Related
Browsing trough the WP7 ROM dump, I came across this folder:
Code:
Phone_DPI_262
This seems to be a new resolution, because Windows mobile always supported DPI 192, 120 and 96.
Maybe this means a higher resolution for the coming Windows Phones.
Just a thought. Let me know what you think about it.
[ElCondor] said:
Browsing trough the WP7 ROM dump, I came across this folder:
Code:
Phone_DPI_262
This seems to be a new resolution, because Windows mobile always supported DPI 192, 120 and 96.
Maybe this means a higher resolution for the coming Windows Phones.
Just a thought. Let me know what you think about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe 800x800 or something. Sounds like an ugly squared tablet.
TheDeadCpu said:
Maybe 800x800 or something. Sounds like an ugly squared tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you know it's 800X800? I was more thinking about 1280X800.
Probably, but come to think of it.. Theres something called XGA and thats 1024×768.
To keep the widescreen ratio with 800x480 they would need something like 1200x720. Of course they are going to have other aspect ratios so I don't know.
This is a nice graphic that shows all resolutions...
I think WXGA would be the one that comes very close as it is 5:3 resolution just like WVGA.
262 DPI was actually mentioned by MS at MIX when they were talking about WVGA. I personally completely fail to understand what it means - it's supposed to be dots per inch, right? So without the size of the screen DPI is what exactly?
Well the screens won't get much bigger than the HD2 I think, expect if they're going to make tablets.
The problem is, the bigger the screen the lower DPI you should get at the same resolution. However, all VGA and WVGA devices previously had 192DPI in WM, regardless of screen size. So I guess it's a different thing here. What exactly it is I don't know.
vangrieg said:
The problem is, the bigger the screen the lower DPI you should get at the same resolution. However, all VGA and WVGA devices previously had 192DPI in WM, regardless of screen size. So I guess it's a different thing here. What exactly it is I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true. I guess it doesn't tell us much, but at least it's bigger so either the screen size, or the screen resolution will probably be bigger.
WinMo 6.x supported 4 Logical DPIs (note that logical DPI is different from physical DPI, which is the bit that varies with each LCD panel/resolution)
96, 128, 131, 192
Note that a 5 inch panel might be operating at the same logical DPI as a 4 inch panel (lets say 192), but the physical DPI would be less on the 5 inch panel (larger physical pixel size)
If you were to change the logical DPI on a 4 inch screen from 192 to 262, while leaving the physical DPI the same (screen size/resolution does not change) - all on-screen elements would appear larger - more pixels would be used to draw each icon, scrollbar, etc.
Windows Phone 7 is showing 4 logical DPI's right now too:
96, 131, 192, 262
Just that we've lost 128 and picked up 262
Okay. But does that mean higher resolutions? Do you know if there will be higher resolutions?
The design of WinPhone 7 pretty much allows an arbitrary resolution, it's designed to be fully scalable. 1920x1280 @ 262 DPI @ 4 inches would make one ridiculous high res screen
As for what's in store, I wouldn't be surprised to see a large-format screen device like a tablet in the months following WP7's release.. but I don't have any specific knowledge of one yet.
Da_G said:
The design of WinPhone 7 pretty much allows an arbitrary resolution, it's designed to be fully scalable. 1920x1280 @ 262 DPI @ 4 inches would make one ridiculous high res screen
As for what's in store, I wouldn't be surprised to see a large-format screen device like a tablet in the months following WP7's release.. but I don't have any specific knowledge of one yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, yeah that would be indeed an amazing screen resolution for such a small screen!
A tablet would be very cool, I wonder if that's what HTC is working on.
Da_G said:
As for what's in store, I wouldn't be surprised to see a large-format screen device like a tablet in the months following WP7's release.. but I don't have any specific knowledge of one yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But you do have general knowledge of one
RustyGrom said:
But you do have general knowledge of one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hehe nice one there. I'd like to know that too.
Maybe they need it for fully working HDTV support, although we're yet to see WP7 device that supports HDMI interface...
Possibly.
Zune supports it, so it would be odd if they wouldn't add HDMI support for WP7.
dont forget guys...higher resolution doesnt necessarily mean a larger screen.
you can still have a 1280 X 1024 etc etc higher res screen while still making it into a 3.7-4.3 inch screen.
hell you could even have a higher res screen into a 2.8 inch slot.
the difference with display screen isnt always about the resolution however its about the Pixel Size, the larger each pixel is the large the screen is, the smaller the pixels the smaller the screen.
just to give you guys a head up, at work i was wokring with an OLED Microdisplay screen that had the resolution of 1280 X 1024, YES better resolution than most HD TVS, however the display screen was less than an inch small, the reason is was because of how small the pixels were. its pretty cool.
hasseye said:
dont forget guys...higher resolution doesnt necessarily mean a larger screen.
you can still have a 1280 X 1024 etc etc higher res screen while still making it into a 3.7-4.3 inch screen.
hell you could even have a higher res screen into a 2.8 inch slot.
the difference with display screen isnt always about the resolution however its about the Pixel Size, the larger each pixel is the large the screen is, the smaller the pixels the smaller the screen.
just to give you guys a head up, at work i was wokring with an OLED Microdisplay screen that had the resolution of 1280 X 1024, YES better resolution than most HD TVS, however the display screen was less than an inch small, the reason is was because of how small the pixels were. its pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, oh that's nice. Such screens would be really amazing on mobile devices.
Then isn't that blocking manufacturers from competing with iPhone 4's 960x640 'Retina Display' straight from the get go?
I know they will no doubt be able to make some cracking looking screens at that resolution but it is a bit disheartening to know that it can never meet the resolution of the iPhone, and I imagine by the end of the year there will be several competing Android devices that have matched that resolution too.
Do you think Microsoft will stick to this requirement?
Seems like Microsoft wants to make sure all devices run perfect at launch in hopes of rave reviews for WP7 so all the limitations. I suspect them to open it up very quickly after launch so it doesn't get left behind.
I'd rather them hang on for a bit to be honest. The only reason the iPhone's new screen is that resolution is simply because its double the last one. So they can easily resize content for the screen. It's only 10-15% higher pixel density than phones we've already got, so not that big of an improvement, unless you're comparing it to the other iPhones of course.
Might as well wait a year or so and go for 1280x720. Better to standardise the platform on a resolution like that every couple of years than to have lots of inbetween resolutions competing and wasting developer resources.
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
The term 'retina display' is bull, in reality you would have to hold the iPhone 18 inches from your face to reach the limits of your eyes.
Which brings me to the main point: If you have a bigger display, you can hold it farther from your eyes and have the same effect.
940 or 800 pixels? It hardly matters. What matters more is the actual size of the screen and any WP7 device with a 3.7" or 4" screen at WVGA is to be preferred to the iPhone's too small 3.4" screen.
I believe the 480x800 was a minimum spec, and that the other would be an exception to the rule for some other devices.
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
vangrieg said:
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HVGA is good if you need a compact device, not everyone wants a large device, some want's it slim and compact.
I belive that it will not make a big difference to have it as 800x480 or 960x640 (it would matter if the screen was big, but in the iphone case it wouldn't).
The usage of this resolution is pure technical and i really respect this move. now the only thing they need to do to maintain the apps compatability of the old iPhone is to render the apps 2 times larger on both axis (x,y) so if you have an image that is 20 pixels height and 50 pixels width (20x50)it would be (40x100), notice this will not affect the aspect ratio nor will result in a distortion or pixelating the image (the same screen size but having more pixels).
Now if you come to the real world, i will not matter for the naked eye, i would love to see this screen compared to the WVGA i have on my HD2. i doubt that there will be a noticable difference.
Pure physics say that the Naked Human Eye at a distance of 30cm can see objects that are 0.1mm, any object smaller (or objects that have a distance of 0.1mm or less will appear as 1 object, so this returns us to the "a mere 78 micrometers" (0.078mm) means that you can notice that the pixel itself is a an object that cannot be seen by the naked eye easily, that's why each pixel for us will be represented as almost 1.5 pixels). now i'm not saying that it is the same, not at all. it makes difference from the old screen they were using, but the same result we would get if they made a bit lower resolution screens (0.1mm).
Anyhow, for that particular screen size, the resolution usage is more a technical point of view than a real function point of you. you will enjoy the new screen resolution but you will not see all the pixels
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
And don't forget! iPhone's screen is 4:3 as ours are 16:9 (roughly). Should you put the iPhone's screen in 16:9 form, it would be 960x540... So the improvement isn't that great... (And i'm not mentionning that most sites are still being written to fit a 800x600 pc screen, so having a 800x480 hold in landscape will render the site 100% accurately... in theory that is xD)
Sure it looks like the iPhone will have a great resolution but at 3.5" screen size it doesn't make it and where near what I'd be looking for. I want a bigger screen and I've found the pixel density of 800x480 is good enough to make everything look crisp. Maybe MS will add 1600x960 and 960x640 to there list of supported resolutions seems how that just doubling what they currently have as standards. Ok maybe 1600x960 is a bit much but hey it can happen.
NoWorthWhile said:
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. If you have a very high res (960*640) screen but are limited to the same screen proportions as a very low res screen (480*320) you've lost a lot of the advantage.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Partly agreed. If they get cleartype to work properly (both portrait and landscape, and on OLED screens) then 800*480 is good for images and text.
I'm all for high res, but 800*480 is good, plus OLED is the way forward and hasn't reached full 800*480 resolution yet.
I think the foundational technologies (surrounding silverlight) enable resolution-independence very easily and may even enforce it, so moving to any widescreen resolution should be easy in future, with only the potential problem of bitmap pixellation.
I think we're reaching a point where the resolution in no longer important.
We all remember a couple of years ago when we "drool" about having vga resolution phone.
Now that the 800x480 are the standard and the 960x640 are becoming a standard also, all resolutions beyond this point becomes meaningless as we, humans, cannot see the difference in a standard size phone terminal.
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
ROCOAFZ said:
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
rogeriopcf said:
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, more pixels on the screen = more pixels to render = slower performance. For example, a lot of the XNA games made will probably be 320x480 and automatically scaled up for performance reasons.
As far as I remember, Da_G said they are working hard on completing DPI_262, which opens new resolutions, like 1280x720 and so on .
I think that even Hummingbird from Samsung, which is way faster (in GPU even more) than Qualcomm Snapdragon, will perform quite well with those resolutions. And when they come, we will have even better CPUs and GPUs.
lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance, but in general, yes. There's a reason why printers don't print at 300 dots per inch any more - it's because the eye can easily detect a difference between 300 pixels per inch and 600. In fact, even going from 600dpi to 1200 makes a visible difference sometimes.
Or, to look at it another way, is there a visible difference when you switch ClearType on and off? ClearType multiplies the resolution by three on one axis. If you can see a difference then the original resolution is comfortably below the finest your eye can resolve.
I'd focus more on screen clairity, color depth/contrast/brightness, ect. before trying to cram more pixels into a sub 5" screen. How about a nice OLED? ...I'd rather have this as compared to more dpi.
Hi,
Firstly, this is not to start any debate about which aspect ratio is better, but is more a question for those who own (or have used) the first generation Galaxy Note.
I'm really looking forward to getting the Note II (upgrade from my current i9000) and my first concern upon hearing of the new aspect ratio (16:9) is how well it works well with the S-Pen for writing. Especially since writing in English (and many others) is from left-to-right, and not vertical. So reducing the width of the device means even less space to write.
So for note users, from your experience with the 16:10 screen, do you think the new 16:9 screen is a concern for writing with the S-Pen?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated
scmlee said:
Hi,
Firstly, this is not to start any debate about which aspect ratio is better, but is more a question for those who own (or have used) the first generation Galaxy Note.
I'm really looking forward to getting the Note II (upgrade from my current i9000) and my first concern upon hearing of the new aspect ratio (16:9) is how well it works well with the S-Pen for writing. Especially since writing in English (and many others) is from left-to-right, and not vertical. So reducing the width of the device means even less space to write.
So for note users, from your experience with the 16:10 screen, do you think the new 16:9 screen is a concern for writing with the S-Pen?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I could be wrong, but I believe they increased the size of the screen and reduced the size of the bezel, so it would be roughly the same size.
Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda app-developers app
scmlee said:
Hi,
Firstly, this is not to start any debate about which aspect ratio is better, but is more a question for those who own (or have used) the first generation Galaxy Note.
I'm really looking forward to getting the Note II (upgrade from my current i9000) and my first concern upon hearing of the new aspect ratio (16:9) is how well it works well with the S-Pen for writing. Especially since writing in English (and many others) is from left-to-right, and not vertical. So reducing the width of the device means even less space to write.
So for note users, from your experience with the 16:10 screen, do you think the new 16:9 screen is a concern for writing with the S-Pen?
Any thoughts on this would be appreciated
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have the Note (16:10) @ 5.3" and also the GS3 (16:9) @ 4.8". The Note's screen is substantially larger in width and height. Viewing web pages and reading, the Note is definitely easier. But while viewing movies or video clips, the 16:10 on the Note actually isn't that much bigger than the GS3. The "black bars" from the aspect ratio actually wastes the view space on the screen. So with a larger screen 5.55" on the Note 2 you will definitely have a better experience watching videos. And as for using the S pen to write with, you shouldn't worry about that at all. If you ever compared the dimensions between the Note and Note 2, the size is very negligible. My GS3 is my daily driver and I've handed the Note to my dad because the camera performance is much faster on the GS3. But once the Note 2 is out, I will be back on it.
Very minimal difference. The biggest changes are: Note 2 is narrower by close to 3mm, but taller by 4.25mm. I'll take the skinner taller chick any day
Note vs Note 2 Dimension
NOTE 1: 146.85 (H) x 82.95 (W) x 9.65 mm (D), 178g
NOTE 2: 151.10 (H) x 80.50 (W) x 9.40 mm (D), 182.5g
Check out the specs:
NOTE Original
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note/spec.html?type=find
NOTE 2
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note2/spec.html?type=find
deliriousbb said:
I have the Note (16:10) @ 5.3" and also the GS3 (16:9) @ 4.8". The Note's screen is substantially larger in width and height. Viewing web pages and reading, the Note is definitely easier. But while viewing movies or video clips, the 16:10 on the Note actually isn't that much bigger than the GS3. The "black bars" from the aspect ratio actually wastes the view space on the screen. So with a larger screen 5.55" on the Note 2 you will definitely have a better experience watching videos. And as for using the S pen to write with, you shouldn't worry about that at all. If you ever compared the dimensions between the Note and Note 2, the size is very negligible. My GS3 is my daily driver and I've handed the Note to my dad because the camera performance is much faster on the GS3. But once the Note 2 is out, I will be back on it.
Very minimal difference. The biggest changes are: Note 2 is narrower by close to 3mm, but taller by 4.25mm. I'll take the skinner taller chick any day
Note vs Note 2 Dimension
NOTE 1: 146.85 (H) x 82.95 (W) x 9.65 mm (D), 178g
NOTE 2: 151.10 (H) x 80.50 (W) x 9.40 mm (D), 182.5g
Check out the specs:
NOTE Original
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note/spec.html?type=find
NOTE 2
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxynote/note2/spec.html?type=find
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have a similar concern, but it doesn't relate to viewing movies or video clips. My question is more around keyboard input for texting, emails, etc. My question is more around how much LESS WIDE is the screen of the Note II, versus that of the Note I. For my aging eyes, the wider the virtual keyboard in portrait mode, the better. So, I'm not at all concerned with the outer dimensions of the Note I and II -- I'm more interested in how much the usable screen's width decreases from the Note I to the Note II. Anybody got any info in this area? Thanks in advance for your replies.
Good comparison site for sizes of both displays
http://www.displaywars.com/5,5-inch-16x9-vs-5,3-inch-16x10
Portrait width is .1" narrower but .3" taller on the Note II. They also list diagonal sizes at the various aspect ratios.
Asquared said:
I have a similar concern, but it doesn't relate to viewing movies or video clips. My question is more around keyboard input for texting, emails, etc. My question is more around how much LESS WIDE is the screen of the Note II, versus that of the Note I. For my aging eyes, the wider the virtual keyboard in portrait mode, the better. So, I'm not at all concerned with the outer dimensions of the Note I and II -- I'm more interested in how much the usable screen's width decreases from the Note I to the Note II. Anybody got any info in this area? Thanks in advance for your replies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you check the specs of the width, it is only 3mm wider, but yet the Note2 practically is all screen from bezel to bezel. You basically have an additional 6.28mm of diagonal screen space to work with. Again, I don't think you need to worry about the width and how it will effect your typing. It is negligible. 4.79 inches vs. 4.49 inches
Plus the latest keyboards from swype uses all of the width space and is very easy to type with even with the smaller GS3 screen.
Because the screen is taller, the change in physical width of the screen is very small, around 2.5mm.
There is a loss of 80 pixels from the sides but the remaining pixels are larger than on the note 1 to make up for the loss of the 80.
So physically there is just almost the same amount of room for the pen to move as on the note 1. Also I expect the keyboard buttons to be the same size, just maybe the resolution of the text will be less.
Sorry to resurrect an old discussion, but just wanted to chip in!
I had the Note 1 for 11 months and Note 2 LTE for 3 weeks and of course I'm loving it!
Just to point out, the results from that displaywars website are "rotated". i.e. width should be height and vice versa
It shows that the Note 2 is 0.3 inches taller and 0.11 inches thinner.
I must say I notice the "loss" of width in screen real estate. Although the Note 2 feels better in the hand. It could just be I'm used to the original Note.
They say how films are better on the Note 2 because of the 16:9 ratio but in my experience most modern films are being presented in the 2.39:1 ratio so I still get the black bars on the top and bottom. EDIT: However, TV shows are in 16:9 so are full screen.
Just my two cents!
Been wondering about this myself. I have a note 1.
Would the square inch space / size of the screen be higher on the 1? I did read ½ of the thread.
dhar8062 said:
Sorry to resurrect an old discussion, but just wanted to chip in!
I had the Note 1 for 11 months and Note 2 LTE for 3 weeks and of course I'm loving it!
Just to point out, the results from that displaywars website are "rotated". i.e. width should be height and vice versa
It shows that the Note 2 is 0.3 inches taller and 0.11 inches thinner.
I must say I notice the "loss" of width in screen real estate. Although the Note 2 feels better in the hand. It could just be I'm used to the original Note.
They say how films are better on the Note 2 because of the 16:9 ratio but in my experience most modern films are being presented in the 2.39:1 ratio so I still get the black bars on the top and bottom. EDIT: However, TV shows are in 16:9 so are full screen.
Just my two cents!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sure most movies are 2.4:1, but you also need to factor in that it means that on the note 1, you lose even more rows of pixels compared to the note 2, so movies will still be better on the note 2 because the black bars will be narrower.
and i find my note 2 to be sharper than my note 1. even though its missing 80 rows of pixels, it ends up being sharper because it has a full subpixel matrix, which means that despite having 80 rows of pixels less, it still ends up with 30% more subpixels, which makes it better overall in my books.
all blurry
I have a problem my galaxy note 2, I think the loss of resolution to 1280x720 left the icons and letters all blurry, while the galaxy note 1 to define the icons and letters were much better. this is a hardware issue or software?
Im sure others have noticed this in the past with pretty much all phones.
Why is it you always have to crop the pic when you make it a home screen wallpaper, even if its the same resloution as your display?
Example. the optimus screen res is 768x1280, why cant i have a wallpaper that size??
It crops the pic to a size around 600x800 , for arguments sake.
or for example , if you have on scrolling wallpaper why not a pic thats 5376x1280. This would be one full size 768x1280 pic for each of the seven home screens.
are there any apps/hacks to fix this.
just doesnt make sense, maybe im missing something.....
side note - i dont have any paint programs on my pc at the moment so i cant verify what dpi the images im using are. nor have i checked in the past, now that i think about it. it may or may not have anything to do with the issue
Thoughts?
I put in my own wallpaper - the image needs to be 1440 x 1280 for this phone. Are you talking about adding wallpaper for each of your home screens? If that's the case, check out MultiPicture Live Wallpaper. Yeah, the 1440 x 1280 image is cropped a little bit all around, no clue why. Same with my PC monitor - if I size wallpaper exactly to its dimensions it never comes out precisely right. Always have to compensate for that, depending on which sides gets screwed up.
After getting access to the factory wallpapers, I have found they are sized at 1536 x 1280 from LG . Odd size I know.
That is what I have created mine at and they work perfect without any cropping.
sanity29 said:
After getting access to the factory wallpapers, I have found they are sized at 1536 x 1280 from LG . Odd size I know.
That is what I have created mine at and they work perfect without any cropping.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it's 1536 x 1280 probably because it's 1280 tall, and 2x 768 wide to account for wallpaper scrolling
If it's 1536 x 1280 then why does my 1440 x 1280 on the phone end up being cropped shorter on every side?
Like I said, that's the size of the factory wallpapers. Give it a try. 1536 x 1280. This is the home screen size. You will crop the sides for the lock screen.
Nah, 1536 x 1280 still crops off both sides and the top. Bottom is fine. Also tried multiple sizes to well below the given screen size and they still don't come out exact.
I really don't care, just wonder why this is.
Odd as that doesn't crop for me. Gives me the option to crop, but doesn't actually crop anything.
After going through a bunch of resolutions and aspect ratio wallpapers found here
http://topwalls.net/category/abstract/page/3/
Ive decided that the aspect ratio seems to be close to 5:4. It does still crop the edges but only slightly.
Resolution seems not to matter only the ratio. I've tried pics greater than 5000 x whatever and they work fine.
At the moment I'm using the Fullscreen 5:4 @ 2560 x 2048 and they look great.
Got my PC and paint programs back up and running.gonna see if I can find the exact aspect ratio and resolution size
In Photoshop I started to figure out what the precise figures were, but even when I loaded up goofball ratios and/or dimensions much smaller than the screen's 1280 x 786 (like 400 x 300) and then on the phone chose full width, the sides were still truncated. At that point I said - screw it.
Could someone give me the dimensions of the screen after it's been removed from the case?
Trying to determine if it'll fit in a custom panel or not.
Probably not, but hopefully someone can measure height & width to within 1/8" for me so I can find out for sure.
Like the red arrows in the pic below (which is just a random tablet pic).
But not counting any mounting tabs.
Don't care about those because if there are any, they'll be ground off so the panel could be glued in place instead.
Thanks!
With the tablet dimensions then you should be able to workout the required dimensions from this picture https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/Yupwpwtw3O4HnDBf. Image from the ifixit teardown at https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Google+Pixel+C+Teardown/62277
peterk-1 said:
With the tablet dimensions then you should be able to workout the required dimensions from this picture https://d3nevzfk7ii3be.cloudfront.net/igi/Yupwpwtw3O4HnDBf.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, that actually helped!
I used this online "ruler" to measure pixel height/width of the bezel vs. the LCD screen on that picture:
http://www.rapidtables.com/web/tools/pixel-ruler.htm
Bezel is 969 pixels wide
Screen is 882 pixels wide = .91 of 969
Bezel is 716 pixels tall
Screen is 659 pixels tall = .92 of 716
OEM Bezel dimensions = 9.53" x 7.05"
These dimensions are per this link:
http://www.phonearena.com/phones/size#/phones/size/Google-Pixel-C,Google-Nexus-9/phones/9677,8926
So that gives me the following calculations and results.
9.53 x .91 = 8.67"
7.05 x .92 = 6.49"
So, looks like the screen is about 8.67" x 6.49".
That's a good 1/2" taller than I can handle in my custom panel.
Guess I'm stuck with using a Nexus 9 and its not-quite-as-bright LCD.
Unless I wanted to do some heavy fiberglassing to make my opening larger for the larger LCD of the Pixel C.
Dangit.