Related
Hi all,
I know this article has been floating around here for some time, but this I found rather interesting:
Some have raised points along the lines of Samsung Galaxy S2 phones already having a smoother UI and indicating that they are doing something different vs. the Galaxy Nexus. When comparing individual devices though you really need to look at all of the factors. For example, the S2's screen is 480x800 vs. the Galaxy Nexus at 720x1280. If the Nexus S could already do 60fps for simple UIs on its 480x800, the CPU in the S2's is even better off.
The real important difference between these two screens is just that the Galaxy Nexus has 2.4x as many pixels that need to be drawn as the S2. This means that to achieve the same efficiency at drawing the screen, you need a CPU that can run a single core at 2.4x the speed (and rendering a UI for a single app is essentially not parallelizable, so multiple cores isn't going to save you).
This is where hardware accelerated rendering really becomes important: as the number of pixels goes up, GPUs can generally scale much better to handle them, since they are more specialized at their task. In fact this was the primary incentive for implementing hardware accelerated drawing in Android -- at 720x1280 we are well beyond the point where current ARM CPUs can provide 60fps. (And this is a reason to be careful about making comparisons between the Galaxy Nexus and other devices like the S2 -- if you are running third party apps, there is a good chance today that the app is not enabling hardware acceleration, so your comparison is doing CPU rendering on the Galaxy Nexus which means you almost certainly aren't going to get 60fps out of it, because it needs to hit 2.4x as many pixels as the S2 does.)
To be complete, there is another big advantage that the GPU gives you -- many more drawing effects become feasible. For example, if you are drawing a bitmap in software, you basically can't do anything to it except apply an offset. Just trying to scale it is going to make rendering significantly slower. On a GPU, applying transformations well beyond simple scales is basically free. This is why in the new default Holo themes in Android we have background images -- with hardware accelerated drawing, we can afford to draw (and scale) them. In fact, if the hardware path is not enabled by the app, these background images will be turned off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is kinda the same as with the Prime and the T700/other high-resolution tablets, isn't it? I'm not sure, but it sounds pretty obviously since the Tegra3 GPU isn't very good (yes, it is fine but I'm not sure for those high-res screens?). However I could be completely wrong..
I agree. It's the same with a gaming computer. Just because ur monitor has 1080p doesn't mean u can play all games in that rez. U will need a much more powerful gpu. I am certain though the tegra3 can support 1080p but it won't be smooth as 720p like our device. Unless u lower the rez but how would u on an android. Furthermore how ugly games would look who aren't optimize for 1080p.
Nvidia always!
The question isn't whether there's going to be a performance hit, it's what the performance hit looks like. If it's invisible in everything but gaming, I'd bet a lot of people will go for the HD display and gamers will stick to the lower res. If it's obvious in UI performance and transitions, it makes the benefit of the HD screen a little more questionable. The new chip in the iPad3 and Samsung's new Exynos chip won't make you choose (on paper). Benchmarks are useless except for bragging rights.
I have been saying this since people were trying to compare the new acer and samsung back in Dec. The higher the resolution, the more power and resources it takes. Also you have to look at the app market right now. What app's are out that will use that 1080p display...NONE as of now. Once they (1080p tablets) are released, it will be a few months before most apps will adapt to the new higher displays.
I continue to question the need for having a 1080p 10 inch display- there has to be a limit as to high a ppi count the human eye can reasonably distinguish. Just bumping up the resolution while not working on improving the true render process (in case of games or animations) does not make any sense to me.
A retina display just for the heck of it is not a great idea, at least to me.
For what it's worth, ICS is supposed to be fully hardware accelerated, so the Tegra 3 could be enough to power the higher resolution for everything but games.
Anandtech (who I probably trust the most when it comes to hardware evaluations) seemed to suggest in an early preview that the higher resolution *may* perform ok:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5348/...-with-asus-1920-x-1200-tablet-running-ics-403
That said, there are still questions as to the benefit of such a high resolution on a 10" form factor designed to be held only 1-2' away from your face. They didn't bump up to 1920 x 1200 resolution monitors until 24" LCDs and up.
The real issue is that games on Android don't let you pick a resolution for them to run at. Almost all run at the full Res of the screen, which means slideshow on a 1080p Prime.
avinash60 said:
I continue to question the need for having a 1080p 10 inch display- there has to be a limit as to high a ppi count the human eye can reasonably distinguish. Just bumping up the resolution while not working on improving the true render process (in case of games or animations) does not make any sense to me.
A retina display just for the heck of it is not a great idea, at least to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, there is just no point..... there is more important things to improve than pixel count....
Thanks, at least I am not alone on this idea. It seems like when the news came that the iPad 3 is going to have a retina desiplay all the manufacturers didn't care anymore and just were thinking "We also need that!". I am comparision the text from thread with my HTC Sensation which should have a better DPI:
Transformer Prime: 149
The new Prime: 218
HTC Sensation: 260
and from NORMAL viewing distance both look great. However, when i come closer the pixels on the Transformer Prime are a little visible where the Sensation stays sharp. However the phone has a better DPI then the new res. panel so I'm not sure how that is.
I'm sure it will look some better, but I am not sure if it is worth the wait (again) and also the possibilty of the new Prime itself can't keep up with its own resolution..
Oh, again not trying to defend the Prime here.. I have to return it anyway because of backlight bleeding and am not sure if I want a new one or my money back, however if I see this result I think the resolution is just pure marketing.. I mean who is going to sit with its prime 5 cm from their heads.. lol.
http://androidandme.com/2012/01/news/hands-on-with-the-acer-iconia-tab-a510-and-zte-7-tablets/
Watch the video on Acer Iconia a510 (unannounced tablet). 1080p that comes with this tablet... does look a bit sluggish.
Just to add my galaxy nexus is 316 dpi..... unless your 2in from the screen...there really isn't much difference.
Also, I love how laptop and desktop DPI is half what most phone/tabs are and people are having a fit......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density#ASUS
Seems to run pretty good since it is still a pre-production model, however not as smooth as the Prime with ICS yes..
Danny80y said:
Just to add my galaxy nexus is 316 dpi..... unless your 2in from the screen...there really isn't much difference.
Also, I love how laptop and desktop DPI is half what most phone/tabs are and people are having a fit......
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density#ASUS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, exactly what I mean.. you can see it if your very close to the screen, but why would you do that, lol.
Oh, btw.. for the iPad 1&2 it still is 132, which is much lower then our Transformers (149,5), never heard real complaints about that.
>What app's are out that will use that 1080p display...NONE as of now
eBooks & PDFs. Sharper texts. More texts. One can conceivably view 2 pages side-by-side (16:10 / 2 = 8:10, or close to the 8.5:11 printed page).
With display mirroring, you get 1:1 pixel ratio when plugged into a HDTV via HDMI. This makes above use-case (high-density text consumption) much more feasible. Ditto for remote access.
Gaming perf will take a hit. Then again, gaming isn't exactly an Android forte right now, or for mobiles in general. The bulk of games are casual stuff, geared for handset resolution.
One can argue that hardcore Android gaming will prosper over time, and FPS perf will matter more. There are problems with this line of thought. First, is simply the assumption that Android will prosper on tablets, which given current sales is hardly a forgone conclusion. Second, are the fast advances in hardware and their correspondingly short lifespan. GPU-wise, the Teg3 isn't the fastest even now. By the time we get to see enough hardcore games, we'd be on Teg 5 or 6, or their equivalent. Teg3 will be old news.
But sure, if shooters and frame count are your thing, then 720p sounds like a plan, at least for the Teg3.
>I continue to question the need for having a 1080p 10 inch display
Some don't see the need for GPS in tabs either. Some don't use the cams. Different people have different uses. You shouldn't generalize your use to be everyone else's.
Rest assured that when it comes to marketing, toys with lo-res display will be viewed as inferior. Bigger is better. It's the same thing with quadcore vs dualcore vs single-core. Do you actually need a quadcore?
>there has to be a limit as to high a ppi count the human eye can reasonably distinguish
This argument has been bouncing around ever since Apple's Retina Display. Per this PPI calculator, 1920x1200 is 224ppi on a 10.1". Reportedly, people can discern 300ppi at 12" distance, given 20/20 vision. The real test is simpler and much less theoretical: walk into a store and compare the TF201 and TF700 side-by-side, and see if you can discern the difference.
>Anandtech (who I probably trust the most when it comes to hardware evaluations) seemed to suggest in an early preview that the higher resolution *may* perform ok:
Anandtech is good for chip-level analysis. For (mobile) system hardware and use-case analysis, he's just as green as many other tech blogs. Note the gaffs on the Prime testing wrt GPS and BT/wifi coexistence. I do see signs of improvement, however. They came out with a new Mobile Benchmark suite, whatever that means.
>The real issue is that games on Android don't let you pick a resolution for them to run at.
The real issue is that Android is still a nascent OS for tablets. HC was a beta which never took off. ICS was just released. The bulk of Android apps & games are still for handsets.
I have been concerned about this as well. Tegra 3's GPU is fine enough for a 1200x800 tablet, but it's going to be stretched at 1080p (this is nearly the resolution that my desktop runs at!).
I'd love a higher-resolution display, but it's a luxury (well, a tablet itself kinda is already, but even more so). It's not as if 1280x800 is cramped and blocky. I'm happy to wait a bit longer for 1080p tablets to mature and come down in price.
(I'd rather have 2GB RAM, actually.)
Well, perhaps this new release will coincide with a bump in the specs of Tegra 3. By the time the new tablet comes out, I would assume that's been almost half a year.... That's usually about the time span that nvidia would come out with a refresh of a chip design (well, they do this with their desktop GPUs, so not a great comparison, but it's possible?). So in the end perhaps the question of performance will be moot because there will be a faster Tegra 3 and more RAM in the new higher resolution tablets.
Just a thought.
Don't underestimate.
Let's wait a review or test.
Probably the Tegra 3 is more than capable of handling this kind of resolution in terms of playing HD movie, high profile compression, etc.
I saw several tests on current prime, and it has no problem with HD videos.
My only concern is battery life ... that's all.
I expect the 1920x1200 will result worse battery life, unless ASUS pump up the battery capacity or any other improvement.
JoeyLe said:
Hi all,
I know this article has been floating around here for some time, but this I found rather interesting:
This is kinda the same as with the Prime and the T700/other high-resolution tablets, isn't it? I'm not sure, but it sounds pretty obviously since the Tegra3 GPU isn't very good (yes, it is fine but I'm not sure for those high-res screens?). However I could be completely wrong..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
gogol said:
Don't underestimate.
Let's wait a review or test.
Probably the Tegra 3 is more than capable of handling this kind of resolution in terms of playing HD movie, high profile compression, etc.
I saw several tests on current prime, and it has no problem with HD videos.
My only concern is battery life ... that's all.
I expect the 1920x1200 will result worse battery life, unless ASUS pump up the battery capacity or any other improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Asus has already stated that battery life will be pretty much the same as the current Prime...So that should equal shorter battery life.I'll stick with my Prime for now.No Need in buying another tablet right now IMO.I'm waiting to see what Samsung brings to the table.
hyunsyng said:
Well, perhaps this new release will coincide with a bump in the specs of Tegra 3. By the time the new tablet comes out, I would assume that's been almost half a year.... That's usually about the time span that nvidia would come out with a refresh of a chip design (well, they do this with their desktop GPUs, so not a great comparison, but it's possible?). So in the end perhaps the question of performance will be moot because there will be a faster Tegra 3 and more RAM in the new higher resolution tablets.
Just a thought.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think they can bump the specs within the generation of a chip. The only thing that can happen till then is that Asus finds an economical way to add 2GB memory to the device, Nvidia improves the production capabilities of Tegra 3 and we get a better yield of the chips. The spec increase can only happen from one generation to the next.
I think the performance will be fine. Even the battery life.
Most of the battery usage screen-wise is from the backlight, which will be the same.
Also, not much more power may be used necessarily either, especially if it doesn't end up taxing the Tegra 3 as much as we think it will. As far as we know, our 1200x800 displays may not even be taxing the Tegra 3 that much. If anything, the article shows that the Tegra 3 may be more qualified to handle that high a resolution with little to no performance degradation. There are demos on youtube of a tegra 3 device playing 1440p movies just fine, all while driving a second screen at the same time.
Of course I too don't feel the need for something that high of a resolution on a 10 inch screen, but I'll never really know until I see one in person.
I dont understand why no android tablet manufacturer will make a 4:3 tablet. Anyone that has used one will tell you it is better for reading and web surfing which are the main uses for a tablet. Most movies are 2.35:1 anyway so you're going to have black bars regardless...
In china you'll find a lot oft 4:3 android tablets
IMO 16:10 displays are the best, becuase they are not to high for movies (small black stripes) and not to slim for reading and surfing.
Just compare 10" Android Tablets with a n iPad and you'll know what's the best!
Gesendet von meinem S3 mit Android 4.1.2
I agree with you. One of the Lenovo tablets are 4:3 though. 16:10 is just weird to hold in portrait mode.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
slide83 said:
I dont understand why no android tablet manufacturer will make a 4:3 tablet. Anyone that has used one will tell you it is better for reading and web surfing which are the main uses for a tablet. Most movies are 2.35:1 anyway so you're going to have black bars regardless...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4:3 is objectively worse. Why? Because it isn't functional.
Here's the reasoning.
On a 8:5 screen, in portrait mode, you can view more information. (this is due to how tablets can zoom out) Therefore, it is more productive in portrait mode for that sole reason. Don't bother me with arguments of "it looks funny" or BS like that, it's childish. Form fits function, not your subjective opinions about what looks better. And functionally, 8:5 is better.
You might argue that 8:5 is less productive in landscape mode, but that's null and void because you shouldn't use a tablet in landscape mode if you're, say, browsing the web, or typing up a document. Portrait mode will fulfill your needs much better. Using landscape mode in such tasks is like trying to fit a square peg through a round hole.
With that out of the way, about landscape mode. Media in landscape mode is objectively better on 8:5 because there are less black bars. Granted, there still are some, but there are less than the gargantuan abominations you'll see on a 4:3 screen. Moreover, in the specific case of the nexus 10, 720p can be scaled perfectly at a ratio of 4:1 to fit the screen.
As for media, all the media I watch is in 16:9, maybe you should consider primarily watching chinese cartoons as well?
tl;dr : 4:3 is archaic and deprecated, don't know why you would want it.
/thread
In fact 16:9 (16:10 on tablet but a part is for the status bar so it's about 16:9) makes developers scale up the application from phone version easier.
Keion said:
4:3 is objectively worse. Why? Because it isn't functional.
Here's the reasoning.
On a 8:5 screen, in portrait mode, you can view more information. (this is due to how tablets can zoom out) Therefore, it is more productive in portrait mode for that sole reason. Don't bother me with arguments of "it looks funny" or BS like that, it's childish. Form fits function, not your subjective opinions about what looks better. And functionally, 8:5 is better.
You might argue that 8:5 is less productive in landscape mode, but that's null and void because you shouldn't use a tablet in landscape mode if you're, say, browsing the web, or typing up a document. Portrait mode will fulfill your needs much better. Using landscape mode in such tasks is like trying to fit a square peg through a round hole.
With that out of the way, about landscape mode. Media in landscape mode is objectively better on 8:5 because there are less black bars. Granted, there still are some, but there are less than the gargantuan abominations you'll see on a 4:3 screen. Moreover, in the specific case of the nexus 10, 720p can be scaled perfectly at a ratio of 4:1 to fit the screen.
As for media, all the media I watch is in 16:9, maybe you should consider primarily watching chinese cartoons as well?
tl;dr : 4:3 is archaic and deprecated, don't know why you would want it.
/thread
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
/facepalm
Thanks for the good laugh.
4:3 is better for apps
16:10 is better for movies and potentially side by side apps. My hope is Google will add side by side apps in the future. 4:3 would be pretty useless for that use case.
slide83 said:
/facepalm
Thanks for the good laugh.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
0/10 put some effort into your trolling.
You can't pretend to be stupid and fail at it too.
Seriously, back in my day, trolling used to mean something.
>I dont understand why no android tablet manufacturer will make a 4:3 tablet.
There's a few models, like Lenovo S2109, but yep, it's weird. I cry every time peeps try to use a 16:9 or 16:10 in portrait. It just looks so painful. All these sad tabs have their functionality halved by being restricted to landscape.
MS has standardized on 16:9, and looks like Goog has standardized on 16:10. Apple is the only one going with 4:3 on tablets. Not coincidentally, Apple is the only one who pays the most attention to detail and ergonomics. The iPad Mini w/ no-bezel sides has the perfect shape, especially when it gets the Retina treatment next year.
I can understand the no-4:3 for the larger size. Video-watching is a major use-case, and the stretched AR is better for vids. It's also a fashion thing, as display vendors have trained consumers to associate 4:3 with old fogey CRTs. What they don't bother to tell you is that 4:3 LCDs would cost more money to make since it has larger surface area.
The reality is that people want to watch videos more than reading.
I've found 16:10 to be pretty close to an A-spec sheet of paper (A4 in terms of size, and I have no clue about US sizes) and I often use it in portrait for viewing scanned in stuff. It also seems to make a sort of touch typing possible in landscape. That at least makes it more useful in the EU.
Also, I think the benefits of 16:10 in landscape far outweigh the advantages of 4:3 in portrait. Portrait doesn't really offer anything special, to be honest, it just rotates the app.
Tablet is for the multimedia content. and 16:10 (like the Nexus 10) is best of two worlds: great for movies and great for portrait browsing. Web pages have sidebars even on 4:3, but at 1600x2560 they fit perfectly showing more vertical content. I see no one complaining about newspapers having long columns, and 10:16 is nowhere near that.
slide83 said:
I dont understand why no android tablet manufacturer will make a 4:3 tablet. Anyone that has used one will tell you it is better for reading and web surfing which are the main uses for a tablet. Most movies are 2.35:1 anyway so you're going to have black bars regardless...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too each their own I guess. I much prefer the 16:9 ratio for my devices (monitor, TV, tablet, etc.)...
Still it would be nice to have choices for those that want something else.
Wish I could remember what it was called(thinking something like Golden View/Aspect) that explains one of the reasons for 16:10 and 16:9 aspects. The range of site a person has is more of a stretched rectangle than your standard 4:3 aspect ratio.
crash822 said:
Wish I could remember what it was called(thinking something like Golden View/Aspect) that explains one of the reasons for 16:10 and 16:9 aspects. The range of site a person has is more of a stretched rectangle than your standard 4:3 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As you'd expect, with two circular eyes. Also, 16:10 is no harder to hold or use than 4:3 (maybe in portrait?).
via Tapatalk
I like landscape mode better. Like e.more said, 4:3 has been etched into consumers minds to mean old school tube t.v.'s and such. 16:9/16:10 is the best of both worlds. I hardly use my tab in portrait unless an app forces it. Like instagram for example.
demandarin said:
I like landscape mode better. Like e.more said, 4:3 has been etched into consumers minds to mean old school tube t.v.'s and such. 16:9/16:10 is the best of both worlds. I hardly use my tab in portrait unless an app forces it. Like instagram for example.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ultimate Rotation Control. Find it on Google Play, will solve the issue with forced rotation.
Regards.
4:3 will get your more screen real estate if the screens are the same size and it suits what the iPad is trying to do as it doesn't make you want to hold it sideways. The iPhone 5 screen is really tall and thin like those 16:9 tablets and it makes you want to hold that phone sideways which is odd, they need to add more width to it.
I don't think many people are watching movies on tablets, why would you when you can just plug it into your TV?
Venekor said:
4:3 will get your more screen real estate if the screens are the same size and it suits what the iPad is trying to do as it doesn't make you want to hold it sideways. The iPhone 5 screen is really tall and thin like those 16:9 tablets and it makes you want to hold that phone sideways which is odd, they need to add more width to it.
I don't think many people are watching movies on tablets, why would you when you can just plug it into your TV?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think lots of people watching movies on their tab. For me, it seems more like a in your face experience. Since the tab is closer to your face vs. A television set. Throw on some headphones and watching movies on a tab can be very intense. Especially with horror movies.
Another great thing is having them stored on device then linking it to t.v. through HDMI port. For when you want to watch it on a big screen with surround sound or whatever.
demandarin said:
4:3 has been etched into consumers minds to mean old school tube t.v.'s and such.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4:3 is 'dominant' in tablets because of the iPad. TV and monitors have been using widescreen as a standard for probably over a decade now. The only advantage 4:3 has is that it works well for the ecosystem Apple has made (ie. They don't want to 'fragment' and break apps), all other entertainment industries have moved away from 4:3
Venekor said:
4:3 will get your more screen real estate if the screens are the same size and it suits what the iPad is trying to do as it doesn't make you want to hold it sideways. The iPhone 5 screen is really tall and thin like those 16:9 tablets and it makes you want to hold that phone sideways which is odd, they need to add more width to it.
I don't think many people are watching movies on tablets, why would you when you can just plug it into your TV?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're just really conservative, because you're being a bit melodramatic. 16:9 doesn't suddenly force you to hold it sideways except with tablets.
Upgraded from Note 2 to Mega and here's some thoughts after using it for nearly a week. This is based on the unrooted stock rom.
Likes:
1. Bigger, brighter, and whiter screen on the Mega. It makes watching video on the phone a real pleasure. The white colors on my Note 2 are always yellowish and blacks are clipped.
2. More natural color compared to the Note 2. My favorite screen mode is "standard".
3. Handles videos well. Played 720p mkv action movies with DTS audio and it handles them without a single hiccup. I used Archos Player to do that. Didn't test the stock video player since it doesn't support DTS audio
4. Easier to grab compared to Note 2.
5. The power button and the volume rocker are easier to press.
6. Higher DPI. It seems Samsung is using higher DPI for fonts, which makes the phone feel more like a tablet than a phone.
Dislikes:
1. No S pen. If you use that a lot, then you are going to miss it. I use it sometimes but I can manage the life without it.
2. No AC3 support. Sammy wants to save money here therefore you will have to buy a third party player with AC3 and/or DTS decoding. Of course if you don't mind, you could always re encode mkv movies to MP4 with AAC or mp3 audio which is then supported. I am just lazy.
3. Not enough accessories on the market. This is not he most popular phone so not so many accessories are available yet. Hope there will be more.
4. The rear camera lens: why does it have to stick out so much from the back??? Look at the iPhone, and some Sony phones. They don't have that ugly protrusion at the back!
5. Although easier to grab compared to Note 2, it is still a slippery phone. I am getting a rubberized back case to improve that.
6. When I am typing, the predicted words comes up later than on the Note 2. It's noticeable but not annoying yet because I don't type that fast. You may not like it if you are a turbo texter.
Everything else is pretty much the same as my Note 2. The Mega may not have the fastest CPU in the world, and it doesn't have 3 Gb of ram, but I didn't experience much lag at all.
Games:
I don't play games so I asked my 8 year old boy to test it for me. His answer is "no lags". Of course he didn't test all those CPU and GPU intensive games so don't quote me on that.
Battery life:
At full blast which means full brightness, all radios on, it lasts between 5 to 6 hours. I am quite impressed.
Screen sharpness:
being a 720p phone with the largest screen (am I right? ), I was worried that I will see a lot of pixelation. In reality I hardly notice that at all. I am sure a 1080p screen will look nicer. Maybe we will see that in Mega 2? Let's hope for one. And I don't mind if they make the screen even larger. If they can narrow the bezel like they did with the Note 3, they can make a 6.5 inch screen without making the phone larger.
Pocketability: it fits in my pant pockets but I have to admit it reaching the limit.
Final thoughts: Obviously there's a limit how big a phone can be. With the Note 3 being nearly physically identical to the Note 2, it looks like Samsung has decided that's the largest size they are willing to go if they wanted to keep the Note series popular. Hence the Mega looks like their experimental device: let's throw everything on the wall and see what sticks. It will be interesting to see how the market responds to the Mega within the next few months.
Conclusion: I am keeping the Mega and selling my Note 2.
-----------------------
Sent from my AT&T Galaxy Mega
I must add that the viewing angle of the Mega is less than the Note 2.
-----------------------
Sent from my AT&T Galaxy Mega
I was strongly considering one (or a voice capable 7" Tab 3 for less!) but found a T-Mobile Note 2 at a really good price. The screen resolution never bothered me; my 7.0+ has the same resolution in a larger device and it looks just fine. It all came down to the deal I could get. I still might get a T211, though I'm not thrilled about it's camera.
I Already started another thread trying to explain why imo a 4K Display is crucial for the future of VR and why the Galaxy Note 8 should keep its promise to include a 4K Display. (Link under Post Scriptum).
---- Then I realize that most people think that VR is just a gimmick and doesn't have its uses. Most users just picked up VR for 10 minutes, liked it and then forget about it. This would have been a completely different if that Display was 4K.
In this thread I will try to explain things that can be done with VR and thus show how these experiences would improve drastically with a 4K VR Display on your phone. This thread will aim to inform people who are not that familiar with technology and especially with VR, but still may be curious of what it can do.
1. Pocket Movie Theatre with true 3D Experience:
You remember when 3D tvs were "in"? And that period of time when movie companies started to release all their content in 3D for movie theatres. Well, there's a reason why 3D stood strong in Movie Theaters since then and not in the living room's Tv. The reason is simple. Movie theaters offer a "Focused" experience with a huge Screen, while the living room is more casual and most common 3D tv screen panels can't compete with the silver screen. VR can.
Most VR users only focus on 360 videos for VR or 3D-360 videos, but they mostly forget about an important alternative: Watching 3D Movies in a Virtual movie theater!
When I used the Gear VR with my Note 7, I was amazed how the experience of being in a Movie Theater was Vivid! BUT Don't get me wrong! Usually I hate watching 3D movies in movie theaters. It's dark, blurry, I hate it. And I hated it on my Asus laptop with a 3D Screen. Again, too dark. But when I tried to watch a 3D movie on the Gear VR, I truly liked it. I thought "now this is how 3D is supposed to be. VR is the gateway to true 3D". The "3D" experience makes sense only in VR. That's what you understand as soon as you try it.
Here's a link that can be helpful if you are interested: https://www.vrheads.com/how-watch-3d-movies-your-gear-vr
But still, something was missing. It was all there, but not quiet yet. I could still see individual pixels. This is called the "Screen-Door effect". Basically it means being able to differentiate pixels on the display. One thing was then obvious. The Display resolution of the Note 7 was not bad at all. But double it, and you'd have a better experience without the Screen Door Effect. 2K is not there yet. It gives you an idea what VR could be, but also states that "4K" is the resolution to start VR.
Here are some live examples on what I am talking about:
Here's a PC Game shot "Zoomed" and "Through its Lens" with the Occulus rift which renders around "2160 x 1200" resolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-3yDMgiqqjI&index=7&list=PLVIzBp5A6H0pY5vktvnZomrUUK1de8zD9
Now, the exact same game, again shot "Zoomed" and "Through its Lens" with the Pimax 4K which offers 4K resolution:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SlB5sCbezQM&index=6&list=PLVIzBp5A6H0pY5vktvnZomrUUK1de8zD9
Now you can easily imagine that when not zoomed you would hardly see any pixels on the Pimax 4K.
This shows how a 4K Display is the Milestone for VR. It's THE Resolution that once achieved, truly offers a decent VR experience all can embrace. Is it the ultimate? Of course not. 8K will be better, at 16k we won't see any pixels even when zooming etc... But 4K, even not the ultimate resolution that VR must reach to be perfect, is THE resolution that will validate VR and allow it to be mainstream. VR Should have started at 4K. It's safe to think that starting VR at 2K is premature and stained its capabilities.
With all that in mind, now maybe you could imagine an immersive 3D movie experience right in your pocket thanks to a 4K Display. And no movie theater or home tv system would even come close to compete with that experience.
----------------
2. Virtual Desktop
You already know how much technology tries to shrink the size of computing. And based on the past, everyone accepts that the future is "Stronger tech in smaller package". With the Snapdragon 835, smartphones now take a bolder step toward pc level computing. And one of the first steps came with Samsung's Dex. To come to my point, let's first see what Samsung achieved with Dex.
The Dex is simply a dock connected to a monitor in which when you insert your Galaxsy S8, it changes the basic android interface to a PC like interface and transmits the changed pc like interface to the monitor it is connect to, for a PC Like experience. A mouse and keyboard connected to the phone thanks to bluetooth are the last peripherals that allows a full "pc like" usage.
Link for more info about the Dex: https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15104600/samsung-dex-galaxy-s8-dock-announced-price-release-date
My Point is, you don't need that. You can use your Gear VR as a monitor for your Phone. Many apps allow that. But wait. That's not all. There's more.
What if I told you that you could use a true Full Featured PC with Intel and Nvidia level performance on your phone already. And you could use your Gear VR as the biggest monitor ever. Yes, this is possible thanks to a new streaming service called "Liquidsky". This service offers you a "Streamed PC" available to you anywhere you go. Your Steam account, or Ubisoft account any other gaming account including your game library and any other Desktop application you like can be used thanks to this PC streaming service.
What this allows you to do is incredible. You truly don't need a laptop anymore. Just your phone and you're done. The streaming service uses its own server to compute and process your games and your interaction with the minimum latency, and streams you the screen which you can watch on your phone's display. Since the service also supports VR, you can actually play your game on a huge VR Screen, bigger than any gaming monitor. Imagine playing your game on a Movie Theater. Yes. GTA 5 on a movie theater. Knowing that 2K is less than decent to watch video content, wouldn't you want to have a 4K Display for a total immersion?
On the link above you can watch how to use Liquidsky on Android. In the video you will see that they can play GTA 5 on the smartphone, thanks to their streaming service. And sony has already jumped on the Streaming bandwagon already with their Playstation NOW! Service. It's only a matter of time that it will be available on Android. But IT IS avalaible on PC. Which again, you could use Liquidsky to stream Playstation NOW, and there you have it. PS3 games on your smartphone.
Sony Playstation Now: https://www.playstation.com/en-us/explore/playstationnow/
Official Liquidsky website: https://liquidsky.com/
Liquidsky working on Android: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1RQXRsrcObo
Any streaming service to come, like the one mentioned above, already is supporting, and will support, VR. So imagine playing your favorite PC or Playstation game thanks to your smartphone, on a gigantic Movie Theater size Screen on VR! With a 2K Display, the experience wouldn't be as neat and clear as a 4K Display. Any display on your smartphone short of 4K Resolution would make the experience "fun but tiring, not quiet there yet". 4K is THE resolution that would truly immerse you and make you forget that you are staring at a Virtual Screen.
3. Exclusive 4K Content for your Phone.
You realize that the two points I mentioned above are not even content directly aiming your smartphone. These are just the "side effects" of evolving smartphone technology toward VR capabilities. But there are so much more you can do just because your phone has a 4K Display. Here are basic VR and non VR features you can do with a 4K Display:
- Watching 4K 3D 360 or 180 degree videos. Way more immersive experience than what the common 2K content offers.
- Youtube's own 4K 3D, 4K 3D 360 Videos. If you think that 4K is niche, you should know that Youtube already jumped into 8K.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RNdHaeBhT9Q
- Able to see 4K Videos and pictures you shot thanks to your device in their native resolution on your smartphone. About that here's a review where Erika tests the 4K Display on Sony's latest flagship, which unfortunately has an LCD screen which is terrible for VR. But still, even as it can't be used for VR, (at least not as effectively as an AMOLED Displays can), Erika reviews the Display and claims that "Yes your eyes are able to see the difference between 2k and 4K".
See it for yourself at the exact time of the Review: https://youtu.be/Hl28F5k20eg?t=536
- And of course the 4K VR gaming content that would soon enter the Android Playstore, as soon as Samsung stands behind the 4K Display.
------------ Bottom Line
4K Display is not just a gimmick. It could open the biggest and the sharpest window to what your phone could show you. It would definitely take off the VR experience drastically. And as I already told in my previous thread, Samsung, or any other phone company, MUST, SHOULD bring a 4K Amoled Display for VR as soon as possible, if they want VR to have a brighter future.
PS: Perviously mentioned Thread Link:
https://forum.xda-developers.com/note-7/how-to/note-8-4k-display-t3622730
Also some mentions and questions how 4K would affect the Battery and the latest Sony 4K display flagship:
- Some worry about the Battery life. Well, this can easily be fixed as sony did on their latest flagship xperia XZ Premium. The phone uses a Full HD display for the everyday use. It initiates 4K when video applications starts. These can be change in options of course.
Same could be done for any 4K Display Smartphone. Just use a normal resolution for casual use, and switch to 4K when using VR, or a video app. Of course, even those settings could be change.
- Talking of the Sony Xperia XZ Premium, it has a 4K LCD Display which creates problems for VR such as motion blurr thus making it hard to use. Yes, it's weird to see Sony bring up a 4K display while totally ignoring VR.
Here's a review of the phone here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hl28F5k20eg&t
The issue is not creating a 4K display. The issue at hand is creating hardware that can process and render that massive detail onto a 4K display. THAT and that alone is why it started at 2k. Storage is not at par. Internet needs gigabit speeds at the least. And video cards neeed at least 4x improvement. While I agree 4K is a minimum requirement, 4k VR is just not here yet and hardware companies like Nvidia or intel are in no rush to release capable hardware. There’s no profit in rushing
I just installed NOVA 3 for the first time in years and forced it to full screen- it's amazing. Works perfectly, no major UI glitches and the game play is soooooo smooth. The Note 8 doesn't even brack a sweat. Riptide Renegade is great and so is Asphalt Extreme. I play a TON of Titanfall Assault and it has some UI issues but the game play itself is just fine. Hopefully they'll update it to support the wide aspect ratio.
What games have you guys been playing in full screen?
A bit opposite to the OP, but I've been playing Xelorians (shumup with spen support) and having full screen off is great since the anchor for the spen is below the hitbox, i can get the ship to the very bottom of the screen with that extra black space there (on N7 the pen would run off the screeen and the ship stops a cm above the bottom) a few other games have been nice with the extra black space since it gives me a little space to hold the phone without accidentally touching a gameplay area...