Sony: 2K smartphone screens are not worth the battery compromise
61 replies, posted
The DPI probably is unnoticeably different with that screen size anyway unless you use a microscope.
[QUOTE=dai;45892520] Oculus threads all over the internet are full of blind hopefuls going on about how they should [i]totally[/i] consider using a 4k display, like it's just a setting you can type into the specs and suddenly it exists and will [i]totally[/i] work on your midrange gaming machine that doesn't run dual 780ti's[/QUOTE]
But you look at a Rift screen at point blank range, through magnification lenses. It totally makes sense to use a 4K screen.
Does that mean current midrange computers can output 4K at high enough framerates on demanding games? No.
But a lot of people have high end gaming PCs, a lot of VR applications/games aren't so graphically demanding, in the future 4K rendering will become a lot more accessible (perhaps by the time the consumer version Rift comes out), and even if you don't actually feed 4K into the screen you'll still have the advantage of no screen door effect.
Phone's for utility and time killing, tablet is for entertainment on the go.
I agree with them, how about less quality over full HD screens and more focus on a battery that lasts more than 6 fucking hours, if they made a smart phone that had a battery that lasted over a day while using without charging i'd buy that in a heartbeat, had my new phone two months and the battery is already lasting less than 7 hours without the need to charge it and all i'm doing is playing spotify on battery saver mode ironically.
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;45892689]But you look at a Rift screen at point blank range, through magnification lenses. It totally makes sense to use a 4K screen.
Does that mean current midrange computers can output 4K at high enough framerates on demanding games? No.
But a lot of people have high end gaming PCs, a lot of VR applications/games aren't so graphically demanding, in the future 4K rendering will become a lot more accessible (perhaps by the time the consumer version Rift comes out), and even if you don't actually feed 4K into the screen you'll still have the advantage of no screen door effect.[/QUOTE]
I've been using the DK2 for hours on end daily since I got it, and I'm fully aware of the still low viewing DPI. I'm not saying it shouldn't get more density, I'm saying:
• the only benefit to 4k on a phone is bragging rights
• we've seen this before with the megapixel race. Consumers rarely if ever benefit from the change in specs
• the benefits of 4k on an oculus right now would require exponentially higher power to utilize for the same results as smaller displays and defeats the purpose of making this an accessible technology
I sure hope they reach the 2k range by the consumer release, though the price point would likely be uncomfortable compared to what we've been expecting
I used Panasonic's prototype 4k 20" tablet when they came through my office a month or so ago, and the resolution at that scale was still amazing. I doubt (but am crossing my fingers that I'm wrong) that we'll get 4k crammed small enough for a phone and/or oculus mounting for another two or so years, and even then it'd come at hefty compromises
[QUOTE=dai;45893162]• the only benefit to 4k on a phone is bragging rights
• we've seen this before with the megapixel race. Consumers rarely if ever benefit from the change in specs[/QUOTE]
No contention, as I've posted above.
[QUOTE]• the benefits of 4k on an oculus right now would require exponentially higher power to utilize for the same results as smaller displays and defeats the purpose of making this an accessible technology[/QUOTE]
If you've been using your DK2 so much, surely you're aware of the wide range of applications that don't actually require that much graphical power. A single midrange card should be able to render them at 4K 60fps+ (though actually outputting 4K 60fps is currently limited to higher end models).
And as I said before, even if you don't actually drive the Rift at native resolution, the screen DPI will be higher, reducing screen door effect (or quite possibly eliminating it altogether). Remains to be seen how upscaled images would look on a 4K Rift though.
[QUOTE]I sure hope they reach the 2k range by the consumer release, though the price point would likely be uncomfortable compared to what we've been expecting[/QUOTE]
With all these 2K phones out [I]right now[/I], I don't think a 2K panel is going to make it too expensive - the panel is not what decides the prices of these. But of course, that's just speculation.
Is anyone else really annoyed with the name 4k? Like 360p, 720p, 1080p and such all use the vertical resolution, why do we have to switch it up?
[QUOTE=itisjuly;45891765]Phones need what phones need most, long battery life and good call quality, not super dense screens.[/QUOTE]
But muh angry birds!!
[QUOTE=DrTaxi;45892109]4K is not two times 1920x1080.
4K is 1920 times two (= 3840) times two times 1080 ( = 2160), so four times 1920x1080.[/QUOTE]
I meant that you halve both the horizontal and vertical resolutions. I know the maths and you could tell what I meant.
[QUOTE=Ericson666;45893578]Is anyone else really annoyed with the name 4k? Like 360p, 720p, 1080p and such all use the vertical resolution, why do we have to switch it up?[/QUOTE]
It's because it's two different standards. What we brand as 4k isn't actually 4k either, since actual 4k is a different aspect ratio. The naming of 1080p comes from a different source/standard as 4k.
[QUOTE=Levelog;45893808]It's because it's two different standards. What we brand as 4k isn't actually 4k either, since actual 4k is a different aspect ratio. The naming of 1080p comes from a different source/standard as 4k.[/QUOTE]
they're all 4k. just different varieties
[QUOTE=dai;45892520]let's be honest, consumer bases are dumb as rocks. They'll look for the best boasted spec, and the one tangible thing everybody knows about is how awesome their screen resolution is. Before that we were going nuts over face about how many megapixels the iphone cameras were
It was (and still is) the same way for small point-and-click cameras, boosting up megapixels (often at the cost of a LOT of quality during the goldrush phase between 8mp and 14mp averages) This was all eaten up despite the fact the overwhelming majority of people buying consumer grade point-and-clicks are uploading things straight to facebook, viewing them on the computer, and occasionally printing out small photos on a mediocre home printer. To put it in perspective, 8 megapixels is dense enough resolution to print on an 8.5x11 sheet of paper at 300dpi. 300dpi is dense enough that you need to get really close or use a magnifying glass to really complain about anything when using [i]good[/i] paper, paper that bleeds a bit is going to muddle everything up anyways.
right now we've got people going absolutely nuts over 4k displays without consideration for what's really special about them. I saw a massive TV with 4k and it was denser than my computer monitor, what makes you think slamming even half of that on a phone will do you any good? Oculus threads all over the internet are full of blind hopefuls going on about how they should [i]totally[/i] consider using a 4k display, like it's just a setting you can type into the specs and suddenly it exists and will [i]totally[/i] work on your midrange gaming machine that doesn't run dual 780ti's[/QUOTE]
Well, 5.6" 4K displays do exist, they're just ridiculously expensive and difficult to manufacture right now. 5.6" 4K OLED displays still don't exist, to our knowledge.
That said, nobody who knows anything is suggesting people run games at 1:1 on a 4K screen in 3D, because that's literally impossible with consumer-grade hardware right now. What people are suggesting when they (And Carmack, Luckey, and the rest of the company) say they need 4K or similar in a CV1 is that they want the high-density display to eliminate the screen door effect. Which is important. With upscaling, you wouldn't need dual 780ti's, as long as you could hit 1080p/75/90FPS.
But I'm sure you knew that already, considering you spend a lot of time following this stuff.
i have a LG G3 with a QHD screen (1440 x 2560 pixels, 538 ppi)
its great and the battery life is longer than my last phone that has a 1080p screen
you can have a super high res screen and not have terrible battery life. it's called not cheaping out on the fucking battery
[QUOTE=Ericson666;45893578]Is anyone else really annoyed with the name 4k? Like 360p, 720p, 1080p and such all use the vertical resolution, why do we have to switch it up?[/QUOTE]
One reason is that 2160p sounds odd, but it's accurate and more reliable. Other reason is that "4k" came from us looking at the next big thing, "Hey, why not cinema resolutions" 2k, 4k, 5k, 8k has to do with the width of the image since cinema sensors are measured on width. So 4k is 4096pixels wide. Even though 3840x2160 is UHD "4K".
It just caught on.
[QUOTE=Wii60;45894688]i have a LG G3 with a QHD screen (1440 x 2560 pixels, 538 ppi)
its great and the battery life is longer than my last phone that has a 1080p screen
you can have a super high res screen and not have terrible battery life. it's called not cheaping out on the fucking battery[/QUOTE]
Really though, what tangible benefit does having a 4k resolution on a ~5" screen offer vs sticking with 1080p? Shit, I've seen the 1080p display on the new Google Nexus 7 and that's PLENTY crisp.
[QUOTE=Brt5470;45891826]How bout you start cramming more pixels into desktop monitors and not a screen the size of a fucking playing card.
Edit: Sorry, I got angry. Please, we don't need more than 1080p in a phone.[/QUOTE]
That would actually be delicious as fuck if they'd cram the same dense pixels into a desktop monitor-sized screen.
9600*5400 on a 25" monitor. *droll*
[QUOTE=Tools;45896340]That would actually be delicious as fuck if they'd cram the same dense pixels into a desktop monitor-sized screen.
9600*5400 on a 25" monitor. *droll*[/QUOTE]
[I]What is this, a UI for ants?[/I]
Battery technology is still very immature. Companies should be focusing on this rather than iterative "innovation".
[QUOTE=Wii60;45894688]i have a LG G3 with a QHD screen (1440 x 2560 pixels, 538 ppi)
its great and the battery life is longer than my last phone that has a 1080p screen
you can have a super high res screen and not have terrible battery life. it's called not cheaping out on the fucking battery[/QUOTE]
But if they used a 1080p screen, you'd still have better battery life.
Without [I]any[/I] practical downsides for the consumer.
[QUOTE=itisjuly;45891765]Phones need what phones need most, long battery life and good call quality, not super dense screens.[/QUOTE]
But I need to see the scars in the skin pores!
I have shittiest phone yet best battery around all. Even at 10% I am sure it will last day.
[QUOTE=Wii60;45894688]i have a LG G3 with a QHD screen (1440 x 2560 pixels, 538 ppi)
its great and the battery life is longer than my last phone that has a 1080p screen
you can have a super high res screen and not have terrible battery life. it's called not cheaping out on the fucking battery[/QUOTE]
I have it too but the battery usage is weird. streaming 1080p video and decoding h.264 mkvs with heavy typesetting is fine, running pandora while using the GPS does nothing to my battery, but reading a VN drains the hell out of it despite it using very little power according to battery usage stats
sounds like something someone who isn't good enough to develop 2k smartphones would say
edit: oh come on it's a joke
[QUOTE=Wii60;45894688]i have a LG G3 with a QHD screen (1440 x 2560 pixels, 538 ppi)
its great and the battery life is longer than my last phone that has a 1080p screen
you can have a super high res screen and not have terrible battery life. it's called not cheaping out on the fucking battery[/QUOTE]
All the people i've heard complaining about the screen on the G3 draining the battery have the brightness on max, which is a stupid thing to do.
Lets get some proper Graphene battery technology into play first
can we STOP using this "4k" "3k" "2k" stuff???
what was confusing about using the vertical resolution?
LG G3 user and can confirm it is fantastic, and you can CLEARLY see a difference from 1080p.
Whether or not it is worthwhile is down to the user, but for me in regards to photographer / videography, it is most certainly worth it.
Side by side you will see a difference quite clearly in real life.
Why would my phone need a higher resolution than my TV this is just getting silly
[QUOTE=matreox;45905600]LG G3 user and can confirm it is fantastic, and you can CLEARLY see a difference from 1080p.
Whether or not it is worthwhile is down to the user, but for me in regards to photographer / videography, it is most certainly worth it.
Side by side you will see a difference quite clearly in real life.[/QUOTE]
I will be upgrading from the N5 to the N6 mostly for the DPI boost. It's the backlight that sucks power, not so much the LCD, so total screen power use mostly depends on physical screen size. The only difference the resolution will make is increased power use by games, but not simple UI shit. This article is just a Sony ad.
It's about high time manufacturers start paying attention to battery life.
[T]http://i.imgur.com/q0Z47fp.jpg[/T]
On the left: battery of the Galaxy S3 Mini GT-I8190 -1500 mAh, made in 2012
Right: Battery of the Galaxy S Plus GT-I9001 - 1650 mAh, made in 2011
I mean come on, that 2012 battery has a larger footprint, but yet it has less capacity just because they want to make their phones paper fucking thin.
[T]http://i.imgur.com/H4YaBCs.jpg[/T]
My GT-I8200N (S3 Mini) lasts a day and a half with a bit longer than a hour of display time, and the GT-I9001 lasted 2 days and a half with about 2 hours of display on, and I did exactly the same tasks on both of them.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.