Samsung Galaxy NOTE 10.1 hands on

zooster · Jun 5, 2012

xdapao3 said:
Beside this stupid Apple marketing speak about "Retina" displays which you keep droning on without realizing that is not a scientific, precise, accurate and universal definition at all, nobody here has ever said that HD displays aren't better than current generation ones, the whole point here was and still is that you think that the resolution of upcoming 1980x1200 10.1" Android tablet displays is "too low and can't compete with the visual quality" of the iPad3 display, which is, I repeat once again, a statement beyond ridiculous.

It's not me, it's the human eye, just read indepentend scientific and academic articles mybe you can learn something about the visual acuity.

I must have missed when exactly PPIs have become the ultimate, defining quality of a tablet...

Since ever.

I also wonder, in light of this very fact that you just revealed to us, how Apple managed to be and stay top dog in the tablet market since their tablets, up until a couple of months ago, had the lowest PPI of the lot...

Get a grip.

I don't care of Apple, and I don't like it at all, but I must admit that atm they lead on this topic. Samsung just follows. When and if Sammy will change its mind about ppi things can be different on this matter.

Just to inform you, I have never written 240 but always written (multiple times) 224. It goes to show how carefully you read the posts you reply to, I guess.

Doesn't change, 224 vs 264 is still much noticeable. Try to compare the visual quality of a 342ppi with a 300, you'll find them very different, 40ppi are still much. And take it easy man, scientific knowledge rules. Pentile matrix sucks, no matter the organic led you put inside, and ppi is THE specification that makes the difference in the visual quality of a screen. There are dozen of independent scientific article... just read them, it's not hard if you know english.

glennss · Jun 5, 2012

zooster said:
It's not me, it's the human eye, just read indepentend scientific and academic articles mybe you can learn something about the visual acuity.......

There are dozen of independent scientific article... just read them, it's not hard if you know english.

I guess you don't know English then, since you seem to be ignoring my posts and the scientific evidence therein.

but here it is again... perhaps you can practice reading English.

Speaking to Gizmodo Australia, Dr Raymond Soneira of DisplayMate Technologies, said: ‘Apple’s definition of a “retina display” is actually for 20/20 vision (defined as one arc-minute visual acuity). 20/20 vision is just the legal definition of “normal vision”, which is at the lower end of true normal vision.’

He added: ‘There are in fact lots of people with much better than 20/20 vision, and for almost everyone visual acuity is actually limited by blurring due to imperfections of the lens in the eye. The best human vision is about 20/10 vision, twice as good as 20/20 Vision, and that is what corresponds to the true acuity of the Retina.’

‘So to be an actual “true retina display” a screen needs at least 573ppi at 12 inches viewing distance or 458 ppi at 15-inches – which the new iPad obviously isn’t. But there is still nothing else on the market that even comes close to what Apple has achieved with its new iPad, regardless of whether or not it’s a ‘true Retina Display.’

dvandyk · Jun 5, 2012

LectureNotes working?

@floiancu, could you please check if LectureNotes works on the Galaxy Note 10.1 out of the box? The LectureNotes developers use the ThinkPad w/ stylus, so I'm interested if their palm recognition works as well on the Note 10.1. For your convenience, here is a link to the trial version of LectureNotes in the Play store: h t t p s://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.acadoid.lecturenotestrial (sorry, can't yet post clickable links).

deon7388 · Jun 5, 2012

AmrEl-Shazly said:
i'm thinking about buying a tablet .. and i was comparing between this one and the galaxy tab 2 10.1 .. i'm going to buy it for college use .. to be honest .. i haven't had any tablet before .. it's my first .. and i want recommendations .. which one should i buy .. galaxy note 10.1 or tab 10.1 or go for an ipad 3 ?

I've always been an Android fan as well, but it depends on your preference. One reason why I choose to stick with Android is because you don't have to buy all the hardware in order for your files to sync, it's purely software. If you already have a Mac, then it'll be cool to get an iPad. But, for example, let's say you typed a paper in Google Drive on one computer but forgot to print, well having that tablet around (or any computer for that matter) will enable you to grab that document very quickly. Unless you can throw all your files in iTunes (I'm not sure), I think Android is just easier to sync.

And let's not forget how fun it is explore different themes and roms (if you're into that

)

AmrEl-Shazly · Jun 5, 2012

deon7388 said:
I've always been an Android fan as well, but it depends on your preference. One reason why I choose to stick with Android is because you don't have to buy all the hardware in order for your files to sync, it's purely software. If you already have a Mac, then it'll be cool to get an iPad. But, for example, let's say you typed a paper in Google Drive on one computer but forgot to print, well having that tablet around (or any computer for that matter) will enable you to grab that document very quickly. Unless you can throw all your files in iTunes (I'm not sure), I think Android is just easier to sync.

And let's not forget how fun it is explore different themes and roms (if you're into that )

well .. then i will go for the note 10.1 .. now i'm just begging for a release date

zooster · Jun 5, 2012

glennss said:
I guess you don't know English then, since you seem to be ignoring my posts and the scientific evidence therein.

but here it is again... perhaps you can practice reading English.

I missed your post.
Well, I'll answer about the ppi and not about the trolling about english stuff, even if you, with your 4 posts, seem to be active strangely only on this thread.

If you read well my posts, and you can if you are a real english and not a fake one, I never exalted Apple (I really don't like its products and its policy), and I never talked about retina stuff.
We really don't care of retina marketing but we do care about visual quality, and a top quality is reached when pixels are unnoticeable. The average human cannot notice pixels when a device, held at a distance of a smartphone has at least 320-330ppi, held at a distance of a tablet has at least 250ppi.
If it's called retina or not, if it's already adopted by Apple or not, we don't care, if it matches the acuity of cone cells of the eye or not we do not care. But we do care when pixels are not noticeable anymore.
I don't know whether you are human, but if you do, you'll need at least the above mentioned ppi for top visual quality. So again, the higher is ppi the better is visual quality .
And finally, tablet needs more ppi than 224. Not 573 or 458? Well at least 250 thanks. 224 is far below and pixels will be noticed. Yes, 40ppi is a lot, even 5ppi is evident. You don't trust? Just go to to a store and compare 2 FULLRGB device with 40 ppi of difference, after that come here and tell us, if you are a human you can notice it otherwise we can call you superhero like "kick-ass"

TabGuy · Jun 5, 2012

zooster said:
It's not me, it's the human eye, just read indepentend scientific and academic articles mybe you can learn something about the visual acuity.

Since more than half of the human population needs corrective lenses this entire topic is comical. Most of us couldn't tell the difference between 240 dpi and a Galaxy if our life depended on it. If you can do so consider yourself lucky. And young. Give time a chance and you'll be in the same boat as the rest of us.

Spewing a bunch of scientific facts about acuity that only applies to a miniscule piece of the population makes for a weak argument.

For the vast majority of people that buy into retina hype they've wasted money for no reason. I admit it's a terrific marketing ploy for the iPad 3 which doesn't improve much over the iPad2. It works for Apple. That's what they do best: marketing.

If you notice a difference then buy an iPad. The rest of us will look at something that looks the same and not sweat the scientific facts.

Some day in the future Apple will add a second speaker to the iPad and proclaim they invented stereo. Until they do, I'd never consider an iPad. I consider stereo infinitely more important than a retina display.

glennss · Jun 5, 2012

zooster said:
I missed your post.
Well, I'll answer about the ppi and not about the trolling about english stuff, even if you, with your 4 posts, seem to be active strangely only on this thread.

If you read well my posts, and you can if you are a real english and not a fake one, I never exalted Apple (I really don't like its products and its policy), and I never talked about retina stuff.
We really don't care of retina marketing but we do care about visual quality, and a top quality is reached when pixels are unnoticeable. The average human cannot notice pixels when a device, held at a distance of a smartphone has at least 320-330ppi, held at a distance of a tablet has at least 250ppi.

I'm sorry but it is you who have missed the point, 20/20 vision is at the lower end of true normal vision, with great eyesight you would require 573 ppi for the pixles to be indistinguishable at 12 inches so your constant statements that 320-330ppi is totally wrong and something that you will only find in Apple's retina marketing.

You repeatable have stated that it is a scientific fact but its not.

You say that a tablet requires > 250ppi , again another marketing spin from the Apple boys. why does a tablet require higher than 250ppi? ask yourself, Apple reasoning is that it is held at 15" but that is with their 9.7" screen, it stands that a bigger screen is used further away so less ppi is required, or it could be that you only have 20/25 vision or wear glasses and so you only require 150ppi.

I agree that higher levels of pixel density are great, images are sharper but its only a benefit upto a point, but your "320-330ppi" has no basis in science only marketing hype.

I can also guarantee if I put 2 devices over 300ppi in front of you with 5ppi difference you could not tell them apart without looking at the specification, I would bet serious amounts of money on it.

zooster · Jun 5, 2012

You are wrong, I don't understand why are your still talking about Apple. Do you care of Apple? None here cares about it. You should be fond of Apple, you name it continously in your post.
I use lenses and I can distinguish pixels in all the samsung devices, and so do all the ppl I know. Comical is that you don't know the math. That's because yes, for very few ppl is needed 438 ppi to do not notice pixels, but for the average human, it's enough 250ppi (for a tablet), below that limit you won't notice pixel only only if you are very high sight impaired, therefore just for a very small portion of the population, luckily.

---------- Post added at 12:07 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:03 AM ----------

glennss said:
I'm sorry but it is you who have missed the point, 20/20 vision is at the lower end of true normal vision, with great eyesight you would require 573 ppi for the pixles to be indistinguishable at 12 inches so your constant statements that 320-330ppi is totally wrong and something that you will only find in Apple's retina marketing.

You repeatable have stated that it is a scientific fact but its not.

You say that a tablet requires > 250ppi , again another marketing spin from the Apple boys. why does a tablet require higher than 250ppi? ask yourself, Apple reasoning is that it is held at 15" but that is with their 9.7" screen, it stands that a bigger screen is used further away so less ppi is required, or it could be that you only have 20/25 vision or wear glasses and so you only require 150ppi.

I agree that higher levels of pixel density are great, images are sharper but its only a benefit upto a point, but your "320-330ppi" has no basis in science only marketing hype.

I can also guarantee if I put 2 devices over 300ppi in front of you with 5ppi difference you could not tell them apart without looking at the specification, I would bet serious amounts of money on it.

There are several independent article about that ppi, I'll post them. And if you think, 300ppi is the limit of low quality laser printers, because under that limit pixelation is too much evident.
Aynhow we were talking about 40ppi, and it's a huge amount of ppi. I can bet money that almost everyone can notice a difference.

glennss · Jun 5, 2012

I have mentioned Apple only because your "facts" are taken from their marketing, they are not based in science.

firstly, there is no "average human" for 250ppi at 15" you would have to have poor eyesight, 20/25 - 20/30 to not see the pixles.

it's enough 250ppi (for a tablet), below that limit you won't notice pixel only only if you are very high sight impaired, therefore just for a very small portion of the population, luckily.

I'll assume you mean above that limit but anyway... your now saying 250ppi is ok for the average user, right? but a 1920 x 1200 10.1" display is no good , even though it would be ~224ppi, so 26ppi deficit makes it a terrible display ?!?! that's ridiculous, and again the equivalent of holding the display an extra half inch away

There are several independent article about that ppi, I'll post them. And if you think, 300ppi is the limit of low quality laser printers, because under that limit pixelation is too much evident.
Aynhow we were talking about 40ppi, and it's a huge amount of ppi. I can bet money that almost everyone can notice a difference.

please do post them, everything I have read on the subject goes against what you are saying even on a small screen (3.5") 477ppi is required @ 12" for someone with 20/10 vision. As for laser printers , you do realise that printing ink to paper is totally different to light displays.

are we talking about 40ppi ?

Yes, 40ppi is a lot, even 5ppi is evident.

it sound like you are contradicting yourself, and please don't get started on my mathematical skill, I suspect you will be in over your head.

xdapao3 · Jun 6, 2012

zooster said:
I must have missed when exactly PPIs have become the ultimate, defining quality of a tablet...

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

Since ever.

I also wonder, in light of this very fact that you just revealed to us, how Apple managed to be and stay top dog in the tablet market since their tablets, up until a couple of months ago, had the lowest PPI of the lot...

Click to expand...

Click to collapse

I don't care of Apple, and I don't like it at all, but I must admit that atm they lead on this topic. Samsung just follows. When and if Sammy will change its mind about ppi things can be different on this matter.

So, if like you (and Apple since a couple of months) say PPI has ALWAYS been the ultimate, defining quality of a tablet, do you care to explain to me how has Apple managed to uninterruptedly be the leader (and by far) in the tablet market with 2 tablets (iPad1 and 2) which have THE LOWEST PPI OF THE LOT????

Look, I try to repeat it one more time then I am done here: HD is obviously better than low definition and the trend has ALWAYS been for higher resolutions but this ludicrous fixation for a few more or a few less PPI is just Apple marketing spin ("oddly" started by them very recently just when they went from selling, for years, the tablets with the lowest PPI to the one with the highest PPI) which you and many others are blindly (pun intended) buying into...

Doesn't change, 224 vs 264 is still much noticeable. Try to compare the visual quality of a 342ppi with a 300, you'll find them very different, 40ppi are still much.

LMAO!!
40 PPI differences would be noticeable enough on low PPI displays like for example that of the iPad2's but the higher the PPI the less you can see the difference between displays with similar PPIs until you can't see them anymore.

I have personally witnessed people in stores comparing the iPad2 and iPad3 displays when the latter came out and trying to see how much better the so much hyped "Retina" display was. Well, nobody was holding the tablets at their normal distance and seeing how better the experience was, everybody was squinting their eyes a few centimeters form the displays looking at zoomed-in texts... And we are talking about comparing side by side the tablet with the lowest PPI on the market (iPad2) with the one with the highest (iPad3)!
Of course the difference IS there but if the average Joe can't see it right away in a side by side comparison without actually LOOKING for it on the 2 tablets at the extreme sides of the spectrum how the hell do you think you are going to appreciate the difference between 2 HD displays with a difference of 40 PPI????

Have you read about those "jokers" handing around iPad2s saying to people they were testing the iPad3 and asking them what they thought about the superior resolution of the Retina display? Go have a laugh...

P.S. oh and I am still waiting for you to tell me what's the average distance to your eyes at which you keep your smartphone, your tablet and your laptop/desktop display because in my case there really is not that much difference (and in the case of my smartphone and tablet it's the same, period)

zooster · Jun 6, 2012

@glennss
My facts are not taken from their marketing, this is just what you say.
I didn't say that 224ppi is a terrible dispaly at all, I don't mean so neither for the 8.9 display (that has an higher ppi than 10.1), if you read carefully I always said that to get te optimal visual quality it's needed to unnotice the single pixels, if you notice them the quality maybe won't be terrible, but surely wouldn't be exactly optimal.
That there is no average human sight is something new, but we are glad to learn these things here from an authoritative user

But if you have scientific article stating that in a tablet is enough 224ppi to be the pixels unnoticeable by the average user, please share it.
And how can you have all these difficulties to understand what I say: if 5ppi can be evident 40ppi are too much. I can try to repeat it if you want but it won't change.
Again, put side by side a 342ppi lg or sony and a 300 ppi samsung or whatever, you'll surely notice big difference, unless you are sight impaired.
But if you don't notice it what's the problem, still keep buying low ppi devices, if you are happy with them we are happy for you.

@xdapao
I don't care of Apple, ppi have always been the main feature to get better a display, it's since ever been so, and I've since ever thought so, and that's why I've always tried to choose, since windows mobile era, the highest ppi devices. Look at my devices in signature. I still have a 294ppi WM6.5, and beside the fact that it's a tiny display it kickstands my sensation in term of definition and readability of text. A legacy device!
As suggested before, please go to compare side by side a lg or sony 342ppi with a 300 , and you tell me if you notice differences.
At the distance I use my devices I notice pixels, and I use lenses. I wish my sensation got a hd reolution in 4.3" or my 8.9 tab got a fullhd.
So, as stated from the beginning, the higher ppi, the better. To deny the importance of ppi in the usage of a device is just an excuse to shift the manufacturer "war" on something less expensive/complicated.
Maybe the hype of Apple pushed the market toward the ppi, but the the other way round Samsung is pushing the market off the ppi war. Anyhow what's the highest FULLRGB ppi reached by a samsung device on the market? This tell us a lot.
I don't care of the brand but since I do care of the visual quality (noticeability of pixels) I do care of ppi.

glennss · Jun 6, 2012

zooster said:
The average human cannot notice pixels when a device, held at a distance of a smartphone has at least 320-330ppi, held at a distance of a tablet has at least 250ppi.

zooster said:
Unless you try to revolutionize all the scientific knowledges, I suggest to you to read some academic/scientifc article to learn something about visual acuity at a given distance and ppi of display.
The top visual quality of a display is achieved when is reached the threshold that makes unnoticeable the pixels. This threshold is at around 320-330ppi for a device used at a distance of a phone, and at around 250 for a device used at a distance of a tablet. Everything you try to say against this common scientifc knowledge is just either a joke or a troll.

zooster said:
There are several independent article about that ppi, I'll post them.

Im still wiating for the "independent article" that you are going to post to prove your point, untill then, you are just using Apple's marketing values to determine what is "top visual quality". Dr Raymond Soneira stated that someone with 20/10 vision (prefect vision) would require 477ppi for a 3.5" device at 12" and 458ppi for a 9.7" display at 15". you can half those values for someone with 20/20 vision, so thats ~238ppi and ~229ppi.

I have stated my sources and if you want to taken seriously you should do the same, thats all i have to say on the subject, I have real work to do.

zooster · Jun 6, 2012

As that misterious dr. Soneira states in his articles:

Retina Display Acuity:
“Retina Display” is a great marketing name, and it’s the sharpest smartphone display available, 23 percent sharper than the nearest competitor, but objectively it does not meet the quantitative criteria for being a true Retina Display – it’s about a factor of two lower than the acuity of the human Retina. Rather, the iPhone 4 has a “20/20 Vision Display” because when it is held more than 10.5 inches away, a person with 20/20 Vision will not be able to resolve the iPhone 4 screen pixels, which are at 326 ppi (1 arc-minute resolution). But 20/20 Vision is the legal definition of “Normal Vision,” which is at the lower end of true normal vision. There are in fact lots of people with much better than 20/20 Vision, and for most people visual acuity is limited by blurring from the lens in the eye. The best human vision is about 20/10 Vision, twice as good as 20/20 Vision, and that is what corresponds to the acuity of the Retina. So to be a “True Retina Display” a screen needs about 652 ppi at 10.5 inches, or 572 ppi at 12 inches. Unfortunately, a “20/20 Vision Display” doesn’t sound anywhere near as enticing as a “Retina Display” so marketing and science don’t see eye-to-eye on this…

He, and he's not THE scientific source, is trying to say that to be the pixels unnoticeable the ppi has to reach a value at a viewing distance. When you use a display at tipical distance of 10.5 the ppi has to be a real 326 one to be perfect if your vision is a normal 20/20.
When you increase the viewing distance you can decrease that value, but only if you are in the lower end of normal vision, as stated by the author. If you have better vision you'll need an higher value of ppi! you have to double it not to halve it. So, unless you use your tablet as homecinema 3 meters far away, you'll need 573 ppi if you have 20/10, otherwise you can be satisfied by 286 as well (much more than that small "leap" to 224 proposed by someone).
That's what I said from the beginning. The higher ppi the better and Samsung ppi just sucks.

glennss · Jun 6, 2012

I'm on lunch so i'll humor you...

It's obvious that english is not your first language and may explain why you keep getting things wrong and the gobbledygook you just wrote, im sure your english is much better than my italian so i won't be too critical

but you double the ppi values if you are going from 20/20 to 20/10 and you half them when going in reverse as i said in my last post.

he states in your quote "572 ppi at 12 inches" which is what I have said all along and

zooster said:
That's what I said from the beginning. The higher ppi the better and Samsung ppi just sucks.

but that's not what you said from the beginning is it, you stated that 320-330ppi was required and thats not true, you even said you have scientific proof, I suspect that's not true either as you have yet to post it and now seem to have changed to 286ppi.

edit- also that is 286 for a 9.7" screen at 12" with 20/20 visual acuity, but being a tablet, it would be more likely to be at 15"+. With 20/10 you would need 458ppi and 20/20 you would need 229ppi, which is VERY close to the 224 used in the transformer infinity, proposed earlier by another poster and stated by myself in the last post

and the point the other guy and myself have been making is that, with ppi, higher is better but only upto a point, there are many factors that make a great display and discarding a display because it has a lower ppi is stupid, you need to take the other factors into account. Samsung screens might have a lower ppi than others but their screens are fantastic

ucla54 · Jun 6, 2012

Integrated web video on this tab

How is the integrated web video on this tab. ALL android tabs, and ive tried many lack in the area when compared to apple. The android phones are great, but the tabs just don't play integrated web video a well as android phones or the ipad.....so how does this tab do?

zooster · Jun 6, 2012

glennss said:
I'm on lunch so i'll humor you...

It's obvious that english is not your first language and may explain why you keep getting things wrong and the gobbledygook you just wrote, im sure your english is much better than my italian so i won't be too critical but you double the ppi values if you are going from 20/20 to 20/10 and you half them when going in reverse as i said in my last post.

he states in your quote "572 ppi at 12 inches" which is what I have said all along and

edit- also that is 286 for a 9.7" screen at 12" with 20/20 visual acuity, but being a tablet, it would be more likely to be at 15"+. With 20/10 you would need 458ppi and 20/20 you would need 229ppi, which is VERY close to the 224 used in the transformer infinity, proposed earlier by another poster and stated by myself in the last post

and the point the other guy and myself have been making is that, with ppi, higher is better but only upto a point, there are many factors that make a great display and discarding a display because it has a lower ppi is stupid, you need to take the other factors into account. Samsung screens might have a lower ppi than others but their screens are fantastic

Nope, despite you state to be english evidently you still can't understand, everyone has a limit afterall. So I'm sorry but I suggest to you to read better what did say the author you quoted.
At the tipical viewing distance of a smartphone (about 10,5") the display will need, (as I stated since the beginning) 320-330 ppi and ONLY if you are within normal vision of 20/20. If your vision is 20/10, instead, you'll need the double, 652!
If the display is less close, let's say at 12", you'll need 286 if your vision is 20/20, otherwise you are going to need the double 572. That's why the ppi Samsung uses is too low. Clear now?
So, to close this topic, someone can be satisfied by black true black display to call it fantastic, others instead needs a display very sharp and readable, especially at the tipical close distance of usage, without the pixelation and all that bad stuff given by low ppi.
But again, if you alone in the world use a tablet so far away like a tv, then you can be satisfied by such low ppi, afterall not everyone is high demanding in term of technical spec.

mr toasty · Jun 6, 2012

Guys, can we please stop the debate over PPI and screens and crap and get back on topic? If you're so concerned, go watch a youtube video comparing the two or something, it's all subjective so who cares.

OP, your videos have been marked private, I didn't get to watch

I too am wondering about a release date and also, is the pen comfortable for long periods of writing? I was literally about to buy a TPT before seeing that this was announced. Now I'm excited :3

Well..as long as it doesn't cost me my firstborn child

jaaka78 · Jun 6, 2012

mr toasty said:
Guys, can we please stop the debate over PPI and screens and crap and get back on topic? If you're so concerned, go watch a youtube video comparing the two or something, it's all subjective so who cares.

+1 to this

If by tpt you mean the prime, be glad you didn't. The processor is fast, but the wifi issues and random reboots are unacceptable.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using xda premium

floiancu · Jun 6, 2012

Unfortunately I received word from Samsung that what I had isn't actually the final device, that there are plans to change bits and pieces both in the design and the internals so they asked me to take them down until further notice.

Since I'm involved in one of their projects and got the Note from them in the first place, I obliged, but I assure you that I'll post news about the changes and the release date as soon as I have some info.

Thanks for your attention, support and ppi debates

)

Samsung Galaxy NOTE 10.1 hands on

Senior Member

Member

New member

Member

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Member

New member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Top Liked Posts