 Transplanting Screen From 6000 Into 3100, physically, yes. electrically??? |
  |
 Nov 30 2005, 03:27 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Group: Members Posts: 37 Joined: 30-June 04 Member No.: 3,876  |
Another idea is to scan ebay for broken Z's.
I bought a sl-5500 for $25 bucks. Typically what happens is "people forget that they have opposable thumbs", drop the Z, scren goes into "you're really ugly, I'm going to commit hari-kari" mode, and viola a perfectly functional Z that you can't read. Still usually fully functional(poweron logon USB ...) Get a clamshell that has had an unenlightened owner and you have a cheap machine for hardware hacking. Good luck Bill ps- now to figure out how to get dual CF and a USB host into my 5500... pps- anyone thought of hacking a sandisk wifi/cf into a gprsmodem/microdrive combo? QUOTE(guylhem @ Nov 22 2005, 11:02 AM) Donations to paypal@externe.net are welcome - anything is welcome, if only to proof commitment to the work being done. Because honnestly, it doesn't cover costs - far from it.
 |
 |
 
|
|
Dec 13 2005, 08:26 PM
Post
#17
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 298 Joined: 27-October 03 From: Greenfield, NH Member No.: 781 |
QUOTE(kahm @ Nov 18 2005, 08:38 PM) ...[snip]... available across the shortest dimension of the screen (left - right). Well, the 3.7" screens are optimized the same way - across the short side of the screen, ...[snip]... - Ding!! I noticed some time ago that viewing the C1K screen in "portrait" was significantly better than landscape. It's so dramatic that I'll sometimes look at it from the right of center, to "simulate" portrait, when the lighting conditions aren't that great, and I'm too lazy to bump the brightness. (grin) Bumping the brightness doesn't help, anyway ... the thing that's missing is contrast ... and it's just better from the "portrait" viewing angle. (shrug) - I've chalked it up to a limitation of LCD screens. They all probably have some optimal viewing angle, and since the landscape format is vastly less common than the portrait, and these screens are probably used in a wide variety of products, it stands to reason the optimal orientation is portrait. Annoying, but understandable. (drool) - Dasswuttitink, ittiz... |
|
|
|
|
Jan 20 2006, 07:29 AM
Post
#18
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 10 Joined: 6-June 03 From: Farmington Hills, MI Member No.: 100 |
Sorry for being clueless, but how would a 4inch screen fit into a 3.7inch bezel. Even if you chopped some of the frame away, would there be a large enough area?
|
|
|
|
|
Jan 22 2006, 02:13 PM
Post
#19
|
|
 Group: Admin Posts: 3,277 Joined: 29-July 04 From: Cambridge, England Member No.: 4,149 |
QUOTE(eferrari @ Jan 20 2006, 04:29 PM) Sorry for being clueless, but how would a 4inch screen fit into a 3.7inch bezel. Even if you chopped some of the frame away, would there be a large enough area? When I hold my 6000 next to my 860, then it would seem there is enough space, but I don't know how much hardware there is hidden behind the frame - I would have to take them both apart and see whether it is possible! |
|
|
|
|
Jan 23 2006, 09:15 PM
Post
#20
|
|
 Group: Members Posts: 693 Joined: 4-June 04 From: Ohio Member No.: 3,570 |
QUOTE(speculatrix @ Jan 22 2006, 01:13 PM) QUOTE(eferrari @ Jan 20 2006, 04:29 PM) Sorry for being clueless, but how would a 4inch screen fit into a 3.7inch bezel. Even if you chopped some of the frame away, would there be a large enough area? When I hold my 6000 next to my 860, then it would seem there is enough space, but I don't know how much hardware there is hidden behind the frame - I would have to take them both apart and see whether it is possible! Not too much. http://homepage.mac.com/barrywoods/PhotoAlbum30.html |
|
|
|
|
2 User(s) are reading this topic (2 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 18th May 2013 - 07:14 PM |