Related
Hi all - thanks for such an informative forum! I'm looking to replace my beloved aging (and dying) Dell AximX50v, and the info at this site is very helpful.
I took this photo at my AT&T store, comparing the google homepage on the Axim's VGA screen, the iPhone, and the Tilt (the Touch Pro will have VGA resolution, but the screen size will be the same, I think).
The photo overemphasizes iPhone's brightness, just because it was directly below the camera lens and the other two devices were at an angle to the camera (the camera was close to the devices).
Touch Pro specs are awesome, but even the iPhone's screen is smaller than the x50v's...sigh. Why can't we have a great tool AND eye candy??!
Be seeing you,
The Duck
cant be sure but are you sure the other two phones were not using dimmed screen, i know for a fact that th diamond and my old Orbit has a significantly better screen brightness then those.
Hey, Dazza - no, the screens weren't dimmed. As a matter of fact, the photo posted above was the 2nd picture I took because the Tilt did dim the screen just as I took my first shot - here's what it looked like dimmed!
While the iPhone's screen was brightest, there's no question that both the Axim and the HTC screens looked substantially brigher than shows up in this photo. I can see a substantial difference on my Axim if I look at the screen straight on and if I look at it at even a very slight angle. When I got close to the 3 devices for the picture, the angle of the lens to screen didn't do any favors to the Axim or the HTC.
My purpose in sharing the photo was to illustrate screen SIZES though - there's a big difference between the Axim, the nearly same size iPhone, and that of the HTC! 'Natch, all are loads better than my Razr V3xx screen, though!
Be seeing you,
The Duck
The screen of the tilt still looks quite dim (although you said it looked brighter in real life.
Are you sure you also put the screen brightness on highest? By default, my TP adjusts its brightness according to the environment lighting.
I've uploaded some pics (the ones with my laptop (Asus G1S, full brightness) in the background are alternated between autoadjust/full brightness)
http://www.sanderd.be/public/htctp/screenbrightness/
-
SanderD
I hear you! I love my Tilt, and have been looking at the Touch Pro as a good upgrade just to have my VGA back.
Having used the x50v, and just recently retiring my x51v, I understand what you mean by screen size. It would be nice if HTC and the others would make us spoiled by true PDAs something with a real screen.
I work with a guy who uses an HP PDA that has a 4" screen. It is absolutely wonderful to work off of. The only offering from HTC that is close, is the 5" Advantage, and is overkill for most.
Well I still have my glorious LOOX 720 and I can tell you, its screen is great (and even compared to the other VGA devices of the time, if you remember the tests), BUT, I easily moved to Touch Pro anyway.
ah, that would actually make sence, sorry i was bit stupid there, viewing angles!
Obviously need to exercise that part of my brain some more.
I'm very surprised the Nexus S didn't come out with a higher resolution Super Amoled screen. Apparently, 2.3 supports higher resolution according to wikipedia. I'm just waiting for a new android phone with a higher resolution/pixel density to put the iphone 4 to shame.
Imagine, a Super Amoled screen with a 1024x768 or 1280x720 resolution would be the best mobile phone screen in the world.
When do you think we will realistically see android phones with higher resolution displays?
The current Super AMOLED screen already trades blows with the Retina Display. I'm sure there will be higher res screens at some point but whats the rush? Wouldnt a higher resolution screen be more of a burden on battery than the current screens already are anyway? I'd see resolutions that high being more relevant for tablets and PMP than phones.
Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)
Well, android definitely needs to match or better the 640x960 resolution of the iPhone 4 to maintain feature parity.
The current SuperAMOLED screens are less battery consuming than old LCD and Retina, so bigger resolutions shouldn't be a battery problem.
But what's the point of having 1280x768 on a 4" screen?
I'm pretty satisfied with 480x320 on 3.2" and 800x480 on 4" looks also awesome.
The Meizu M9 have a 960x640 display, but (even if you are in china) this little boy is still difficult to find.
The next Meizu (M9ii) will have a 1280×854 or 1280×800 4" screen, and should be animated by a Tegra2 with 1Gb of RAM. They said that the release date will be on middle 2011, so maybe we will be able to grap it in the late 2011.
The two phones are running on a custom android 2.2 (the UI is very different from the classical Android).
For the battery, it's more backlight that drains power.
A higher resolution will only put a little more stress on the GPU, but if the OS is well coded, it should not consume a lot more.
DPI, its all about DPI
You can have all the DPI in the world, but all its gonna mean is LAG and Battery if we're still relying on the CPU to push pixels.
dimon222 said:
Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have absolutely no comprehension of what resolution is. Look at the iphone going from 480x320 to 960x640. Did the icons get smaller? No I didn't think so. You simply put more pixels into an icon the same size. Because it seems you're under the impression that pixel count determines image size.
however, there is no need for a higher resolution because the display is that too small. better resolution would look like the same as the resolution looks on current phones.
I can see several reasons to be interested in higher screen resolution (but IMHO you will need at least a 3.5" display):
Games
ok, that's not for today, but with ports like the unreal engine on android, phones will become more like a mobile console (PSP phone, for example). A better resolution sounds like a better playing experience, but will still need more powerful hardware (and that's on the way with multi core SOC)
Video
isn't that obvious? and it's essential if you're watching videos with subtitles
Internet
I don't know for you, but on my 800x480 handset, i have to zoom out to have the full page, and zoom in, etc...
With a better screen resolution, the navigation will be easier
It's not interesting for everybody, but I think clivo360 and I are not the only guys looking for a higher resolution screen
Although 4.3" is probably the upper limit for what you'd consider "pocketable", I'd still be attracted to bigger screens and more powerful phones because there are things that can take advantage of them, such as video. Imagine 1080p screens on a phone!
At some point though, phones are probably going to suffer the same problem that PCs did - that hardware outdoes all user needs. Imagine a point where the hardware has reached such a point where for the average user, they don't need the most potent phone anymore. We're already well on the way there. It happened with PCs, where the average user needs office software such as word processing, a spreadsheet, and the Internet, but nothing that demands crazy hardware (the average user is not a high end gamer we're talking here).
A better resolution makes even more difference on an SAMOLED screen compared to an LCD/SLCD - due to the PenTile matrix configuration of pixels a 800x480 SAMOLED screen doesn't really have as many pixels as an 800x480 standard LCD.
Just take a close look at the screen of a Nexus One or Nexus S at some text and you'll see it's slightly fuzzy. See here for more info
Better resolutions aren't available yet because a) it's a relatively new technology and b) manufacturers are having a hard enough time making enough just to cover the existing devices that use them.
AFAIK, there is only one Android device with a larger screen resolution that, as long as you don't live in the good old US of A (and even there it can be done), can make calls: the Samsung Galaxy Tab. But not exactly small enough to fit in your trouser pocket (although it does slip easily into a jacket pocket).
PS: The Tab is fantastic for video (1080p MKV supported), games and general browsing (with plugins set to on-demand) plus the odd short book, although you do look very strange if you answer calls on it without a BT headset (very Trigger Happy).
Ugh, I won't flame people saying we don't need higher resolution, though I wanted to...
Here is one basic application where the higher resolution really does make a difference: Reading text .PDFs.
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Higher resolution does not nesc. need more battery/CPU power: it's the brightness that uses the battery most.
critofur said:
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't your phone's AMOLED screen use the PenTile matrix? If so, that's a huge factor. I have 2 Droid Incredibles, one AMOLED w/PenTile matrix, the other SLCD. The SLCD has MUCH smoother text despite both being the same 480x800 resolution. AMOLED w/PenTile matrix has a "screen door effect".
Anyway, Toshiba might make your dream come true, and even exceed what you'd like to see.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/16/toshiba-enters-pixel-density-fray-with-367ppi-lcds-for-cellphone/
its true about the screen door effect. texting the g2x is very smooth dispite the resolution being the same as the vibrant.
Not sure I could put larger than 4.3" in my pocket
Hey guys, I own a HD2 and I'm thinking about getting this phone once it releases here in the U.S. -- I have seen many videos of the phone and noticed that the screen actually looks smaller than the one on the HD2. Maybe it's just me, but can someone tell me if they're exactly the same (width and height) size?
Thx
it is slightly smaller in width. not sure of the exact measurments but i dont like that fact either. i just love the wide screen and the 4.3 inches like the evo and other devices. but i guess its for the qhd quality
It's because 960x540 is a 16x9 aspect ratio (the same as an HD tv). The Evo, at 800x480 is a different aspect ratio (15x9?) that's a bit shorter and wider. Both are 4.3 inches though.
I personally prefer the Sensation as it doesn't feel as huge in my hand because it's a bit slimmer.
stepinmyworld said:
it is slightly smaller in width. not sure of the exact measurments but i dont like that fact either. i just love the wide screen and the 4.3 inches like the evo and other devices. but i guess its for the qhd quality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yea...that's a minus for me. oh well, I'll have to wait until I get my hands on one and see if I can get used to it.
secano said:
yea...that's a minus for me. oh well, I'll have to wait until I get my hands on one and see if I can get used to it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not really a minus mate. The screen is the same size as the HD2 (4.3") but it holds better in the hand because it is slightly narrower.
You are still getting the same screen size. It just doesn't feel as bulky in the hand as the HD2/DHD. I got used to it almost instantly. It feels a lot more natural!
secano said:
Hey guys, I own a HD2 and I'm thinking about getting this phone once it releases here in the U.S. -- I have seen many videos of the phone and noticed that the screen actually looks smaller than the one on the HD2. Maybe it's just me, but can someone tell me if they're exactly the same (width and height) size?
Thx
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, it is smaller and the difference in surface area is actually quite significant.
DuoM said:
Yes, it is smaller and the difference in surface area is actually quite significant.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It isn't smaller. You need to remember that screen size is measure diagonally (corner to corner) so the screen is actually the same size. It is because of the resolution that the screen has different vertical and horizontal dimensions.
madindehead said:
It isn't smaller. You need to remember that screen size is measure diagonally (corner to corner) so the screen is actually the same size. It is because of the resolution that the screen has different vertical and horizontal dimensions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The surface area is smaller, just like I said.
By my calculations (and correct me if I'm wrong) the area of each phone's screen;
Sensation: 8.60 square inches
Desire HD/Evo: 8.87 square inches
So, yes, the screen is a tinyyyy bit smaller, but you're also working with more pixels, so more fits on the screen. At the end of the day it's up to you, but I would say don't be put off because you read that the screen is smaller. Go try it for yourself in a store. like I said above, I prefer it to the Desire HD because I feels more comfortable in my hand.
Lazzzara said:
By my calculations (and correct me if I'm wrong) the area of each phone's screen;
Sensation: 8.60 square inches
Desire HD/Evo: 8.87 square inches
So, yes, the screen is a tinyyyy bit smaller, but you're also working with more pixels, so more fits on the screen. At the end of the day it's up to you, but I would say don't be put off because you read that the screen is smaller. Go try it for yourself in a store. like I said above, I prefer it to the Desire HD because I feels more comfortable in my hand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very true.
I've just come from a Desire HD, and can back this up!
Lazzzara said:
By my calculations (and correct me if I'm wrong) the area of each phone's screen;
Sensation: 8.60 square inches
Desire HD/Evo: 8.87 square inches
So, yes, the screen is a tinyyyy bit smaller, but you're also working with more pixels, so more fits on the screen. At the end of the day it's up to you, but I would say don't be put off because you read that the screen is smaller. Go try it for yourself in a store. like I said above, I prefer it to the Desire HD because I feels more comfortable in my hand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, the phone definitely feels a lot nicer in the hand. Has a nicer back panel too compared to the DHD
madindehead said:
Agreed, the phone definitely feels a lot nicer in the hand. Has a nicer back panel too compared to the DHD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats true aswell, easier to take apart, doesnt involve ripping your nails off!
yes yes screen is smaller (but aspect ratio only). just got mine. luckily i still hv my DHD
but i love my sensation too
The Sensation feels remarkably small in your hand considering how large its screen is.
Does a larger touch screen With same resolution need a faster cpu?
My doubt is about larger touch screen, not actual screen size. Would touch-scrolling run smooth With 800x480 resolution and 5.3" size?
This could be The case: use blu studio 5.3" screen With ZTE tania hw.
If the screen is of same resolution, the load on the SOC is the same.
illegaloperation said:
If the screen is of same resolution, the load on the SOC is the same.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I hope bluproducts (and other minor manufacturers) will offer WP devices soon.
MS should give WP to manufacturers for free and ask a fee for xbox live/bing maps only (the way nokia is doing With its maps)
Displaying the same resolution uses the same CPU cycles regardless of physical screen size. However, a larger screen size might require a more detailed touch-sensor grid and I'm not sure if that would result in more CPU cycles or just greater battery drain (relatively speaking).
but on big screen lags are more visible!
so from user experience point, large screen devices need better CPU
PoisonWolf said:
Displaying the same resolution uses the same CPU cycles regardless of physical screen size. However, a larger screen size might require a more detailed touch-sensor grid and I'm not sure if that would result in more CPU cycles or just greater battery drain (relatively speaking).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
that's exactly what I was asking.
I'd try produce a 5" WP with 1Ghz for 199 similar to the blue studio offer
Cotulla said:
but on big screen lags are more visible!
so from user experience point, large screen devices need better CPU
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WP7 doesn't lag.
Sent from my SGH-I897
MikeyMike01 said:
WP7 doesn't lag.
Sent from my SGH-I897
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's right. Unfortunately ZTE didn't release a 5" WP but just another 4.3"
A 199 5" WP would sell very very well.
Unless they tweak the god damn OS to a new level with higher resolution... i don't want any kind of devices that i have to see my pictures as numerous of square pixels (visibly)
And i don't think that you would ever have WP on a tablet and 5.inch is something related to a tablet, not a phone anymore. my Titan is 4.7 inch and it has touch the lowest PPI and the size of my pocket.
Strike_Eagle said:
Unless they tweak the god damn OS to a new level with higher resolution... i don't want any kind of devices that i have to see my pictures as numerous of square pixels (visibly)
And i don't think that you would ever have WP on a tablet and 5.inch is something related to a tablet, not a phone anymore. my Titan is 4.7 inch and it has touch the lowest PPI and the size of my pocket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
resolution is fine imo. 10" netbooks are usually 1366x768 therefore 5" @ 800x480 are more than accettable.
regarding WP on a 5.3" tablet, why not ? you know women's purses sometimes are so small that no tablet could fit into them...
Hello,.
My current phone for years has been the Samsung Galaxy S4. I believe the aspect ratio of its screen is the same as a standard wide-screen movie (or wide-screen TV, 16:9. It seems like 16:9 widescreen is standard for laptops now too. (Although i preferred the older 4:3 taller laptop screens.) Likely desktop monitors as well. I think Android and Windows tablets are all 16:9 as well, although the Ipad (at least the older ones) is 4:3. So I think the 16:9 aspect ratio of my Galaxy S4 screen is pretty standard now for most types of screens, including phones 5 inch screens and under.
I am thinking of getting a bigger screen phone, or phablet. Although there are disadvantages with the increased size, I also see advantages, especially with my aging eyes, and think it might somewhat be able to function as a small tablet, while still fitting (even if not as well) in a front (male) pants pocket..
I think the size for a "phablet" is considered 5.5 inches and higher. Many are 5.5 inches, some 5.7 inches, and some even larger, such as 6 inches. By far the most common though, seem to be 5.5 and 5.7 inches.
I understand that the reported measurement of screen size is the diagonal measurement, from one corner diagonally across.
Well, there could be different combinations of height and width that would end up measuring 5.5 inches diagonally, for example.
So my first question is-- does a designated screen size of 5.5 inches refer to a specific screen height and width, or are there multiple different 5.5" screen sizes, that all end up being 5.5" diagonally? Or is it standardized?
I compared my S4 with a 5.5" screen phone in a store. The 5.5" phone was only slightly wider, but MUCH longer than my S4. (That description is holding the phone portrait, of course.) As the S4 is already standard widescreen aspect ratio, that would make the phone I saw much wider (if landscape) or longer (if portrait) than standard widescreen movies, TVs, laptops, Android tablets, etc. I can understand why they might not want to make the phone much wider, making it harder to hold. On the other hand, one wonders how valuable a larger screen is if the increase in size is mostly in one direction, and the aspect ratio of the screen becomes so skewed, so much longer and narrower (portrait) than other screens?
However, regarding my earlier question- if 5.5" screen size is not sometihng standardized, but could be different combinations of height and width to add up to 5.5" diagonally, then all 5.5" phones might not have that skewed extra long and narrow screen aspect ratio? Which is it? All 5.5" screens the same height and width (of screen, not phone), or do they differ?
If one goes larger than that, to 5.7 inch, might that more likely add width as well as length, to have a more normal aspect ratio? Or do those still keep a similar width (in portrait), while adding still more length, to create an even more skewed longer and narrow (portrait) aspect ratio?
I am eager to hear whatever info and insight you have on this issue. Thanks in advance for your input.
Although I have a new phone now, I am still curious about this question. For instance, whether a 5.5 inch screen, referring to the diagonal measurement, refers to a standardized screen height and width, or whether that might differ among phones, only that the diagonal measurement ends up at that number?
And other questions I asked in the OP.
Thank you.