Video resolution question

The M3 has a lower resolution than the M6
but it also has a smaller screen

maybe this is a stupid thought but shouldn't a lower resolution on a smaller screen(if proportionate)give the same quality image as there as the same amount of pixels per cm?

Yep, (ofc) it will. eg if u have the Qvga resolution the meizu has, on a 42" screen it won't look as good as on the meizu's screen, because it's all very big and u can see the pixels just sit there, which u can't on the meizu screen. So both (M3 and M6) will have a good quality image, but don't know which 1 looks better (don't know the resolution the M3 has)

well work out the surface area of each device , With the m6 its 5x4 cm ( with a ruler , thats 20cm(2, dont know how to do the little 2) and its 320x240 = 76800 thats a ratio of 76800:20 = 3840:1

the m3 is 176×132 = 23232 and 2cmx3cm = 6cm surface area
thats a ratio of 23232:6 so then that = 3872:1

3872 M3
3840 M6
3200 Ipod nano

(Pixels per quare CM)

M3 is very sightly better but its not noticable
surface area
whereas the ipod nano is lower and the ipod video is almost the same ( Same screen resoloution but 2.5" screen instead of 2.4" , which actaully makes it worse if you think about it becauseyou get less pixels per square cm

thanks for the replies
its clear now

however, how come the video quality on my m3 is significantly lower(less sharp, less detail) than on my M6?

using the same source file and similar conversion settings(of course adapted for each player)

that's something you'll never note :D, that's out of human eye's perception

yeah buy i spy with my little eye that my M6 does a better job at video than my M3...
which is odd as the M3 display is supposed to be better
I miss detail on the M3

I think the M3 does a pretty great job @ 176x132 considering the M6 has almost three times the number of pixels to play with.
I would not expect the M3 with 23,232 pixels to display the same amount of fine detail as the M6 with 76,800 pixels.

Originally Posted by /\/\@D/\/\@/\/

I think the M3 does a pretty great job @ 176x132 considering the M6 has almost three times the number of pixels to play with.
I would not expect the M3 with 23,232 pixels to display the same amount of fine detail as the M6 with 76,800 pixels.

see thats where I am confused...
sure, the M3 has less pixels but also a much smaller display
it has actually more pixels per cm2.. doesnt that mean there should be atleast as much detail?

Originally Posted by Job

see thats where I am confused...
sure, the M3 has less pixels but also a much smaller display
it has actually more pixels per cm2.. doesnt that mean there should be atleast as much detail?

Of course not.

If it has the same resolution, but smaller display, it's like watching a movie only on PART of the screen... Take it to the extreme, and it's obvious that a movie on ONLY the center 3x2 pixels would look worse, even if they are as small as on the M6.

Originally Posted by Job

see thats where I am confused...
sure, the M3 has less pixels but also a much smaller display
it has actually more pixels per cm2.. doesnt that mean there should be atleast as much detail?

I understand your thinking but rather than pixels per cm2 look at the number of cm2 in the display area. Every cm2 on the M3 has to display almost 3 times more information than the M6.

So a hair on the head of this spider that is 3 pixels wide on the M6 will show more detail than the same hair on the M3 that is only 1 pixel wide.




Hope this helps

ha! that sure did...it actually makes sense
thanks

so its basically just that things get so small i dont see them anymore