very old pixelly display screens in stock

I have two identical HD monitors that worked wonderfully with Windows 8.1, but I started getting the Blue Screen of Death and having other issues, so I bought a new and very expensive system that I was hoping would be more reliable. It"s been a disaster.

For comparison, I connected one monitor to the new computer (Windows 10) and the other to the old computer (Windows 8.1), and the display looks so much better on the old computer. The display on the new computer is very hard on the eyes, with blurry desktop

I wanted to put together a pixel art totem for music festivals, and went as far as buying an Arduino, LED array, etc. - and then I stumbled across this thing and immediately bought it. It served almost all of my needs, but there are a couple of major items that drop this from a 5 star product to 3 stars. Overall, my first event with it was a success (a lot of compliments) and I will be using it again. Depending on pricing and software, I might consider linking 4 of these together for a 64x64 set-up. At the time of this review, this did not seem to be an option.First, the good:* All in one package for your pixel art needs* Battery life is AT LEAST 4-5 hours. I haven"t used it enough to fully drain the battery* Great build quality - it"s a little hefty and doesn"t feel cheap at all* The app made it relatively easy to program my own channels, create my own pixel art, etc.* Bright enough to get the attention I wanted at dusk and night* The Pixel Community is really neat for finding pixel art* Long cable included, has wall mount holes, a "foot" for desk placement, and my model came with suction cups for mounting (very thoughtful)The neutral (no stars removed - just opinion):* I was hoping to mount it to a camera tripod (1/4 or 3/8) but the mounts use a different size. I got creative and was able to mount it to a camera pole with a screw I had laying around that just happened to fit, but it"s a little sketchy. I posted a question on this page asking for the screw size, and the response was "the digital frame don"t need screw for it". That wasn"t my question. I"ll update this review in the future once I figure out the proper screw measurements.* A little washed out/hard to see in bright daylight - but this is to be expected* No API/SDK/Programmatic access at this time. If Divoom opens this up, I bet it will sell like crazy.* The USB C charging port is challenging to get to and deep within a recessed cavity. I really appreciate the very long cable that came with it, however for "field" use I needed to use my own cable. The nice thing about the placement is that the USB C port is very much protected from getting bent/damaged (major pro) BUT, if your USB C connector is barely any wider than the slot itself, you won"t be able to use it.The bad:* The screen is made of very easily scratched plastic. Honestly I wish I had somehow protected it because after a couple of days at a festival, bouncing it around in a backpack, etc, I ended up with a ton of microscratches that are very visible under some conditions - basically indoors at an angle (see photos). It doesn"t hurt the screen"s performance but it"s a bit unsightly up close.* I went to a remote music festival with limited cellular signal. I could not launch the app without internet. This is a major issue because when I wanted to change some settings/create new pixel art/update my channels, I had to locate a bar of signal just to get in to the app. Note: Once you"re IN the app, the functions that don"t rely on internet work just fine if you lose signal. Divoom REALLY needs to let the app work in "offline" mode for situations where you don"t have internet access but need to make some updates to the device. -1.5 Stars* Although you can program "channels" (a list of pixel art to rotate through), you can"t define how long it stays on each art. It seems to go through about 1 cycle, and then moves on to the next. It"d be really nice if you could set a delay between rotations. Speaking of channels, it"d be nice if you could also tell it to automatically switch between channels - so it rotates through 36 animations on its own. -.25 Stars* On occasion, pixel art animations get "mixed". It"s hard to describe, but basically two different animations will flip back and forth between each other. In some cases it makes for a neat effect, but given that it"s really a bug that can mess up your planned animations, I"m deducting another .25 Stars.Overall, it"s a really neat device. If you don"t care about SDK access or offline functionality, I recommend it for your project. It saved me many hours of building my own device/software, so it was well worth the expense. I could see myself purchasing more of their products but only if they allow offline functionality.

Its completely normal. Its how OLED screens work. Its physically impossible to repair it.One pixel is on some very deep gray color, whilst the pixel next to it is black. Black means the screen will turn off, while the gray pixel will have the light physically turn on in the panel. Seems like you h...

A lot of people are saying it"s very normal for a OLED display but it doesn"t happen on the other OP7 Pro. My friend has the same OP7 Pro and it"s perfectly normal in his. Even iPhone XS Max has no issues, it has an OLED display too, right? I"m pretty sure it doesn"t happen to everyone out here given the response to this post.

And I"ve read a lot about it and gave Screen Balance app on the Play Store a shot and guess what, no more black crush. It totally fixes the issue with Fluorescent warm and strength at 60%. I"m pretty sure it"s not a hardware fault but can OnePlus not fix it. It"s been more than two months and I was hoping it will be fixed in the updates, but no it"s still here. I really hate using a third party app to control the colors of the display.

To name the group, tap the group. Then, tap the suggested folder name. You can also tap one of the suggested names at the top of the keyboard or type the name you want to use.

But some of the Pixel 7"s smartest and most useful features require a teensy bit of tinkering to coax out. That"s true if you"re coming from another Pixel, even with all the settings Google synced over for you, and it"s certainly true if you"re dipping your tootsies into Pixel-colored waters for the very first time.

Here, specifically, are seven out-of-sight settings I"ve stumbled onto that are well worth your while to dig up and activate. And if you"re still rockin" an older Pixel and just thinkingabout the Pixel 7 upgrade, take note: A lot of these will apply on previous Pixels, too.

At the very least, if you"re comfortable with having your phone remain unlocked in your own home, using the Trusted Places option with your home"s location can be a major time-saver (though take note: You may need to reference this Smart Lock Trusted Places fix to kick the system back into gear once in a while).

It"s easy to forget sometimes, but yes: These superpowered rectangles we carry around in our dungarees are actually still voice communication contraptions! And whether you relish the occasional voice call or do everything you can to avoid it, the Pixel"s call-related options can make your days a heck of a lot more pleasant.

Up first is your Pixel 7"s insanely useful Hold for Me feature. Plain and simple, anytime you find yourself on an eternal hold with some godawful company, your Pixel will offer to do the dirty work for you: You"ll just tap a "Hold for Me" button on the screen of your Pixel"s Phone app, and it"ll take over the insufferable process of listening to smooth jazz and hearing endlessly repeating reassurances about your call"s importance.

Then, just look for the Direct My Call button at the top of the screen the next time you make a call to a company that clearly hates you. Tap it, and as soon as your Pixel detects number-based menu options being provided, it"ll kick the feature in and start showing you any available choices — set apart in buttons alongside a transcription of everything else the obnoxious phone system is saying:

Personally, I find it most helpful to set "Spam" to "Silently decline," which will keep any known spam callers from even ringing your phone in any way. But the nuances of which interruptions you want to allow for every given situation are completely up to you. And the "Automatically screen" option is an awesome middle-ground possibility that"ll let your Pixel"s Assistant pick up the call for you, ask the person and/or evil spirit on the other end what they"re calling about, and then and only then ring your phone whilst showing a transcription of the answer on the screen.

While you"re there, back out to the main Battery Saver menu and tap "Extreme Battery Saver," then make sure it"s set to "Ask every time." That"ll cause your phone to prompt you anytime the Battery Saver mode gets activated and ask if you want to use Extreme Battery Saver instead — which limits what your phone"s able to do even more than the standard Battery Saver but also stretches your power out even longer when you"re really desperate to make it through a long day.

And there ya have it: Pressing and holding that power button will now pull up your Pixel"s power menu and make it easy for you to shut down or restart your phone, as well as enter its Lockdown mode or summon emergency services. Whew!

If you"ve been around computers and digital images for a while, especially if you"re a web designer or a photographer publishing your photos online, you"ve no doubt heard it said that the correct resolution for images displayed on the web, or on computer screens in general, is 72 pixels per inch (ppi).

Some say it"s "ppi" (pixels per inch), others claim it"s "dpi" (dots per inch), and the whole thing would get very confusing if it were not for one small fact - it"s all complete nonsense! In this tutorial, we"ll learn why there"s simply no such thing as a standard web or screen resolution and why, if your images are destined for the web, you don"t need to worry about image resolution at all!

The origin of the 72 ppi screen resolution dates all the way back to the mid 1980"s when Apple released its first Macintosh computers. These computers included a built-in 9 inch display with a screen resolution of 72 pixels per inch. Why 72 pixels per inch? It"s because the Macintosh screens were specifically designed to work in perfect harmony with Apple"s ImageWriter printers, which had a print resolution of 144 dots per inch - exactly twice the resolution of the screen. This made it easy to scale the screen display to the printed page, which meant that your text and graphics could be previewed on the screen at the exact size they would appear when printed. Later on, as Apple began making larger displays for the Macintosh, they made sure to keep the screen resolutions set to the same 72 pixels per inch so users would always see an accurate on-screen preview of the printed document (as long as they were using an ImageWriter printer).

But the 72 pixels per inch screen resolution was a standard only with Apple, and it didn"t last. Third party companies selling monitors for the Macintosh didn"t stick to the standard, and neither did competing PC monitors. Today, nearly three decades later, technology has greatly improved and the days of screens with a resolution of only 72 ppi are long gone. Even Apple, the company that started the whole thing, now sells their displays with much higher resolutions. No one is making 72 ppi screens anymore. No one is using 72 ppi screens anymore. And yet, even though that old technology is far behind us, we still have a whole lot of people continuing to believe that we need to set the resolution of our images to 72 pixels per inch in Photoshop before uploading them to the web. Most people think the reason is so that the images will display properly on screen, so let"s start things off by learning an easy way to prove that your computer monitor, along with every modern computer monitor, actually has a resolution much higher than 72 ppi.

Like everyone else these days, your computer"s display (whether it"s a standalone monitor, an all-in-one system like an iMac, or part of a laptop) has a screen resolution higher than 72 pixels per inch, and you don"t have to take my word for it. You can easily test it yourself. All you need is a ruler or tape measure. Now, when a store sells you a computer monitor, they usually tell you its size based on its diagonal width, with some common sizes being 17 inches, 19 inches, 24 inches, and so on. That"s fine, but for our test here, we don"t need to care about that number. What we need to find out is the actual width, in inches, of your screen. To do that, simply grab your ruler or tape measure and measure your screen area from left to right. Make sure you"re measuring only the screen area itself. Don"t include any of the border around the screen. We need the screen"s actual width (computer monitor photo from Shutterstock):

Once you"ve measured the width, the other thing you need to make sure of is that your monitor is set to its native display resolution, which is the actual number of pixels your screen can display from left to right and from top to bottom. For example, a monitor with a native display resolution of 1920 x 1080 (commonly referred to these days as "full HD") contains 1920 pixels from left to right and 1080 pixels from top to bottom. I"m currently using a monitor with a native display resolution of 2560 x 1440, but my laptop has a native display resolution of 1920 x 1200 so it does vary, which means you"ll need to know the native display resolution of your specific monitor and make sure it"s what you have the monitor set to in your operating system"s display options.

Now that you"ve measured your screen"s actual width and you"ve made sure your monitor is running at its native display resolution, to find out what its actual screen resolution is (in pixels per inch), simply take the first number from the native display resolution, which tells you the width of your screen in pixels, and divide it by the width of your screen in inches. For example, my native display resolution is 2560 x 1440, so I"ll take that first number, 2560, which is the width of the screen in pixels, and I"ll divide it by the width in inches, which in my case was 23.4 (or pretty close, anyway). Using my operating system"s handy built-in calculator, 2560 ÷ 23.4 = 109.4, which I"ll round off to 109. So, just from this quick and simple test, I"ve confirmed that my screen resolution is 109 pixels per inch, not 72 pixels per inch. Your own test with your screen may give you a different result from mine, but unless you"re still using one of those original Macintosh computers from the mid "80s, it will be a lot higher than 72 ppi.

Then, take the second number from your screen"s native display resolution, which gives you the height in pixels, and divide it by the height in inches. Again, my native display resolution is 2560 x 1440 so I"ll take that second number, 1440, and divide it by my measured screen height which was 13.2 inches. Using my calculator, 1440 ÷ 13.2 = 109.09 which again I"ll round off to 109. As we can see, you should get pretty much the same result using either the width or height of your screen. In my case, they both worked out to 109 pixels per inch, not 72 pixels per inch.

For comparison, let"s check the actual screen resolution of my laptop. It"s a MacBook Pro (made of course by Apple, the company that gave us the original 72 ppi standard many years ago). My MacBook Pro has a native display resolution of 1920 x 1200, so just as I did before, I"ll take that first number, 1920, which gives me the screen width in pixels, and I"ll divide it by the width of the screen in inches, which in this case is 14.4. So, 1920 ÷ 14.4 = 133.3, which I"ll round off to 133 pixels per inch. That"s a lot higher than 72 and even higher than my standalone monitor. I"ll do the same thing with the height, taking the height in pixels (1200) and dividing it by the height in inches (9). 1200 ÷ 9 = 133.3, again rounded off to 133 pixels per inch.

Two different displays, each with two different screen resolutions (109 ppi and 133 ppi), both considerably higher than 72 ppi which, according to many people today, remains the industry standard resolution for viewing images on the web and on screen. If my screen, your screen and everyone else"s screen has a resolution higher than 72 ppi, not to mention the fact that both of my screens had very different resolutions from each other and your screen may have a different resolution as well, then clearly, not only is there no official standard anymore for screen resolution, but even if there was, it would no longer be 72 ppi. Those days, like the original Macintosh computers it was designed for, are history.

The size at which an image appears on your screen depends only on two things - the pixel dimensions of the image and the display resolution of your screen. As long as you"ve set your screen to its native display resolution as we discussed earlier, then an image will be displayed pixel-for-pixel. In other words, each pixel in the image will take up exactly one pixel on your screen. For example, a 640x480 pixel image would fill a 640x480 pixel area of your screen. An 800 pixel-wide banner on a website would appear 800 pixels wide on the screen. No more, no less. And no matter what you set the image"s resolution to in Photoshop, whether it"s 72 ppi, 300 ppi or 3000 ppi, it will have no effect at all on how large or small the image appears on the screen.

That"s because image resolution affects only one thing - the size of the image when it"s printed. By setting the resolution in Photoshop, we tell the printer, not the screen, how many of the pixels in the image to squeeze into an inch of paper. The more pixels you"re squeezing into every inch of paper, the smaller the image will appear when printed. And generally speaking, the more pixels you"re printing per inch, the higher the print quality.

At the top of the Image Size dialog box is the Pixel Dimensions section which tells us the width and height of the image in pixels. Here we can see that my photo has both a width and height of 500 pixels, making it a decent size for display on the web. This is the only part of the Image Size dialog box that your computer screen cares about - the actual pixel dimensions of the image:

As we can clearly see, the resolution has no effect at all on how the image looks on screen. All three versions each take up a space of exactly 200 x 200 pixels regardless of the resolution setting. The quality of each version is also exactly the same. Each version would print at a very different size because of the different resolution settings, but it makes no difference whatsoever to the screen size or to the image quality.

Any photo with pixel dimensions small enough to display on the web would be too small for anyone to download and print a good quality version at a useful size, so with all these reasons in mind, if your photo will only be viewed on screen, whether it"s on the web, in an email, or whatever the case may be, there is simply no logical reason why you would need to set its resolution to 72 ppi in Photoshop. Unless you"re printing the photo, you don"t need to worry about image resolution at all. And there we have it!

Yet today most players expect pixel art to look crisp and sharp regardless of whether they’re using the latest 4K OLED TV or an old 4∶3 LCD screen. In this post we’re going to take a look at how we handled this problem in Guntastic.

Remember, the data above is from December 2016. Had we started working on the game today, we would have found a radically different scenario: 1080p is used on more than 60% of PCs, while non-HD resolutions (which were predominantly used on laptops) and 4∶3 screens have declined sharply.

As standard 16∶9 HD resolutions were already the de-facto target to develop for, we decided to use a reference resolution of 640×360 pixels. A canvas of this size scales perfectly using integer factors to all HD resolutions: 2× for 1280×720, 3× for 1920×1080 and so on, including 4K, 8K and possibly more (although I can’t imagine what a pixel art game would look on such screens!). We’ve already seen in a previous post that 640×360 proved to be the most viable option from a gameplay point of view as well.

Our initial implementation of the scaling mechanism was quite standard, and worked by changing the orthographic size of the game camera based on the detected screen resolution. A very good introduction to this technique can be found in the

While thick borders won’t work well for some games since they would inevitably affect gameplay by changing the portion of the world that is visible to the player, they worked quite well for us. In Guntastic every level need to be completely self-contained to fit on a single screen, and having additional room to spare to the sides even gave us a chance to fill these areas with additional details. As an additional precaution, we also established a safe area of one tile around every level that can be hidden, without affecting gameplay, in the very rare cases where the scaling factor is rounded up instead of down.

In the end, every level in Guntastic is composed of 34×24 tiles. The playable area only accounts for 24×16 of them (which is approximately our native resolution of 640×360 pixels), with the rest being there only to support the thick borders and letterboxing techniques. The following table and figure show which scaling factor and techniques are applied at common resolutions: Screen Resolution Scaling Factor Visible Techniques 1920×1080 (FHD) 3 None