I've remained intrigued regarding the calibration coordinates reported on the 8" tablets, for a number of reasons. I'll start with a comparison to illustrate what some of the reasons are:
1
) the default coordinates in the registry after a fresh reflash of UberCE7:
400,240 160,96 160,384 640,384 640,96
2
) the coordinates reported in the 7" device with the wonky touchscreen responses
(which, as I reported above, was copied over to one of the 8" tablets' registry to see how it affected touchscreen responses on that latter tablet
):
2139,2057 1221,3134 3015,3135 3052,960 1224,970
The first question, of course, is why the latter set of numbers is so much higher. A little Internet research enlightened me on this: some newer touchscreens have a denser array of detection points, as little as a quarter-pixel apart. Thus, a touchscreen overlaying an 800x600 display may have a "resolution" of 3200x2400.
(However, that still wouldn't explain the second and third
y values being reported from the wonky 800x480 touchscreen, and in any event, the proportions are inconsistent with a display with a 5:3 pixel aspect ratio.
)
If you compare the two sets of coordinates above, you'll notice that, in the first set, the second and third
x values are equal to one another, as are the fourth and fifth ones; while the second and fifth
y values are equal to one another as are the third and fourth. This is consistent with
x being the horizontal axis and
y the vertical one. However, the reverse appears to be true in the second set of coordinates. Why?
(Remember, that set is from a device whose touchscreen responds properly some of the time but not always.
)
HardCoreHacker, who created UberCE7 over at techknow.me, reports that UberCE7 only supports the UOR615x touchscreen. But did this touchscreen come in multiple densities?