Related
wish screen is most pixelated, htc sensation or the note. Dose someone know if there is a test who show the 720p mobile screen comparison inzoomed
Samsung Galaxy Note
800 x 1280 pixels, 5.3 inches (~285 ppi pixel density)
HTC Sensation:
540 x 960 pixels, 4.3 inches (~256 ppi pixel density)
(http://www.gsmarena.com)
I meen side by side in real world, 1280x800 pentile vs 960x540 rgb
Last time I check, this is the real world oh Hai luk, search!
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1313795&highlight=pentile+vs+rgb
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1359716&highlight=pentile+vs+rgb
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...D---is-the-PenTile-matrix-bad-for-you_id23134
I mean to other 720p displays like the rezound and lg 4 g, not 800X480 screens
Oh, please, we're talking about small screens. 1000 pixels on 4 inches.
If you see pixels on any of those two screens you should call the Guinness Book of Records to claim the sharpest eyesight on the World.
I can't see any pixels when reading text on the Galaxy Note Screen.
Hell, Ipad and Ipad 2 have 1024x768 on a 10" screen and nobody is complaining about pixellation.
You're talking about a screen that's 5" and has roughly the same resolution.
falluja said:
wish screen is most pixelated, htc sensation or the note.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I answered your question above, specifically the HTC Sensation is more "pixelated" because the ppi is lower(though only by a tiny bit, and not noticeable)
falluja said:
Dose someone know if there is a test who show the 720p mobile screen comparison inzoomed
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right now I think the Galaxy Nexus is the only other 720P mobile screen available(limited). The Res on the Nexus is 720 x 1280 pixels, 4.65 inches (~316 ppi pixel density) So the "pixelation" would be higher on the Note vs the Nexus. The Note may have more "pixels" then the Note, but the Nexus has smaller screen to pack those Pixels in.
Also, the Galaxy Nexus uses the same Pentile screen that the Note does.
Spartan2x said:
I answered your question above, specifically the HTC Sensation is more "pixelated" because the ppi is lower(though only by a tiny bit, and not noticeable)
Right now I think the Galaxy Nexus is the only other 720P mobile screen available(limited). The Res on the Nexus is 720 x 1280 pixels, 4.65 inches (~316 ppi pixel density) So the "pixelation" wouyld be higher on the Note vs the Nexus. The screens have the same number of pixels (1200*800 vs 1280*720, they just took 80 from one sie and added to the other) but the Nexus has smaller screen to pack those Pixels in.
Also, the Galaxy Nexus uses the same Pentile screen that the Note does.
Edit, not the same pixels.
1200 times 800 is 960,000
1280 times 720 is 921,600
Opps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Notes screen is 1280x800 not 1200x800
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note/spec.html?type=find
Gunner86 said:
Notes screen is 1280x800 not 1200x800
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note/spec.html?type=find
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, I must have mis-read it. I got it right on my first reply because I did a copy and paste.
edited
While the 'New iPad''s resolution and display are incredibly impressive, but with the announcements, I noticed that Apple is using the term "Retina Display" (it's term for a display that in some pseudo science way is exactly right for the human eyes) in a different way. That is this new iPad's 'Retina Display" has a completely different ppi (pixels per inch) than the iPhone's Retina Display. Because you look at the iPad from farther away is Apple's rational. (see macworld quote below *)
So Apple now changed (updated?) the definition of their "Retina Display" term to some viewing distance / ppi equation, that they seems to be able to pretend has meaning scientifically (I am a researcher in vision and tech, so I hate to see marketing just crap on science). Can't Apple just stick with size/res at ppi like everyone else. Or maybe science (hence us geeks) should be able to use the term for anything that fits Apple's now new pseudo equation -- Hmm doing the 'math' it looks like the Samsung Galaxy Note would generally fit in the wishy washy definition of retina display:
iPhone 4s: 3.5-inch 960 x 640 pixels, 326 ppi
Galaxy Note: 5.3-inch 800 x 1280 pixels, 285 ppi
New iPad: 9.7-inch 2048 x 1536 pixel, 264 ppi
So all this bears the question, according to Apple's own definition, does the Galaxy Note phone have a Retina Display? Can someone with more time than me right now, maybe chart out the 3 devices and viewing distances - then we can send our findings to David Pogue of the NYTimes ( tech gadget writer).
-steveblue
-----------
* Here is macworld explaining why the retina display term changed:
"Apple first introduced the concept of a “Retina display” in the iPhone 4, which packed 326 pixels per inch into its 3.5-inch display. Rather than refer to a specific level of pixel density, the term defines how the average person sees a screen—at a certain distance away, the human eye can no longer distinguish the individual pixels on a device.
Although the new iPad has a lower pixel density (264 versus 326) than the iPhone 4 or 4S, that’s largely due to screen size and relative distance—users hold the iPad further away from their faces than they might an iPhone."
the answer is :
"
Who
Gives
A
####
"
Great another iphone thread
From the big ole Note
miko3d said:
the answer is :
"
Who
Gives
A
####
"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly +1
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
steveblue said:
While the 'New iPad''s resolution and display are incredibly impressive, but with the announcements, I noticed that Apple is using the term "Retina Display" (it's term for a display that in some pseudo science way is exactly right for the human eyes) in a different way. That is this new iPad's 'Retina Display" has a completely different ppi (pixels per inch) than the iPhone's Retina Display. Because you look at the iPad from farther away is Apple's rational. (see macworld quote below *)
So Apple now changed (updated?) the definition of their "Retina Display" term to some viewing distance / ppi equation, that they seems to be able to pretend has meaning scientifically (I am a researcher in vision and tech, so I hate to see marketing just crap on science). Can't Apple just stick with size/res at ppi like everyone else. Or maybe science (hence us geeks) should be able to use the term for anything that fits Apple's now new pseudo equation -- Hmm doing the 'math' it looks like the Samsung Galaxy Note would generally fit in the wishy washy definition of retina display:
iPhone 4s: 3.5-inch 960 x 640 pixels, 326 ppi
Galaxy Note: 5.3-inch 800 x 1280 pixels, 285 ppi
New iPad: 9.7-inch 2048 x 1536 pixel, 264 ppi
So all this bears the question, according to Apple's own definition, does the Galaxy Note phone have a Retina Display? Can someone with more time than me right now, maybe chart out the 3 devices and viewing distances - then we can send our findings to David Pogue of the NYTimes ( tech gadget writer).
-steveblue
-----------
* Here is macworld explaining why the retina display term changed:
"Apple first introduced the concept of a “Retina display” in the iPhone 4, which packed 326 pixels per inch into its 3.5-inch display. Rather than refer to a specific level of pixel density, the term defines how the average person sees a screen—at a certain distance away, the human eye can no longer distinguish the individual pixels on a device.
Although the new iPad has a lower pixel density (264 versus 326) than the iPhone 4 or 4S, that’s largely due to screen size and relative distance—users hold the iPad further away from their faces than they might an iPhone."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting.. Although I would think you wouldn't need to plot viewing distances. I would think you would need to either know the algorithm in which apple uses to make this "retina" claim or you would just go by the viewing distances specified by the manufacturer.
I could be wrong but that was my thought. Definitely an interesting idea though.
steveblue said:
While the 'New iPad''s resolution and display are incredibly impressive, but with the announcements, I noticed that Apple is using the term "Retina Display" (it's term for a display that in some pseudo science way is exactly right for the human eyes) in a different way. That is this new iPad's 'Retina Display" has a completely different ppi (pixels per inch) than the iPhone's Retina Display. Because you look at the iPad from farther away is Apple's rational. (see macworld quote below *)
So Apple now changed (updated?) the definition of their "Retina Display" term to some viewing distance / ppi equation, that they seems to be able to pretend has meaning scientifically (I am a researcher in vision and tech, so I hate to see marketing just crap on science). Can't Apple just stick with size/res at ppi like everyone else. Or maybe science (hence us geeks) should be able to use the term for anything that fits Apple's now new pseudo equation -- Hmm doing the 'math' it looks like the Samsung Galaxy Note would generally fit in the wishy washy definition of retina display:
iPhone 4s: 3.5-inch 960 x 640 pixels, 326 ppi
Galaxy Note: 5.3-inch 800 x 1280 pixels, 285 ppi
New iPad: 9.7-inch 2048 x 1536 pixel, 264 ppi
So all this bears the question, according to Apple's own definition, does the Galaxy Note phone have a Retina Display? Can someone with more time than me right now, maybe chart out the 3 devices and viewing distances - then we can send our findings to David Pogue of the NYTimes ( tech gadget writer).
-steveblue
-----------
* Here is macworld explaining why the retina display term changed:
"Apple first introduced the concept of a “Retina display” in the iPhone 4, which packed 326 pixels per inch into its 3.5-inch display. Rather than refer to a specific level of pixel density, the term defines how the average person sees a screen—at a certain distance away, the human eye can no longer distinguish the individual pixels on a device.
Although the new iPad has a lower pixel density (264 versus 326) than the iPhone 4 or 4S, that’s largely due to screen size and relative distance—users hold the iPad further away from their faces than they might an iPhone."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ignore the others lol... This is a great post as I was thinking the same thing. You explained it much more impressively that I ever could though...
I like this thread. Steve definitely sounds like an expert on the subject.
So according to apple, we do have retina display! !
DPMAce said:
I like this thread. Steve definitely sounds like an expert on the subject.
So according to apple, we do have retina display! !
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Should lead to some great Samsung ads.
its all marketing by the great apple. Only company I know that can be late to a party, create a new word, and then set the standard. Its becoming dead around these parts.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using xda premium
There's nothing "pseudo science" about the resolution of the human eye. It's nothing but a ratio between ppi and viewing distance. It could be argued whether apple's phones and tablets are below the ratio and whether their official viewing distances make sense, but the concept itself is sound science. If you increase the pixel density or view the screen from further away, you won't be able to distinguish individual pixels.
Nice to know.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using XDA
I would say it's exactly on the fuzzy edge of retina display - for 285 ppi, the shortest distance from the screen that the user is still unable to discern the pixel difference is about 12 inch. (for iPhone 4s it's 10.5 inch)
For normal usage of the Note (my usage), it's about 11-12 inch or larger, so it's on the verge of retina display.
Before i prove your theory, let me see if I can care less about this exercise.
---------------------------
Yeah it's a Galaxy Note, are you jealous?
I disagree that the Note has a retina display. it looks considerably more grainy than my wife's iPhone 4. it doesn't bother me, but I know it's there
You do realize Note is PenTile right? That pretty much means 1/3 less pixels. The resolution is high so it isn't that obvious but it reduces the sub pixel density noticeably(which is ultimately more important). Whatever, you either like the screen or not, Retina Display is just a name Apple invented for high density screens.
deymayor said:
Before i prove your theory, let me see if I can care less about this exercise.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can definitely care less about this exercise - by ignoring it and not posting a reply at all. I guess you do care about it a bit.
leppo said:
I disagree that the Note has a retina display. it looks considerably more grainy than my wife's iPhone 4. it doesn't bother me, but I know it's there
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but the new ipad also has a retina display - and it has lower ppi than the Note.
but .....
freemini said:
You do realize Note is PenTile right? That pretty much means 1/3 less pixels. The resolution is high so it isn't that obvious but it reduces the sub pixel density noticeably(which is ultimately more important). Whatever, you either like the screen or not, Retina Display is just a name Apple invented for high density screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, PenTile RGBG is the dirty word here. I wish they went with an RGB matrix. I can definitely see the dotted edges on small text. That said, the dots are far smaller than the terribly-obvious ones on older screens like on the Nexus One, so I can easily ignore it.
tytung2020 said:
I would say it's exactly on the fuzzy edge of retina display - for 285 ppi, the shortest distance from the screen that the user is still unable to discern the pixel difference is about 12 inch. (for iPhone 4s it's 10.5 inch)
For normal usage of the Note (my usage), it's about 11-12 inch or larger, so it's on the verge of retina display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If this is true, then for me I can't see the individual pixels from my regular viewing distance. Yes, I actually held a ruler up to eye level and put my phone at the end and honestly 1ft is kind of close.
On a side note, I have always loved my Note's screen. If it is not the pinnacle, it sure is sitting on top w/ only a few other phones atop the Android ecosystem.
freemini said:
You do realize Note is PenTile right? That pretty much means 1/3 less pixels. The resolution is high so it isn't that obvious but it reduces the sub pixel density noticeably(which is ultimately more important). Whatever, you either like the screen or not, Retina Display is just a name Apple invented for high density screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is only 1/6 (~17%) not 1/3 less!
And the macbook is just another laptop but if you call it the latter, apple drones get their panties in a bunch.
To start with, "Retina display" is a marketing term, created by Apple. It has no formal definition or "standard". It's only meaningful in terms dictated by Apple relative to their own products.
It's also (as mentioned at the bottom of the OP) based on the distance you're holding the device from your face, you're not likely to be using a 5.3" device at the same distance as a 9.7" device. It's this distance relative to the ppi that they're using to determine if it's a "retina" display or not.
Don't adopt proprietary marketing terms as a meaningful identifier.
I would imagine that since it's a term created, by Apple, to describe a feature of Apple products, it's irrelevant when applied to non-Apple products. They might've lost their "reality distortion field", but they've still got one of the more heavily backed marketing teams in the world.
The Galaxy Note 10.1 has a resolution of1280 x 800 =*1.024.000 Pixel.*
The Nexus 10 has 2560 x 1600 =*4.096.000 Pixel.*
So roughly 4x the resolution of the Note, both have 10.1 inch so why has the Nexus just double ppi? (149 vs. 299)
Is pixel density not directly related to resolution?
Edit: Never mind found it out. I was mistaken about how ppi was calculated.
Samsung annonced officially, the Samsung Galaxy S4 mini.
it has 4.3" qHD disply, android 4.2.2 but with out most of the features of S4 (like no double shot, no 360 panorama), has S Health but with out S4 sensors like temperature sensor, barometer and humidity sensor
chipset is most likely Snapdragon 400 at 1.7Ghz with 1.5Gb of RAM and internal storage is 8Gb with Micro SD card slot for expanding it.
rest of connectivity options and usual, wifi, bluetooth,GPS with GLONASS etc...
also has IR blaster for remote controlling.
the phone has dimensions of 124.6 x 61.3 x 8.94mm and weighs 107g which is cool
battery is user replacable and is 1900mAh.
no word on pricing. samsung will show it off on June 20 and most likely to reveal pricing then.
available color options are Black Mist and White Frost.
i kinda like it except the qHD screen. it should have been at least 720p but all its success depends on its pricing.
what do u guys think?
The SIII Mini always struck me as a bit pointless, having neither the spec to appeal to those that like phones with a bit of muscle or the price point for those that want a decent phone on a budget. It didn't really satisfy anyone and I have a sneaky feeling we're going to see more of the same with this.
Definitely not more of the same, but then the s3 mini was especially useless. Rumors/leaks have the ATT version of the s4 mini at 720p (presumably pentile, but no confirmation). But gsmarena just confirmed that the version announced for europe is NOT pentile. It's got the same RGB s stripe as the Note 2. At 4.25" with qHD, it has a very respectable 259ppi that is at least as sharp as a Galaxy S3, and maybe slightly sharper. I'd almost as soon have RGB qHD as 720p pentile, so at least I know for sure what I'm getting. It comes with air view and multiwindow, which is kinda surprising.
http://www.androidbeat.com/2013/05/gs4-mini-720p/
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s4_mini-review-932.php
If this is $300, I'm gonna be very happy. If $350, I'm gonna be a little happy. If $400, I'm gonna be not very happy, but might get it anyway.
fortunz said:
Definitely not more of the same, but then the s3 mini was especially useless. Rumors/leaks have the ATT version of the s4 mini at 720p (presumably pentile, but no confirmation). But gsmarena just confirmed that the version announced for europe is NOT pentile. It's got the same RGB s stripe as the Note 2. At 4.25" with qHD, it has a very respectable 259ppi that is at least as sharp as a Galaxy S3, and maybe slightly sharper. I'd almost as soon have RGB qHD as 720p pentile, so at least I know for sure what I'm getting. It comes with air view and multiwindow, which is kinda surprising.
http://www.androidbeat.com/2013/05/gs4-mini-720p/
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s4_mini-review-932.php
If this is $300, I'm gonna be very happy. If $350, I'm gonna be a little happy. If $400, I'm gonna be not very happy, but might get it anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I saw it in a video (closely), and it's not as sharp as S3.
I don't know but it's clueless to compare the number of subpixels to say which is sharper.
With the lower ppi, Note 2 is still a little bit sharper than S3 because they scale it the same as S3 (by adjusting ppi) and no pentile effect on Note 2. But they cannot do the same on a smaller screen like S4 mini-
hung2900 said:
I saw it in a video (closely), and it's not as sharp as S3.
I don't know but it's clueless to compare the number of subpixels to say which is sharper.
With the lower ppi, Note 2 is still a little bit sharper than S3 because they scale it the same as S3 (by adjusting ppi) and no pentile effect on Note 2. But they cannot do the same on a smaller screen like S4 mini-
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's clueless to think you can make a screen sharper through scaling (presumably, you meant adjusting "dpi"). And to claim subpixels have nothing to do with sharpness but still hail the Note 2's lack of a pentile effect as responsible for it's sharpness. What do you think the pentile effect is? And to think you can divine screen sharpness through an encoded web video. Trust me, you can't.
You can pixelate software elements through improper scaling, but you can't sharpen a low density screen through software scaling. For example if you zoom in enough (a form of 'scaling') on a small image even viewing it on a super sharp screen, yeah, it'll look bad, but that's not the screen's problem. If you've got a low density screen, the sharpest of images will look crappy no matter how you scale them. The S4 mini is sharp for the same reason the Note 2 looks sharp: because they share the same complete RGB matrix and almost the same density.
Pentile is nothing more or less than false advertising, a way of artificially inflating the raw spec. It's not the worst thing in the world, it just requires a much higher purported ppi to reach the same sharpness as an RGB matrix screen.
Again like the S3 mini, Samsung is trying to milk more money out of the S4 series but now targeting the mid-range side. Average consumers will probably buy this as there is an "S4" tag on it and is much cheaper than it's big brother.
fortunz said:
It's clueless to think you can make a screen sharper through scaling (presumably, you meant adjusting "dpi"). And to claim subpixels have nothing to do with sharpness but still hail the Note 2's lack of a pentile effect as responsible for it's sharpness. What do you think the pentile effect is? And to think you can divine screen sharpness through an encoded web video. Trust me, you can't.
You can pixelate software elements through improper scaling, but you can't sharpen a low density screen through software scaling. For example if you zoom in enough (a form of 'scaling') on a small image even viewing it on a super sharp screen, yeah, it'll look bad, but that's not the screen's problem. If you've got a low density screen, the sharpest of images will look crappy no matter how you scale them. The S4 mini is sharp for the same reason the Note 2 looks sharp: because they share the same complete RGB matrix and almost the same density.
Pentile is nothing more or less than false advertising, a way of artificially inflating the raw spec. It's not the worst thing in the world, it just requires a much higher purported ppi to reach the same sharpness as an RGB matrix screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think you understand my opinion, maybe due to my bad English. To say clearer, what I mean is the Note 2's screen's scale is basically the same as Galaxy S3 with the same 320 dpi - zooming from 4.8 to 5.55 inch. This means, a same font of texts, a word with a length of 120 pixels on S3 (1/6 of the total length) is still 120 pixels on Note 2 (also 1/6 of the total length), but 15.625% bigger in real-size (what you actually see). So is the result is what you can see clear on S3, you can see it CLEARER on Note 2. That's is the technichque Samsung usually implements, like on Note 8.0 that make it much more sharper than iPad mini in browsing. If we compare a same line of texts with 5mm of "real size", the result from a screen like One X basically has 18% more pixels to illustrate the detail of the text, which results in being clearer than Note 2. And if you really have a Note 2 (i'm using it), when visiting some websites in desktop mode (like xda forum, lol), the text is very small and not crisp anymore.
But how about Galaxy S4 Mini? "The S4 mini is sharp for the same reason the Note 2 looks sharp"? OK, now we will consider the same thing as Note 2 above. For a line of texts equivalent to 1/6 total length of the screen, it takes only 93.33 pixels, which means noticeably less than S3 and Note 2 with smaller "real size" also, so it cannot be as sharp as S3. And in fact, Samsung did rescale from 320dpi to 240 dpi on Galaxy S4 Mini, which also means for a same font of texts, the number of pixels for displaying increases about 15.3%, so from 93.33 pixels I said above now it is appox. 108 pixels, which is not too far from Galaxy S3, and the payoff is the screen is cramped. So we cannot say "because Note 2 is sharp so Galaxy S4 Mini is also sharp"
About Pentile screen, it is not totally "nothing more or less than false advertising", but more like "false understanding of the major and the misleading criticisms". Why? Because most of people don't understand what is "Pentile". In fact, this "technology" can ONLY be used on OLED (AMOLED) technogy, which has the uneven luminance and lumious time of different color subpixels. Even experts cannot show the "exactly" ppi of an Pentile Amoled screen (because even with Pentile, different stripes layout leads to different result), while some people try to do an easier way that comparing the total number of subpixels, which is totally false. In fact, Galaxy S4 has 623 subpixels/inch, slightly higher than Blackberry Z10 (615) and iPhone 5 (565), but it is MUCH more sharper and not really different from the normal RGB 1080p screen like Xperia Z.
With Pentile screen, the main culprit of all criticism is not the lack of subpixels, but the uneven scale of pixels (because they're not real pixels) and uneven big-small gaps redundant. That's why they call the subpixels layout of S4 is innovative while still Pentile, because it is much much better than the traditional matrix on Galaxy S3 and together with the high ppi reduces most of Pentile problem (in fact, with traditional matrix, even with 441 ppi probably there will be something there)
Does or can S4 Mini have stock or by a custom rom have Air & Motion gestures ??
AndyTimE said:
Does or can S4 Mini have stock or by a custom rom have Air & Motion gestures ??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, the sensor isn't there.
i wish this could be my next phone
I'm considering this too as my next phone.
Compact, powerful, enough RAM and a non-pentile qHD display.
mpokwsths said:
I'm considering this too as my next phone.
Compact, powerful, enough RAM and a non-pentile qHD display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was recently announced that CM10.1 is being prepared for i9195 version. Is there any info of whether it will also be supported for i9190 international version (without LTE and NFC)?
I also suppose we need a separate ROOT thread for it as nor 9192 neither 9195 procedures might fit.
mpokwsths said:
I'm considering this too as my next phone.
Compact, powerful, enough RAM and a non-pentile qHD display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me too
But only if i will find it around to 300€ in next months, and if there will be a good support on XDA
Hi Is there usb otg on galaxy s4 mini ?
KaptanJack026 said:
Hi Is there usb otg on galaxy s4 mini ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not at the moment. MHL isn't supported either.
metaxaos said:
It was recently announced that CM10.1 is being prepared for i9195 version. Is there any info of whether it will also be supported for i9190 international version (without LTE and NFC)?
I also suppose we need a separate ROOT thread for it as nor 9192 neither 9195 procedures might fit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No info. There isn't a root for the 9190 yet - the 9192 and 9195 procedures do not work on the 9190 and will probably brick your device.
hello, does anyone know when this phone will be available in the usa? can not find any info on this
if this is in the wrong forum please move, thanks
Which phone should i buy? sIII or s4 mini
Get the S4 mini if you want to future-proof yourself.
The S3 mini specifications are quite outdated
Whosat said:
Get the S4 mini if you want to future-proof yourself.
The S3 mini specifications are quite outdated
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, i said between the normal s3 4.7" and s4mini. S3is cheaper here and has more ROMs and development
soraxx said:
No, i said between the normal s3 4.7" and s4mini. S3is cheaper here and has more ROMs and development
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, you've mentioned the main benefit of getting the S3 I guess.
Also, the S3 has quad-core as opposed to the dual-core S4 mini. S3 has 1 GB of ram only though.
There are also more accessories for the S3 than for the S4 mini because the mini has a smaller market and is also a newer device.
hey guy, i have a strange question but i bet with some guy that more PPI dependence by CPU strength and screen resolution, or not(??).
what i said that's more power of CPU, then more PPI u can get.(ofcourse the bet is about the Adreno 300)
can you explain me about that more if im right or not? :cyclops:
PPI is about the screen, how the screen is manufactured. Dimensions in pixels is dependent of processing power,CPU if software rasterizing, CPU+GPU if hardware rasterizer.
So a phone with 1080p and 300ppi performs the same as a phone with 1080p and 1000ppi
i think that its not ppi, but resolution is the blood sucker. more resolution, more details,more computing power. which demands greater cpu and gpu powers. and let me clear, large screen size does not necessarily mean greater resolutions. compare s4/z/one with some other devices like grand/mega etc.
also if a device have good resolution and better screen it should use more ppi, which in turn supports ur argument.
Sent from my NexusHD2 using xda premium
icecore said:
hey guy, i have a strange question but i bet with some guy that more PPI dependence by CPU strength and screen resolution, or not(??).
what i said that's more power of CPU, then more PPI u can get.(ofcourse the bet is about the Adreno 300)
can you explain me about that more if im right or not? :cyclops:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
PPI stands for pixels-per-inch. Pixels per inch is not the number of pixels; it's how crammed they are together. Resolution is the number of pixels. For example, even though the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note 2 have the same resolution screen (ignore the fact that the S3's is pentile), the Galaxy S3 has a higher PPI because it has the pixels crammed into a smaller screen size (4.7 inch vs 5.5 inch). If the Galaxy S3 and Galaxy Note 2 had the same processor, RAM, etc, and only the screen size was different, they would perform identically. They both have the same amount of pixels, but the Galaxy S3 screen looks sharper because the screen is smaller.
What strains the processor is a higher resolution, not directly a high PPI. It's the same thing with a computer; if I run Crysis at 640 x 480 (the lowest possible resolution), I'll probably get an amazing frame rate (smoothness) even though the picture will look like crap. Why? The processor and graphics card have to process less pixels to display on the screen. Now, if I ran the game at 1080p, the frame rate would suffer dramatically, but the picture quality would look amazing. The processor and graphics card now have a LOT more to display on the screen. That's the gist of it.
got it thanks for all replays!