4.3" Screen vs 5" Screen?
  • rus
    Posts: 146
    If cost didn't matter why would you want a 4.3" screen over a 5" screen? :roll:
  • SergZak
    Posts: 2,778
    Space. The area that I mount my GPS (on the dash to the right of the A-pillar) will not accommodate anything larger than a 4.3" screen unit.
  • rus
    Posts: 146
    Excellent reason. I use a bean bag in the center of my dashboard so no problem.
  • t923347
    Posts: 2,590
    If cost is no deterrent then there is a very good reason to have a 4.3 inch screen and that is the 3790T.

    The map detail, DEM, ease of use in the sunlight, dual orientation, etc. will blow the doors off the 5" screen on the 1490 which is good but lack any kind of street name detail. Also the 800 x 480 pixels screen resolution of the 4.3" 3790 screen is a world ahead of the 480 x 272 pixels on the 1490's 5" display. You can't beat more pixels on a smaller screen for sharpness and clarity.
  • Boyd
    Posts: 11,631
    As you know, the 3790 gets my vote too. But if there was a 4790 with a 5" screen, I would definitely go for that. I used a 5" Nuvi 5000 for several years and it was my favorite GPS until the 3790 came along.

    That was bit different however. Standard 4" models have screen resolutions of 480x272. The 1490 has a 5" screen, but the same 480x272 resolution. So you don't see any more detail, the pixels are just bigger. The Nuvi 5000 had 800x480 pixels on its 5" screen.

    As I get older, I do think that "size matters" when it comes to reading the screen. But resolution also matters, and it trumps physical size in my book.

    However, when you think about it, the important factor is the distance from the screen to your eyeballs. I will just make up some numbers, but you can do the actual geometry yourself. If you place a 5" screen 36 inches away, it will occupy the same visual space as a 4" screen that is 26 inches from your eyes.

    So, if you're comparing the 1390 with the 1490 for example, you will see exactly the same thing in both cases. The screens will occupy the same percentage of your field of view and they have the same number of pixels. So consider where you want to mount the GPS when you choose. If needed, you could cut out two pieces of paper in the correct sizes (you can get this from the specs on Garmin's site) and observe the effect in your own car.
  • gatorguy
    Posts: 7,244
    Another thing to consider: A lower res 1490 and a hi-res 3790 will likely have the same apparent resolution if viewed from two feet back or more. One may be brighter or have more detail than the other. But individual pixels won't be visible on either one unless held close to your face. That's why when we print billboard canvases we can get away with as little as 12 pixels per inch. Even quality posters viewed from 18" look as good whether printed at 150ppi or 600ppi.
  • Boyd
    Posts: 11,631
    Yeah, that is true up to a point certainly. But more pixels is usually better. This was hotly debated among videophiles as the transition to high definition began. It's true that I can't tell the difference between a standard definition DVD (853x480) vs Bluray disk (1920x1080) from across the room.
  • gatorguy
    Posts: 7,244
    Had no idea you were a videophile, but I shouldn't be surprised😃

    Most people even in the industry "don't get it", at least at first, when I try to explain setting resolution based on the viewing distance.
  • Boyd
    Posts: 11,631
    Gator, I have been a moderator over at DVinfo.net for many years (although feeling very guilty that I never get over there these days :oops: ). I do quite a lot with video and own some high-end gear (also gathering dust at the moment).

    Between that and my computer graphics work, the issue of resolution is always on my mind. 😃
  • philhu
    Posts: 139
    Id go for a 5" 3795......3790 with nulink services. I love the 1695 I have. Even if it can be sometimes slow because of underpowered processor.
  • - High definition 800x400 needs more space to store the same image.
    - High definition needs faster image processor to change images.

    That’s one of the reasons why high definition GPS (800x400) cost more.

    Probably it needs more time to download high definition new maps. The last time I downloaded and installed a standard definition map (2 gigs) renewal, it took more than two hours.

    I am sceptical. If the high definition does not get popular, for how long will Garmin and others (Magellan, Tom Tom …) support high definition map?

    I tried the 1490 and the 1390 in early 2010, while they were working.

    I liked the 1490; it was easier to read without reading glasses, but it was a little big on my Corolla’s dash. It was acceptable when I found the right spot on the windshield.

    Sometimes I could not read the fine print on the 1390 without reading glasses, but it hid less on the dash.

    Unfortunately, they all went back, due to early Garmin system problems.

    I think the owner have to try 4.3" and 5" in own car, the see which one is better.
  • gatorguy
    Posts: 7,244
    There's no "high resolution" maps for either Garmin or Tomtom. In fact no Tom Tom has what could be called a high resolution display. There's some additional terrain features or 3D building footprints in some map sets, but the display resolution isn't determined by the map but rather the pnd hardware/display.
  • Boyd
    Posts: 11,631
    badabum99 said:

    Probably it needs more time to download high definition new maps. The last time I downloaded and installed a standard definition map (2 gigs) renewal, it took more than two hours.

    I am sceptical. If the high definition does not get popular, for how long will Garmin and others (Magellan, Tom Tom …) support high definition map?



    Bada, your assumptions about how maps work on Garmin/Magellan/TomTom are unfortunately incorrect. The map data is vector based, meaning that only coordinates are stored. For example, here is some code from an actual map:

    [RGN40]
    Type=0x07
    Label=Corwin St
    Levels=2
    RegionName=34
    Data0=(40.8766937,-74.6346359),(40.8768158,-74.6350708)
    [END]

    [RGN40]
    Type=0x07
    Label=Cory Rd
    Levels=2
    RegionName=34
    Data0=(40.8543053,-74.7142868),(40.8534775,-74.7150574),(40.8522415,-74.7161713),(40.8515129,-74.7168121)
    [END]


    This same code works on any size screen. The map files are the same. If an author wants to include more data, that's another thing, but screen resolution is completely independent of the map data.

    It is true that the hardware works harder rotating a big image than a small one, and it needs more memory. But I think there's power to spare on a unit like the Nuvi 3790 (or an iPhone for that matter).

    The old hardware is slower, like the Nuvi 2x5 platform (which was itself a step forward in processing power from the 2x0/3x0/6x0/7x0 series). Even this is still strong enough for today's maps, but doesn't provide as smooth a frame rate as the newer models like the 13x0 series. These have gotten much cheaper now also.

    So - forgive me - your argument reminds me of people just a few years ago who said High Definition TV would never catch on. The hardware just keeps getting faster and prices keep dropping. One does wonder if it will ever end?

    But the 3790 is strong enough to handle the maps I'm making with this amount of detail, including real 3d rendering with the features mapped on the terrain. It can lag a bit, but it works surprisingly well.

    According to my quick calculation, a map of the entire US at this level of detail would be about 120GB. With flash memory prices dropping steadily, this isn't such a big deal.

    image
↑ Top

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!