Related
I've noticed that Leo is somewhat wide, and still it has same resolution as other phones.
It has resolution 480x800, which is width=0.6 * height.
That huge Russian review states that Leo has display dimensions 88x56 mm. That makes it 0.63 * height. Which would mean the pixels are not square, it is 5% wider.
That is not much and it would be hardly noticeable. But if you rotate the screen, it will be 5% in other direction, and the difference would be 10%.
Question is .. is it noticeable ?
At least it should be measurable. If you have Leo, could you recheck my theory ? Display perfect circle or square (such bitmap should be easy to make on PC), and use ruler to measure the width and height on Leo's display. Also try that in landscape mode.
If indeed the pixels are not square, I'm interested how is it noticeable. Especially on people it should be visible, especially if you switch from landscape to portrait and back. On portrait all should be wider, on landscape all should be thinner.
88x56 cant be correct cause it is not 5:3 and this also imply a 4,1" display and not a 4,3" one ^^. Conclusion: The values arent correct . The pixel are squared.
It's probably not that noticable, or rather doesn't matter as soon as you get used to it. The pixels on my laptop (Thinkpad SL500) aren't square either, but as soon as you get used to it it's no problem
NetDwarf said:
88x56 cant be correct cause it is not 5:3 and this also imply a 4,1" display and not a 4,3" one ^^. Conclusion: The values arent correct . The pixel are squared.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. Still .. what is the real display size ?
Leo surely seems wider aspect ratio then my current Xperia, which has the same resolution, and perfect 0.6 ratio.
I searched for some pictures on google and measured the aspect ratio on them, and it looks ok. So the impression comes probably just from the fact that Leo does not have hardware keys and the part above display is quite short too.
Good ! Eh .. now I simply HAVE to buy it, right ?
to be 4.3in diagonal (109.22mm) AND be square pixel at 800x480 the lcd size has to be 93.65mm X 56mm.
Is is that? i don't know, but it would fit in the frame reported at 120.5mm x 67mm.
I just held a ruler next to my screen and measured the screen. The size is 56x94. The are approximate sizes no exact measurements...
Thanx, that makes this non-issue.
I'm trying to figure out exactly how much larger the viewable screen area is versus a Nexus One. (I.E. a percentage)
I know it's 3.7 vs 4.0 but that doesn't tell the exact dimensions (i.e. square inches).
Does anyone know the actual width and height of just the screen for the Nexus S? (Is it the exact same screen as the Galaxy S series?)
Paul22000 said:
I'm trying to figure out exactly how much larger the viewable screen area is versus a Nexus One. (I.E. a percentage)
I know it's 3.7 vs 4.0 but that doesn't tell the exact dimensions (i.e. square inches).
Does anyone know the actual width and height of just the screen for the Nexus S? (Is it the exact same screen as the Galaxy S series?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it *is* the exact screen size as a galaxy s.
HAH! That's funny, if I put in galaxy s exact screen size into google, the top result is this thread!!
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=galaxy s exact screen size&fp=1&cad=b
Too bad none of the results actually show the dimensions...
Paul22000 said:
HAH! That's funny, if I put in galaxy s exact screen size into google, the top result is this thread!!
http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=galaxy s exact screen size&fp=1&cad=b
Too bad none of the results actually show the dimensions...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, my trig is quite rusty, but given that the screen is 16x9, and the diagonal measurement is 4", then the length and width are calculable:
length: 3.4862"
width: 1.9612"
Compare that to a 4.3" display (evo or droid x)
length: 3.7477
width: 2.1083
Does that help?
rhca50 said:
Okay, my trig is quite rusty, but given that the screen is 16x9, and the diagonal measurement is 4", then the length and width are calculable:
length: 3.4862"
width: 1.9612"
Compare that to a 4.3" display (evo or droid x)
length: 3.7477
width: 2.1083
Does that help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Forgot to measure the Nexus 1:
length: 3.2248"
width: 1.8141"
Where did you find that the aspect ratio is 16:9? 16/9 != 800/480...
Assuming the pixels are perfectly square, then a 4" diagonal would yield: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+16%3Dx^2%2B%28800%2F480*x%29^2
So the shorter end is ~2.058 inches and the longer is just 2.058*800/480 ~= 3.43
dinan said:
Where did you find that the aspect ratio is 16:9? 16/9 != 800/480...
Assuming the pixels are perfectly square, then a 4" diagonal would yield: http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=solve+16%3Dx^2%2B%28800%2F480*x%29^2
So the shorter end is ~2.058 inches and the longer is just 2.058*800/480 ~= 3.43
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The pixels aren't square. That's why you can't use them as a measurement.
Check out this magnification of an ipad display to see the example: They're likely a rectangle in the 3x2 ratio (or something close to that ratio).
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/pictures-kindle-and-ipad-screens-under-microscope/
Ok well I don't know then. The pixels on this screen aren't the same as the iPad's since the iPad is an RGB LCD, and SAMOLED is RGBG where the blue and red pixels are larger than the greens. I suppose I'll have to do it the old fashioned way and use a ruler on my Vibrant screen lol
rhca50 said:
The pixels aren't square. That's why you can't use them as a measurement.
Check out this magnification of an ipad display to see the example: They're likely a rectangle in the 3x2 ratio (or something close to that ratio).
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/08/pictures-kindle-and-ipad-screens-under-microscope/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
dinan said:
Ok well I don't know then. The pixels on this screen aren't the same as the iPad's since the iPad is an RGB LCD, and SAMOLED is RGBG where the blue and red pixels are larger than the greens. I suppose I'll have to do it the old fashioned way and use a ruler on my Vibrant screen lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good point... I'm assuming the SAMOLED still uses the 3 color system where some combination of RGB are lit up per pixel. Based solely on magified LCDs, it looks like the width of the column of pixels is about as wide as the height of two of the 3 colors... I'm guessing a the 3:2 ratio based on eyeballing it. Either way, I still think the pixels aren't perfectly square, hence 16X9 being 800x480 pixels...
Really, we're talking about a difference that is so small that I would think the OP would have a good idea of the difference in screen size whether the ratio was 16x9 or 15x9...
rhca50 said:
Okay, my trig is quite rusty, but given that the screen is 16x9, and the diagonal measurement is 4", then the length and width are calculable:
length: 3.4862"
width: 1.9612"
Compare that to a 4.3" display (evo or droid x)
length: 3.7477
width: 2.1083
Does that help?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no standard regarding ratios for phones.
I ended up going to Best Buy and actually measuring out the screen size with a tape measure...
Here's what I found:
Nexus One: 80.5mm x 48mm = 3864 sq mm
Nexus S: 86mm x 52mm = 4472 sq mm
4472 / 3864 = 15.735% larger viewing area
(Contrast this to 4.0 / 3.7 = "8.11%" larger, which is clearly nowhere near the actual viewable area difference, which is why I was looking for the exact dimensions.)
In any case, there you have it: The screen on the Nexus S has almost 16% more viewable space than the Nexus One.
Now to decide if it's significant enough to warrant the purchase?...
I know the LG Optimus 2X's screen probably won't come anywhere near the quality of the Super AMOLED on the Nexus S...
I have verified that the AMOLED in Galaxy S4 is indeed a PenTile similar to S, S3, Galaxy Nexus and other brands that uses Samsung PenTile super AMOLED displays. The new S4 AMOLED have green subpixels centered in the middle of each input pixel with red and blue subpixels situated at the bottom.
Total Number of Subpixels:
G: 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600
R=B = 1920 x 1080 / 2 = 960 x 540 = 1,036,800
Total # of RGB subpixels = 4,147,200
The Green subpixels indeed have full resolution while the Red and Blue subpixels are halved. But this does not interfere the image quality especially the PPI is 441. Since PPI is calculated based on the full pixel density along the diagonal line, it is not accurate to measure display designed for human perception with virtual resolution. Because virtual resolution utilizes less RGB subpixels to construct single pixel width or height black and white lines. It however, works exceptionally well when the lines are narrow enough to be less than our "retina resolution" which is around 0.6 arc-minutes (binary lines). Our eyes, instead, see an averaged of the black and white lines in gray at around 6 inches away from the 5" Full HD display.
The S4 AMOLED renderer intelligently shares the red and blue subpixels horizontally to achieve a correct overall color.
I have attached an example of how S4 renders the vertical lines. Horizontal lines isn't shown because S4's AMOLED is able to display black and white horizontal lines without sharing the red and blue subpixels.
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
The Note 12.2 uses a pentile [RB][GW] subpixel layout vs the TabPro 8.4 which has full [RGB].
Pentile screens use just 2/3 of the subpixels compared to full RGB.
Accordingly subPixel counts:
Note 12.2 ... 2560x1600x2 gives about 8 million sub pixels
tabPro 8.4 ... 2560x1600x3 gives about 12 million
Disappointing for a device priced so high with a 'Pro' tag?
SonicTab said:
The Note 12.2 uses a pentile [RB][GW] subpixel layout vs the TabPro 8.4 which has full [RGB].
Pentile screens use just 2/3 of the subpixels compared to full RGB.
Accordingly subPixel counts:
Note 12.2 ... 2560x1600x2 gives about 8 million sub pixels
tabPro 8.4 ... 2560x1600x3 gives about 12 million
Disappointing for a device priced so high with a 'Pro' tag?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i believe that the actual experience of using the tablet and getting the best out of it matters more than the on paper calculations
I have a Nexus 10 and a Note Pro 12.2 and can't tell any difference in pixel density so quit complaining about paper specs. It's a great tabet!
rkirmeier said:
I have a Nexus 10 and a Note Pro 12.2 and can't tell any difference in pixel density so quit complaining about paper specs. It's a great tabet!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Turn that in to PPI and it doesn't look so bad. The gross PPI for the N12.2 is 247. The addition of the white sub-pixel (25% of the total count) reduces the RGB pixels by 8% each leaving them at 227 PPI each. The iPad Air is at 264 PPI and the net RGB for the N10.1-14 is 274 (gross is 299) resulting in the N12.2 having 14% fewer RGB pixels per inch than the iPad and 17% less than the N10.1-14. It's 24% less than the N10 which uses a RGB stripe display. Whether those PPI reductions are comparatively noticeable depends more on individual visual acuity and the distance the device is viewed from than anything else. Some reviewers commented on the display being less sharp when compared to the Tab|Pro 8.4/10.1 and N10.1-14.
Same here. No perceived difference in sharpness/quality with my Nexus 10.
Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk
BarryH_GEG said:
Turn that in to PPI and it doesn't look so bad. The gross PPI for the N12.2 is 247. The addition of the white sub-pixel (25% of the total count) reduces the RGB pixels by 8% each leaving them at 227 PPI each. The iPad Air is at 264 PPI and the net RGB for the N10.1-14 is 274 (gross is 299) resulting in the N12.2 having 14% fewer RGB pixels per inch than the iPad and 17% less than the N10.1-14. It's 24% less than the N10 which uses a RGB stripe display. Whether those PPI reductions are comparatively noticeable depends more on individual visual acuity and the distance the device is viewed from than anything else. Some reviewers commented on the display being less sharp when compared to the Tab|Pro 8.4/10.1 and N10.1-14.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
All these calculations are a waste of time and effort. I can't tell the difference side by side so no one is going to be able to honestly perceive that one is better then another... These kind of arguments and numbers are only for haters or people who can't afford a device but want to convince themselves they really don't want it because of some technical specs that can't be perceived in real world usage/conditions.
Look it is what it is.
Samsung used a pentile screen in the 12.2 . Pentile screens have 2/3 of the sub pixels of a normal RGB display.
The display quality of the TabPro 8.4 is incredible, 1078 sub pixels per inch,
whereas the 12.2 pentile display clocks in at 494 sub pixels per inch.
As others have noted, the 12.2 Note screen is more than usable, but it's inferior to a full RGB display.
SonicTab said:
Look it is what it is.
Samsung used a pentile screen in the 12.2 . Pentile screens have 2/3 of the sub pixels of a normal RGB display.
The display quality of the TabPro 8.4 is incredible, 1078 sub pixels per inch,
whereas the 12.2 pentile display clocks in at 494 sub pixels per inch.
As others have noted, the 12.2 Note screen is more than usable, but it's inferior to a full RGB display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So you are not getting one ?!
As I said actual experience matter than paper specs and calculations etc. I have seen no one disappointed about the screen not on here or in a YouTube video but you . everyone is charmed by the beauty of the screen and happy with it . those calculations are not a deal breaker for anyone around here and if you are not happy with what you would get with the note pro you could simply get the 8.4 tap pro its a personal reference .
Sent from my SGH-I777 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
SonicTab said:
Look it is what it is.
Samsung used a pentile screen in the 12.2 . Pentile screens have 2/3 of the sub pixels of a normal RGB display.
The display quality of the TabPro 8.4 is incredible, 1078 sub pixels per inch,
whereas the 12.2 pentile display clocks in at 494 sub pixels per inch.
As others have noted, the 12.2 Note screen is more than usable, but it's inferior to a full RGB display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry but you are being stupid. Stop analyzing the specs and actually try out the devices. No way you can perceive any difference under normal operating conditions. I truly feel sorry for you...
It's an lower quality display. The difference can be seen, and stated and is unexpected in a premium product.
If your charmed by the product or unable to see the difference, all the better.
Maybe Samsung has judged its target audience correctly.
SonicTab said:
Look it is what it is.
Samsung used a pentile screen in the 12.2 . Pentile screens have 2/3 of the sub pixels of a normal RGB display.
The display quality of the TabPro 8.4 is incredible, 1078 sub pixels per inch,
whereas the 12.2 pentile display clocks in at 494 sub pixels per inch.
As others have noted, the 12.2 Note screen is more than usable, but it's inferior to a full RGB display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SonicTab said:
The Note 12.2 uses a pentile [RB][GW] subpixel layout vs the TabPro 8.4 which has full [RGB].
Pentile screens use just 2/3 of the subpixels compared to full RGB.
Accordingly subPixel counts:
Note 12.2 ... 2560x1600x2 gives about 8 million sub pixels
tabPro 8.4 ... 2560x1600x3 gives about 12 million
Disappointing for a device priced so high with a 'Pro' tag?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually the way pentile and rgb stripe displays render information is totally different. Rgb use an entire pixel (rgb) to create an image. Rgbw displays render on the subpixel level. The pixels actually have no locked in grid they must conform to but rather work with all those around them to render the same resolution image as rgb with 2/3 of the subpixels. There is no discernable difference except that rgbw actually conforms to the process of the human eye better and thus can achieve better color parity with real life.
PenTile® technology is biomimetic, meaning it is designed to compliment the complex mechanics of the eye-brain system. As a simple example of eye mechanics consider how the eye utilizes the color blue. The eye has cone receptors that sense color and brightness, and discern patterns. These cones are sensitive to different wavelengths of color—primarily red, green, and blue. The blue cones detect mostly color (chroma) information, while the red and green cones do most of the work resolving images by discerning luminance, edges, and structural details of images, as well as contributing to color vision. The red and green cones are used independently, each cone seeing a "dot" of black and white—ignoring its color to produce high resolution luminance perception—and are used in opposition, comparing the amount of red versus green, to produce low resolution color perception.
If there was an obvious disadvantage I doubt one of the largest and most successful electronics companies to ever exist would not use pentile. Or have you all forgotten that the NOTE 3 pentile is hailed as the best screen on a phone period (with regards to new 2k screens coming this year) even beating out all lcd rgb competition?
Sent from my SCH-I605 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
SonicTab said:
Maybe Samsung has judged its target audience correctly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
^This.
Measurement is objective, but enjoyment is subjective.
Duly.noted said:
Actually the way pentile and rgb stripe displays render information is totally different. Rgb use an entire pixel (rgb) to create an image. Rgbw displays render on the subpixel level. The pixels actually have no locked in grid they must conform to but rather work with all those around them to render the same resolution image as rgb with 2/3 of the subpixels. There is no discernable difference except that rgbw actually conforms to the process of the human eye better and thus can achieve better color parity with real life.
PenTile® technology is biomimetic, meaning it is designed to compliment the complex mechanics of the eye-brain system. As a simple example of eye mechanics consider how the eye utilizes the color blue. The eye has cone receptors that sense color and brightness, and discern patterns. These cones are sensitive to different wavelengths of color—primarily red, green, and blue. The blue cones detect mostly color (chroma) information, while the red and green cones do most of the work resolving images by discerning luminance, edges, and structural details of images, as well as contributing to color vision. The red and green cones are used independently, each cone seeing a "dot" of black and white—ignoring its color to produce high resolution luminance perception—and are used in opposition, comparing the amount of red versus green, to produce low resolution color perception.
If there was an obvious disadvantage I doubt one of the largest and most successful electronics companies to ever exist would not use pentile. Or have you all forgotten that the NOTE 3 pentile is hailed as the best screen on a phone period (with regards to new 2k screens coming this year) even beating out all lcd rgb competition?
Sent from my SCH-I605 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PREACH.
The only other image related difference, I believe, is that the tab can record HD video at a higher fps. The camera only weighs in at a craptastic 8 MP, and I don't use my tablet, of all things, to film video. The s-pen, on the other hand, is fantastic for graphic work.
rkirmeier said:
Sorry but you are being stupid. Stop analyzing the specs and actually try out the devices. No way you can perceive any difference under normal operating conditions. I truly feel sorry for you...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is this stupid? We are not talking about a $100 or a $200 device; this is the most expensive Android tablet where EVERYTHING should be premium. When the build quality is already meh, not having 2560x1600 at standard RGB stripe for a LCD is a kick to the teeth.
The comparison with the Note 3 is asinine, because this is not 1080p AMOLED on a 5.7" screen where the tradeoffs with Pentile are more than worth it. 2560x1600 RGB is only 227 ppi, Pentile reduces it to 2/3 to 150 ppi. The claim you make that people can't see the difference like Retina iPad is ridiculous.
My brother has the 12.2 which I have actually used it so don't use the "you didn't tried it out hurr hurr" excuse to shut people up. Straight edges are clearly blurrier than my iPad Air. But hey if you like Samsung to continue selling you inferior specs at high prices be their guest.
But at the end it's not the pixel density. If you get the same effect with new technique, you don't need so high density. But as you said you see the difference in straight edges so probably buyers should then first check the screen do they see the same or not.
Sent from my N8000.
I have the note 3, note 10.1 2012 and the note pro 12.2, the note pro is much better than my note 3 and my note 10.1 2012 combined. If you want to complain about ppi, then you should complain about the first note 10.1. 1280 x 800 on a 10.1 inch screen vs 2560 x 1600 on a 12 inch screen. Considering the first note 10.1, that is a screen upgrade to me.
Sent from my SM-N900P using XDA Premium HD app
Metallic Palladium said:
How is this stupid? We are not talking about a $100 or a $200 device; this is the most expensive Android tablet where EVERYTHING should be premium. When the build quality is already meh, not having 2560x1600 at standard RGB stripe for a LCD is a kick to the teeth.
The comparison with the Note 3 is asinine, because this is not 1080p AMOLED on a 5.7" screen where the tradeoffs with Pentile are more than worth it. 2560x1600 RGB is only 227 ppi, Pentile reduces it to 2/3 to 150 ppi. The claim you make that people can't see the difference like Retina iPad is ridiculous.
My brother has the 12.2 which I have actually used it so don't use the "you didn't tried it out hurr hurr" excuse to shut people up. Straight edges are clearly blurrier than my iPad Air. But hey if you like Samsung to continue selling you inferior specs at high prices be their guest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good, I hope you don't buy a 12.2 for this reason. No one really cares and it's your loss... I firmly stick by my claims, I have better then 20/20 vision and at normal viewing distance (i.e. 18inches or so) it's impossible to tell the difference. You go ahead and stick face right up to the tablet screens and compare them side by side finding that under non normal usage it's technically possible to see a slight difference if that is what you need to do. 99.9% of people who want this tablet have no issue with the screen cause if you take away the specs and evaluate the screen under normal usage conditions it's as good as anything on the market. If you think your little online rant about the resolution is going to force Samsung to make a screen that meets your specs you need a reality check. I'm going to enjoy my Note 12.2 and in a year from now Samsung will likely release a newer upgrade model with a "better" screen (as that is what happens every year) that may meet your technical requirements. Until then you enjoy your little iPad Air and I'll me enjoying my Note 12.2!
How is this thread still going? Either you buy one, or you don't. I bought it, and I'm never looking back. It has all the functionality I need, plus things I've not yet gotten around to messing with. It's an awesome tablet. If subpixels are what you're in the market for, then you have done your homework and know this isn't what you need.
This is what I need. Very pleased.
Thank you, and goodnight.
Metallic Palladium said:
How is this stupid? We are not talking about a $100 or a $200 device; this is the most expensive Android tablet where EVERYTHING should be premium. When the build quality is already meh, not having 2560x1600 at standard RGB stripe for a LCD is a kick to the teeth.
The comparison with the Note 3 is asinine, because this is not 1080p AMOLED on a 5.7" screen where the tradeoffs with Pentile are more than worth it. 2560x1600 RGB is only 227 ppi, Pentile reduces it to 2/3 to 150 ppi. The claim you make that people can't see the difference like Retina iPad is ridiculous.
My brother has the 12.2 which I have actually used it so don't use the "you didn't tried it out hurr hurr" excuse to shut people up. Straight edges are clearly blurrier than my iPad Air. But hey if you like Samsung to continue selling you inferior specs at high prices be their guest.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung FIRMLY believes that pentile is a better screen technology than lcd they are the ones driving it's development. It is more akin to how the human eye actually works and it is easier on the eyes. The number of sub pixels is the same just one per every four is white, It is 30% more energy efficient and it requires fewer sub pixels to display at the same resolution, the human eye will see it the same as a higher resolution. To be technical though gentile displays have ZERO sub pixels. Each individual subpixel is rendered separately. They are not in pre defined groups and can be combined into any number of logical pixels. So technically the screen is using 12,288,000 individual pixels.*
conventional RGB stripe displays render (draw) images by assigning a color and luminance (brightness) to an entire RGB-triplet as a whole pixel, adjusting its three RGB subpixels to set a single addressable point. Images on a PenTile RGBW™ panel are subpixel rendered, meaning they are drawn at the subpixel level (the individual points of light), rather than to the whole pixels of an RGB stripe display. In fact "pixels" in the traditional sense have been eliminated in PenTile RGBW™ displays; individual subpixels are not restricted to use in one pixel group, but instead participate in multiple "logical" pixels in their surrounding vicinity.
Subpixel rendering dramatically increases addressability and enables the sophisticated image processing used in PenTile RGBW™ displays.
That is from nouyance the company that invented pentile and rgbw They also say
PenTile® technology is biomimetic, meaning it is designed to compliment the complex mechanics of the eye-brain system. As a simple example of eye mechanics consider how the eye utilizes the color blue. The eye has cone receptors that sense color and brightness, and discern patterns. These cones are sensitive to different wavelengths of color—primarily red, green, and blue. The blue cones detect mostly color (chroma) information, while the red and green cones do most of the work resolving images by discerning luminance, edges, and structural details of images, as well as contributing to color vision. The red and green cones are used independently, each cone seeing a "dot" of black and white—ignoring its color to produce high resolution luminance perception—and are used in opposition, comparing the amount of red versus green, to produce low resolution color perception.
The PenTile RGBW™ layout uses each red, green, blue and white subpixel to present high-resolution luminance information to the red and green cones, while using the combined effect of all the color subpixels to present lower-resolution chroma (color) information to all three cone types. Combined, this optimizes the match of display technology to the biological mechanisms of human vision.
Other human-vision factors such as the logarithmic representation of luminance values, variable resolution between the center and edge of vision, and the separation and compression of brightness and color differences are also exploited in the design of PenTile RGBW™ displays.
The human eye perceives the resolution of the PenTile RGBW™ panel as the same as an equivalent RGB stripe panel, yet the PenTile®*panel uses one-third fewer subpixels. Consider the figure below to understand how this is accomplished.
At the top is the PenTile RGBW™ layout; at the bottom RGB stripe. The circle at the bottom center demonstrates the finest pattern of vertical black and white lines an RGB stripe display is capable of rendering. This requires three columns (R + G + B) be turned "on" and an equivalent width of three columns be turned "off" to write one cycle of a black and white line. From a suitable distance this collection of color subpixels appears to the eye as a white line.
The top center circle shows the equivalent pattern of vertical black and white lines written to the PenTile RGBW™ layout. From a distance the array of color subpixels in two columns will appear to the eye as a white line, identical to that generated by the RGB stripe layout, and the following two columns will write the corresponding black line. With only four columns being used to accomplish the same linear cycle that required six columns for legacy RGB stripe, two columns are saved. Hence, PenTile RGBW™ technology maintains the same resolution with one-third fewer columns, one-third fewer subpixels and one-third fewer transistors in the array. This results in wider columns and improved aperture ratio (ratio of transmissive area of a subpixel to the total area of that subpixel).
The circles on the right of the figure demonstrate the finest pattern of black and white lines which may be written horizontally to RGB stripe (bottom) and PenTile RGBW™ (top). Note that both layouts require the same number of rows for horizontal lines.
from this information we can see that a rgb display and a rgbw pentile are equal in displayed resolution and the pentile is more efficient. In black and white images and full color media Petite and rgb are 100% indistinguishable and only when displaying text against a fully saturated background (color text against a solid Colored background) or a sudden transition between two colors can a difference be seen and these are almost unnoticeable on high density displays like the Note 2014 or Note 12.2 pro. What you call drawbacks to pentile I call progress and efficiency. If I can't see a difference there isn't one. Only mine is bigger and more useful with better battery life. I owned the 2014 and work around and begrudgingly sell ipad airs on regular basis. I also have perfect vision in one eye and nobody I have EVER had come into my store has seen the 12.2's Screen as anything short of magnificent. Yes I suppose if you get close enough to your screen that you can barely focus on it that You could see a difference but ya Know I have a life and at normal viewing distances it is flawless. I mean I guess I better not buy a laptop anytime Soon since their dpi's are lower than an ipads right? Or if I want something really worth owning I need that 20" 4K tablet. And my TV is only 1080p? Its 50" THAT'S ONLY 44 DPI OMG I BETTER TRASH IT!!! Forget viewing distances I can't believe I enjoy this crap. I need at least an 8K tv to get a good dpi now I just need to wait about 6 years before I can own a tv again. And a 100" tv? Give me 16k and we can talk.
ExtremeRyno said:
How is this thread still going? Either you buy one, or you don't. I bought it, and I'm never looking back. It has all the functionality I need, plus things I've not yet gotten around to messing with. It's an awesome tablet. If subpixels are what you're in the market for, then you have done your homework and know this isn't what you need.
This is what I need. Very pleased.
Thank you, and goodnight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you said what i wanted to say exactly last night but i decided not too since things are getting awkward and pointless since he clearly is decided not to buy it but also the thread seems to be to make people stop buying the device based on some quality calculations