EVO3D screen not 4.3? It can't be!

[linzgeneral]

Guys, I love my EVO3D but the skinny screen is really bothering me. I have the two versions juxtaposed and the 3D screen looks dwarfed compared to the 4g. The difference in width far outpace the offset in length. Anyone care to do an area comparison? That's one thing I love about the 4G as you could see so much on the screen especially surfing the web and reading e-books. There is just no way the surface areas could be anywhere close to equivalent.

 

[LuckyLucky]

It's narrower because of the qHD screen/higher resolution...at least that's what I've read...but I think it's still 4.3 inches.

 

[boobie1292]

Yea it just seems that way because if the narrowness, but still a 4.3 inncher nine the less

 

[androidpirate]

Guys, I love my EVO3D but the skinny screen is really bothering me. I have the two versions juxtaposed and the 3D screen looks dwarfed compared to the 4g. The difference in width far outpace the offset in length. Anyone care to do an area comparison? That's one thing I love about the 4G as you could see so much on the screen especially surfing the web and reading e-books. There is just no way the surface areas could be anywhere close to equivalent.

if its bothering you that much, just get a ruler out and measure it.

 

[drewsg]

I think the 3D has like 5% less screen area than the 4G

 

[Over-iOS]

i absolutely love the screen size and dimensions. I personally think its better than the OG Evo

 

[jwoodsoniv]

This is my only gripe with the 3D. The narrow size is very noticeable, its to the point that it wil take some time to get used too. HTC took a step back on this. The sceen size is the main reason why I'm in love with the EVO.

 

[Melaza]

The 4.3 is from corner to corner (diagonal)

 

[VickMackey#AC]

Resolution over width ,it's progress in my opinion.

 

[bobodobo]

They're both 4.3" diagonal, but the one with the larger aspect ratio will have the smaller area.

If the aspect ratio were 1:1, then the length of a side would be (4.3)/root(2) = 3.04 inches, and the area would be 3.04 x 3.04 = 9.24 square inches.

Now suppose the aspect ratio were 3:4 (making a 3:4:5 triangle), the length long side would be 4/5 x 4.3 = 3.44 inches and the shorter side 3/5 x 4.3 = 2.58 inches, and the area would be 3.44 x 2.58 = 8.88 square inches.

In the extreme case of infinite aspect ratio, one side would have a length of 4.3 inches and the other zero inches, for an area of 4.3 x 0 = 0 square inches.

 

[Starfleet Captain]

dude, just get a ruler and measure the diagonal length yourself. That should confirm the screen size.

Now here, I will use pure mathematics to do your area comparison, because geometrically, you are indeed correct. Just because two screens are the same diagonal length, doesn't mean they are the same size in area.

first, the Evo 4G:

The screen has an aspect ratio of 5:3

that means

(5*x)^2 + (3*x)^2 = 4.3^2
25*x^2 + 9*x^2 = 18.49
34x^2 = 18.49
x^2 = .5438...
x = .7374...

This means that the height of the Evo 4G screen is .7374 * 5 = 3.687 inches
and the width of the Evo 4G screen is .7374 * 3 = 2.212 inches

Now that we have this info, we can calculate the area of the Evo 4G screen to be 3.687 * 2.212 = 8.156 square inches

-----------------------------

Now we do the same for the EVO 3D

The screen has an aspect ratio of 16:9

that means

(16*x)^2 + (9*x)^2 = 4.3^2
256*x^2 + 81*x^2 = 18.49
337x^2 = 18.49
x^2 = .05487...
x = .2342...

This means that the height of the Evo 3D screen is .2342 * 16 = 3.747 inches
and the width of the Evo 3D screen is .2342 * 9 = 2.108 inches

Now that we have this info, we can calculate the area of the Evo 3D screen to be 3.747 * 2.108 = 7.899 square inches

So, here, I can confidently confirm that the screen on the Evo 4G is indeed bigger (if ever so slightly) than the screen on the Evo 3D. The difference is 8.156 - 7.899 = .257 square inches.

That means that the Evo 4G's screen is 3.25% larger than the Evo 3D's screen.
Put another way, the Evo 3D's screen is 3.15% smaller than the Evo 4G's screen.

 

[garrettfarnum]

But the 3D has 35% more pixels so figure out the ppi (;

 

[mdotsteele]

dude, just get a ruler and measure the diagonal length yourself. That should confirm the screen size.

Now here, I will use pure mathematics to do your area comparison, because geometrically, you are indeed correct. Just because two screens are the same diagonal length, doesn't mean they are the same size in area.

first, the Evo 4G:

The screen has an aspect ratio of 5:3

that means

(5*x)^2 + (3*x)^2 = 4.3^2
25*x^2 + 9*x^2 = 18.49
34x^2 = 18.49
x^2 = .5438...
x = .7374...

This means that the height of the Evo 4G screen is .7374 * 5 = 3.687 inches
and the width of the Evo 4G screen is .7374 * 3 = 2.212 inches

Now that we have this info, we can calculate the area of the Evo 4G screen to be 3.687 * 2.212 = 8.156 square inches

-----------------------------

Now we do the same for the EVO 3D

The screen has an aspect ratio of 16:9

that means

(16*x)^2 + (9*x)^2 = 4.3^2
256*x^2 + 81*x^2 = 18.49
337x^2 = 18.49
x^2 = .05487...
x = .2342...

This means that the height of the Evo 3D screen is .2342 * 16 = 3.747 inches
and the width of the Evo 3D screen is .2342 * 9 = 2.108 inches

Now that we have this info, we can calculate the area of the Evo 3D screen to be 3.747 * 2.108 = 7.899 square inches

So, here, I can confidently confirm that the screen on the Evo 4G is indeed bigger (if ever so slightly) than the screen on the Evo 3D. The difference is 8.156 - 7.899 = .257 square inches.

That means that the Evo 4G's screen is 3.25% larger than the Evo 3D's screen.
Put another way, the Evo 3D's screen is 3.15% smaller than the Evo 4G's screen.

Wow....this post is a prime example of taking it too far.

 

[linzgeneral]

dude, just get a ruler and measure the diagonal length yourself. That should confirm the screen size.

Now here, I will use pure mathematics to do your area comparison, because geometrically, you are indeed correct. Just because two screens are the same diagonal length, doesn't mean they are the same size in area.

first, the Evo 4G:

The screen has an aspect ratio of 5:3

that means

(5*x)^2 + (3*x)^2 = 4.3^2
25*x^2 + 9*x^2 = 18.49
34x^2 = 18.49
x^2 = .5438...
x = .7374...

This means that the height of the Evo 4G screen is .7374 * 5 = 3.687 inches
and the width of the Evo 4G screen is .7374 * 3 = 2.212 inches

Now that we have this info, we can calculate the area of the Evo 4G screen to be 3.687 * 2.212 = 8.156 square inches

-----------------------------

Now we do the same for the EVO 3D

The screen has an aspect ratio of 16:9

that means

(16*x)^2 + (9*x)^2 = 4.3^2
256*x^2 + 81*x^2 = 18.49
337x^2 = 18.49
x^2 = .05487...
x = .2342...

This means that the height of the Evo 3D screen is .2342 * 16 = 3.747 inches
and the width of the Evo 3D screen is .2342 * 9 = 2.108 inches

Now that we have this info, we can calculate the area of the Evo 3D screen to be 3.747 * 2.108 = 7.899 square inches

So, here, I can confidently confirm that the screen on the Evo 4G is indeed bigger (if ever so slightly) than the screen on the Evo 3D. The difference is 8.156 - 7.899 = .257 square inches.

That means that the Evo 4G's screen is 3.25% larger than the Evo 3D's screen.
Put another way, the Evo 3D's screen is 3.15% smaller than the Evo 4G's screen.

Thanks guys for all very helpful responses, especially those who did the math. I am an accountant but I don't do that type of math..lol...would have to break out the old math book. I figure that it is 4.3 measured diagnolly but the difference is huge. I don't know maybe its a visual thing since 3.5% really seems negligible. Don't get me wrong, I will gladly give up the little real estate forth QHD. A sharp screen is my number one priority, just wish they could do it without compromise. I am waiting for a 4.5 or higher qHD or higher HTC phone on Sprint - gives you an idea of where I am going..lol....

 

[acf3passion]

That means that the Evo 4G's screen is 3.25% larger than the Evo 3D's screen.
Put another way, the Evo 3D's screen is 3.15% smaller than the Evo 4G's screen.

Wow, very well put. May I also add:

Evo 3D's screen is 3.15% smaller than Evo 4G's screen, but you're getting a whopping 35.2% more pixel count.

This amazing difference can be seen whenever you browse same website side-by-side.

 

[mhespenh]

Wow, very well put. May I also add:

Evo 3D's screen is 3.15% smaller than Evo 4G's screen, but you're getting a whopping 35.2% more pixel count.

This amazing difference can be seen whenever you browse same website side-by-side.

Exactly- The screen might be physically smaller, but you can "see" more at one time.

A PPI (Pixel Per Inch) comparison would be more accurate, but I was told there would be no math.

/

 

[McPlot]

To me, the 3d seems to have the larger screen. Not as wide as the 4g but longer

 

[Starfleet Captain]

Wow, very well put. May I also add:

Evo 3D's screen is 3.15% smaller than Evo 4G's screen, but you're getting a whopping 35.2% more pixel count.

This amazing difference can be seen whenever you browse same website side-by-side.

agreed. The Evo 3D's screen is a generation better than the Evo 4G. I am loving that qHD resolution. Even the colors pop more and don't get me started on the text....

 

[lafester]

yeah the narrow screen really makes the 3d so much easier to use.
that with the higher res makes it a big upgrade in my opinion.

 

[Starfleet Captain]

Thanks guys for all very helpful responses, especially those who did the math. I am an accountant but I don't do that type of math..lol...would have to break out the old math book. I figure that it is 4.3 measured diagnolly but the difference is huge. I don't know maybe its a visual thing since 3.5% really seems negligible. Don't get me wrong, I will gladly give up the little real estate forth QHD. A sharp screen is my number one priority, just wish they could do it without compromise. I am waiting for a 4.5 or higher qHD or higher HTC phone on Sprint - gives you an idea of where I am going..lol....

I was a BEAST on our Mathlete team back in High SChool! This was a piece of cake compared to the type of Math I'm used to doing