.
My (corrected with spectacles) eyesight is quite good and I don't really notice the pixels on my phone's 3.7" at 800x480 display.
If I had a 4.7" phone then 1024x600 would be fine, and likewise a 5.5" phone/phablet at 1200x720 would be OK too as they would have a similar dot pitch.
I would like to thank Apple for calling their displays "retina" displays as it basically says "there's no point in having a higher resolution". Now, please can we can back to making phones and tablets have better battery lives?
Just as the "megapixel wars" with cameras is over, as manufacturers have proven they can create sensors with pointlessly stupid numbers of pixels, so the display resolution war should have finished.