Related
I've noticed that Leo is somewhat wide, and still it has same resolution as other phones.
It has resolution 480x800, which is width=0.6 * height.
That huge Russian review states that Leo has display dimensions 88x56 mm. That makes it 0.63 * height. Which would mean the pixels are not square, it is 5% wider.
That is not much and it would be hardly noticeable. But if you rotate the screen, it will be 5% in other direction, and the difference would be 10%.
Question is .. is it noticeable ?
At least it should be measurable. If you have Leo, could you recheck my theory ? Display perfect circle or square (such bitmap should be easy to make on PC), and use ruler to measure the width and height on Leo's display. Also try that in landscape mode.
If indeed the pixels are not square, I'm interested how is it noticeable. Especially on people it should be visible, especially if you switch from landscape to portrait and back. On portrait all should be wider, on landscape all should be thinner.
88x56 cant be correct cause it is not 5:3 and this also imply a 4,1" display and not a 4,3" one ^^. Conclusion: The values arent correct . The pixel are squared.
It's probably not that noticable, or rather doesn't matter as soon as you get used to it. The pixels on my laptop (Thinkpad SL500) aren't square either, but as soon as you get used to it it's no problem
NetDwarf said:
88x56 cant be correct cause it is not 5:3 and this also imply a 4,1" display and not a 4,3" one ^^. Conclusion: The values arent correct . The pixel are squared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. Still .. what is the real display size ?
Leo surely seems wider aspect ratio then my current Xperia, which has the same resolution, and perfect 0.6 ratio.
I searched for some pictures on google and measured the aspect ratio on them, and it looks ok. So the impression comes probably just from the fact that Leo does not have hardware keys and the part above display is quite short too.
Good ! Eh .. now I simply HAVE to buy it, right ?
to be 4.3in diagonal (109.22mm) AND be square pixel at 800x480 the lcd size has to be 93.65mm X 56mm.
Is is that? i don't know, but it would fit in the frame reported at 120.5mm x 67mm.
I just held a ruler next to my screen and measured the screen. The size is 56x94. The are approximate sizes no exact measurements...
Thanx, that makes this non-issue.
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...
The screen is supposed to be 1280 x 800 px, but a photo cropped to that has slight black borders on each side. What are the exact pixels to crop a photo?
tcat007 said:
The screen is supposed to be 1280 x 800 px, but a photo cropped to that has slight black borders on each side. What are the exact pixels to crop a photo?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I assume you're trying to apply wallpapers, and after cropping they look like crap? If so, by using the built in wallpaper, it'll look bad no matter what. Download either Pic speed wallpaper app, or Multipic Live Wallpaper. Pick a photo from your gallery, and Select " set picture as...", then click the pic speed app. It will give you 3 crop options, and will look great.
Yes, applying pictures to wallpaper with Multi Picture Live. But also any photos that I cropped 800 x 1280 on my PC also don't fill the screen, just viewing them in Quickpic or Gallary. It's as if the screen is really 800 x 1260 or something like that.
If you look at a "big" wallpaper you can see it goes from edge to edge (in the black masked area), but with a 800 x 1280 picture, you have 5-10 px black areas at left and right (portrait).... at least I do.
Like everyone else says let the Android OS do it for you. I have found that if you change the size prior to loading it the quality is normally decreased.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
The screen size is 1280x800 total but don't forget the notification bar at the top and the button bar at the bottom. In landscape, it's probably closer to 1280 x 720 usable space, and in portrait, and this is just a guess, maybe 1200x800.
I have verified that the AMOLED in Galaxy S4 is indeed a PenTile similar to S, S3, Galaxy Nexus and other brands that uses Samsung PenTile super AMOLED displays. The new S4 AMOLED have green subpixels centered in the middle of each input pixel with red and blue subpixels situated at the bottom.
Total Number of Subpixels:
G: 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600
R=B = 1920 x 1080 / 2 = 960 x 540 = 1,036,800
Total # of RGB subpixels = 4,147,200
The Green subpixels indeed have full resolution while the Red and Blue subpixels are halved. But this does not interfere the image quality especially the PPI is 441. Since PPI is calculated based on the full pixel density along the diagonal line, it is not accurate to measure display designed for human perception with virtual resolution. Because virtual resolution utilizes less RGB subpixels to construct single pixel width or height black and white lines. It however, works exceptionally well when the lines are narrow enough to be less than our "retina resolution" which is around 0.6 arc-minutes (binary lines). Our eyes, instead, see an averaged of the black and white lines in gray at around 6 inches away from the 5" Full HD display.
The S4 AMOLED renderer intelligently shares the red and blue subpixels horizontally to achieve a correct overall color.
I have attached an example of how S4 renders the vertical lines. Horizontal lines isn't shown because S4's AMOLED is able to display black and white horizontal lines without sharing the red and blue subpixels.
Hello ,
I read on gsmarena that grand i9082 has 187ppi screen..with some resolution..now I am actually confused as gsmarena mentioned the resolution and we can change the PPI using some procedure...so after that we can arrange more items on our screen ..meaning we are actually changing the resolution..am I right?....so a phone with 440 PPI is same as modified ppi grand..??
DPI and PPI are different terms changing DPI is possible to certain limits but ppi cannot be changes to give a idea let me explain .
A pixel is the smallest indivisible unit of information in a digital image. Pixels may be displayed, or they may be printed, but you can't divide pixels into smaller pieces to get more information. How many channels and bits per channel make up one pixel is the measure of how subtle the information in a pixel may be, but the basic fact is that 1 pixel the smallest increment of information in an image. If you do video, you know that pixels don't have to be square -- they are non-square in all older video formats. Square or not, a pixel is still the smallest unit of a picture.
An inch is a unit of linear measurement on a surface, which could be a screen or a piece of paper.
A dot is, well, a dot. It can be a dot on a screen, or it can be a dot produced by a printhead. Like pixels, dots are atomic. They're either there, or they're not. How much fine detail a screen can display depends on how close the dots are (what they used to call "dot pitch" in the old CRT days). How small the dots are from an inkjet, a laser printer or an imagesetter determines how much fine detail it can reproduce.
Dots per inch is fairly easy. A screen has so many dots (each comprising R, G and B elements) per inch of screen. It's the same on paper. A 1200 dpi printer can lay down 1200 dots in one linear inch. In describing screen detail or printer output, dots per inch is the correct term.
PPI is where the confusion comes in. An image has so many pixels. Its metadata contains an output size in inches, cm, mm, M&Ms, whatever. It's the width in pixels divided by the output width in the metadata that "per inch" comes from. So the same image with different metadata may be 72 ppi, 150 ppi or 8000 ppi. The image information is the same; all that's changed is the metadata.
A quick and easy demo that somewhat illustrates the point is to make some marks on a piece of elastic, say five to an inch. Stretch the elastic to twice its length. The number of marks hasn't changed, even though the "marks per inch" is now 2.5.
You can see this in Photoshop if you turn off Resample Image and change the size. The ppi value changes to reflect how small the pixels must be reproduced in order to hit the measurement value in inches/cm/mm etc. Note that in this case the Pixels fields are disabled. You can't change those values unless you resample.
Mass confusion entered in when image pixels were mapped to screen dots in web browsers. A 200 pixel image shows up as 200 pixels in a browser. How large it is, measured with a ruler, depends on the dots per inch of the screen. The image metadata might say it's 200 ppi or 72 ppi or 1 ppi, it will still occupy exactly 200 screen dots. The world remains fixated on "72 ppi for the web," so the question of "what's the right resolution for web images" keeps coming up, and the correct answer, "it doesn't matter," keeps being supplied ad nauseam.
If you're still with me, there's one last step that brings the two together.
A 720-pixels-wide image at 10 physical inches wide has a resolution of 72 pixels per inch. If you print it on a 1200 dpi printer, there will be 1200 dots per inch on the paper, but the image is still 72 pixels per inch. That's why it looks like crap. On the other hand, a 7200 pixels wide image printed at 1 inch wide will exceed the resolution of our 1200 dpi printer. Photoshop (let's say) and the printer driver decide which pixels to throw away and which to actually print. Some of the printed dots will be averaged among adjacent image pixels, but, regardless, some of the image information has to be thrown away. The output will be 1200 dpi, but the resolution of the printed image will have been reduced to at most 1200 dpi by the software.
So changing DPI is just like changing resolution on PC..but the phone PPI will be same as it is in the hardware..?? Can we feel phone with 180ppi and 440 PPI as different from each other while using?