Page 13 of 16 « First 31112 13 1415 Last »
Reply
Thread Tools
kinggo's Avatar
kinggo is offline kinggo
2018-09-29 , 14:26
Posts: 943 | Thanked: 3,225 times | Joined on Jun 2010 @ Zagreb
#121
Originally Posted by Jedibeeftrix View Post
"Thanks for your comment and suggestion!
The XA2 Dual SIM (H4113) and the XA2 Single SIM (H3113) will be supported. We are considering expanding to other XA2 variants and we will update details separately as we start the sale"

Yay! Possible support for XA2 Plus. I do like 18:9 screens on phones!

Q: What is meant by "as we start the sale"?
I'm hoping more that it will be ultra......spec wised it's almost the same
 

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to kinggo For This Useful Post:
Jedibeeftrix is offline Jedibeeftrix
2018-09-29 , 17:01
Posts: 731 | Thanked: 1,041 times | Joined on Jun 2010
#122
aren't they already selling SFOS?
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jedibeeftrix For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
pichlo is offline pichlo
2018-09-29 , 17:41
Posts: 6,343 | Thanked: 20,660 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#123
Originally Posted by Jedibeeftrix View Post
I do like 18:9 screens on phones!
What's this with 18:9? Not that I have anything against the format, but why 18:9? Why not 2:1?
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
Heik is offline Heik
2018-09-29 , 18:06
Posts: 106 | Thanked: 372 times | Joined on Jan 2012
#124
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
What's this with 18:9? Not that I have anything against the format, but why 18:9? Why not 2:1?
Could this have been started from photography:
Professional cameras had negative sizes such as 6 cm x 6 cm, 9 cm x 6 cm at least. Often they were shortened to 6x6 and 6x9. In negative sizes it makes sense. Even if it does not make sense in screen form factor, they seem to use that same format also there.

Other theories are welcome...
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Heik For This Useful Post:
kinggo's Avatar
kinggo is offline kinggo
2018-09-29 , 18:15
Posts: 943 | Thanked: 3,225 times | Joined on Jun 2010 @ Zagreb
#125
what he meant was that 18:9 is the same as 2:1 and since we all know and use term 4:3, the question is why in this case 2:1 is called 18:9 and not 36:18
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to kinggo For This Useful Post:
Saturn's Avatar
Saturn is offline Saturn
2018-09-29 , 20:30
Posts: 1,647 | Thanked: 2,116 times | Joined on Mar 2007 @ UNKLE's Never Never Land
#126
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
What's this with 18:9? Not that I have anything against the format, but why 18:9? Why not 2:1?
I don't know the real reason, but for me it makes more sense to use the 18:9 than 1:2, since there are already the standard 16:10 & 16:9.

e.g. [Company X announcement]:
'the next model will switch from 16:9 to 18:9 display'
makes it very easy to visualise the change than:
'the next model will switch from 16:9 to 2:1 display'
__________________
Packages: elGR Locale, SMSCON Editor, Swappolube, CSSU Features Configuration, Snuggle, YAMAS, Cleven
 Garage: SMSCON, Swappolube, CSSU Features Configuration, Snuggle
Wiki: SMSCON, SMSCON Editor, Swappolube, CSSU Features Configuration, Cleven
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Saturn For This Useful Post:
mscion is offline mscion
2018-09-29 , 20:59
Posts: 1,856 | Thanked: 4,488 times | Joined on Mar 2010 @ North Potomac MD
#127
I really wish the dimensions were simply given in cm. Like my current phone screen is 13cm by 7cm. That's it. Don't even need to know diagonal which is meaningless unless you know the aspect ratio.
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to mscion For This Useful Post:
pichlo's Avatar
pichlo is offline pichlo
2018-09-29 , 21:28
Posts: 6,343 | Thanked: 20,660 times | Joined on Sep 2012 @ UK
#128
Originally Posted by Saturn View Post
...there are already the standard 16:10 & 16:9.
Yeah... 16:10 is also weird. It's 8:5, FFS.

16:9 makes sense. It cannot be shortened. But 16:10, 18:9 or my suggestion, 16:12, are nothing more than a marketing trick. The fact that "it makes more sense" to some people indicates that it works.
__________________
In particle accelerators atoms are indeed not only touching each others. But banging together in a massive explosive orgasm.
-- nieldk in a TMO post
 

The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to pichlo For This Useful Post:
gerbick's Avatar
gerbick is offline gerbick
2018-09-30 , 04:06
Posts: 6,668 | Thanked: 15,030 times | Joined on Jul 2007 @ undecided.
#129
And here I thought my reductionist tendencies were unique. 18:9 bothered me as well...
__________________
Tschüß
 

The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to gerbick For This Useful Post:
Jedibeeftrix is offline Jedibeeftrix
2018-09-30 , 13:10
Posts: 731 | Thanked: 1,041 times | Joined on Jun 2010
#130
Originally Posted by pichlo View Post
What's this with 18:9? Not that I have anything against the format, but why 18:9? Why not 2:1?
Nothing so complicated as suggested below, re photography.

I simply want the absolute maximum screen space that I can use one handed. that makes elongated aspect ratios more useful than square ones.

unlike tablets, which are two handed devices so the importance goes back to the viewing utility which favours square screens.

i'm a big fan of the new breed of 6" 18:9 screens, where previously i've said 5.2" was as big as i could comfortably use one handed.
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Jedibeeftrix For This Useful Post:
Reply
Page 13 of 16 « First 31112 13 1415 Last »

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 07:41.

Contact Us - Home - Archive - Top