I've been doing some research, and not even the official spec sheet from Motorola mention what type of display the XOOM has other than "10.1” 1280x800 resolution" and "HD widescreen display".. AMOLED? IPS? Comparable to the iPad? I haven't seen any comments on the the quality of the display either.. like.. at all.. I'm very curious.
Very important feature you know, seeing as you are going to be staring at it do everything.
From a couple videos I have seen (purely speculation) it does not look to be amoled. If I had to guess I would say lcd like the ipad. From owning both a amoled (captivate) and a lcd (galaxy tab) both are nice but I prefer the amoled.
Sent from my SPH-P100 using XDA App
It's a TFT LCD touchscreen, WXGA (1280 x 800), 160DPI, 720p HD with 16:9 aspect ratio
I believe I also saw that Moto is using Gorilla Glass for the screen as well.
Darn, a transflective lcd would be the killer thing.... *sigh*
Its a 16:10 display not 16:9
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
So, we heard from our source that the iPad 2 would have a "super high resolution" Retina Display, we heard from AppleInsider that the iPad 2 is getting around 4X the graphics performance of the iPad, and of course there's the fact that the iPhone 4's Retina Display offered a pretty impressively painless upgrade path for developers -- an iPad 2 with a 2048 x 1536 screen is starting to sound less and less like the crazy dream of naive fanboys. But wait, there's more! A .png has been found in the iBooks 1.2 source files, dubbed Wood [email protected]. It's sized at 1536 x 800, while the old and busted Wood Tile.png in iBooks 1.1 was 768 x 400 -- that's 2X in each direction, or 4X the pixels, for anyone who's counting. Incontrovertible evidence? No, but we want to believe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.engadget.com/2011/01/17/ipad-2-retina-display-evidence-mounts-this-time-a-png-of-wood/
Compare the two if this ipad 2 rumor is true?
Bukem75 said:
Compare the two if this ipad 2 rumor is true?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most likely not true. The only displays sporting something close to that (WQXGA, since QXGA with 4:3 aspect ratios pretty much died off) are 27"-30" graphics professional monitors and will run you well over $1,000. I doubt they could shrink it down to tablet-sized, or at the very least make it cost-effective.
While the 'New iPad''s resolution and display are incredibly impressive, but with the announcements, I noticed that Apple is using the term "Retina Display" (it's term for a display that in some pseudo science way is exactly right for the human eyes) in a different way. That is this new iPad's 'Retina Display" has a completely different ppi (pixels per inch) than the iPhone's Retina Display. Because you look at the iPad from farther away is Apple's rational. (see macworld quote below *)
So Apple now changed (updated?) the definition of their "Retina Display" term to some viewing distance / ppi equation, that they seems to be able to pretend has meaning scientifically (I am a researcher in vision and tech, so I hate to see marketing just crap on science). Can't Apple just stick with size/res at ppi like everyone else. Or maybe science (hence us geeks) should be able to use the term for anything that fits Apple's now new pseudo equation -- Hmm doing the 'math' it looks like the Samsung Galaxy Note would generally fit in the wishy washy definition of retina display:
iPhone 4s: 3.5-inch 960 x 640 pixels, 326 ppi
Galaxy Note: 5.3-inch 800 x 1280 pixels, 285 ppi
New iPad: 9.7-inch 2048 x 1536 pixel, 264 ppi
So all this bears the question, according to Apple's own definition, does the Galaxy Note phone have a Retina Display? Can someone with more time than me right now, maybe chart out the 3 devices and viewing distances - then we can send our findings to David Pogue of the NYTimes ( tech gadget writer).
-steveblue
-----------
* Here is macworld explaining why the retina display term changed:
"Apple first introduced the concept of a “Retina display” in the iPhone 4, which packed 326 pixels per inch into its 3.5-inch display. Rather than refer to a specific level of pixel density, the term defines how the average person sees a screen—at a certain distance away, the human eye can no longer distinguish the individual pixels on a device.
Although the new iPad has a lower pixel density (264 versus 326) than the iPhone 4 or 4S, that’s largely due to screen size and relative distance—users hold the iPad further away from their faces than they might an iPhone."
the answer is :
"
Who
Gives
A
####
"
Great another iphone thread
From the big ole Note
miko3d said:
the answer is :
"
Who
Gives
A
####
"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly +1
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
steveblue said:
While the 'New iPad''s resolution and display are incredibly impressive, but with the announcements, I noticed that Apple is using the term "Retina Display" (it's term for a display that in some pseudo science way is exactly right for the human eyes) in a different way. That is this new iPad's 'Retina Display" has a completely different ppi (pixels per inch) than the iPhone's Retina Display. Because you look at the iPad from farther away is Apple's rational. (see macworld quote below *)
So Apple now changed (updated?) the definition of their "Retina Display" term to some viewing distance / ppi equation, that they seems to be able to pretend has meaning scientifically (I am a researcher in vision and tech, so I hate to see marketing just crap on science). Can't Apple just stick with size/res at ppi like everyone else. Or maybe science (hence us geeks) should be able to use the term for anything that fits Apple's now new pseudo equation -- Hmm doing the 'math' it looks like the Samsung Galaxy Note would generally fit in the wishy washy definition of retina display:
iPhone 4s: 3.5-inch 960 x 640 pixels, 326 ppi
Galaxy Note: 5.3-inch 800 x 1280 pixels, 285 ppi
New iPad: 9.7-inch 2048 x 1536 pixel, 264 ppi
So all this bears the question, according to Apple's own definition, does the Galaxy Note phone have a Retina Display? Can someone with more time than me right now, maybe chart out the 3 devices and viewing distances - then we can send our findings to David Pogue of the NYTimes ( tech gadget writer).
-steveblue
-----------
* Here is macworld explaining why the retina display term changed:
"Apple first introduced the concept of a “Retina display” in the iPhone 4, which packed 326 pixels per inch into its 3.5-inch display. Rather than refer to a specific level of pixel density, the term defines how the average person sees a screen—at a certain distance away, the human eye can no longer distinguish the individual pixels on a device.
Although the new iPad has a lower pixel density (264 versus 326) than the iPhone 4 or 4S, that’s largely due to screen size and relative distance—users hold the iPad further away from their faces than they might an iPhone."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting.. Although I would think you wouldn't need to plot viewing distances. I would think you would need to either know the algorithm in which apple uses to make this "retina" claim or you would just go by the viewing distances specified by the manufacturer.
I could be wrong but that was my thought. Definitely an interesting idea though.
steveblue said:
While the 'New iPad''s resolution and display are incredibly impressive, but with the announcements, I noticed that Apple is using the term "Retina Display" (it's term for a display that in some pseudo science way is exactly right for the human eyes) in a different way. That is this new iPad's 'Retina Display" has a completely different ppi (pixels per inch) than the iPhone's Retina Display. Because you look at the iPad from farther away is Apple's rational. (see macworld quote below *)
So Apple now changed (updated?) the definition of their "Retina Display" term to some viewing distance / ppi equation, that they seems to be able to pretend has meaning scientifically (I am a researcher in vision and tech, so I hate to see marketing just crap on science). Can't Apple just stick with size/res at ppi like everyone else. Or maybe science (hence us geeks) should be able to use the term for anything that fits Apple's now new pseudo equation -- Hmm doing the 'math' it looks like the Samsung Galaxy Note would generally fit in the wishy washy definition of retina display:
iPhone 4s: 3.5-inch 960 x 640 pixels, 326 ppi
Galaxy Note: 5.3-inch 800 x 1280 pixels, 285 ppi
New iPad: 9.7-inch 2048 x 1536 pixel, 264 ppi
So all this bears the question, according to Apple's own definition, does the Galaxy Note phone have a Retina Display? Can someone with more time than me right now, maybe chart out the 3 devices and viewing distances - then we can send our findings to David Pogue of the NYTimes ( tech gadget writer).
-steveblue
-----------
* Here is macworld explaining why the retina display term changed:
"Apple first introduced the concept of a “Retina display” in the iPhone 4, which packed 326 pixels per inch into its 3.5-inch display. Rather than refer to a specific level of pixel density, the term defines how the average person sees a screen—at a certain distance away, the human eye can no longer distinguish the individual pixels on a device.
Although the new iPad has a lower pixel density (264 versus 326) than the iPhone 4 or 4S, that’s largely due to screen size and relative distance—users hold the iPad further away from their faces than they might an iPhone."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ignore the others lol... This is a great post as I was thinking the same thing. You explained it much more impressively that I ever could though...
I like this thread. Steve definitely sounds like an expert on the subject.
So according to apple, we do have retina display! !
DPMAce said:
I like this thread. Steve definitely sounds like an expert on the subject.
So according to apple, we do have retina display! !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should lead to some great Samsung ads.
its all marketing by the great apple. Only company I know that can be late to a party, create a new word, and then set the standard. Its becoming dead around these parts.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
There's nothing "pseudo science" about the resolution of the human eye. It's nothing but a ratio between ppi and viewing distance. It could be argued whether apple's phones and tablets are below the ratio and whether their official viewing distances make sense, but the concept itself is sound science. If you increase the pixel density or view the screen from further away, you won't be able to distinguish individual pixels.
Nice to know.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA
I would say it's exactly on the fuzzy edge of retina display - for 285 ppi, the shortest distance from the screen that the user is still unable to discern the pixel difference is about 12 inch. (for iPhone 4s it's 10.5 inch)
For normal usage of the Note (my usage), it's about 11-12 inch or larger, so it's on the verge of retina display.
Before i prove your theory, let me see if I can care less about this exercise.
---------------------------
Yeah it's a Galaxy Note, are you jealous?
I disagree that the Note has a retina display. it looks considerably more grainy than my wife's iPhone 4. it doesn't bother me, but I know it's there
You do realize Note is PenTile right? That pretty much means 1/3 less pixels. The resolution is high so it isn't that obvious but it reduces the sub pixel density noticeably(which is ultimately more important). Whatever, you either like the screen or not, Retina Display is just a name Apple invented for high density screens.
deymayor said:
Before i prove your theory, let me see if I can care less about this exercise.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can definitely care less about this exercise - by ignoring it and not posting a reply at all. I guess you do care about it a bit.
leppo said:
I disagree that the Note has a retina display. it looks considerably more grainy than my wife's iPhone 4. it doesn't bother me, but I know it's there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but the new ipad also has a retina display - and it has lower ppi than the Note.
but .....
freemini said:
You do realize Note is PenTile right? That pretty much means 1/3 less pixels. The resolution is high so it isn't that obvious but it reduces the sub pixel density noticeably(which is ultimately more important). Whatever, you either like the screen or not, Retina Display is just a name Apple invented for high density screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, PenTile RGBG is the dirty word here. I wish they went with an RGB matrix. I can definitely see the dotted edges on small text. That said, the dots are far smaller than the terribly-obvious ones on older screens like on the Nexus One, so I can easily ignore it.
tytung2020 said:
I would say it's exactly on the fuzzy edge of retina display - for 285 ppi, the shortest distance from the screen that the user is still unable to discern the pixel difference is about 12 inch. (for iPhone 4s it's 10.5 inch)
For normal usage of the Note (my usage), it's about 11-12 inch or larger, so it's on the verge of retina display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this is true, then for me I can't see the individual pixels from my regular viewing distance. Yes, I actually held a ruler up to eye level and put my phone at the end and honestly 1ft is kind of close.
On a side note, I have always loved my Note's screen. If it is not the pinnacle, it sure is sitting on top w/ only a few other phones atop the Android ecosystem.
freemini said:
You do realize Note is PenTile right? That pretty much means 1/3 less pixels. The resolution is high so it isn't that obvious but it reduces the sub pixel density noticeably(which is ultimately more important). Whatever, you either like the screen or not, Retina Display is just a name Apple invented for high density screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is only 1/6 (~17%) not 1/3 less!
And the macbook is just another laptop but if you call it the latter, apple drones get their panties in a bunch.
To start with, "Retina display" is a marketing term, created by Apple. It has no formal definition or "standard". It's only meaningful in terms dictated by Apple relative to their own products.
It's also (as mentioned at the bottom of the OP) based on the distance you're holding the device from your face, you're not likely to be using a 5.3" device at the same distance as a 9.7" device. It's this distance relative to the ppi that they're using to determine if it's a "retina" display or not.
Don't adopt proprietary marketing terms as a meaningful identifier.
I would imagine that since it's a term created, by Apple, to describe a feature of Apple products, it's irrelevant when applied to non-Apple products. They might've lost their "reality distortion field", but they've still got one of the more heavily backed marketing teams in the world.
Sorry if they have been answered already or obvious. Firstly, as the display has such a high pixel density, will apps have display issues unless they are optimised (as was the case with the retina display)?
Secondly, are there/ will there be games optimised for the GPU/processor as has been the case with Tegra?
Thanks.
1. Android doesn't care about specific screen resolutions. It just scales the app according to your aspect ratio and resolution. The added pixels (compared to the S3) are to display the on-screen keys. If those are hidden, you might have 48 (out of 768) lines of black bar if the app is not optimized for the screen ratio, hence no big deal.
2. Only time will tell, but why shouldn't there be optimized apps if it sells well enough (-> widespread, otherwise it's too much effort for too little benefit) and if the benefits are as big as for tegra devices?
hey guy, i have a strange question but i bet with some guy that more PPI dependence by CPU strength and screen resolution, or not(??).
what i said that's more power of CPU, then more PPI u can get.(ofcourse the bet is about the Adreno 300)
can you explain me about that more if im right or not? :cyclops:
PPI is about the screen, how the screen is manufactured. Dimensions in pixels is dependent of processing power,CPU if software rasterizing, CPU+GPU if hardware rasterizer.
So a phone with 1080p and 300ppi performs the same as a phone with 1080p and 1000ppi
i think that its not ppi, but resolution is the blood sucker. more resolution, more details,more computing power. which demands greater cpu and gpu powers. and let me clear, large screen size does not necessarily mean greater resolutions. compare s4/z/one with some other devices like grand/mega etc.
also if a device have good resolution and better screen it should use more ppi, which in turn supports ur argument.
Sent from my NexusHD2 using xda premium
icecore said:
hey guy, i have a strange question but i bet with some guy that more PPI dependence by CPU strength and screen resolution, or not(??).
what i said that's more power of CPU, then more PPI u can get.(ofcourse the bet is about the Adreno 300)
can you explain me about that more if im right or not? :cyclops:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PPI stands for pixels-per-inch. Pixels per inch is not the number of pixels; it's how crammed they are together. Resolution is the number of pixels. For example, even though the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note 2 have the same resolution screen (ignore the fact that the S3's is pentile), the Galaxy S3 has a higher PPI because it has the pixels crammed into a smaller screen size (4.7 inch vs 5.5 inch). If the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note 2 had the same processor, RAM, etc, and only the screen size was different, they would perform identically. They both have the same amount of pixels, but the Galaxy S3 screen looks sharper because the screen is smaller.
What strains the processor is a higher resolution, not directly a high PPI. It's the same thing with a computer; if I run Crysis at 640 x 480 (the lowest possible resolution), I'll probably get an amazing frame rate (smoothness) even though the picture will look like crap. Why? The processor and graphics card have to process less pixels to display on the screen. Now, if I ran the game at 1080p, the frame rate would suffer dramatically, but the picture quality would look amazing. The processor and graphics card now have a LOT more to display on the screen. That's the gist of it.
got it thanks for all replays!
I love my old Pronto universal remote. It does everything I want. However, there is one thing about it I don't like. The resolution and color depth are poor by modern standards. The resolution is 320 x 240 (113 DPI), with only 256 colors, compared with 16 million colors and a 441 DPI pixel density for my Galaxy S4. It makes a huge difference. Since the S4 has a built in IR blaster, and even has an app (Watchon) capable of doing some of the things a Pronto can do, I'd like to suggest the creation of an app that emulates the Pronto (similar to the emulator for the HP48).