News - Qualcomm demos 2560x1440 Mirasol smartphone display

[HEXUS]

The Mirasol display uses only about a sixth of the power of LCD and OLED alternatives.

Read more.

[miniyazz]

Nice - what's the refresh rate like when you're wanting to watch films or pay games though?

Also how is the 600x600 1.6" screen 577ppi? (From the photo)

[jateruy]

While mobile displays are moving toward 4K, desktop displays are still on FHD...How sad...

[The Hand]

Impressive; I wonder how long before you can get a 4K screen for mobile? Probably sooner than an affordable 4K TV becomes available. Just imagine if you get a dead pixel, you are quite unlikely to notice!

[scaryjim]

Mirasol displays will not be coming to market very soon, the video commentator says it will be at least a couple of years before they make it into products.

Disappointing - presumably this is a bulk production issue rather than a technology issue. I'd love a tablet with mirasol, sad to have to wait another two years for it...

... how is the 600x600 1.6" screen 577ppi? (From the photo)

Maths Also the 577ppi is quoted for the 5.1" 1440p screen. The square one should be more like 530 (if I've done the sums right!).

[wasabi]

Cool .Still waiting for daylight readable Android device so I can have usable GPS on my motorbike. Battery life bonus too.

[sykobee]

577ppi (or 530ppi) - starting to verge on the ridiculous now. I guess you might hold your smartwatch very close to your eyes though. I see no need for a 2560x1440 5" smartphone display - nor the new breed of 1920x1080 5" displays for that matter - they're just generating extra work for the processor and GPU.

Maybe a 7" 2560x1440 display for eReaders though - full colour and fast response times (unlike eInk).

[Biscuit]

While mobile displays are moving toward 4K, desktop displays are still on FHD...How sad...

And laptops are still peddled with 720p!

This is awesome though and exavtl what the mobile industry needs. The biggest drain on battery life is the high res high nits screens so this has serious potential!

[Roobubba]

Would worry about response times for games and the like, but obviously battery is a major factor to consider. Overall interesting development!

[miniyazz]

Maths Also the 577ppi is quoted for the 5.1" 1440p screen. The square one should be more like 530 (if I've done the sums right!).

Go on then, maths me, since my maths isn't working out. And no, I meant the 1.6" screen, in the photo next to it it describes it as 577ppi.
By my maths, 600pixels/1.6" = 375ppi..

Incidentally, I work out the 5.1" screen to be 575.923ppi which is well within error margins for 577ppi.

I'm going with they messed up.

[kingpotnoodle]

Sounds perfect for a smart watch but sounds like it might be a little limiting for a phone, console, tablet etc where better colours and refresh rate will matter more.

I'd love to see how it does though because dark films or games are nearly unwatchable on my Nexus 4 and Vita if I get stuck on the sunny side of the train...

[Funkstar]

Go on then, maths me, since my maths isn't working out. And no, I meant the 1.6" screen, in the photo next to it it describes it as 577ppi.
By my maths, 600pixels/1.6" = 375ppi..

Incidentally, I work out the 5.1" screen to be 575.923ppi which is well within error margins for 577ppi.

I'm going with they messed up.

A screens quoted dimension is the diagonal, not the height or width. So a 1.6" screen with 600x600 pixels would be a 1:1 ratio screen (otherwise you would need to deal with non-square pixels and that just leads to a whole lot of pain) which makes each side 1.13", giving you 530dpi to the best I can work out.

5.1" screen at 16:9 ratio give you 4.45" along the longest edge, giving you 575dpi.

[miniyazz]

A screens quoted dimension is the diagonal, not the height or width. So a 1.6" screen with 600x600 pixels would be a 1:1 ratio screen (otherwise you would need to deal with non-square pixels and that just leads to a whole lot of pain) which makes each side 1.13", giving you 530dpi to the best I can work out.

5.1" screen at 16:9 ratio give you 4.45" along the longest edge, giving you 575dpi.

Ah yes - I was being a muppet and accidentally used the diagonal length for the horizontal/vertical sides.

Anyway, my point stands - they're wrong