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...
Now that wide screen displays are used everywhere on TV, Laptop, Tablet (except Apple) then surely Apple made a blunder when they chose the almost square 4:3 aspect ratio on the iPad. Apple still calls the iPad screen wide screen in the specification (see ink) but it is not.
http://www.vexite.com/2012/ipad-resolution-7-good-reasons-buying-upgrading/
Gaugerer said:
Now that wide screen displays are used everywhere on TV, Laptop, Tablet (except Apple) then surely Apple made a blunder when they chose the almost square 4:3 aspect ratio on the iPad. Apple still calls the iPad screen wide screen in the specification (see ink) but it is not.
http://www.vexite.com/2012/ipad-resolution-7-good-reasons-buying-upgrading/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, technical definitions aside, it's hard to call 3 million units sold in one weeked a "blunder".
burhanistan said:
Well, technical definitions aside, it's hard to call 3 million units sold in one weeked a "blunder".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Brain washing and herd instinct does funny things to people, but the iPad will eventually become wide screen, but it might take a while as it did with the TV.
To be fair, industry standards does not mean that said specific standard is actually superior. Granted almost very media source is now 16:9. Many standards are not quite the "best" possibility. I will say that I am not bothered by wide screen but the 4:3 tablet aspect has its own positives too.
Just to be clear, the Tab 7.7 (as with most android tablets) is not 16:9, its 1280x800 resolution is 8:5 or 16:10. It is still wider than the iPad relatively, but there is still some letterboxing when watching [Full]HD content.
Many users in the Windows tablet community lament about the changeover to 16:9. 4:3 is preferred because there is decent screen real estate in either "landscape" or "portrait mode".
Guess which ratio is closer to a standard sheet of paper? There's your answer.
To me, it all comes down to comfort. At 9 inch or more, the 4:3 aspect ratio is actually more comfortable to hold. In either orientation.
I tried the SGT 10.1 and it feels totally wrong. May be we are trained to size of a piece of paper. But I think it is the opposite. A4 and Letter size paper are their size and ratio because humans are most comfortable with it. That why Legal size paper is not popular
chan005 said:
To me, it all comes down to comfort. At 9 inch or more, the 4:3 aspect ratio is actually more comfortable to hold. In either orientation.
I tried the SGT 10.1 and it feels totally wrong. May be we are trained to size of a piece of paper. But I think it is the opposite. A4 and Letter size paper are their size and ratio because humans are most comfortable with it. That why Legal size paper is not popular
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 7.7, with its 16:10 aspect ratio screen, is approximately A5 in size. There is no automatic inference from the aspect ratio of the screen to the aspect ration of the device as a whole.
TonyBigs said:
Many users in the Windows tablet community lament about the changeover to 16:9. 4:3 is preferred because there is decent screen real estate in either "landscape" or "portrait mode".
Guess which ratio is closer to a standard sheet of paper? There's your answer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On PC in landscape MsWord fit 2 pages nicely in 16:9, It is very useful when I translate something with source side by side. I'm loving it ^^
On 7.7 in portrait mode, I can view a lot websites in one page without sliding down (I prefer smaller text).
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------
Theory said:
The 7.7, with its 16:10 aspect ratio screen, is approximately A5 in size. There is no automatic inference from the aspect ratio of the screen to the aspect ration of the device as a whole.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"I think" may be it is about our eyes viewing angles.
We use smaller or 4:3 screen in portrait while we use larger or 16:9,10 in landscape because our viewing angles cover more horizontal than vertical.
If you use large 16:9,10 screen in portrait you'll have to nod you head more often lol
I find the 4:3 aspect ratio better for everything else except movies.
Why all these apple threats here, this is the Galaxy tab 7.7 topic?
I'm not interested in apple, if so I would have bought one and go to the apple forum.
To be clear, everyone, the 7.7's aspect ratio is actually 16:10, not 16:9. 1280*800 resolution = a 1.6 ratio (16:10). 1280*720 resolution = 1.77777 ratio (16:9).
Now, having said that, factoring in the menu bar, your usable screen resolution is actually 1280*752 (in landscape) = 1.702 ratio or 80:47, or 800*1232 (in portrait) = 1.54 ratio or 77:50
paqbro said:
Why all these apple threats here, this is the Galaxy tab 7.7 topic?
I'm not interested in apple, if so I would have bought one and go to the apple forum.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, there are some interesting comparisons to be had about the new iPad's display versus SAMOLED on the 7.7, but for the most part they are very different devices. I have both because I'm spoiled, and the 7.7 goes everywhere with me. I find myself reaching for my iPad at home for most things except ebooks.
Meanwhile, my poor "old" Galaxy 10.1 is just sitting on a desk not getting any love.
GOF007 said:
On PC in landscape MsWord fit 2 pages nicely in 16:9, It is very useful when I translate something with source side by side. I'm loving it ^^
On 7.7 in portrait mode, I can view a lot websites in one page without sliding down (I prefer smaller text).
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:52 PM ----------
"I think" may be it is about our eyes viewing angles.
We use smaller or 4:3 screen in portrait while we use larger or 16:9,10 in landscape because our viewing angles cover more horizontal than vertical.
If you use large 16:9,10 screen in portrait you'll have to nod you head more often lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe. But the text block of a typical A4/letter page is closer to around 1.5:1 than the 1.33:1 (i.e., 4:3). And add in the bottom status bar, the 7.7 actually displays a typical A4/letter page for me quite comfortably. Especially when the text is zoomed to maximize the display (second pict). In fact, I am most comfortable reading in portrait on the 7.7. If I have a 16:10 screen as large as a real A4 page, I would still read in portrait mode--exactly as I would the A4 page itself. It's only when the screen is larger than that--e.g., my 1920x1200 24" monitor--that reading in portrait mode becomes less than ideal (though even then, a lot will depend on the angle and distance to the screen).
But to each his own, I suppose.
i have both a touchpad and a 7.7...the most use i get out of the 7.7 is netflix and honestly because of the 16:10, widescreen shows are ALMOST as large on the 7.7 as they are on the 4:3 9.7"...the thing is, the touchpad feels much too large to bring anywhere..so for people who watch videos (which should be everyone that uses the 7.7 because thats what it seems to have been made for), the aspect ratio argument comes right back to portability.
one thing is for certain though, anamorphic (2.35:1) theatrical movies look absolutely ridiculous on a touchpad/ipad
I find the aspect ratio of the 7.7 to be just fine and the 4:3 of the iPad not very good. In addition, the iPad is just too big for MY tastes. The next generation Android tablet had better move to higher resolution and when/if they do the resolution of choice, in my opinion, would be 1920x1200. 1900x1080 would be another option but I do think that ratio is getting a little bit too elongated, particularly if the side bezel is reduced relative to the top and bottom bezels.
I'm not really impressed with the unending fixation on making things thinner and thinner. The 7.7 is, in my view, too thin and if it were up to me I'd have made it about 1mm thicker and included an even bigger battery. I'd also have made the sides a little squarer with smaller bezel so that it would be even easier to hold by the side edges between your thumb and fourth and fifth fingers. I might also like to see what a rubberized band might do to help holding it.
For me, if you're going to carry something as big as the iPad then you might as well have a small laptop...
Brian
The goal on the 7.7 was to make it the most portable tablet.. adding more battery gives it more weight.
EarlZ said:
The goal on the 7.7 was to make it the most portable tablet.. adding more battery gives it more weight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and they could have made it lighter by using a smaller battery. As I said, I think it's too thin and if it were about 1mm thicker with the sides less rounded and the side bezels smaller so the width is less it would be easier to hold even if it weighted a few grams more...
Brian
it's a matter of taste. I came from the playbook, where the dimensions were the same (except thickness), and I actually enjoy the smaller size and weight.
of course, I have smaller hands so I can grip it easier...
The 7.7 is about 5.25 inch wide and if they had gone with smaller bezels on the side it could have been made less than 4.75 inch wide, maybe even 4.5 inch wide, and been even easier to hold by the side edges. But, the very thin and rounded sides actually make it harder to hold by the edges so making it a tad thicker and less rounded would, in my view, make it easier to hold by the edges.
As far as weight is concerned ... making it 0.5-0.75 inches narrower would likely offset the weight increase of the bigger battery and thicker package -- it might not weight any more than it does now...
Brian
Hello ,
I read on gsmarena that grand i9082 has 187ppi screen..with some resolution..now I am actually confused as gsmarena mentioned the resolution and we can change the PPI using some procedure...so after that we can arrange more items on our screen ..meaning we are actually changing the resolution..am I right?....so a phone with 440 PPI is same as modified ppi grand..??
DPI and PPI are different terms changing DPI is possible to certain limits but ppi cannot be changes to give a idea let me explain .
A pixel is the smallest indivisible unit of information in a digital image. Pixels may be displayed, or they may be printed, but you can't divide pixels into smaller pieces to get more information. How many channels and bits per channel make up one pixel is the measure of how subtle the information in a pixel may be, but the basic fact is that 1 pixel the smallest increment of information in an image. If you do video, you know that pixels don't have to be square -- they are non-square in all older video formats. Square or not, a pixel is still the smallest unit of a picture.
An inch is a unit of linear measurement on a surface, which could be a screen or a piece of paper.
A dot is, well, a dot. It can be a dot on a screen, or it can be a dot produced by a printhead. Like pixels, dots are atomic. They're either there, or they're not. How much fine detail a screen can display depends on how close the dots are (what they used to call "dot pitch" in the old CRT days). How small the dots are from an inkjet, a laser printer or an imagesetter determines how much fine detail it can reproduce.
Dots per inch is fairly easy. A screen has so many dots (each comprising R, G and B elements) per inch of screen. It's the same on paper. A 1200 dpi printer can lay down 1200 dots in one linear inch. In describing screen detail or printer output, dots per inch is the correct term.
PPI is where the confusion comes in. An image has so many pixels. Its metadata contains an output size in inches, cm, mm, M&Ms, whatever. It's the width in pixels divided by the output width in the metadata that "per inch" comes from. So the same image with different metadata may be 72 ppi, 150 ppi or 8000 ppi. The image information is the same; all that's changed is the metadata.
A quick and easy demo that somewhat illustrates the point is to make some marks on a piece of elastic, say five to an inch. Stretch the elastic to twice its length. The number of marks hasn't changed, even though the "marks per inch" is now 2.5.
You can see this in Photoshop if you turn off Resample Image and change the size. The ppi value changes to reflect how small the pixels must be reproduced in order to hit the measurement value in inches/cm/mm etc. Note that in this case the Pixels fields are disabled. You can't change those values unless you resample.
Mass confusion entered in when image pixels were mapped to screen dots in web browsers. A 200 pixel image shows up as 200 pixels in a browser. How large it is, measured with a ruler, depends on the dots per inch of the screen. The image metadata might say it's 200 ppi or 72 ppi or 1 ppi, it will still occupy exactly 200 screen dots. The world remains fixated on "72 ppi for the web," so the question of "what's the right resolution for web images" keeps coming up, and the correct answer, "it doesn't matter," keeps being supplied ad nauseam.
If you're still with me, there's one last step that brings the two together.
A 720-pixels-wide image at 10 physical inches wide has a resolution of 72 pixels per inch. If you print it on a 1200 dpi printer, there will be 1200 dots per inch on the paper, but the image is still 72 pixels per inch. That's why it looks like crap. On the other hand, a 7200 pixels wide image printed at 1 inch wide will exceed the resolution of our 1200 dpi printer. Photoshop (let's say) and the printer driver decide which pixels to throw away and which to actually print. Some of the printed dots will be averaged among adjacent image pixels, but, regardless, some of the image information has to be thrown away. The output will be 1200 dpi, but the resolution of the printed image will have been reduced to at most 1200 dpi by the software.
So changing DPI is just like changing resolution on PC..but the phone PPI will be same as it is in the hardware..?? Can we feel phone with 180ppi and 440 PPI as different from each other while using?
The Samsung website says it is TFT, but several reviews from earlier this year say it is IPS. Which is it ?
IPS is a type of TFT, so it's both.
Well, ah, sort a ...
From ASUS Zen Talk
IPS stands for In-Plane Switching and it is a further improvement on TFT LCDs. The way the crystals are electrically excited on them is different and the orientation of the crystal array is rotated. This orientation change improves viewing angles, contrast ratio and color reproduction. Energy consumption is also reduced compared to TFT LCDs. Because IPS LCDs tend to be better than TFT LCDs, they are also more expensive when put on a smartphone (or tablet).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my own personal observations, IPS tends to be brighter and sharper. It biggest benefite is the vastly improved viewing angle with no color shift. This may not be an issue for phones and tablets, but it is HUGE for large screens used by artists and photographers.
Why wouldn't Samsung advertise this when their main low end competition, Amazon Fire HD 10, makes a big deal about ?