Smaller screen on 3d??

[italygrl1]

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??

 

[themuffinman75]

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??

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.

 

[novox77]

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??

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.

 

[EarlyMon]

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.

 

[you2]

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).

 

[novox77]

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]

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aspect_ratio_(image)#Cinema_terminology

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).

 

[drexappeal]

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).

 

[BenChase7]

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).

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.

 

[drexappeal]

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.

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.

 

[lordofthereef]

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).

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

 

[EarlyMon]

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.

 

[lordofthereef]

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

 

[italygrl1]

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.

 

[EarlyMon]

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.