1. Download the #1 Android News App:   EarlyBird - News for Android
    Dismiss Notice

Smaller screen on 3d??General

Last Updated:

  1. italygrl1

    italygrl1 Well-Known Member

    Is the screen on the 3d smaller than on the evo? I know they both say 4.3 but the 3d looks more narrow and i was watching a youtube video from when they revelealed the phone and the person recording says so its a little smaller and narrower than the evo and they guy confirms...This was a month ago this video..Couold anything have changed by then or is it just a smaller screen?

    How are they both 4.3 if thats so??

    EarlyMon likes this.
  2. themuffinman75

    themuffinman75 Well-Known Member

    The evo 3d has 540*960 resolution and the evo 4g is 480*800 which means the evo 3d screen has a slightly different screen ratio more inline with an actual wide screen, because of that the evo 3d's screen will be slightly more narrow but also slighter longer.
    EarlyMon likes this.
  3. novox77

    novox77 Leeeroy Jennnkinnns! VIP Member

    What muffinman said is correct. The ratio between length and width has changed.

    Evo: 800x480 = 15:9 aspect ratio
    Evo 3d: 960x540 = 16:9 aspect ratio

    Another way to visualize the difference is this:

    Imagine you have a square screen and the diagonal is 4.3." Definitely possible right? The difference is that the diagonal is at 45 degrees.

    The other extreme is if your diagonal is almost vertical. Then you would have a length that is almost 4.3" and a width that is very very short. Essentially a tall, thin rectangle that still has a 4.3" diagonal.

    So you actually have infinite aspect ratios that satisfy the 4.3" diagonal requirement. It's basically just changing the shape of the rectangle.

    But you bring up a good point. The Evo 3D's screen IS smaller than the Evo 4G's in physical area. For a given fixed diagonal, like 4.3", the screen with the maximum physical area is one that is square. This is a fundamental property of geometry. Evo 3D chose the current screen dimensions because it is a multiple of the HD standard.
  4. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    Using geometry, we can also arrive at the final dimension - or you can just use this handy calculator, like I did - Screen Aspect Ratio & Dimension Calculator

    Evo @ 15:9 w/ 4.3" -> 2.21" x 3.69" -> Area = 8.16 sq. in.
    E3D @ 16:9 w/ 4.3" -> 2.11" x 3.75" -> Area = 7.90 sq. in.

    Evo dimensions verified by my 10ths ruler. ;)

    Total area difference - probably about two of these: ;) on most screens viewing this post.
    novox77 likes this.
  5. you2

    you2 Well-Known Member

    On the other hand (at least for me) I favor a slightly narrower but longer screen (droid x had this) because it I find it more advantages for web viewing. That's the same reason I prefer 16:10 over 16:9 for a computer monitor (which I use horizontally) because I favor the extra height. Of course this is personal taste and there is no right answer here (though media (video) publishers tend to favor 16:9).
    EarlyMon likes this.
  6. novox77

    novox77 Leeeroy Jennnkinnns! VIP Member

    I think the loss in vertical height between 16:9 and 16:10 on a 4.3" screen is negligible. Some people are really bothered by black bars when they watch movies on a screen. Me, not so much. I too prefer more height (when held in landscape orientation) so the 16:9 is slightly less desirable. But again, it's such a small difference that I won't notice.
    EarlyMon likes this.
  7. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    Plus - many think there's really only one widescreen theater format - not true.


    So - 16x9 is a pretty good compromise.

    Besides - too many people whined about letterbox back in the day (wah, I have black bars, so I'm missing some of the move!), so we ended with all sorts of editing down to 4:3 - and now I'm constantly seeing HD movies for TV edited down from 2.40:1 to 16:9.


    Oh well - the Evo at 15:9 was a good compromise given that it was essentially a wide 480p (15:9 is aka 5:3, 480 vid is 4:3), and the new qHD is a better compromise for modern content.

    Just makes less scaling needed for many programs (and less scaling = less processing = a _chance_ for less loss of quality (that's theory - not sure it _really_ matters on a 4.3" display) - and _maybe_ less processing means better battery life (again, theoretically)).

    Scaling full HD to qHD is just divide by 2 in both dimensions (although - video scaler firmware is way more advanced than most imagine, I've (over)simplified to make the point).
  8. drexappeal

    drexappeal Well-Known Member

    Interesting points. Seems to me, that if the phone is a little more narrow, it might be easier to hold than the EVO (although, I know that won't necessarily apply for those that have Michael Jordan sized hands...LOL).
  9. BenChase7

    BenChase7 VIP Member VIP Member

    since the 4.5in screen is narrower, but taller, I think you would be right. And from some of the reviews I've seen, at least one reviewer mentioned the EVO 3D is easier to manipulate.
  10. drexappeal

    drexappeal Well-Known Member

    I'm just glad the top of the phone doesn't protrude like the Droid X does (which, to me, made it more difficult to hold the Droid X). Overall, if the EVO 3D is easier to hold in one hand than the current EVO, then that's definitely another plus for me.

    I still am hoping there'll be dumby phones available in the stores soon, so I can compare to the current EVO.
  11. lordofthereef

    lordofthereef Well-Known Member

    I thought this too, but was corrected. The pyhiscal dimension of the phone (width) is exactly the same as the EVO 4G)
    drexappeal likes this.
  12. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    Screen itself is .1" narrower.

    Looked at another way - 5/100" were trimmed from each side of the display, 3/100" were added at the top and bottom.

    Fun with numbers. ;) :D
  13. lordofthereef

    lordofthereef Well-Known Member

    Either way, it does LOOK easier to hold. I guess it was just an optical illusion being that it is a bit lankier.
  14. italygrl1

    italygrl1 Well-Known Member

    Thanks everyone.I didnt think of it being easier to hold which actually makes it seem better now..I also would rather it be longer so that the screen will be wider when held sideways.
  15. EarlyMon

    EarlyMon The PearlyMon Moderator

    Evo 4G dimensions - 4.8 x 2.6 x 0.5 inches

    Evo 3D dimensions - 5.0 x 2.6 x 0.47 inches

    As the screen's longer dimension increased by on only 6/100", the other 14/100" are for other.

    All in all - this has more bezel than the Evo.

    Both are 6 ounces.

    Don't see how one would feel a difference holding either one, but that's just me.

Share This Page