The Onix with it's 10.4" screen and 768 X 1024 pixel count should have a sharp image, 14,754 +/- pixels pre sq. inch if my math is correct.
Printable View
The Onix with it's 10.4" screen and 768 X 1024 pixel count should have a sharp image, 14,754 +/- pixels pre sq. inch if my math is correct.
Ok
I'm in the middle to trying to install an umbrella up front to protect my delicate completion!
Post pics. I want one but I'm not sure on how to mount it.
And that 14,754 puts ONIX resolution right at about in between the 898 and the 998...Quote:
Originally Posted by justinp61
The 798 has 31,170.5 pixels per square inch.
The 898 has 17,533.4 pixels per square inch
The 998 has 12,755.7 pixels per square inch
The 1198 has 8,858.2 pixels per square inch
We're bound to be leaving something out of this equation....
ONIX is supposed be like "astronomically detailed"....with it's digital technology...
So...who in here is the display resolution aficionado..??
:dono
Rickie
I think your right there is something we are leaving out of this.
Wait
Are the pixel numbers for the entire screen? Or is it pixels per square inch. Example: a 597 is 640x640. Is that 640 pixels tall or is that 640 pixels tall per inch
That’s 640 pixels tall by 640 pixels wide toofuss.
I think Rickie has the math correct: vertical pixel count times horizontal pixel count. Divide that by the square inches of the display and you should have the number of pixels per square inch.
Total vertical and horizontal is my understanding. On the 12T it works out to about 124 pixels vertical and horizontal, .008" each. About 2X the diameter of the average human hair.
OK thanks Greg. Still leaves me confused though. How is it that theoretically a 798 has better resolution than an onix 10
Smaller pixels mean more per square inch, which means sharper more detailed images.Quote:
Originally Posted by toofuss
Then someone's been trying to pull the shades over us for a long time with these numbers
Quote:
Originally Posted by toofuss
How?
With these numbers saying that the bigger screen will show us greater resolution images and allow more detail to be shown. It don't matter whether we are talking sonar, TV, computer, anything. If I can get a higher pixel count per square inch with a 5 inch screen vs. A 10 inch, how is a 10 going to show me more info? Maybe I'm wrong here but thats the way it looks to me. For the money we spend on these things a 10 inch screen should have a higher count per inch than a 5 inch screen that's 4-8 HUNDRED dollars cheaper.
I don't think any HB rep has ever said there is more detailed images in larger screens...
It's more like... you should be able to decipher what you are seeing better on a bigger screen...
Better resolution on a 5" screen doesn't mean diddly if that brushpile is the size of a mustard seed...
Rickie
IMO unless it's a drastic difference in pixel count you won't see it unless you zoom in.
Pixels per inch or pixels per square inch (not commonly used) is meaningless unless it is coupled with image resolution and image size. A 640x640 resolution on a smaller screen will naturally have a higher PPI than that on a larger screen. The human eye has a resolution limitation that is dependent upon pixel size which is determined by viewing distance and PPI, so having a high pixel density per square inch on a smaller screen is not advantageous if the pixel size is too small for our eyes. Unless of course, you a zooming in a small area as justinp61 suggests.
I can tell all that zooming in on a 9 touch is a disappointment. ( down image)
Don’t forget the distance that you are viewing the display from.
Having many pixels per square inch is nice but for those of us who are in the ‘bifocal age’ of our lives we want to be able to see what is on the screen without leaving a nose print! Most can see the detail shown on the larger (less pixel dense) display units because we can see them from a normal seated-driving position or more importantly from the deck while working the trolling motor at the bow.
I have question that I hope not too dumb. Is the center of the compass your GPS is located on the boat and has nothing to do with the transducer at this point? Thanks so much for this thread.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnvinc
I can't access the answer to #9. The given URL is:
http://www.crappie.com/crappie/editp...38&do=editpost
I'm sure it contains the answer to all the questions I have about sonar interpretation, location, etc.! :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by rnvinc
The point I drew on the boat was just a reference to show how the "bearing" to "Active Cursor" was 293° from my boat's position (and had no reference to the course my boat was moving nor to the bearing my boat was heading) ...Quote:
Originally Posted by jym
All GPS functions in any system is referenced/measured/calculated from the GPS antenna (regardless of where the xducer is) ...
Rickie
I sent a PM to Catfan to check this link and see if he can fix it ...Quote:
Originally Posted by jym
Rickie
Catfan has fixed the link in question ... You should be able to access Sonar Quiz #9 thru the Big Sonar Quiz sticky thread now ...Quote:
Originally Posted by jym
Rickie