Google, Samsung to launch 10", 2560x1600 tablet
Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sun 21st Oct 2012 15:11 UTC
Google The Next Web: "Google has also been working with Samsung to launch a 10-inch tablet, confirming leaks which suggested Google had teamed up with the Korean manufacturer for another device. Our source tells us that internally the tablet goes under the name 'Codename Manta', runs Google's new Android 4.2 operating system (previously referred to as Key Lime Pie, but is set to retain the Jelly Bean branding), and will offer a 2560x1600 pixel (10:16) resolution, which we believe will offer around 300 pixels per inch compared to the new iPad's 264 PPI." Between the iPad and this supposed Android tablet... Poor Surface. Poor, poor Surface.
E-mail Print r 1   49 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/kfo
Thread beginning with comment 539355
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
kholinar
Member since:
2007-09-10

Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.

Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.

But it's nothing like the megapixel or clock speed races because there's a limited return on anything past retina until you jump to 4k. This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...

Until you've used one for a while and return to a normal display, you won't get it.

Reply Parent Score: 5

dvhh Member since:
2006-03-20

If it is not about clock race and megapixel, why is Apple also making benchmark ?

If I had the option I would choose e-ink for readability (plus I'm pretty sure that looking at backlit display in wrong condition cause more eye strain than low resolution display, because you know ... gameboy)

Reply Parent Score: 3

lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

e-ink > all for reading.

Reply Parent Score: 4

ssokolow Member since:
2010-01-21

I'd probably choose Pixel Qi over e-Ink.

That way, I get all the benefits of an LCD (response time, integrated night-time lighting, color), but I get battery lifetimes in the same ballpark as e-Ink if I shut the backlight off and I've also heard they're working on models that stay color when you switch off the backlight.

(From my experiments with my Sony Reader PRS-505 and my OpenPandora, I'm inclined to believe Pixel Qi's claim that repeatedly changing the page displayed on an e-Ink screen is as electrically expensive as just using an efficient LCD with the backlight turned completely off)

Reply Parent Score: 3

Read more of this thread... >
kholinar Member since:
2007-09-10

Apple hasn't. The print industry has. This is what every electronic display seeks to emulate. As they should.

Reply Parent Score: 1

Read more of this thread... >
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.

Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.


Alas, colour gamut, contrast and brightness affect readability much more than the occasional bump in PPI at these resolutions. You can cram 20 000 x 20 000 pixels in the screen if you want but it won't be readable and it will definitely cause eye strain if colours, contrast and brightness are subpar, ie. high pixel count is not a substitute for those. That's exactly why I am asking: why masturbate to high pixel count when concentrating on the other aspects is much more beneficial after a certain point?

This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...


I have to say that I disagree.

Reply Parent Score: 2

kholinar Member since:
2007-09-10



Alas, colour gamut, contrast and brightness affect readability much more than the occasional bump in PPI at these resolutions. You can cram 20 000 x 20 000 pixels in the screen if you want but it won't be readable and it will definitely cause eye strain if colours, contrast and brightness are subpar, ie. high pixel count is not a substitute for those. That's exactly why I am asking: why masturbate to high pixel count when concentrating on the other aspects is much more beneficial after a certain point?


Color gamut is only an issue if the developer chooses a bad color scheme if where reading is concerned. And color gamut is a real push as evidenced by the iPhone 5.

20000 x 20000 might be just as terrible if the device was powered off, but I haven't encountered an issue with brightness and contrast in the last four years. Whereas there are tons of sub-200 ppi displays that make small text unreadable. There's a reason why fonts have glyphs. Anytime they aren't print quality it's problematic.



I have to disagree


I'm glad to hear that there are people who were fine with twenty-some inch displays never passing 2000 a pixel width.

I don't know why printers ever bothered.

Reply Parent Score: 1

zima Member since:
2005-07-06

You can cram 20 000 x 20 000 pixels in the screen if you want but it won't be readable [...] why masturbate to high pixel count when concentrating on the other aspects is much more beneficial after a certain point?

Well, I'd very much like 20k x 20k on a small device ...and further. It would probably mean we're on a path towards proper holographic screens ( http://www.osnews.com/thread?492454 basically: the need the size of pixels comparable to the wavelength of light; oh, and also processing power and memory we're nowhere near yet - but once there, a display can feel kinda like a mirror or window)

Edited 2012-10-29 00:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

tupp Member since:
2006-11-12

Because eye strain is a real issue vs. minor clock speed bumps and bad glass with 10 mp sensors.

Not sure what is meant by this statement, but eye strain is not affected by the resolution of a display as much as how something is rendered on that display.


Readability at these resolutions and distances is a real benefit, far more so something like he video in a living room.

Which resolutions? Which distances?

What type of rendering? What type of content? How keen is the viewer's eyesight?

All of these variables are important to establish in determining the validity of such a "readability" claim.


But it's nothing like the megapixel or clock speed races because there's a limited return on anything past retina until you jump to 4k.

"Retina" is an Apple BS marketing term (as is "4k" in the cinematography world).

Resolution is purely a matter of degree -- there is no magical resolution range "of limited return" that Apple has discovered.

"Effective" resolution is determined by the variables mentioned above.


This is just the minimum that all displays should have been pushing to for years...

There is this small consideration in manufacturing called "practicality."

Furthermore, with computer devices, there is this limitation known as "bandwidth capability."


Until you've used one for a while and return to a normal display, you won't get it.

Perhaps it would be best if we didn't live the fanboy stereotype.

By the way, for about 15 years, one could use Linux terminal emulators with LCD/LED screens. When the resolution was properly set, the font in these terminals was perfectly aligned with each pixel, so that the characters were razor sharp, with no aliasing. Thus, these 15-year-old terminal emulators were sharper than aliased fonts on "retina" displays.

Edited 2012-10-22 19:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1