Tuesday, February 28th 2012

Samsung Miniaturizes 1920x1080 Pixels Into A 4.8" Display

Thought the 1920x1200 pixel 10.1-inch Super IPS+ display with ASUS Transformer Infinity tablet carried shock-value? Wait till you hear what Samsung's innovators have been up to. They've managed to develop a market-ready 4.8-inch display for the upcoming Galaxy S III smartphone that packs a whopping 1920x1080 pixels resolution, which smokes Apple's Retina display the iPhone 4S comes with (960x640 pixels in a 3.5-inch screen), or the 1280x800 pixels AMOLED screen Samsung's own Galaxy Note phone-tablet-thingy comes with. Then there are PC monitor vendors with the audacity of selling 27-inch monitors with the same 1920x1080 pixels resolution for upwards of $500. Multi-billion Dollar price-fixing scam much?

Source: BGR
Add your own comment

64 Comments on Samsung Miniaturizes 1920x1080 Pixels Into A 4.8" Display

#2
sneekypeet
Unpaid Babysitter
"upcoming", so no can has, just yet!
Posted on Reply
#3
THE_EGG
by: sneekypeet
"upcoming", so no can has, just yet!
I can haz concept then ? :D
Posted on Reply
#5
R_1
Well, they should get their act together and incorporate some Cortex-A15 SoC in SGS3, else newgen phones , based on Krait will smoke that Samsung , no matter if it has 720p or Full HD screen. :toast:
Posted on Reply
#6
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
overkill? yes, definitely
Posted on Reply
#7
Goodman
Fine for pictures , movies... maybe?
But for texts at 1920x1080 on 4.8" screen :shadedshu

-Hey! why are you slapping my screen for?
I am reading...

-Sorry! i thought it was a bug running on your screen...

-It's ok no harm done , now where did i drop my magnifying glass...?
Posted on Reply
#8
Completely Bonkers
Great stuff! Finally we are seeing high pixel densities on consumer stuff. It means - with the history of the PC industry lagging behind glossy consumer toys - we should soon see quad pixel count displays on x86 devices.

GPU manufacturers AMD and nV wake up! Are you ready to drive these resolutions on your mobile platforms? We don't need 3D at these resolutions (scale it from a lower resolution) but we do need a snappy desktop at 2560x1600 or more on a small laptop/netbook. Will you be able to deliver? Or is Intel going to beat you to it with their next chipset capable of 4k x 4k? Better hurry up AMD and nV or it will be game over for mobile chipsets for you!

by: Goodman
Fine for pictures , movies... maybe?
But for texts at 1920x1080 on 4.8" screen :shadedshu
Luddite! 1920X1080 is a still lower dpi resolution than a standard laser printer output. What you talking about, trying to keep screen qualities below printer qualities? I guess you are also OK with VGA 640x480. Why more for your 30" desktop, right? Do you remember dot matrix printer? Well essentially we are STILL in the era of dot matrix quality when it comes to screen font rendering. FINALLY we are seeing progress. But there are people camping out progress :shadedshu
Posted on Reply
#9
DarkOCean
Look at those tiny bezels...gorgeous! I hope this helps push 720p screens on to mainstream phones.
Posted on Reply
#11
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
by: Completely Bonkers
Great stuff! Finally we are seeing high pixel densities on consumer stuff. It means - with the history of the PC industry lagging behind glossy consumer toys - we should soon see quad pixel count displays on x86 devices.

GPU manufacturers AMD and nV wake up! Are you ready to drive these resolutions on your mobile platforms? We don't need 3D at these resolutions (scale it from a lower resolution) but we do need a snappy desktop at 2560x1600 or more on a small laptop/netbook. Will you be able to deliver? Or is Intel going to beat you to it with their next chipset capable of 4k x 4k? Better hurry up AMD and nV or it will be game over for mobile chipsets for you!


Luddite! 1920X1080 is a still lower dpi resolution than a standard laser printer output. What you talking about, trying to keep screen qualities below printer qualities? I guess you are also OK with VGA 640x480. Why more for your 30" desktop, right? Do you remember dot matrix printer? Well essentially we are STILL in the era of dot matrix quality when it comes to screen font rendering. FINALLY we are seeing progress. But there are people camping out progress :shadedshu
intel? beat in gfx? lulz...

i just worked on some atom notebook.. crappy everything... and still it burnt my thigh!
Posted on Reply
#12
btarunr
Editor & Senior Moderator
by: Goodman
Fine for pictures , movies... maybe?
But for texts at 1920x1080 on 4.8" screen :shadedshu

-Hey! why are you slapping my screen for?
I am reading...

-Sorry! i thought it was a bug running on your screen...

-It's ok no harm done , now where did i drop my magnifying glass...?
Did it strike you that they could use higher DPI fonts, which will not only be legible but also smoother?
Posted on Reply
#13
erixx
Goodman, are you using Win95? It has been a long time since the OS did not adjust font size according to screen size!!!! LLOLL
Posted on Reply
#14
Yo_Wattup
The point of Apple's retina display - the definition of it - is that once your viewing distance exceeds 12", the average human eyes cannot differentiate between individual pixels, meaning larger resolutions would be pointless, including uses such as smoothing large size fonts.

I wont go into the maths, but I'm pretty sure 1920x1080 @ 4.8" has a higher DPI than 960x640 @ 3.5" (iPhone 4). Rendering the display useless. I could be wrong about the size/dpi thing, but I doubt it.

I own a 4.8" tablet and it's resolution is 8**x4** (cant remember exactly) and pictures and videos look stunning on it.

This display is a huge numbers thing, just like bulldozer for example; 16mb cache, 8 cores, 4.1ghz turbo! Sounds great right? In reality it wont make a shit of difference, because our eyes aren't good enough.
Posted on Reply
#15
gumpty
I'm all for higher res displays, but is it true that most people can't really see any extra detail above 300dpi? If so, this res display isn't really going to benefit the end user much.

Just done a quick calc here and it looks like that display has 458 dpi. Which is, frankly, ridiculous.

I love it. MOAR PIXELS!
Posted on Reply
#16
Completely Bonkers
by: Yo_Wattup
The point of Apple's retina display - the definition of it - is that once your viewing distance exceeds 12", the average human eyes cannot differentiate between individual pixels, meaning larger resolutions would be pointless, including uses such as smoothing large size fonts.
What kind of printer do you have at home or in the office? Would you be happy with a dot matrix? Can you perceive a different quality between a 150dpi, 300dpi and 600dpi printer? Glossy magazines are printed at circa 240dpi. Did you know that? This device is therefore printing at a similar print density to a glossy magazine ASSUMING you hold it twice as close to your nose as a glossy magazine. Sounds about right.

Have a read: http://webvision.med.utah.edu/book/part-viii-gabac-receptors/visual-acuity/ http://clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

by: gumpty
I'm all for higher res displays, but is it true that most people can't really see any extra detail above 300dpi? If so, this res display isn't really going to benefit the end user much. Just done a quick calc here and it looks like that display has 458 dpi. Which is, frankly, ridiculous. I love it. MOAR PIXELS!
1./ I agree it is at the limit, but not ridiculous. There is no news about the colour resolution at this pixel resolution. Perhaps it is 4bit colour and needs to dither? EEEeewwww.
2./ Will people complain about stuck pixels any more? Or with this manufacturing technique can we be more forgiving of dead and stuck pixels ;)
3./ People "just love" the idea of augmented reality and headup displays. Well, for a HUD we need even higher density as these devices get closer and closer to the eye

by: de.das.dude
intel? beat in gfx? lulz...i just worked on some atom notebook.. crappy everything... and still it burnt my thigh!
Intel will never beat in 3D gfx. Well, not for a long time. But for 4k x 4k desktop. They have ALREADY beaten AMD and nV. Only Intel has this chipset ready now. (or lets say, just about ready). IMO the 2013 is going to be all about pixel density and NOT about 3D. Look what is happening with Nokia's entry into the digital camera world. A super 41MP pocket camera. The area where consumer and prosumer has lagged over the last few years has been in display quality and pixel density. This is beginning to change and a significant "catchup" is needed. For 2D devices, netbook, laptop, phone, tablet, I think we will see that as a market trend in 2H 2012 and 2013. THAT is my prediction at least.
Posted on Reply
#17
hardcore_gamer
iPhone doesn't have a retina display. Its a false marketing. A normal human eye has an angular resolution of about 50 cycles/degree. At 12 inches, a "real retina display" should have a pixel density of more than 470 pixels per inch.
Posted on Reply
#18
Completely Bonkers
... which according to gumpty's calculations is what this device is.

=1920px * sqrt (16²+9²)/16 /4.8"=458.94px/inch
Posted on Reply
#19
bostonbuddy
Dragging and dropping hd mkv's from my comp to phone w/o having to worry about resizing is why this screen is cash money.
Posted on Reply
#21
micropage7
Samsung Miniaturizes 1920x1080 Pixels Into A 4.8" Display
interesting? yes but usable, right now i guess no
although it could improve the display it aint help much, like when you do texting, browsing etc
Posted on Reply
#22
KashunatoR
could this be the galaxy III? fudzilla says it is...
Posted on Reply
#23
Aldouz
OMG :eek:, I always dream to have FULL HD device I can hold in my hand...
Samsung u make my dream come true :D
Posted on Reply
#24
theonedub
habe fidem
1080P on a screen like that will be pretty crazy. My Note's screen looks incredibly sharp as is, I can't imagine even higher resolution on a smaller screen. I think using a 720P Super AMOLED Plus (RBG Stripe) screen would be more practical.

*Other sites have said the pic is a photoshop.
Posted on Reply
#25
de.das.dude
Pro Indian Modder
by: hardcore_gamer
iPhone doesn't have a retina display. Its a false marketing. A normal human eye has an angular resolution of about 50 cycles/degree. At 12 inches, a "real retina display" should have a pixel density of more than 470 pixels per inch.
well isnt that what Apple is all about?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment