Can't say I'd disagree. I've had a phone with a shitty battery life and it isn't worth any outstanding feature.
They really are spot on. At that scale, the jump from 1080p to 2k isn't noticeable, especially given the general lack of content above Full HD quality.
Two day charges and greater color clarity more than compensate.
EDIT: Yes, I am aware how stupid it is that manufacturers have decided to refer to 1440p as 2k. But read the freaking article people. That's what the Sony spokesperson said. The Z3 will be 1080p.
“We have made the decision to continue with a Full HD, 1080p screen for the Xperia Z3, although we see in the marketplace some of our competitors bringing in 2K screens.”
Finally. Now let's just hope they will deliver. I wouldn't mind a slightly worse phone if it meant I could use it all day and not run out of battery.
Hats off to Sony for this one! Thinking of the consumer rather than the market the marketing gimmick.
And that's fine. A company doesn't have to have lower margins for me to be happy.
A smartphone vendor with some sense!
They're right. Batteries need a serious boost in technology. Something only lasting a day is a travesty (lol 1st world problem).
Keep in mind your Nokia wasn't hooked up to email, social media, and sync applications constantly.
If I was to play devils advocate, I'd also point out that it's cheaper for them to make a lower resolution screen than a higher one, so they're saving money too.
Also, we're still talking about a FullHD screen as the 'lower resolution' option in this scenario...
I'm using the Z2 right now and it's a marathoner. Even with brisk usage, I'm usually down to 40% at the end of the day, with constant LTE and email connections active.
Edit: For those wondering about the Z2's battery life, this article might be of some use.
I don't think that the difference between 1080p and 2k would be visible on a 5.5 inch screen. Even if it did, for a phone, 2k is overkill. What are you gonna do? Watch 2k movies on it? Your battery will be out halfway through.
edit : Turns out I was wrong about the screen size. Thank you /u/pewpewlasors
Money not important, only life important- -That Thing From The Fifth Element
This post made me imagine what my life would be like if I used my phone the same way now as I did a decade ago.
Flip phone, no data, about 4 texts per day and three short calls.
I wouldn't have to charge a modern dumbphone for like 10 days on a stretch. That is a pretty nice improvement if you think about it.
(Posted from my car on a Galaxy Note 2.)
If 4k is 3840 x 2160, then surely "2k" is 1920 x 1080? AKA 1080p.
Edit: Apparently not.
EDIT: YES I KNOW
Edit: I don't know anymore :'(
yeah those 4k, 2k marketing terms are getting out of hand.
People love specs, people love those little stickers with letters and numbers.
something something 7000 BX 420 LED 2k 4k OLED INFINITE CONTRAST Clear Voice II LCD HD HDready FullHD Ultra HD SRS TheaterSound® LinkStick™ Precision Black Local Dimming AllShare™ 3D Wide Color Enhancer Plus BD Wise™ Ultra Clear Panel PurColor UHD Dimming Auto Depth Enhancer DTV X-Reality X-tended Dynamic Range Edge-lit LED backlight SMART TV Quad Core Plus DLNA SENSEYE Smart View 2.0 ConnectShare™ Anynet+
Better make a new Spider-Man movie with updated product placement, then.
That's because you're using a 4 year old phone that has a broken battery which costs about $25 and less than 15 minutes to replace.
Edit: if you are going to order a battery get it from ifixit. From what I understand their batteries are the closest to oem. Check out their site and see how easy it is, at least for the 4 and 4S. If you're still not sure you can order a battery and get a repair shop to do it.
How did you put your car on a Galaxy Note 2?
Now if only they'd finally make some money with their Smartphones
Dude you should see the Z3, I love the fact Sony puts batteries almost double the size of other manufacturers in their phones, yet the phones still stay small and sleek, and "stamina mode" is insane, I get about two days fairly heavy usage.
not to be confused with qHD, which is 960x540
I shit you not...
As someone with a moto g I say all you people that think having screens better than your TV on your phone are nuts and are tricking yourself into thinking its that much better and noticeable its just completely unnecessary.
A lot of people don't yet realize that 2k is roughly equivalent with 1080p. The change comes in how resolution is measured. 1080p resolution is actually 1920 width x 1080 height. So 720p, 1080p etc refers to height, while measurements such as 2k and 4k refer to width, which as you can see from the 1080p resolution, is about 2k already. Top this off with the fact that 4k and 2k aren't referring to exact resolutions (4k isn't actually 4 thousand pixels in width, but instead 3840 x 2160 and 2k actually refers to 1920 x 1080) and you get plenty of confusion.
"Just a fucking screen".
Sony doesn't know how to advertise any of their shit.
Well, those Galaxy Notes ARE huge phones.
In the article they're talking about QHD, which is 2560x1440.
how about just a slightly thicker phone?
honestly they're needlessly super thin, add a few mm and give me another thousand mAh.
JUST X-fucking UHD DXPTX screen™ 2.0
it's a 2.5K display we're talking about, not 2K. 2560x1440 is about the resolution manufacturers are* using, which is 2.5K.
I think Sony made an excellent choice here, though.
*edited for typo correction... at != are
You can still buy Nokia's with week long battery life, just don't expect that to be possible with the hyperconnected, HD screens on offer now unless you want to carry around a monster battery.
Wow, that is some terrible naming. qHD is quarter HD while QHD is quad HD.
I probably couldn't create a more confusing naming scheme if I tried.
Someone tried: http://xkcd.com/394/
Funny thing is, we've been using those terms in film for quite some time, and suddenly they're being used as marketing terms. Even before the proliferation of digital movie cameras, they were used as shorthand for the resolution the film negative was scanned to. It's kindof strange to hear the terms tossed around to describe smartphone features.
And didn't have a massive full color display. That's what takes most of the battery usage.
2K traditionally refers to DCI 2K (the original 2K resolution), which is defined as 1998-2048 x 858-1080.
2560 x 1440-1600 does not fit into that range, and is about 2 times larger than most 2K formats.
Some people include 1920x1080 as 2K alongside DCI 2K, as while it is below the minimum width, it is at the maximum height, and therefore has a similar total resolution to DCI 2K.
Sorry if I'm showing my age but 60% of the battery used in a single day is way too much for me. I remember having to charge my nokia once a week. I want that again.
Have to say, yes I would choose battery over screen, but the LG g3 is a poor example. I am not sure how much you people use your phone or how rarely you charge but my LG g3 is rarely under 40% at the end of the day and never under 20%.
This is what annoys me about the iPhone. "Look! We made our phone even thinner! And because of that we can continue to use the same small, underpowered, shitty ass battery!" NO! NO! NO!! Keep the phone the same thickness (or even make it thicker) and double the battery size please! I have an iPhone 5 and I'm waiting to see what the 6 looks like. I know there are rumors of a bigger battery but if they continue down the, "We've improved things by making the phone even thinner (with a still shitty battery)", I'll be moving on to Android.
And with the size of the phone screens on the market, the actual DPI is quite sick already, so I don't think a higher DPI is needed, at all.
Does anyone able to see the difference between a 1080p and the 2K screen when it's only 5-6 inches?
It's noticeable on the G3's 5.5" screen. It's not like 1080p on a screen that size is ugly, my mom still has an Optimus G Pro (5.5" 1080p) and it's still sharp. My G3s screen is however noticeably sharper. A detailed 1440p wallpaper looks ridiculously good on this phone. You can also see much more detail in the photos it takes.
There's no denying the hit to battery life from the increase in pixels, but it still lasts a full day of moderate-heavy usage.
EDIT: Watching this post rise up a bunch in points and then get down voted back down is entertaining. Apparently quite a bit of Reddit doesn't like the fact that I enjoy my G3 and can indeed notice the difference in resolution.
Can confirm: have baby dick and 640 * 480 rez
I'm new to high end smartphones, is there alot of difference between 1080p vs 720p?
I bought the Sony Xperia z1 compact (its arriving tomorrow) and because the screen is 4.3inches (i think its way more handy that way) i figured that resolution was high enough.
Samsung is sitting there laughing whilst trying to jam another processor in their devices.
Sony seems to be heading on the right track. A waterproof/resistant device with a battery life like a blackberry curve, just add a decent camera and they should be good.
Too much spec flexing from samsung, not enough value added features IMO.
This has been baffling to me for a while. I don't see people craving a thinner phone. It's OK if it's one or two mms thicker. I don't think anyone would care, really, and that lets you put a lot of extra mAhs. I replaced the back of my phone to fit a 3600 (or 3800?) mAh battery, and I have not looked back.
Yeah but sometimes having an extra battery can just be an outright pain in the ass.
Source- Had an HTC EVO and four batteries.
The blackest black is literally a black hole from which no light escapes.
The brightest while is an energy beam is such intensity it obliterates everything it touches.
This screen is the ultra the weapon.
Your plasma is sharp from 10 feet away, not 10 inches. At longer distances, you don't need high pixel density.
I think you're right. I'm definitely in favour of sticking with the title "1440p" as oppose to 2k. Its easier to understand, and easier to compare with 1080p.
Edited for clarity.
Can we get 1440p as standard on 13"-15" laptops and desktop monitors and 1080p on 11" laptops before we worry about phones with above 500ppi?
I got the same phone 2 weeks back, it's great - no issues with screen resolution at all. Clarity for videos, general use etc has been fine. Tbh, the letdown is audio quality out of the main speakers...
eh? I swear I just scrolled through an entire debate concluding FullHD==1080p==2K
That's a different department. Remember that Sony is HUGE. Photography, movies, games, telephones, electronics, computers (or at least they used to), and so on.
In fact, I'd say Sony's sheer size is its own bad omen: the departments have a hard time communicating with each other efficiently.
That's pretty much any cell phone. You're just not going to get quality audio out of speakers that size. At least not anytime soon
I don't think that the difference between 1080p and 2k would be visible on a 5 inch screen. Even if it did, for a phone, 2k is overkill. What are you gonna do? Watch 2k movie son it? Your battery will be out halfway through.
"For example, human vision systems are able to determine whether two lines are aligned extremely well, with a resolution around two arcseconds. This translates into an effective 1800 PPD. For reference, a 5” display with a 2560x1440 resolution would only have 123 PPD."
There is diminishing returns, but there definitely is a benefit.
In television, the top-end 1080p high-definition television format qualifies as 2K resolution, having a horizontal resolution of 1920 pixels, with a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels.
You're only on 2.0? Please, 2.1 has increased OLED responsiveness and a gtg time of point-4-0 nanoquadoolies.
Maybe people prefer to operate the phone with their nose and complain about aliasing?
I wish they'd put even a fraction of that effort into improving desktop monitors.
23-30" range has been stuck in 60-100 PPI for ages. Fast refresh rate TN panels look like shit and better looking IPS panels perform like ass. Both have resolution equal to tablets and laptops.
I want a 23" 1440p 144Hz 1ms IPS AMOLED screen, dammit.
What do you mean "still sharp"? My fucking plasma is 1080p 50'' and it is sharp.
Just annoys me that they were calling it 1080 for one axis then changed to 4k on the other axis.
I think you might be able to tell the difference on say a wide screen tv, but on your phone? i'd be surprised if most people could tell the difference unless they saw a side by side comparison...
4k isn't actually 4 thousand pixels in width, but instead 3840 x 2160 and 2k actually refers to 1920 x 1080
Nope. 4k & 2k are standards used for cinema.
3840 & 1920 are close to 4,000 & 2,000 pixels wide if you round up, but by the specs, neither is truly 4k or 2k (lots of cinema people get irked by this, kind of like mixing up "their, there & they're").
4k = 4096 pixels wide native resolution
2k = 2048 pixels wide native resolution
HD = 1920 or 1280 pixels wide (for 1080 or 720, respectively)
UHD = 3840 pixels wide (it is twice the height & width of 1920x1080 for four times the resolution)
The biggest culprits spreading the "UHD is 4k" fallacy are the people trying to sell consumer TV sets. "4K" sounds sexier to the sales guys, but many of those sets are just UHD.
The difference is minimal & I doubt that many people could see the resolution difference between 4k & UHD on their home sets, but false sales claims are really annoying.
Are you trying to sell me something right now?
I don't, but I always live close to the edge.
Only it's time, not money.
Yeah my phone currently has the same resolution as my monitor.
If people could put this effort in to cheap 4k (or even higher) monitors first that'd be nice.
so 2k is just 1440p? the fuck is the point in calling it 2k? it's been called 1440p for years, in terms of monitor resolution at least
This is why I don't understand 2k phones. Put that in my fucking work monitor, give that to me in my laptop (well, I guess I already own a retina MBP, but I wish I had a giant-ass HiDPI monitor to hook up to it so I'm not tilting my head down to get that sweet sweet density).
It's cool that I can't see the pixels on my iPhone when I'm just using it day to day, but in all situations, high density DPI is far more important to me when I'm getting actual work done.
Sorry, rant over.
Yet when iPhone 6 comes out and isn't a 2k screen, I guarantee you /sub/technology is going to be all "LOL ancient specs"
That bugged me too for a while. It's actually quite simple:
HD = 1280 x 720 -> QHD (quadHD - 2K) = 2×1280 x 2×720 = 2560 x 1440 (you'd need 4 HD screens to fill QHD screen)
FullHD = 1920 x 1080 -> UHD (UltraHD - 4K) = 2×1920 x 2×1080 = 3840 x 2160 (again, you'd need 4 FullHD screens to fill 4k)
Actually, it's not simple, it's still super confusing.
As a very, very heavy user I run through my galaxy note 2 battery in about 5/6 hours, and then swap it for a new one. I almost never have battery anxiety.
If battery life is the main concern, the removable battery of the note 4 trumps the 10-20 percent extra battery life a full HD phone will have over a 2.5 k display.
Note 4 still wins the battery life argument for me, but I just don't see the value of the extra pixels yet. The only application I see is video, and the content just isn't there.
Batteries degrade whether you use them or not.
I have the lg g3. The difference is easy to spot. This argument is just weird... It's like when console gamers say 720p is good enough and they can't see more than 24fps.
I wouldn't call it "quality audio", but the HTC One M8 has surprisingly good speakers:
Sony is my next phone choice, using the iphone 4 right now, have had it off charger for two hours on reddit and down to 50% battery
Close your applications? This isn't Froyo or Gingerbread any more.
1080p vs 720p
Depends on the screen size, 720p on a small enough display would be just as sharp as 1080p on a bigger one. But since most high end smartphones have big screen these days (apart from iPhone 5s) go for 1080p. Just go for pixel density above 420ppi and you will be golden.
Galaxy S5 has some serious battery life. 2 days without charging and fairly heavy use.
This isn't really a new problem:
I was around when EGA and VGA were big names for computer screen resolution. After that everyone came to their senses for while and just counted the pixels. And now we are back to stupid names again.
Sony is correct. There is no reason to have 2k. It is a multimedia and communication device...not a tv.
I wasn't sure at first, but then I got my G3. Totally worth the hit to battery life, which really isn't too bad.
Couldn't agree more. A dead phone has zero features
It's the iPhone effect. It's sad but it's true. A solid third of the population, when buying a phone, is comparing it directly to the iphone, no matter what they're buying, and iPhones are always thin.
Charlie Stross wrote that part of the manufacturing process for the iPhone was a level 2 glamour spell. I"m not sure he was far off the mark...
Or... we could just refer to screens by their actual resolution.
"How many pixels does that screen have?"
"It's a QHD screen!" <--- NO
"It's a 2560x1440 screen!" <--- Yes
Yeah, but if I want VR, I want a real set. I don't want to have to hook my phone up to it. It's a neat idea, but I would rather have something designed with VR in mind than a phone.
Meanwhile i'm posting this with my 1366x768 resolution laptop.
I lost it at Intel's kilobyte.
They've been pretty damn good at advertising the PS4 at least.
You're a monster.
I have smaller closets than the Galaxy Note.
Viewing distance bruh
I have had my iPhone 4 for four years. Never replaced battery, and I get 2 days out of it. It was one day, but I deleted a walking app that I found out was draining battery.
My G3 is about the same with heavy usage.
As long as you use the battery saving features and remember to close your applications, the battery life is fine.
Totally agree. After heavy use, my G3 generally still has ~35% battery when I go to bed. And for those saying you can't tell the difference between resolutions, you can. Breathtaking clarity, you have to experience it before you judge it. 10/10 best phone I've ever had.
Yeah not gonna lie, only thing I've really noticed about my s5 is the battery life.
I had 4.3 720p and was more than happy with it. I'm now on a 5.5 inch 1440p, and used a 5 inch 1080p inbetween. While I like it more, I don't think it's super-noticeable.
Don't listen to the people talking about video though. The main advantage to high resolutions on a small screen is for rendering fonts clearly. If you like text to be really crisp, and you like to be able to render tiny fonts cleanly, go 1080p