Evo screen pixel density

[Aragorn]

A lot of hay is being made over the iPhone4's 326 ppi screen density. I was just curious, for comparison purposes, what's the pixel density of the Evo screen? This would be an easy calculation to do if I knew what the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the screen were, but I can't seem to find that information anywhere.

If anyone knows the pixel density or even just the exact X and Y dimensions of the screen, I'd appreciate the help.

 

[Tikerz]

It has a 4.3" WVGA screen which is (800x480). It's in all the reviews.

 

[Aragorn]

It has a 4.3" WVGA screen which is (800x480). It's in all the reviews.

I'm well aware of its diagonal measurement and the pixel resolution. But, I need to know the screen area in order to calculate the density. In order to calculate the area I need to know the horizontal and vertical dimensions, not the diagonal.

...and I really don't want to have to bust out Pythagoras.

 

[AJ_EVO]

According to this thread: HTC EVO Killing iPhone -

Monitor (Samsung 2343BW) = 2048x1152 @ 23" = 102.16 PPI
Laptop (Sony VAIO) = 1600x900 @ 13.1" = 140.13 PPI
HTC Evo 4G = 480x800 @ 4.3" = 216.97 PPI
HTC Droid = 854x480 @ 3.7" = 264.77 PPI

I don't know if those numbers are correct.

 

[jkid23]

As much as PPI density is great, keep in mind that the human eye can only see in a limited spectrum, going above it will not improve how well you see images. Similar to the number of colors the human eye can see, which is why there has no been no 64bit color.

 

[Aragorn]

AJ_EVO: I just came to that same calculation of 216.966. So, looks like those numbers are accurate.

jkid: Apparently the true maximum resolution the eye can see at 12 inches is about 477ppi.

What prompted me to calculate this number is this article over at Wired: iPhone 4’s ‘Retina’ Display Claims Are False Marketing | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Basically, they talked to a physicist about the limits of the human eye and even Apple isn't at the limit yet.

 

[phearx]

AJ_EVO: I just came to that same calculation of 216.966. So, looks like those numbers are accurate.

jkid: Apparently the true maximum resolution the eye can see at 12 inches is about 477ppi.

What prompted me to calculate this number is this article over at Wired: iPhone 4

 

[Aragorn]

Not only that but Apple claimed they quadrupled the number of pixels in this new iphone compared to the 3gs, when in reality it was only doubled.

No, they did in fact quadruple the number of pixels. That was indeed an accurate statement.

When you double the number of pixels in each dimension you have in fact quadrupled the number of pixels.

320x480 = 153,600 pixels
640x960 = 614,400 pixels

 

[tmaxey1]

i'm curious to see the new iphone display. What i am wondering is on a 3.5 inch screen how close to my eye do i really have to hold the phone to notice a difference. That would be a better indicator.

I think its going to be like 1080p vs 720p/1080i in tv's. They did a blind study and people just couldnt tell which display was 1080p and which display was 720p/1080i.

I think this will be the results.

Now would you rather watch a 42 inch 1080p tv or a 60inch 720P/1080i tv?

I think that will be a better indicator. I want size over pixels.


I just am not interested in a 3.5 inch screen. Its too small after playing with the EVO. Regardless of pixels or any fancy name apple is using to try to brand a screen.

 

[mrk]

As much as PPI density is great, keep in mind that the human eye can only see in a limited spectrum, going above it will not improve how well you see images. Similar to the number of colors the human eye can see, which is why there has no been no 64bit color.

True, but spectra have absolutely nothing to do with higher pixel density. The iPhone 4's display is horrendously sharp and beautiful--there's no need to make excuses for anything.

 

[sagedil]

i'm curious to see the new iphone display. What i am wondering is on a 3.5 inch screen how close to my eye do i really have to hold the phone to notice a difference. That would be a better indicator.

I think its going to be like 1080p vs 720p/1080i in tv's. They did a blind study and people just couldnt tell which display was 1080p and which display was 720p/1080i.

I think this will be the results.

Now would you rather watch a 42 inch 1080p tv or a 60inch 720P/1080i tv?

I think that will be a better indicator. I want size over pixels.


I just am not interested in a 3.5 inch screen. Its too small after playing with the EVO. Regardless of pixels or any fancy name apple is using to try to brand a screen.

Completely agree.

Was just talking with Debra 30 minuted ago and was telling her that I was excited by what Apple had done, want display technology pushed. But why didn't Jobs put that technology in a 4.3 phone.

I can never go back. Am in Charleston and killing Google navigation. No way s smaller screen would let me use it and drive. 4.3 just makes it possible to see what I need to at a glance.

 

[ragebot]

Keep in mind that everyone who has 20/20 vision does not see equally well. When I was in the military I saw guys who had great vision not get accepted to flight school because of what seemed to me minor color blindness. Not to say this happens to everyone, but I normally take off my glasses when I am sitting down and using my Evo for more than five minutes. At my age I know I do not see nearly as well as I use to, and the classic image of a nerd is the guy with Coke bottle glasses.

As was pointed out earlier in a blind test lots of peeps could not say which display was 720 and which was 1080.

I am sure the iPhone 4 has a great screen, but I would not bet the farm I could pick which display was the iPhone and which was the Evo.

 

[MisterEd]

The difference in screen densities is as important as if you had a 20megapixel and a 5megapixel camera and produced only a 3" x 4" print.

The screens are so tiny (either 3.5" or 4.3") that unless you have supervision it won't mean a thing. I wouldn't make a decision based only on screen density. It's marketing hype just like the "megapixel myth."

 

[Eve Oh]

I look at i like this.

The Evo screen looks fine to me (so did the Pre screen). The screen was never an issue. I don't find myself saying "wait a minute...i CAN SEE THAT PIXEL!!!"

Which means the whole "retina display" bs is just that, BS. It's an entirely moot point for me and I certainly wouldnt buy a phone predicated on that "Feature" alone.

 

[Cobravision]

I was having a back and forth with an iPhone zombie the other day, and since it's the only part of the iPhone that outspecs its competitors, 329 ppi was all of a sudden the most important thing in the world and basically the line at which something is acceptable or unacceptable. It took me a while, but I finally got the point home that if I can't see any pixels on the EVO at 216 ppi, making that number higher won't do anything to make the screen look clearer, since once I pass the point where I can no longer discern pixel structure, it can't get any sharper.

Now he claims he can see the pixels. I know he's ever even held an EVO, so all I could do was laugh.

 

[legacy]

Go look at the screen on one. It is pretty amazing. Can't wait for our phones to get higer res displays.

 

[Cobravision]

I've seen them. It's not the res as it is the brightness and contrast that makes them pop.

 

[RoboMonkey]

I'd love it it they made a display program to adjust screens for astigmastim.
Not having to were glasses all day would rock.

 

[Cobravision]

Now would you rather watch a 42 inch 1080p tv or a 60inch 720P/1080i tv?

I think that will be a better indicator. I want size over pixels.

That's the exact analogy I used to explain the difference to someone the other day. Except, according to my calculations, the EVO screen is 44% larger in area than the iPhone, which is like a 40" 1080p TV versus a 58" 720p TV. If you consider that the iPhone is a 1.5 ratio screen, 16:9 programming requires black bars on the top and bottom. If you take the letterboxing into consideration (including the sliver of letterboxing the 800 X 480 screen has), 16:9 video on an EVO is 60% larger than the on the iPhone. That's the difference between a 40" 1080p TV and a 64" 720p set. That is a complete no-brainer for me.

 

[Jonhern]

i'm curious to see the new iphone display. What i am wondering is on a 3.5 inch screen how close to my eye do i really have to hold the phone to notice a difference. That would be a better indicator.

I think its going to be like 1080p vs 720p/1080i in tv's. They did a blind study and people just couldnt tell which display was 1080p and which display was 720p/1080i.

I think this will be the results.

Now would you rather watch a 42 inch 1080p tv or a 60inch 720P/1080i tv?

I think that will be a better indicator. I want size over pixels.


I just am not interested in a 3.5 inch screen. Its too small after playing with the EVO. Regardless of pixels or any fancy name apple is using to try to brand a screen.

Yeah, but from first hand experience some people can't tell the difference between HD and SD, so i wouldn't take this study seriously imho. But yeah, at small size i don't think the density makes a huge difference, just like the colors the display has. Was at VZ the other day and side by side with the incredible there was no real difference except for size of course.

 

[Minjin]

You guys who don't care about pixel density, would you have still bought the Evo if it had a 400x240 resolution?

Why do people need to put down a feature of another phone to feel better about theirs? I would kill for the iPhone's pixel density and screen quality on an Evo. It having a better screen doesn't diminish the Evo and I'm sure going forward, phones will continue to have better and better resolutions. There's a reason why I use an 11.6in laptop with a 720p screen. Because you can never have too much resolution and higher pixel density is a very good thing.

 

[EarlyMon]

You guys who don't care about pixel density, would you have still bought the Evo if it had a 400x240 resolution?

Why do people need to put down a feature of another phone to feel better about theirs? I would kill for the iPhone's pixel density and screen quality on an Evo. It having a better screen doesn't diminish the Evo and I'm sure going forward, phones will continue to have better and better resolutions. There's a reason why I use an 11.6in laptop with a 720p screen. Because you can never have too much resolution and higher pixel density is a very good thing.

Because there's such a thing as diminishing returns.

Your eyes resolve only down to a certain level - it's measured as a fraction of degree (as in 360 degrees).

Your eyes can focus only so close to your face.

The retinal display is a pixel density so small that your eye cannot focus before it loses its ability to dis-integrate the picture into dots.

As I hold my phone at roughly 3/4 of arm's length, the dot pitch on the phone is already quite invisible.

You can increase it by a factor of 100 and it still won't make a difference.

Invisible is invisible.

And I'm more than happy to hate on anyone who wants to make this into some kind of big deal - because it just isn't.

Are you familiar with the SMPTE charts for HD resolution and seating distance from a given screen of a given density? How about for the HDGuru's mods to that? How about the THX mods to that?

How about how the Apple Retinal Display goes stoopidly overboard against any known visual standard?

No - I didn't think you knew thing one about any of that.

Everyone single one of you that thinks this is in any way important needs to go tell the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers what they've gotten wrong as an intensive discipline and you need to go share with them your cell phone Nirvana, thanks to your drinking the Apple Kool Aide and loving it.

Yes - you can have too much resolution.

Place your 720p laptop and a 900 line laptop a football field's length away from you. You'll only have one effective pixel at that distance - maybe 4 if you have eagle eyes. Should you then buy the 900 line one?

You balance resolution - and its cost - against the viewing distance.

My football field away example is totally absurd.

As is resolution that doesn't decompose below your focus subthreshold.

Exactly as absurd.

Let's compare something really important.

Let's compare how long the frakking power cable is that comes with each phone.

I can't wait for 20 of those threads.

How about button size? None of you have started lecturing us on button size, now that's really important, too.

Please tell me advance that what Apple has to say about those subjects matter - I freakin' dare you.

:grrrrr:

PS - And if anyone's still not getting it: Apple came out with the Retinal Display resolution precisely to incite this form of stupidity. They knew that Android was coming in multiple models with LARGE screens, there was nothing they could do about it in time, so this was their fallback position.

I'm not apologizing - the EVO and the Droid X are not the ones with the fallback position.

The iPhone's greater screen vibrancy comes from being a smaller screen, not resolution - they're all TFT LCDs.

Hold an Evo far enough away so that it is proportionately the same size as your sacred iPhone within the same field of view. Match brightness on the two. At most - you'll notice an overall color difference. Nothing more. Nada. Zip. Nuthin.

This is so elementary in the world in of displays, it hurts.

 

[EarlyMon]

AJ_EVO: I just came to that same calculation of 216.966. So, looks like those numbers are accurate.

jkid: Apparently the true maximum resolution the eye can see at 12 inches is about 477ppi.

What prompted me to calculate this number is this article over at Wired: iPhone 4’s ‘Retina’ Display Claims Are False Marketing | Gadget Lab | Wired.com

Basically, they talked to a physicist about the limits of the human eye and even Apple isn't at the limit yet.

Soneira - the guy in the article - has a Ph.D. in physics, a career in television, and presently makes money selling calibration solutions for displays.

He's a great guy, per his published words, but he's not infallible (I can cite references to this if it's really that important to anyone - my point is, yes, he's no fool, but neither do his word rise above fact-checking, no one has that throne) and neither is he above making his point in his own way.

He knows full well - and left out of that article - that:

• visual acuity is influenced by brightness
• and that no one can relate to cycles

How about this for a rule of thumb for visual acuity? The eye resolves down to about one arc-minute. Soneira arrives at 477 ppi at 12" - I come up with 445 ppi, but I may have missed something, I was counting on my fingers.

Oh - did we leave out the part that this application is for a display emitting light as opposed to reflecting it? Did we leave out the part that that form of measurement was intended for static lines?

Try it for yourself, boys and girls - tell me how close you - personally - have to get to make out individual pixels reliably on your Evo.

Use the white lettering below your home screen icons identifying the widget or app.

Measure it out at 12". Use your kickstand.

And tell me if you see solid, crisp lines on the small text at 12" or if you see dots.

Now - pull it in to 6" from your face.

Now - put it at your usual distance of usage.

And tell me if a little common sense and a simple experiment you can do all by yourself won't just poke holes in this latest display myth.

And tell me if Soneira and Wired aren't making money by just cashing in on Apple hype.

Yes - there is such a thing as wasted resolution.

And in all of the slight of hand, they left out this detail, pretty well known in HDTV circles - certainly well-known by Soneira, as he too has published on this, as I recall -

What are the contributors to perceived detail, in order of importance?

According to the Imaging Science Foundation, the four contributors to perceived visual detail, in order, are:

1. Contrast ratio
2. Color saturation
3. Color accuracy
4. Resolution

Resolution is the dead-last contributor to perceived detail.

What does it tell you when that's the #1 thing that someone touts trying to get you believe their display has higher detail?

What does it tell you when you start to believe them instead of looking up a few facts outside of the script they're giving you to read from?

Think independently.

Think Android.

 

[Cobravision]

You guys who don't care about pixel density, would you have still bought the Evo if it had a 400x240 resolution?

Why do people need to put down a feature of another phone to feel better about theirs? I would kill for the iPhone's pixel density and screen quality on an Evo. It having a better screen doesn't diminish the Evo and I'm sure going forward, phones will continue to have better and better resolutions. There's a reason why I use an 11.6in laptop with a 720p screen. Because you can never have too much resolution and higher pixel density is a very good thing.

First off, no one is saying that resolution itself doesn't matter. But as EarlyMon pointed out in great detail, there is a point where you can add as many pixels as you want, but it won't make the slightest bit of difference. That point is when you no longer see pixels or pixel structure. And the EVO screen, even with its "mere" 216 ppi density, achieves that mark. Many people, especially the koolaid drinkers and people who overspend on Monster Cable, think that the resolution is the reason why the i4 looks the way it does. It looks the way it does because of the high brightness and contrast of the screen. Also, they were used to the previous iPhone's 165 ppi, which indeed had viewable pixel structure up close. They are trying to lump that screen in with the EVO screen and brand it as a last generation resolution, but in truth, the EVO screen, even at 4.3", has 30% higher ppi, and more importantly, crossed that barrier between visible pixels and non-visible pixels. It's ironic that Apple is trying to sidestep the MP spec war (that's all hype) and started a ppi spec war (that's all hype). There are a dozen things I'd rather upgrade on the EVO than screen resolution.

BTW, I find it interesting that you are touting your 720p laptop screen, because the pixel density for a 1280 X 720 resolution at 11.6 inches is 127 ppi, (and actually less than the 3G's 165 ppi). And yet you assume that the EVO screen is lacking at almost twice the ppi of your laptop? Of course, you hold your laptop further away from your eyes than a phone, but if you're stuck on numbers on spec sheets, there you go.

Someone is going to come out with a 1200 X 720 screen just shut up Apple and the gullible. And frankly, it will be a wasted effort, because of this simple rule -- once you cannot see pixels, increasing ppi it will not make the picture any better. I can't see the pixels on the EVO screen, can you?

I don't hate on the iPhone 4 screen because there's nothing wrong with it, but I can totally hate on the hype that surrounds it. Because not only is it the Monster Cable of smartphone screens, it's the only thing that the iPhone crowd talks about anymore. Because it's the only thing that isn't being outspecced by the flagship Android phones.

 

[apinkel]

I went into check out an iphone 4 the other day... the screen didn't make an impression on me one way or another, it seemed sharp but nothing that was markedly improved over any other modern smartphone when viewed at normal distances.

The feel of the hardware and the smoothness of the software was really nice but the screen dpi? Can't believe people are so hung up on such a small improvement. Stupid.