Related
Obviously, the ipad 3's new retina screen resolution can't be topped, whereas samsung's super amoled has better contrast ratios. Which screen will be more impressive in your opinion once the ipad 3 arrives in stores this friday?
I was kinda wondering this too. I watched a live feed about the reveal, and Im more than happy with my 7.7. Its still the best 7" tablet out there, and Ive never been an apple fan. And doubt I ever will be.
I have an iPad 3 on the way because I have more money than sense. If people are nice I will do a side by side screen comparison.
burhanistan said:
I have an iPad 3 on the way because I have more money than sense. If people are nice I will do a side by side screen comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rofl, I felt like I had more money than sense when I bought the 7.7 to replace my 8.9, but even though the iPad3 is probably going to look amazing, I can't stomach the Apple ecosystem. I got rid of my iPod, which was my first ever mp3 player, maybe six years ago after a four year run or so. I can only pray that some day, iTunes will rot in the special hell it deserves.
Whether people are nice enough for the comparison, thanks for a good laugh.
I love the 7.7 screen, I mostly use it for movie/tv watching, cant see myself ever going back to lcd panels. I had an ipad 2 and some archos devices before but they dont come close to the display quality of the 7.7.
And the 7.7 formfactor is perfect for me.
Look forward to seeing the ipad 3 screen in action
High resolution is nice, but almost all content will be blown up, not native. The dummied up examples that tech sites keep using are full of crap. Until 2048*1536 becomes default standard, i'll take amoled & native.
Wish I had more money than sense, LOL. I had to return my 7.0 plus, and a blackberry playbook to afford my 7.7. And it was worth every cent!
CBONE said:
High resolution is nice, but almost all content will be blown up, not native. The dummied up examples that tech sites keep using are full of crap. Until 2048*1536 becomes default standard, i'll take amoled & native.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We shall see, but I think older apps will just display in their native resolution rather than be upscaled. Where the "Retina" display will shine will be with text and photos.
I won't have time to video a proper comparison until maybe the week after the new iPad comes in, but I will show them both with a PDF, the XDA website, a 1080p video, and maybe Osmos HD or something. Any requests?
burhanistan said:
We shall see, but I think older apps will just display in their native resolution rather than be upscaled. Where the "Retina" display will shine will be with text and photos.
I won't have time to video a proper comparison until maybe the week after the new iPad comes in, but I will show them both with a PDF, the XDA website, a 1080p video, and maybe Osmos HD or something. Any requests?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe a side by side comparison under direct sunlight?
CBONE said:
High resolution is nice, but almost all content will be blown up, not native. The dummied up examples that tech sites keep using are full of crap. Until 2048*1536 becomes default standard, i'll take amoled & native.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What content are you talking about? Certainly games for iPad2 will not be rendered at the full resolution, and it will probably be a while before many games are actually written for 2048x1536. Still, images and video--whose most common resolution nowadays, 1280x720, is already larger than the iPad2, not to mention 1080p blu-ray-sourced video--will certainly be able to take advantage. That's not even to mention the massive readability benefit for small text on web pages and documents.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to buy an iPad3 and I am never going to give up my Super AMOLED+ on my 7.7 until there is a WUXGA or better 8-9" tablet, but downplaying the benefit of a high-res screen just strikes me as foolish.
I wonder if a 720p content would still look good on that really high resolution
Last few week I've almost sell-off my iPad2 for a Galaxy TAB 7.7.
Now I'm stucked and in the same situation like lots of other people.
If Samsung could replace all their Galaxy TAB 8.9 & 10.1 LCD screen with a Super AMOLED FHD screen, then I'll buy 1. Until then, I'm getting the new iPad this weekend.
NewForce said:
Last few week I've almost sell-off my iPad2 for a Galaxy TAB 7.7.
Now I'm stucked and in the same situation like lots of other people.
If Samsung could replace all their Galaxy TAB 8.9 & 10.1 LCD screen with a Super AMOLED FHD screen, then I'll buy 1. Until then, I'm getting the new iPad this weekend.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can only imagine the possible technical difficulties when making 8.9 and 10.1 SuperAMOLED screens, they are even having issues with the 4.65 on the Nexus, 5.3 on the Note. All are quality related issues.
Although I really hate the closed system of iOS, but after using my friends ipad2 for a week, Im starting to like the tablet specific apps it has as compared to andriod.
At least with IPS, I only need to check for backlight bleeding, though Im worried what will happen to the 720p playback of my files since they are now going to be upscaled.
IMO, the New iPad's huge screen resolution is a cool idea and all, but for me, the 7.7's form factor and colour/contrast ratio are the biggest selling points (apart from NOT being Apple of course!).
I mean, if Apple is stating that a "Retina" display is determined by a ratio of viewing distance vs the ability to discern individual pixels, well then by that right (at least for me), the 7.7 already fit's that category under most viewing scenarios (again, for me).
In other words, under most circumstances, I already can't discern individual pixels on my 7.7 anyway, so just adding more of them isn't going to make a difference to me.
What does make a difference, is the superior contrast ratio of SAMOLED. Being that the New iPad's retina display is still an LCD, it is therefore very unlikely that it will be able to compete with SAMOLED in the contrast ratio department.
I suppose the ultimate display would be something of a hybrid of SAMOLED and IPS LCD, where you might have each individual pixel backlit by a single LED.
obviously it's going to be the new ipad there is no contest. I love android thats why i have a the 7.7 but i also love the ipad infact ill be getting my new ipad 64gb 3g at&t and a white 16gb wifi for my wife.
With that insane resolution and a quadcore gpu with buttery smooth OS i'll be a one happy camper.
Jade Eyed Wolf said:
IMO, the New iPad's huge screen resolution is a cool idea and all, but for me, the 7.7's form factor and colour/contrast ratio are the biggest selling points (apart from NOT being Apple of course!).
I mean, if Apple is stating that a "Retina" display is determined by a ratio of viewing distance vs the ability to discern individual pixels, well then by that right (at least for me), the 7.7 already fit's that category under most viewing scenarios (again, for me).
In other words, under most circumstances, I already can't discern individual pixels on my 7.7 anyway, so just adding more of them isn't going to make a difference to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For you, maybe. The pixels and rasterized fonts are quite visible to me on the 7.7 from arm's length.
Mind you, I quite like the 7.7 and am not going to get rid of it (Heck, I'll probably keep my now "old" 10.1). But, there will be lots of areas where it simply won't hold a candle to the new screen on the iPad.
burhanistan said:
For you, maybe. The pixels and rasterized fonts are quite visible to me on the 7.7 from arm's length.
Mind you, I quite like the 7.7 and am not going to get rid of it (Heck, I'll probably keep my now "old" 10.1). But, there will be lots of areas where it simply won't hold a candle to the new screen on the iPad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough. I guess my point was that contrast, colour, and brightness are more important factors to me than sheer resolution. In that sense, especially with contrast, the new iPad display can't hold a candle up to SAMOLED+. Each one has its advantages I suppose.
teiglin said:
What content are you talking about? Certainly games for iPad2 will not be rendered at the full resolution, and it will probably be a while before many games are actually written for 2048x1536. Still, images and video--whose most common resolution nowadays, 1280x720, is already larger than the iPad2, not to mention 1080p blu-ray-sourced video--will certainly be able to take advantage. That's not even to mention the massive readability benefit for small text on web pages and documents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Web pages and flowable documents should look great, as should images. Video will have to be scaled or be too small. The algorithm for stretching video won't be perfect. Same situation as SD video on an HDTV. They won't look the way they were meant to be viewed (inferior IMO) and will need adjustments. Games will need to have the increased resolution taken into account or look crap when they get stretched. Apps will be in the same situation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to buy an iPad3 and I am never going to give up my Super AMOLED+ on my 7.7 until there is a WUXGA or better 8-9" tablet, but downplaying the benefit of a high-res screen just strikes me as foolish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
High-res is great when everything takes it into account or content that isn't resolution dependent. There is this assumption with ipad3 that everything will just automagically look incredible.
Well, all of this is just speculation anyway. We shall see soon enough.
7.7 : Super AMOLED Plus
ipad3 : Retina Display (same as Iphone 4)
7.7 : 1280 x 800 pixels, 7.7 inches - (~ 196 ppi density)
ipad 3 : 1536 x 2048 pixels, 9.7 inches (~264 ppi density)
7.7 : Single Core GPU Mali-400
ipad 3 : Quad Core PowerVR SGX543MP4
i think we should say (even it's hard) apple bite Samsung now *sobbing
=============================================
but i'm still loyal with my GT-P6800
this is my first tablet and i love the size, the screen, the premium of silver metal back side
So I I have been researching extensively and reading many articles about 1080p screens on smartphones..... And I think I have figured it out. The human eye cannot see a difference between a 1080p smartphone and a 720p smartphone, however, there are a few drawbacks to having 1080p on a phone. One of them is battery life. It seems to use much more battery to display a 1080p resolution as opposed to a 720p resolution. And that gets multiplied when you're gaming. Also, applications and games will take up much more space then they did previously if they are optimized for the 1080p resolution. So my question is what do you guys think about the new 1080p smartphone screen Resolution Revolution? I'm hoping it doesn't make it into the Nexus 5, but that's just me.
°N4°
It's a marketing thing. Companies are going to do it because they feel like they have to and to be able to say true HD!! And think of all the tech blogs that will take a new phone down a peg or two for having "last year tech." But ultimately it's another megahertz or megapixel thing.
Sent from my Nexus 4
Endoran said:
It's a marketing thing. Companies are going to do it because they feel like they have to and to be able to say true HD!! And think of all the tech blogs that will take a new phone down a peg or two for having "last year tech." But ultimately it's another megahertz or megapixel thing.
Sent from my Nexus 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Reminds me of the old days when Intel just kept upping the clockspeed on their CPU's. So what if the tiny FSB choked the movement of information down to a crawl? The standard consumer didn't know any better. The number was higher, so people bought it. In the end, it's business. You do what sells. Gimmicks sell.
*cough* Siri *cough*
1080P is utterly useless in my opinion. To be honest I can't tell the difference between my HTC One and Nexus 4 in display. 1080P should stick with HDTVs. Imagine a 4K res phone in the future and how useless it is in a 4.7 and 5 inch screen -.-
I don't really understand the need for 1080P either. Hopefully Google realizes this and sticks with 720P for the next Nexus or Moto X phone.
Its a bloody 4-5" screen, 720p looks gorgeous, with that being said, if it costs no extra battery life and performance, than 1080p on a phone is not something worth complaining about.
However when I see 1366x768 on 15.6" laptops, than I am just dissapointed.
Have any of you actually seen a 720p and 1080p screen side by side? You can definitely see a difference...well at least I can. Every time anything gets a spec bump there are always you people saying "what's the point of blah blah blah". The point of it is that its possible so why not. Its a step forward...so we should just keep phones at 720p for as long as they become irrelevant? Should we keep laptop displays at 1080p?
No that's why we have a retina iPad and Macbook and a Chromebook Pixel and a Nexus 10. Just because the difference isn't as vast as 480p-720p doesn't mean its a useless change. A 1080p HD screen looks better than a 720p screen for me and many others and just because you cannot discern the difference doesn't mean it's pointless or useless.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Serious_Beans said:
Have any of you actually seen a 720p and 1080p screen side by side? You can definitely see a difference...well at least I can. Every time anything gets a spec bump there are always you people saying "what's the point of blah blah blah". The point of it is that its possible so why not. Its a step forward...so we should just keep phones at 720p for as long as they become irrelevant? Should we keep laptop displays at 1080p?
No that's why we have a retina iPad and Macbook and a Chromebook Pixel and a Nexus 10. Just because the difference isn't as vast as 480p-720p doesn't mean its a useless change. A 1080p HD screen looks better than a 720p screen for me and many others and just because you cannot discern the difference doesn't mean it's pointless or useless.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have. There is no difference in my opinion. I don't know if its my eyes or not but 720P and 1080P look different only in displays larger than 10 inches for me personally. To be honest it just puts more stress on battery and/or CPU on gaming since it needs to render at 1920 x 1080.
blahblah13233 said:
I have. There is no difference in my opinion. I don't know if its my eyes or not but 720P and 1080P look different only in displays larger than 10 inches for me personally. To be honest it just puts more stress on battery and/or CPU on gaming since it needs to render at 1920 x 1080.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U must have sum eye problem there bro, put an HTC one next to HTC one x then tell me u don't see any difference, then I will tell you to see an optician.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
blahblah13233 said:
I have. There is no difference in my opinion. I don't know if its my eyes or not but 720P and 1080P look different only in displays larger than 10 inches for me personally. To be honest it just puts more stress on battery and/or CPU on gaming since it needs to render at 1920 x 1080.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IMHO the quality of the technology driving the resolution is more important than the res itself. Super Amoled v. Ips+ and such. In most cases however I think a distinguishable difference is present from my gnex to this DNA. And my battery dumps on that device.. Even though we all know the gnex has blah blah blah battery. I get 17hrs on moderate use. Never before. Soo personal preference? Although I'd take the n4 ANY DAY.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
Tybaltus Prime said:
IMHO the quality of the technology driving the resolution is more important than the res itself. Super Amoled v. Ips+ and such. In most cases however I think a distinguishable difference is present from my gnex to this DNA. And my battery dumps on that device.. Even though we all know the gnex has blah blah blah battery. I get 17hrs on moderate use. Never before. Soo personal preference? Although I'd take the n4 ANY DAY.
Sent from my HTC6435LVW using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
More so true. I dont like the oversaturated Super Amoled had after seeing the Galaxy Nexus had. Even if they had a 1080P res. Droid phones usually have better battery but say the Nexus 4 had a 1080P screen and with the battery it has now. It'll die out faster.
I mean 720P to FHD is important on a television sure but, in that situation it's easier to notice the bump in Res. In phones I doubt most consumers would even know the difference between qHD, 720P, and 1080P. If it's possible to add FHD w/o impacting battery+perf significantly then I all for it however if we must suffer with these tiny 3000>2xxxmah batteries then the tradeoff isn't worth it IMO. Increasing battery should be a top priority, the Razr MAXX battery should be in every high end phone.
Reminds me of camera phone megapixel discussions I have had with friends. "I have more megapixels than you do, then my camera is better" which isn't necessarily true. Anything pass 8mp isn't really needed because the majority of us will not be enlarging pictures to the point where the difference is noticeable(I think its 20x20 or 30x30). Also, the lens plays a large role as well but enough of the pixel talk.
720 is like the 8mp phone camera, it'll meet our needs and even exceed them dependent on the technology. 1080p screens just play into peoples ego's and the logic that bigger = better. We are programmed to think that way and the companies play us for the fools that we are.
Instead of a 1080p screen, I'd take a higher capacity battery and a 720p screen any day.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Nexus 4 at 720p = 320 ppi. At 1080p it would be 480 ppi. If you think the naked eye at typical viewing distances can resolve the difference with all other things being equal, you need to see a psychiatrist instead of an optician.
Pushing 50% more pixels is going to take more CPU/GPU, hence more battery, again all things being equal. I'll take higher frame rates and lower overhead of 720p every time as those are actually noticeable.
But feel free to buy into the hype of 1080p on on a display the size of a pack of smokes, or 14Mp on a camera sensor the size of a match head. You'll make the marketing suits very happy. (c;
There is a video on YouTube somewhere, on it they are playing the same film on 2 tellys, they are both 42 inches and one is 720p and one is 1080p and just about no one can tell the difference.
I think most are not seeing the difference in resolution between 720/1080p on a phone, but instead seeing different screen technologies and attributing that to the screens resolution... IE - Super Amoled with its over-saturation and great blacks vs LCD IPS, etc.....
°N4°
Is there a difference between 720p and 1080p? Well of course there is, but I don't think its a night and day difference. If I go 1080P on a smartphone I want the screen to be at leat 5.5.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
NardVa said:
Is there a difference between 720p and 1080p? Well of course there is, but I don't think its a night and day difference. If I go 1080P on a smartphone I want the screen to be at leat 5.5.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I recommend the LG Optimus G Pro for you. n_n
___________________
Via LG Mako using XDA_Elite App_2
Well, you can see the difference if you hold it 1cm away from your eyes.
we don't really need more than 720p on 4.3-5" displays in my opinion.
It's just ridiculous that 4.7" phones have displays with up to 1920x1080 pixel, yet 15.6" laptops are mostly stuck at 1366x768.
Also, why the hell do we have 27" PC monitors with 1080p? (Sure, there are some with 2560x1440 but those are way too expensive. Hell, I'm not going to pay 800€ for such a monitor)
That's just pure bull****.
Instead of pushing 1080p on phones and 1600p on tablets, they should push the resolution of laptops and desktop computers.
its called advancements and bragging rights of owning something thats better... and for battery life, I bet making a new battery design right now, slimmer and bigger cap....
tech advanced is really picking up right now compare to years ago...
Honestly, is it really needed?
Wouldn't a 1080p 16:9 screen offer better performance (less work for the GPU), better battery life and still be good enough to browse the web and watch full HD videos?
In every video of the Nexus 10 I've seen, it never looks quite as smooth as the Nexus 4 and 7 do
The Nexus 10 was going up against Apple's Retina display on iPads, which also boast a ridiculous resolution I believe. I could be wrong, but I believe the Nexus 10 has better numbers for both PPI and Resolution.
Yes, @espionage724, it is higher on both counts. It also operates extremely smoothly—it is one of the fastest Android tablets I've ever used, including the Nexus 7. The GPU won't be as much as a problem with Android 4.3, either. Lots of optimizations coming there! See "Android Graphics Performance" on the Android Developers Channel.
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk 4 Beta
I think its to high for now and i preffered much better quality overall ( deeper blacks , better color control , more little or not at all light bleeding, more slim and more battery life ) vs extra ultra mega extrem orgasmic number of pixels .
I need the best resolution , the best screen but only if the device can support it .
Nexus 10 could have done better but i think next nexus will be a Big Bang ..
Sent from my Nexus 10 using xda app-developers app
And why did you buy it? I agree with your arguments. But if screen resolution isn't that important to you, maybe there would have been better choices for you to make. I own this tablet since a few days and am completly happy with it. Though I'm lookin forward to the improvements somebody mentioned above for Android 4.3 when can we expect it for nexus devices?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using xda premium
The resolution looks and works great with games, though, but I'm sure a few (Real Racer 3) suffer for it, due to the ridiculous resolution.
Nexus devices has always been about pushing the hardware development and possibilities of devices. My galaxy nexus was the first phone with 720p HD display.
Beamed from my CM10.1 Galaxy Nexus
dibblebill said:
The resolution looks and works great with games, though, but I'm sure a few (Real Racer 3) suffer for it, due to the ridiculous resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
RR3 suffers from lack of optimization, it doesn't even run at full resolution, more like 50% or less.
brees75 said:
RR3 suffers from lack of optimization, it doesn't even run at full resolution, more like 50% or less.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Which is a shame. It looks GORGEOUS when forced to higher details, or when run on the Ouya, but I really wish EA had spent more time on it.
LooieENG said:
Honestly, is it really needed?
Wouldn't a 1080p 16:9 screen offer better performance (less work for the GPU), better battery life and still be good enough to browse the web and watch full HD videos?
In every video of the Nexus 10 I've seen, it never looks quite as smooth as the Nexus 4 and 7 do
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You raise some valid concerns. It all depends if you think the ultra-sharp resolution is worth it. I'm a bit of a videophile and I love how sharp it is, but it does eat into battery life, as you say. I only use it at home, so battery life is not a concern for me.
You are right that 1080p is a much better resolution for most users, which is why no other Android tablet uses such a high resolution. There are some upcoming high-res tablets that have just been announced recently, but nothing else on the market now. Compare that to the Retina iPad, which was available eight months earlier and has sold tens of millions, while estimates are that the Nexus 10 probably still hasn't sold 1 million.
As espionage724 and Herman76 say, google was just looking to push the market forward and respond to the Retina iPad, an effort that has largely failed, though for the valid reasons that you list. Even the Retina iPad had many complaints about overheating and power draw, even though iOS is a more power-efficient OS than Android. Google probably doesn't really care how well the Nexus 10 sells, it's just a tech demo for them, to push others to match the iPad.
For me, it's not really an issue of video/picture quality at all-- above 720p/1080p, it's hard for me to pick out the difference. But for text, that extra bit of crispness makes a huge difference for me. I mainly consume textual content on my devices, and the difference between the Nexus 10 and ASUS Transformer Pad is enormous on this front. Videos? Either or will work for me.
Rirere said:
For me, it's not really an issue of video/picture quality at all-- above 720p/1080p, it's hard for me to pick out the difference. But for text, that extra bit of crispness makes a huge difference for me. I mainly consume textual content on my devices, and the difference between the Nexus 10 and ASUS Transformer Pad is enormous on this front. Videos? Either or will work for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you're talking about the Transformer Pad TF300T, as your signature seems to indicate, that's because it has a resolution of 1280 X 800, for a PPI of 149. That's a big difference with the Nexus 10's PPI of 300. A 1080p tablet like we're talking about, for example, the Transformer Pad Infinity TF700T with a resolution of 1920 X 1200 at 224 PPI, is not going to show as much of a difference, since the PPI is about 70% of the Nexus 10, instead of 50% with your TF300T.
1080p is probably completely overkill for a smartphone, but it may be the perfect resolution for a tablet, with current technology.
joakim_one said:
If you're talking about the Transformer Pad TF300T, as your signature seems to indicate, that's because it has a resolution of 1280 X 800, for a PPI of 149. That's a big difference with the Nexus 10's PPI of 300. A 1080p tablet like we're talking about, for example, the Transformer Pad Infinity TF700T with a resolution of 1920 X 1200 at 224 PPI, is not going to show as much of a difference, since the PPI is about 70% of the Nexus 10, instead of 50% with your TF300T.
1080p is probably completely overkill for a smartphone, but it may be the perfect resolution for a tablet, with current technology.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm well aware, thanks. With many tablets still being sold with WXGA screens, it becomes a frustrating chore at times, particularly as many people still do not know the difference between full HD and HD.
In any event, 720p to 1080p is noticeable for me in text rendering, and depending on your screen technology of choice (SAMOLED, PenTile, etc.), it can make a perceptible difference.
Rirere said:
In any event, 720p to 1080p is noticeable for me in text rendering, and depending on your screen technology of choice (SAMOLED, PenTile, etc.), it can make a perceptible difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, my point is whether you'd be able to tell the difference for the jump from 1080p to 1600p, which is what's on the Nexus 10. My Zenbook Prime ultrabook has a 13" 1080p screen and the text is plenty sharp. We're debating whether anything beyond 1080p is overkill for a 10" tablet, given that you won't find any video beyond 1080p and you probably won't notice any difference in text, when making the jump to 1600p.
joakim_one said:
Right, my point is whether you'd be able to tell the difference for the jump from 1080p to 1600p, which is what's on the Nexus 10. My Zenbook Prime ultrabook has a 13" 1080p screen and the text is plenty sharp. We're debating whether anything beyond 1080p is overkill for a 10" tablet, given that you won't find any video beyond 1080p and you probably won't notice any difference in text, when making the jump to 1600p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It comes down to text, and it's not really much of a "debate"-- personally, I can make out the difference on a 10" panel, so the resolution bump is good for me, especially over longer periods of time. I'd easily submit though that that varies from user to user, and even then from one use case to another (i.e. extended reading for novels and books/reports, or well-spaced publications).
Nope that wrong. It was the rezound from HTC but I get your general point.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
ayo234 said:
Nope that wrong. It was the rezound from HTC but I get your general point.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Could you clarify what exactly you're saying was "wrong"/who you're actually responding to?
Rirere said:
Could you clarify what exactly you're saying was "wrong"/who you're actually responding to?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A bit late, but I'm pretty sure he was talking about the poster who stated that his Galaxy Nexus was the first 720p phone on the first page of this thread.
LooieENG said:
Honestly, is it really needed?
Wouldn't a 1080p 16:9 screen offer better performance (less work for the GPU), better battery life and still be good enough to browse the web and watch full HD videos?
In every video of the Nexus 10 I've seen, it never looks quite as smooth as the Nexus 4 and 7 do
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
because it's fit to 320dpi
a lot of apps can easily be revised to a tablet UI
ayo234 said:
Nope that wrong. It was the rezound from HTC but I get your general point.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Talking about the first 720p being the S3. He is correct the Rezound was the first 720p phone by several weeks also it was smaller than the s3 so very high dpi. I had one. The reason I bought the Nexus 10 was the screen resolution. There were already plenty of 10" tablets with a 1080p screen.
Sent from my GT-N5110 using XDA Premium HD app
I can't believe Google has chosen a 4:3 display standard which was abandoned when everyone moved away from CRT TV and monitors and to LCDs and LED displays to begin with. Sure some apps and all may seem to benefit from it, but those of us who use it for streaming media will hate to see the black bars on the top and bottom of everything we stream (or suffer distorted video from some sort of stretching). I can't see myself spending exorbitant amounts of money on a new tablet to only lose a good portion of my screen when streaming media (The majority of which is all 16:9 now). Especially when they have other options like what they did with Chrome Sticks that use 3:2 screen ration which can at least comfortably accommodate 16:9 [yes you have to stretch it, but it is still within reasonably and does not result in nearly as bad of a picture].
I will be voting with my wallet in an attempt to show Google not everyone just blindly buys the latest and greatest just because it is new. For another instance I am still happy with my Samsung T-Mobile S2 [T989] that is running Android 5.1 currently even better than any previous version including the official Jellybean 4.1.2 that's the last official release they did for my device. I even run some of the newest apps and games just find and do not feel any need to upgrade still 4 - 5 years after it's release. this also begs the question why Google needs to stop all production of their newer Nexus 7 variant (which was truly a nice upgrade from the original with a tougher case, better sound, and higher definition display). Why not just continue it's production in tandem with the newer 9? Why do they fel the need to pressure their users to purchase this newer better tablet? Why do they feel the need to appear if, if not truly really copying Apple? They have done fine going their own way up until now if I wanted an Apple product with a poorly designed screen I would go buy an Apple tablet.
I just feel the need to post this as a user and consumer of everything tech, I find it extremely unnerving that people seem to be making excuses about how and why 4:3 is better when EVERYONE has taken such pains to move to 16:9 with everything display wise? Why do people just seem to fall in line and buy the newest hardware just because it is newer? Why not look in to things and when it is not a great choice vote with their wallets instead of just posting a couple things online and still buying the "new better" thing even if they may not fully feel that way?
I don't mean to start a full on war either way I am just curious about these things and felt the need to ask. Please do not take any of this as an attack or attempt to flame anyone's emotions either way.
I'm good with it
The 4:3 ratio is maybe not optimal for watching movies. But it is better for playing Hearthstone, most games, and for web surfing. I love my Nexus 7 2013, and it's great for movies in many ways, and reading books, but not magazines or web-surfing. There's no 'perfect' screen ratio. It's always a tradeoff.
We all like different things for me it works really well.
Sent from my Nexus 9 using XDA Premium HD app
I have many complaints about my N9, but the 4:3 ratio is not one of them.
It's one of the best features of a tablet that is intended for productivity. This was never a tablet that had a "media streaming" label attached, far from it.
See, but that is what I don't get, no one has any issues with productivity on a 16:9 computer monitor and nor have I had an issue with it in using a tablet in the same regard. Why is it now attached to being more productive? Seems to me that would come from a better UI design that utilized the screen better if that's the concern and does not need to be tied to the display ratio itself. Again most "productivity" apps such as say office have made the transition rather well on 16:9 computer monitors, so I don't see that being a huge point that drives one to spend as much as they do on these tablets.
Also, to say that this tablet is not designed for media usage is kind of disingenuous as yes you may do some work on it, but generally speaking if productivity is your sole purpose and they wished to cater to that then why not do a productivity model and separate the 2 with different displays, again I still find this point confusing as a 16:9 computer monitor such as the one I am using now does just fine. From what I have seen again imo it would seem to be more of a UI issue in that regard and not the physical ratio of the display. That just seems like a justification made after the fact to me personally as this has been billed as more of an all around tablet line.
It seems to me that the reviewers have affixed the label productivity tablet to it as a justification for the switch to the older ratio that in general EVERYONE has made moves away from and not because that was why it was created to begin with.
ah well it does all come down to opinions really in the end and I appreciate the constructive feedback.
No offence taken here. Everyone is entitled to their own preference and opinion. I was very skeptical of the 4:3 ratio before buying my Nexus 9. I use it mainly as a media/content consumption device and for web browsing and I moved up from a Nexus 7. I know that 16:9 video would be larger on a 16:9 9" device but the black bars have never bothered me. I thought they would, but it really is a non issue for me personally. For web browsing and content consumption however, I have to say that in my opinion 4:3 is far superior. On the Nexus 7 I was always zooming in or turning the tablet to landscape mode because text and pics were so small. This made it feel like I was looking at a small portion of the content through a small magnifying glass. No such issue with 4:3 aspect ratio on the Nexus 9. I really don't think I would like 4:3 on a tablet under 9" as the small size of text and pictures would negate the larger field of view, but for the Nexus 9 at 9" and anything larger, I feel that 4:3 works better for me.
---------- Post added at 04:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:20 PM ----------
I think what they mean by "productivity" is how the spreadsheet or document etc. scales to the aspect ratio of the screen and how that scaling makes you feel like you are perceiving the content you are working on. The way a document scales to a 9"-10" 16:9 tablet in landscape orientation makes you feel like you are only seeing part of the document, even if the text is larger. In portrait orientation it just feels unnatural. You don't have this issue with a 16:9 notebook computer because the screen is typically 11" or larger to which the spreadsheet or document scales large enough to comfortably work with.
The way documents scale on a tablet in a 9"-10" 4:3 form factor in landscape orientation just feels right. You feel like you are seeing most, if not all, of the document you are working on and the text scales large enough to be readable without zooming in constantly. That's my personal observation on the whole "productivity" debate. Does that make sense?
It definitely depends on the use case for it. No one complains about 16:10 and 16:9 monitors typically because they are typically used landscape. The case for 4:3 is that since tablets can be used in multiple orientations, whichever way you hold it for whatever you are doing, you are still getting a decent amount of screen real estate/content in all directions. Here is a decent article on some perks of the 4:3 aspect ratio for a handheld tablet device.
4.3 is much better... My Nexus 10 feels awkward in portrait and in landscape i wish i had more vertical space... Specially since wr have a huge nav bar and status bar...
4.3 "is a good decision imo
It's fine for me
I wouldn't have bought this if it wasn't 4:3
Also 4:3 is awesome for anime
USBhost said:
Also 4:3 is awesome for anime
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It works well with comic/manga apps but anime tends to be 360/480/720p, leaving us with black boxes.
I had a Nexus 10 and, although it was great for watching media, it was unwieldy to use for basic tasks like reading the news, checking email, etc. For these use cases, which are mainly how I use my tablet, the Nexus 9 is a superior form factor.
RealPariah said:
I just feel the need to post this as a user and consumer of everything tech, I find it extremely unnerving that people seem to be making excuses about how and why 4:3 is better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No need for excuses: 4:3 ist just way better for my typical usage scenarios. Sold my N10 just because I prefer the form factor of N9. If you don't like it, there are plenty of other options on the market...
aren't the new samsung tabs rumor to be 4:3 as well..
I have a couple thoughts here. Let me start out by saying I am a tablet junkie and I currently have 4 at my house / at work. nVidia Shield Tablet, Tab S 10.5, Note Pro 12.2 and the Nexus 9.
While the three 16:9 / 16:10 tablets are all nice for watching movies, other than that I do not find the aspect ratio to be useful. Since I've perhaps watched 5 total hours of movies on my tablets (although I do watch YouTube a lot), I don't consider movie / video watching to be the primary use for a tablet for me. For movies I prefer my 60" TV, and for youtube it doesn't bother me to watch a five minute anything with bars on the top and bottom when needed. But I will give you that *video* consumption is best at this aspect ratio. That said, the N9 and nVidia Shield Tablet are the same basic width except with different aspect ratios and movie content gives you a bit more screen size on the N9. Not much more, but a bit more. So to me there is nothing gained by moving "down" to the Shield Tablet just so the aspect ratio is the same.
I however, use my tablet for productivity and gaming. All of my medical books are either in Adobe DRM format which I use Mantano Reader Premium for, or Kindle format. Since these are all technical books with pictures, graphs, tables etc, none "resize". They are all presented in US book format which is 4:3. When viewing the same book in the same app on my Tab S 10.5 and the Nexus 9 the two screens present the material at the same exact size on screen, the 10.5 (or any 16:9 tablet) displays the book with black bars at the top and bottom of the screen. So while the N9 is considerably smaller and more comfortable to hold in portrait mode for long periods of time, it shows the book at the same size as the 10.5 does. Big win for the N9. For Word documents, and Excel spreadsheets the N9 shows more useful data with the on screen keyboard up. The nVidia Shield Tablet is the same width as the N9 but due to its 16:9 (or 16:10) format shows very little of any document including email when the keyboard is showing. It's basically useless for productivity. Sorry but for real productivity apps 4:3 is just better for me and the apps I use. While 16:10 may work great for books outside the US here where I live and where I work and use the tablet, this content works best in 4:3. Using the on screen keyboard in landscape mode is easy on the N9, the center keys are a stretch of your thumbs when holding the tablet.
Games are not an issue at all on the N9. RR3, DH5, Order and Chaos, Hearthstone and Darkness Reborn are the games I play; and all play just fine and dandy on the N9.
I bought the N9 specifically for the 4:3 aspect ratio as have many others. I know it does not work best for you, but does EVERY Android tablet made have to suit you? Can't those of us who prefer 4:3 actually get a well specced Android tablet? Everyone I work around uses iPads as they are made for reading books, writing documents etc in the US. My screen has always had tons of useless space. Finally one decent 4:3 tablet comes around and I bought it as soon as I learned it's 4:3. Sadly right now it's the only nicely spec'd 4:3 Android tablet as the new Samsung A series is low end specs.
Seriously, 4:3 works for some people better than what you want.
"I will be voting with my wallet"
That's nice, have a nice day
Sent from my Nexus 9 using XDA Free mobile app
Disagree entirely, I'll take 4:3 on a ~9" tablet screen every single time. Any tablet that is widescreen, I won't even consider purchasing it.
I believe the new Galaxy Tab S is suppose to be a 4:3 as well. If that is the case and does actually happen, it would only sound logical that Android companies are starting to see how good 4:3 ratio is for a tablet. I own a N9 and Galaxy Tab S. The 16:10 ratio is great for watching movies, but that's all its great for in my opinion. You also still end up with black bars anyways, although not as big. I still don't mind 16:10, I just feel it's not as useful as 4:3. Especially when using it on a good sized tablet like the Tab S 10.5 I own. Holding the thing in portrait is extremely awkward and everything is smushed. In the 5 6 months I've owned the Tab S I've probably had it in portrait no more then 30 minutes total.
It's funny because I came from a IPad mini 2 last year. Was my first tablet and the reason I moved to the Tab S was mainly because I prefer Android but also wanted something bigger and was tired of those black bars. Now all this time later I find myself missing that 4:3 and end up using my Nexus 9 much more because of it. Don't get me wrong I would still probably buy another 16:9 or 16:10 tablet if it was smaller like the Nexus 7 or Shield and I really REALLY liked the look of it. However for me personally 4:3 is superior and thats coming from someone who watches a ton of youtube content. I still get a great/big enough picture (imo) and when I want to go browse the web or get some things done, I'll enjoy it much more. To eachs own I guess. I still think Google made a good decision on the ratio and I believe we will start seeing more and more Android 4:3's.
16:9 is the worst ratio for a tablet under 12". It's too narrow in either orientation. I've had 3 wintabs so far an hated 16:9. 16:10 is my favorite and hate that monitors have e all gone 16:9. At the same diagonal size you get less screen area. I had to replace all our 24" monitors with 27" just to get the same height.
You guy do realize that watching 16:9 content on a 16:10 device has black bars too? Most android tablets are 16:10.
For what I use this tablet for 4:3 is great. I didn't really think I'd dig it, but I love it and prefer it at sizes under 9". I've stated before, at this size and ratio it's as tall as an 8.4 and as wide as a 10.1 at 16:10 held portrait.
In case you haven't read it today, Netflix is now supporting HDR for our XZP's - see Android Police and or Android Authority's articles.
Does anyone know if 4k is also now activated on netflix for the XZP or is it just hdr?
Shnig said:
Does anyone know if 4k is also now activated on netflix for the XZP or is it just hdr?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
4K has been available on the Netflix app for a long time. HDR was the only thing that was missing (which has now been added)
leijonasisu said:
4K has been available on the Netflix app for a long time. HDR was the only thing that was missing (which has now been added)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not believe this is correct. Do you have a source?
Shnig said:
I do not believe this is correct. Do you have a source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you think is incorrect? I just finished watching an episode of Daredevil on Netflix in HDR. I didn't see anything in 4K though, but it might be that my preferred series do no come in 4K.
Shnig said:
I do not believe this is correct. Do you have a source?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Geezus... do a google search :good::good:
https://9to5google.com/2017/08/04/sony-xperia-xz-premium-supports-hdr-streaming-on-netflix/
ishemes said:
What do you think is incorrect? I just finished watching an episode of Daredevil on Netflix in HDR. I didn't see anything in 4K though, but it might be that my preferred series do no come in 4K.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was trying to be polite by saying I did not believe that's correct. Netflix's android app does not currently support 4k Playback on any phone. This is a demonstrable fact, it's nothing to do with your preferred series unfortunately.
---------- Post added at 02:03 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:00 PM ----------
ishemes said:
What do you think is incorrect? I just finished watching an episode of Daredevil on Netflix in HDR. I didn't see anything in 4K though, but it might be that my preferred series do no come in 4K.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cheetah2k said:
Geezus... do a google search :good::good:
https://9to5google.com/2017/08/04/sony-xperia-xz-premium-supports-hdr-streaming-on-netflix/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My ability to use Google is just fine thank you, as is my ability to read/comprehend: The article you linked only mentions HDR support not 4k support for Netflix because unfortunately Netflix does not support 4k Playback for android phones.
Shnig said:
I was trying to be polite by saying I did not believe that's correct. Netflix's android app does not currently support 4k Playback on any phone. This is a demonstrable fact, it's nothing to do with your preferred series unfortunately.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No 4K is a shame. I was afraid that this is what you meant. I was hoping though that you meant that there was no HDR content. In any case, there is hope. Especially since the stopped allowing their android app to be installed on a rooted phone. So they might get ready to bring some really high quality content to the phones.
It really doesn't matter anyway. Unless you put the phone within 3 inches of your eyeballs you won't see the improvement in detail over 1080p.
Physically impossible,
HDR on the other hand and high bit rate low compression will and does deliver significant improvments
dazza9075 said:
It really doesn't matter anyway. Unless you put the phone within 3 inches of your eyeballs you won't see the improvement in detail over 1080p.
Physically impossible,
HDR on the other hand and high bit rate low compression will and does deliver significant improvments
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It actually is possible.
I downloaded the Peru 8k video in both 1080p and 2160p. While both of them look really nice, I can see more detail in the 2160p one.
It's not like I can see individual pixels, but more like having a brand new prescription compared to my old one. Both let me see pretty clearly, but one is perceptibly clearer.
Xifar said:
It actually is possible.
I downloaded the Peru 8k video in both 1080p and 2160p. While both of them look really nice, I can see more detail in the 2160p one.
It's not like I can see individual pixels, but more like having a brand new prescription compared to my old one. Both let me see pretty clearly, but one is perceptibly clearer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My reply didn't last for some reason an I can't be bothered to type it all out again just now but to summarise.
Physics doesn't lie, with normal eye sight on a screen 5.5 in with, 2160 resolution, the range in which you can detect those details, is 3in, beyond that, a typical person can't see those details on such a high PPI screen.
Monitors have a significantly lower PPI so will have a wider range.
To see 4k Improvements on a large TV you need to be within 3 foot. Far beyond what most people have in their living room. But is exactly the maximum distance you will find in any TV shop
What does make a difference is bitrate, HDR, compression artifacts, Contrast ratio, saturation and brightness.
And typically its that that will improve a pictures appearance.
4k alone, physically can't be detected.
It's the new 3D, Designed to fill a marketing departments wet dreams.
dazza9075 said:
My reply didn't last for some reason an I can't be bothered to type it all out again just now but to summarise.
Physics doesn't lie, with normal eye sight on a screen 5.5 in with, 2160 resolution, the range in which you can detect those details, is 3in, beyond that, a typical person can't see those details on such a high PPI screen.
Monitors have a significantly lower PPI so will have a wider range.
To see 4k Improvements on a large TV you need to be within 3 foot. Far beyond what most people have in their living room. But is exactly the maximum distance you will find in any TV shop
What does make a difference is bitrate, HDR, compression artifacts, Contrast ratio, saturation and brightness.
And typically its that that will improve a pictures appearance.
4k alone, physically can't be detected.
It's the new 3D, Designed to fill a marketing departments wet dreams.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First mistake is using the term "normal", it should be average. The difference is normal implies what everybody sees, where as average indicates that there is a sliding scale and some see better than others. And just that, not all visual acuity is the same, some are slightly better, some are dramatically better. This applies to a wide variety of factors as well, not just detail.
Second mistake is in assuming the ability to pick out "detail" is the end all be all. The ability to pick out specific details in a static image (say the corner of a building) may in fact be driven by physics (again, using "average" eyesight) however that does not directly correlate into video with moving edges, edge sharpening and pixel bleeding. Just as the ability to pick out detail can be averaged, indicating higher and lower levels of eyesight, sensitivity to motion detection and color balance are also can be judged on a scale. What this says is that the edge of a bright colored building as it moves against the background may have much more than just "detail" to those with heightened visual acuity.
firstly Normal is the perfect description for eye sight that is considered to be optimum, any deviation from that is sub optimal so when one talks about Normal, IE, what is considered perfect, eye sight, that may or may not be the average, but I couldn't give a monkeys about average eyesight, we are talking about the physical limitations of the human eye in a perfect environment.
Secondly, a moving image is even less likely to have higher visible detail. If you are sitting 6 inches away from our tiny 4k screens, the physical limitation of you eye prohibits you from being able to see the individual pixels, you cant see it, in the same way you can see the flag on the moon, even with the most powerful telescopes on earth or even in space, Hubble for instance cant see anything much smaller than a football pitch and yet it can see whole galaxies in what appears to be highly detailed images. your eye can also only see detail in a relatively small portion of your field of view anyway, our eyes are comparatively crap compared to other animals but they are very good multi functional eyes, more of a jack of all trades, master of none.
anyhow, thirdly, you will notice that I did say that the higher bitrate associated with 4K HDR videos along with much better compression algorithms do make a noticeable difference in image quality, which is what you are talking about when talking about colours, contrasts and motion. Its not the 4K that's doing that, its all the goodness that comes with it.
I have this phone, I have several 4K screens of multiple sizes and I can tell you that 4K isn't the be all and end all especially if you sit beyond the optimal distance, if it wasn't for HDR being packaged with 4K it wouldn't be anywhere near as successful as it is. HDR on a OLED is breath taking, hell, even on a decent LCD/LED screen it blows FHD screens out of the water. of course you need a decent HDR TV for that, one that can pump out 1000+ nits.