LG shows off the benefits of the G6's 18:9 screen ratio

midian182

Posts: 6,290   +53
Staff member

It was reported last month that LG’s upcoming G6 smartphone would feature a 2880x1440 display and narrow bezels. Now, the company has released a teaser trailer for the new handset, explaining the thinking behind that unusual 18:9 aspect ratio.

LG's updated custom Android mobile UX (version 6.0) will take advantage of the G6’s 5.7-inch FullVision display, mainly by allowing it to show two almost perfectly square windows next to each other when the handset is held horizontally. The extra space should improve split-screen multitasking, and the G6 offers a few extra functions while in this mode.

Apps that are optimized for the handset take full advantage of the dual display function. The calendar app, for example, will show dates on the left and event details on the right. The camera app also utilizes the feature, placing Instagram-style, 1:1 square photos on one side of the screen while letting you review those you’ve already taken on the other.

Additionally, there's a “Food Mode” in the camera app that adds high color quality and saturation every time you snap a meal and inevitably post it to facebook, Instagram, Twitter, etc. There's also a way to easily create GIFs by combining 2 to 100 pictures in a loop.

LG says the two screens will let users view more information while surfing the web or reading an e-book, and provides a more immersive experience when watching videos or playing games. Moreover, the G6 includes a feature that lets people easily view 16:9 ratio content in its 18:9 format.

LG claims the G6 will ignite an era of premium smartphones with 18:9 screen aspect ratios, “which is why such a wide variety of films, apps and games tailored to the 18:9 aspect ratio is sharply rising.”

The G6 will get its official unveiling on February 26 at MWC in Barcelona.

Permalink to story.

 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,123   +1,304
I have a 5.5" Note 2 and it has multitasking, and do you know how much I use it? Do you know how many people I've seen use or have heard ask for that feature on their phones?

I DON'T, and NONE!

And I thought the G5's gimmick was bad.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Humza and psycros

3volv3d

Posts: 301   +127
I am confused, was that video meant to show me what the G6 could do, I was waiting and waiting to know, and then it ended...

Someone explain this to me.

It's a phone. Don't care about the multitasking , just want battery life, miss my LG G2.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,123   +1,304
I am confused, was that video meant to show me what the G6 could do, I was waiting and waiting to know, and then it ended...

Someone explain this to me.

It's a phone. Don't care about the multitasking , just want battery life, miss my LG G2.
Read the words under the video.
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,123   +1,304
Why call it 18:9 instead of 2:1? Same with 16:10 instead of 8:5; it makes sense for 16:9 since the proportion can't be expressed with smaller integers. Anybody got a clue?
I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Screen ratios aren't math problems, so why fix what isn't broken?
 

Tibeardius

Posts: 64   +42
I am confused, was that video meant to show me what the G6 could do, I was waiting and waiting to know, and then it ended...

Someone explain this to me.

It's a phone. Don't care about the multitasking , just want battery life, miss my LG G2.
I still have my G2 and use it from time to time. Such a great phone.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kibaruk

madboyv1

Posts: 1,641   +543
Why call it 18:9 instead of 2:1? Same with 16:10 instead of 8:5; it makes sense for 16:9 since the proportion can't be expressed with smaller integers. Anybody got a clue?
My assumption is because it is easier to compare the aspect ratios of similar sized formats when one part of the ratio is the same or similar to another. 16:10 is taller than 16:9, 21:9 is wider than 16:9, etc. Probably the only reason why this way of thinking about it is prevalent is how widespread/universal 16:9 has become.
 

EEatGDL

Posts: 762   +483
Why call it 18:9 instead of 2:1? Same with 16:10 instead of 8:5; it makes sense for 16:9 since the proportion can't be expressed with smaller integers. Anybody got a clue?
I'm not sure how that's even relevant. Screen ratios aren't math problems, so why fix what isn't broken?
Everyone can quickly understand a 2:1 ratio, I'm pretty sure many people mentally block "big numbers" such as 18:9 and don't come to realize it's a 2:1 ratio. I think the explanation may come from what madboyv1 said. Nobody said a screen proportion should use those numbers as a standard; my question is as valid as if 32:18 or 32:20 -or any other way of representing the same proportions- were the accustomed values in the industry. 2:1 isn't "breaking" anything.
 

OutlawCecil

Posts: 738   +570
I am confused, was that video meant to show me what the G6 could do, I was waiting and waiting to know, and then it ended...

Someone explain this to me.

It's a phone. Don't care about the multitasking , just want battery life, miss my LG G2.
Agreed x2! The video showed literally nothing, and I'm still rocking my rooted and manually upgraded LG G2.
 

psycros

Posts: 3,273   +3,599
Proprietary screen format requiring extra work for apps to support it? Good luck with that.
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,302   +5,088
LG seems to be pandering to an entire generation of imbeciles with their "18:9 aspect". Apparently either the LG staff, or an entire generation of mentally challenged consumers, never went to school so they could learn about, "lowest common denominator".

As near as my meager math s skills can determine, "18:9" is actually "2:1". Unless it's more "sophisticated" to have a number ending in a "9". Oh wait, we wouldn't want to confuse anyone with an actual representation of the proportions of the true width to height, now would we? :confused:
 

captaincranky

Posts: 16,302   +5,088
Why call it 18:9 instead of 2:1? Same with 16:10 instead of 8:5; it makes sense for 16:9 since the proportion can't be expressed with smaller integers. Anybody got a clue?
Well, I think the LCD representation makes it easier to visualize aspect ratio for an individual. I think, "9", makes it easier for a manufacturer to compare it to the newly adopted "standard" of 16:9.

And we as consumers are supposed to be standing around going, "duh, how can they possibly expect us to visualize spatial relations to the point we we could deal with proportions which have a different denominators. "CinemaScope" is represented as a decimal numerator thus: "2.35 to 1.00" which is quite understandable, at least from my point of view..

So now, for today's customers it needs to be imbecile proofed as "21:9". I guess times change and "9", is the new "1"

Actual aspect ratio should, (or possibly would), be better understood with "1" as the denominator.

35mm camera film (and DSLR aspect ratio): 1.5 to 1.0

"16:10" monitors: "1.6 to 1.0"

18:9 phones: "2.0 to 1.0"

And "16:9", is actually the only case where one might have to crack out the calculator. That would be: "1:78 to 1:00". Now that used to be the way 16:9 was actually represented. In fact, it used to be written right on the backs of DVD boxes.(*) Ah, those were the good old days, when people could read and do simple maths. :cool:

(*) Do any of you remember DVDs?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: EEatGDL

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,123   +1,304
Everyone can quickly understand a 2:1 ratio, I'm pretty sure many people mentally block "big numbers" such as 18:9 and don't come to realize it's a 2:1 ratio. I think the explanation may come from what madboyv1 said. Nobody said a screen proportion should use those numbers as a standard; my question is as valid as if 32:18 or 32:20 -or any other way of representing the same proportions- were the accustomed values in the industry. 2:1 isn't "breaking" anything.
Wow. This just goes to show there are way too many people wasting thoughts, breath and keystrokes trying to solve problems that don't exist. Next I'm gonna see a comment about why driveways weren't called parkways...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tibeardius

Phr3d

Posts: 404   +87
"35mm camera film (and DSLR aspect ratio): 1.5 to 1.0"

missed the memo, when was 1.33:1 // 4:3 abandoned?
not the first time I've missed a memo, of course, but thought 640x480 (or even 320x240 NTSC) came from 4:3, 35mm film?
 
B

bmw95

For those who are wondering why LG went with 18:9 instead of 2:1. The reason is marketing. Fast food companies for years have tried the 1/3lb burger to pit against McDonald's 1/4 lb burger, but it never took off because people thought 1/4lb is more than 1/3lb.

Selling a product labeled as 2:1 against others that are 16:9, 16:10, even 3:2 will in the same way fail. Even if we make that mental correction, we're still subconsciously drawn to the ratios with bigger numbers. 18:9 sounds much better when pitted against 16:9 and 16:10.
 

EEatGDL

Posts: 762   +483
Wow. This just goes to show there are way too many people wasting thoughts, breath and keystrokes trying to solve problems that don't exist. Next I'm gonna see a comment about why driveways weren't called parkways...
Well, hello... look who's doing that. Seriously, I would have thought you would have made the same statement regarding 2:1, 16:8, 18:9... and make fun of LG, but no. When did you lost your noob-pointing compass? As you can see I'm not the first one nor the only one to think the same way about their arbitrary numbers for aspect ratio and you end up being made fun of not paying attention to math class. Why even bother with your last reply?
 

hahahanoobs

Posts: 3,123   +1,304
As you can see I'm not the first one nor the only one to think the same way about their arbitrary numbers for aspect ratio and you end up being made fun of not paying attention to math class. Why even bother with your last reply?
Trump uses the same defense....
You can only reduce some of the resolutions, so you're only inviting confusion to the average consumer. Remember, the average consumer doesn't frequent tech sites.
Also, take a look at bmw95's comment. That sums it up PERFECTLY.
 

cliffordcooley

Posts: 12,581   +5,960
What is actually happening is the same concept behind selling products at x.99 instead of rounding up that last penny. It is marketing BS, thinking people don't know the difference. And the more they continue this kinda crap the more confused people will get.

Thank God the tape measure is not marked with all the increments of 16th or 32nd. And I'm sure if they ever did someone would foolishly suggest it's easier to understand this way. If you are one of these people, put it down, walk away, and never look back.
 

Capaill

Posts: 1,200   +738
For those who are wondering why LG went with 18:9 instead of 2:1. The reason is marketing. Fast food companies for years have tried the 1/3lb burger to pit against McDonald's 1/4 lb burger, but it never took off because people thought 1/4lb is more than 1/3lb.
That, and nobody wants to ask for a turd pounder burger.