Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Samsung's 2014 flagship to have 2,560x1,440 display and 16 MP camera
- Thread starter Brandon263
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'm talking about people with average human eyesight.
I don't know. You might have exceptional eyesight. People with average eyesight will NOT see 4K on a 65" TV from 8' away. They will see the higher color depth coming from the new Rec 2020 standard (whenever hardware supporting it - and an HDMI standard that supports it - finds its way to market). I feel quite safe in predicting now that people with average eyesight will NOT see 2560x1440 resolution, much less 4K on a phone screen! I also feel completely safe asserting that this new flagship phone will not support this new color standard (Rec 2020).
It's not about eyesight, it's about knowing what to look for. A lot of people still don't see a difference between DVD or Blu-ray because they don't know what to look for. A lot of people don't know the difference between lossless and lossy audio because they don't know what is it that they have to listen to. A lot of people don't know the difference between a high end or low end smartphone, they only buy it because of the brand.
But overtime, some of those people develop the knowledge and do see, hear or know the difference and they won't go back. Just because some people can't tell DVD's apart from Blu-ray, doesn't mean technology should stop advancing and those people who can appreciate shouldn't get 4k technology at the comfort of their own homes.
Imagine if they stopped pushing boundaries of cell phones back in 2008. Sure, we wouldn't know what we were going to miss, but isn't it great that they kept moving forward? I welcome the advancements in technology and it will be great.
It's a shame that they couldn't make Blu-ray 10-bit color at that time and they had to settle for 8-bit. Having said that, I hope that the 4k Blu-ray discs will have 10-bit color. I don't want it to stay at 8-bit just because others might not see a difference in color depth.
There's going to be increasingly diminished returns from pushing higher resolutions in phone screens. 1080p is already overkill and looks fantastic, it'd be far more beneficial for everyone if Samsung focused, for example, on pushing better battery life in their S series.
Well better battery life would be great, but these companies continue to insist on making these phones thinner. Even if they do develop a more powerful battery, they would probably take advantage of reducing the battery to make a super thin phone and we would end up with a similar battery life.
Sure, 1080p looks fantastic on phones, but once we are able to see the difference with a higer end display, we'll see what we were missing.
While training ones' eye is a key part in seeing all the differences in UHD vs HD, it only goes so far. In other words, it can't overcome biology.
My point has nothing to do with cell phones stopping pushing boundaries in 2008. Advancements to specifications with no benefit to the user is only attractive to specs shoppers.
To a certain extent, but there is a difference between 2k/1080p and 4/2160p. Remember that for as great as Blu-ray movies look on our 1080p displays, these films are at a lower resolution, for the most part, than the original recorded source. A movie like Avatar would not benefit from 4k because it was recorded in 2k, but for the other movies, the differences will be noticable. Plus, we are getting a compressed file in a Blu-ray movie, although we don't notice it now because we only see them on our 1080p display.While training ones' eye is a key part in seeing all the differences in UHD vs HD, it only goes so far. In other words, it can't overcome biology.
My point has nothing to do with cell phones stopping pushing boundaries in 2008. Advancements to specifications with no benefit to the user is only attractive to specs shoppers.
Once you can, see a Blu-ray movie on a 1080p display and it will look great. Now, when you hook up that Blu-ray player and play that movie in a 4k/2160p display, you will quickly start to see the flaws of blu-ray and just how bad it looks when compared to true 4k content. The same way that DVD's looked great in our old CRT TV's, it wan't until we began watching them on our new HDTV's that we realized how crappy they actually were.
Advancing to UHDTV is not just for specs, it actually is a real improvement in technology. A great example of advancements in specs with no benefits would be if they came out with a new Super Blu-ray player and they made new discs for that format. Current Blu-ray movies average about 30Mbps to 40Mbps. But this new Super Blu-ray player offers the same Blu-ray movies at 1080p, but they encode them at 200Mbps. That truly would offer no benefit to the user, only bragging rights, but in the end it would look the same.
That's why I gave the example of cell phones. Why would we want cell phones displays to stay back at qhd (960x540) or low end HD of (1280x720)? Why increase the MP of the cams to anything beyond 2MP, why add a stronger processor or even a 64 bit processor? Most people won't notice the difference anyways. But that isn't the point, the technology is there and why not advance it?
4k display is a noticeable advancement in technology, not just for the specs
4k display is a noticeable advancement in technology, not just for the specs
Yes. I agree. It is.
Just not on a phone.
Yes. I agree. It is.
Just not on a phone.
I've always felt the same for larger screens, but now realize I was wrong. Larger screens can and do work for phones. I also felt 1080P might be overkill on a phone again I was wrong. When I look at my co-worker's GS3, the screen sharpness is night and day from my GS4 or Note 3. So I welcome the higher resolutions with open arms. My 13.3 inch, 3200x1800 ultrabook screen looks amazing. Bring on the goodness.
4k display is a noticeable advancement in technology, not just for the specs
True but the problem is there is very little true 4k content available now and it will be years before 4k is even available from a satellite provider if at all. Most companies have just upgraded to 1080 HD cameras to shoot their content and that was expensive, now they would need to buy 4k capable cameras? Not a chance anytime soon. Its also too much data for a cable connection to handle, most cable isn't even full 1080, its 720. I believe the majority of people in the US have cable, not satellite. So there is that. Not to mention how difficult it would be to upload 4k video in its native size to online websites and then the bandwidth needed to put it back out for consumption on a mobile device. I really don't see 4k ever taking over. If it does it will be 5 years at least.
Agree completely but I think I heard that Sony are working on/may have already developed a codec that compresses 4k to a size even more manageable than bluray. Could be wrong though.
I work with photo and video for a living. If its a lossless compression, that would be great but that would be a difficult task. Compressing it and losing quality would defeat the purpose.
So, if we've already reached a point where we can't see the pixels on modern phones, it really does mean WE CAN'T see the difference between two screens where we already can't see the difference.
How is this so hard to comprehend?? What are people imagining that they can see?
This is garbage! I demand a 12 inch 4k resolution display with no less than 2,473ppi, no less than 12 cores, the ability to wirelessly transfer 4k quality movies to my television, a 54 megapixel camera and 22GB of RAM!
Seriously though, this is getting out of hand. Its a PHONE!
Yup. Feel like Samsung just wants spec bragging rights with this news
Well I don't have a 4k phone display to prove otherwiseYes. I agree. It is.
Just not on a phone.
but when I do, I'm sure the difference will be as noticable as a simple upgrade from qhd to 720p on a phone. But we'll see You don't need to rely on Cable or Satellite or for 4k content. The BDA is already approving 4k Blu-ray and with the HEVC/.265 encode, it will be easy to fit 4k content on those 100GB to 125GB Blu-ray discs. All they have to do is approve them, and sell them as a Blu-ray combo pack. Have a regular 2k/1080p Blu-ray and a 4k/2160p - 2k/1080p combo Blu-ray combo pack and adaptation will be easy. Cable providers will take a long time.
I actually think that the transition to 4k will be easier and quicker than what it was to HD. Back then, we didn't have personal HD camcorders, there was no disc source for HD content and very little HD content available when the first HDTV's came out. The progression to 4k will happen at a much faster pace.
----------
It's not only not being able to not see the pixel, it's how it improves the sharpness and clarity of the entire screen that the 1080p phone screens can't provide. I high pixel density on a low resolution image is great because it won't look as bad, but it won't provide the same detail as a higher resolution image.
Last edited:
I'm sorry I'd prefer to believe my own eyes rather than what someone else tells me what I can and can't see. But you know what the best part in all this is? You don't have to buy any of it. Stick with what you like. Leave the future to the open minded.
Meh...
I am a spec slut, and even I must admit that we have arrived at the point of diminishing returns. There is a notable difference between the note 2, and 3 screens. We needed that bump to 1080p screens. I'm not convinced that any higher will make much of a difference. Regarding the camera putting in headlining specs like 16mp doesn't mean much if the software is garbage.
My dream phone would stay at, around 12mp, and todays widths, and weights. If they could find a way to oragami, a larger sensor in there with OIS I would be so happy. The only metric that can be improved, anymore on smartphones is the image quality, and just tacking on a few more MP won't help.
I am a spec slut, and even I must admit that we have arrived at the point of diminishing returns. There is a notable difference between the note 2, and 3 screens. We needed that bump to 1080p screens. I'm not convinced that any higher will make much of a difference. Regarding the camera putting in headlining specs like 16mp doesn't mean much if the software is garbage.
My dream phone would stay at, around 12mp, and todays widths, and weights. If they could find a way to oragami, a larger sensor in there with OIS I would be so happy. The only metric that can be improved, anymore on smartphones is the image quality, and just tacking on a few more MP won't help.
Im not too sure consumers are going to run out and spend thousands of dollars on a 4k TV they can only use to watch movies, especially when most consumers have just upgraded to HD pretty recently. Most people cannot afford to have one set for watching TV and one just for movies, especially when the one just for movies would be thousands of dollars. Its not even practical. If 4k ever does take off, its going to be a long time still.
When the 720p phone displays came out, people thought it was great and 1080p wouldn't be needed on a phone. Now that we've seen how 1080p looks on a phone, we appreciate it and see the improvement. Just give 1440p a chance on a phone and once we can actually see it, you will see what we were missing with 1080p.
It would be great if they can improve picture quality on the phones, but because of how thin they make them, there isn't much room for the camera lens. I agree that increasing the MP on the phones don't improve the quality of the picture, but since these phones have no optical zoom, the increased MP helps us crop picture and maintaining a better image as oppose to doing that on a lower MP Phone cam.
----------
It's not that they will run out to buy them, is that the 4k TV's will start replacing regular HDTV's at the stores. Prices will drop, and when people go shopping for a new tv, they will just buy the 4k tv. People will still be able to watch regular HD and SD content on those tv's anyways, they don't need one 4k tv dedicated just for movies when it can display everything.
Last edited:
I was dissatisfied with 720p on my note 2 from day 1. Coming from a retina screen it was a huge hit. Now even the note is higher ppi then iphone. I really can't complain. Even putting the note 3 inches from my eye I can't really spot pixels.
H.265. Still compressed, a full length movie would be in excess of 100-150GB. BluRay, whether AVC or MPEG can be 20-40GB with its extras, audio codecs, etc. quadrupole that....& there's your answer. Anytime a codec is compressed, it's lossy. RAW 4k on a RED cam (internally compressed with a proprietary algorithm) for the original cinema camera will fill up a 480GB SSD with approximately 50 minutes of footage. Shooting in ProRes (also lossy, Apple's FCP native format for easy editing, four hours on the same 480GB SSD. The production 4k cam recording ProRes will only allow about 60-70 minutes on the same 480GB SSD. Same time recording CinemaDMG RAW. For the pocket cinema camera....ProRes on a 128GB card will allow 70-80 minutes of footage and 30 minutes to the same card shooting RAW. Which really isn't 'raw' but it looks damn good. Keep in mind, they're now developing 5k and 6k cams. These are massive MASSIVE files. Even if h265 is everything it's promising, we are still looking at 'lossy' discs/cards/downloads of 80-200GB per flick! We are a ways off. Even though RED offers a deck for playback, there isn't any content now. Nor in the near future. 1080p has a LOT more going for it and can still be improved upon.
I think I'm with the majority....'Why?' Why would an OEM manufacture a 5" 4k display? Talk about an energy suck. As well...if we are already at 440-450ppi on these current 1080p displays....the iPhone @ 324(?)...and we can't see pixels, everything is sharp as a tack, why in the world would someone want to release a 2,000ppi 5" display for ANYTHING other than spec/bragging rights?
I don't disagree. I've played with, color corrected, transcoded and viewed a lot of 4k content on displays that my wife would never let me purchase shot with cameras that cost as much as my truck and editing on computers that are worth as much as my cabin! It's a very expensive endeavor right now and without distribution channels, limiting bandwidth and the 'speed' to reasonably download a full movie....or a medium to 'sell' it on, I'm not so sure we aren't at least 10-20 years from renting a 4k flick OnDemand or picking one up at the RedBox
Precisely. But there are ways to negate a lot of the information (visually) that the human eye can't distinguish at 24 or 29.97fps. Just like audio. SACD sure didn't take off. Nor did HD-DVD. The sound is phenomenal....but can't people only here '20-20'? I'm with ya. I listen to vinyl at home and the difference between analog and digital...to me, as a sound geek is night and day. Decay of a piano key, splash of a cymbal, overtones on guitars and horns...so much we might not be 'hearing' consciencously, but subconsciously, I believe our brains DO hear music and sounds below 20Hz and above 20,000. Even as we get older and objectively our hearing can be measured and shown to have degraded, RAW motion, stills and analog recordings are so much more 'real'. A demo at Best Buy on their 4k displays is incredible if you don't have access any other way....but on a phone? And the power on the SoC to make that work graphically without glitches would be astronomical.
But then again...what do I know. Samsung certainly knows how to make displays. I love my rMBP. That said, IMO....they should stick with their 350-450ppi displays, refine the OLED saturation issues and spend the other 98% of the time refining 'TouchWiz'
J
Oh, please. Drop the drama. This is not about me refusing to see the future! I'm all about the right tool for the right job. And when a 4K display is the right tool for the job, I'll be right there in line for it.
Riiiiight. So let's see you figure that out without 4K being made available first. If the market was made up of people with your mentality, then we'd still be stuck on VHS tapes and the like. You can thank me and the rest of the early adopters for partly feeding the motivation of innovators to keep bringing out newer and better tech. Us early adopters help bring the cost down so the closed minded whiners can jump on the wagon down the road. It really is that simple.
Right.
Oh, sure.
Totally.
That certainly makes sense when other companies started to replace their 13MP cameras with 20.7MP ones.
Last edited: