Screen for P2

[Exophase]

Another example: in NubNub I'm actually trying to compensate for ghosting in software, by drawing moving lines more brightly than static lines so they visually look the same. The compensation I have to do is quite large: I'm drawing non-moving lines at an alpha of 120, while I use an alpha of 200 for moving lines.

Be sure to get some other people to test this. It's possible there's non-negligible variation between screens. I don't know this first hand but reports of how bad the ghosting is vary a lot. That could just be down to subjectivity but it's hard to believe when there are people who say they can't notice ghosting at all..

 

[Binky]

very what?

 

[Exophase]

very what?

Was in the middle of writing it and got called off to do something and hit post or something

 

[Binky]

ah

 

[traylorpark]

So, I wanted to throw my hat into this thread...

I was playing Heroes of Might and Magic 2 just the other day ... and despite the game running mostly great, I can't play it. Why? The game has loads of tiny single pixel details and my eyes were straining to see them. I wanted a bigger screen to play on, not a higher resolution screen.

Just be careful in this pursuit of high resolution screens, those details are gonna get really tiny unless software is programmed to be resolution independent.

Oh, also the size of the Panda 2 MUST NOT be increased! Move the speakers.

 

[Mr_Loon]

Thought that this might help when considering the merits of various aspect ratios. The image is for comparison purposes to show the overall impact on screen width & height for the different aspect ratios of a screen with a 5 inch diagonal. The black rectangle has a 4:3 aspect ratio, the red rectangle has a 16:10 aspect ratio, the green rectangle has a 16:9 aspect ratio. The rectangles are stacked one on top of the other and are aligned on the bottom left corner.

Aspect Ratio 4:3 Screen Width = 4", Screen Height = 3", screen area (square inches) = 12
Aspect Ratio 16:10 Screen Width = 4.26", Screen Height = 2.65", screen area (square inches) = 11.29
Aspect Ratio 16:9 Screen Width = 4.36", Screen Height = 2.45", screen area (square inches) = 10.68

_________________________

I still favour a 4:3 aspect ratio over 16:9 as this has a small impact on unit height (0.55 inches) and gives an additional 1.32 square inches of screen estate. As well as being more useful for everyday computing on a small screen (IMHO) and better for retro gaming.

However as stated before the aspect ratio of the screen would in no way be a deal breaker for me.

 

[Binky]

^ Since the shape of (keyboard + game controls( is pretty much fixed, and rather letterboxy, the squarer the screen you use, the less efficient use of the space in the lid you make.

Really, we should be drawing diagrams comparing 2.5" high screens of different aspect ratios.

I think I've posted  this before, but here it is again with a few improvements - it could be useful when arguing about screen sizes

Spoiler

# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-

#Python script to calculate useful information about displays
#from data typically provided by manufacturer/retailer/specsheet

#You have permission to redistribute and modify this script, on the condition that this line is present and unmodified, and that you credit the author(s) below.
#CEDStone - origninal script - 2013
#CEDStone - added list of abbreviations, metric conversions - 2013


import fractions
import math

x=0
y=0
d=0

acrodict={
"(7680, 4800)": "WHUXGA",
"(6400, 4800)": "HUXGA",
"(7680, 4320)": "UHD, 8k",
"(6400, 4096)": "WHSXGA",
"(5120, 4096)": "HSXGA",
"(5120, 3200)": "WHXGA",
"(4096, 3072)": "HXGA",
"(3840, 2400)": "WQUXGA",
"(3200, 2400)": "QUXGA",
"(3840, 2160)":"QFHD or 4k",
"(3200, 2048)": "WQSXGA",
"(2560, 2048)": "QSXGA",
"(3200, 1800)": "QHD+",
"(2880, 1800)": "WQXGA+",
"(2560, 1600)": "WQXGA",
"(2048, 1536)": "QXGA",
"(2560, 1440)": "QHD",
"(1920, 1200)": "WUXGA",
"(1600, 1200)": "UXGA",
"(2048, 1152)": "QWXGA",
"(1920, 1080)": "fullHD",
"(1680, 1050)": "WSXGA+",
"(1400, 1050)": "SXGA",
"(1280, 1024)": "SXGA",
"(1440, 960) ": "?",
"(1280, 960)" : "SXGA-",
"(1600, 900)" : "HD+",
"(1440, 900)" : "WXGA+",
"(1280, 864)" : "?",
"(1152, 864)" : "XGA+",
"(1280, 800)" : "WXGA",
"(1366, 768)" : "WXGA",
"(1280, 768)" : "WXGA",
"(1152, 768)" : "?",
"(1024, 768)" : "XGA",
"(1280, 720)" :"HD or WXGA",
"(1152, 720)" : "?",
"(1136, 640)" : "?",
"(1024, 640)" : "?",
"(960, 640)" : "DVGA",
"(1024, 600)" : "WSVGA",
"(800, 600)" : "SVGA",
"(1024, 576)" : "WSVGA",
"(960, 540)" : "qHD",
"(854, 480)" : "FWVGA",
"(800, 480)" : "WVGA",
"(640, 480)" : "VGA",
"(640, 360)" : "nHD",
"(480, 320)" : "HVGA",
"(432, 240)" : "FWQVGA",
"(400, 240)" : "WQVGA",
"(384, 240)" : "WQVGA",
"(320, 240)" : "QVGA",
"(240, 160)" : "HQVGA",
"(160, 120)" : "QQVGA",
"(1, 1)" : "an LED",
}



print "------------------------------------------"

x = int( raw_input(" Columns: ") )
y = int( raw_input(" Rows: ") )
d = float( raw_input(" Diagonal length (in) ") )

if x*y*d==0: # Avoid division by zero
print "Exiting (invalid input)"
exit()

if str((x,y)) in acrodict : # Is the given resolution known?
acro=str(acrodict[str((x,y))])
elif str((y,x)) in acrodict :
acro=str(acrodict[str((y,x))]) # perhaps if backwards?
else:
acro="non-standard"


dp = math.sqrt(pow(x, 2) + pow(y, 2)) # How many px fit anlong the diagonal
gcd = (fractions.gcd(x, y))
xin = x/(dp/d) # Width in inches
yin = y/(dp/d) # Hieght in inches
xcm = xin*2.54
ycm = yin*2.54


print " Pixel density ", round(dp/d, 1), "ppi"
print " Megapixels ", round((x*y)/1000000, 1), "MP"
print " Area ", round((xin*yin), 1), "in^2 = ", round((xcm*ycm), 1), "cm^2"
print " Width ", round(xin, 1), "in = ", round(xcm, 1), "cm"
print " Height ", round(yin, 1), "in = ", round(ycm, 1), "cm"
print " Orientation: ",
if x>y :
print "Landscape"
if x<y :
print "Portrait"
if x==y :
print "N/A (Square)"
print " Aspect ratio: ", (x/gcd), ":", (y/gcd)
print " Sometimes known as ", acro

print "------------------------------------------"

To use, copy the complete text into your favourite text editor, save as yourfilename.py, then (in a terminal) run "python /path/to/yourfileneame.py"

If you don't have python installed, then whyever not?

 

[Mr_Loon]

^ Since the shape of (keyboard + game controls( is pretty much fixed, and rather letterboxy, the squarer the screen you use, the less efficient use of the space in the lid you make.

Who has this been fixed by?


From my perspective, if you want to have 1 row of number keys and 4 other rows of keys as well as gaps between the keys (as per this poll), then you will benefit from the extra height given by a 4:3 screen. The larger the keys can be, the better IMHO.

Really, we should be drawing diagrams comparing 2.5" high screens of different aspect ratios.

Not sure of your logic here, screens tend to be sold based on their diagonal distance, not their height.

______________________

It's appreciated that the relatively limited range of screens that are available for purchase for small production runs will probably be the deciding factor in terms of what we end up with for P2. The most important thing for me about any screen for P2 is the image quality (colour accuracy & response rate). Put it this way, I'd much rather see a 4" 16:9 screen with good image quality & response rate rather than my preferred ideal of a 5" screen with 4:3 aspect if that one was inferior in terms of image quality.

 

[comradekingu]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/3089017/_Press_Release_LG_Display_Develops_World%E2%80%99s_First_Quad_HD_LCD_Panel_for_Smartphones.pdf 

5.5-inch LCD with a pixel format of 2560×1440  538ppi

Use ALL the battery

 

[Binky]

Assumption one: The width of the current pandora is about right, since one can reach into the middle with either thumb

Assumption two: It is desirable to use most/all of the space in the lid for the screen

Assumption three: spacing and construction style will be comparable to that of the current pandora

Scenario one: A pandora-successor is built with a 4:3 screen filling the lid

--> result: device measures around 12cm front-to-back (which I think is rather too big)

Scenario two: A pandora successor is built with a 4:3 screen chosen to allow the present 8.3cm front-to-back size to remain

--> result: 2.5cm of wasted space on each side of the screen, screen area, 40cm2 screen area

Scenario three: A pandora successor is built with a 16:9 screen chosen to allow the present 8.3cm front-to-back size to remain

--> result: 1.5cm of wasted space on either side of the screen, 54cm2 screen area

 

[Mr_Loon]

What would the diagonal screen size be for the above scenarios?


Try the scenarios with a 5" screen and you'll see the impact on front to back size will be 0.55" (1.4cm)

 

[comradekingu]

How about a 16:10 screen? Arent there any comparison sites where you can have the different ones stacked up against each-other?

Edit: http://www.displaywars.com/5-inch-16x10-vs-5-inch-16x9

 

[Binky]

Diagonals: 6.4 inches, 3.6 inches and 4.5 inches respectively.

Try the scenarios with a 5" screen

You're missing my point - the dimensions are entirely driven by the assumptions

If you have a 4:3 screen making full use of the available space, then the device ends up being a silly shape to accommodate it

If you have a 4:3 screen that fits into a sensibly-shaped device, space is wasted at the sides.

If you have a 16:9 screen making full use of the available space then the device ends up being less of a silly shape

If you have a 16:9 screen that fits into a sensibly-shaped device, less space is wasted at the sides.

For all you can choose halfway points (e.g. 4:3 screen, some wasted space, slightly silly shape) the 16:9 option will always work out better.

 

[Mr_Loon]

How about a 16:10 screen? Arent there any comparison sites where you can have the different ones stacked up against each-other?

Edit: http://www.displaywars.com/5-inch-16x10-vs-5-inch-16x9

Or you could have a look at this post

@ Binky : With all due respect I think you are missing the point of the thread, which is to find out what people want to see as a screen for P2. i.e. Look at the poll, people seem to want a 5" screen. People also seem to want a 16:9 screen, my personal opinion is that 4:3 would be better, but it's no big deal, just a personal preference, based on what I think would be an improved user experience & better size for a superior keyboard layout to P1 (1 row of numbers & 4 rows of other keys). However as you can see in the post linked above the actual difference in dimensions when you compare like with like is not exactly huge.

Please don't make assumptions here about things like speaker placement / final dimensions of the device. i.e. if we have speakers and a webcam & mic in the lid then assumption 2 may not be correct to any greater degree than it is for P1. By all means say 'if we have the speakers in the base / hinge, then 16:9 would be better' but don't try to preclude the possibility of other design decisions.

 

[_wb_]

The diagonal length does not give enough information. Area and aspect ratio are more important, and there will be width and height constraints unless we want to design the shape of the device around the screen, which is not a good idea imo.

Area:

The larger, the better - keep in mind though that bigger area means more battery consumption.

Aspect ratio:

Let's assume you don't want to use it to watch movies (very wide) or old TV series (4:3) - after all, it will be a small screen. For gaming, 4:3 is arguably better. For "productivity" stuff, the aspect ratio doesn't matter much - modern interfaces are flexible.

Width and height constraints:

The lid will probably roughly the same size as that of the Pandora. Maximizing area implies moving speakers away. Filling the lid implies wide aspect ratio..

 

[_jr_]

For text based productivity I feel that there is a minimum required width, i.e when one line of text fits comfortably and readably. After that is achieved more height is much more important to me than more width (actually more width can be counterproductive because increased font size makes the lines higher). Width is again really useful if it is enough to put a second window with a fully visible line besides it. Some user interfaces have tool windows that can be used vertically on the side also, but most work better (at least for me) if they are horizontally oriented.


If a future system would be less wide I wouldn't be sad. Reaching the middle keys is much less convenient for me on the P1 than on the N900 for example. Hopefully it won't be as large as the Shield, that looks like it could easily house a larger screen and a keyboard making a netbook I'd like to buy


But I agree that the form factor favors wide aspect ratios above high. Additionally the market for 4:3 screens does seem pretty small to me.


Is it mechanically possible to reverse the hinge arrangement between base and lid? Folding the base away from the screen that then could make use of the full height?

 

[_wb_]

There might be all kinds of reasons to like 4:3, but we're not buying a monitor here, we're designing a handheld. From page 1 of this thread:

Not sure I like it

The only way to get 4:3, is by doing one of the following:

• huge waste of lid area (like in the above manipulated image), which looks ugly, feels like a waste of space, and why not just fill the lid area and have "black columns" instead of "no screen"?
• make the lid (and base) a lot less wide, but then there is not enough room for the kind of keyboard we want, and PCB space will be a big issue (probably impossible to keep the features we want, like dual SD)
• make the lid (and base) a lot higher, but then pocketability is totally gone
• make the lid (and base) both higher and less wide, compromising both pocketability and the keyboard button widths
• have some kind of futuristic slide-out flexible screen that is higher than the lid itself

None of these options seem like a good idea to me.

So make it wide, please.

 

[kuru]

Considering industrial grade screens, I sure do hope that there's a few that have a better sensitivity and more direct contact between touch layers. IMO there is too much travel until the touch is actually registered on the present screens.

The n900 must have the best resistive touch around. We should try to get as close as possible.

 

[Binky]

Compare

 

[Mr_Loon]

Or you could compare :

For the purposes of comparison assume the papercraft model has an identical hinge arrangement to the current Pandora. The papercraft model has a 5" 4:3 screen which does increase the distance front to back by an amount enough to include an extra row of good sized keys.

See the details of the papercraft model can be seen here to get an idea of where the hinge would go.