Now roughly 5-inch display – though the world’s smallest 1080p – is in awkward place. It’s way too big for a phone, and way too small for a tablet. But that density is buttery rich, and we want it. Tech like this needs to be scaled in either direction (or both, please) for it to be useful. But either way, the days of pixelation on the screens we pack with us are numbered. Goo-oood riddance. [Ortus via DVICE]
ozoneocean
Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 8:17 PMThat’s all a bit of a gimmick really. I’m a graphic artist by trade so image quality is my thing. I can’t notice the pixels in normal use on my HTC Desire and that’s just an AMOLED screen at 480 x 800 pixel screen at 3.7 inches.
People didn’t even complain about the iphone 3 at that’s a neolithic 320 x 480 at 3.5, so it is really pretty much empty figures in the end.
The stats are real, but the effect they have is more personal perception, wishful thinking and a little bit of dick measuring. Let’s be honest here.
Horsey
Tuesday, May 17, 2011 at 3:54 PMGreat point. My wife has a 3GS so I dragged her into the Apple shop to marvel at the brilliant resolution of the screen on the 4…
She couldn’t see the difference.
Nath
Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 10:11 PMToo big? It seems a great size for a phone, assuming that picture is about the size the 5 inch screen is.
Adam
Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 11:00 PMWho makes it? Maybe it could be for the PSP NXG?
Angus
Saturday, May 14, 2011 at 11:42 PM“It’s way too big for a phone, and way too small for a tablet.”
That’s your idea of a slap in the face is it?
Cameron Standring
Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 12:41 PMWow, and people were saying Samsung’s 10.1″ 2560×1600 display was too much! As amazing a piece of tech this is, it really is unnecessary – correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it the case that the human eye can’t really see a difference beyond about 300ppi? I know I can’t see a huge difference between the Galaxy S (260ppi) and iPhone 4 (326ppi), although it is definitely there, and I recognise the benefits of such a high pixel density. All things considered, 1280×720 would probably be a perfectly fine max resolution for a 4.8″ screen – that gives you a 305ppi, and I can’t really imagine there being any visible difference between such a screen and Ortus’ display. That said, such levels of pixel density would be very useful when applied to the tiny displays used in wearable video devices like this: http://www.tested.com/ces-2011-hands-on-sony-3d-headset/47-248/
Tech like that uses a pair of very small displays (which means it can also do very good 3D), and so being able to have 720p-1080p resolution on those tiny 1.8″-or-so displays would be glorious.
TSH
Monday, May 16, 2011 at 12:27 PMHonestly, I can’t believe this wasn’t the first thing I thought of! :–D. Being able to produce displays at this kind of density at a *commercially viable* cost really starts to make wearable screens worthwhile.
sam
Sunday, May 15, 2011 at 4:47 PMthis is such old news. They announced this in november of last year.