So you thought that 1280 x 720 pixel display on your Samsung Galaxy S III looked good? Chinese smartphone maker Oppo plans to launch a new phone with a 5 inch, 1080p display.
In other words, it will have 441 pixels per inch, giving it a higher resolution display than pretty much any phone on the market, HTC One X and iPhone 4S included.
The Oppo Find5 X990 is also expected to have a Qualcomm Snapdragon S4 quad-core processor and Android 4.1 Jelly Bean software.
The phone is still in the development stages… which means there’s plenty of time for a competitor to rush a phone with a 1080p display to market first. I’m just not sure why anyone would want to.
Apple did a pretty good job of popularizing the idea of a “retina” display, which means that you can’t pick out individual pixels with your eye while holding the phone a reasonable distance from your face. Apple says the magic number is around 320, and while sharper is always better, a 441 ppi display on a 5 inch phone might be overkill.
On the other hand, if it doesn’t add substantially to the cost of the device, the more pixels the merrier.
via The Droid Guy, Unwired View, CNMO, and IT168
But its have a Quad core with new gen GPU thats is made just for thats 😀
Its a kick in the ass of the suposely most thin smartphone out there 😉
No, 441dpi isn’t too much density. If it was, then laser printers would have stopped evolving after they hit 300dpi. The more we move to a paperless society, the more we will need displays that will equal what printers can do.
You shouldn’t confuse DPI with PPI, especially when referring to different mediums, as they don’t mean the same thing and aren’t really directly proportional.
A sharp original
outputted on an Epson inkjet for example usually means 240 PPI is sufficient, while the printer prints at 1440 DPI.
While what’s sufficient can vary according to size and distance viewed.
Hmmm. If the color depth is set to 1-bit (on both printer and monitor), then are DPI and PPI equivalent?
No, color depth bit is a separate factor from DPI/PPI.
What you’re suggesting would only remove number of colors/gradients but wouldn’t change details. Though it’ll be harder for people to see the difference.
No, I’m trying to understand what sets DPI and PPI apart.
A display manufacturer generally will not count sub-pixels when stating the resolution of a monitor, but I think printer manufacturers generally DO count sub-“pixels” (in this case various color ink dots) when stating the specs of a printer. Therefore you would get a wildly higher PPI spec stated for a given monitor’s DPI equivalent.
If so, I was trying to eliminate that variable by hypothesizing a scenario in which both the printer and display are set to 1-bit color. In such a scenario, could you say that DPI and PPI are equivalent, or is there still something else I’m missing?
What’s set DPI and PPI apart is that they’re different ways at image conversion. You’re not ever going to get a exact equivalence, only at best a approximate one.
Besides, they’re not the only factors to image quality.
Well, the GPU has to work much harder to move that much pixel, so while it is nice to have a retina display, it is definitely not easy on the batteries.
Yes, along with putting a higher performance load on these devices and actually making it harder to run high quality games, etc.
Comments are closed.