SGS5 and the new TouchWiz UI

[lordromanov01]

Wouldn't the phone stutter if it's pushing 1440p pixels? I mean most computers can barely push 4k displays and this phone with a Snapdragon 800 is suppose to smoothly push a 1440p display? On top of that, this device is running a bloated touch wiz.

This is why I think it's silly to move up from 1080p screens already. On top of that I'm not sure people will notice the increase in resolution anyway. And the extra pixels will require more power, too.

Looks like Sammy just want to be the first to bring it to the market (or at least as the first major offering).

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

This is why I think it's silly to move up from 1080p screens already. On top of that I'm not sure people will notice the increase in resolution anyway. And the extra pixels will require more power, too.



Looks like Sammy just want to be the first to bring it to the market (or at least as the first major offering).

Yeah I'm thinking at this resolution, it would actually be a drawback. Battery life will be greatly reduced since more power, display, and more RAM will be needed among other things. This device would almost barely be able to play games (surprisingly amount of people play games on their phone) and I would hate to think about day to day usage.

 

[pdqgp]

Yes, it probably will. I like to see what Note 3 users are usually hovering around in RAM usage. When I was using a Note 10.1 (2014), my RAM usage would hover around 1.7-1.8 GB right after boot up and push past 2 GB with light use.

At boot up about 1.18GB and get up to about 2.10/2.16 with heavy usage.

WOW! I hardly come close to that. At boot up and first using it with 7 widgets, I'm at about 1.2gb. After using it for the day thus far, I'm only at 1.56gb and have never seen mine above 1.7gb.

Yeah. Touchwiz uses so much ram on the Note 3. My nexus and moto x on kit kat hover around 300-500 mb of ram used most of the time while my friends note 3 is always above 1gb, usually around 1.5-1.7.

On the Note 3 with 3gb 1.5-1.7 is fine though. No lag or errors even when accessing huge excel spreadsheets.

If you play 1080p content on a 1080p or 1440p 5 inch phone, naturally you won't see any difference. But if you play a 1440p video on a 5 inch 1080p phone or an a 1440p phone, then you will see the difference.

Not necessarily. I'm an Ophthalmologist and would be happy to outline why but in the end, 14-20" is the distance most people read their phones at and once you cross over the 16" mark which is common among the vast users the super high HD displays won't yield huge detail differences to be seen.

The S4 has a great camera and the Note 3 likewise. Saying it doesn't compete is jut being silly. It's better than most android flagship cameras of last year.

downside for me is iPhones still handle low light way better. the in phone processing of the jpegs on the Note 3 is way too strong and noticeably smears the details.

 

[Bishope1999]

Yeah I'm thinking at this resolution, it would actually be a drawback. Battery life will be greatly reduced since more power, display, and more RAM will be needed among other things. This device would almost barely be able to play games (surprisingly amount of people play games on their phone) and I would hate to think about day to day usage.

This wasn't an issue going from the S3 to the S4. With a similar increase in resolution to the S5, the S4 managed to outperform the S3 and provide a little more power than the S3. It's not like they are re-releasing the S4 with the same exact specs while only increasing the resolution. The S5 will be more powerful than the S4 and it will outperform it. Battery life will be about the same or slightly higher, depends if they want to make it thinner than the S4.

----------

Not necessarily. I'm an Ophthalmologist and would be happy to outline why but in the end, 14-20" is the distance most people read their phones at and once you cross over the 16" mark which is common among the vast users the super high HD displays won't yield huge detail differences to be seen.

That's assuming that most people will hold it that far from their face. Those people probably don't care much for the high resolution and may not know much about it. To those people, a brighter display will be what they most likely notice. But to the people which the visual experience is a top priority, they will properly view their phones and will appreciate the difference.

 

[pdqgp]

Those people probably don't care much for the high resolution and may not know much about it. That's assuming that most people will hold it that far from their face.

If you ever see people holding their phones closer than 14" tell them to come see me and get some + lenses as they are likely a bit far sighted.

But to the people which the visual experience is a top priority, they will properly view their phones and will appreciate the difference.

Proper reading distance is 14-20" depending on the age / length of the subjects arms. Kids 12"-18". As an adult if you're ever tested closer than 12-14" for reading, get a new doctor.

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

SGS5 and the new TouchWiz UI

This wasn't an issue going from the S3 to the S4. With a similar increase in resolution to the S5, the S4 managed to outperform the S3 and provide a little more power than the S3. It's not like they are re-releasing the S4 with the same exact specs while only increasing the resolution. The S5 will be more powerful than the S4 and it will outperform it. Battery life will be about the same or slightly higher, depends if they want to make it thinner than the S4.[COLOR="#]

I've heard some "speed" problems with the Snapdragon 600 on the Galaxy S4, my prediction is probably valid if the next Galaxy S uses a Snapdragon 800. If Samsung uses a custom SOC or uses some of Qualcomm new SOC possibly coming out then the issue may be migrated but it's possible that it may be a repeat of the iPhone 4/ iPad 3 diabolical with the underpowered internals with high resolution display. But battery will be interesting, I'm not sure if the battery and heat dissipation will hold up well with a 4K display for various reasons.

 

[Bishope1999]

I've heard some problems with the Snapdragon 600 on the Galaxy S4, my prediction is probably valid if the next Galaxy S uses a Snapdragon 800. If Samsung uses a custom SOC or uses some of Qualcomm new SOC possibly coming out then the issue may be migrated but it's possible that it may be a repeat of the iPhone 4/ iPad 3 diabolical with the underpowered internals with high resolution display. But battery will be interesting, I'm not sure if the battery and heat dissipation will hold up well with a 4K display for various reasons.

The S4 may have some issues, not sure to which ones are you referring too, but it's not an issue where the S3 was better than the S4 in some areas because of the increased resolution. The S5 won't have a 4K display, the increase in resolution will be similar to to the increase of the S3 to S4 which didn't slow it down.

If they go with the Snapdragon 800, it will be clocked in a bit higher than current models so there is no reason to think that it will perform worse than the S4. If it was using the same Snapdragon 600 of the S4, then sure the performance of the S5 would drop of, but that isn't the case. If they are able to release the S5 with the Snapdragon 805, results will be even better.

The S4 had a 500 mAh battery larger than the S3. With the increased resolution and all, it was able to last a little longer than the S3. A 3100 mAh battery should provide a similar increase. Plus the new ram Samsung may use is even more power efficient. We'll see in a bit how it all goes down.

 

[Bishope1999]

If you ever see people holding their phones closer than 14" tell them to come see me and get some + lenses as they are likely a bit far sighted.



Proper reading distance is 14-20" depending on the age / length of the subjects arms. Kids 12"-18". As an adult if you're ever tested closer than 12-14" for reading, get a new doctor.

We're only talking about a 5 inch device, it isn't a 12 inch tablet. Sure you can perfectly read a phone 15-20 inches away, but if you want to appreciate the details, especially for videos, you will hold that small device a lot closer. Holding such a small screen so far away from you, you just can't really appreciate it much and would "just watch it." A tablet I can understand, but that 5 inch screen is so small.

I usually sit about a foot away for every 10 inches the display has. 6 feet away from my 65 inch tv. Which makes it extremely easy to discern the difference between top quality HD video like Blu-ray and the lower quality 1080p streaming.

I really can't imagine sitting over 20 feet away from my HDTV to measure up with that viewing distance from a 5 inch phone.

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

The S4 may have some issues, not sure to which ones are you referring too, but it's not an issue where the S3 was better than the S4 in some areas because of the increased resolution. The S5 won't have a 4K display, the increase in resolution will be similar to to the increase of the S3 to S4 which didn't slow it down.



If they go with the Snapdragon 800, it will be clocked in a bit higher than current models so there is no reason to think that it will perform worse than the S4. If it was using the same Snapdragon 600 of the S4, then sure the performance of the S5 would drop of, but that isn't the case. If they are able to release the S5 with the Snapdragon 805, results will be even better.



The S4 had a 500 mAh battery larger than the S3. With the increased resolution and all, it was able to last a little longer than the S3. A 3100 mAh battery should provide a similar increase. Plus the new ram Samsung may use is even more power efficient. We'll see in a bit how it all goes down.

The maximum clock manufactures are able to clock the snapdragon 800 is 2.3 GHz which is what most manufactures clock it anyway (LG G2 snapdragon 800 is clocked at 2.3 GHz for reference). Also I found some speculation on the Snapdragon 805 so the S5 will probably use that which has a possible max clock speed of 2.5 GHz and a new adreno GPU.

 

[Bishope1999]

The maximum clock manufactures are able to clock the snapdragon 800 is 2.3 GHz which is what most manufactures clock it anyway (LG G2 snapdragon 800 is clocked at 2.3 GHz for reference). Also I found some speculation on the Snapdragon 805 so the S5 will probably use that which has a possible max clock speed of 2.5 GHz and a new adreno GPU.

The newer Snapdragon 800 models, which aren't on current flagships, are clocked in at 2.5 GHz. The Snapdragon 805 clocked in at 2.5 GHz will provide greater improvements over the Snapdragon 800 at 2.5 GHz because of that new GPU. It really depends if Samsung can have enough supplies to put it in the S5. I would assume that they would want that Snapdragon 805 though. I'm guessing they can manage to get it.

 

[RoboWarriorSr]

SGS5 and the new TouchWiz UI

The newer Snapdragon 800 models, which aren't on current flagships, are clocked in at 2.5 GHz. The Snapdragon 805 clocked in at 2.5 GHz will provide greater improvements over the Snapdragon 800 at 2.5 GHz because of that new GPU. It really depends if Samsung can have enough supplies to put it in the S5. I would assume that they would want that Snapdragon 805 though. I'm guessing they can manage to get it.

The Snapdragon 800 couldn't be officially clocked over 2.3 GHz

 

[Bishope1999]

The Snapdragon 800 couldn't be officially overclocked over 2.3 GHz

It's not over clocked, it's the Snapdragon 800 8974-AC model and not the 8974-AA model which is clocked in at 2.3 GHz.

 

[pdqgp]

We're only talking about a 5 inch device, it isn't a 12 inch tablet. Sure you can perfectly read a phone 15-20 inches away, but if you want to appreciate the details, especially for videos, you will hold that small device a lot closer.

Not really. Ever get on a plane and see people holding their phones in front of their face as they watch a movie? No. The distances to the tray table to their eye is about 20-24" for the average male of 5;9" to 6;1" in height, which again is typical. Retail supports that by the fact that many phone cases tout kickstands.

Just because people "can" watch a phone 12" from their face doesn't mean they do. Look around; the only ones you see reading a device that close are kids. Mainly because they have the capability to read that close comfortably whereas most adults do not without add-power lenses.

I usually sit about a foot away for every 10 inches the display has. 6 feet away from my 65 inch tv.

Again, more common of a younger adolescence or child. I have to tell my kids all the time to move back from the TV. Most adults don't sit on top of a TV in their family room. Now we set up the theater in our lower level the THX Guidelines touted your distance equivalent of a 40 degree viewing angle too. Given our screen much larger than 65" we can do that and sit further back. Combined with proper seating it's a great experience.

I really can't imagine sitting over 20 feet away from my HDTV to measure up with that viewing distance from a 5 inch phone.

However in our upper level family room and that of most family homes, unless you live in a box, to put the furniture 6.5' from your TV would look quite odd. Thus again, the reality is most don't sit that close. Average is about 10-13'. In our home we have a 70" upstairs and sit about 15' from it. Still an awesome experience.

 

[Bishope1999]

Not really. Ever get on a plane and see people holding their phones in front of their face as they watch a movie? No. The distances to the tray table to their eye is about 20-24" for the average male of 5;9" to 6;1" in height, which again is typical. Retail supports that by the fact that many phone cases tout kickstands.

Again, these are probably the people to which the visual experience is of no importance to them. Just as much as the audio experience isn't that important to them when the majority of the time they listen to music and video with those little earphones.

Just because people "can" watch a phone 12" from their face doesn't mean they do. Look around; the only ones you see reading a device that close are kids. Mainly because they have the capability to read that close comfortably whereas most adults do not without add-power lenses.

Again, people have all these Full HD displays, doesn't mean that they take full advantage of that either when most of the time they end up watching DVD's or stream videos. Kids don't appreciate that either. They just do it because they can.

Again, more common of a younger adolescence or child. I have to tell my kids all the time to move back from the TV. Most adults don't sit on top of a TV in their family room. Now we set up the theater in our lower level the THX Guidelines touted your distance equivalent of a 40 degree viewing angle too. Given our screen much larger than 65" we can do that and sit further back. Combined with proper seating it's a great experience.

Kids sit close to the tv for different reasons, mainly because they are kids, and the least of which has to do with the picture quality.

Viewing angle isn't as important as sitting distance. If you have a good display, you can be somewhat flexible with the viewing angle, but if you sit too far, a good display won't help you as much. Ok, so are we talking about a 100-120 inch projector? With the distance you provided for the cell phones, we are talking about sitting away 30-50 feet from a display like that? Again, that would be far enough away were you start to lose any benefits of a high end display.

However in our upper level family room and that of most family homes, unless you live in a box, to put the furniture 6.5' from your TV would look quite odd. Thus again, the reality is most don't sit that close. Average is about 10-13'. In our home we have a 70" upstairs and sit about 15' from it. Still an awesome experience.

Most homes have a horrible sitting distance from their HDTV. This is a point were aesthetics take a back seat to viewing experience, even if it means taking out an extra chair to do so. Sitting 15 feet away from a 70 inch TV is really far and you lose seeing the benefits of a high end display. I guess that would bring up the proper question if you mainly watch DVD's and HD streaming or other higher quality media for your movie watching experience? Because at that distance, I doubt there will be much difference for you except for the convenience.

 

[tbayrgs]

Again, these are probably the people to which the visual experience is of no importance to them. Just as much as the audio experience isn't that important to them when the majority of the time they listen to music and video with those little earphones.

[Snip]

You're really arguing with an Ophthalmologist, a professional trained in the capabilities of the human eye, about this?

And you continue to miss the central point of this discussion. We realize from your numerous posts across multiple threads that your a pixel whor..., afficiando, and that you haven't met a resolution high enough yet for your personal standards. What's being repeated explained is that yourself withstanding, the vast majority of people don't hold their mobile devices that close to their face, or watch TV that close. Pdqgp explained it perfectly--you don't see couchs and chairs placed less than 6' from their large screen televisions because, 1) it looks ridiculous, and 2) people just don't sit that close to their TVs.

If you need to use a device that close to your face to realize the benefit of the higher resolution, it's not really a benefit and thus a waste of resources. If most people aren't going to see the benefit, it's unnecessary and IMO, foolish to include it.

And we haven't even discussed the fact that there is very little if any content available at that higher resolution.

 

[Bishope1999]

You're really arguing with an Ophthalmologist, a professional trained in the capabilities of the human eye, about this?

We're discussing the sitting distances between a high end display and the capabilities to appreciate all the details. As such, sitting so far away from your tv, or holding a cell phone so far away from you, you will not be able to distinguish SD or HD all that well. Not sure what you don't understand here.

And you continue to miss the central point of this discussion. We realize from your numerous posts across multiple threads that your a pixel whor..., afficiando, and that you haven't met a resolution high enough yet for your personal standards. What's being repeated explained is that yourself withstanding, the vast majority of people don't hold their mobile devices that close to their face, or watch TV that close. Pdqgp explained it perfectly--you don't see couchs and chairs placed less than 6' from their large screen televisions because, 1) it looks ridiculous, and 2) people just don't sit that close to their TVs.

Yes, I like a high resolution display. Like other people may be more focused on the OS, a phone, they may be an audiophile, etc. We all have an area that we may be more focused on than others. Maybe if I don't care too much about a certain technology, doesn't mean I oppose the advancement of said technology.

1080p and Blu-ray are perfect for the moment, I'm not complaining about that, but as technology advances and 1080p content has to be upconverted to a 4k/2160p display, it will ultimately show it's flaws. Why not continue to advance the displays?

Lets be honest here, the vast majority of people that hold their phones that far away, or hold a 10 inch table like 30 inches away? And sit so far from their TV's, don't care about the picture quality and this is not meant for them. Plain and simple. They automatically assume everything they watch is of high resolution anyways. They read the label and that it. But simply because they don't know what they are looking at, doesn't mean those that will enjoy it should be deprived of the possibility of owning it.

Most homes don't have a proper sitting distance from their tv's, no one is arguing that. That doesn't discredit that a higher resolution display will be appreciated by those people that sit at a proper distance

If you need to use a device that close to your face to realize the benefit of the higher resolution, it's not really a benefit and thus a waste of resources. If most people aren't going to see the benefit, it's unnecessary and IMO, foolish to include it.

If that's the argument, then cell phones should have never exceeded qHD, because the average person won't even care to see a difference. Heck, most people don't even use 4G LTE to it's full advantage. I mean, who really needs 30-50mbps on a cell phone? The average person doesn't need anywhere near that amount of speed on a cell phone. So we should go back to 4G with that logic. 7-9mbps is perfectly fine as most people don't utilize such crazy speeds and it's pretty foolish to have access to it.

And we haven't even discussed the fact that there is very little if any content available at that higher resolution.

The UI will be optimized to 2560x1440, videos can be recorded in higher resolutions, and more content will be available this year.

 

[tbayrgs]

If that's the argument, then cell phones should have never exceeded qHD, because the average person won't even care to see a difference. Heck, most people don't even use 4G LTE to it's full advantage. I mean, who really needs 30-50mbps on a cell phone? The average person doesn't need anywhere near that amount of speed on a cell phone. So we should go back to 4G with that logic. 7-9mbps is perfectly fine as most people don't utilize such crazy speeds and it's pretty foolish to have access to it

Not an analogous comparison and you know it. There is scientific data that proves the human eye cannot discern detail beyond a certain resolution. Higher data speeds, on the other hand, while certainly not taken advantage of by every person, have a proven, useful benefit. I will be able to download files faster at 50 or 100 Mbps than I would at 5-10 Mbps and the benefit is clear. I, as millions of others, use my devices as a personal hotspot to share with many devices--the benefit of higher bandwidth is hugely significant in this case. How is having higher available bandwidth foolish? Does this diminish other areas of the device's performance?

However, bump up the resolution past a certain point on your handset and the discernible difference is negligible to naught.

I'm not saying we should stop advancement by any means. I just think this spec bump is purely for the sake of Samsung saying 'hey, we did this first' and unnecessary when the resources that are dedicated to drive this hardware feature can be better utilized to improve areas more in need of improvement. Extraordinary battery life or ultra smooth UI performance isn't sexy and doesn't look great at the top of the features sheet.'

Regardless, at this point I'm just going to agree to disagree on this issue and wait to see what Samsung actually does put forth later this year. Not my OEM of choice for mobile devices but still always interesting to see what they'll offer next.

 

[Bishope1999]

Not an analogous comparison and you know it. There is scientific data that proves the human eye cannot discern detail beyond a certain resolution. Higher data speeds, on the other hand, while certainly not taken advantage of by every person, have a proven, useful benefit. I will be able to download files faster at 50 or 100 Mbps than I would at 5-10 Mbps and the benefit is clear. I, as millions of others, use my devices as a personal hotspot to share with many devices--the benefit of higher bandwidth is hugely significant in this case. How is having higher available bandwidth foolish? Does this diminish other areas of the device's performance?

However, bump up the resolution past a certain point on your handset and the discernible difference is negligible to naught.

Sure it is..... That's scientific data that proves that any resolution can't be discern beyond a certain viewing distance. For those that hold 5 inch cell phones 15 to 20 inches away and view TV's 15-20 feet away, that holds true, for the other people that view screens at a proper sitting distance, the higher resolution will be noticeable.

But you have to realize that most people don't use 4G LTE speeds as you do. It's great that you take advantage of the high speeds offered, but most people just use their 4G LTE speeds to surf the net, see facebook, and watch videos. Not as many people actually use their cellphones as hot spots, especially with so many wifi spots available. It's a much more limited number of users, probably higher with the forums posters.

It may be useful to you, but not to the majority of cell phone subscribers. Now, if the majority of people don't see the benefits of 4G LTE speeds, does it mean it's unnecessary and foolish to include it? Absolutely not, because there are going to be people like you, who do take advantage of the higher speeds. Just like there will be people like me who will appreciate the full advantage of the higher resolutions.

Just because you don't see any benefit to it, doesn't mean other won't.

I'm not saying we should stop advancement by any means. I just think this spec bump is purely for the sake of Samsung saying 'hey, we did this first' and unnecessary when the resources that are dedicated to drive this hardware feature can be better utilized to improve areas more in need of improvement. Extraordinary battery life or ultra smooth UI performance isn't sexy and doesn't look great at the top of the features sheet.'

Regardless, at this point I'm just going to agree to disagree on this issue and wait to see what Samsung actually does put forth later this year. Not my OEM of choice for mobile devices but still always interesting to see what they'll offer next.

Again, same argument can be made with the carriers touting they have the fastest 4G LTE speeds or will offer LTE Advance. Most people won't use such high speeds anyways. It will be more so for the marketing purposes. Yet, if they can offer it, why not? Same with Samsung. If they can offer a 2560x1440 display without sacrificing performance or battery life, why not?

As for the UI? increasing or not increasing the resolution won't change the UI. Samsung can upgrade the UI at any given time, regardless if they increase the resolution or not.

 

[The Game 161]

it's going to be a beast no doubt makes me excited at the end of the year for note 4. not that i want that to arrive yet..loving my note too much.

 

[blackhand1001]

This is why I think it's silly to move up from 1080p screens already. On top of that I'm not sure people will notice the increase in resolution anyway. And the extra pixels will require more power, too.

Looks like Sammy just want to be the first to bring it to the market (or at least as the first major offering).

I wish sammy would just keep the 1080p and move it to a rgb pixel arrangement. The difference between the pentile 720p screen in my galaxy nexus and the rgb 720p display in my moto x is huge.

 

[pdqgp]

We're discussing the sitting distances between a high end display and the capabilities to appreciate all the details.

Yes/No. I'm leaning more towards the reality that people don't and won't likely hold a phone 14" in front of their face to oooh and ahhh over a 4k display. Again, look around at people watching movies on phablet phones today; they rest them on tray tables and desks or even hold them in their laps just like everyone else around them. Even those that can appreciate the 4k display aren't going to hold a phone in the air for 2hrs.

Lets be honest here, the vast majority of people that hold their phones that far away, or hold a 10 inch table like 30 inches away? And sit so far from their TV's, don't care about the picture quality and this is not meant for them. Plain and simple.

See my point above. Not to mention not many people who do appreciate the extra resolution are going to store a 4k movie on their phone until storage space is more optimized to do so.

Most homes don't have a proper sitting distance from their tv's, no one is arguing that. That doesn't discredit that a higher resolution display will be appreciated by those people that sit at a proper distance

I would rephrase the above to say more homes do have the proper sitting distance, it just isn't condusive to do so for even the average 65" TV. Why cram everyone into a space that's 9' square when the room is much larger. I know in our family room upstairs which is a relatively open floor plan, the area are TV is in measures 17' x 26'. I would never sacrifice the seating arrangement our huge sectional and two chairs offer family and friends just so far few of them could huddle into space that puts them 9' from the TV. Again, reality.

Heck, most people don't even use 4G LTE to it's full advantage. I mean, who really needs 30-50mbps on a cell phone? 7-9mbps is perfectly fine as most people don't utilize such crazy speeds and it's pretty foolish to have access to it.

Not true. Many people upload and download tons of data in the form of files, videos, music, photos, etc and see the benefits of LTE which in many areas don't often hit the 10Mbps + speed. At least not around my immediate area.

 

[Bishope1999]

Yes/No. I'm leaning more towards the reality that people don't and won't likely hold a phone 14" in front of their face to oooh and ahhh over a 4k display. Again, look around at people watching movies on phablet phones today; they rest them on tray tables and desks or even hold them in their laps just like everyone else around them. Even those that can appreciate the 4k display aren't going to hold a phone in the air for 2hrs.

Ok, but that doesn't address the original discussion that at a proper sitting distance, the difference is noticeable. If people choose to see it correctly or not, that's up to the user and most likely, that user doesn't care care about the visual experience, at all. To those people that enjoy the visual experience, they will see it at the proper sitting distance.

You're not arguing that a 2.5k display or a 4K display isn't visible to the human eye at proper sitting distance right?

See my point above. Not to mention not many people who do appreciate the extra resolution are going to store a 4k movie on their phone until storage space is more optimized to do so.

True, a phone is not an ideal place to spend two hours viewing a movie. Those that do decide to view 4K movies on a phone, will likely get a compressed 4k digital version as they do now. Most people that watch a 1080p movie on a phone, view a highly compressed version, it's even unlikely now that they would bother to view a high quality version. So a 4K digital movie may be 10-15GB max? Possibly on the lower end if they use the HEVC encode.

I would rephrase the above to say more homes do have the proper sitting distance, it just isn't condusive to do so for even the average 65" TV. Why cram everyone into a space that's 9' square when the room is much larger. I know in our family room upstairs which is a relatively open floor plan, the area are TV is in measures 17' x 26'. I would never sacrifice the seating arrangement our huge sectional and two chairs offer family and friends just so far few of them could huddle into space that puts them 9' from the TV. Again, reality.

I doubt that most homes actually have the proper sitting distance. I would venture into saying that most homes have a 50 inch HDTV and they probably sit well over 10 feet away from it, which completely neglects the benefits of the higher resolution.

It's ok to have one ample area for when your friends come over, but to have a high end set up only to throw away the benefits because of seating arrangements, I wouldn't do it.

Unless you have a 720p HDTV and projector. Then at those longer distance, the image will look just as good.

Not true. Many people upload and download tons of data in the form of files, videos, music, photos, etc and see the benefits of LTE which in many areas don't often hit the 10Mbps + speed. At least not around my immediate area.

People do, but not all. The majority just use these phones for social media, web browsing and videos. Even those that stream music don't need 30-50 mbps.

Well I was using my 4G LTE speeds which average from 30mbps to 40mbps

 

[Sensamic]

New report from Sammobile confirms there will be two variants of the SGS5: a plastic one and a metal one.

Also confirms 16Mpx camera and AMOLED 1440P display, and possibly Snapdragon 805.

I must say the metal version doesn't sound that appealing because of the design mainly. At least the HTC One had a nice design apart from it's metal body, but I didn't like the design of the Galaxy J.

 

[pdqgp]

For those that hold 5 inch cell phones 15 to 20 inches away and view TV's 15-20 feet away, that holds true, for the other people that view screens at a proper sitting distance, the higher resolution will be noticeable.

...still looking for people watching movies on a phablet holding it 14" from their face. It's not typical. Most set them down. People don't sit 15-20ft from TV's either. I've never touted that, you've drawn that with your own conclusions. Typically their room size and purpose determine that distance. Again, unless you live in a small apartment or a tinderbox house, most people aren't going to cram family and friends into a small space just to maximize the resolution of their TV.

If they can offer a 2560x1440 display without sacrificing performance or battery life, why not?

I'm all for advancement of technologies, including displays, but I would do so with meaningful purpose. What you're continually referencing in terms of this added "detail" or resolution on a phone or phablet is only going to be seen at strangely close viewing distances on such small devices with the benefits vastly decrease as normal viewing distances are realized.

Keep in mind our central vision is 20/20, so we never actually resolve that much detail in a single glance. Away from the dead-center, our visual ability decreases dramatically, such that by just 20° off-center our eyes resolve only one-tenth as much detail. At the periphery, we only detect large-scale contrast and minimal color.

 

[pdqgp]

Ok, but that doesn't address the original discussion that at a proper sitting distance, the difference is noticeable.

You're not arguing that a 2.5k display or a 4K display isn't visible to the human eye at proper sitting distance right?

I'm arguing the real-world usage distances of handheld devices, not the distance needed for a human to resolve the difference between a TV at various distances. The human eye at 20/20 can discern points as small as 0.00349 at 12" and see the flicker of a candle at 35 miles in complete darkness but the reality is we don't do either on a daily basis.

The eye doesn't ever stay still and is constantly sweeps the landscape it's viewing allowing the brain to see greater detail by piecing together the scene. Thus we don't "look for" individual pixels by nature. To here someone say "they can't see the difference" even if they have 20/20 vision is actually quite accurate.

Proof in this can be seen (pun intended) in every human beings natural "blind point", which is the point within our visual field that lacks light-detecting photoreceptor cells on our retina where the optic nerve passes through the optic disc. Our brains interpolate the blind spot based on information from the other eye, thus rendering it unnoticeable

In short, manufacturers are touting Ultra HD displays but the perceived value of while perhaps noticeable, is largely unappreciated on a daily basis given the nature of how a phone is used and what it is used to view.

I doubt that most homes actually have the proper sitting distance. I would venture into saying that most homes have a 50 inch HDTV and they probably sit well over 10 feet away from it, which completely neglects the benefits of the higher resolution.

The majority just use these phones for social media, web browsing and videos. Even those that stream music don't need 30-50 mbps.

Agree and the same often applies to phablets and phones. Even more so given the type of media we're using our phones for don't often require such resolution. I'm not editing photos for sale on my phone, I'm usually reading emails and viewing text and very likely compressed jpeg images hosted on the web but yeah, occasionally a movie that is also very likely compressed thus most all of which lesson the need for an Ultra HD display on a phone.

It's ok to have one ample area for when your friends come over, but to have a high end set up only to throw away the benefits because of seating arrangements, I wouldn't do it.

Depends on what you put first, the time with friends in a large open and comfy surrounding or the pixels on a boob-tube. If I want a theater atmosphere we go down to the lower level whereby I have a THX System. In neither case have I ever had a group of guests pixel peeping my display or projector output.

And we haven't even discussed the fact that there is very little if any content available at that higher resolution.

...sits awaiting Ultra HD text messages and emails or 4k facebook images that I can zoom in on. Jury is out on being able to stream Ultra HD Porn viewed 12" from my face. Although that might prove useless on a device that I can't easily use with one hand.