Related
I'm very surprised the Nexus S didn't come out with a higher resolution Super Amoled screen. Apparently, 2.3 supports higher resolution according to wikipedia. I'm just waiting for a new android phone with a higher resolution/pixel density to put the iphone 4 to shame.
Imagine, a Super Amoled screen with a 1024x768 or 1280x720 resolution would be the best mobile phone screen in the world.
When do you think we will realistically see android phones with higher resolution displays?
The current Super AMOLED screen already trades blows with the Retina Display. I'm sure there will be higher res screens at some point but whats the rush? Wouldnt a higher resolution screen be more of a burden on battery than the current screens already are anyway? I'd see resolutions that high being more relevant for tablets and PMP than phones.
Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)
Well, android definitely needs to match or better the 640x960 resolution of the iPhone 4 to maintain feature parity.
The current SuperAMOLED screens are less battery consuming than old LCD and Retina, so bigger resolutions shouldn't be a battery problem.
But what's the point of having 1280x768 on a 4" screen?
I'm pretty satisfied with 480x320 on 3.2" and 800x480 on 4" looks also awesome.
The Meizu M9 have a 960x640 display, but (even if you are in china) this little boy is still difficult to find.
The next Meizu (M9ii) will have a 1280×854 or 1280×800 4" screen, and should be animated by a Tegra2 with 1Gb of RAM. They said that the release date will be on middle 2011, so maybe we will be able to grap it in the late 2011.
The two phones are running on a custom android 2.2 (the UI is very different from the classical Android).
For the battery, it's more backlight that drains power.
A higher resolution will only put a little more stress on the GPU, but if the OS is well coded, it should not consume a lot more.
DPI, its all about DPI
You can have all the DPI in the world, but all its gonna mean is LAG and Battery if we're still relying on the CPU to push pixels.
dimon222 said:
Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have absolutely no comprehension of what resolution is. Look at the iphone going from 480x320 to 960x640. Did the icons get smaller? No I didn't think so. You simply put more pixels into an icon the same size. Because it seems you're under the impression that pixel count determines image size.
however, there is no need for a higher resolution because the display is that too small. better resolution would look like the same as the resolution looks on current phones.
I can see several reasons to be interested in higher screen resolution (but IMHO you will need at least a 3.5" display):
Games
ok, that's not for today, but with ports like the unreal engine on android, phones will become more like a mobile console (PSP phone, for example). A better resolution sounds like a better playing experience, but will still need more powerful hardware (and that's on the way with multi core SOC)
Video
isn't that obvious? and it's essential if you're watching videos with subtitles
Internet
I don't know for you, but on my 800x480 handset, i have to zoom out to have the full page, and zoom in, etc...
With a better screen resolution, the navigation will be easier
It's not interesting for everybody, but I think clivo360 and I are not the only guys looking for a higher resolution screen
Although 4.3" is probably the upper limit for what you'd consider "pocketable", I'd still be attracted to bigger screens and more powerful phones because there are things that can take advantage of them, such as video. Imagine 1080p screens on a phone!
At some point though, phones are probably going to suffer the same problem that PCs did - that hardware outdoes all user needs. Imagine a point where the hardware has reached such a point where for the average user, they don't need the most potent phone anymore. We're already well on the way there. It happened with PCs, where the average user needs office software such as word processing, a spreadsheet, and the Internet, but nothing that demands crazy hardware (the average user is not a high end gamer we're talking here).
A better resolution makes even more difference on an SAMOLED screen compared to an LCD/SLCD - due to the PenTile matrix configuration of pixels a 800x480 SAMOLED screen doesn't really have as many pixels as an 800x480 standard LCD.
Just take a close look at the screen of a Nexus One or Nexus S at some text and you'll see it's slightly fuzzy. See here for more info
Better resolutions aren't available yet because a) it's a relatively new technology and b) manufacturers are having a hard enough time making enough just to cover the existing devices that use them.
AFAIK, there is only one Android device with a larger screen resolution that, as long as you don't live in the good old US of A (and even there it can be done), can make calls: the Samsung Galaxy Tab. But not exactly small enough to fit in your trouser pocket (although it does slip easily into a jacket pocket).
PS: The Tab is fantastic for video (1080p MKV supported), games and general browsing (with plugins set to on-demand) plus the odd short book, although you do look very strange if you answer calls on it without a BT headset (very Trigger Happy).
Ugh, I won't flame people saying we don't need higher resolution, though I wanted to...
Here is one basic application where the higher resolution really does make a difference: Reading text .PDFs.
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Higher resolution does not nesc. need more battery/CPU power: it's the brightness that uses the battery most.
critofur said:
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't your phone's AMOLED screen use the PenTile matrix? If so, that's a huge factor. I have 2 Droid Incredibles, one AMOLED w/PenTile matrix, the other SLCD. The SLCD has MUCH smoother text despite both being the same 480x800 resolution. AMOLED w/PenTile matrix has a "screen door effect".
Anyway, Toshiba might make your dream come true, and even exceed what you'd like to see.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/16/toshiba-enters-pixel-density-fray-with-367ppi-lcds-for-cellphone/
its true about the screen door effect. texting the g2x is very smooth dispite the resolution being the same as the vibrant.
Not sure I could put larger than 4.3" in my pocket
Hello, since the Optimus 3D can handle full HD, why cant it just capture 1080p split screen like in 3D mode for 720p? After all its not recording two videos, its sharing the sensors into one. Perhaps a hack?
I am pretty sure it is recording 2 videos, that's why it is SBS (SIDE BY SIDE) format...
prove me wrong
what i mean is its making one single video of 1280x720 split in half for each lens.. so its not really 720p its more like two sensors of 640 (1280/2) side resolution, joined into one videofile.
If that is so, then they could make one of 1080p. At least itll be 1920 cut in half (960 lines across each) instead of 1280 cut in half..
I understand it all.. but look at it this way..... you think it is easy to process 2 simultaneous videos of 960x480?
if it is so easy, everybody would do it... but it is not happening
Yes it is possible to shoot in 3D 1080p with TI omap 4460 which is an upgrade of
TI omap 4430.
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wt...ntId=53243&navigationId=12843&templateId=6123
TI omap 4460 runs at 1.5 GHz. Perhaps some one can overclock TI omap 4430 and create software to shoot 3D at 1080p.
With overclock and software mods this is probably possible but i expect that battery life will be disasterously low. Im sure someone will work on this eventually once we have an overclock kernel.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA Premium App
cinemano said:
what i mean is its making one single video of 1280x720 split in half for each lens.. so its not really 720p its more like two sensors of 640 (1280/2) side resolution, joined into one videofile.
If that is so, then they could make one of 1080p. At least itll be 1920 cut in half (960 lines across each) instead of 1280 cut in half..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
720p 3D is making two 720p movies.
1080p 3D is making two 1080p movies.
That's the side by side thing. It has a different video for your left eye and for your right eye.
The fact that the o3d itself is playing interlaced 3d movies doesn't mean that it also records that way. B/c if it did then the specs should say that it's recording 720i and not 720p.
Thus that's why it can't record 1080p 3D, it's just too much for the hardware.
But maybe someone can overclock it and make it work anyway.
Even if the CPU can handle 1080p 3D, I doubt that memory and the I/O is fast and big enough to handle the movie. 720i 3D is already pushing the limit of the hardware on O3D.
But then I do hope that one day we can do it
You can also wait for TI OMAP 5.
Comsumer products will be expetcted end of 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I24j2NKr9h8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQD48oe9Rzw
there is no interlacing or 720i on this phone, please people, stop saying there is.
It isn't HD 3D, if it was there would be 1280x720 (minimum) for each eye as there is with other 2D HD video. The O3D has 640x720 for each eye with rectangular pixels (progressive, side by side, not interlaced)
mmace said:
there is no interlacing or 720i on this phone, please people, stop saying there is.
It isn't HD 3D, if it was there would be 1280x720 (minimum) for each eye as there is with other 2D HD video. The O3D has 640x720 for each eye with rectangular pixels (progressive, side by side, not interlaced)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you may need to look up what "interlaced" means.
It might not be interlaced in the traditional sense and indeed I presume its drawn to the screen in a progressive manner. However it IS a column interlaced image, because that is how a parallax barrier works by interlacing left and right eye images and obstructing the right eye image from the left, vice versa.
Anyway that does not alter the fact you are correct about how the O3D is capturing 720p 3D. Its also quite irritating as LG are promoting horizontal interlaced passive Cinema 3D technology on their TV and monitors while employing vertical interlacing on their phone.
It makes them a less than ideal match as you are effectively capturing half the resolution width wise then having to drop the vertical resolution too for the passive 3D to work. Its damn annoying as horizontal parallax I suspect would be easier to stay in the sweet spot on O3D too, which is why its used on TVs in the first place.
I also notice the O3D does not seem to display anything other than video at 1080p, which makes displaying photos on a 3DTV/monitor a PITA.
That said I am not very impressed with their Cinema 3D monitor I just bought, it looks awful for general PC use as you can see feint lines on the screen. I did not expect the polarising film to cause a visible effect like this with the glasses off.
The crosstalk is also worse than I expected, sometimes worse than the O3D, sometimes better. Its sad to see the reviews were correct for once, I certainly did not see this on their 47" TV using the same technology. I guess pixel size must have an effect on how easy it is to block crosstalk. Its weird though, as with the glasses looking up close you would swear it was blocking every other line fully from the wrong eye, but the crosstalk makes it all to clear its not.
Anyway back on topic, the reason its harder to do 1080p in 3D is because when filming in 3D you aren't simply taking the images from both cameras and storing them. The software is actually constantly working out how much to converge the two images for the 3D effect work and THEN cropping/scaling the image down to fit into 720p Half-SBS. For that to be possibly it has to open the cameras at 720p, it needs the extra width to simulate the lenses being further apart or closer together, depending on how its focusing the 3D image. So again for 1080p it would have to process two full 1080p video feeds, which might even be possible but would require the kind of software optimisation that will never happen in a market where the next best thing is always around the corner.
After all, its both easier and more financially viable to just put that feature on the NEXT device so it will not require as much software optimisation (the next device will be more powerful so it might "just work" without needing optimisation at all) and is a selling point for people to pickup the new device. Its a win win for the manufacturer.
sorry but the optimus isnt capturing 720p 3D, its 640 lines across for each eye. Its one single 1280x720 video file in split screen not two. I first read this in a respectable review of the phone, then confirmed it when i opened a videofile from the phone and looked at it's properties.
Alex Atkin UK said:
I think you may need to look up what "interlaced" means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
apologies, I was meaning capture
I’m going to be buying a new phone soon. I’ve been eyeing up the Galaxy S II but I thought I might as well wait and see what is announced this month. One thing that all top end rumoured phones have in common is a 720p display. I have to admit this alone has tempted me to wait. But then I got to thinking, aside from the ‘cool’ factor. What benefit in the real world will a 720p display bring us?
The two main advantages that I can see are improved PPI and the obvious advantage when playing 720p videos. But a higher PPI means more processing power, which in turn means lower battery life. Also from an admittedly purely lazy point of view it means having to zoom in further to be able to read text.
A 720p display will now mean that 480p videos on youtube and the like will be upscaled and won’t look as good. ‘Just choose the 720p option’ you say. Fine, so long as you’re on wifi. Until 4G hits and is widespread (which in the UK is going to take a while) it will mean longer waits and buffer issues.
Yes I’m nit picking but I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts on the pros and cons of a 720p display. I know there will be many more I’ve missed.
i see it from 2 sides....
720p = really nice picture quality
720p bad for some apps/games, which might no longer run properly, unless fixed, or some how the hardware can auto adjust the resolution to stretch it to fit.
720p can be a bit of a pain, if some Apps/Games developer decide to use too small of a touch area, due the larger dot-pix available in the 720p area
that also means DVD quality or lower quality videos played on the 720p will look like blurry or smeared, that can be fixed with software/hardware correction, like games.
^^ All that.
Plus, I don't really see the need for a 720 screen that's around the 4" size. Do you really need pixels that small? They'll be smaller than photons if we carry on like this and then it'll be reality that'll have to catch up with our tech
Personally, I wouldn't hold back for purely that one feature, but who knows what else is round the corner. Get a phone and let it be the best for a few months and then slowly drop down the list. As everyone always says, there's always something better coming, and if you waited then you'd never get anything.
Incidentally, I do have the SGS2, and it is REALLY nice
well definitely 1080p will be around the corner as we already stepped into the 720p kingdom
so 1080p on a 4" display would not be a long wait, but it will really make you think, what's the point of cramming so much in such a little screen
i can see 1080p to be a normal thin on a 10" tablet, but on a phone... that's a bit much
i do hope they don't go beyond 720p on any screen smaller than 5"
imagine running Windows Vista/7 on 15" wide LCD at 1080 (there are many laptops that are actually like that) it's soooooo eye strain-ful, it literally kills the eyes
i always down set the resolution back to something more readable to not strain my eyes
AllGamer said:
i always down set the resolution back to something more readable to not strain my eyes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you need your reading glasses as well, so you can find your pipe and slippers?
i don't wear glasses, and i intent to keep it that way, reason why i prefer an easy reading, on 480 vs 720
on 720 i'll have to probably the the font size twice as big, to make it easily legible when you are in the car, bus/subway, or walking
no i don't get dizzy reading while doing any of the above
many people can't read if they are in a moving vehicle
probably due the same relevant issue about having to scan the text in a small device and straining your vision, while trying to keep an eye on the road and not crashing
AllGamer said:
i don't wear glasses, and i intent to keep it that way, reason why i prefer an easy reading, on 480 vs 720
on 720 i'll have to probably the the font size twice as big, to make it easily legible when you are in the car, bus/subway, or walking
no i don't get dizzy reading while doing any of the above
many people can't read if they are in a moving vehicle
probably due the same relevant issue about having to scan the text in a small device and straining your vision, while trying to keep an eye on the road and not crashing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you, therebisbreally no reason to go above 720p resolution on small smartphone devices. I myself notice my eyes begin to hurt after more than thirty minutes or so of heavy reading on my Sensation. Now I know my Sensation does not have 720p but I am just saying the size of the screen and the text on that screen is no doubt a strain on the human eye after extended reading done on the device. 1080p is definitely so,ethimg that should just make it to the larger tablets and not smartphones.
Oh and yes actually paying attention to the road while you are driving is a highly recommended activity lol.
AllGamer said:
that also means DVD quality or lower quality videos played on the 720p will look like blurry or smeared, that can be fixed with software/hardware correction, like games.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is just plain wrong, low resolution video will look just as good on 720p displays.
Sent from my GT-I9100
Maybe i miss-understood your question, but i am using the Galaxy SII
I never had any screen / resolution issues
Well,first off,let's not forget that Android supports changing the DPI in build.prop(I think-haven't bothered in a while).I don't think manufacturers will leave 220-240 dpi of the current devices on 720p devices,but they would rather pump it up,so that everything stays the same size,but is just crisper.That's just my thought though.
On another note,lower resolution videos won't look worse at all.Resolution in that aspect is irrelevant.The same way that you can play a 720p video on a 480p screen without problems,you can do the opposite just as well.Unless some manufacturer decides to f*ck it up with upscaling tricks and stuff that will defo make the image blurry and ugly.
The only really valid argument on the topic,in my opinion,is the possible lack of processing power,especially when it comes to GPUs.We even saw the Mali MP-400,the most powerful GPU on a PHONE (DON'T SAY ABOUT THE A5 IN THE iPAD!!!!) to date,struggle to keep up in the case of the Galaxy Note's resolution.If the next gen of SoCs doesn't improve quite a lot in that aspect,we'll see some performance drops for sure.Not to mention the worst thing,the losses of battery life in case that extra power is met.Not that I mind about battery life as long as it makes it through the day,but many many people do.
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Papi4baby said:
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
progressive, opposed to the i of interlaced.
Technically 720i use half the vertical pixels for each frame.
Papi4baby said:
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes man,we know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p
sgs 2
sent from my cappy. xda app
HD rules
I've always wondered...
On my Nexus 9 which has 2048 x 1536 resolution, how does a 1080p file display so smoothly?
Logically speaking, i would imagine all those 1080p be blown up and stretched to fit the full screen of the display. However, it seems the video is just as crisp as the original.
Is there some magic involved when a video is set to full screen?
Or is it in reality being stretched but my eyes can't distinguish?
You could tell that the quality of a 720p game forced to 1080p looks horrendous.
How do videos in full screen actually work?
Thanks for the education lessons!
To display 1920x1080 image on 2048x1536 screen it's need to be upscaled from 1920x1080 to 2048x1152 (the rest will be filled with black bars). It's just 7% increase, which is hardly noticeable on video content.
Example: 1920x1080 source.
Downscaled to 1366x768, downscaled to 1280x720 and upscaled to 1366x768 (same 7% increase).
Games that ran at subnative resolution are a different thing:
1) They're very aliased.
2) They have pixel-perfect elements like fonts and osd.
3) They're upscaled using fast methods with low quality. They run at sub-native resolution exactly because perfomance is low.
Thanks for that informative reply!
So is it safe to say, it's actually better to get a device with 1920 x 1080 resolution, just for perfect viewing?
Well yeah, but then you would be forfeiting a larger screen. Like vivan said, it's only a 7% increase upscaling the 1920x1080 to 2048x1152,
AjunNg said:
So is it safe to say, it's actually better to get a device with 1920 x 1080 resolution, just for perfect viewing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say that it barely matters - probably subtle difference will be noticeable if you'll switching between 2 devices, but other differences between displays will be way more noticeable.
If I were to select - it would be the last thing I will consider (while first will be display quality and perfomance).
Also you can always switch to 100% zoom mode - it will add small borders on all sides.
I decided to test if there's an actual difference in FHD and WQHD quality wise, and I definitely see a pretty discernible difference, the most with black text on a white screen ( i.e. in facebook messenger ). In WQHD the text is definitely much crisper. After spending a bit of time at WQHD and switching back to FHD, it looks blurry.
So anyway to get to the point of the post, I've seen some S6 / S7 / S8s with dead pixels recently and It's got me wondering, does keeping it at WQHD constantly increase pixel strain, thus increasing the probability of dead pixels? It sounds plausible for someone who's not that informed with how super amoled displays work, but it could just be completely wrong, so if anyone has a definitive answer I'd really appreciate it, cheers!
Reducing the resolution doesn't reduce the number of pixels used, they are all used no matter what rez you set, so no, no difference in pixel strain