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.
It struck me as a little odd that the display isn't 720p like the Galaxy Nexus, but in fact 1280x768. Especially with the on screen buttons which will use up some vertical pixels, I'm afraid that the display might almost seem not wide/tall enough. Is it just me?
vinay427 said:
It struck me as a little odd that the display isn't 720p like the Galaxy Nexus, but in fact 1280x768. Especially with the on screen buttons which will use up some vertical pixels, I'm afraid that the display might almost seem not wide/tall enough. Is it just me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe because the screen is 4.7 inches vs. the Gnex which is 4.65?
vinay427 said:
It struck me as a little odd that the display isn't 720p like the Galaxy Nexus, but in fact 1280x768. Especially with the on screen buttons which will use up some vertical pixels, I'm afraid that the display might almost seem not wide/tall enough. Is it just me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You realize 1280x768 is bigger than 720p (1280x720) right? As in, it will have more pixels than the Galaxy Nexus.
You will probably lose about 48px with the on-screen buttons, so it will actually be 1280x720
Sent from my Xperia S using xda app-developers app
Pixel density should actually be higher than the gs3, due to the screen being smaller, I'm pretty sure if you exclude the pixels taken by the on screen buttons, it's exactly 720p.
TiesB said:
You will probably lose about 48px with the on-screen buttons, so it will actually be 1280x720
Sent from my Xperia S using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
768 is the horizontal resolution
The physical buttons are almost always on the bottom.
if the bottom bars were 48 pixels you're subtract that from the vertical resolution.
1232x720 usable.
Kingsmith said:
768 is the horizontal resolution
The physical buttons are almost always on the bottom.
if the bottom bars were 48 pixels you're subtract that from the vertical resolution.
1232x720 usable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Except that in a full screen app, they'll disappear anyways, such as when you're watching a video, exactly like every other nexus device.
The nexus 4 PPI is higher (320 vs 316) however the big difference is that there are 33% fewer sub pixels in the pen tile display of the Galaxy Nexus. This is where you will see the difference, not in the additional 4 PPI.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
It actually is 720p. 1280x768. Nav bar = 48px. 768-48=720. 1280x720.
KonstantinKeller said:
It actually is 720p. 1280x768. Nav bar = 48px. 768-48=720. 1280x720.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's incorrect, it was already said in a previous post.
Kingsmith said:
768 is the horizontal resolution
The physical buttons are almost always on the bottom.
if the bottom bars were 48 pixels you're subtract that from the vertical resolution.
1232x720 usable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although it'd be 1232x768.
Either way, I see it as an advantage. There's more screen real estate in the end, even if it's only an extra 48px in width. Assuming it's centered, when watching 720p video there will be a 24px gap above and below the video. Not that big of a deal. If it is, you could fit it to the screen so there isn't any wasted screen space.
Anyone who had a Galaxy Note like me would appreciate a nice 8:5 ratio screen with the extra pixels. 720p is a very loosely used term. Why complain when you get even higher resolution?
I wasn't complaining; just wondering if this would make a big difference in normal usage. The general consensus on the thread seems to be that although it will result in a 1232x768 resolution not counting the buttons, the only real "issue" will be small black bars when watching a 16:9 movie. Thanks guys!
Hi!
This is almost the only thing that bothers me: those buttons... I think this choice is really weird. Why don't they put normal buttons under the screen? Because of this choice, I feel there is a big black part down for nothing. It's ugly...
In addition, the buttons, are they automatically hidden in all applications? And when the Nexus is used with a TV, even the nav bar is displayed?
Yes and no. It hides when you're playing a movie, YouTube video, etc. regardless of whether it's hooked up to a TV, I believe.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
There are 1280pixels vertically.. However, the default navbar takes up 48 of those pixels.
So the screen is a bit wider allowing it to have 768 pixels (720+48)
So to make up for the on screen nav bars they have made the display a little wider.
The aspect ratio suffers though as it will not be perfectly 16:9
Okay. There seems to be some confusion here. Horizontal resolution defines a display's height (in pixels, not inches; and assuming all resolutions are defined in landscape). Vertical resolution defines a display's width. The assumption that the nav bar's 48 pixels effectively make it a 720p display is false. The nav bar subtracts from the display's vertical resolution, not it's horizontal; which makes it 1232x768. It does not make it 1280x720.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using XDA Premium HD app
---------- Post added at 10:38 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:28 PM ----------
The nav bar's 48 pixels change the display's aspect ratio from 5:3 to 77:48 (in landscape).
Sent from my Nexus 4 using XDA Premium HD app
TiesB said:
You will probably lose about 48px with the on-screen buttons, so it will actually be 1280x720
Sent from my Xperia S using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly and isnt that the size of the navbar stock right 48px
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
casonswag said:
Exactly and isnt that the size of the navbar stock right 48px
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Read the post above yours. The 48px comes from the 1280, not the width which is 768. I think a mod should really delete all of the other posts except the one from @Mister_Mxyzptlk and close this thread because all it seems to be doing is causing confusion.
really who gives a ****, does your screen not look awesome?
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
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?