[ThunderShock2005]

Thought you were done with school? Boredom being brought to you folks. haha. Here goes:

Seeing the reports of the BlackBerry Passport consistently being compared to the Samsung Galaxy Note 4, I was curious about how pixel density (i.e., pixels per inch) is calculated. The Passport is noted to have a pixel density of 453 ppi (1440x1440, 4.5 in.) whereas the Note 4 has 518 ppi (2560x1440, 5.7 in).

Understanding that the screen size is in diagonal, I needed the lengths and widths of the screen size in inches before I can find the pixel density. Note 4's 2560x1440 resolution is 16x9, which made it a whole process for me. Anyhow, basically based on Pythagorean theorem (lol primary school status), the length and width (in) of the Note 4's screen would be approximately 2.794 and 4.968. That makes the area 13.881 in^2. Yet when I divide 2560x1440 resolution (3,686,400 pixels) by that area (A=lw; also primary school status lol) it comes out to sqrt(265,571.645 pixels) in or 515.336 (approx. 515 ppi) pixel density. That is NOT the same as the "518 ppi" published by Samsung.

On the other hand, the Passport's published ppi balances out well without a problem, probably owing to the easiness of obtaining the lengths and widths of a diagonally bisected square. Using the pseudo-Pythagorean triple (lol also primary school status!!!) 1-1-sqrt(2), the length and width of the screen both come out to 3.18198 in exact [log_4.5(2s^2)=2], giving us the area of 10.125 in^2. The 1440x1440 resolution (2,073,600 pixels) divided by that area comes out to sqrt(204,800 pixels) in or 452.548 (453 ppi) pixel density, JUST AS published by BlackBerry.

So, am I doing something wrong here? Am I missing something in regards to the practice of calculating screen pixel density? Perhaps I approximated wrong on the note 4?

Or is Samsung's published pixel density calculation for the Note 4 off by almost 3 pixels per inch? BlackBerry's published ppi count for the Passport seems to be in line upon rounding to the nearest 1 ppi.

Of course, feel free to attack me for this nonsense. haha

[hamsterwheel]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

[Highcroft]

Your math is right but I'm guessing that the Note 4's screen isn't exactly 5.7 and closer to 5.67 which would give it 518 ppi.

[ThunderShock2005]

Your math is right but I'm guessing that the Note 4's screen isn't exactly 5.7 and closer to 5.67 which would give it 518 ppi.

Thanks! I guess that's probably it. Idk if such practice (the rounding) is acceptable though. Haha

Posted via BlackBerry Q10 on AT&T

[bobshine]

Holy ****. Let me pull my trigonometry books out

Posted via CB10

[AnimalPak200]

http://m.gsmarena.com/first_samsung_...-news-9786.php

$920 worth of Samsung "quality".


Posted via CB10

[00stryder]

My head hurts...

Posted via CB10

[Patrick Pierobon]

Pixel Density Calculator (PPI Calculator)

[AnimalPak200]

I think the takeaway here is... BlackBerry should claim 1385 ppi and no one in America, given our allergy towards math, would be able to verify.

I'm pretty sure most tech bloggers don't have any technical degrees either so,... whatever the labeling says!

Posted via CB10

[ThunderShock2005]

Pixel Density Calculator (PPI Calculator)

Oh that's no fun! Haha

Posted via BlackBerry Q10 on AT&T

EDIT: WHOA. I WAS RIGHT!!! YEAH! Lol but still, it's no fun unless it's either on a piece of paper or a spreadsheet I had made. Haha but anyhow, yup, Samsung is being sketch AF.

[ThunderShock2005]

http://m.gsmarena.com/first_samsung_...-news-9786.php

$920 worth of Samsung "quality".


Posted via CB10

Lmao see what lack of precision gets you? Hahahaha

In all seriousness though, whoa. That's embarassing. First there's bendgate, now there's gapgate. Eek.

Posted via BlackBerry Q10 on AT&T