Develop Bugs

If WP7 only supports 480×800 WVGA or 480×320 HVGA

Then isn't that blocking manufacturers from competing with iPhone 4's 960x640 'Retina Display' straight from the get go?
I know they will no doubt be able to make some cracking looking screens at that resolution but it is a bit disheartening to know that it can never meet the resolution of the iPhone, and I imagine by the end of the year there will be several competing Android devices that have matched that resolution too.
Do you think Microsoft will stick to this requirement?

Seems like Microsoft wants to make sure all devices run perfect at launch in hopes of rave reviews for WP7 so all the limitations. I suspect them to open it up very quickly after launch so it doesn't get left behind.

I'd rather them hang on for a bit to be honest. The only reason the iPhone's new screen is that resolution is simply because its double the last one. So they can easily resize content for the screen. It's only 10-15% higher pixel density than phones we've already got, so not that big of an improvement, unless you're comparing it to the other iPhones of course.
Might as well wait a year or so and go for 1280x720. Better to standardise the platform on a resolution like that every couple of years than to have lots of inbetween resolutions competing and wasting developer resources.

Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?

lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
The term 'retina display' is bull, in reality you would have to hold the iPhone 18 inches from your face to reach the limits of your eyes.
Which brings me to the main point: If you have a bigger display, you can hold it farther from your eyes and have the same effect.
940 or 800 pixels? It hardly matters. What matters more is the actual size of the screen and any WP7 device with a 3.7" or 4" screen at WVGA is to be preferred to the iPhone's too small 3.4" screen.

I believe the 480x800 was a minimum spec, and that the other would be an exception to the rule for some other devices.

480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.

vangrieg said:
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HVGA is good if you need a compact device, not everyone wants a large device, some want's it slim and compact.
I belive that it will not make a big difference to have it as 800x480 or 960x640 (it would matter if the screen was big, but in the iphone case it wouldn't).
The usage of this resolution is pure technical and i really respect this move. now the only thing they need to do to maintain the apps compatability of the old iPhone is to render the apps 2 times larger on both axis (x,y) so if you have an image that is 20 pixels height and 50 pixels width (20x50)it would be (40x100), notice this will not affect the aspect ratio nor will result in a distortion or pixelating the image (the same screen size but having more pixels).
Now if you come to the real world, i will not matter for the naked eye, i would love to see this screen compared to the WVGA i have on my HD2. i doubt that there will be a noticable difference.
Pure physics say that the Naked Human Eye at a distance of 30cm can see objects that are 0.1mm, any object smaller (or objects that have a distance of 0.1mm or less will appear as 1 object, so this returns us to the "a mere 78 micrometers" (0.078mm) means that you can notice that the pixel itself is a an object that cannot be seen by the naked eye easily, that's why each pixel for us will be represented as almost 1.5 pixels). now i'm not saying that it is the same, not at all. it makes difference from the old screen they were using, but the same result we would get if they made a bit lower resolution screens (0.1mm).
Anyhow, for that particular screen size, the resolution usage is more a technical point of view than a real function point of you. you will enjoy the new screen resolution but you will not see all the pixels

I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
And don't forget! iPhone's screen is 4:3 as ours are 16:9 (roughly). Should you put the iPhone's screen in 16:9 form, it would be 960x540... So the improvement isn't that great... (And i'm not mentionning that most sites are still being written to fit a 800x600 pc screen, so having a 800x480 hold in landscape will render the site 100% accurately... in theory that is xD)

Sure it looks like the iPhone will have a great resolution but at 3.5" screen size it doesn't make it and where near what I'd be looking for. I want a bigger screen and I've found the pixel density of 800x480 is good enough to make everything look crisp. Maybe MS will add 1600x960 and 960x640 to there list of supported resolutions seems how that just doubling what they currently have as standards. Ok maybe 1600x960 is a bit much but hey it can happen.

NoWorthWhile said:
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. If you have a very high res (960*640) screen but are limited to the same screen proportions as a very low res screen (480*320) you've lost a lot of the advantage.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Partly agreed. If they get cleartype to work properly (both portrait and landscape, and on OLED screens) then 800*480 is good for images and text.
I'm all for high res, but 800*480 is good, plus OLED is the way forward and hasn't reached full 800*480 resolution yet.
I think the foundational technologies (surrounding silverlight) enable resolution-independence very easily and may even enforce it, so moving to any widescreen resolution should be easy in future, with only the potential problem of bitmap pixellation.

I think we're reaching a point where the resolution in no longer important.
We all remember a couple of years ago when we "drool" about having vga resolution phone.
Now that the 800x480 are the standard and the 960x640 are becoming a standard also, all resolutions beyond this point becomes meaningless as we, humans, cannot see the difference in a standard size phone terminal.

Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?

ROCOAFZ said:
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.

rogeriopcf said:
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, more pixels on the screen = more pixels to render = slower performance. For example, a lot of the XNA games made will probably be 320x480 and automatically scaled up for performance reasons.

As far as I remember, Da_G said they are working hard on completing DPI_262, which opens new resolutions, like 1280x720 and so on .
I think that even Hummingbird from Samsung, which is way faster (in GPU even more) than Qualcomm Snapdragon, will perform quite well with those resolutions. And when they come, we will have even better CPUs and GPUs.

lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance, but in general, yes. There's a reason why printers don't print at 300 dots per inch any more - it's because the eye can easily detect a difference between 300 pixels per inch and 600. In fact, even going from 600dpi to 1200 makes a visible difference sometimes.
Or, to look at it another way, is there a visible difference when you switch ClearType on and off? ClearType multiplies the resolution by three on one axis. If you can see a difference then the original resolution is comfortably below the finest your eye can resolve.

I'd focus more on screen clairity, color depth/contrast/brightness, ect. before trying to cram more pixels into a sub 5" screen. How about a nice OLED? ...I'd rather have this as compared to more dpi.

[Q] 800 pixels width vs 720 - discuss

The only thing putting me off the note 2 is the smaller screen resolution. I can imagine apps like the samsung calendar must be less usable. Also I find 800 pixels is a dream resolution for viewing internet pages.
For those that switched from the note 1 how are you finding it?

Is the less dpi really that noticeable? I'm actually very excited about the new aspect ratio as I watch a lot of movies on my phone
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium

Finally a thread like this
It's really annoying in some situations but then you launch a video and your stunned.
You browse, somehow less good, it's quite noticeable when you had Note 1 but then the screen is so much better in ALL other aspects.
Then you get no problems with app compatibility due to the more standard resolution. You see more webapps and games thought for 720p.
So wrapping up, I guess I'll get use to it and with all the other goodies on Note 2 it's worth the upgrade: amazing batterie life (doubled), screen colour and brightness, speed and great sound.
I'll keep the nostalgy of the original Note owner though :<
Sent from my GT-N7100 using xda premium

Isn't the one lesser column of icons also the result of less horizontal pixel? Yes I agree the screen is much better, but I don't suppose it's just for web viewing. There are the utilitarian point of view to this. I would imagine people who used to have certain amount of icons on a single page and then suddenl reduce would feel negatively. It's like taking a feature out. I am coming from an Epic 4G so I got no bone to pick on this just voicing another valid PoV that some people didn't see.

Sometimes I'll do something and my brain will go, 'that looks a bit odd', because I remembered how it was before.
But you'll get over it. The Note 2 is THAT much better.
- Frank

Performance, screen, quality issues...?

Is it worth it?
Hi guys I need some advice.
I look for 10” tablet which main use (beside watching Netflix in bed, web browsing, occasional gaming in 3d intensive games, web email etc…) will be to import photos from my camera (USB OTG or Wi-Fi direct) then browse, delete, edit (Photoshop touch) and move to SD card.
Now I was thinking about Note 10.1 (2014) but I been put away by number of problems with this device and its uneven performance.
Owning Tegra Note 7 I found that I love the performance but 7 inch is too small and stylus is nice addition but it’s not must have for me.
Therefore I look at Tab S 10.5.
From outside it looks like slim nice device but I still remember my horrors with first Galaxy Note.
Personally I found that Samsung customer service is run by semi-skilled chimpanzee paid in rotten bananas. Since I have this opportunity to contact several departments/case escalations etc. I gain one great example of how customer service should NOT look like – priceless material and first-hand experience for my business presentations.
Therefore I am very nervous thinking about another Samsung device.
Please help:
1.*******If you own Tab S 10.5 already – are you 100% satisfied with it? Performance, sound, built quality, display, functions (I read that 8,5 has some performance issues but I got the impression that 10.5 is not affected?)
2.*******DEAD pixels – I have really bad luck to these – did you find any of them on OLED display so far?
3.*******Ghosting / colour issues – especially in dark gamma of colours. I remember that this was main reason I sold my galaxy note. Photos from camera looked horrible on the display; any dark colours seemed to be missing quite a chunk of shades between dark grey and black (darkest colour that pixel could display was too far from total blackness of pixel off state). Is this still an issue here?* I wish to use my tablet to browse and edit the photos therefore this will be a deal breaker for me.
4.*******USB OTG using simple usb adapter – read mixed opinions on the forum – does it work out of the box or not?
5.*******Taking into account what I said about how I am going to use a tablet – would you recommend Tab S or maybe Sony Z2 tab? Still prefer Samsung look and feel but Sony with SD800 looks like robust device.
Thank you guys for any advice…*

I'm very happy with the screen, performance and the build quality. I don't mind it being plastic at all.
Since its Samsung there might be a few micro lags once in a while but I'm OK with that. Playing heavy 3d games is very smooth and Netflix and other videos look absolutely suberb.
Only thing that I don't like so far is the new hardware buttons.

How about dead pixels and screen performance on dark photos in third party apps?

Andrew_j said:
How about dead pixels and screen performance on dark photos in third party apps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No dead pixels. I'm not expert on photography so I'm not sure about that. I'm happy with this screen performance on photos. Not used third party apps, only what comes preinstalled.
And all my photos are taken with s4 and that affects photo quality very much, especially in dark photos.

Would you be able to make small experiment? Take a dark-ish photo with the camera. Then try to edit it in Snapseed (free photo editing app - great in my opinion) and check how does the photo looks like. My worry is that most if not all third party apps that have not been preinstalled (and therefore not optimised by Samsung) may have problems with OLED.

Andrew_j said:
Would you be able to make small experiment? Take a dark-ish photo with the camera. Then try to edit it in Snapseed (free photo editing app - great in my opinion) and check how does the photo looks like. My worry is that most if not all third party apps that have not been preinstalled (and therefore not optimised by Samsung) may have problems with OLED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did that but since I don't have real camera I had to took the photo with s4 that produces grainy photos in low light environment.
I downloaded a pic taken with real camera and opened it in Snapseed. Didn't notice any problems, looked the same as the original photo. Cropped though. But yet again, I'm no expert on this matter.

Great! Thank you for doing this. Hmmm I seems that I will do another trip to PC world to check if they have 32gb version yet if not I will hunt down brown LTE then

Andrew_j said:
Great! Thank you for doing this. Hmmm I seems that I will do another trip to PC world to check if they have 32gb version yet if not I will hunt down brown LTE then
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem you may come across with the OLED screen is going to be the opposite of what you had experienced in the past with regard to photos. The OLED screen is capable of such a high contrast and so many levels of black that if you have a photo (or especially a video) that lacks good shadow info it may appear poor but only because the source is low quality. For example, take this youtube video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWpZQhnNTu8 the blacks look good on a LCD because it isn't capable of producing many dark levels in the first place. But try that same video on the Tab S OLED screen and the shadow areas in parts of the video look terrible because the better display shows the holes in the quality.

That video you posted looks absolutely fantastic on the OLED display ?

I visit a store yesterday and I can confirm that Samsung branded USB OTG cable works with no problems - I could read and write using stock file manager so far so good. Since I got nice discount for LTE version I am more and more convinced to getting one.
Also I took pictures from different cameras with me and browse them on the tablet - no problems whatsoever. Really nice display. Crisp and full of details.
Thank you all for comments - is there anything else I should know from all yours first hand experiences? Or should I jump on it and be happy teddy?
Only shame is that I got the offer for white tab only when I love the look of brown one. (Ech... Either way I will keep in in the case so... ).

You Tasted GearVR... Don't you want that 4k Screen???

Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?

It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk

rcobourn said:
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I would agree. Actually made me sick.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.

Belimawr said:
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.

Oyeve said:
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree. 2k is simply not enough. 4k is not enough either, but it would be a bit better. I think we are really going to need about 4k per eye in order for it to become truly fantastic. Maybe 8k per eye. So we are talking something like 7680x4320 or even 15360x4320. I doubt that smartphones are going to be the vehicle to deliver this in future.
But for now, 4k would be nice.

the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.

nomailx said:
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly hope it is years before they even think about a 4K screen. Our processors can barely push 2K at this point and battery life is pretty terrible currently compared to 1080p phones such as the iPhone 7. It's not worth it for such a niche feature. I mean, the Rift and Vive are not even at that resolution because desktop PCs can barely push it.

Belimawr said:
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure that's all true, but in any event, with a phone with a 2k screen the pixel density is not high enough and it won't be at 4k either. With 2k each eye is getting an image something like 1,000 pixels across (the two VR windows don't use the full screen width, so less than half of 2560 each), which for a virtual image which is bigger than even the very biggest TV screens (100"+) this is not enough pixels and the image is visibly (very badly) pixellated.
I am sure refresh rate matters too, but we really need very high pixel density and fast refresh (and low latency and wide viewing angles) for what in the end will be "perfect" VR.

the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.

Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.

Belimawr said:
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For gaming, I agree that the Note 8 with a 4k Screen won't be much Help. But I never really enjoyed VR for gaming, it's more like a "side fun activity". But to watch video content, a 4K Display Note with an 10nm processor would be more than enough to remove the screen door effect, and give the ability to watch awesome 180/360 content, and 3D movies on a huge VR theatre.
May I remind you that VR for gaming is failing generally right now. But for some shady reason VR for videos is not... (go figure... xD )
notefreak said:
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the Sony Xperia Yoshino!

advantage of using 4K screen resolution on Note 10 plus?

Hi guys,well I want to ask you smart question and I really don't know the answer.
I got myself used Note 10 plus and because of the battery issue I switched to 1080p resolution to save some battery.
Then I opened some webpage like lets say webcam site chaturbate.
From what I know on monitors,higher resolution on monitor gives more web content on screen,so on my 1440p monitor I can see more webcam models on screen compared to 1080p monitor.
I thought then it's the same with phone screens,increasing resolution to 4K,I'll see more webcam models then 2 cams per line which was not the case,switching screen to 4K I haven't seen any difference.
So is it suppose to be like that,or I'm missunderstanding something here?
Why won't it work like on PC monitors/screen?
How can we take advantage of 4K on phones,in my case on Note 10 plus?
Does it have advantage switching to 4K when viewing websites,besides videos ofc?
Even when watching videos I doubt anyone (any human eye) will notice difference on 6.8 " screen with 1080p vs 4K on Note 10 plus.

paparazzo79 said:
Hi guys,well I want to ask you smart question and I really don't know the answer.
I got myself used Note 10 plus and because of the battery issue I switched to 1080p resolution to save some battery.
Then I opened some webpage like lets say webcam site chaturbate.
From what I know on monitors,higher resolution on monitor gives more web content on screen,so on my 1440p monitor I can see more webcam models on screen compared to 1080p monitor.
I thought then it's the same with phone screens,increasing resolution to 4K,I'll see more webcam models then 2 cams per line which was not the case,switching screen to 4K I haven't seen any difference.
So is it suppose to be like that,or I'm missunderstanding something here?
Why won't it work like on PC monitors/screen?
How can we take advantage of 4K on phones,in my case on Note 10 plus?
Does it have advantage switching to 4K when viewing websites,besides videos ofc?
Even when watching videos I doubt anyone (any human eye) will notice difference on 6.8 " screen with 1080p vs 4K on Note 10 plus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"4K" or WQHD+ on the note does not really relate to extra space on the screen like computer monitors. as the computer monitor scale back the size of the Icons and increase perceived desk space (depending on monitor size and max resolution capabilities) as the UI on smartphones must be readable the gain is barely perceivable. You can adjust the size of the icon to make it look like you gained some space but it wouldn't be accurate.
The real difference and depending on you, you may or may not perceive it, is on the pixel density.
In 1080p the Note has a certain pixel density, when you shift to "4K", you have a higher count of stacked pixel density. It looks better with some content that supports it but its sort of a cheat. The screen is not actually 4K, kind of like the 7nm vs 10 nm wafers in Intel Vs TSMC foundries. TSMC says it's 7 nanometers and intel 10, but they pack around the same transistor density, the names are mostly marketing.
You wont notice a big, if any, difference due to our own limitations (eysight), you can get a better picture of the issue looking up (Googling) "Full HD vs Quad HD" from the Oled Association.
They break it down a bit ...

Oh okay.Thank you for kind explanation.

Bomn said:
"4K" or WQHD+ on the note does not really relate to extra space on the screen like computer monitors. as the computer monitor scale back the size of the Icons and increase perceived desk space (depending on monitor size and max resolution capabilities) as the UI on smartphones must be readable the gain is barely perceivable. You can adjust the size of the icon to make it look like you gained some space but it wouldn't be accurate.
The real difference and depending on you, you may or may not perceive it, is on the pixel density.
In 1080p the Note has a certain pixel density, when you shift to "4K", you have a higher count of stacked pixel density. It looks better with some content that supports it but its sort of a cheat. The screen is not actually 4K, kind of like the 7nm vs 10 nm wafers in Intel Vs TSMC foundries. TSMC says it's 7 nanometers and intel 10, but they pack around the same transistor density, the names are mostly marketing.
You wont notice a big, if any, difference due to our own limitations (eysight), you can get a better picture of the issue looking up (Googling) "Full HD vs Quad HD" from the Oled Association.
They break it down a bit ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have 20/10 near vision and I really don't notice it. Maybe side by side...

blackhawk said:
I have 20/10 near vision and I really don't notice it. Maybe side by side...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Meh, its a color game, basicaly they put up more green leds ins ome situation which makes the colors look richer... a poor man's HDR

Bomn said:
Meh, its a color game, basicaly they put up more green leds ins ome situation which makes the colors look richer... a poor man's HDR
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't seem to use any or just slightly more battery so I guess I'll sample it a while.
Forgot about the WQHD setting.
The 10+ still has one of the best displays. Lots of issues with the high refresh rate displays it seems.

Well, I barely notice a very little difference, very little indeed, and, mostly when viewing photos or videos taken with the best resolutions, for everything else, all look just the same

winoles said:
Well, I barely notice a very little difference, very little indeed, and, mostly when viewing photos or videos taken with the best resolutions, for everything else, all look just the same
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Went back to FHD. WQHD uses more battery (probably about 1%@hr more) and didn't make a difference I noticed doing what I normally do.
It's cool that it's there like many of the other 10+ options.
I have 20/10 vision.