This article attempted to explain that due to pixel density of 18.5:9 ratio on the Galaxy S8 the screen was much smaller than a normal 16:9 ratioed phone screen. He came up with this using basic math but the wrong principle. In his conclusion he used area as a way of describing the two phone sizes. He also used mm2 for ease.
What he should have done was simply measured the number of pixels for the diagonal line (A2+B2=C2) and measured the number of pixels for a and b to compare with c. This would be more telling of if a screen is better than another. Today's phones have reached a maximum on how large the "should" be. Obviously there is wiggle room of up to 2" inches from around the value of 5.5". This means some of the cheaper low-end phones will at some point also reach these ranges of screen size (5.5" to around 7.5"). But what matters is screen density. The smaller the pixels of a phone screen, the better it is. This means phone manufacturers should stop worrying about inches in diameter, but rather how many pixels in that diagonal line there are.
With the S8 having more pixels per square inch, you know it's going to have a better display than a normal 16:9 ratioed phone screen. When it comes to next year's flagship phone manufacturers products, you can bet that this will be a topic. The reason being: all high-end phones now have to break the barrier of a 16:9 ratio, they need smaller pixels that consumes less voltage per square inch. The cascading effect being a thinner screen and then a thinner battery.
Submitted March 31, 2017 at 07:42PM by Itsnotmeitsmyself http://ift.tt/2oj1oTc via TikTokTikk
No comments:
Post a Comment