I think mobile HD screens are seriously overrated. 800x480 is totally adequate.

[Ridemyscooter86]

I disagree with OP, I was playing with my brothers lumia 920 and I have a focus S and you can definitely tell the difference in the screen resolution. Now between 1080 and 720 on a phone, I don't think it will be that much of a difference but between 800 x 480 and 1366 x 768, its about 2x the resolution, definitely noticeable.

 

[BeaverJuicer]

I can make out differences in sharpness between the Lumia 920 and the DNA, but only when reading high contrast text and I need to shove each device up one nostril to do so.

I heard that when shoved up a nostril, the Android smells like horsesh**, whereas the 920 smells like adventure... Can you verify?

But seriously, I have gone from a 360 x 480 @ 188ppi to 480 x 640 @ 250ppi and am now on a 768 x 1280 @ 334ppi phone and have noticed huge differences each time, but I honestly think that I have reached the limit of what I would be able to detect. At a normal viewing distance, my phone display looks clearer than my 1080p TV playing HD content. I could see 1080p being worth it on a tablet, but certainly not on a phone that still fits in your pocket.

 

[travisel]

I love my ATIV S Super AMOLED 4.8" 720p with 306 PPI but knowing that Samsung has a new Super AMOLED 5" 1080p @441 PPI coming...can you say Galaxy S4 & ATIV S2 can you say insane!

Imagine the move from 306PPI to 441PPI is stunning!

Guys trying to justify 4" 480p less than 300PPI display's that's crazy.

The human eye can see up to around 425PPI is the limits of the human eye level.

Samsung new Super AMOLED 5" 1080p 441PPI display has more than 100 pixels per inch more than the iPhone 5 326PPI and stretched beyond the limits of the human eye level.
Now that's innovation!

 

[James8561]

as much as I hate apple, i have to give them the nod in the display and graphics departments.
they have figured out the best compromise for ppi.
for smartphones, ppi in the low 300s is optimal.
for tablets, ppi in the mid 200s is optimal.
going higher or lower and you sacrifice more than you gain.
listen to apple on this, guys. they are the ones who made "retina" after all

 

[a5cent]

and stretched beyond the limits of the human eye level. Now that's innovation!

Yep, increasing device cost, reducing battery life, reducing frame rates in games and lowering maximum brightness and viewing angles... all those sacrifices... only to achieve an increase in pixel density (PPI) which goes "beyond the limits of the human eye" (meaning nobody can tell the difference) is innovation. /s

Edit: It isn't entirely useless, but it should be called nerd-focused marketing, not innovation.

The human eye can see up to around 425PPI is the limits of the human eye level.!

Hogwash.

Ophthalmologists do not agree on the amount of detail the human eye can resolve. The experimental approach (asking people to sort images from low to high PPI) suggests the practical limit is around 600 PPI (some say the brain can subconsciously resolve higher PPI but that is somewhat esoteric). However, that really is the best case scenario, implying:

• perfect eyesight
• perfect prints (on ridiculously expensive paper, not on a digital display)
• under perfect lighting combining all the wavelengths of light which are most helpful to the human eye
• allowing people to get up as close as they want (certainly way below normal reading distance)
• allowing a lot of time to scrutinize

Barely anybody has perfect eyesight. Smartphone displays are nowhere close to replicating a high quality print (contrast, reflected instead of emitted light, etc.). In day to day life we don't get perfect lighting. Normal people tend to maintain half an arms length reading distance, and unless you have some kind of pixel fetish, you won't be spending significant amounts of time attempting to discern individual pixels. All that reduces what we are practically able to resolve on a smartphone display, which is why most people don't perceive a benefit beyond 300 PPI.

I think some would actually look a lot less silly by admitting to enjoying spec sheet pissing contests.

 

[Chregu]

I think some would actually look a lot less silly by admitting to enjoying spec sheet pissing contests.

Well, who doesn't? And that was supposed to be the point in my post ;-)

The only company that can successful tell people what they do NOT need is in my view Apple.

 

[a5cent]

Well, who doesn't? And that was supposed to be the point in my post ;-)

The only company that can successful tell people what they do NOT need is in my view Apple.

Everyone likes pissing contents. I agree ;-) Nothing against that. The question is whether it is spec sheets that define the winner.

People who actually understand hardware and software technology (professionally involved in development, as opposed to just being interested), are very often less interested in specs sheets, as they recognize them for what they really are (mostly marketing material). They tend to prefer measurements. Tell an IC engineer that you know you've got the fastest smartphone because it contains an 8-core CPU clocked at 2GHz and you will just get laughed at. This has already been debated back and forth a million times, so I'll leave it at that.

You might also want to take a look at this, which suggests specs may not be quite as important as many think:

http://forums.windowscentral.com/upcoming-rumored-devices/196926-specs-vs-performance.html

 

[Chregu]

Everyone likes pissing contents. I agree ;-) Nothing against that. The question is whether it is spec sheets that define the winner.

People who actually understand hardware and software technology (professionally involved in development, as opposed to just being interested), are very often less interested in specs sheets, as they recognize them for what they really are (mostly marketing material). They tend to prefer measurements. Tell an IC engineer that you know you've got the fastest smartphone because it contains an 8-core CPU clocked at 2GHz and you will just get laughed at. This has already been debated back and forth a million times, so I'll leave it at that.

You might also want to take a look at this, which suggests specs may not be quite as important as many think:

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I do care about numbers in commercials; what I'm trying to say is that many people do, and if Microsoft can't just ignore that.

 

[congusano]

Consumers love big numbers. Cars tout horsepower as a selling point (but you never hear of power to weight). digital camera's tout high megapixel counts (but you rarely hear them talk about the sensor size that is incredibly small). Tv makers tout the contrast ratio as a bazillion to 1 (when in reality there is no standard, so these numbers are rarely accurate).

Point is, consumers want HIGHER and BIGGER numbers, because they think its always better. That is most often not the case.

 

[BeaverJuicer]

as much as I hate apple, i have to give them the nod in the display and graphics departments.
...
listen to apple on this, guys. they are the ones who made "retina" after all

Apple did no such thing. The term "Retina Display" was around for years before the iPhone4. Apple merely took a nice display (which doesn't even meet the ACTUAL definition of a Retina Display), slapped the term on as a marketing phrase, and sold it.

Analyst Challenges Apple's iPhone 4 'Retina Display' Claims | News & Opinion | PCMag.com

Stop buying into the marketing crap. It was a nice display for the time. There are many on the market now that smoke it. Like my Lumia 920.

 

[HeyCori]

Ok, so I have had the Lumia 920 and the 810 for a while now. After spending some good time with both doing everything from reading eBooks, web browsing, browsing photo galleries, playing games, watching both streamed videos and locally stored HD videos, writing emails, and browsing maps, I've come to the conclusion that such high PPI screens are overrated. Can I tell the difference?

I completely agree with you and a5cent. Before purchasing my 920 I was at AT&T comparing the sample pictures on the 920 and the 820 sitting next to it. I expected it to be a no-contest comparison between the two. After all, people have been saying for years that high rez screens are amazing.

Did the 920 look better? Of course! High rez screens are amazing! :grin: 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.

 

[socialcarpet]

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.

 

[berty6294]

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.

 

[th0mas96]

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.

 

[socialcarpet]

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.

The viewing angle sucks does it? What are you trying to do, view it from the side while holding the phone flat in your hand?

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.

 

[a5cent]

what I'm trying to say is that many people do care [about big numbers on spec sheets], and that Microsoft can't just ignore that.

We certainly agree on that one! :smile:

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).

 

[Chregu]

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.

 

[a5cent]

For example, if they announce WP8 could support an incredible high number of CPU cores, is this just a fun fact?

That is a great example of people repeating what they wanted to hear instead of what they actually did hear. All Microsoft said, is that the NT kernel they ported to WP8 can support up to 64 cores. WP is made up of much more than just a kernel however, most of which is tailored and optimized to run on exactly one SoC, which is a dual core S4 plus. If most everything else is targeted at a specific hardware platform, it really doesn't matter how many cores the kernel supports on its own.

In regards of screen resolution: If for 5 inch screens 1080p becomes the new standard <snipped>, why shouldn't Microsoft support that?

I never said they shouldn't. Go back and take a look at post #29.

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.

There were already news (rumors) that companies won't produce a 5 inch WP because of this limitation.

Yes, and for the reasons I stated above and in previous posts, it is good that MS didn't cave to such pressures.

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.

 

[kevinn206]

My gigantor LCD TV only has 1080p, and it looks awesome. Why do I need that in a little 4 - 5" screen?

The differnce of course is that you are not sitting 12 inches away from your tv.

 

[Chregu]

@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.

That is a great example of people repeating what they wanted to hear instead of what they actually did hear. All Microsoft said, is that the NT kernel they ported to WP8 can support up to 64 cores. WP is made up of much more than just a kernel however, most of which is tailored and optimized to run on exactly one SoC, which is a dual core S4 plus. If most everything else is targeted at a specific hardware platform, it really doesn't matter how many cores the kernel supports on its own.

Still, and I just have to write that, blame my rebellious side, why would they say this with the 64 cores (and I'm pretty sure they did it in a WP8 presentation!), if they don't want to imply they'll use it? Of course, it was showing off (they really didn't have much to say else, to be honest), but if you do that, there will be consequences. And if it is only one guy (me) in a forum, asking what this was all about ;-)

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.