HTC’s new Droid DNA smartphone has plenty of qualities that make it intriguing. It has a quad-core Snapdragon chipset. It crams a 5-inch display in a body nearly the size of a One X or Galaxy S III. Its Super LCD 3 technology trumps the Super LCD 2 that made the HTC 8x display so lovely. By all accounts it’s a wonderful device.
But one thing HTC takes particular pride in is the 1920×1080 display, good for a pixel density of 440 pixels per inch, the highest ever in any handheld consumer device. This should make tech nerds lose their shit, right? Not quite. Welcome to your new favourite meaningless stat: ppi.
The problem with most specs is that beyond a certain point, they fail to be useful. You might remember that when digital cameras first appeared, they left plenty of room for improvement. Part of that improvement involved adding megapixels to the sensor, since getting more detail from the sensor typically involved increasing the dimensions of the image itself. But at some point in the mid-2000s, an increase in megapixels no longer meant it was a surefire sign of improvement. My 5MP camera started taking better pictures than your 10MP shooter. Beyond a certain point, unless you’re planning on blowing up your picture to the size of a warehouse wall, megapixels just don’t matter.
This same line of thinking manifested itself when contrast ratio became a spec for Plasma and LCD displays (OMG ONE ZILLION TO ONE CONTRAST RATIO)—can’t see it, doesn’t matter—and is now resurfacing as companies enter the pixel density arms race. Increases in pixel density are going from impressive technical feats to masturbatory experiments for the sake of marketing strategy.
So what do we make of HTC managing to pack a 1920×1080 display in a 5-inch screen? When it comes to tangible user benefits, not much. According to those who toil away in research labs, the human eye can not discern granular detail when it is higher than 300 PPI. Hence Apple’s 326 PPI display in the iPhone 4 back in 2010. Yes, some—notably Dr. Raymond Soneira of DisplayMate—have argued that no display will be perfectly “retina” until it has a density of 477 PPI. But others, like University of Utah professor Bryan Jones, dispute the basis of Soneira’s reasoning, arguing that from a foot away, displays will actually appear retina when greater than 287 PPI. But even Soneira acknowledeged that the retina effect kicks in when a 300 PPI display is held 18 inches away. You know. Where you hold your phone.
Does increased smartphone resolution help for watching high-def movies? Not really. To really reap the benefit of 1080p video, you need no smaller than a 40-inch display (and ideally one above 50-inches) to notice anything awesome while sitting at a comfortable distance. In fact, to theoretically reap any benefits of 1080p video on your phone, you’d need to be holding it 6-8 inches from your face. No one holds their phone 6-8 inches from their face.
Sure, you can get yourself some added digital real estate with a 1080p smartphone display, but you run the risk of making everything too small to easily view. In fact, the only tangible benefit of a 1080p is that a phone’s chipset doesn’t then have to waste horsepower scaling down the resolution of high-def content. That’s a minor reward, though, one offset by all that pixel-pushing gobbling up hardware resources and battery life.
That’s not to say that the Droid DNA has a bad screen by any means. In fact, our own Brent Rose thinks its the best smartphone screen he’s ever seen, citing its rich colors, and sharp text. But that more to do with HTC’s Super LCD 3 technology and its rendering engines as it does raw pixel density, in the same way that a camera’s ISO performance matters far more than its megapixelage.
Does this mean that the display wars are over, and everyone should give up on trying to make better screens? Of course not. There are plenty of ways to make a better-looking display. But we’ve reached the point in the pixel density wars where higher figures have stopped automatically equating to improved performance for users. Any grandstanding about pixel density, from here on out, now is mostly just marketing fluff.













Ultrabook: The New Most Meaningless Word in Tech
Here Are Google Glass' Tech Specs
BB10 London -- RIM Delivering 2012 Tech Specs in 2013
This, coming from a blog that went bat shit crazy about the PPI of the retina display making it sound like it was the coming of the Messiah.
PPI certainly does help but I do appreciate at a certain point it does become a gimmick however it is definitely something worth considering for certain devices.
Totally meaningless, until Apple create a display better than 440PPI, then it’ll be the greatest thing ever. Magical even. Gizmodo will run 4 different articles on just how great the new display is before the device even releases.
So your saying that the common 50PPI screen looks the same as a 300PPI screen, and that a monitor or projector that cannot display black only grey is the same as a high contrast display?
I guess VHS > BluRay right?
No. He’s saying that a 440PPI screen when viewed from 18 inches away will look indistinguishable from a 320PPI screen to anyone with average vision.
So on a 3.5″ display that churns 320PPI, this is a breakthrough, but for a screen 3/2 bigger to have 4/3 as many pixels is suddenly pointless? Whilst I agree that much above 1080p on a handheld device is pointless, this milestone is an important one in the goal of providing the ultimate entertainment package.
So PPI become a meaningless spec soon after someone beats the retina display? How come it was the super duper new “everything you have is now a piece of crap” not long ago when apple released the first retina display devices!
P.S. Adrian, this picture makes you look like Scumbag Steve.
I think it’s because Apple made the “lowest” possible PPI where at a normal viewable distance the pixels were indistinguishable from each other. Anything higher than that would technically be extraneous since it defeats the “purpose” of the technology.
Like having a 20 inch 1080p tv (not monitor): it’s nice, but can you really tell the difference between that and 720p?
Now that everyone’s caught up and beat Apple PPI becomes “meaningless” since the differences will be negligible.
Perhaps I’m completely wrong, but this at least is my take on it.
You & ScyBy seem to be the only people here who’ve grasped the point here: ie, that 1080p on a screen that small is no help to anyone. In just the same way that 4K on anything less than a 60″ screen is pointless.
I can imagine that a 600 ppi screen would look a little better than a 320 ppi screen, but not so much that it’s worth paying for, or worth the tech companies chasing.
Why can’t they focus on doubling battery life next instead?
Well it makes total sense to me that PPI becomes meaningless above certain point (quite obvious actually). My point is that many posts here praised apple’s PPI until someone came up with even more PPI.
I’ve seen retina displays and, although it does feel better to the eyes, I wouldn’t say that they have reach the point from where more pixels are just indistinguishable. Still maybe it’s just because I tend to see more detail than normal people at very short distances.
Yeah, but what I’m saying (trying my very best not to sound like a fanboy), Apple derived the “perfect ratio” (note the quotes) e.g. the minimum amount of PPI required to make pixels indistinguishable for 20/20 visions at a “normal usage distance”.
Higher PPI = more pixels = more processing power needed to drive it = less battery life.
Going much higher than Apple is probably a “bad thing” because of these factors, hence the very undeserved shitstorm that HTC is getting from numerous tech blogs including Apple HQ Gizmodo.
Closer up and for people with better eyesight like yourself (and me too actually) a 1080p screen is perfect and I seriously hope this becomes the benchmark eventually on phones (not in the least because it’s the standard video format). Going beyond that however, is as I said, slightly “extraneous”.
I don’t now mate. I couldn’t compare many devices to decide if apple’s PPI is the closest one to the best cost/benefit ratio. But then again I’ll only be in UK next February. Till there I wont have the chance to get my hands on many devices since they take very long to come to Brazil.
BTW I’m actually shortsighted hence why I see better than “normal people” on short distances (2 inches or less
)
Totally agree on Scumbag Steve comment btw
Right now I’m holding my Galaxy Note less than 10 inches from my face while I lie down in bed. I think at this distance a higher PPI would be noticeable but only if I’m holding two screens side by side to compare them. I think 1080p in screens below 6 inches should be the maximum and manufacturers should focus on making the frame/bezel thinner or make it literally edge to edge. There are lots more ways to improve screens other than higher PPI like making it lighter, more durable, or use much less battery.
Reading Chinese characters is amazing on a high PPI screen. Some of these characters have ridiculous number of strokes, and on a low PPI screen the strokes blur together. You can still recognize the character from the overall shape, but if you look just a little closer it becomes really ugly.
All hail high PPI displays.
I disagree that a higher ppi is “meaningless”. Everything that Gizmodo said about retina display holds true at higher resolutions and if it can be obtained without a processor or battery hit then why not. However I agree that increasing it just for the sake of having a bullet point on a spec sheet would be akin to the mega pixel race in digital cameras.
The next spec I’ll really care about is battery life. Hopefully manufacturers will start focusing on that instead!
Thats to do with the screen.
The LCD panel (not the back-light) uses 40% of the battery on most phones, AMOLED is just as bad. And then the back-light uses some as well on LCD screens.
We need OLED soon.
I just used a tape measure and I typically hold my phone about 12 inches from my eyes, sometimes closer when reading long items of text – so I higher ppi would probably be useful. Perhaps not in a sense of discernable difference even, but in reducing eye strain.
Probably looked a little odd in the office…
“but in reducing eye strain.”
I was going to mention that but you beat me to it.
The smaller the gap between pixels the better for eye strain, and high ppi screen have smaller gaps so they don’t cause as much eye strain.
“Short of kidnapping Tim Cook and waterboarding him, we couldn’t be more sure the iPad 3 will boast a mega-pretty retina display resolution. But buzzwordiness aside, just how much better will the new sharpness be? It makes everything that came before it look puny. See for yourself.” Sam Biddle, Gizmodo – Here’s How Much Better an iPad 3 Retina Display Will Be, February 21, 2012
“The new iPad is here. Apple’s new tablet computer has arrived and its ultra-sharp 2048 x 1536 pixel Retina display is enough to set it apart from anyone else.” & “The Retina display looks gorgeous. The screen has a 264 pixels per inch density.” Jesus Diaz, Gizmodo – New iPad: The Third Generation, March 7, 2012
“The new iPad sports 264 pixels per inch, which isn’t iPhone quality, but on a screen so big, it’s still wonderful — and a huge leap over the 132 PPI of its predecessors.” Sam Biddle, Gizmodo – The New iPad’s Beautiful New Retina Display: 1,000,000 More Pixels than HDTV, March 7, 2012
“Metro’s minimalist tiles, WP’s general design, and bright AMOLED screens make up for a lot. Still, nothing but 480×800 screens is a drag” Kyle Wagner, Gizmodo – Windows Phone 8 Phones Might Get Beautiful HD Screens, June 1, 2012
That final line of the article does make me smile after reviewing your research above… “Any grandstanding about pixel density, from here on out, now is mostly just marketing fluff.”
Adrian is not saying that 320ppi displays are pointless. He’s not saying that high density displays are, in general, pointless. He’s not disagreeing with any of those quotes.
He’s saying that 440ppi in a phone is pointless. Why? To repeat my comment above:
‘… a 440PPI screen when viewed from 18 inches away will look indistinguishable from a 320PPI screen to anyone with average vision.’
He’s saying that you would need to hold your phone 6-8 inches from your face to gain any benefit.