Related
I just recently upgraded from Qtek S100 to the S110, got the phones from Brightpoint in Sweden, and now i have the opportunity to compare the two devices. First thing i noticed was the differences in the display that no one seem to mention anywhere in forums. The S100 panel is somewhat easier to view in direct sunlight, more reflective. On the other hand, the S110 display is somewhat crisper in the matrix, it's like looking at a display with slightly smaller dot pitch. This is very clear when using a screen protetcor such as the ClearTouch. It doesn't "spread" the pixels as much producing the typical "sparkling effect" seen when using protector. I am still a bit undecided as to which one i like the most, at first i was a tad disappointed by the S110 -- that is by the display only of course!! ;-)
Anyone else had this experience on the two?
I compared my friends MDAc and my new S110 and honestly I cant see that diff you're talking about. To me the two LCDs look identical. I'm positively shocked by the speed diff caused by the extra 64MB of RAM, in some apps this make a hell of a diff.
That's strange, i suppose HTC have been using two different panels but not just on the S110, apparently, but also on the MDA's or perhaps it's just batch-specific based upon serial numbers.
Anyway, for those who might be interested, here's some more details on the two different LCD versions i've tested so far on the Magician:
1) Earlier model (?) seen on my S100
In this version of the LCD, brightness of the screen gets darker when tilting the device upwards, i.e. looking from below the device towards the LCD, and it gets brighter when looking from above. Sideways tilting the device makes the screen fade a bit. In the outdoors, this display is bright and reflective, you can read it without backlight indoors, and in direct sunlight and wearing sunglasses, the display remains quite rich in contrast and brightness.
2) The model i have in my S110
This screen has the opposite properties when tilting vertically. Looking from below the device makes the screen look brighter, less contrast. Looking from above the device makes the screen look darker, more contrast. From a right angle the screen appears to have slightly less contrast but more vivid colours, especially red tone more brilliant. Sideways the screen has a slight, very slight yellow tint, also when viewing from below. This screen is slightly less sensitive to viewing angles and it's most evident when watching movies in landscape mode, more comfortable view. In direct sunlight the screen is very dark, less reflective. Indoors it is nearly impossible to view the screen without backlight in a low-lit room. The screen image looks weird when looking through polaroid sunglasses. Slightly less visible in the car, though not a big problem. This screen looks good with a screen-protector, less internal reflection as seen on the S100 i have (screen-protector causes the display to "shimmer" a bit)
This is just my subjective opinion of course. The S110 is really awesome, i love the extra punch in speed and the ability to install all the software you want without counting bits and bytes, i upgraded because i considered staying with this model for a while. I am still a bit puzzled about the screen, starting to get used to it now. The difference is that remarkable i had to change the today-theme i had made for my S100 because it looked VERY dull on the S110!
this is absolutely true - mda compact and xda mini (both are the so called magican series) have different screens, the screen is made by different companies. you can see the difference easily especially in sunlight. i can really tell since i have both devices and can use them with identical today screen - the xda mini screen is so mutch brighter and more sharpen and also very much better to read in straight sunlight.
cheers, lutz
Sorry to say that but that a load of bull****. Any magician uses QVGA res on the exact same size so the pixel pitch is exactly the same. Why should one look "sharper" than the other. The only way this would be possible is by moving the pixels closer together (smaller pith) or using higher res. And neither is the case with any magician. It may be slightly different with sunlight use when there really are two diff LCDs but one CANNOT be sharper than the other. Its simply not possible.
nobody said anything about resolution or anything. but you must admit that e.g. a different material on the back of the screen or another way of lightening the screen may result in different sharpness. and thats the case.
cheers, lutz
Can something look sharper that actually isnt???
yes
I know, with a lot of liquor some women tend to look sharper than they really are.
Honestly, I admit that there may be a difference in performance/looks when exposed to sunlight etc but since every screen on the magician uses the exact same pixel pitch and res and size I doubt that there is really a diff to be seen other than what some people wish they can see. Otherwise you could make an LCD sharper by altering its surface. I mean you can make it blurry when pouring vaseline over the screen but make it sharper - I doubt that.
Did you ever see different LCD monitors in a row in some market? And you still say that there can't be a difference in picture quality between two monitors of the same size and resolution? Well, if you say yes, then you should have a closer look next time! Even the whole display technology varies from display to display.
PDA displays are reflektive and there are definately differences in the quality. My guess is that they built in improved panels somewhere within the production process so that newer devices (also new S100) have the better displays than the older ones.
Well with big LCDs its a big difference. They can use a lot of panel technologies (TN, MVA, IPS etc.), different anti-refectice coatings, different resolution and pixel pitch and so forth. The variation with small PDA LCDs are way more restricted.
We seem to have a misunderstanding anyway. I don't doubt that one magician could look different from another if the LCD has another coating or different backlight etc. BUT they cant be sharper since they use the same resolution and pixel pitch so that is not possible from a technological point of view. You may find one look different (maybe better) but that is a very subjective view. Besides all magicians (no matter if they are sold by O2 or Vodafone or Qtek or ...) are made by HTC, why should they use different LCD models in the exact same production line???
Ok, now I get your point. It's how you define what you mean with sharper. Sure, the resolutions stays the same, so the sharpness with regards to the resolution isn't better.
What about this guess: They asked their LCD supplier (or chose a different one) to supply them with LCDs with better reflektive behavior because the Magician isn't great under direct sunlight. So the newer panels have a stronger reflektion. I also suppose that these reflektions on the background cause the pixel to spread their light also more to the side (sorry for saying it that way, it's just a guess and I'm no pro). This would cause a pixel also to light some of its neighbours and this would cause a less sharp picture.
Just a guess.
Hello,
The display has a great resolution and has a wonderful size, but what can we expect from the screen brightness and contrast?
There is a review where the HD is compared to the Iphone 3G and the contrast and brightness of the iphone is even better (colors are stronger). Will the sold blackstone offer a better quality display contrast / brightness?
thx for any reply.
It's not the screen itself in which the IPhone is superior. Both screens (in darker situations) have quite similar brightness/contrast/color strength (looking at the Diamond and an IPhone 3G right now), and the Diamond is a hell of a lot sharper with 3 times the PPI.
But outside, on pictures and in well lit videos, the screen of the Diamond, Pro and HD all become a bit glared because they do not reflect all of the light, like the IPhone's glass screen, or the Blackberry Bold. They pick up some of the light which makes it harder to view the screen which is behind the top plastic layer, hence it looks as if their contrast is worse than that of the IPhone, which is not always the case.
In terms of DPI/PPI the HD will be lower than the Pro/Diamond I'm assuming since the horizontal resolution is the same even though the screen is wider and the vertical resolution is 'only' 160 pixels more in a screen that is a good bit longer than the Pro/Diamond.
Is this 'loss' of DPI/PPI in any way noticeable?
It is noticable, as soon as you stick your face into the screen and have good eyes The PPI is lower yes, but still much higher than say the IPhone (about 2.5 times higher). Since even on the IPhone you hardly notice pixels, the HD screen will still be tight as a drum, print quality for sure. The difference between the HD and the Diamond really is minimal.
Also, the huge screen means you will not be staring at your phone from up close since you have so much more real estate, you can hold it further away. Also I like the fact that the PPI have decreased in the width, because that makes all WinMo user interface bigger which is a plus imo, I really like the Diamond but their statement that you will only need one finger to control everything is BS.
I'm trying to figure out exactly how much larger the viewable screen area is versus a Nexus One. (I.E. a percentage)
I know it's 3.7 vs 4.0 but that doesn't tell the exact dimensions (i.e. square inches).
Does anyone know the actual width and height of just the screen for the Nexus S? (Is it the exact same screen as the Galaxy S series?)
Paul22000 said:
I'm trying to figure out exactly how much larger the viewable screen area is versus a Nexus One. (I.E. a percentage)
I know it's 3.7 vs 4.0 but that doesn't tell the exact dimensions (i.e. square inches).
Does anyone know the actual width and height of just the screen for the Nexus S? (Is it the exact same screen as the Galaxy S series?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it *is* the exact screen size as a galaxy s.
HAH! That's funny, if I put in galaxy s exact screen size into google, the top result is this thread!!
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=galaxy s exact screen size&fp=1&cad=b
Too bad none of the results actually show the dimensions...
Paul22000 said:
HAH! That's funny, if I put in galaxy s exact screen size into google, the top result is this thread!!
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=galaxy s exact screen size&fp=1&cad=b
Too bad none of the results actually show the dimensions...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, my trig is quite rusty, but given that the screen is 16x9, and the diagonal measurement is 4", then the length and width are calculable:
length: 3.4862"
width: 1.9612"
Compare that to a 4.3" display (evo or droid x)
length: 3.7477
width: 2.1083
Does that help?
rhca50 said:
Okay, my trig is quite rusty, but given that the screen is 16x9, and the diagonal measurement is 4", then the length and width are calculable:
length: 3.4862"
width: 1.9612"
Compare that to a 4.3" display (evo or droid x)
length: 3.7477
width: 2.1083
Does that help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forgot to measure the Nexus 1:
length: 3.2248"
width: 1.8141"
Where did you find that the aspect ratio is 16:9? 16/9 != 800/480...
Assuming the pixels are perfectly square, then a 4" diagonal would yield: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+16%3Dx^2%2B%28800%2F480*x%29^2
So the shorter end is ~2.058 inches and the longer is just 2.058*800/480 ~= 3.43
dinan said:
Where did you find that the aspect ratio is 16:9? 16/9 != 800/480...
Assuming the pixels are perfectly square, then a 4" diagonal would yield: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+16%3Dx^2%2B%28800%2F480*x%29^2
So the shorter end is ~2.058 inches and the longer is just 2.058*800/480 ~= 3.43
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The pixels aren't square. That's why you can't use them as a measurement.
Check out this magnification of an ipad display to see the example: They're likely a rectangle in the 3x2 ratio (or something close to that ratio).
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/pictures-kindle-and-ipad-screens-under-microscope/
Ok well I don't know then. The pixels on this screen aren't the same as the iPad's since the iPad is an RGB LCD, and SAMOLED is RGBG where the blue and red pixels are larger than the greens. I suppose I'll have to do it the old fashioned way and use a ruler on my Vibrant screen lol
rhca50 said:
The pixels aren't square. That's why you can't use them as a measurement.
Check out this magnification of an ipad display to see the example: They're likely a rectangle in the 3x2 ratio (or something close to that ratio).
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/pictures-kindle-and-ipad-screens-under-microscope/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dinan said:
Ok well I don't know then. The pixels on this screen aren't the same as the iPad's since the iPad is an RGB LCD, and SAMOLED is RGBG where the blue and red pixels are larger than the greens. I suppose I'll have to do it the old fashioned way and use a ruler on my Vibrant screen lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good point... I'm assuming the SAMOLED still uses the 3 color system where some combination of RGB are lit up per pixel. Based solely on magified LCDs, it looks like the width of the column of pixels is about as wide as the height of two of the 3 colors... I'm guessing a the 3:2 ratio based on eyeballing it. Either way, I still think the pixels aren't perfectly square, hence 16X9 being 800x480 pixels...
Really, we're talking about a difference that is so small that I would think the OP would have a good idea of the difference in screen size whether the ratio was 16x9 or 15x9...
rhca50 said:
Okay, my trig is quite rusty, but given that the screen is 16x9, and the diagonal measurement is 4", then the length and width are calculable:
length: 3.4862"
width: 1.9612"
Compare that to a 4.3" display (evo or droid x)
length: 3.7477
width: 2.1083
Does that help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no standard regarding ratios for phones.
I ended up going to Best Buy and actually measuring out the screen size with a tape measure...
Here's what I found:
Nexus One: 80.5mm x 48mm = 3864 sq mm
Nexus S: 86mm x 52mm = 4472 sq mm
4472 / 3864 = 15.735% larger viewing area
(Contrast this to 4.0 / 3.7 = "8.11%" larger, which is clearly nowhere near the actual viewable area difference, which is why I was looking for the exact dimensions.)
In any case, there you have it: The screen on the Nexus S has almost 16% more viewable space than the Nexus One.
Now to decide if it's significant enough to warrant the purchase?...
I know the LG Optimus 2X's screen probably won't come anywhere near the quality of the Super AMOLED on the Nexus S...
Now that wide screen displays are used everywhere on TV, Laptop, Tablet (except Apple) then surely Apple made a blunder when they chose the almost square 4:3 aspect ratio on the iPad. Apple still calls the iPad screen wide screen in the specification (see ink) but it is not.
http://www.vexite.com/2012/ipad-resolution-7-good-reasons-buying-upgrading/
Gaugerer said:
Now that wide screen displays are used everywhere on TV, Laptop, Tablet (except Apple) then surely Apple made a blunder when they chose the almost square 4:3 aspect ratio on the iPad. Apple still calls the iPad screen wide screen in the specification (see ink) but it is not.
http://www.vexite.com/2012/ipad-resolution-7-good-reasons-buying-upgrading/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, technical definitions aside, it's hard to call 3 million units sold in one weeked a "blunder".
burhanistan said:
Well, technical definitions aside, it's hard to call 3 million units sold in one weeked a "blunder".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Brain washing and herd instinct does funny things to people, but the iPad will eventually become wide screen, but it might take a while as it did with the TV.
To be fair, industry standards does not mean that said specific standard is actually superior. Granted almost very media source is now 16:9. Many standards are not quite the "best" possibility. I will say that I am not bothered by wide screen but the 4:3 tablet aspect has its own positives too.
Just to be clear, the Tab 7.7 (as with most android tablets) is not 16:9, its 1280x800 resolution is 8:5 or 16:10. It is still wider than the iPad relatively, but there is still some letterboxing when watching [Full]HD content.
Many users in the Windows tablet community lament about the changeover to 16:9. 4:3 is preferred because there is decent screen real estate in either "landscape" or "portrait mode".
Guess which ratio is closer to a standard sheet of paper? There's your answer.
To me, it all comes down to comfort. At 9 inch or more, the 4:3 aspect ratio is actually more comfortable to hold. In either orientation.
I tried the SGT 10.1 and it feels totally wrong. May be we are trained to size of a piece of paper. But I think it is the opposite. A4 and Letter size paper are their size and ratio because humans are most comfortable with it. That why Legal size paper is not popular
chan005 said:
To me, it all comes down to comfort. At 9 inch or more, the 4:3 aspect ratio is actually more comfortable to hold. In either orientation.
I tried the SGT 10.1 and it feels totally wrong. May be we are trained to size of a piece of paper. But I think it is the opposite. A4 and Letter size paper are their size and ratio because humans are most comfortable with it. That why Legal size paper is not popular
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 7.7, with its 16:10 aspect ratio screen, is approximately A5 in size. There is no automatic inference from the aspect ratio of the screen to the aspect ration of the device as a whole.
TonyBigs said:
Many users in the Windows tablet community lament about the changeover to 16:9. 4:3 is preferred because there is decent screen real estate in either "landscape" or "portrait mode".
Guess which ratio is closer to a standard sheet of paper? There's your answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On PC in landscape MsWord fit 2 pages nicely in 16:9, It is very useful when I translate something with source side by side. I'm loving it ^^
On 7.7 in portrait mode, I can view a lot websites in one page without sliding down (I prefer smaller text).
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------
Theory said:
The 7.7, with its 16:10 aspect ratio screen, is approximately A5 in size. There is no automatic inference from the aspect ratio of the screen to the aspect ration of the device as a whole.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"I think" may be it is about our eyes viewing angles.
We use smaller or 4:3 screen in portrait while we use larger or 16:9,10 in landscape because our viewing angles cover more horizontal than vertical.
If you use large 16:9,10 screen in portrait you'll have to nod you head more often lol
I find the 4:3 aspect ratio better for everything else except movies.
Why all these apple threats here, this is the Galaxy tab 7.7 topic?
I'm not interested in apple, if so I would have bought one and go to the apple forum.
To be clear, everyone, the 7.7's aspect ratio is actually 16:10, not 16:9. 1280*800 resolution = a 1.6 ratio (16:10). 1280*720 resolution = 1.77777 ratio (16:9).
Now, having said that, factoring in the menu bar, your usable screen resolution is actually 1280*752 (in landscape) = 1.702 ratio or 80:47, or 800*1232 (in portrait) = 1.54 ratio or 77:50
paqbro said:
Why all these apple threats here, this is the Galaxy tab 7.7 topic?
I'm not interested in apple, if so I would have bought one and go to the apple forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, there are some interesting comparisons to be had about the new iPad's display versus SAMOLED on the 7.7, but for the most part they are very different devices. I have both because I'm spoiled, and the 7.7 goes everywhere with me. I find myself reaching for my iPad at home for most things except ebooks.
Meanwhile, my poor "old" Galaxy 10.1 is just sitting on a desk not getting any love.
GOF007 said:
On PC in landscape MsWord fit 2 pages nicely in 16:9, It is very useful when I translate something with source side by side. I'm loving it ^^
On 7.7 in portrait mode, I can view a lot websites in one page without sliding down (I prefer smaller text).
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------
"I think" may be it is about our eyes viewing angles.
We use smaller or 4:3 screen in portrait while we use larger or 16:9,10 in landscape because our viewing angles cover more horizontal than vertical.
If you use large 16:9,10 screen in portrait you'll have to nod you head more often lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe. But the text block of a typical A4/letter page is closer to around 1.5:1 than the 1.33:1 (i.e., 4:3). And add in the bottom status bar, the 7.7 actually displays a typical A4/letter page for me quite comfortably. Especially when the text is zoomed to maximize the display (second pict). In fact, I am most comfortable reading in portrait on the 7.7. If I have a 16:10 screen as large as a real A4 page, I would still read in portrait mode--exactly as I would the A4 page itself. It's only when the screen is larger than that--e.g., my 1920x1200 24" monitor--that reading in portrait mode becomes less than ideal (though even then, a lot will depend on the angle and distance to the screen).
But to each his own, I suppose.
i have both a touchpad and a 7.7...the most use i get out of the 7.7 is netflix and honestly because of the 16:10, widescreen shows are ALMOST as large on the 7.7 as they are on the 4:3 9.7"...the thing is, the touchpad feels much too large to bring anywhere..so for people who watch videos (which should be everyone that uses the 7.7 because thats what it seems to have been made for), the aspect ratio argument comes right back to portability.
one thing is for certain though, anamorphic (2.35:1) theatrical movies look absolutely ridiculous on a touchpad/ipad
I find the aspect ratio of the 7.7 to be just fine and the 4:3 of the iPad not very good. In addition, the iPad is just too big for MY tastes. The next generation Android tablet had better move to higher resolution and when/if they do the resolution of choice, in my opinion, would be 1920x1200. 1900x1080 would be another option but I do think that ratio is getting a little bit too elongated, particularly if the side bezel is reduced relative to the top and bottom bezels.
I'm not really impressed with the unending fixation on making things thinner and thinner. The 7.7 is, in my view, too thin and if it were up to me I'd have made it about 1mm thicker and included an even bigger battery. I'd also have made the sides a little squarer with smaller bezel so that it would be even easier to hold by the side edges between your thumb and fourth and fifth fingers. I might also like to see what a rubberized band might do to help holding it.
For me, if you're going to carry something as big as the iPad then you might as well have a small laptop...
Brian
The goal on the 7.7 was to make it the most portable tablet.. adding more battery gives it more weight.
EarlZ said:
The goal on the 7.7 was to make it the most portable tablet.. adding more battery gives it more weight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and they could have made it lighter by using a smaller battery. As I said, I think it's too thin and if it were about 1mm thicker with the sides less rounded and the side bezels smaller so the width is less it would be easier to hold even if it weighted a few grams more...
Brian
it's a matter of taste. I came from the playbook, where the dimensions were the same (except thickness), and I actually enjoy the smaller size and weight.
of course, I have smaller hands so I can grip it easier...
The 7.7 is about 5.25 inch wide and if they had gone with smaller bezels on the side it could have been made less than 4.75 inch wide, maybe even 4.5 inch wide, and been even easier to hold by the side edges. But, the very thin and rounded sides actually make it harder to hold by the edges so making it a tad thicker and less rounded would, in my view, make it easier to hold by the edges.
As far as weight is concerned ... making it 0.5-0.75 inches narrower would likely offset the weight increase of the bigger battery and thicker package -- it might not weight any more than it does now...
Brian
I'm loving the Moto X. I 'm glad I made the jump. The only thing that I miss about the S4 is the larger and higher-resolution screen. It's been a while since I was on my GNEX, and I nearly forgot about how the onscreen buttons change things. While the S4 screen is only .3" larger than the Moto X screen, I forgot that the onscreen buttons on the Moto X would take up so much room. All things said, the screen real estate is significantly smaller on the Moto X. It's taking some time getting used to it. For instance, the calendar widget is much more compacted.
The resolution also makes a huge difference. Lot's of reviewers discount this with a waive of the hand, explaining that the difference is nominal. It's not, at least for me. The Moto X screen just seems fuzzier and grainier, and maybe I'm seeing a screen door effect, maybe. I can't remember if I had this problem with the GNEX or the S3, but the screen has that quality where it appears you are looking at a sheet of translucent paper, if that makes any sense. You can see this textured surface to the screen that looks very soft and grainy and uneven, almost as if the screen is being projected on construction paper. That said, the colors definitely seem more saturated and rich, and the blacks blacker, but the resolution takes a very big hit.
That all said, I'm still sticking with my Moto X. I absolutely despise Touchwiz and can't stand that my S4 is slower than my wife's S3 running CyanogenMod.
I run with a Moto X as my work phone and a Note II as my personal.
Although im in love with my Note II...the practical use of the Moto X is wonderful. I've been catching myself reaching for the X more often lately.
Sent from my SGH-T889 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Thanks a lot for the write up, I'm an S4 user who might switch to the Moto X.
I'm usually the one downplaying the spec war but I do worry about going from a 5" 1080p screen back to a 4.7" 720p one. I had that on my GNex two years ago lol.
Sent from the 215
Don't see what you're talking about with the screen on mine. Maybe you've got a bad screen.
Moto X | Stock Unrooted
joshm.1219 said:
Thanks a lot for the write up, I'm an S4 user who might switch to the Moto X.
I'm usually the one downplaying the spec war but I do worry about going from a 5" 1080p screen back to a 4.7" 720p one. I had that on my GNex two years ago lol.
Sent from the 215
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
FWIW the moto X screen is full RGB and not pentile like the gnex and S4. It is much brighter and better looking than the Gnex.
joshm.1219 said:
Thanks a lot for the write up, I'm an S4 user who might switch to the Moto X.
I'm usually the one downplaying the spec war but I do worry about going from a 5" 1080p screen back to a 4.7" 720p one. I had that on my GNex two years ago lol.
Sent from the 215
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As I noted in the first post, be mindful of the fact that the on-screen buttons takes up a lot more room. If you exclude that from the screen measurement, the Moto X is only 4.3". So, you only have 4.3 inches (diagonally) from the very top (notification bar) to the very bottom (dock buttons). Contrast that with 5.0" on the S4 and you are talking about a huge difference.
Again, this all said, I am more happy with the Moto X. I set my expectations way too high with the Moto X, and they were not met. But, it still is a better phone than the S4, just not by as much as I thought it would be.
MajorTankz said:
Don't see what you're talking about with the screen on mine. Maybe you've got a bad screen.
Moto X | Stock Unrooted
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "projected on paper" aspect that I'm talking about can be seen on whites. For example, I have a custom phase beam wallpaper with a white dots moving around. It's painfully obvious there. I think this is the nature of this screen technology. It offers much richer colors, blacker blacks, and is brighter when necessary, but it's grainier. And when I say grainy, I'm not talking about the pixels. I'm talking about the surface layer of the pixels, which seems like sandstone, rather than glass. (I think this issue is much more pronounced to me because I just finished using the S4 for 5 months. For someone that's been using the Moto X for five months, I'm sure it's not noticeable at all.)
Coming from the LG G2, and previously the S4, I prefer the Moto X. It may not have an insane pixel density but I don't really notice an difference with regular usage. Sure if you compare both side by side and close up then you're bound to notice it. The screen size is a lot easier to handle with one hand and the UI is a lot better than Touchwiz and LG's. Even the build quality is superb compared to the shiny flimsy plastic of the G2 and S4. This will surely be my device for quite some time. Especially with Moto's fast updates and reversal of warranty policy for unlocking the bootlader.
I also went from an S4 to a Moto X and I actually prefer the screen on the Moto X. It is much brighter and I find blacks to be deeper. I haven't found the drop from 1080p to 720p to be noticeable at all probably because of the RGB stripe vs the S4's pentile display. I have obviously noticed the loss in screen size as text and icons are smaller but I can adjust to that, small price to pay to finally own a phone that I feel is the perfect size for me.
eyc said:
As I noted in the first post, be mindful of the fact that the on-screen buttons takes up a lot more room. If you exclude that from the screen measurement, the Moto X is only 4.3". So, you only have 4.3 inches (diagonally) from the very top (notification bar) to the very bottom (dock buttons). Contrast that with 5.0" on the S4 and you are talking about a huge difference.
Again, this all said, I am more happy with the Moto X. I set my expectations way too high with the Moto X, and they were not met. But, it still is a better phone than the S4, just not by as much as I thought it would be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, if you're going to go there, you might as well not guess. I've done the calculation and a 4.7 inch screen minus the Android on-screen buttons gives you a 4.43 inch screen, not a 4.3 inch screen.
gtg465x said:
Well, if you're going to go there, you might as well not guess. I've done the calculation and a 4.7 inch screen minus the Android on-screen buttons gives you a 4.43 inch screen, not a 4.3 inch screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd be interested in how you calculated that because my number was also based in fact, not speculation. I measured it with a ruler.
** I measured again, and I'm getting exactly 4 and 3/8 inches. In other words, 3.75 inches. Pretty much in the middle of what we're both getting.
I compared my screen to a co-worker's nexus 5 screen and I can't tell a difference in quality. Size, yes but not quality of screen.
I do wish this screen was a little bigger.
Remember guys if they put a 1080p in this phone it wouldn't get the great battery life it gets.
Sent from my XT1058 using xda app-developers app
eyc said:
I'd be interested in how you calculated that because my number was also based in fact, not speculation. I measured it with a ruler.
** I measured again, and I'm getting exactly 4 and 3/8 inches. In other words, 3.75 inches. Pretty much in the middle of what we're both getting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I calculated it with math, not by measurement. Of course, if the screen isn't exactly 4.70 inches diagonally to begin with, then my calculation will be slightly off from reality. Also, if your ruler or the diagonal alignment of it isn't perfect, your real world measurement will be off.
gtg465x said:
I calculated it with math, not by measurement. Of course, if the screen isn't exactly 4.70 inches diagonally to begin with, then my calculation will be slightly off from reality. Also, if your ruler or the diagonal alignment of it isn't perfect, your real world measurement will be off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Take a ruler and give it a whirl. That is, if the .13" is significant to you. I'm guessing your value for the height of the onscreen buttons is wrong.
eyc said:
Take a ruler and give it a whirl. That is, if the .13" is significant to you. I'm guessing your value for the height of the onscreen buttons is wrong.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't have a Moto X, but the height I used for on-screen buttons is not wrong. I will post a detailed walk through of the calculation in a sec.
You guys have way better eyes than mine. I put the X up against the S4 and the HTC One, and actually preferred the X screen by a pretty wide margin, mostly because of color and contrast with deeper blacks.
The onscreen buttons do not bother me in the least. We're not talking like the difference between the iPhone 5 and the 4s here in vertical size. And for those of us who use the Nexus 7 and are former Galaxy Nexus or Nexus 4 lovers, it's downright perfect.
Cubfan99 said:
You guys have way better eyes than mine. I put the X up against the S4 and the HTC One, and actually preferred the X screen by a pretty wide margin, mostly because of color and contrast with deeper blacks.
The onscreen buttons do not bother me in the least. We're not talking like the difference between the iPhone 5 and the 4s here in vertical size. And for those of us who use the Nexus 7 and are former Galaxy Nexus or Nexus 4 lovers, it's downright perfect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would analogize the screen difference between the GS4 and the Moto X to that between an LCD versus a Plasma tv. I actually have all plasmas in my house because I prefer the richer (and more natural) colors, deeper blacks, and contrast (I have a Kuro Elite and high-end Samsung). But, for reading crisp clean text, I go with LCD on all of my computer monitors. If you walk right up to a plasma, you can see strange texture ("dancing ants") and other abnormalities that you don't see on LCD. I agree with you that the Moto X has a more captivating screen, but not necessarily for text (for me). All subjective, of course.
1) I first used the Pythagorean Theorem and the screen’s vertical and horizontal pixel count to calculate the number of pixels that would fit on the screen diagonally:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
1280^2 + 720^2 = C^2
C = 1468.6
2) With that, we can calculate the width of the screen since we know the screen is 4.7 inches diagonally:
720 horizontal pixels / 1468.6 diagonal pixels = screen width / 4.7 diagonal inches
screen width = 2.3042 inches
3) We know Android’s on-screen buttons are 96 pixels tall on a 720p screen. You can verify this by measuring a Moto X screenshot in an image editing app. That means the screen resolution is 1184 x 720 if the on-screen buttons are excluded. We now need to calculate the number of pixels that would fit on the screen diagonally at this new resolution:
1184^2 + 720^2 = C^2
C = 1385.73
4) With that, and knowing that the screen width is the same with or without the on-screen buttons, we can calculate the new diagonal screen measurement:
1385.73 diagonal pixels / 720 horizontal pixels = new diagonal measurement / 2.3042 inch screen width
new diagonal measurement = 4.4347 inches
So there you have it.
gtg465x said:
1) I first used the Pythagorean Theorem and the screen’s vertical and horizontal pixel count to calculate the number of pixels that would fit on the screen diagonally:
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
1280^2 + 720^2 = C^2
C = 1468.6
2) With that, we can calculate the width of the screen since we know the screen is 4.7 inches diagonally:
720 horizontal pixels / 1468.6 diagonal pixels = screen width / 4.7 diagonal inches
screen width = 2.3042 inches
3) We know Android’s on-screen buttons are 96 pixels tall on a 720p screen. You can verify this by measuring a Moto X screenshot in an image editing app. That means the screen resolution is 1184 x 720 if the on-screen buttons are excluded. We now need to calculate the number of pixels that would fit on the screen diagonally at this new resolution:
1184^2 + 720^2 = C^2
C = 1385.73
4) With that, and knowing that the screen width is the same with or without the on-screen buttons, we can calculate the new diagonal screen measurement:
1385.73 diagonal pixels / 720 horizontal pixels = new diagonal measurement / 2.3042 inch screen width
new diagonal measurement = 4.4347 inches
So there you have it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for taking the time. We obviously understand the pythagorean theorem, but I *think* that your measurements are off because you are assuming the pixels have identical width and height. In other words, the pixels are not square. That would introduce problems in your screen width calculation, as well as your calculation of the height of the on-screen buttons. Again, I could be wrong. We're already spending way too much effort/time on this .13" issue, aren't we?
eyc said:
As I noted in the first post, be mindful of the fact that the on-screen buttons takes up a lot more room. If you exclude that from the screen measurement, the Moto X is only 4.3". So, you only have 4.3 inches (diagonally) from the very top (notification bar) to the very bottom (dock buttons). Contrast that with 5.0" on the S4 and you are talking about a huge difference.
Again, this all said, I am more happy with the Moto X. I set my expectations way too high with the Moto X, and they were not met. But, it still is a better phone than the S4, just not by as much as I thought it would be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not too worried about the nav buttons because, from what I've experienced using AOSP on my S4, Android has gotten a lot better about hiding them for videos and games. I could care less about having to scroll more because less text fits on the screen or the homescreen being smaller.
If you wouldn't mind answering some other questions for me, maybe somebody else can help too.
Is the screen better, worse, or the same as the S4 in terms of visibility in sunlight?
How much available storage do you actually have on the 16gb model?
And, of course, battery life compared to the S4?
Thanks a lot.
Sent from the 215
---------- Post added at 01:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:35 PM ----------
gtg465x said:
1) I first used the Pythagorean Theorem and the screen’s vertical and horizontal pixel count to calculate the number of pixels that would fit on the screen diagonally:
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
1280^2 + 720^2 = C^2
C = 1468.6
2) With that, we can calculate the width of the screen since we know the screen is 4.7 inches diagonally:
720 horizontal pixels / 1468.6 diagonal pixels = screen width / 4.7 diagonal inches
screen width = 2.3042 inches
3) We know Android’s on-screen buttons are 96 pixels tall on a 720p screen. You can verify this by measuring a Moto X screenshot in an image editing app. That means the screen resolution is 1184 x 720 if the on-screen buttons are excluded. We now need to calculate the number of pixels that would fit on the screen diagonally at this new resolution:
1184^2 + 720^2 = C^2
C = 1385.73
4) With that, and knowing that the screen width is the same with or without the on-screen buttons, we can calculate the new diagonal screen measurement:
1385.73 diagonal pixels / 720 horizontal pixels = new diagonal measurement / 2.3042 inch screen width
new diagonal measurement = 4.4347 inches
So there you have it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The difference is that you include the status bar in your measurement, eyc doesn't.
Sent from the 215