Mind-boggling is right, trying to understand why someone needs such pixel density.

 

Because then you can use your microscope who's collecting dust

 

I want 4k now on my phone!! NAW!!!!

 

This tech can help lead the way to future revisions for VR. It would still have to be bigger than 4" though.

 

1080p is obviously lame now.

 

720p is enough for me on a phone. This is overkill.

 

It's just pointless unless they are designed for LOTR elves not humans and our middling vision.

 

The same reason we use 1920x1080 instead of 640x480. Sharper, clearer, images. It's much more important for devices with display size limitations than computers that can simply have a larger display.

 

http://isthisretina.com/

There you go, do a few calculations! 736 PPI is 40% more pixel density than that of retina quality, because I doubt anyone will hold their phone closer to their eyes than 7 inches. PPI greater than retina quality is overkill.

 

Again... and as I said earlier this technology will be very helpful for the future of VR. You certainly wear VR headsets much closer than you would your phone and once you get it that close it is obvious that you need more pixel density and better pixel spacing.

 

"The same reason we use 1920x1080 instead of 640x480. Sharper, clearer, images. It's much more important for devices with display size limitations than computers that can simply have a larger display."

err.. in this case, can your eyes even see the difference between 1080p vs 1440p on a 5 inch display?

 

According to some rumours, we should see similar, if not higher PPI phones in 2015.

http://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-reportedly-creating-6-inch-4k-super-amoled-display/

 

Most of Sharp's stuff is garbage. They make a big issue of how they're innovative, but when it hits consumer level, it's trash.

 

Maybe you've been unlucky. I've owned many different Sharp products in my time and I found them great. I still have a portable transistor radio circa 1975 made by Sharp which I used for years, took it camping, fishing even to the military when I was drafted and it always worked like a bomb. Although I haven't turned it on for a few years now I'm sure it'll still work just fine.

 

"Mind-boggling is right, trying to understand why someone needs such pixel density."
Oculus rift needs small super hi res screens. Put your eyes close to a 1080p monitor to see why.

 

The article is not talking about VR, it is talking about a phone. I however do agree that it will help with VR, in sharing the cost. But in no way do we need this pixel density in a phone. So please stop trying to compare our needs in VR to our needs in Phone tech.

You are arguing the needs of a phone with much higher pixel density, while suggesting we put our eyes close to a monitor with 8 times less pixel density, just so we can see the difference. Brilliant, just brilliant!

 

You may like to know that almost all of the existing VR tech we currently have is based on phone tech. The screen in the Oculus Rift DK2 is merely a Samsung Note 3 screen. In fact, Oculus is working with Samsung on the Gear device for phones.

 

@LNCPapa, you make a good point about VR. That doesn't explain our ridiculous desires to have pixel densities we don't need in phones. "VR needs the pixel density" is a crazy PR admission, no matter how true it may be. I imagine projectors need higher pixel density as well. Do they rely heavily on phone tech? By the time VR becomes mainstream and has a market for itself, phone tech will be irrelevant. VR is VR and phones are phones. The only reason VR relies on phone tech is because it hasn't become mainstream.

 

This is true... can't really argue with that at all. What I can bring up though is that this article is about new display technology that Sharp has come up with - it's not even necessarily known if it will go into a phone as no model information is included.

 

1080p on my 5' phone is perfect... leave it, upgrade the battery life.

 

Yes but, you're envisioning a potential use for the product which has very little to do with what pixel density is necessary, adequate, or even way overkill on a smart phone.

With that said, and since Sharp hasn't announced what, if anything they're going to do with it, the whole press release is, for all intents and purposes, just Sharp trying to keep Sharp in the headlines.

Are we to believe that none of the other electronics giants don't have something similar cooking in a lab somewhere?