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...
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
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?