Nucleon
Member
Although I question the legitimacy of this article, I will stress this pixel-madness disease that every mobile device manufacturer seems to be having right now.
I'd opt for something that's 2.5k or even the same as the sP3 if it means a much better battery life and much better performance, if they ARE doing a 4k, I would like smaller resolution options, since this size screen would have huge diminishing returns, especially in terms of how much power it would have to sacrifice to employ all those extra pixels.
It's possible to get even smaller screens if you see what they can fit into a smartphone, but at the distance, mobile device manufacturers have pretty much hit the ceiling on pixel density when it comes to utility; most of this is just overkill. I don't hold my tablet up to my face, and even if I did, I'd have a very difficult time seeing the pixels, and they're pretty much indiscernible on my phone, which is a 1080p display on a 5.5in screen (300-400ppi?)
Honestly I wish manufacturers would stop caring about the insane ppi of their competitors, phones is one of the biggest culprits, it drives the price up for something you can't tell the difference with, whilst at the same time draining more power than it needs to use for the sake of putting a larger number on their resolution for a difference hardly anyone will spot. I don't design monitors, but I'm pretty sure when your phone has twice the amount of pixels it needs to over the amount a human eye can't visually see, it's probably using a lot more power than it needs to.
EDIT: It seems I've missed something in the article about the "high end" version being 4k, my point still stands though.
I'd opt for something that's 2.5k or even the same as the sP3 if it means a much better battery life and much better performance, if they ARE doing a 4k, I would like smaller resolution options, since this size screen would have huge diminishing returns, especially in terms of how much power it would have to sacrifice to employ all those extra pixels.
It's possible to get even smaller screens if you see what they can fit into a smartphone, but at the distance, mobile device manufacturers have pretty much hit the ceiling on pixel density when it comes to utility; most of this is just overkill. I don't hold my tablet up to my face, and even if I did, I'd have a very difficult time seeing the pixels, and they're pretty much indiscernible on my phone, which is a 1080p display on a 5.5in screen (300-400ppi?)
Honestly I wish manufacturers would stop caring about the insane ppi of their competitors, phones is one of the biggest culprits, it drives the price up for something you can't tell the difference with, whilst at the same time draining more power than it needs to use for the sake of putting a larger number on their resolution for a difference hardly anyone will spot. I don't design monitors, but I'm pretty sure when your phone has twice the amount of pixels it needs to over the amount a human eye can't visually see, it's probably using a lot more power than it needs to.
EDIT: It seems I've missed something in the article about the "high end" version being 4k, my point still stands though.
