320 x 240 is not even close to "adequate" on a 2.6" inch screen. I wish people would stop spreading that myth. The human eye can discern up to 1200 (ppi) pixels per inch. That is why laser printers offer that dpi.
320x240 is not even 200 ppi. Have you ever even seen a 400 ppi display? Let me tell you that you can view web pages readably on a 400 ppi display of around that size, while at 200 ppi you can't.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Eric M @ Sep 13th 2007 8:31AM
Can we move past 320x240 screens now? They are not impressive.
LMAO @ Sep 13th 2007 8:34AM
Because, for such a tiny screen, 320x240 resolution is more than adequate.
Eric M @ Sep 13th 2007 8:38AM
...yes, just like 5mp cameras in other phones are "more than adequate"
For a $600 based on looks and images, I'd like a better screen.
Johan S @ Sep 13th 2007 4:27PM
@LMAO
320 x 240 is not even close to "adequate" on a 2.6" inch screen. I wish people would stop spreading that myth. The human eye can discern up to 1200 (ppi) pixels per inch. That is why laser printers offer that dpi.
320x240 is not even 200 ppi. Have you ever even seen a 400 ppi display? Let me tell you that you can view web pages readably on a 400 ppi display of around that size, while at 200 ppi you can't.