- 01-31-2013, 10:56 AM #51
Did the 920 look better? Of course! High rez screens are amazing! But did the 820 look bad, was the low resolution distracting, was it an unpleasant viewing experience? Absolutely not. The 820 looked gorgeous, especially with ClearBlack OLED technology powering it.
I've seen other phones rocking 800x480, with subpar pentile LCDs screens that looked absolutely atrocious. It's not just about the resolution. There's also the technology behind it, black levels, type of font used, and even how the UI works with the given resolution. All things Windows Phone and the 820/822/900 (etc) really takes advantage of.
The whole debate reminds me a lot of this screen comparison between the One X, 4S, and 900.
- 01-31-2013, 02:04 PM #52
As you said, 800x480 is adequate, but HD is certainly nicer.
It's not about what's necessary though. If we only used what we needed, we'd all have Nokia brick phones with 2" black and white LCD's.
Personally I enjoy the HD. It makes no difference with tiles, but the difference on webpages is dramatic. I have good eyesight and I can read many webpages without zooming in that I could never have read on my 900. That to me is a great benefit. I can view the full webpage at once and still read the content. Movies and photos also look much better.
I don't really get the need for more than 720p though. 1080 seems unnecessary unless the phone is going to be 5.5 -6". As silly as that is though, it seems to be where things are headed. Personally I can't imagine myself ever using a phone that big. The Lumia 920 is pretty much at the size limit that I'm comfortable with. 4.5-4.7" or so is it. If anything, I'd prefer a slightly smaller phone with a 4.2-4.3" screen but with the HD resolution.
- 01-31-2013, 02:08 PM #53
Imo the iPhone 5 screen is perfect. And I mean perfect! It is my favorite screen size exactly and the perfect resolution. No less, and no more is needed! That is the one and only thing I absolutely love about the iPhone 5.
01-31-2013, 03:04 PM #54
- 434 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
Well, I had the choice between the 820 and the 920, and I chose the 820, I even liked the display more! it may be a bit unfair, I just like OLEDs way more, but the viewing angle of the 920 just sucks. And I also used an iPhone 4S for almost a year, I can't say that I miss the resolution at all.
- 01-31-2013, 03:30 PM #55
This is such a strange argument to me. IT'S A PHONE. You hold it in front of your face. It's not a 56" plasma TV with 15 people trying to watch the superbowl.
I can turn my 920 any angle a normal person would look at it and anyone can look at it from over my shoulder and see it just fine. So please...
That said, I do miss the oversaturated color from the AMOLED screen, it may not have been photorealistic, but it looks awesome. The blacks aren't as dark on the 920, but given all of it's other massive advantages it's more than forgivable.
- 02-01-2013, 02:27 AM #56
I'm guessing we differ only in how we think Microsoft should react to that situation. I'm guessing you believe Microsoft has no other option but to prepare WP for a specs war with Android. Basically, that WP should adopt the same hardware focused strategy of continually and incrementally improving the spec sheet. I would disagree.
I think Microsoft has two fundamental choices. They can either (a) let everyone else decide how WP8 devices should be judged and stacked up against the competition, likely resulting in a specs war as Google is the market leader, or (b) they can attempt to define that themselves.
A large part of current smartphone culture stems from Google deliberately choosing to delegate that marketing task to hardware manufacturers. Being hardware manufacturers, it isn't surprising that they decided to compete on specs. That is what such companies have always done, actual benefit to the consumer be damned. Apple has shown an incredible talent for defining this themselves and working market perception to their benefit. As far as I can tell, Microsoft hasn't chosen to do anything at all. They seem complicit in allowing everyone else to choose their own terms by which to judge WP... it's a PR ship without a rudder.
Stated differently, Microsoft hasn't given the WP community a single thing to hold up against Apple or Android or even BB. Consequentially, against Android, WP must compete based on specs. Against iOS, WP must compete against Apple's image and their reputation for robustness and simplicity. Against BB, WP must compete on security and "enterprise readiness". Everyone else has setup the battlefield on which they intend to fight, except Microsoft. How great is it, that WP must fight every battle on everyone else's home turf? Microsoft is doomed to loose all those fights if they can't offer a compelling narrative of their own.
I'm not saying WP is inferior across the board. I wouldn't be here if that were true. WP's current advantages just aren't easily reduced to simple and marketable concepts.
Since Microsoft has so far failed to introduce any narrative whatsoever, many naturally look to the largest battlefield were a specs war is being fought (1080p, 8-core CPU's, 4GB RAM, etc), which really amounts to nothing more than playing into Androids oily metal hands. WP just isn't setup to do that. There is no happy ending at the end of that path.
To sum up, I agree that Microsoft can't ignore the people who think that specs are the proper way to judge a smartphone. But that doesn't mean WP must fight by Androids rules. Microsoft just needs to provide us with a better narrative. Microsoft needs to make a more compelling argument who WP is for. That doesn't need to be the same market segment that glorifies hardware specs (which is actually quite small).
- 02-01-2013, 03:05 AM #57
You're right, but in this case I see mixed signals coming from Microsoft.
For example, if they announce WP8 could support an incredible high number of CPU cores, is this just a fun fact?
In regards of screen resolution: If for 5 inch screens 1080p becomes the new standard (and it is), why shouldn't Microsoft support that? As far as I've gotten to know Microsoft in regards to Windows Phone, they will just add the new resolution in a future update, when everybody thinks "too little, too late". There were already news (rumors) that companies won't produce a 5 inch WP because of this limitation.
I always feel like Microsoft is a little late to the game and hesitating.
But just to remind you, I'm really happy with my 8X.
- 02-01-2013, 04:24 AM #58
I'm only saying it shouldn't be supported in WP8. Why? Many reasons actually, not the least being that it makes many types of apps far more expensive to develop. That is the opposite of what WP needs right now. The easier and cheaper it is to develop apps the better. I already mentioned quite a few other drawbacks to higher resolution displays in a previous post. Go back and take a look. The point is, high PPI displays have drawbacks as well as benefits. Both must be weighed against each other. Android OEM's don't do that. If it looks better on a spec sheet it is a done deal. WP8 supporting three resolutions is enough.
IMHO WP8 should stay as is, while WP9 should adopt 1280x720 and one additional high-end alternative, possibly 1920x1080. I think 1600x900 may also be an interesting alternative, as it would maintain an excellent PPI of 367 at 5", while taxing the GPU a lot less. That would instantly give games on WP an edge over their 1080p based Android cousins, as the WP GPU would need to push 40% fewer pixels enabling either higher frame rates or better graphics. Considering nobody would notice a difference in sharpness anyway, that sounds like a good idea to me.
Last edited by a5cent; 02-01-2013 at 04:43 AM. Reason: Spelling
- 02-01-2013, 04:42 AM #60
@a5cent I see your points and I agree. I only would like to say, that I didn't question what you are writing, but tried to bring in the general consumers view.
I just remembered something: Intel was able to train people, that not the tact rate is telling something about the power of a CPU. And this after pushing the tact rate for years just to get bigger numbers. Also many people understand nowadays, that in cameras the pixels aren't the only thing that counts. So maybe there will something similar with PPI and smartphone displays.
- 02-01-2013, 05:06 AM #61
BTW: tact rate = clock frequency ;-) Very good English otherwise!!
Agree with your other points as well, including the part about Microsoft showing off. That Intel could retrain people to think of cores as the main indicator of performance instead of clock frequency is also true, but it is just as false. All just marketing.
02-01-2013, 09:10 PM #62
- 266 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
5" 1080p Smartphone standard for 2013.
- Samsung Super AMOLED 1080p 5" 441 PPI
- LG AH-IPS 1080p 5" 440 PPI
- Sharp LCD 5" 1080p 443 PPI
- Sony Bravia 5" 1080p 442 PPI
- HTC has a Super LCD 3 1080p 5" 440 PPI
Don't be surprised to see new top end Smartphone's all using 5" display's in 2013!
- Nokia Lumia 940
- Samsung ATIV S2
- iPhone 5S
- Galaxy S4
- HTC has 3 in the making.
Should see 2500 mAh battery's to power them?
Marketing or not there coming.
08-27-2016, 10:26 PM #63
- 1 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
a question about resolution, and I think I know the answer, but I would like the community to confirm what I think is right or set me straight...
the question is this: which scenario would offer the best quality video. for the sake of argument, the movie selected in this scenario is "The Martian".
a 20" 720p TV playing a DVD at 4 feet away
a 40" 1080p TV playing a BluRay at 8 feet away
a 80" 4k TV playing a UHD disk at 16 feet away
- By jkrc717 in forum Nokia Lumia 810Replies: 9Last Post: 11-06-2012, 01:26 PM
- By jkrc717 in forum Nokia Lumia 920Replies: 1Last Post: 10-31-2012, 06:42 PM
- By jlangner in forum Windows Phone 8Replies: 14Last Post: 10-30-2012, 09:45 PM
- By bobdonkey in forum Upcoming & Rumored Windows PhonesReplies: 9Last Post: 10-06-2012, 04:24 AM
- By jkrc717 in forum Nokia Lumia 820Replies: 1Last Post: 10-03-2012, 06:45 AM