I was wondering...
Is there anyway to cut the resolution on the rhodium? I read somewhere that a separate device ran quicker because of its low resolution and screen size--that is, it ran quicker than larger screens with 1ghz processors. The rhodium specs aren't exactly designed to portray 800x600 resolutions >__>, there seems to be a noticeable lag in most shells (SPB, Sense).
Is there anyway to lower the resolution to 640 x 480? I wouldn't mind taking the resolution cut for a faster phone. and is 640 x 480 VGA?
I found this:
http://www.1800pocketpc.com/2010/01...-resolution-from-wvga-vga-and-wqvga-qvga.html
but all it does is crop the screen--theres still a black box. Now i'm wondering if we ran a stretched resolution if we could get performance gains. It wouldnt be as crisp as the natural resolution and things would be stretched out, but... would it even be possible or workable? anybody have any input?
This is one of the things that always comes up to my mind when I'm using my Samaung Focus and iPhone 4, what if my Samsung Focus had a Retina Display?
Or if iPhone 4 had three buttons and WP7
If the Samsung Focus had a retina display it would have a higher screen resolution.
please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS
Man, my focus with a lousy 3.5" screen would be terrible. What I want is WP7 on one of those new 4.5" super amoled + displays they're gonna put on that android phone they're making. That'd be the cheese, right there.
800*480 OLED with normal sub-pixels is good for phone sizes.
Text is most important and with normal subpixels you can turn on cleartype and have a boost in effective resolution. At 800*480 I think it's good for both images and text.
Pentile has lower actual resolution and doesn't have OS sub-pixel support.
revrak said:
please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.
The thing though, is that I've never had a situation where I was using my phone and needed those types of viewing angles. As long as the phone is readable from a 100-120 degree viewing angle is seems like it's good enough for me.
The iPhone's viewing angles are good, but the screen size IMO worked against it for situations where the viewing angles would be a saver (showing stuff on your phone to others).
Also, the iPhone is still not that great when viewing it in direct sunlight, although it is better than some other LCD panels.
The Pixel Density is the biggest thing about the screen. It makes text, pictures, and even video look better than on lots of other lower-res phones...
Yeah, the screen size is on the smallish side. I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size. But I'm finding other things about the iPhone screen (the whole screen - LCD and plate) that really make up for size deficiencies. I think Apple is using the Oleo-phobic tech on the iPhone because it is so much easier to move your finger across it than on other displays. I have Fruit Ninja on both my iPhone and HD7 and slashing the fruit is painless on the iPhone. Slashing the fruit on my HD7 is a bit of a chore because the finger want to adhere to the surface...like the squeak you get when running a squeegee over a clean pane of glass. The touch response seems to be a bit more accurate on the iPhone, too. But that is likely due to the coding of the game and nothing to do with the HD7's tech.
I think MS just simply ported FN to WP7 without even optimizing it because the display is squished rather than having the proper aspect ratio (a circle being oblong...like a football...rather than a true circle).
MartyLK said:
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, it is IPS LCD, which gives the best viewing angle among LCDs. But the main thing with the "Retina display" is the pixel density. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining the iPhone 4's display:
"The display of the iPhone 4 is designed by Apple and is manufactured by LG. It features an LED backlit TFT LCD capacitive touchscreen with a pixel density of 326 pixels per inch (ppi) on a 3.5 in (8.9 cm) (diagonally measured), 960×640 display. Each pixel is 78 micrometres in width. The display has a contrast ratio of 800:1. The screen is marketed by Apple as the "Retina Display", based on the assertion that a display of approximately 300 ppi at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm) from one's eye is the maximum amount of detail that the human retina can process.[35] With the iPhone expected to be used at a distance of about 12 inches from the eyes, a higher resolution would allegedly have no effect on the image's apparent quality as the maximum potential of the human eye has already been met. This claim has been disputed. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, said in an interview with Wired Magazine, that the claims by Jobs are something of an exaggeration: "It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far." Soneira stated that the resolution of the human retina is higher than claimed by Apple, working out to 477 ppi at 12 inches (305 mm) from the eyes.[36]
However, Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine.
S Amoled plus anyone?
domineus said:
S Amoled plus anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those
revrak said:
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hang out for the new organic display tech. It sounds like each dot can be any color, rather than having each pixel made up of red, green, blue separate dots. If this is the case, the definition will shoot through the roof.
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Lightemitting+Material+May+Usher+in+Era+of+Cheap+OLEDs/article20915.htm
MartyLK said:
I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such a screen size would be appropriate only if they change drastically their UI. Just think where usually are the main navigation controls on the iPhone - on the upper side of the screen. I am struggling to navigate comfortably with one hand on 3.5”, cannot imagine how can do that on bigger size. So much for the vaunted apple UI…
What is the highest resolution that WP7 supports? It seems strange that even Samsung do not want to increase the pixels on their new models announced at MWC. I feel WVGA is too 'basic' and not as pin sharp.
amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".
MartyLK said:
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.
Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
was the toshiba device the e900 series? i believe it was a 3.2 WVGA screen, so it had a high pixel density on a mere 3.2 inch screen. Correct me if i'm wrong.
revrak said:
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, it doesn't matter.
The iphone screen is 3.5" diagonal and 5.78 square inches, according to google. I can't find a screen size for the Epic though, beyond that it is 4.0" diagonal.
A ruler with one eye closed is giving me 3.375" x 2" or 6.75 square inches.
Has anyone found official height x width or surface area specs for the Epic 4g screen, that would not have any measurement errors I could have introduced or discrepancies based on my individual phone?
garyf said:
The iphone screen is 3.5" diagonal and 5.78 square inches, according to google. I can't find a screen size for the Epic though, beyond that it is 4.0" diagonal.
A ruler with one eye closed is giving me 3.375" x 2" or 6.75 square inches.
Has anyone found official height x width or surface area specs for the Epic 4g screen, that would not have any measurement errors I could have introduced or discrepancies based on my individual phone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To what end do you need to know these dimensions with such carefully specific tolerances?
I used this calculator .... http://www.silisoftware.com/tools/screen.php ..... If the aspect ratio is 16:10 for a 4in diag. its a full screen area of 7.19 sq. in. (2.12x3.39).
RandomKing said:
To what end do you need to know these dimensions with such carefully specific tolerances?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey RandomKing I use your RandomRom Phoenix and it's working great. I figure I'll move to a GB RandomRom in mid-December after things have settled down for a while.
I'm just curious about how much more surface area Epic 4g has than iphone. The calculator says 24% more, eyeballing said it was only 16% more. A significant difference.
Official specs are nowhere to be found but now that there is an answer it'll be easier for the next curious person to find.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Interestingly, going by pixel densities, we can get Apple's 5.78 square inches as 960 x 540 / 326 / 326 = 5.78
Doing the same for the Epic, we get 800 x 480 / 233 / 233 = 7.07
233 is the only figure anyone on the web seems to use for the Epic's ppi. Maybe it comes from Samsung.
I'm going to call 22% bigger my final answer.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
I know the S5 has been tested to jave the best "sunlight / ambient light readable" screen of any Android phone.
Can someone tell me how the M8 compares to it, or how it compares to the Note 3 phone which was the previous champ for how easy it was to read/view in direct sunlight? The Note 3 was much better than the M7 apparently.
And blew away the S4 (which is my current phone and it sucks in sunlight).
EDIT: Nevermind, a quick google search gave me the answer to the Note 3 comparison. And the M8 nits of 490 are comparable to the S5's normal nits, but the S5 is capable of higher nit bursts which = better sunlight readability if the screen has less glare.
http://www.phonearena.com/reviews/HTC-One-M8-vs-Samsung-Galaxy-Note-3_id3648
Utilizing different display technologies, they each have their strong attributes. Comparing the colors they produce, the Note 3’s oversaturated tones have an iridescent glow that instantly gets our attention, but the colors aren’t nearly as accurate as the colors produced by the HTC One M8’s LCD-based display. Viewing angles, though, go to the Note 3 mainly because it retains its vividness more. However, when it comes to outdoor visibility, the stronger 490 nits of brightness from the One M8’s panel is more visible than the weaker 360 nits of brightness pumped out by the Note 3.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, there is conflicting info out there.
http://www.laptopmag.com/reviews/smartphones/htc-one-m8.aspx
At 460 lux (447 nits), the HTC One M8's display is brighter than the average smartphone, which reached just 405 lux. The LG G2 topped out at 351 lux, while the original HTC One hit 375 lux. Samsung's Galaxy S4 and the iPhone 5s, however, proved brighter than the One M8, hitting 480 lux and 500 lux, respectively.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Recently got this tab for the high resolution screen but have been disappointed by the Facebook app the pictures are pixelated and videos any way to load them higher resolution ???
bilalrashid said:
Recently got this tab for the high resolution screen but have been disappointed by the Facebook app the pictures are pixelated and videos any way to load them higher resolution ???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Facebook app is actually designed for phones. They haven't created a tablet style version of the app yet, so you're better of viewing things in portrait mode on Facebook or try and use the website rather than the app.
Pictures are automatically compressed and loose quality when they've been uploaded to Facebook so that maybe a factor although it pretty much comes down to what the other user (who you're viewing the media from) is using to take pictures or video's and how they're uploading them. It looks perfectly fine on my Tab S.
Just because your screen is a resolution of 2560 x 1600 this doesn't mean that when a person takes a 1920 x 1080 video it will look any better than on a 2560 x 1600 screen. It should actually look a bit worse as it's 2x the pixels of 1920 x 1080 and thus your tablet is having to use 4 pixels for every one pixel that would be used on 1920 x 1080 native screen. This makes images look slightly more blocky when they're not the native resolution of the screen, though this problem is harder to see on a tablet screen due to the size of them. It's hard to describe but I've done my best.
The main area's of advantage you'll get out of a high pixel screen and the AMOLED is from better colour reproductions, clearer UI and better looking webpages/books when reading.
Hope this helps If it does give me a thanks!
And here I thought I was the only one with Facebook video problems. I am glad to know it was not my tablet acting up.