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.
Sooo.. any benefits to LG G3's 2560 * 1440 resolution?
- Thread starter Serelus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It saves you carrying it around as much since it drains battery quicker than 1080?
More seriously, unless you're holding it a few centimetres from your eye to get maximum benefit from 500+ ppi, it's a bit of a waste as in the F7, N6 etc.
I'm sure like many here, I've put 1080 and QHD screens side-by-side and, at normal operating distance, 400+ ppi is more than enough.
Can't wait for 4k screens on a 5-inch phone!
More seriously, unless you're holding it a few centimetres from your eye to get maximum benefit from 500+ ppi, it's a bit of a waste as in the F7, N6 etc.
I'm sure like many here, I've put 1080 and QHD screens side-by-side and, at normal operating distance, 400+ ppi is more than enough.
Can't wait for 4k screens on a 5-inch phone!
I use a website for viewing charts and need to use the small screen option in order to make the charts barely fit on my 5.7 inch Note 3 screen. Higher ppi offered by 2560x1440 would solve that problem and I'll upgrade to the Note 4 if it has the higher ppi.
I've actually got a G3 and can comfortably report that, yes it is "nice" and etc etc.
But unless I'm holding it pressed up to my eyeholes, I can barely tell the difference in terms of clarity.
Although I have to say, it's not really draining the battery life much more than I'd expect, so that's fair enough.
But unless I'm holding it pressed up to my eyeholes, I can barely tell the difference in terms of clarity.
Although I have to say, it's not really draining the battery life much more than I'd expect, so that's fair enough.
Neither can I. I never did understand why people have this twisted mentality that once a technology reaches a certain point it should stop there. A 4K screen would be amazing on a phone, let's be real here. And just imagine 8K following that, my goodness we are not worthy.
Would you guys still be happy with a 480x320 phone here in 2014? I know I wouldn't after using my S5. I gotta give props to LG on taking the next step forward, Samsung and HTC will soon follow and before long we WILL have our 4K phones. Good times are ahead.
Why do you assume people are against progression? I am absolutely not.
I just don't see the point, and something I definitely do hate is applying for the sake of being able to. There's no real world USE. The things you do on a 2560 * 1440 are the kinds of things you do on a larger screen. A computer that is.
Chances are you're not even looking at a 2560 * 1440 right now and you don't need it which means 1080p is just fine. So the question then is.. WHY would anyone need more pixels on their phone than on their Desktop Monitor/Laptop screen.
Of course most are for progress but at what expense. Does the implementation of a new feature really offer a net gain? Yes, in this specific instance you get improved screen clarity--but is it worth the expense? There is plenty of research documenting that such a high resolution on a small display size is barely, if at all, perceptible to the human eye, so we're dealing with significant diminishing returns. Yet for this improved clarity you need a far beefier GPU, improved heat dissipation and either larger/or more efficient battery to compensation, else you'll have high resolution stuttering at a reduced brightness (as the LG has shown to do when it overheats) and less time to enjoy that it.
Your analogy to the 480x360 resolution is also flawed as there is a huge perceptible difference between it and the 720 to 1080p found on most current flagship devices vs. the next jump to 2K.
I think the point most here are trying to make is that the expense of having what might very well be an unnecessary enhancement is too high. Of course, this evaluation is going to vary with each individual as we all have difference preferences.
I think the point is most can't see those differences on a phone screen. The trade offs to chase a spec like on the G3 might not be worth it.
The point isn't whether you can see the difference or not. The current screen tech is evolving to the quantum dot level. When this occurs the hardware will change as well. Those paper thin displays you see now have sub 100ppi displays and require bulky batteries. Also think true 3d displays without the need for gimmicks or glasses. True depth of field. But we don't get there without the tech being utilized and researched now.
android police did their '2 months later' review of the G3 yesterday
Thought it was interesting:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/08/14/lg-g3-review-addendum-2-months-later/
personally I want to let a couple generations go by before embracing 2k, 4k.
I feel like they are just now getting 1080p right
Thought it was interesting:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/08/14/lg-g3-review-addendum-2-months-later/
personally I want to let a couple generations go by before embracing 2k, 4k.
I feel like they are just now getting 1080p right
Funny people all satisfied with 1080p screens with 720p is fine as well.
I don't have any issues using a 720p tv screen especially for fast action sports viewing.
Same thing with 720p on a phone. It's fine. Look at moto x screen. Read text clearly. Same with galaxy s3 screen and nexus 4 screen.
So why defend 1080p? When 720p is "good enough" for 90% plus people.
It's the same arugument for the lg g3 screen. I own one. It's gorgeous. Of course I keep it at 50% brightness to conserve battery and even at 80-100% brightness it not the "brightest screen". But it's the sharpest screen. My batter life on the lg g3 at 50% brightness is excellent. Down to around 20% by 9pm with "heavy use". So it last me from 6am-9pm easily with battery to spare. Those who complain have faulty apps draining battery. The Facebook updated app drained by battery so I uninstalled it. Battery provlem fixed
2k phone displays are the future. Lg markets the screen as viewing art quality. So I see it useful in digital magazine editions.
I don't have any issues using a 720p tv screen especially for fast action sports viewing.
Same thing with 720p on a phone. It's fine. Look at moto x screen. Read text clearly. Same with galaxy s3 screen and nexus 4 screen.
So why defend 1080p? When 720p is "good enough" for 90% plus people.
It's the same arugument for the lg g3 screen. I own one. It's gorgeous. Of course I keep it at 50% brightness to conserve battery and even at 80-100% brightness it not the "brightest screen". But it's the sharpest screen. My batter life on the lg g3 at 50% brightness is excellent. Down to around 20% by 9pm with "heavy use". So it last me from 6am-9pm easily with battery to spare. Those who complain have faulty apps draining battery. The Facebook updated app drained by battery so I uninstalled it. Battery provlem fixed
2k phone displays are the future. Lg markets the screen as viewing art quality. So I see it useful in digital magazine editions.
The true point is to have people spend money on tech with advertising driving the "new cool".
Does the screen have viewing angles like the 2013 nexus 7 which are excellent or is it like the nexus 5 which are just average. I would rather they use a 1080p panel with the better view angles and contrast than adding pointless extra pixels. I have a feeling its like the nexus 5. Lg doesn't seem to put a-tw polarizers in their ips displays. Japan display generally does which is what the nexus 7 uses. I hope the nexus 6 goes back to amoled or it uses a Japan display LCD. Whatever they use in the HTC one would be good as well.
android police did their '2 months later' review of the G3 yesterday
Thought it was interesting:
http://www.androidpolice.com/2014/08/14/lg-g3-review-addendum-2-months-later/
personally I want to let a couple generations go by before embracing 2k, 4k.
I feel like they are just now getting 1080p right
Its strange some people mention awesome battery while others mention poor battery (above article). I know battery is highly dependent on the user, but with heavy usage (Auto brightness at 70%, 2hr screen on time, full location, LTE, a little nav) I still have 50% battery left . I did greenify a bunch of apps, not sure how much that helps. But the battery is better than my note 3 with the same usage and display settings.
I do wish however lg just waited to release it with the snapdragon 805, which supposedly supports 4k much better.
The g3 just needs a few software tweaks to fix the micro lag. The screen is fine in my opinion, but I am no display expert (just like the majority of customers) This is coming from someone whose previous phones were an s4 and note 3.
I'm all for progression myself, but I find 1440p to be more of a gimmick. A feature for something to market. Reason being is most videos I download from YouTube using the TubeMate app, I use 720p at max. Sometimes even 360p just to save 75% more space since my current TV is 720p and 360p is clear enough. I have a pair of 1080p smartphones but prefer 720p since it is nearly half less with file size. The differences between them are nearly negligible on a 5-inch screen. Typical movies at HD would be at 1.3GB more or less depending on compression. YouTube just recently added the 1440p res but most videos pre-2010 were below HD.
I would have been fine with 720p displays actually. LG G3 might be my next phone next year if I'm due for an upgrade once I move back to SoCal. Should be free with contract by that point. But I would have loved if LG stayed at 1080p as the QHD really did affect the G3's battery life. But kudos to LG for the replaceable battery and making the most comfortable phones with larger screens. A 5.5 inch screen with the same height as the Z2 & M8 with only 5-5.2 inches. LG makes the best screen to bezel ratio like they did with the G2 and Nexus 5 last year.
I would have been fine with 720p displays actually. LG G3 might be my next phone next year if I'm due for an upgrade once I move back to SoCal. Should be free with contract by that point. But I would have loved if LG stayed at 1080p as the QHD really did affect the G3's battery life. But kudos to LG for the replaceable battery and making the most comfortable phones with larger screens. A 5.5 inch screen with the same height as the Z2 & M8 with only 5-5.2 inches. LG makes the best screen to bezel ratio like they did with the G2 and Nexus 5 last year.
They can use it for marketing purpose actually, since its the only flagship uses this technology at the moment. But I didn't see many LG G3 advertising here in my country, Indonesia, especially compare to Samsung. Most of the people are not tech savvy and care more about the specs.
Yeah totally. And it will only improve after that.
This: "We are not worthy" in other terms: We are not capable enough.
When it comes to tech there are two different groups:
Tech, that only operates with other Tech: There are little problems here with evolving, because other tech will evolve as well. So you can design devices in this groups without limits other than physical ones. Examples are Processors, Network Devices (like Router and Network cards) and other things only communicating with other technology.
Human Interface Tech: There are problems, because Human cannot evolve as freely as tech: We can train ourselves to use something like swype, but we cannot design our fingers differently, so that we can better operate with a keyboard. We are the limit. Examples: Screens, Keyboards, Mice,....
So let me give you a real world example: Remember Phones from the Pre Smartphone Era? They were all getting smaller and smaller. Everything inside could get always smaller: The antenna, the CPU and all those kind of things. BUT: The keypad needed to be as big as being able to be operated. Those phones could not shrink infinitely obviously.
I know there is a difference in the analogy: We can also use higher Resolution screens without limits. But we don't benefit from it and that is the point when tech should stop (though it is arguable where this point is) in this case and concentrating on another.
So it is possible that Tech reaches a point where a certain aspect should not be topped.
I grew up on mostly standard TV resolution with DVD-res at best. I never even got into the Xbox 360/PS3 era of gaming. I think higher resolution is a superficial thing. Do I really need to see every sweat gland and wrinkle of a celebrity on a 5-6 inch screen? Screen resolution (not screen quality) is one of the least important features to me right now after 720p/1080p.
I would probably still get an LG G3 or whatever smartphone with a 2k display but not because the res is at 1440p. But because they are very good devices that happen to have a 2k display that I generally don't look for.
I would probably still get an LG G3 or whatever smartphone with a 2k display but not because the res is at 1440p. But because they are very good devices that happen to have a 2k display that I generally don't look for.
