I ride Skytrain to work and I check e-mail and catch up on news. Most people I see on Skytrain seem to be playing games or checking out Facebook.
Regardless, there have been several studies regarding smartphone use. Games are #1, which makes sense considering the top earners in the App Store.
So instead of discussing whether or not 1080P is a gimmick based on perceived vs actual benefits you come back with that?
Are you saying what he wrote is inaccurate? From a practical perspective, taking out apple talking points, I can easily tell a difference in pixel density from my iPhone 5s and a phone with 1080 screen.
The screen shown if the markers are 1mm, is 326 dpi, same as current screens. Scaled to 16:9 4.7-inch screen would be 751x1336 pixels. Of course 4.7 does not mean 4.700, so it could be 750 x 1340 or something else close. Or someone just shot a picture of a current screen and this has nothing to do with the new phones.
There have been several studies of what people do on their smartphones. Watching TV/movies is way down the list (less than 10%).
Are you sure? That surprises me.
In my case (which I fully appreciate is irrelevant to any discussion of the results of the survey), watching video is about 50% of my use! SkyTrain time killer.
It's much more pleasurable watching video on an iPad, so you're in the minority.
Are you saying what he wrote is inaccurate? From a practical perspective, taking out apple talking points, I can easily tell a difference in pixel density from my iPhone 5s and a phone with 1080 screen.
That's not what we were discussing, he and I. We were talking about a survey about what people do with their phones that suggested watching video is low on the list. That's a related but separate issue from perceived benefit of increased pixel density.
Actually, on 4.7" 1472x828: 359 PPI 1704x906: 411 PPI And on 5.5" if it's true: 1472x828: 307 PPI 1704x906: 351 PPI
They're all Retina, so I agree with the first resolution.
True but if there was a 5.5 would they drop resolution, probably not, they would likely target it as same ppi as iPhone is now, as I have also come to wonder since IPad mini is same as iPhone in ppi would the 2.5 inch difference drive ppi that much up, another .8, would it be in the 400s, 500s?
Phones are now shipping with UHD displays. 1080p will pretty much be minimum for any high end device. At some point I think it will be hard for Apple to get away with less than 1080p on their flagship device.
Apple doesn't need to follow any lame standards. My retina iPad already has a higher than 1080 display.
The people who like to boast about having 1080p on their phone displays are very likely mentally disabled Android people who watch 360p videos on their 1080p displays. Total morons.
And a 1080 display is 16:9, and Apple is not bound by any stupid standards like most Android monkeys are. Apple will do what they think is best for each particular product.
The only reason to have 1080 would be so every pixel has its true original color value instead of an interpolated value. Of course since the video is compressed, the pixels are already interpolated, so yeah it is not a difference you would ever see.
I guess, but then again if it is recorded via device that would not be a problem.
I guess I wasn't aware that 1080p was a gimmick. So is the only thing that's not a gimmick is Steve Jobs definition of retina? My co-worker recently purchased an LG G3. I'll have to borrow his phone and compare the display to my 5S. My 5S looks great to me but then I never held it next to another phone with higher ppi.
You'd notice difference, but not enough to make the battery/gpu kill worth it.
It's not gimmicky to go to a higher resolution, since the magic number of 300 ppi is in itself a marketing gimmick and arbitrary number pulled out of the air. The average person has better than 20/20 vision for most of their life, or if someone who wears glasses and has any kind of decent pair at all has it corrected to above 20/20, and so can easily see the pixels on a "retina" display at the prescribed viewing distance. 400+ ppi at an average distance of 12 in/30 cm would be a better and truer implementation of "retina" technology.
I doubt this is true, but my nearsidedness allows me to see the pixels.
I just put my glasses on to look at the screen of my iPhone 4. No pixels seen. And yes the glasses are kept up to date and are properly prescriptioned.
1080P on a phone is a gimmick. It's far beyond what any person could ever notice in terms of pixel density.
It's taking a number that people are familiar with (1080P TV's) and slapping it on a phone to make people go "oooohhh" when in fact it offers zero benefits and does nothing but suck more power.
TV and phones should always have different resolutions.
The pixel density required to eliminate most people's ability to distinguish pixelation in any way whatsoever is about 600 PPI. Being able to distinguish a pixel from other pixels is not the limit of human visual acuity thanks to the fact that a brain sits behind our eyes.
Within a few years, 1080p on TVs is going to seem like low resolution (and just for the record, there are no 1080p broadcasts - everyone is still broadcasting in either 1080i or 720p). 4K displays (which should really be called 2K displays, since they're actually 3840x2160) and within a few years 8K displays will become the standard. Having said that, I agree that on a 5" or 6" screen, you won't see any difference for photos and videos. But where increased resolution does provide a difference is in text. It becomes much easier to read and the text can be read at smaller sizes, which is a lot easier than having to expand the size with one's fingers all the time.
But I do agree that if it takes increased power, that's a big trade-off and might not be worth it until we're able to achieve much better battery life.
I personally don't see use of a TV at high resolutions either, 4k is about 120ppi on 60 inch, all I see on TV neccesary is 100ppi, thus unless we see 100 inch tv's then 4k is great, even then 6k will be fine.
Comments
Are you saying what he wrote is inaccurate? From a practical perspective, taking out apple talking points, I can easily tell a difference in pixel density from my iPhone 5s and a phone with 1080 screen.
The screen shown if the markers are 1mm, is 326 dpi, same as current screens. Scaled to 16:9 4.7-inch screen would be 751x1336 pixels. Of course 4.7 does not mean 4.700, so it could be 750 x 1340 or something else close. Or someone just shot a picture of a current screen and this has nothing to do with the new phones.
I hope they will increase to 400 PPI or more because I do see the difference between those densities with my glasses on.
It's much more pleasurable watching video on an iPad, so you're in the minority.
Are you saying what he wrote is inaccurate? From a practical perspective, taking out apple talking points, I can easily tell a difference in pixel density from my iPhone 5s and a phone with 1080 screen.
That's not what we were discussing, he and I. We were talking about a survey about what people do with their phones that suggested watching video is low on the list. That's a related but separate issue from perceived benefit of increased pixel density.
Oh, I know, the number of iPads people whip out on the train is...
Hm, "none."
Agreed...
True but if there was a 5.5 would they drop resolution, probably not, they would likely target it as same ppi as iPhone is now, as I have also come to wonder since IPad mini is same as iPhone in ppi would the 2.5 inch difference drive ppi that much up, another .8, would it be in the 400s, 500s?
UHD on a phone is a gimmick.
True
I guess, but then again if it is recorded via device that would not be a problem.
You'd notice difference, but not enough to make the battery/gpu kill worth it.
I doubt this is true, but my nearsidedness allows me to see the pixels.
Results may varry:
Not really, battery going to go down on fact the exact ppi anyway.
TV and phones should always have different resolutions.
This can always be said, but then the 600 ppi devices already out are going go, doubles not true, let's go for ultra hd then 1200 ppi.
I personally don't see use of a TV at high resolutions either, 4k is about 120ppi on 60 inch, all I see on TV neccesary is 100ppi, thus unless we see 100 inch tv's then 4k is great, even then 6k will be fine.
Apple is not decider of market gimmicks, they following the gimmicks is waist
No one needs to carries iPads around with them all day.
It's much more pleasurable watching video on an iPad, so you're in the minority.
No one needs to carries iPads around with them all day.
No one needs to watch video on a titchy screen; what's your point?