Database Users

Non square pixels ?

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.

Exact Screen Size?

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...

Why no 720p display?

It struck me as a little odd that the display isn't 720p like the Galaxy Nexus, but in fact 1280x768. Especially with the on screen buttons which will use up some vertical pixels, I'm afraid that the display might almost seem not wide/tall enough. Is it just me?

vinay427 said:
It struck me as a little odd that the display isn't 720p like the Galaxy Nexus, but in fact 1280x768. Especially with the on screen buttons which will use up some vertical pixels, I'm afraid that the display might almost seem not wide/tall enough. Is it just me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe because the screen is 4.7 inches vs. the Gnex which is 4.65?

vinay427 said:
It struck me as a little odd that the display isn't 720p like the Galaxy Nexus, but in fact 1280x768. Especially with the on screen buttons which will use up some vertical pixels, I'm afraid that the display might almost seem not wide/tall enough. Is it just me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You realize 1280x768 is bigger than 720p (1280x720) right? As in, it will have more pixels than the Galaxy Nexus.

You will probably lose about 48px with the on-screen buttons, so it will actually be 1280x720
Sent from my Xperia S using xda app-developers app

Pixel density should actually be higher than the gs3, due to the screen being smaller, I'm pretty sure if you exclude the pixels taken by the on screen buttons, it's exactly 720p.

TiesB said:
You will probably lose about 48px with the on-screen buttons, so it will actually be 1280x720
Sent from my Xperia S using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
768 is the horizontal resolution
The physical buttons are almost always on the bottom.
if the bottom bars were 48 pixels you're subtract that from the vertical resolution.
1232x720 usable.

Kingsmith said:
768 is the horizontal resolution
The physical buttons are almost always on the bottom.
if the bottom bars were 48 pixels you're subtract that from the vertical resolution.
1232x720 usable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except that in a full screen app, they'll disappear anyways, such as when you're watching a video, exactly like every other nexus device.

The nexus 4 PPI is higher (320 vs 316) however the big difference is that there are 33% fewer sub pixels in the pen tile display of the Galaxy Nexus. This is where you will see the difference, not in the additional 4 PPI.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2

It actually is 720p. 1280x768. Nav bar = 48px. 768-48=720. 1280x720.

KonstantinKeller said:
It actually is 720p. 1280x768. Nav bar = 48px. 768-48=720. 1280x720.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's incorrect, it was already said in a previous post.
Kingsmith said:
768 is the horizontal resolution
The physical buttons are almost always on the bottom.
if the bottom bars were 48 pixels you're subtract that from the vertical resolution.
1232x720 usable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although it'd be 1232x768.
Either way, I see it as an advantage. There's more screen real estate in the end, even if it's only an extra 48px in width. Assuming it's centered, when watching 720p video there will be a 24px gap above and below the video. Not that big of a deal. If it is, you could fit it to the screen so there isn't any wasted screen space.

Anyone who had a Galaxy Note like me would appreciate a nice 8:5 ratio screen with the extra pixels. 720p is a very loosely used term. Why complain when you get even higher resolution?

I wasn't complaining; just wondering if this would make a big difference in normal usage. The general consensus on the thread seems to be that although it will result in a 1232x768 resolution not counting the buttons, the only real "issue" will be small black bars when watching a 16:9 movie. Thanks guys!

Hi!
This is almost the only thing that bothers me: those buttons... I think this choice is really weird. Why don't they put normal buttons under the screen? Because of this choice, I feel there is a big black part down for nothing. It's ugly...
In addition, the buttons, are they automatically hidden in all applications? And when the Nexus is used with a TV, even the nav bar is displayed?

Yes and no. It hides when you're playing a movie, YouTube video, etc. regardless of whether it's hooked up to a TV, I believe.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app

There are 1280pixels vertically.. However, the default navbar takes up 48 of those pixels.
So the screen is a bit wider allowing it to have 768 pixels (720+48)
So to make up for the on screen nav bars they have made the display a little wider.
The aspect ratio suffers though as it will not be perfectly 16:9

Okay. There seems to be some confusion here. Horizontal resolution defines a display's height (in pixels, not inches; and assuming all resolutions are defined in landscape). Vertical resolution defines a display's width. The assumption that the nav bar's 48 pixels effectively make it a 720p display is false. The nav bar subtracts from the display's vertical resolution, not it's horizontal; which makes it 1232x768. It does not make it 1280x720.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using XDA Premium HD app
---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------
The nav bar's 48 pixels change the display's aspect ratio from 5:3 to 77:48 (in landscape).
Sent from my Nexus 4 using XDA Premium HD app

TiesB said:
You will probably lose about 48px with the on-screen buttons, so it will actually be 1280x720
Sent from my Xperia S using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly and isnt that the size of the navbar stock right 48px
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium

casonswag said:
Exactly and isnt that the size of the navbar stock right 48px
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the post above yours. The 48px comes from the 1280, not the width which is 768. I think a mod should really delete all of the other posts except the one from @Mister_Mxyzptlk and close this thread because all it seems to be doing is causing confusion.

really who gives a ****, does your screen not look awesome?

[Q] Galaxy S4 Camera

So I have a case of OCD. I want to leave my camer on the 13 MP setting but It only displays at the 4:3 setting where the 9.6MP is full screen. Has anyone found a way to make the 13 mp setting stretch the full size of the screen or is that just not even possible? Thanks Guys!

The 16:9 picture fits your screen perfectly because it's basically a 13MP shot with the top and bottom chopped off - you're still getting the same resolution, just less picture. So no, you can't "stretch" the 13MP photo, you'd essentially be doing the same thing and chopping off pieces of the picture. Hope this helps.

That would make sense. Works for me! My eyes will just have to get used to it. Thank you!

About DPI confusion

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?