Video shows advantages of Lumia 920's HD+ screen

A new video coming from Test-Mobile.fr shows off the Lumia 920 and, though there's nothing really new here, the rather long video shows off the best parts of the phone. The most interesting aspect of which we've seen little until now is the HD+ screen. 

The 920 display sports a resolution of 1280x768 making it one of the highest resolutions available in the smartphone market. Put that together with the 4.5" screen and you get a pixel density of 332 pixels per inch. It's this high density screen that makes everything look stunning. For comparison the new iPhone 5 only has a 4" screen with 326 pixels per inch.

And you can clearly see the advantages of Lumia's screen in the video below - the screen demo starts at 9 minute mark. Even when the user zooms out completely in the browser you can still read the text on the page. Of course that's providing you have 20/20 eyesight, or you're really close to the screen. Couple that with the 60Hz refresh rate for blur-free scrolling and you have yourself a pretty amazing device.

You can watch the whole video below, and see some NFC functionality as well. Fair warning though: it's in French.

Source: Test-mobile.fr Via: WMPoweruser

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

The Windows 8/RT hybrids we want to try out the most

Next Story

Windows 8 hybrid teased in AMD's Ghost Hunters spoof?

55 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

I don't understand how is it possible for a country that already has an opperational LTE network, to have so much problem with its cell carriers. Here in Greece for example we finally got true 3G speeds in over 90% of the country in early 2011, but if you buy an Iphone here or any other phone from one carrier, you can put a SIM card from another one and you can fully utilize its network and everything it offers. All our carries support GSM and CDMA and now one of them is starting planing for LTE network. In general, there are no locked phones here in one carrier. And that's the way it should be. So, I'm really curious how it can't be done in the US.

BTW this phone is so amazing. The screen just looks FANTASTIC. Can't wait to get my hands on one.

High-DPI screens are awesome. As iPhone users have known for more than 2 years...

Too bad I'm still on an iPhone 3G... 163ppi...Yay!

CJEric said,
High-DPI screens are awesome. As iPhone users have known for more than 2 years...

Too bad I'm still on an iPhone 3G... 163ppi...Yay!

HD screens are more awesome. As iPhone users HAVEN'T known for years.

iPhone 5 = still not HD.

NoClipMode said,

HD screens are more awesome. As iPhone users HAVEN'T known for years.

iPhone 5 = still not HD.


As far as I'm concerned, the important metric is the pixel density. I find it hard to believe that anyone could tell a difference between 332ppi and 326ppi.

Whether you like the display (and therefore the device) a little larger or not is a matter of taste.

CJEric said,

As far as I'm concerned, the important metric is the pixel density. I find it hard to believe that anyone could tell a difference between 332ppi and 326ppi.

Whether you like the display (and therefore the device) a little larger or not is a matter of taste.

It is NOT about the PPI, is about the available pixels for rendering a 720p HD movie.

The iPhone 5 still can't do that.

Apple/Mac/iPhone users are so caught up in the Retina display 'marketing' they don't remember that 1920x1080 and 1920x1200 was 'common' on notebooks back in 2004/2005. Just this year the 'Macbook' caught up, and we are to crown Apple king for delivering a high resolution display 7 years later.

(And yes Retina means NOTHING... It is not a type of screen or screen technology, it is just a marketing term that Apple can slap on any screen they buy and shove in their devices. Their current iPad and Macbook Retina displays are not even in the high end range for color, contrast, yet they are called magical Retina.)

Back in 2004/2005 Apple lampooned the 1920 displays on PC notebooks.

As PC consumers were caught up with BluRay (Something Mac users didn't get), the 720p resolution screen became common, which in traditional TVs is 1366x768. This is when the PC notebook timeframe moved back down to this resolution as common to maintain the aspect ratio, or offered 1920x1080p displays on higher end units.

We have PC displays from 2005/2006 that are 2K and 4K displays that also have 36bit and 40bit color. (Which is not only a lot of pixels, but also something OS X and Macs cannot even use to THIS DAY, as they cannot output greater than 24bit color that they call 32bit because of the 8bit transparency mask.

Windows for several years now can handle 24bit, 30bit, 36bit, up to at least 48bit color displays. (You know the really high 'color depth' that your scanner claims to have, yet your Mac cannot display all the colors on the screen?)

So take the Apple is best crap and shove it back to reality, where Apple is mediocre at best.

CJEric said,
"PureMotion HD+" makes for a great bullet point though.

PureMotion HD+ is referring to the high refresh rate of the screen, not just the high pixel density, so it is a valid point.

thenetavenger said,
take the Apple is best crap and shove it back to reality, where Apple is mediocre at best.

You really need to get over your hate for Apple (or whatever else motivates you to rail against them. It blinds you to the technological advancements they do bring to the table at times.

The only thing holding me back is Windows Mobile 8, it isn't up to par with Android and iOS

Love the phone though.

KeR said,
The only thing holding me back is Windows Mobile 8, it isn't up to par with Android and iOS

Love the phone though.


LOL. You're so informed about it that you don't even know what it's called... LMAO!

KeR said,
The only thing holding me back is Windows Mobile 8, it isn't up to par with Android and iOS

No it's not up to par with them. It's miles better. The fact you don't even know the name of it makes me think you haven't even used WP7.

KeR said,
The only thing holding me back is Windows Mobile 8, it isn't up to par with Android and iOS

Love the phone though.


No such thing.

KeR said,
The only thing holding me back is Windows Mobile 8, it isn't up to par with Android and iOS

Love the phone though.

Windows Mobile doesn't exist.

Windows Phone 8, is the most ADVANCED phone OS technology in history. (It is technically the most advanced piece of software ever written, as it is just an ARM port of Windows NT with a different UI platform on top.

It is the same core OS technology running massive server farms, and desktop PCs. Only the UI platform is changed, and technically the majority of the complete Windows desktop frameworks are still available.

In contrast:
iOS is a recreated mobile version of XNU that has similar functions as OS X, it is a lot like the WinCE compared to WindowsNT.
Android is the Dalvik JVM running on a limited use Linux kernel (Most of the kernel functions are generically wrapped, as Dalvik handles them. Which is slow on top of unoptimized slow on top of limited functionality.)

Windows Phones 8 is the full version of Windows NT, they could literally run the Windows RT desktop on it if Microsoft would allow it, but don't because of the complexity of the UI that doesn't work for novice users on a phone.

Importantly, it is truly the full OS technology, it is not a recreated mobile version, nor a model with constrained kernel features.)

OS X and Linux on the desktop are technically behind the WP8 OS technology. Which should both be a bit 'shocking' and a surprisingly cool to anyone especially if they dabble in OS engineering.


.... Yet you don't think it compares to iOS or Android? Really?

You can get the 920 for ~$650 unlocked (from UK). What's holding you back?

Don't blame Nokia for the fact the US telecoms system is broken and controlled by the carriers. If Nokia wants to sell phones to AT&T they want them exclusively. If not they won't buy or sell them. Neither Nokia nor anyone here can help it you have no advantage by buying outright and getting a SIM only deal (apparently) like in the rest of the world.

paulheu said,
You can get the 920 for ~$650 unlocked (from UK). What's holding you back?

Don't blame Nokia for the fact the US telecoms system is broken and controlled by the carriers. If Nokia wants to sell phones to AT&T they want them exclusively. If not they won't buy or sell them. Neither Nokia nor anyone here can help it you have no advantage by buying outright and getting a SIM only deal (apparently) like in the rest of the world.

More apps and assure OS updates for 2 years Then WP will be completed for me.

coth said,
It's not HD+. HD+ is 1600x900

All those terms are BS. Just say the numbers and no confusion will be had.

Stefan Dascalu said,

Can't find anything of the sort on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD%2B

But I'm thinking calling it HD± can really help with the amount of confusion.


Just atop of the article
"This article is about the television service "HD+"; for the computer screen resolution see Computer display standard."

coth said,
It's not HD+. HD+ is 1600x900

I've never seen that before and cant find anything saying that.

HD+ is pretty much always regarded as anything over full HD (1920x1080). Anything else is just a meaningless marketing term.

Stefan Dascalu said,

Can't find anything of the sort on wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD%2B

But I'm thinking calling it HD± can really help with the amount of confusion.

Cause wikipedia is the definitive source for solid accuracy. (Go check out the HD sizes as defined by the standards group, cause they didn't match Wikipedia the last time I was doing a comparison.)

NoClipMode said,

I've never seen that before and cant find anything saying that.

HD+ is pretty much always regarded as anything over full HD (1920x1080). Anything else is just a meaningless marketing term.

HD is so bastardized and misunderstood, we should push for resolutions or PPI instead of variations of other misleading WXGA, HD, etc...

There are a lot of people that bought nice Plasmas that are 720pHD, yet cannot fully reproduce the scene because of the aspect ratio modified 1024x768 resolution that is not truly 720p.

There are also the lower end standards and technically 480p is considered HD.

Upscaling resolutions should never be referenced, and instead should just be called input range.

NoClipMode said,

I've never seen that before and cant find anything saying that.

HD+ is pretty much always regarded as anything over full HD (1920x1080). Anything else is just a meaningless marketing term.


right opposite.

coth said,
It's not HD+. HD+ is 1600x900
What with the "+"? Why not just say HD? 1080p has much higher resolution and it is still called HD?

trimphil said,
don't get too excited. i cannot imagine reading text 1 mm height

Of course not, but images and video will look amazingly sharp.

trimphil said,
don't get too excited. i cannot imagine reading text 1 mm height

Double tap, pinch to zoom?

You are getting the same 'text' size image on your phone today, the only difference is that there are not enough pixels to fully render it when zoomed out.

So an effective 4pt font constructed of 4 pixels is going to be a illegible, yet a 4pt font constructed of 16 pixels will be an actual 'character/letter' and readable if you have the eyesight for it.

Same space taken up on screen, the higher PPI screen is actually readable.

dagamer34 said,

AT&T LTE works great for me.

Yet you still make call on their GSM network as they do not do VOIP over LTE yet just like Verizon.

Such a great phone and I cannot have..

Martog said,

Yet you still make call on their GSM network as they do not do VOIP over LTE yet just like Verizon.

Such a great phone and I cannot have..

i thought verizon was going to carry it? i swear i read that a couple days ago! hmm

giwo said,
Too bad this superior phone will only be available on an inferior network.

You said it. Rogers in Canada is terrible. Sister company of AT&T I do believe.

Martog said,

Yet you still make call on their GSM network as they do not do VOIP over LTE yet just like Verizon.

Such a great phone and I cannot have..

Why dont you just buy the phone unlocked? Why do Americans always seem to go with one of your few carrier options? Unlocked phones are very popular in the UK and Europe.

giwo said,
Too bad this superior phone will only be available on an inferior network.

Sadly ATT just doesn't have the 'area' coverage that Verizon does for 3G/4G.

However, as bad as ATT is for many things, Verizon seems to always manage to be far worse.


I have had many dealing both personally and professionally with both companies.

9/10 times I can get ATT to fix billing and technical issues, even releasing 2yr contracts on things that are borderline not their fault.

1/10 times at Verizon I can get things fixed or adjusted, even when it is their fault.

Verizon employees have very little ability to 'fix' errors, where the ATT employees have more power to fix and compensate the customer.

The only way to deal with Verizon is to use my connections and email one of the VPs I know and have them step in to get it fixed. (Which is good, but not something everyone has access..)

Verizon has horrid billing/support because the employees are limited to locked in compensation rates, so even if they deceive the system to place the fault on Verizon, there are maximum compensation and adjustment levels they can apply to an account in a single billing cycle.

The only way to get anything from Verzion is to contact them before your billing cycle ends, and then the employees are not locked in to how much they can assist.

NoClipMode said,

Why dont you just buy the phone unlocked? Why do Americans always seem to go with one of your few carrier options? Unlocked phones are very popular in the UK and Europe.

Well, because this is how it works...

There are basically two major infrastructures in place once you get outside a city, and then you are dealing with ATT or Verizon or an independent Cell site owner. So other carriers MUST partner with ATT, Verizon just to get coverage outside of the major cities where they 'may' have their own infrastructure.

This is where the disconnect of how 'big' the USA is and populated throughout that is missed when you think in European terms.

So this leaves most people with a limited choice in providers depending on the coverage they need.


Now, lets use the example of the 'unlocked' phone. If you want to use a non Verizon branded phone on their system, it is essentially impossible, the same is true of ATT which they are locking down even more. (Even when Verizon bought out Alltel a few years ago that were also CDMA based, you could not and still cannot activate an Alltel phone on Verizon if you moved from your original Alltel plan. So even fully compatible phones with their system do not qualify for activation.)

Verizon is also a pain because the lean towards the non-removeable SIM variation of CDMA, so few CDMA phones even have removable SIMs.

These restrictions are even more strict when dealing with a non-contract plans like budget carriers or prepaid plans.

So Cricket or a prepaid, you have to buy the phone from the carrier. (This is supposed to be for security of the service, but that goes back to the analog days when we didn't have SIM portability.)

So even if we buy 'unlocked' phones, they would be paper weights most of the time anymore.