Database Develop

Does the off center screen bothers you?

I never seen anyone talk about it, the screen on the N6 its closer to the lower speaker (i found the moto x also), is off center vertically when holding on landscape. Do you think it would bother when viewing videos? Not trashing the phone, it looks gorgeous, just to see your thoughts.

Lower speaker area requires less presence for sensors/use. Making the screen lower intentionally. The top area where your front camera, proximity sensor, and ear piece requires more real-estate.
Personally I do not find it that much of a bother. As long as the build quality damn good and everything works as intended I will be happy with it.

2fastkuztoms said:
I never seen anyone talk about it, the screen on the N6 its closer to the lower speaker (i found the moto x also), is off center vertically when holding on landscape. Do you think it would bother when viewing videos? Not trashing the phone, it looks gorgeous, just to see your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No

2fastkuztoms said:
I never seen anyone talk about it, the screen on the N6 its closer to the lower speaker (i found the moto x also), is off center vertically when holding on landscape. Do you think it would bother when viewing videos? Not trashing the phone, it looks gorgeous, just to see your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for bringing this up. I thought I was the only person who was getting crazy on this particular design choice. I would have liked a little centered screen as well.

i been using it for a week and found no problem with it

I always like symmetrical look on things, but i think this is less obvious that the logo and grey bar on my lg g3 or the flat tire look of the moto 360, after some days you forget is there.

JMillion said:
i been using it for a week and found no problem with it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How is the sound quality
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N900A using XDA Free mobile app

2fastkuztoms said:
I never seen anyone talk about it, the screen on the N6 its closer to the lower speaker (i found the moto x also), is off center vertically when holding on landscape. Do you think it would bother when viewing videos? Not trashing the phone, it looks gorgeous, just to see your thoughts.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would if the screen is off-centered "Verizontally"

The fact it has dual front speaker is good enough for me. I have a S4, which rear speaker is god awful

8675
Not at all. it makes the virtual buttons become a part of the bezel. There are a few apps that do not support the full screen mode. Sometimes when playing games this happens. This makes it so if an app doesn't support it, the screen is still symmetrical.

Yes, off center screen looks awful !!
I hate unsymmetrical things
Nexus 5 is also unsymmetrical but in the inverse way .... the lower bezel is bigger than the upper one.
WHY DOES SOMEONE DESIGN SOMETHING LIKE THIS ??? :crying:

What bothers me is the orientation of the "M" and "Nexus" being different.

[Q] "Screen On" Time and Screen Protection

Hi
Whilst waiting for my watch to be shipped to me , I had a couple of questions that I hoped people would be able to answer;
1. Screen on time - I know in Watchmaker you can change the time that a watch screen stays on, but I've heard that you need to be wary of "burn in" on the OLED screen. Is it OK to increase the default length of time to 10 or 15 secs without having an impact on this? I would like to show off some of my watchfaces and I don't want to be pressing the screen every 5 secs to display it again. I plan to change watch faces every couple of days anyway and use ones that only show hands when the screen goes dark.
2. Screen Protectors - I've seen a few screen protectors on ebay and Amazon but I've also seen tempered glass protectors which are starting to become available via Hong Kong. Have people used these tempered protectors, how do they perform? are the better than the standard screen protectors? or do people not bother with anything?
Your advice would be appreciated.
Thanks

1. this is absolutely OK, it hurts only battery life. You only need to worry about burn-in in the ambient mode (99% of the time) where you want to avoid thick bright lines - I set all my watchfaces to only display digital clock in small thin font in ambient mode. For such short periods, no burn-in can occur (not a few years anyway)
In ambient mode, android wear shifts the whole face a few pixels in different directions every now and then, to with thin lines there's nothing to worry about, but keeping one pixel bright (because it's in the middle of a thick line) is something you absolutely need to avoid.
2) I never use screen protectors - I always buy them, try them and then put them in trash, they just ruin the experience. The only time I regret not having them is after about a year when I scratch it hard with something, but I still consider that a lesser evil compared to a diminished experience with a screen protector. But that you need to decide for yourself.
I have the watch for more than a month and it doesn't have a scratch, and the bezel is quite thick and will protect the watch face. You wouldn't put a screen protector on a luxury watch, would you? Then why would you put it on this?
A whole different situation will be in summer, when most of us will end up on a beach somewhere with a watch on our wrist - don't even think about touching the watch there, not until you have no sand on your hands or clothing.

I used the skinomi screen protector which unlike most protectors is a film that is applied using a liquid spray which is applied before fitting the film.
I find that this means that you get no bubbles or dust. It looks awful at first but over 24 hours it 'straightens out' and looks and works great.

Tempered glass screen protector definately the way to go if you want to go down that route

fade2black101 said:
Tempered glass screen protector definately the way to go if you want to go down that route
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have one? How is it working out for you? We've been talking about them in this thread and been wanting to hear from someone who actually has it already.
---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------
Personally, I'm using the Skinomi skin. I got the full body protection, but only use the face and back. To me, the sides looked awful, so I took them off.
I have been interested in the Tempered glass though. From what I've read for the smartphone Tempered glass protectors, they work well. I'm just wondering how well they do for the "R".
The Skinomi skin has been working out great for me in terms of sensitivity. I had a Zagg skin when I had a Samsung Gear Live and it degraded touch a bit.

ordered mine yesterday, will let you know when it arrives.

Also ordered a tempered glass for my LGR yesterday. Use tempered glass on all my phones and its really great. You don't notice it and the feeling is as you didn't have it, it's also a very good protection and cheep to replace if it got a scratch

I'm also currently using a plastic screen protector - keeps my screen safe but does feel a bit off compared to the naked watch (got used to it long time ago though)
but please keep us updated on the tempered glass ones! thanks
@zvieratko: I don't use screen protectors on my regular watch, but that has sapphire glass and won't scratch (wouldn't buy a regular watch with any other kind of glass for exactly this reason - and a luxury watch has it anyways)

Darnell_Chat_TN said:
You have one? How is it working out for you? We've been talking about them in this thread and been wanting to hear from someone who actually has it already.
---------- Post added at 09:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:58 PM ----------
Personally, I'm using the Skinomi skin. I got the full body protection, but only use the face and back. To me, the sides looked awful, so I took them off.
I have been interested in the Tempered glass though. From what I've read for the smartphone Tempered glass protectors, they work well. I'm just wondering how well they do for the "R".
The Skinomi skin has been working out great for me in terms of sensitivity. I had a Zagg skin when I had a Samsung Gear Live and it degraded touch a bit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hehe I wish
Don't even have this watch. Currently use a Pebble Steel, and testing out the original G Watch which is also on ebay as I preferred Pebble.
However, I'm very very curious about the battery life on the G Watch R in comparision to the G Watch (where I can't even make a day). I'm curious to know whether the amoled helps dramatically with apps like musicboss on night mode, and also with an always on clockface.
If i can get close to 2 days with my usage, then I'd definately snap this up.

fade2black101 said:
However, I'm very very curious about the battery life on the G Watch R in comparision to the G Watch (where I can't even make a day). I'm curious to know whether the amoled helps dramatically with apps like musicboss on night mode, and also with an always on clockface.
If i can get close to 2 days with my usage, then I'd definately snap this up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if you can't even make a day with the original G Watch, than the LGWR probably won't last you for 2 full days, but one day should still be pretty safe
Alternatively, have a look at Sony's SW3, should do even better than the LGWR battery wise and the new steel model looks nice too imo

I can't give a comparison to the G Watch, but I actually just moved up from the Pebble Steel. I was going to keep the Steel as my "fancy" watch, but recently sold it. Once I moved to the GWR, I couldn't imagine myself using the Steel anymore...

battery life
I have now had my LGR for several days. I use a watch face called Ranger. It is set to 5 and 3 for the ambient setting. Ranger has several useful settings for timing, brightness, colors, line width, etc. I get just about a day. I am sure if I turned ambient mode off I would get a day and a half.
I am looking for a way to extend the time the watch stays on. It goes off pretty quick if you do not do something. 15 sec. Is all I want. I am also sure that will kill battery life too.

bduerr said:
I have now had my LGR for several days. I use a watch face called Ranger. It is set to 5 and 3 for the ambient setting. Ranger has several useful settings for timing, brightness, colors, line width, etc. I get just about a day. I am sure if I turned ambient mode off I would get a day and a half.
I am looking for a way to extend the time the watch stays on. It goes off pretty quick if you do not do something. 15 sec. Is all I want. I am also sure that will kill battery life too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm running the G Watch R with IntersectRaven's kernel: http://forum.xda-developers.com/g-watch-r/orig-development/kernel-intersectravens-kernel-t2957728
I'm using the watch with:
- Standard brightness set to 1
- True Dark => https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.preiss.swapps.truedarkwear
- Watchmaker/Facer with whatever watchface I want (at the moment this one => http://facerepo.com/app/faces/details/green-black-led-compass-14ad0ebbf1c )
- Always on
And I'm getting over a day of usage with heart measurement ratings every 30 minutes. Or when turning those off easily 2 days.

Little trick to improve SDE (screen door effect)...

Just stumbled upon this because the GVR was making my face sore after wearing it a while. I had already replaced the stock foam pad with the alternate one which has the nose bridge. For more padding I simply took the original "noseless" pad and put it on first. I then placed the full pad on top of it, attaching the nose section to the velcro so it stays in place - in other words, double foam.
WOW.
What I didn't expect was the MAJOR REDUCTION IN SCREEN DOOR EFFECT which has been achieved simply by moving the GVR another 1/4 inch from my face. I was looking at the Mars 360 photos and I thought, "Damn these look clear." Then I looked at some others and noticed the pixels all seemed about half the size they were previously. To really test it I loaded up The Hobbit in Oculus Cinema. WOW! SO much better. Again, pixels half the size. It makes sense. Your eyes are twice as far from the lenses so pixels half as big. Incredible.
The best analogy is that instead of feeling you are looking through a screen door, it looks like the image is projected on canvas. Much much more pleasant.
So apparently the biggest cause for the screen door effect on the GVR is it's just too damned close to your eyes. I also found focusing much easier and eye strain reduced - and oh yeah, face hurt less. I find the screen looks better with this mod if I wear the GVR a bit lower on my face as well.
Give it a try. Watch the Hobbit without the "double-stuff" then watch it with - you'll see the difference.
P.S., Some have commented that this will reduce your FOV and cause focus issues at the edges. Please remember that you are only moving 1/4 in from the lenses. IMHO there is no perceptible FOV loss and no additional focus problems at the edges. The only thing which changes is the image is so much better.

Anyone try this? Any improvement? For me it's night and day.

When you get the chance, can you post a pic of what the modified padding looks like?

Buddy Revell said:
When you get the chance, can you post a pic of what the modified padding looks like?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just follow my instructions. Put the noseless pad on the bottom and the nose pad on the top. Simple.

But if you do that you lose so much of the picture...

ickna11 said:
But if you do that you lose so much of the picture...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What? How? You don't lose any picture at all. You simply stack the padding on top of each other. It just causes the lenses to be 1/4 inch further from your eyes so pixels look smaller. How are you losing picture?
Was just looking at 360 pics again like this. It's a whole new device. Instead of looking big and distinct pixels look like grains of sand.

mitchellvii said:
What? How? You don't lose any picture at all. You simply stack the padding on top of each other. It just causes the lenses to be 1/4 inch further from your eyes so pixels look smaller. How are you losing picture?
Was just looking at 360 pics again like this. It's a whole new device. Instead of looking big and distinct pixels look like grains of sand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You lose fov being further away, more of a binocular effect.

ickna11 said:
You lose fov being further away, more of a binocular effect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not even remotely correct. No perceived loss of FOV at all. Binocular effect actually seems lessened as the image quality is so much improved. Remember, we are talking 1/4 inch here.

mitchellvii said:
Not even remotely correct. No perceived loss of FOV at all. Binocular effect actually seems lessened as the image quality is so much improved. Remember, we are talking 1/4 inch here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You lose fov being further away, this is a fact.
You also get a more distorted picture around the edges of the lens.
Not saying it doesn't make it more clear because you are further away, just pointing out what you lose when you do this.

ickna11 said:
You lose fov being further away, this is a fact.
You also get a more distorted picture around the edges of the lens.
Not saying it doesn't make it more clear because you are further away, just pointing out what you lose when you do this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I'm sorry but you are wrong. Have you actually tried it or is this just your theory?
By moving back only 1/4 inch you lose maybe 1-2% of your field of view and there is no additional distortion around the edges but the image is dramatically better - night and day. So which would you rather have, tiny pixels and 98% of the FOV or huge pixels and 100% FOV? Miniscule sacrifice, huge gain.

mitchellvii said:
Just stumbled upon this because the GVR was making my face sore after wearing it a while. I had already replaced the stock foam pad with the alternate one which has the nose bridge. For more padding I simply took the original "noseless" pad and put it on first. I then placed the full pad on top of it, attaching the nose section to the velcro so it stays in place - in other words, double foam.
WOW.
What I didn't expect was the MAJOR REDUCTION IN SCREEN DOOR EFFECT which has been achieved simply by moving the GVR another 1/4 inch from my face. I was looking at the Mars 360 photos and I thought, "Damn these look clear." Then I looked at some others and noticed the pixels all seemed about half the size they were previously. To really test it I loaded up The Hobbit in Oculus Cinema. WOW! SO much better. Again, pixels half the size. It makes sense. Your eyes are twice as far from the lenses so pixels half as big. Incredible.
The best analogy is that instead of feeling you are looking through a screen door, it looks like the image is projected on canvas. Much much more pleasant.
So apparently the biggest cause for the screen door effect on the GVR is it's just too damned close to your eyes. I also found focusing much easier and eye strain reduced - and oh yeah, face hurt less. I find the screen looks better with this mod if I wear the GVR a bit lower on my face as well.
Give it a try. Watch the Hobbit without the "double-stuff" then watch it with - you'll see the difference.
P.S., Some have commented that this will reduce your FOV and cause focus issues at the edges. Please remember that you are only moving 1/4 in from the lenses. IMHO there is no perceptible FOV loss and no additional focus problems at the edges. The only thing which changes is the image is so much better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Surely gone to try this, thanks a lot!
Aedriaen

Aedriaen said:
Surely gone to try this, thanks a lot!
Aedriaen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey its worth a try since there is nothing permanent about the mod. Everyone's eyes work differently with the GVR but for me its made all the difference.

Aedriaen said:
Surely gone to try this, thanks a lot!
Aedriaen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a quick test tried pressing GVR harder against my face to see if pixels size increased and they did, dramatically so. Also noticed tiny increase in FOV, hardly worth it to endure the bigger pixels.

mitchellvii said:
As a quick test tried pressing GVR harder against my face to see if pixels size increased and they did, dramatically so. Also noticed tiny increase in FOV, hardly worth it to endure the bigger pixels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a clarification: the pixels are not changing size. You are looking through a concave lens. The further back you move, the less "magnified" the view becomes. It simply looks clearer because you are getting closer to the original resolution of the image by "zooming" less. If you really feel that they were a whole foam buffer off in how close the lenses should be for clear viewing, you should probably be telling Oculus. That is the sort of stuff they want to know when they release an "innovator" edition.

twistedumbrella said:
Just a clarification: the pixels are not changing size. You are looking through a concave lens. The further back you move, the less "magnified" the view becomes. It simply looks clearer because you are getting closer to the original resolution of the image by "zooming" less. If you really feel that they were a whole foam buffer off in how close the lenses should be for clear viewing, you should probably be telling Oculus. That is the sort of stuff they want to know when they release an "innovator" edition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is why the density solution will not work in this case. It does not apply.
twisted, if you own the GVR just for grins try my double-stuff solution and watch some movies. You'll see the difference.

mitchellvii said:
This is why the density solution will not work in this case. It does not apply.
twisted, if you own the GVR just for grins try my double-stuff solution and watch some movies. You'll see the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know it isn't what you want to hear, but if enough people didn't find the lens placement "optimal" the way they are, the headset would have been designed with deeper lenses. There are others that have the same issue, but they are the exception. I, on the other hand, do not suffer from this "severe" issue. It has nothing to do with density. I think it's best left between you and your optometrist. Good luck.

The closer the better for me. The extra pad makes it too blurry for me. I think the gear vr pad around the nose was removed from first goam pad because it brings your face even closer.

I went ahead and tried both and couldn't find a good focal point for my eyes. Sadly it made it far worse for me. Awesome it works for you tho and was with a try for me. I wear contacts to see, then readers to see anything closer than 3 feet. Ha

Compusmurf said:
I went ahead and tried both and couldn't find a good focal point for my eyes. Sadly it made it far worse for me. Awesome it works for you tho and was with a try for me. I wear contacts to see, then readers to see anything closer than 3 feet. Ha
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doubt it makes any noticeable difference (tried it myself and the experience/immersion was just way worse than normally and the pixels were just as visible). This did though give me an idea - to try the Gear VR without any padding at all in order to get it as close to your face as possible. Liked it a lot more and is worth a try if the pads that came with the device don't make for a comfortable fit for you (also a lot easier to get decent focus!). Btw. has anyone figured out a way to switch seats in the cinema without the controller? Setting up the sixaxis every time I want to watch a movie is a bit of a chore (want the screen to be as big as possible, and the front seat is the only one that offers anything like that). Don't really get why void cinema doesn't allow you to move closer and farther away from the "screen"(want it to fill my entire FOV).

mitchellvii said:
just for grins try my double-stuff solution and watch some movies. You'll see the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, while I was in the Gear VR tonight, I made a point of trying to experience it through your eyes to understand what you are going at better. You know what? I did start to see it through your eyes and it only confirmed what I was saying for why you are not experiencing it like others are (as well as others that have posted with similar reactions, such as as the Official Oculus Forum where a member was very similarly disappointed for the same reasons.) You might have 20/20 vision, but you also might consider you have focus issues.
I had to start rejecting the focal point of the image and start staring at the pixels to see what you were seeing. I also kept moving the face plate away from my eyes and back to look for the pixel size change. After doing this for a few minutes where I ignored the image, my eyes began to obsess over the pixels, noting the RBG field, and was less able to focus on the actual image. Quite frankly, this is a like a person watching an old CRT TV while focusing on the pixels rather than the program overlaid on the screen. You could see those old pixels at a normal viewing distance from within a living room much as you perceive the Gear VR pixels. At any rate, because of the exercise it became distracting when I was trying to go back to focusing on the actual image while I was looking at 360 Photos. Just moving my head around I'd lose focus on the image and follow the pixels. Taking a break to reset will get me back to enjoying it.
This is why you are getting more resistance than agreement. You are focused on the wrong point and that is not what the majority does., but you aren't alone.

Question about display size

Simple question really. I'm just wondering why there is a thin black circle bordering the watch faces/UI in general. It appears to be on the same surface as the actual screen, so I'm wondering if those are deliberately disabled pixels to form a border or something. It just looks weird sometimes that the watch face doesn't really extend all the way to the edges of the available space.

Maybe a quick email/message to LG could get your answer?

DropThatMelon said:
Simple question really. I'm just wondering why there is a thin black circle bordering the watch faces/UI in general. It appears to be on the same surface as the actual screen, so I'm wondering if those are deliberately disabled pixels to form a border or something. It just looks weird sometimes that the watch face doesn't really extend all the way to the edges of the available space.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's because the display shifts slightly from time to time to prevent burn in. If you watch it long enough you will see it move.

JimSmith94 said:
That's because the display shifts slightly from time to time to prevent burn in. If you watch it long enough you will see it move.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I know that it does shift around while in ambient. Even watching that though, it never shifts completely to the edge of the total display area. Besides, other watches like the moto 360 have full edge to edge displaying and their ambient mode shifts around. I guess it's the one little thing that irks me about the watch.

Folding the other way..

I just made a paper template of the device and discovered that it would make a whole lot more sense for it to fold landscape instead of portrait.
You still have the same size internal display, but the outer display is then as wide as the Note line, just a little shorter.
It would make the external screen far more usable instead of a tall candy bar, the keyboard would be as wide as Sammy's other flagship devices.
It makes me wonder why they decided to fold this way instead, ending up with a tall narrow device.
Try it! Draw around the unfolded device, cut the template and then fold it the other way. In fact it looks a hell of a lot like Samsung's famous foldy phone vision of the future from a decade ago.

I've kinda thought this since I got the phone. I don't know if a larger outer screen meant it would cost more?

chetly968 said:
I've kinda thought this since I got the phone. I don't know if a larger outer screen meant it would cost more?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You would still have roughly the same pixel volume, just in a different aspect ratio, and seeing as sammy produce the screens in the first place I couldn't see it being a problem.
It would certainly give me reason to upgrade to the ZF 3! Tall candy bar sucks.

lets see what Samsung people decides, we don't have choices for the design ideas