Toshiba runs for the pixel density top with a 6" tablet screen at the whopping 2560x1600 pixels
1. som (Posts: 768; Member since: 10 Nov 2009)
Good for texts, HD movies and graphic but personal photos are still in standard formats.
2. pecemaloto (Posts: 22; Member since: 17 Dec 2010)
it'll sit on iPhone 6,731... and be called "magi-mazing".....
13. Firedrops (Posts: 194; Member since: 06 Sep 2011)
Not completely. As mentioned above in the post, the 3D resolution which can be produced will be much higher, maybe even into HD's range of ppi. 3D rendering usually drops the quality by quite a bit, and this screen can offset the drop by displaying video of HD quality even in 3D.
4. Cyd07 (Posts: 83; Member since: 03 Oct 2011)
No interest. All is perfectly fine with a HD 1080P res on a 22 or even 27" screen for computers. What about much more than that on 6", or even on 10" tablets ?
It will just be a useless price-increaser an battery-decreaser...
5. Phullofphil (Posts: 792; Member since: 10 Feb 2009)
You dont know htat yet. For instants difital zooming might greatly improve. The design might have a lot of good atrobutes. just bevause you cant see the pixels does not mean the colors and contrast wont greatly improve they should. Basicaly you cant really tell untill you see some demo device and compare it. I think the special animation and other eye candy ilusions can greatly improve how you see stuff.The other thing besides being lots of visual asspects we only still can discover. I think if you notice with the exception of verizon and ther 4g phones which actually if you looke at the nexus prime and its resolution did not rais the price compared to the bionic. But i think that as of lately the prices have been stayinng pretty much the same on smartphones even as we put duel cores, wimax and better cameras in them. For one the screen probably wont go to market unless there process of making them was streamlin enough to make those at the same cost as any other screen. I am all for it. Atliest match the quility 1080p resolution video our cameras in our phone now can record at. I love it make it a 10000 by 17000 4 inch screen i dont care i would take that on my phone. On option is to for real though is when you digital zoom i bet that will make a big difference.
6. remixfa (Posts: 13885; Member since: 19 Dec 2008)
i think its neat, but the chips arent powerful enough yet to be able to run that resolution silky smooth for games n such.
But hey, if we can do it, why not do it :)
7. ayephoner (Posts: 832; Member since: 09 Jun 2009)
i see why you like android.
we can increase specs? yes, but the cost, performance and battery life will all suffer......
who cares. if we can do it, why not do it?
8. Lwazi_N (Posts: 205; Member since: 23 Jun 2011)
The fight in the mobile and tablet space is about everything being improved. Stagnant features in constantly changing times, are useless. First it was the number of camera megapixels. That led to screen quality improvements. Video-taking and playback and gaming also required the same but also improved graphics. So we had better screens and better graphics, why not improve the UI to exploit the fluidity offered by the aforementioned? That was done. To better fluidity, speed, user experience, video, browsing, battery power, reception- multiple core processors were required.
But yes I do agree that it's going to ridiculous extremes- like quad-core processors when dual-cores work just fine. For instance the iPhone 4S hasn't even exploited the capabilities of dual-core processors as it clocks at 800MHz for each core, while other phones out there go up to 1.4GHz per core. I think it has more to do with marketing because the single core on the iPhone 4 worked just fine, so if a dual core was such a need, Apple would have put a more powerful processor in the iPhone 4S. I'm not attacking Apple, this is a mere example of marketing gimmicks and other phone manufacturers are also guilty of the same.
9. skymitch89 (Posts: 926; Member since: 05 Nov 2010)
They are misleading consumers. That resolution and size does not give nearly 500ppi, it only gives about 438ppi.
10. bolaG (Posts: 468; Member since: 15 Aug 2011)
the article says "shy of 500ppi" not exactly 500ppi, why do you have to nit-pick anyways?
Like a article on here said before the Japanese are really going to be coming in hard with their screens again. They're not happy about the South Koreans leading the pack right now. This is just the beginning of a new Japanese screen era.
12. belovedson (Posts: 811; Member since: 30 Nov 2010)
because we espect correct journalism. 800 mhz is 800 mhz and not 1ghz you got it. if its 438 list it as 438 and not 500. you cant even round 438 to 500 it should have been rounded down to 400. remember 1st grade?
14. PhoneArena Team (Posts: 237; Member since: 27 Jun 2006)
How did you calculate it? If you use 6" and 1600x2560 resolution, it gives 503ppi. However, the screen is not exactly 6.00" but a little bigger, and the pixel density is 498ppi.
It is not 438ppi, it would have been 431ppi if the screen was 7".