

LG develops first 5" 1080p panel for smartphones - fuzzythinker
http://view.koreaherald.com/kh/view.php?ud=20120528000359&cpv=0

======
cma
Should kick ass for use in this puppy:

[https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/2031358906908057...](https://twitter.com/#!/ID_AA_Carmack/status/203135890690805762/photo/1)
[http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=120&t=14967](http://www.mtbs3d.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=120&t=14967)

------
cocoflunchy
How about making batteries that can make your phone run for more that 8 hours
straight now? I'd buy the phone that would give me a week of uptime (and that
is not a 3310).

~~~
myko
The Razr Maxx has incredible battery life, not quite a week of uptime but a
good 3 days of normal use.

------
martythemaniak
Now that we have gorgeous displays, I'd like to see manufacturers compete over
a new metric: Smallest Total Bezel Area.

The bezels on all phones today are just too damn big. The top bezel should not
be taller than ~6mm (enough for speaker, camera and sensors) and the bottom
should not be more than 4mm (enough to round the phone) and the side bezels
should basically not exist at all.

~~~
lucianm
That would affect the user experience of the device. How would you hold the
device? How would you play games?

HTC Sensation is an whole-screen device, but the user experience is really
bad. I prefer iPhone 4/4S design any other day.

~~~
acgourley
The bevel could be virtual - painted on by the OS or application but not
accepting touch inputs. Perhaps even custom to the user preferences. It could
go away for certain uses cases, like full screen video. It could even have
function buttons rendered on it that are context dependent.

~~~
lucianm
Sure, this might work. But the extra pixels needed for the bezel will consume
battery with current technology. Also, a new kind of proximity sensor have to
be developed for these use cases. It will be really annoying to set the
virtual bezel manually all the time.

~~~
esolyt
Not on AMOLED. Remember that AMOLED does not use any power to display blacks.

------
Munksgaard
So why is it that we're still stuck with 1920x1080 on our desktop displays?
And don't even get me started on laptops!

~~~
CoolGuySteve
For the longest time, operating systems didn't really work in High DPI. At
Apple, a lot of the designs relied on pixel art, and scaling it looked
terrible. There are breadcrumbs for scaling in OS X that date back to Tiger or
Leopard.

This is one of the reasons why the iPhone4 straight up doubled the resolution
even though it made for kind of a wacky display resolution (as opposed to
1024x600 or something more standard like that)

Mountain Lion is supposed to finally get all that HighDPI stuff right though,
according to the rumors.

I'm only really familiar with the Apple side of things though, maybe Metro has
similar design considerations in mind.

~~~
jamesbritt
_For the longest time, operating systems didn't really work in High DPI._

Back in 2000 I was using 1920x1200 on a 12" laptop. I was running both WinXP
and some version of Ubuntu, and they looked fine. Every since then I've had
WUXGA screens and displays, until very recently when Dell and Lenovo decided
to bail and move to the 1920x1080 short screens.

It's a step backwards.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
I think your definition of 'looked fine' is a lot different than Steve Jobs'
and people who need bifocals.

My guess is that your task bar in XP must have been less than a centimeter
tall, the system font less than a millimeter tall. I know there are a lot of
people like you who value having more on the screen like that, but
realistically, that's not a very large market niche.

The goal at Apple was to keep roughly the same dimensions for interface
elements while increasing the sharpness of text and icons. If the user wanted
to, they could reduce the font size in whatever application they were using to
make practical use of the increased pixel density.

------
waivej
This reminds me of the BadAstronomy writeup about Jobs and the resolution of
the iPhone 4:
[http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/re...](http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-
the-iphone-resolution/)

~~~
CoolGuySteve
Ya, I was thinking the same thing.

At 440ppi, this seems like overkill, considering someone with 20/20 vision
only needs around 300ppi for things to be acceptable.

I was hoping with the retina marketing blitz, Apple would put the density
comparisons to bed and we could start thinking about displays with wider
colour gamuts, wider viewing angles, better outdoors performance, 3D, mini
projectors, etc.

I understand hard numbers like ppi are easier to compare between and display
in huge letters in a BestBuy flyer, we called them 'checkbox features' at a
place I used to work at, but at some point they distort the overall quality of
the product. For example, the Pentium 4's clockrate and megapixel ratings on
cameras are cases of a checkbox feature actually decreasing the quality of
most products in the market.

~~~
bane
Interestingly, in high-end printing, 300 dpi is considered unacceptably poor,
most print shops will simply refuse to print artwork at 300 dpi. 600 dpi is
usually what's considered minimally acceptable for artwork and around 1200 dpi
for lots of text.

~~~
CoolGuySteve
DPI is very different though, a screen sub pixel can vary in luminescence
(typically index in most displays with 6bits of accuracy, minus crappy colour
gamut on the display) whereas a printed dot is limited to the ink colours
used.

Some printers overlap dots, print thicker dots, and have other tricks to work
around this aspect. I don't know as much about this area, I've worked mostly
in graphics, but my understanding is that because the colour gamut for each
printed 'pixel' is less expressive, you need more dots in the same area to get
a similar result.

Furthermore, dpi expresses printed 'dots' whereas a pixel on most displays can
be considered three fixed 'dots', one for each display channel. Although
lately, some LCD substrates are cheating a little and displaying only 2
subchannels per pixel.

Anyways, that's everything I know about dpi, as I said, I'm more versed in
video rather than printing. So take this with a grain of salt: I think you
need to multiply PPI by 3 to get DPI, ignoring cleverness on the part of
either display or printer manufacturers.

~~~
bane
That's basically right in some cases.

For example in full-color (4 color) printing you essentially need 4 dots
(halftones) to make any color. However, they aren't all necessarily lined up
in a grid like pixels (it's an analogue medium). But simply dividing 1200 dpi
by 4 doesn't really provide a correct calculation for the resolution at the
end.

<http://blog.savvydog.com/?p=106>

And then you actually get into measuring with LPI (lines per inch) which can
easily go above 300 for things like good magazines (though around 130-150 is
more typical). 130-150 _is_ actually around the retina display's 300dpi (a
good conversion estimate is that 1LPI=2DPI but some will go as high as 3DPI).

Black and white (non-process) printing can be very different and uses solid
colors. Higher quality artwork is necessary for this. That's where the 1200dpi
comes into play. Fine books, black and white artwork, etc. need artwork at
1200dpi and the LPI can easily go above 500.

------
duaneb
Surely we've got to be hitting the limits on what the eye can perceive. Why
don't we focus on color/contrast?

