[HTC Droid DNA] BarryH_GEG:
You realize that with the human eye being the lowest common denominator the selection of PPI is being done ass backwards? Deciding on the optimum PPI for any given device should be an arithmatec equation; not manufacturers arbitrarily pulling numbers our of thier butts to out-feature each other. The above posts that talk about what the human eye can process are irrefutable fact. With an arcminute of "1" ideal for the human eye to process detail, the manufacturers should pick the

lowest

PPI that acheives "1" arcminute at 10-12" away which is the typical distance a smartphone is viewed. Why the lowest? Because the higher the PPI the bigger the drain on the battery, GPU, and CPU. And why reduce the performance of a device when the end result is the human eye can't process the additional detail being provided anyway? In addition, to achieve higher PPI, displays are suffering in brightness, contrast, and color reproduction. But nobody cares because they get to tell their friends "look, I've got a 1080P display!" Based on the numbers, outside of PPI, the One X has a better display than the DNA. It wouldn't surprise me if the same thing happened between the SGS3's 720P display and the SGS4's 1080P display (unless SAMOLED scales differently). In the end none of this matters because whether it makes sense or not we're all going to end up with 1080P displays one way or the other because that's where manufacturer's marketing is taking us.

Here's a good analytic comparison between the DNA's display and the One X's that demonstrates what suffers at higher PPI. It bests SAMOLED in a lot of areas but it's always hard to make direct comparisons between the two display types because of SAMOLED's benefits which include insane contrast levels.

"Screen smartphone HTC Droid DNA, which is the marketing name Super LCD 3, boasts a record resolution - 1920 x 1080 pixels at a diagonal of 5 inches. Let's see how "super" compared with the screens of other popular smartphones.

First of all, let's talk about the technical characteristics. Measured at maximum brightness - 364 cd / m 2, which is a good standard, although the same HTC One X has a bright screen and can reach 470 cd / m 2 at the same depth of black. As a consequence, the contrast HTC Droid DNA is lower - at 1258:1 1031:1 against HTC One X. But given the fact that both devices is quite small air gap, they both look pretty good in bright lighting conditions, providing a good brightness and clarity of the image.

By the way, the viewing angles are also benefit from this design - HTC One X looks great angles, and Droid DNA lags behind in this respect. When viewed from different angles image on it quickly loses its brightness and color shift more noticeable. However reasonable screen Droid DNA also provides a good viewing angles." ​

http://translate.googleusercontent....tml&usg=ALkJrhgfKVW8mQoYQ9LR8vq9c6_DPdqZ-gnes in its class.

"The drop in graphics performance is measurable, but it doesn't have a huge effect on usability. Today's games aren't yet to the point where they're pushing GPUs like the Adreno 320 or the ones in Apple's A6 and A6X as hard as they can. UI performance is slightly laggy in spots despite Jelly Bean, but past experience would lead me to blame HTC's Sense UI for these problems rather than the underlying hardware. The more damning compromise the DNA makes in the name of pixel density is battery life. At best, the Droid DNA takes a sizable step down from other phones in its class."​

http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2012/11/htcs-droid-dna-makes-big-sacrifices-to-reach-1080p/