I know it's got a 7" display, but what's the exact dimensions (height x length) of the display...?
Thx.
Nevermind found an answer...
http://bookclubs.barnesandnoble.com...-are-the-actual-screen-dimensions/td-p/736077
The screen itself is 6.25 x 3.75 approximately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
@ 169ppi 1024x600 = 3.55x6.059 inch
http://www.barnesandnoble.com/nookcolor/features/techspecs/index.asp?cds2Pid=35607
----edit----
i did the sizing in photoshop.
thx.......
Related
Please could someone categorically say what dimensions the Universal has.
I have seen two sets of varying dimensions. Which ones are correct?
http://www.eprice.com.tw/news/?news_id=2913
http://www.expansys.com/product.asp?code=125564
ONE: MM (Inches) Length: 127.7 (5.03) Width: 81.0 (3.19) Depth: 25.0 (0.98) (That is THICK!)
TWO: MM (Inches) Length: 131.6 (5.18) Width: 79.0 (3.11) Depth: 21.6 (0.85)
Two Reports of Weight: g. (oz.): 270.0 (9.52) or 210.0 (7.41)
Also, anybody have some close-up size comparison pics with a Himalaya or Blue Angel, in particular, thickness?
Thanks.
Squuiid said:
Please could someone categorically say what dimensions the Universal has.
I have seen two sets of varying dimensions. Which ones are correct?
http://www.eprice.com.tw/news/?news_id=2913
http://www.expansys.com/product.asp?code=125564
ONE: MM (Inches) Length: 127.7 (5.03) Width: 81.0 (3.19) Depth: 25.0 (0.98) (That is THICK!)
TWO: MM (Inches) Length: 131.6 (5.18) Width: 79.0 (3.11) Depth: 21.6 (0.85)
Two Reports of Weight: g. (oz.): 270.0 (9.52) or 210.0 (7.41)
Also, anybody have some close-up size comparison pics with a Himalaya or Blue Angel, in particular, thickness?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OK - here's what happened.
Official specs were released by HTC - and propogated by T-mobile. These gave the dimensions as 131.6 x 79 x 21.6 mm and a weight of 210g.
Later these specs were revised and now T-mobile, Orange and O2 all give the dimensions as 127.7 x 81 x 25 mm.
An O2 Powerpoint presentation was leaked that gave the weight as 270g. Now, however, O2, T-mobile and Orange all give the weight as 285g.
Until someone actually measures and weighs it in a review, therefore it is:
127.7 x 81 x 25 mm and 285g according to all trustworthy official sources.
The full known specs are given in the VGA Comparison page linked in my sig at the bottom of my post.
Nope, I've just measured mine and it is:
TWO: MM (Inches) Length: 131.6 (5.18) Width: 79.0 (3.11) Depth: 21.6 (0.85)
aadvark said:
Nope, I've just measured mine and it is:
TWO: MM (Inches) Length: 131.6 (5.18) Width: 79.0 (3.11) Depth: 21.6 (0.85)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That woud make the original specs provided by HTC correct (in terms of dimensions at least). Which makes one wonder where they got the second set of specs from?
Not sure if this site was posted in the past but here is a comparison of the Universal.
http://www.windowsmobile.no/modules...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
JW
Not sure if this site was posted in the past but here is a comparison of the Universal.
http://www.windowsmobile.no/modules...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php
JW
Thanks buddy! Just what I was after.
Looks pretty damn big! :shock:
Think my Himalaya is the max size I will go for in a phone.
The Universal looks too THICK.
I agree. I'm waiting for the Wizard so see how big that is. If I couldn't cope with that no way I'd have a Universal, especially at the price it is.
Here are the images of the Wizard. I agree it looks better as far as size but the processor scares me.
http://www.windowsmobile.no/modules...e=article&sid=443&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
OMG it looks HUGE ! i think they have made a mistake with this one, Good specs but i think its far too big to be practical.
I Own an XDA 2i and that is deffo the biggest phone i have ever had, i have just got used to the size in fact, so there is no way i would go bigger.
On a good note though ... the Wizard looks really interesting, i like the small size of that, more my cup of tea lol, we'll just have to see what the processor performs like
Noooooooo!
i-mate are reporting it as being:
Dimension (Typical): 81mm x 127.7mm x 25mm
http://www.clubimate.com/t-JASJAR_technical.aspx
Can it really be that big/fat?
I thought we had established it as being 21.6mm
Can someone please tell me what the actual dimensions (h x w) are for the screen on the Ameo/Advantage/Athena?
Thanks!
Was my question that tough? Or too elementary?
5" Diagonal, 80x100mm
Thank you zoharbl. The 5 inches I knew. It was the 80 x 100 (3.15" x 3.94"), that I was after. To me that is much more usable than the 1.57" x 3.54" of the E90.
Has anyone seen the specs comparing the thickness of the Epic to the other Galaxy phones? I'm just wondering how much the keyboard adds.
Thanks!
I read 4mm.
edit: Actually that's not right. Its 4mm larger than the evo. Sorry.
Remember that the 4g radio is also probably adding some size to the phone.
Size: Dimensions: 4.9 inches 2.54 inches x 0.56 inches (124.8 mm x 64.6 mm x 14.2 mm) (LxWxT)
Weight: 5.46 ounces (155 grams)
versus
SIZE Dimensions 122.4 x 64.2 x 9.9 mm
Weight 119 g
So about an extra 4mm for the keyboard, and 35 grams.
Not terrible, and it is still in line with other smartphones, but if you want a 4" display and a landscape slider, you have to pay for it somehow.
drizek said:
Size: Dimensions: 4.9 inches 2.54 inches x 0.56 inches (124.8 mm x 64.6 mm x 14.2 mm) (LxWxT)
Weight: 5.46 ounces (155 grams)
versus
SIZE Dimensions 122.4 x 64.2 x 9.9 mm
Weight 119 g
So about an extra 4mm for the keyboard, and 35 grams.
Not terrible, and it is still in line with other smartphones, but if you want a 4" display and a landscape slider, you have to pay for it somehow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. Just wondering how it compares to my old Tilt2.
dc41 said:
Agreed. Just wondering how it compares to my old Tilt2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tilt2 dimensions:
116 x 59.2 x 17.3 mm. Weight, 178.5 g
wish screen is most pixelated, htc sensation or the note. Dose someone know if there is a test who show the 720p mobile screen comparison inzoomed
Samsung Galaxy Note
800 x 1280 pixels, 5.3 inches (~285 ppi pixel density)
HTC Sensation:
540 x 960 pixels, 4.3 inches (~256 ppi pixel density)
(http://www.gsmarena.com)
I meen side by side in real world, 1280x800 pentile vs 960x540 rgb
Last time I check, this is the real world oh Hai luk, search!
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1313795&highlight=pentile+vs+rgb
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1359716&highlight=pentile+vs+rgb
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...D---is-the-PenTile-matrix-bad-for-you_id23134
I mean to other 720p displays like the rezound and lg 4 g, not 800X480 screens
Oh, please, we're talking about small screens. 1000 pixels on 4 inches.
If you see pixels on any of those two screens you should call the Guinness Book of Records to claim the sharpest eyesight on the World.
I can't see any pixels when reading text on the Galaxy Note Screen.
Hell, Ipad and Ipad 2 have 1024x768 on a 10" screen and nobody is complaining about pixellation.
You're talking about a screen that's 5" and has roughly the same resolution.
falluja said:
wish screen is most pixelated, htc sensation or the note.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I answered your question above, specifically the HTC Sensation is more "pixelated" because the ppi is lower(though only by a tiny bit, and not noticeable)
falluja said:
Dose someone know if there is a test who show the 720p mobile screen comparison inzoomed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now I think the Galaxy Nexus is the only other 720P mobile screen available(limited). The Res on the Nexus is 720 x 1280 pixels, 4.65 inches (~316 ppi pixel density) So the "pixelation" would be higher on the Note vs the Nexus. The Note may have more "pixels" then the Note, but the Nexus has smaller screen to pack those Pixels in.
Also, the Galaxy Nexus uses the same Pentile screen that the Note does.
Spartan2x said:
I answered your question above, specifically the HTC Sensation is more "pixelated" because the ppi is lower(though only by a tiny bit, and not noticeable)
Right now I think the Galaxy Nexus is the only other 720P mobile screen available(limited). The Res on the Nexus is 720 x 1280 pixels, 4.65 inches (~316 ppi pixel density) So the "pixelation" wouyld be higher on the Note vs the Nexus. The screens have the same number of pixels (1200*800 vs 1280*720, they just took 80 from one sie and added to the other) but the Nexus has smaller screen to pack those Pixels in.
Also, the Galaxy Nexus uses the same Pentile screen that the Note does.
Edit, not the same pixels.
1200 times 800 is 960,000
1280 times 720 is 921,600
Opps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Notes screen is 1280x800 not 1200x800
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note/spec.html?type=find
Gunner86 said:
Notes screen is 1280x800 not 1200x800
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note/spec.html?type=find
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, I must have mis-read it. I got it right on my first reply because I did a copy and paste.
edited
Anyone else see this? When you switch, the FHD resolution seems to make everything smaller and clearer whereas the QHD option seems to make everything larger and slightly fuzzier.
Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk
Think I know what's wrong. Go into developer options and the FHD smallest width is 432 whereas the QHD smallest width is 411. Its the wrong way around. Theres so many bugs with OOS just now [emoji53]
Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk
Batfink33 said:
Think I know what's wrong. Go into developer options and the FHD smallest width is 432 whereas the QHD smallest width is 411. Its the wrong way around. Theres so many bugs with OOS just now [emoji53]
Sent from my IN2023 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're right! I had noticed the same thing. So to be clear: FHD ought to be set to 411 (because it has fewer pixels), and QHD to 432? I changed mine to QHD/432 and it does look way sharper. Interestingly, 432 divides rationally into both 1080 (FHD width) and 1440 (QHD width), but not 411:
1080 ÷ 411 = 2.627737226277
1440 ÷ 411 = 3.503649635036
1080 ÷ 432 = 2.5
1440 ÷ 432 = 3.333333333333
Are both FHD and QHD supposed to be 432?
Ynynyl said:
I think you're right! I had noticed the same thing. So to be clear: FHD ought to be set to 411 (because it has fewer pixels), and QHD to 432? I changed mine to QHD/432 and it does look way sharper. Interestingly, 432 divides rationally into both 1080 (FHD width) and 1440 (QHD width), but not 411:
1080 ÷ 411 = 2.627737226277
1440 ÷ 411 = 3.503649635036
1080 ÷ 432 = 2.5
1440 ÷ 432 = 3.333333333333
Are both FHD and QHD supposed to be 432?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
432 QHD looks good imo