maemo.org - Talk - View Single Post

	Kangal	2010-10-16 , 23:50
	Posts: 1,789 \| Thanked: 1,699 times \| Joined on Mar 2010	#35

Now, sorry that last post was long. I just wanted to give you as much info as possible why I prefer a trimmed bezel on the landscape-side (holding-portrait) and why so on a 10" screen (readability, less zooming needed, links are easier to press and avoid).

This third section will involve resolution density (PPI values for short).

I've already discussed this and my stance is that a perfect tablet is 1366x768 on a 10" tablet. However, I've discussed why a 1024x600 on a 10" tablet is low-resolution but sufficient for a tablet, and more desired over a medium-resolution 1024x600 7" tablet. So instead I'm just going to let you flip back one-page to read it, and I will reply to the comments.

Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st

To be honest, I completely disagree. The whole benefit of a high PPI screen is that you have trouble seeing individual pixels - Things look "smooth" vs "chunky".

Agreed. And like I've said before, this is a personal choice for everyone: do you prefer:
1) seeing things more easily, avoid hitting things easily and easily hit things but get slightly "chunky" graphics.
2) seeing things harder, able to accidentally hit things more often, able to miss hitting things more often but get "smoother" graphics.

Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st

I have a ~100ppi 23" desktop screen(1920x1080), and at a distance of 18" or so, I can see individual pixels clearly; a single pixel out of place on a font looks bad, and if something's spaced slightly off its easily noticeable.

Are you Superman, a dbz character or a cyborg of some sort?!?
edit: sorry I misread your comment, yes I would notice slight "chunkiness" of a 100PPI display that is 45cm from my eyes. I thought it was 123PPI at 57cm from your eyes (sorry I'm tired).

Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st

My N900 is even better - I really have to strain to see individual pixels, and AA on games isn't even really required for it to appear sharp and clear; On my desktop screen, 4XAA is required for a game to look good. On my laptop, 2X is sort of required.

Yes the more pixel density the better. But remember there is a limitation: your eyes and the CPU+RAM+GPU on the device. The more pixels you have, the more power you need, the less battery life you will get. On the topic of AA, you are comparing Apples to Oranges!

Originally Posted by RobbieThe1st

So, in conclusion, I completely disagree, and don't think you know what you know what you are talking about.

You are free to say what ever you want, but I respectfully disagree and so does my justifications. Let's agree to disagree?

Originally Posted by ysss

I think the pitfall here is how this particular feature is 'classed'. When you say something is 'necessary' or not, then you get very2 subjective.

ie: Is it a necessity for anyone here to own a 7 or 10" internet tablet?

I see what you did there. But all kidding aside, a high PPI does nothing but make things look smooth. I would love a Retina-display, would I need it, no. And think of other advantages you get with medium-resolution over high-resolution... like cost.

Originally Posted by ysss

Generally I agree. But the distance can vary a lot and there's one more element here that I think is crucial, which was the saving grace of past iPhone\Touch's low ppi screens:

- Zoom capability of the OS. (How fast, how easy, how available)

Yes I also pondered about this. But remember Android has pinch-to-zoom (and a great one at that, besting the iOS). And if you think outside-the-box, Windows has that natively within the explorer and so does webrowsers like Firefox. Good point, but one we don't need to worry about in this case.

Originally Posted by ysss

Yes, because you're comparing a 4:3 screen with a 16:9 screen. It's not a direct ppi comparison, you're unnecessarily introducing another element in this comparison.

Woops, sorry. I didn't mean the aspect ratio, I meant the PPI, as long as the message was successfully understood. Btw the PPI comparison between those two would be 160PPI vs 196PPI, and yes the difference between the two is hard to distinguish when its used at the intended distance from eyes.

Originally Posted by ysss

@VGA on 5": Subjective. People may mistake this to you having less sensitivity to high quality picture or having low standards.

I love HD. As for standards; I own a Samsung Galaxy S. This discussion is about why standard def is "acceptable". I've stated before 1366x768 (720p) on 10" is what I want, but if I have to settle for 1024x600, that is acceptable to a person of my techh-calibre.

Originally Posted by ysss

iPad's resolution is not bad, but I am quite certain Jobs will put retina-class display on the next one. I certainly could use a higher ppi on the iPad when reading publications (ie: zinio) on it.

Agreed, iPad's 132PPI display is good/nice. About the next generation iPad, I agree with Capt'NCrunch

Originally Posted by retsaw

Now, to address the rest of your post, it is all based on a flawed assumption about viewing distance. I can tell you that I typically hold my N900 between 10-20 cm from my face; while I may struggle to see individual pixels at 20 cm, I can see them at 10, therefore >220 PPI clearly isn't too much since the N900 has 266 PPI and I can still see individual pixels.

I don't know about you but I've applied to be in the army and been through all the physical examinations and they told me I've got 20/20 vision. I want to keep it that way, that is why I keep my laptop and phone at the distance they were meant to be used. The laptop is exactly an arms length, my SGS is half of that. I haven't seen many people in the public keep their phones closer than that; a distance of roughly 38cm (I just measured!). And so it is completely valid that a tablet be used at a distance of 40/50cm (any closer and you'll get square-eyes

I will reiterate, the more the pixels; the merrier. But you do get to a point where we get greedy and those extra pixels mean nothing to the user experience (eg iPhone4 vs Galaxy S resolutions). If you can see individual pixels on your N900 on the homescreen etc, you have dead-pixels, or get that thing out from your face, or you are a Superhero/villian (and I'm gald to meet you).

Originally Posted by retsaw

At one point in your post you make the assumption that a 10" tablet would be used at 50cm, I don't have my netbook screen that far away when I'm actually using it (unless I'm watching video), so why on earth would I stretch my arm to hold a tablet at that distance. For a tablet computer, if the resolution is so high I can't see the detail I can bring it closer to my face, there is a point where increased resolution will be superfluous and it does depend on viewing distance, however most devices these days (generally excepting TVs) don't come close.

Agreed that high PPI allows you to peek closer into the device (as discussed in my first post). I don't have my iPad anymore (I sold that and my netbook for a Acer 4810TG... great upgrade), BUT when I hold the screen like I would when I used the iPad the distance is 46cm (I measured just now). At that distance my arms are extended but not fully. It's like 3/4 the distance I use my 14" laptop, and its comfortable, and this is the distance I used the iPad and seen people use the iPad (unless they're trying to draw a picture with their fingers, that's always amusing to watch).

Have I left any other areas of discussion?
If not can we discuss this now because I think its great and I think it would make a perfect experience on a tablet.

Last edited by Kangal; 2010-10-16 at 23:58.

Quote & Reply |