Sharp punches out über-retina phone screen Japanese smartphone screen makers keep packing in the pixels. The latest to do so is Sharp. Today it said it will put a 5in, 1920 x 1080 LCD into production later this month. A quick tap or two on the calculator reveals that's 441 pixels per inch - rather more than the 326ppi the iPhone 5 delivers. Sharp said the display is …
Sharp makes the screens for Apple. If anyone is likely to get sued it will be Samdung again.
But if the screen in my fathers Samsung 3D TV is anything to go by then the world wouldn't miss Samdung screens if they did sod off. It has failed twice now and the engineer said he was doing 5 or 6 a week.
Honestly, I would like a higher screen resolution on my S2 than 800x480 like 720p or 1080p.. but for me the S2 screen size is the perfect size. I can just reach all parts of the screen without the use of my other hand, hence mobile.
To be fair, I'm pretty fond of it. If I could have an upgraded S2 with the same shape, size etc along with the 2000mah battery (it's an official thing samsung sell for the S2) I'd be perfectly happy.
What the hell for???
None of the punters who would look at it will notice a slightest difference comparing with a VGA-resolution screen at that same size unless they stick it with duct tape to their noses (and then they won't be able to focus on it anyway).
A real 35mm print is about 5M pixel, at about postcard size
Many photo frames are only about 640 x 272, (0.175 M pixel) or 800 x 480 (0.384M pixel) at best.
1920 x 1080 is just over 2M pixels which isn't bad.
I wonder what the power consumption is and can they do a 6" but 3:1 format 3600 x 1200 (21:9) which I think will fit in the pocket better than 5" 16:9
I wonder what it will be in?
Apple can trademark "Retina Display" as a name (if someone else didn't first). No way can they prevent anyone making any display they want and calling it something different.
Also Apple didn't design or develop the "Retina Display" in the iPhone. They buy a finshed product from Foxconn with the display developed and made elsewhere.
Mine's the one with the gadget showing very realistic photographs. Some dithering could be applied to increase the tonal range...
The back screen is 3 inches, 4:3 (to include some metadata below the photo and to allow you to shoot 4:3 if you desire) and packs 1.23 megapixels. So by my arithmetic that's a resolution of 1280x960 with real screen dimensions of 2.4x1.8 inches. Or slightly more than 533 pixels per inch.
And, to make the point, the photos look like real photos, light emittance versus light reflectance aside.
Not until it is released which will be in November. But the 920 beats the iPhone 5 is so many other ways like the camera.
The iPhone 5 camera is probably the second best around and much better than the Samdung Galaxy S3.
Nice test of the cameras here, the test was done in "auto" mode on all cameras. So it really illustrates how optimal the camera software and processing is in the 920:
http://www.engadget.com/2012/09/26/lumia-920-low-light-shootout/
This post has been deleted by its author
Honestly, I wish they'd combine this technology with their mastery in autostereoscopy and punch out a 3840x1080 (1920x1080 effective resolution) 22-inch glass-free 3D display and build a TV around that tech. Not everyone wants 3D games on large screens (heck, not everyone has space for 42" or larger screens).
... if they spent the effort improving the resolution of a 20+" monitor rather than a 5" screen. It's ludicrous that resolution increases have stopped at 1920x1080 all the way up to 27" (except a few like Dell U2711), when the same resolution is available on a 5" phone screen.
I think higher resolution "4k" TVs are in the pipeline built with this technology. Yields for phones are higher, margins probably better (they are notoriously shit for tellies) and there is a lack of 4k content so it's a bit of hard sell to punters at the moment who are already underwhelmed by the 3D bollocks the industry had unloaded on us over the last year, but there is still demand for higher pixel densities across a plethora of handheld devices. Tellies will get the panels are as part of the factory lifecycle. A bit too late for this year but we can expect announcement at next year's CES. Thinking about it I suppose 4k would be a reason for Apple to release its own TV.
Everyone here knows Retina is marketing bullshit for the terminal consumer.
It makes sense for Apple to introduce a new marketing phrase, marketing is what they do best, and god help anyone who tries to use the word to describe anything other than an apple device.
They know that they're not going to be able to keep up and constantly compete on technical specifications so they'll hide them, trademark whatever word they choose to describe them. They've done this at a point when their screen technology was at the head of the game, or near enough, I wouldn't expect improvements/innovation coming from Cupertino with regard screen tech any time soon.
Consumers won't be able to perform meaningful comparisons, consequently "Retina" becomes a de facto standard, other manufacturers won't be able to say "better than Retina" because of the threat of Apple legal division (second only to their marketing division).
Apple can't really lose doing things this way.
Apple have arguably pushed it (DPI) to the level beyond which improving further is a bit pointless. And remember it's only on the phones others have caught up, which Apple brought in ages ago. iPad3 and new MBP DPI still smash the competition (I don't know it's particularly useful but it's one area Apple have a clear lead, still)
I'm not sure I buy that argument.
This is essentially the argument being made there - "when we (Apple) improve DPI it's a vast improvement compared to all others and this technology does not ever need to be surpassed"
It sounds to me like you've truly bought into the marketing hype.
Also missing is the next part which is "remember we said that this technology didn't need to be surpassed, well we've found out that it does, here, buy our new overpriced technology with a much improved display, but it won't need to get any better than this one, this time, promise"
"Everyone here knows Retina is marketing bullshit for the terminal consumer. ... It makes sense for Apple to introduce a new marketing phrase,"
False. The concept of a "retina screen" and "retina resolution" was around long before Apple started its "Retina Display" push. You can't really be angry at Apple for making you aware of a term/concept that you didn't know about.
"They know that they're not going to be able to keep up and constantly compete on technical specifications so they'll hide them"
Also false. I don't know what presentations you've been watching or what reviews you've been reading for the iPhone 5 but it's all been color spaces, aperture sizes, megabits, and other technical specifications. The only things they arguably "obscure" are core counts, clock speeds, and amounts of RAM--all information that's discovered easily and quickly by others and published on Wikipedia once the devices are released.
"I wouldn't expect improvements/innovation coming from Cupertino with regard screen tech any time soon."
Hello? iPhone 5? They (well, their partners, obviously) dramatically increased the color space of the display and dramatically cut glare. Or do you mean we shouldn't expect improvements "anytime soon" because they just made huge improvements 2-3 weeks ago, so we'll have to wait until next year?
As already pointed out, it would make a nice photoframe screen, but other than that, it's a bit of a lame duck size.
It's too small to be worthwhile as a tablet screen (perhaps 7" at a minimum), but too big to be useful on a phone - Around 4" - much bigger is too cumbersome for a phone, which is what puts me off many high-end Android handsets and may put me off the Nokia 920.
We do need better resolutions on cheaper 12"-15" - too many laptops with 1366x768 out there.
There you need a high resolution (>Full-HD) in a limited space. Unless of course you are working with 2 displays per eye and use one for the "background" and one, with variable focus, for the point of sharpest seeing. You'd need some optics to move the image of the "sharp" display around.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
