Do we need 1080p?

[snowmutt]

We are getting a tad personnel here, gang.

Relax. Breathe. It would be a shame for this thread to be closed because of negativity. There is a LOT of good information about screen tech on this thread. I have actually learned more then a few things.

@ah06, @neo158, and several others have made really great points.

@martinmc78 has made me laugh out loud.

This thread has hit all the bases for me, at least.

 

[paulxxwall]

I haven't compared it on my Lumia 920 but on my tv I can definitely tell the difference between 720p and 1080p so im sure you could probably tell the difference on a device or they would not have made them

 

[ah06]

@ah06 Picking parts of my quotes to suit you is pretty childish. I already stated that on devices above 6 inches 1080p is needed, guess you missed that part. I guess you also missed out a line on another post saying that the post was heavily laden with sarcasm.

If you're of low enough intelligence and don't understand sarcasm I forgive you. However you seem to be attacking everybody in this thread that doesn't agree with you which just isn't on. People are entitled to opinions, doesn't make them right or wrong. As the saying goes opinions are like a$$holes. Everybody's got one.

You're coming acoss like you have a very large opinion. (No sarcasm in this post)

Taking one line of my post and using it as an example that someone would bite the 4K bait and then pasting a snarky image is exactly what you did. I even pointed it out that you left out the context and implied I had less common sense. That's a personal attack. I then posted quotes from you and now you're complaining? So it wasn't childish when you did it but it is now?
Actually opinions can make you right and wrong. You are right, everyone has an opinion and they are worthless. Facts and data matter. When people are posting that it is "Fact" that you cannot tell apart 720p and 1080p on a 6" display then that IS wrong. That opinion makes them wrong. 1080p > 720p. That's an objective thing. I posted sufficient data to suggest that. This isn't red vs blue or a subjective preference issue.

Was I, how would YOU know what I was thinking. YOU are the one who's factually incorrect about everything, ok bye, don't let the door hit you on the way back to Android Central!!!!

I'll put this in the most civil manner.
Fact: Mega 6.3 does not have a 1080p screen, buying that device to get 1080p doesn't work. You asked me to go get a Mega 6.3 if I wanted a 1080p device. What part am I factually incorrect about?

 

[a5cent]

No. Pretty clearly no. He asked on phones. Phablets are now phones. It is very much an OS support qn then.

Okay ah06. If the OP was really asking: "does it really make sense for WP to support 1080p", then we all agree that "yes", it must (for phablets). I just doubt that was the OP's question. I think the question was: "can I expect a notable display quality improvement from 1080p on a device like my L920". If that was the question, then we are still in agreement that the answer is "no", as it is for all devices below 5". Even above 5" I suspect a lot of people won't give a **** about 1080p, simply because the majority of people (the normal and sane ones) simply aren't that picky. Yes, factually the human eye can make out a difference above 5", but whether that's a relevant difference is purely a matter of personal preference that we can't really argue over.

As far as I'm concerned, that part of this discussion is settled, so I will bail out here and stop adding to the confusion by responding to your comments that weren't directed at me in the first place.
:wink:

No it isn't wrong. WP SPECIFICALLY and CURRENTLY handles all devices as having effective resolutions of 800x480.

I obviously agree that WP can, under certain circumstances, show more content on devices with larger screens. After all, that is the primary purpose of getting a larger screen, is it not? What I'm objecting to is your assertion of screen resolution being involved as well.

IMHO we must also specify whether we are talking about directx apps, the web browser or the normal UI stack, because none of them render their screen content in the same way. It's impossible to make a decent argument without knowing exactly which of them you are referring to. So far it seems you've been talking about the web browser, but I'm not sure.

For the web browser, it is entirely up to the user to determine zoom factor. Each of us has a preferred font size that we are comfortable reading. Given a bigger screen, we can fit more text of that size onto it. But again, that is only due to the larger screen. Screen resolution has absolutely nothing to do with it. Replace my L920 with a 7" device @ 720p (same resolution as L920) and I'll easily fit more of any given web page onto it. Resolution is only important in terms of how sharply the individual web page elements, particularly text, are rendered.

For directx apps there will be absolutely no difference whatsoever. If the larger screen has the same aspect ratio as the smaller screen, then the rendered image will be identical. All you'll get on the larger screen is a bigger version of the same picture. Of course, an app could allow the user to configure the D3D viewport and other such settings, but that is up to the app. If the app provides such settings, then it can do so for any device using any display size at any resolution. Again, this is entirely resolution independent.

Finally, there is the traditional UI stack. If this is what you're talking about, then that warrants a post of its own, as it's by far the most complicated. Still, even here, resolution isn't what determines how much content fits on screen. Anyway, before diving into this issue, lets get the other two scenarios out of the way first, because if we don't agree on them, then we certainly won't agree on this one either.

Hoping you're with me so far, but fully expecting you to disagree. :winktongue:

 

[DalekSnare]

When my glasses are off I can't tell if it's 100x100 or 1080p at that distance. I hold the phone much closer so I can even read it. And at that range, 1080p looks much, much better.

 

[The Hustleman]

No, you can't see a difference.

Pixel density means more than 1080p on a phone

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[psudotechzealot]

I do. A 5.5 inch screen with at least a 3000 mah battery. Make it happen Nokia.

 

[AngryNil]

Regarding the claim that you can't tell a difference... bulls**t.

And you back this up with… what exactly? If in usage you can't tell the difference, you are wasting processing cycles and power. My WVGA Pentile Omnia 7 really had a bad screen where I could see the lack of detail, and PenTile ensured colours bled and made it look overall awful. The jump to 720p was a real difference for me. But who has gone on record in saying 720p looks that kind of bad compared to 1080p?

Reality is your eyes don't see infinite detail, and if you're holding the screen a reasonable distance from your face, you would, at best, barely see the improvement. I don't see why this is such a big deal for you, not everyone is interested in an incremental improvement in one regard. Not everyone may be interested in seeing some of the inter-app communication and multitasking scenarios I want in future either. Opinions can differ, who would have guessed?

As for the battery life argument... again, bulls**t. How's the battery life on the S4 or One? And on the Lumia 920?

Weaksauce. The correct question would be what the battery life would be on a 1080p S4 versus a 720p S4.

I really don't understand why anyone wanting the future of Windows Phone to succeed would suggest that we don't need a technological improvement... 1080p, quad processors, or any other feature. I'm sure the same arguments were made about accelerometers, compass, NFC, and any other feature.

Whether we as users need something is a different question from whether the platform does. One is predominantly concerned with actual usability, while the other can be highly motivated by simply maintaining currency. But to answer the general question, because it's about delivering the best experience, not the best specs. Some may wish to trade a nigh-unnoticeable increase in screen resolution for better performance and battery life. Whether a 400+ PPI screen poses a net benefit over a 300+ PPI screen is a very different question from whether the existence of an accelerometer does.

Here's perhaps a quick example: 820 vs 920. The 820 doesn't stutter in games. The 920 does. This is because of WVGA vs 720p, period. This is why if I was given the choice between 720p and 1080p on the same chassis, I'll gladly take the 720p device. You can choose the "technological improvement", I'll enjoy a smoother experience. It's not a context-less question of worse screen quality versus better screen quality, it's about what trade-offs you are willing to make.

 

[The Hustleman]

I do. A 5.5 inch screen with at least a 3000 mah battery. Make it happen Nokia.

Yes!

Get rid of that ridiculous amount of bezel and give us the "windows 8 note" or something!

Give us options

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[psudotechzealot]

Yes!

Get rid of that ridiculous amount of bezel and give us the "windows 8 note" or something!

Give us options

Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[The Hustleman]

Lol @ that



Sent from my SGH-T999 using Tapatalk 2

 

[OzRob]

Selling points are useful as long as they sell something practical and useful, which 1080p on a phone isn't.

No. Selling points are useful if they convince people to buy into a product/platform. A selling point CAN be something practical and useful, but doesn't have to be. In the case of WP, in its present position it needs every selling point it can get.

Selling points are also about negating 'show stopper' differences. If the general public perceive a particular selling point to be a 'must have' (whether its something practical and useful or not) then not having that selling point means no sale. Once again, in its present position it needs every sale it can get.

So for me, the debate is not about whether 1080p is necessary from a technical point of view, or even desirable from a practicality aspect (battery life), it's about knocking down barriers to potential sales. And with something like 1080p, there's really only two ways of doing this. MS either has to support it so it becomes a non-issue (and by the way, not every WP will need to have a 1080p screen, only one or two high-end models, but the OS needs to support it), or MS needs to educate potential customers on why it's not necessary, and even more importantly, why it's not even desirable. If they don't do either of these things, then they will lose some sales they might otherwise have had.

At the moment for WP, sales momentum is more important than purity of vision and technical 'correctness'. Those of us who spent the 80s watching the ever-dwindling lines of Beta video titles in the rental store are keenly aware of how a critical mass of users trumps technology issues when it comes to long-term viability.

 

[GoodThings2Life]

What I find amusing about reading through all the responses is the bullet list of reasons against this improvement:

1. Performance -- We're to believe that adding 1080p right now would immediately result in lower video/game performance. Agreed, because you need appropriate drivers and GPU power to process it all, but your same argument suggests that Microsoft plus OEMs wouldn't include the required improvements. I don't buy that argument, and I believe the reason we haven't seen it yet is precisely because Microsoft doesn't want to introduce that into the hardware spec until they can overcome such limits.

2. Battery Life -- We're to believe that just adding 1080p would suck more power. Duh, of course it would. How much more? Nobody has offered any idea. The appropriate comparison would be an S4 vs S4 Mega, but I haven't seen any posts providing details, and again I suggest that it would be up to the OEMs to decide what kind of increase/changes were appropriate for a given model. I'm not interested in looking up the specs, but I'd hazard a guess that the S4 and S4 Mega have different battery specs for exactly the argument provided here, so nixing the idea on WP on this merit alone is kind of lame.

3. Perception -- We're to believe that nobody on earth can ever tell the difference based on some ridiculous set of conditions, most of which are generally true, and yet... we all know that people are stupid and only care about "bigger is better numbers" regardless of whether we understand those numbers. Surface Pro is 10.1" 1080p display and nobody would argue that a comparably equipped MacBook Air with Retina would be a "bad thing". Why? Not because it's actually better, but because we all know that whether we can "see" a difference or not, people hear "Retina" and assume it's better. Hell, this weekend I saw Sony advertising 4K televisions, and yet I know for a fact that without media input sources (discs and satellite/cable sources) that 4K resolution doesn't mean jack squat. And yet, I buy 4K monitors at my hospital for viewing radiology images for the radiologists... because I know that they're actually better for that purpose.

4. Niche Product -- We're to believe that a 1080p phone would only be interesting as a niche product and for phablets. Well duh! Of course they are, and yet Samsung and HTC are selling them to people. Exactly the way a 41MP camera on a phone will be a niche. People want these options, clearly... who are any of us to deny that market potential?


The point I'm continuing to make and remind all of you -- especially those of you who are being ridiculously narrow-minded about all of this -- is simple... YES! YES! YES! These types of improvements are absolutely, unarguably necessary for the success of the Windows Phone platform to survive. Regardless of whether the improvements are real or imagined, regardless of whether the improvements are nothing more than marketing hocus pocus, consumers-- not techies like those of us on this forum, but the REAL people out buying tech based on the recommendations of their friends and family-- see these details in advertising and they believe the hype.

If you're okay with the status quo of Windows Phone only pumping out designs and hardware that "meets real needs", then continue to argue against 1080p and quad cores and whatever else is around the corner. If you want the platform move forward and succeed so that we have a relevant purpose here at WPCentral, then you need to wake up and accept that it doesn't matter whether we need 1080p on phablets or hype it up for a 920-like device, people expect this stuff, and if they can't get it from WP they're gonna get it from Android.

Personally, I'll stick with WP, absolutely, and frankly if the design and function of a 1080p display is right... hell yeah, I'd buy one, even if my eyes aren't gonna notice a difference. If not, I'll stick with what I like. My opinion, however, is that Microsoft hasn't released it yet precisely because they want to "get it right" and make it worth our effort.

 

[Kellzea]

1080p is confirmed as coming.

Why is everyone still arguing about this?

 

[SnailUK]

If you're okay with the status quo of Windows Phone only pumping out designs and hardware that "meets real needs", then continue to argue against 1080p and quad cores and whatever else is around the corner. If you want the platform move forward and succeed so that we have a relevant purpose here at WPCentral, then you need to wake up and accept that it doesn't matter whether we need 1080p on phablets or hype it up for a 920-like device, people expect this stuff, and if they can't get it from WP they're gonna get it from Android.

Whilst those are nice, you read the windows phone suggestions thing, and 1080p, and quad core are way down on the list.

Android is very interesting in that respect, they have the market cornered on price, they've closed the app gap with with iOS, so now there's very little to pick between phones. Every day you get a phone thats 1mm thinner, or 1gram lighter, or got more cores, or more megapixels. Yet look at the bank balances. Other than Samsung (who make the parts for everyone), nobody is making money.

You've got to question whether there's actually any money in the fight for the high end, and therefore, Microsoft, Nokia, etc could actually be correct in leaving everyone to fight over the pennies in the high end, then just clean up late, when everyone in Android land has paid for all the R&D, and pushed the price of stuff down to a point they can make money.

 

[ah06]

You've got to question whether there's actually any money in the fight for the high end, and therefore, Microsoft, Nokia, etc could actually be correct in leaving everyone to fight over the pennies in the high end, then just clean up late, when everyone in Android land has paid for all the R&D, and pushed the price of stuff down to a point they can make money.

While I see and agree with the general point of your post. I do have to point out that the argument that no one makes money on Android is a little bit worn out.
Samsung makes a tonne of money (as you correctly pointed out, although they're component supply to other OEMs is no longer nearly as strong, so just the profits from the mobile handset division is more than enough) but even Sony is now recovering quite well and LG is on its way. HTC is still struggling. Basically it had more to do with their own internal issues than with Android.

On the other hand, who exactly is making money with WP? No one yet.
So Samsung makes money on Android proves that exact opposite of "no one can make money on Android", whilst going by the factual info from when WP was launched, no one has made any real money on WP yet (including Android OEMs like Samsung, LG and HTC). Again the point I'm making is not that you can't make money on WP, just that OEMs haven't been able to not because of OS, but mostly because of other internal issues.

I'd say if Nokia was making Android handsets, they would steal a massive chunk of Samsung's share. They are everything Samsungs are not. In the process they would make a tonne of money and then 2 OEMs would make a bundle of cash on Android. The bulk of their Symbian userbase migrated to Android, they would have migrated to Nokia Droids then.

The only point I'm making is OEM financials based on OS is a bit of a stretch, it has more to do with the OEMs themselves. Both flagship WPs and Androids sell for about the same price and have similar BoMs.

The biggest fallacy about this OS finances discussion is that WP is not a separate pool. Nokia cannot wish away Android OEMs and say we are the big fish in a small pond because ultimately WPs and Androids are sold side by side in store shelves. They are EXACTLY the same pool (carrier stores, retail stores, potential customers). That is the real problem even a first class OEM like Nokia faces and is borne out by facts that the overwhelming majority of their previous userbase migrated to Android. WP and Android are different but not so much that they are selling to entirely different userbases in entirely different areas where a user considering one would never look at that other. I would go as far as to say that the users do not actually make the WP vs Android decision before buying, instead the majority base their decisions on the totality of the device (including OS as one of the factors if they are indeed aware of the OS)

TL;DR: Android doesn't doom your company. You can make money on Android. WP doesn't necessarily guarantee better success as an OEM.

 

[ah06]

Finally, there is the traditional UI stack. If this is what you're talking about, then that warrants a post of its own, as it's by far the most complicated. Still, even here, resolution isn't what determines how much content fits on screen. Anyway, before diving into this issue, lets get the other two scenarios out of the way first, because if we don't agree on them, then we certainly won't agree on this one either.

Yes. Consider the DirectX scenarios out of the way. Games will render the same amount of content, just larger. Browser zoom sizes can be altered but there ought to be some difference in 100% view or completely zoomed out view as implemented on 6" 1080p devices.

I very much mean the other stuff specifically such as the greater number of tiles, larger number of emails displayed, longer lists in the people hub displayed per page and all around more more more that you will only get on 1080p devices (although ok, more as a consequence of them ALSO being 6" devices). Hence, you can argue that 1080p doesn't cause this but it is definitely what enables it. (So yea we can split hairs between causation and indirect co-relation). The main reason we are getting this is because we have larger displays, and having the same UI content displayed on a 6" device defeats the purpose of the extra 1.5-2" over a 4-4.5" device. So they are giving us more, but in order to GET to 6" "flagships" of *similar* pixel density as current devices, we will need 1080p.

So as far as 1080p being a OS support requirement vs user preference thing, I stand entirely opposite to your stance in that I believe it needs it for providing first class experiences on new form factors, especially wearables. In term of actual pixel density, its implementation on larger screens ensures we do not see that much improvement in ppi, we just dont see a *regression* which could be caused due to 720p

(This next part not aimed at you, just clarifying previous points)
There are two factors can determine the perception of resolution here, ppi and distance. Distance is a constant here for handsets since the use case is same (Arms length). What I can't get my head around is so many people are happy with 350ish ppi on *current* devices but are *against* 350ish ppi on phablets because it would mean moving to 1080p. But everyone admits it was quite the improvement when we moved from 480p to 720p. Well in PPI terms, that's the exact same improvement we will get again. i.e When we went from 480p to 720p we, we actually went from 230ish ppi to 350ish ppi. Going from 720p to 1080p on 6" devices is pretty much the exact same improvement from 230ish ppi to 350ish ppi, just on larger devices (yes I know many people accounted for device sizes, buts dozens more did not, no point arguing that the community as a whole seems convinced of 1080p and forcing me to quote the numerous people who argued that even on 6", it is no improvement and worthless even at that size.)

Then 720p is also worthless at 4.5", lets go back to 480p on 4.3". That's the same ppi at the exact same distances.
If you could see the difference between 480p and 720p on 4.5"ish devices, then you will see the same difference between 720p and 1080p at 6" (With the same before and after ppi), that's the scientific fact which I proved in previous page. Not opinion.

And another fact is that WP phablets are inbound. Ergo, WP needs 1080p as a matter of OS support (rather than user preference). In fact for what its worth, I will continue to buy 720p devices coz the only thing that matters is ppi (which is similar on 4.5" 720p and 6" 1080p) and I prefer the smaller 4.5-5" screen to the 5.5"-6" screens of phablets.

 

[manicottiK]

I think that the "no 1080p" crowd is really saying "don't raise ppi to 450+ because most folks won't be able to see the visual improvement, but everyone will feel the cost in higher battery life." An improvement from 72ppi to 150ppi to 300ppi makes obvious sense because pretty much everyone can see the improvement. Going from 300ppi to 1,000ppi has less benefit since few (no?) people would benefit (except marketing and media folks!).

I don't think that anyone is really opposed to 1080 on a larger screen. As you noted, on the larger screen, the greater number of pixels allows the density to remain the same, getting more info in without making it incredibly tiny. Further, although there's a cost to drive a larger, hi-res screen, the benefit (bigger screen) is visible to all.

I suspect that some of the folks worried about the coming age of phablets are worried that "reasonable-sized" phones will disappear, leaving them with no good choice in handsets.