Related
I just want to know if you satisfied with the One S pentile matrix screen. I have a Sam S2 and recently bought a One S (S3 chipset) and i noticed the lcd is very pixelated (if its a real word, sry for my English) compared with the S2's screen. Its not too bad but noticeable and a bit disappointing. How you live with this?
gszabi said:
I just want to know if you satisfied with the One S pentile matrix screen. I have a Sam S2 and recently bought a One S (S3 chipset) and i noticed the lcd is very pixelated (if its a real word, sry for my English) compared with the S2's screen. Its not too bad but noticeable and a bit disappointing. How you live with this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
By not being incredibly picky. The phone wasn't cheap, so before I signed a contract, I made sure I was happy with every aspect of the phone. While I do agree it's pixelated, and that my Sensation had slightly better quality, I am incredibly happy with the screen. I'm rarely centimeters away from the screen so I can live with it especially because the color reproduction is amazing.
gszabi said:
I just want to know if you satisfied with the One S pentile matrix screen. I have a Sam S2 and recently bought a One S (S3 chipset) and i noticed the lcd is very pixelated (if its a real word, sry for my English) compared with the S2's screen. Its not too bad but noticeable and a bit disappointing. How you live with this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you just get used to it after a while. I couldn't stand the screen when I first got the phone, It stopped me using it regularly because I just used to get annoyed at the screen! (sad I know) But now I don't even think about the screen because I'm so used to it. I came from the Desire S which had a S-LCD display and a 480x800 display so that was a very good screen considering it was only 3.7 inches! I found the amoled colours of the one s to be extremely saturated. I didn't like the yellowish/blueish whites and the fact that every time you slightly changed the angle of the screen the colours would turn slightly blue. Text looked pixelated especially on a white background, that doesn't help considering a key part of sense 4 settings is all white background. It took me a good month to get used to the screen and 3 months in, I'm used to it Possibly getting the Nexus 4 soon so doubt I'll have much longer with this phone anyway.
Sorry for the little off topic might pickup a one s didn't want to start a new thread...
I saw the one s at my local fido store and damn its so snappy even whit sense !! But i tried the one x and it was somewhat slower is this normal ? Flicking through homescreens just werent the same..
Sent from my SGH-T999 using xda premium
I did notice it some when I first got it, but I really don't anymore at all, and like was said above, I'm never close enough to my display to really notice it. I think the screen is incredible, as is every other aspect of the phone. I LOVE my One S.
I thought it would annoy me, but the phone was free so I decided to bite the bullet. I've had the phone 6 months now, and I really don't notice it at this point.
I love the one S display, sure the screen isn't as sharp as the GN, GS 3 and one X etc. and you don't get as much screen real estate but everything else is just as good, if not better:
- one of the best screens in sun light, don't even have to put my screen above 70% brightness in direct sun light in order to be able to make stuff out easily and this is on a darkish background too, MUCH better than the GN and GS 2 in this area
- colour reproduction is superb, my screen is pretty much perfect, whites are super white, brighter white than my dell u2311h, iirc a review site stated that the screen is better calibrated than the GS 3 SAMOLED screen
- no tinting at all on mine, usually with AMOLED screens you get a blue or yellow tint, which is noticeable at angles on whites but not on mine (this varies with every single screen though)
- of course blacks are black and the viewing angles are superb
- high contrast ratio etc. so games and videos look great
I only notice the pentile when looking at white text on black backgrounds and a few icons, but only when I really look for it and have my face pretty close to the screen. I find the one S screen to be sharper overall compared to the GS 2 screen.
I have had the one S beside the GS 2, GN and GS 3 and personally I didn't like the GS 2 screen at all, res. is too low so things are huge (felt like an old man using a phone designed for people with poor eye sight ), colours are far too saturated/warm. The GN screen is nice and sharp but the colours aren't saturated enough, rather dull over all and plus both phones are poor in comparison to the S for view ability in the sunshine. The GS 3 screen is great, better than the GN, however, I think the one S screen looks better for colours.
Anandtech more or less summed up my thoughts:
What’s different, however, is how well HTC has controlled the color temperature and gamma compared to Motorola in the RAZR. As shown in the HCFR galleries below, gamma is pretty close to 2.2 until you get to the high end, and color temperature is pretty close to 6500K, except at the two darkest grey points. This is so much better than any other OEM calibration of an AMOLED panel I’ve taken a look at, which is rather humorous because the panel is undoubtably Samsung’s. HTC is also letting the panel go pretty bright, up past 350 nits, instead of clamping it way down around 200 (I’m looking at you, Galaxy Nexus) to save power. I also haven’t noticed blacks not being totally off on the One S like I have with some others. Of course, colors are still massively oversaturated if your source color space is sRGB.
I’ve griped about PenTile RGBG before on this panel and other SAMOLED displays, but I find the One S to be completely enjoyable in spite of having it thanks to two things. First, how well HTC has controlled the panel (no awful hues, weird white points, or dramatic shifts as you change brightness) - this is basically the best I’ve seen this particular panel, and until SGS3, the best I’ve seen AMOLED in general. Second, because HTC doesn’t appear to be applying any processing that applies sharpening (like Samsung’s mDNIe) to text.
How you feel about PenTile really is the final factor: it’s there, but I’ve slowly become accustomed to it after staring at it for so long. If you go back to the Nexus S days, I was one of the most outspoken critics because of how large those subpixels were. With small enough subpixels (below visual acuity), PenTile starts to make sense. In other news, HTC moving back to Samsung AMOLED for phones is an interesting move after supply issues forced HTC to SLCD with some earlier phones, here on the HTC One S however, it looks great.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5868/htc-one-s-review-international-and-tmobile/6
My solution: Get old. You probably can't see all the minute issues you guys think matter, and you don't really care if you do. Every phone I've ever had has had a better screen than the previous and I think that's pretty nice.
I hate the screen, drives me nuts. I found that using a theme that mostly uses blacks and whites makes it more bearable though.
mbh87 said:
I hate the screen, drives me nuts. I found that using a theme that mostly uses blacks and whites makes it more bearable though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have to agree. Thing is apart from the screen it's a fantastic phone. It's so fast, battery life is great and the camera is great. I don't even think the screen would be that bad if it wasn't pentile it's just the fact that it's a pentile display it makes the phone look way more pixelated than it should be
I think I need to go to specsavers, I've never noticed a problem with the screen.
The screen on this is amazing. Don't notice any pixellation whilst on it . It's quite an improvement over my old Wildfires QVGA 3.5 inch 240x320 TFT display.
Sent from my HTC One S using Tapatalk 2
If you switched from Wildfire you cant see this but if you had any phone in the alike pixel density and resolution you can see the difference. According to others opinion its not bad, the perfect color saturation, contrast etc will eliminate the bad feeling about those subpixels.
HTC does calibrate their screens nicely
I suppose it depends on what you're used to. When you come from an iPhone or high-end LCD-screen you probably will get annoyed with this display. However, when this is your first touchscreen smartphone or when you had a smartphone with a low-end display before this one, you will probably be able to cope with the slight pixilation.
Personally, even with this being my first touchscreen smartphone and coming from an E72 with a PPI of about 170, the display of this device would be the only reason for me to buy a One X or Nexus 4. That being said; you don't buy a smartphone solely for its display, you buy it for the complete package (price, battery, design, display, size, cpu/gpu, storage, support, OS, cloud integration etc.). And for me, the package the One S offers is more compelling than that of most other smartphones one the market.
I compared the One S screen to that of my Galaxy Nexus and honestly, when it comes to clarity, there isn't much of a difference. If you are in your twenties with near perfect eyesight and able to hold the phone less than a foot from your face then you will probably see pixelation but at normal distances it isn't an issue. For me it seems that anything above 250ppi is fine - my original Galaxy S was less (I think 233ppi) and that display was pixelated to me, but then again it was an earlier generation screen, I'm sure there have been other refinements besides resolution since then.
One S 256 PPI
Sam Galaxy S2 217 PPI but looks sharper.
Its all about the pixel placement, pentile matrix is a pattern. This matrix gives us better colors because more subpixels. Google for it there are many info i cant explain it in english
I come from an LG Optimus 2x, 4'' ips display, 800x480, and I feel this display better IMHO.
Sent from my HTC One S using xda app-developers app
gszabi said:
One S 256 PPI
Sam Galaxy S2 217 PPI but looks sharper.
Its all about the pixel placement, pentile matrix is a pattern. This matrix gives us better colors because more subpixels. Google for it there are many info i cant explain it in english
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I said Galaxy S, not S2.
Yes the S2 was/is superior despite the lower resolution thanks to the RGB arrangement (not pentile). The original Galaxy S was pentile, and not that great by today's standards.
It's okay, but I'm actually kind of unsatisfied with the blacks. I thought it would be completely black, but when I have a black picture shown on the phone in a completely dark room, the screen still lights up
Sent from my HTC One S using xda app-developers app
Since I was an original proponent of the S4 Active's camera, I wanted to publicly admit that I was wrong. The camera on the S4 Active is, indeed, a deal breaker (at least for me).
It's not that it dropped from 13mp to 8mp...that, in and of itself, has no bearing on the performance, but the images produced by this camera are muddy and not pleasing at all. It is miles behind the original S4 or HTC One in the image department.
I went back to the original S4 which is fine, but I really miss the screen of the Active. It's just a choice each individual will have to decide for themselves, but I just can't understand why Samsung downgraded the camera so dramatically on the Active. It's a shame because, to me, everything else about the Active is awesome, most notably, the screen.
cardinalryan said:
Since I was an original proponent of the S4 Active's camera, I wanted to publicly admit that I was wrong. The camera on the S4 Active is, indeed, a deal breaker (at least for me).
It's not that it dropped from 13mp to 8mp...that, in and of itself, has no bearing on the performance, but the images produced by this camera are muddy and not pleasing at all. It is miles behind the original S4 or HTC One in the image department.
I went back to the original S4 which is fine, but I really miss the screen of the Active. It's just a choice each individual will have to decide for themselves, but I just can't understand why Samsung downgraded the camera so dramatically on the Active. It's a shame because, to me, everything else about the Active is awesome, most notably, the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sad to see you go but IMO Screen > Camera
I think the camera will be fixed with an update or mods, screen you are stuck with forever. I know the camera on this thing can be better, just wait for them to get the bugs worked out. Enjoy the S4, it DOES have a great camera
My disclaimer is I rarely take photos with my phone. My wife does a good job snapping great photos I just use it to capture something funny or cool when I am not around family.
I liked the screen too but a lot of original gs4 features were calling me (including customization of the physical phone with cases and replacement parts and internal software)
Sent from my SGH-I337 using xda app-developers app
Camera seems great for me, a bit better than my Note 2. IMO a waterproof phone, better looking, better display, and more rugged is better than a slightly better camera on the regular S4.
I noticed a green tent sometimes. It must be a software issue.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537 using xda app-developers app
geoff5093 said:
Camera seems great for me, a bit better than my Note 2. IMO a waterproof phone, better looking, better display, and more rugged is better than a slightly better camera on the regular S4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is certainly a fair comment. For me though, the camera was just too weak...but holy crap the Active screen is exponentially better than the SAMOLED S4 screen...not even close.
mattpayne92 said:
I liked the screen too but a lot of original gs4 features were calling me (including customization of the physical phone with cases and replacement parts and internal software)
Sent from my SGH-I337 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cases will not show up if people don't let the companies know that they are wanted
cardinalryan said:
Since I was an original proponent of the S4 Active's camera, I wanted to publicly admit that I was wrong. The camera on the S4 Active is, indeed, a deal breaker (at least for me).
It's not that it dropped from 13mp to 8mp...that, in and of itself, has no bearing on the performance, but the images produced by this camera are muddy and not pleasing at all. It is miles behind the original S4 or HTC One in the image department.
I went back to the original S4 which is fine, but I really miss the screen of the Active. It's just a choice each individual will have to decide for themselves, but I just can't understand why Samsung downgraded the camera so dramatically on the Active. It's a shame because, to me, everything else about the Active is awesome, most notably, the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just wait to get the OBEX or Lifeproof case for your S4...as I will do...when I had both (The the S4A for a week before returning) I thought the screens were comparable with an edge to the S4.
planoman said:
Just wait to get the OBEX or Lifeproof case for your S4...as I will do...when I had both (The the S4A for a week before returning) I thought the screens were comparable with an edge to the S4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends on the person
Some people like their screens over saturated with deep blacks, some people like their screens natural with normal whites.
joshuadjohnson22 said:
Depends on the person
Some people like their screens over saturated with deep blacks, some people like their screens natural with normal whites.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So true. I personally was sold on the S4A screen over the S4 screen when I was compairing them side by side, and it was ultimatly the reason I went with the S4A over the S4.
Kyuta Syuko said:
So true. I personally was sold on the S4A screen over the S4 screen when I was compairing them side by side, and it was ultimatly the reason I went with the S4A over the S4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the s4 active has a more 'natural' screen but its tft and the color reproduction is horrible. At least in movie mode the regular S4 can seem much more accurate and not bland
To each their own. I purchased the Active because I get wet and my Note 2 was on borrowed time. The better camera and screen on the active are a bonus.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537
I feel like most of the people prefer the actives screen. I compared both side by side and I actually prefer the bolder colors. Its all personal opinion
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using xda app-developers app
Yeah I love the active screen but hate the angles and just hate tft. The active is better from the start but the amoled on the normal s4 has more potential. A wide color gamut. Movie mode Is almost perfect. And this is coming from professional display reviewers. And if we get perseus kernel onto the 9505 variant it'll be even better.
But to be honest I have it on auto screen mode for some reason I love the colors too
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
jetlitheone said:
Yeah I love the active screen but hate the angles and just hate tft. The active is better from the start but the amoled on the normal s4 has more potential. A wide color gamut. Movie mode Is almost perfect. And this is coming from professional display reviewers. And if we get perseus kernel onto the 9505 variant it'll be even better.
But to be honest I have it on auto screen mode for some reason I love the colors too
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree the SAMOLED screen has more potential and if the S4 ever got a mod like Voodoo Color the user could probably get the screen looking just as good or maybe even better than the S4A screen.
TwoStroker37 said:
To each their own. I purchased the Active because I get wet and my Note 2 was on borrowed time. The better camera and screen on the active are a bonus.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I537
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In no way does the Active have a better camera than the original S4. I would venture to say that the camera on the Active is among the worst on a high end smartphone. It is plumb terrible.
cardinalryan said:
In no way does the Active have a better camera than the original S4. I would venture to say that the camera on the Active is among the worst on a high end smartphone. It is plumb terrible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mine has taken great photos and mine has taken horrible photos.
The truth is they do need to update the camera to fix the bugs... after that I think it will be great... Of course not as good as the S4 but close
cardinalryan said:
Since I was an original proponent of the S4 Active's camera, I wanted to publicly admit that I was wrong. The camera on the S4 Active is, indeed, a deal breaker (at least for me).
It's not that it dropped from 13mp to 8mp...that, in and of itself, has no bearing on the performance, but the images produced by this camera are muddy and not pleasing at all. It is miles behind the original S4 or HTC One in the image department.
I went back to the original S4 which is fine, but I really miss the screen of the Active. It's just a choice each individual will have to decide for themselves, but I just can't understand why Samsung downgraded the camera so dramatically on the Active. It's a shame because, to me, everything else about the Active is awesome, most notably, the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I used the S4 Active in store and the display seems to be a lot more accurate than the S4 (since it uses the TFT display). How was it's outdoor visibility?
Southernboyj said:
I used the S4 Active in store and the display seems to be a lot more accurate than the S4 (since it uses the TFT display). How was it's outdoor visibility?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The display isn't more accurate its just not exaggerated colors. But you can fix that in the regular s4
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
jetlitheone said:
Yeah I love the active screen but hate the angles and just hate tft. The active is better from the start but the amoled on the normal s4 has more potential. A wide color gamut. Movie mode Is almost perfect. And this is coming from professional display reviewers. And if we get perseus kernel onto the 9505 variant it'll be even better.
But to be honest I have it on auto screen mode for some reason I love the colors too
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its about 97% accurate to sRGB (which is industry standard) in Movie mode, versus 91% on iPhone 5, 83% on S4 Active, and 85% on HTC One. The AMOLED screen actually has a wider gamut than sRGB but it is not calibrated correctly. At its most vivid, it is capable of about 102% sRGB gamut, though it does suffer from some slight gamma issues as well due to AMOLED being totally off when displaying 'true' blacks.
I tested them all with a friend and his colorimetry gear with some standard calibration images, with Pantone, sRGB, and Rec709 standard materials as well as gray plates and focusing scales (attached). Feel free to compare to your HDTV/monitor of choice.
However, a 3% variation is negligible at best; most males (60-something percent) are partially colorblind anyways and really cant see the difference until its about 18% off. Women its closer to 1% have color issues, and with females comprising the majority of the population and about 1/3 of the S4 buyers, that means that roughly 75% of you could not tell the difference between a perfectly calibrates S4 and one that is 3%, 5%, or even 10% off.
That said, i have some 10 bit Marshall, JVC, and Sony calibrated field monitors that are closer to 78% sRGB, and i used them every day for work (we use scopes to verify anyways; cant trust your eyes), and even a VERY VERY nice, VERY expensive calibrated 10 bit IPS LED LCD field monitor that costs as much as some new cars that is only 94% accurate.
I rely on my eyes at work every day; i have incredibly sharp and perceptive vision, and i can comfortably say that 'Movie' mode is BETTER than most other screens you would watch movies/tv on, yes including your $1,000 HDTV or $300 PC monitor. I can easily see the pixels on the smaller, 720P GS3 screen, and make them out decently on the S4 as well, even 18" away from my face. The HTC one as well, but its closer to 14" away maximum. That is incredible for me.
TFT has bad viewing angles, very bad backlight passthrough transmission, and is based on old tech. IPS LED would have been a MUCH better choice, but Samsung doesnt do much in that field; TFT they have the tech and fab for. It was a poor choice IMO.
The HTC One screen or iPhone 5 screen is way better than that of the Active for viewing angles, and also much more saturated (One is oversaturated, iPhone 5 only slightly). But for contrast and viewing angles alone, Samsung SHOULD have gone IPS.
KEEP IN MIND...
Brightness, viewing angles, saturation, gamut, and contrast are quantifiable. These are what i base my statements on; what ive measured and what ive seen.
PERCEIVED color is not; thats your brain, mostly. Your eyes only collect raw data. I could show you correctly calibrated images under different lighting and you would swear the peoples faces were purple, green, etc, when in fact they are absolutely correct, and its your brain compensating.
As far as the S4A camera, i had read Samsung had a problem with supply on the 13MP units, and opted for the same part as the S III camera as it was available, and part numbers stack up (pinouts do not). The software camera app on the S4A may not be up to snuff in that case; the S III takes great shots for a camera phone; and if you look at S III, S4A, and S4 shots side by side with the same settings of the same objects under same lighting and other conditions, the S4A and S III are pretty damn close to identical if you check out scopes or histograms; the S4 with the 13MP camera has a slight edge.
I cant see the Perseus kernel doing much better; most of the issue with the S4 screen is gamma shift based off the PenTile display architecture; yes the S4 screen is RGBG, which is an RGB variant, but in practice calibrating it is WILDLY different from an RGB screen. If anyone gets a chance, take a look at the exact same picture (both the one i attached and also one of people) on a Motorola Atrix 4G with the RGBW (red green blue white) pixel layout; the Atrix has THE WORST COLORS I HAVE EVER SEEN, period. BUT, you could see that thing perfectly in the glare of the sun at any angle.
Since lots of users like to compare phones that didn't even hit the shops yet, or are not even officially launched , why not compare other related stuff? :
I find this recent Erica Griffin's video which is called "the truth about Amoled vs LCD" quite interesting:
I stick with Amoled anytime, even with the possibility of that "blue pixel burn-in"
Edit:
And here some interesting related info provided (once again) by Barry:
BarryH_GEG said:
Good news for the reviewer! She can buy AMOLED again if she wants to. Starting with the SGS4 Samsung's moved to a new PenTile geometry called Diamond Pixels. In it, sub-pixels are sized differently based on their longevity. Blue is the least energy efficient (most likely to erode) and is now larger than red and green.
A high resolution screen shot of the Galaxy S4*(provided by Samsung) shows an interesting design and sub-pixel arrangement, which Samsung callsDiamond Pixels. First of all, the Red, Green, and Blue sub-pixels have very different sizes – Blue is by far the largest because it has the lowest efficiency, and Green is by far the smallest because it has the highest efficiency. The alternating Red and Blue sub-pixel PenTile arrangement discussed above leads to a 45 degree diagonal symmetry in the sub-pixel layout. Then, in order to maximize the sub-pixel packing and achieve the highest possible PPI, that leads to diamond rather than square or stripe shaped Red and Blue sub-pixels. But not for the Green sub-pixels, which are oval shaped because they are squeezed between two much larger and different sized Red and Blue sub-pixels. It’s display art…
As for what display is best, that's easy. The one you like the best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
.
betoNL said:
Since lots of users like to compare phones that didn't even hit the shops yet, or are not even officially launched , why not compare other related stuff? :
I find this recent Erica Griffin's video which is called "the truth about Amoled vs LCD" quite interesting:
I stick with Amoled anytime, even with the possibility of that "blue pixel burn-in"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I only buy Samsung because of the AMOLED screens.
it's true there will eventually be some bluish pixel burn-in after you have used the phone for a good 3 or more years
and it doesn't seem to affect all AMOLED screens, but specific to the 5 color ones, the S-AMOLED seems unaffected by it.
I'm basing that from my old AMOLED i9000 and Nexus S vs. the S-AMOLED on the S2
As for color accuracy, I like the more vivid color provided by the AMOLED than the LCD / S-LCD
Interesting stuff. My next phone gonna be LCD.
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda app-developers app
magik300 said:
Interesting stuff. My next phone gonna be LCD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
even after learning what they do to the LCD displays?
you will probably have to run your own tests to see which phone has a correct LCD display, or waiting until some one has done a Gamut color level review on it before getting one.
at least with AMOLED you know what to expect.
I will not go into fight any about this, but after using both AMOLED and LCD, I simply don't find LCD 'interesting'.
But if we really want to go deep into technical analysis, you will find that a AMOLED display is considered to be the best display commercially available now. Check Samsung's new OLED TV KN55S9C reviews. Every reviews (including consumer reports) have mentioned that this has the best picture quality available right now.
I am going to be honest here and put my hands up and say I was not aware OLED screens are still affected by burn-in - but it makes sense.
I think I am going to cancel my pre-order of the Note 3, things like this really put me off - I love my nexus 4 screen and I think I may now wait out the Nexus 5 which will in all likelihood have IPS.
My last 4 devices were all with Amoled S and N series and never had such issues.
You really have to stay a loooooong time on one screen position to then, only increase a chance of blueish burn-in......... I guess
.
betoNL said:
My last 4 devices were all with Amoled S and N series and never had such issues.
You really have to stay a loooooong time on one screen position to then, only increase a chance of blueish burn-in......... I guess
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, screens have come a long way since even my galaxy nexus, which I didn't like it always looked greenish to me. But I played with a note 2 and that screen is great, the gs4 is even better, screens are largely a personal preference but give me true black any day
Interesting find. Gonna have to look for something to replace all the JellyBean blues on the new phone to ensure longevity. Tbh I haven't noticed anything on my current 1.5 yr old amoled phone or the 3 yr old phone before that. But I have noticed how much I enjoy the color, over saturated or not. An Apple genius bar friend had severe screen envy when he saw the size and colors lol.
Only downside has been viewability in sunlight to where I have to drag brightness all the way up to get a decent picture.
Good news for the reviewer! She can buy AMOLED again if she wants to. Starting with the SGS4 Samsung's moved to a new PenTile geometry called Diamond Pixels. In it, sub-pixels are sized differently based on their longevity. Blue is the least energy efficient (most likely to erode) and is now larger than red and green.
A high resolution screen shot of the Galaxy S4*(provided by Samsung) shows an interesting design and sub-pixel arrangement, which Samsung callsDiamond Pixels. First of all, the Red, Green, and Blue sub-pixels have very different sizes – Blue is by far the largest because it has the lowest efficiency, and Green is by far the smallest because it has the highest efficiency. The alternating Red and Blue sub-pixel PenTile arrangement discussed above leads to a 45 degree diagonal symmetry in the sub-pixel layout. Then, in order to maximize the sub-pixel packing and achieve the highest possible PPI, that leads to diamond rather than square or stripe shaped Red and Blue sub-pixels. But not for the Green sub-pixels, which are oval shaped because they are squeezed between two much larger and different sized Red and Blue sub-pixels. It’s display art…
As for what display is best, that's easy. The one you like the best.
The chick in the video seems to like making videos about this very same topic every now and then, not sure why she's obsessing over this topic.
Erica move on, is this the only topic you could throw out there to actually sound like you're smart?
Who gives a hoot about the difference it's all a matter of preference and now let's move on to something else.
Sent from my HTC One using xda app-developers app
Regardless of what the sales and marketing terms are, the simple fact is all current and future Samsung devices have made the switch to "Super AMOLED" based panels so do not concern yourself with any BLED burn-in. This so-called issue was addressed several generations ago when AMOLED was still under testing and Samsung is among the best when it comes to yield/performance.
With that said, both the Samsung and T-Mobile sites show the final NS3 specs, which includes the use of their "Super AMOLED Display".
All is good and here in San Diego, CA, both T-Mobile and Verizon retail stores are sticking with October 1st and 2nd (respectively) as the official release.
Scott
References:
http://www.samsung.com/us/register/samsung-mobile-unpacked-event-2013/
http://www.t-mobile.com/cell-phones/samsung-galaxy-note-3.html
BarryH_GEG said:
Good news for the reviewer! She can buy AMOLED again if she wants to. Starting with the SGS4 Samsung's moved to a new PenTile geometry called Diamond Pixels. In it, sub-pixels are sized differently based on their longevity. Blue is the least energy efficient (most likely to erode) and is now larger than red and green.
A high resolution screen shot of the Galaxy S4*(provided by Samsung) shows an interesting design and sub-pixel arrangement, which Samsung callsDiamond Pixels. First of all, the Red, Green, and Blue sub-pixels have very different sizes – Blue is by far the largest because it has the lowest efficiency, and Green is by far the smallest because it has the highest efficiency. The alternating Red and Blue sub-pixel PenTile arrangement discussed above leads to a 45 degree diagonal symmetry in the sub-pixel layout. Then, in order to maximize the sub-pixel packing and achieve the highest possible PPI, that leads to diamond rather than square or stripe shaped Red and Blue sub-pixels. But not for the Green sub-pixels, which are oval shaped because they are squeezed between two much larger and different sized Red and Blue sub-pixels. It’s display art…
As for what display is best, that's easy. The one you like the best.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Gonna add this info tomorrow to the first post....
Nighty night
Transparent notification bars ftw
Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 2
I hope u guys really did understand her video.Even if LG over saturated in real life the s4's colors are still more saturated than the LG's even if the calibration on the s4 is about right.This is because of the wide gamut.She's pissed that LG over saturated so much not that the G2 is more saturated than the s4(the s4 is more and I compared them).AMOLED is new tech and even if it looks great with puchy colors maufacturers have way more work to do.They run hotter than LCD,they die earlier,blue pixel burn in,previously black clipping which is solved only on the s4 and note 3.Even power saving many talk of except your phone is completely black with black fonts, wallpaper,widget(lol u won't see anything) u can't save power on AMOLED.I just don't like it because of it's issues.Everyone has his opinion but don't say it's great or better than LCD just because your device has AMOLED.Tell the truth.AMOLED needs a breakthrough to really show it's power management and other qualities.The famous moto x doesn't blow the HTC one out of the water in terms of battery life even with all the power saving tech and AMOLED.(some LCDs OPPO find 5 and xperia z1+ z ultra have punchy blacks unless you turn off all the lights)
Well gn3 might be my first samoled device, but in all honesty I don't really give a damn since in about a year or max 2 I'll get a new device anyways. Disposable
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
hackarchive said:
I hope u guys really did understand her video.Even if LG over saturated in real life the s4's colors are still more saturated than the LG's even if the calibration on the s4 is about right.This is because of the wide gamut.She's pissed that LG over saturated so much not that the G2 is more saturated than the s4(the s4 is more and I compared them).AMOLED is new tech and even if it looks great with puchy colors maufacturers have way more work to do.They run hotter than LCD,they die earlier,blue pixel burn in,previously black clipping which is solved only on the s4 and note 3.Even power saving many talk of except your phone is completely black with black fonts, wallpaper,widget(lol u won't see anything) u can't save power on AMOLED.I just don't like it because of it's issues.Everyone has his opinion but don't say it's great or better than LCD just because your device has AMOLED.Tell the truth.AMOLED needs a breakthrough to really show it's power management and other qualities.The famous moto x doesn't blow the HTC one out of the water in terms of battery life even with all the power saving tech and AMOLED.(some LCDs OPPO find 5 and xperia z1+ z ultra have punchy blacks unless you turn off all the lights)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who said saturation is bad? And when did wide colour gamut become a bad thing? Even with a wider gamut, AMOLED still can't cover full range of visible colour space. Even if someone pushes to Adobe RGB or NTSC colour space, I think its good.
AMOLED covers more green-yellow-cyan range. Remember that the eye is more sensitive to yellowish-green light than other colors. G2 is over-saturating the colours, but it can't show additional colours like AMOLED as it's inherently restricted to show just near sRGB space. Why restrict ourself to sRGB when it was designed for CRT monitors?? But the fact remains that AMOLED can show more colours compared to LCD. And that's a good thing.
Reviews have proved that the best available display right now is OLED display. Samsung's OLED TV KN55S9C is considered to have the best picture quality. Saying AMOLED is bad is pure non-sense.
A very irritating woman - Take with a pinch of salt
hackarchive said:
.AMOLED needs a breakthrough to really show it's power management and other qualities.The famous moto x doesn't blow the HTC one out of the water in terms of battery life even with all the power saving tech and AMOLED.(some LCDs OPPO find 5 and xperia z1+ z ultra have punchy blacks unless you turn off all the lights)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL...There is no High-end device with better battery performance than the GNote2...Totally energy efficient and the screen is gorgeous....
Maybe the GNote3 will have better battery performance, but that remains to be seen ...
And I hope you really did understand the new PenTile geometry called Diamond Pixels thing, mentioned just a couple of posts before yours....
.
hackarchive said:
Everyone has his opinion but don't say it's great or better than LCD just because your device has AMOLED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Here's my opinion. I could give a crap whether a device I want to purchase has AMOLED or LCD. All I want is a good high quality display. There are crappy LCD displays (there are tons of posts in the One and Z1 forums about display issues) and crappy AMOLED displays. Truthfully, on a 4.7-6" canvas the amount of energy devoted to examining nuances in displays is comical. AMOLED has far superior contrast, bolder colors, better reflectance, better viewing angles and uses less energy on dark colors. LCD produces truer colors (depending on OEM calibration choices), is brighter, and uses less energy on light colors. The hardest part of going from AMOLED to LCD for me is the drop in contrast and greyish blacks which are unavoidable. If the N3 had a high quality LCD display I'd be totally fine with it. More important than the display is what it's attached to and I happen to be happy with Samsung's products. I'm not buying a display; I'm buying the high-end mobile device it's a component of. And the displays in Sony and HTC's phones are all made by Sharp-Renasys or JDI anyway.
And as you ridicule AMOLED, ask yourself why Motorola (Google) used it in the Moto X which is the most important phone they've ever released.
Like LCD? Bully, buy a LCD-equipped phone. Like AMOLED, buy a phone that has it. If you're happy I'm happy for you.
It's kind of a head scratcher. I compared it with my 3T and is pretty noticeable as on the 3t the colors are better. Was it to keep cost down?
Screen on time is much better than amoled when viewing mostly white content such as web pages.
Amoled tends to over saturate colours, lcd is more subdued but also more natural looking.
Rgb matrix gives better sharpness than the pentile matrix typically used in amoled screens.
Possible issues securing sufficient quantities if amoled panels.
Mate 9 screen is also brighter.
My last three daily drivers were the Note 7, Oneplus 3 and s7. There's definite advantages to amoled but there's advantages to lcd as well. Personally I have no complaints, Huawei have used a very high quality ips panel, so I'd be surprised if cost was the main motivator.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
Exactly. People tend to hear AMOLED and think it's clear cut. It's not. Each tech has its own pros and cons.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using XDA Labs
I forgot to mention screen burn in - a problem that lcd panels don't face and which they still can't solve for amoled.
The screen on the Mate 9 is gorgeous, I've caught myself just staring at it a few times. Not once have I felt like it is a downgrade from the s7, and the s7 is a better panel than what the Oneplus has.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
hackdrag0n said:
Screen on time is much better than amoled when viewing mostly white content such as web pages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tell that to LG. Their phones are LCD yet have terrible battery life. Yet my Pixel XL and Samsung phones have had much better battery life despite using AMOLED... so this is not necessarily true.
hackdrag0n said:
Amoled tends to over saturate colours, lcd is more subdued but also more natural looking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, color calibration/saturation has NOTHING to do with screen tech. The manufacturer sets the color calibration/target. The Mate 9 IS OVER SATURATED. Not as much as most AMOLED phones, but it is not calibrated to sRGB by ANY means. AMOLED phones have typically over saturated because AMOLED has had much higher color coverage capability, and it was a strong selling point. I dislike over saturated colors, but love AMOLED when it is set to a reasonable target (sRGB or Adobe RGB). Contrast is extremely important for image quality, ESPECIALLY in dark viewing conditions. Fast pixel response time is hugely important for a smartphone to maintain a "clean" looking display when scrolling. The Mate 9 LCD is one of the worst I've seen. It has bad ghosting and/or overshoot artifacting which makes the problem even worse.
hackdrag0n said:
Rgb matrix gives better sharpness than the pentile matrix typically used in amoled screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true. Maybe Samsung will bring back RGB for the S8. They used to have RGB AMOLED in older phones at one point, you know?
hackdrag0n said:
Mate 9 screen is also brighter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not true. Samsung panels have high brightness modes under sunlight and other bright light sources. I can trigger this mode whenever I want using root and a kernel. My Pixel XL is brighter than my Mate 9.
Governa said:
Exactly. People tend to hear AMOLED and think it's clear cut. It's not. Each tech has its own pros and cons.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using XDA Labs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is clear cut. AMOLED is superior. It's why I spent nearly $6,000 for TWO TV's in my house that are AMOLED. The quality is mind blowing on a large screen, and once you realize its benefits there, you will never want an LCD again... even on your smartphone. At least that's the case with me. It's also why Apple is going for AMOLED with the iPhone 8... because they know it's better.
No, it's your opinion that amoled is superior. It's not a hard fact.
I'm also not sure how your pixel can be brighter when review sites have it listed at under 400 nits and the Mate 9 is listed at over 600.
Actually, I'll rephrase that: if contrast ratio is the most important factor to you then yes amoled is a must. Other than that I still maintain that there are still areas where lcd has advantages.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
There are a lot of misconceptions about display technology.
As mentioned they each have advantages and disadvantages.
LCD has a very flat power consumption due to the fact that it's essentially white LEDs shining through color filters whereas AMOLED consist of individual pixels that combine to create color meaning that each LED will vary in consumption according to what is displayed meaning white requires all of them to shine at maximum to create white which is why AMOLED uses more power in that situation and no power when displaying pure black. LG has somewhat solved that on their TVs because they use 4 sub pixels: RGBW. They therefore create white separately and can save power that way.
AMOLED is only oversaturated because it is naturally a wide gamut display. When uncalibrated it will look oversaturated because all content is pretty much sRGB which is a limited color space. Many manufacturers including Huawei don't bother calibrating their displays for accuracy.
Huawei most likely used LCD for the regular Mate 9 because no decent 6" AMOLED was available which explains why the Pro variant has a 5.5" display.
LCD has poor latencies which is also why the regular 9 doesn't support Daydream. OLED displays naturally has low latencies which is why all Daydream compatible phones are AMOLED.
AMOLED is more prone to burn-in and is also prone to display degradation due to each sub pixel aging at varying rates.
LCD displays have higher peak brightness and is therefore more easy to see in sunlight. On the other hand, AMOLED have individually controlled brightness meaning pure blacks can be attained (turning off pixels completely) whereas LCD have edge lit displays with poor control resulting in light bleeding and above-zero blacks resulting in grey-ish blacks because there will always be some light shining through. So the contrast is much greater and only limited by peak brightness on the AMOLED display.
AMOLED doesn't have RGB but RG-BG sub pixels resulting in some odd problems including potentially green tint and reduced display quality and sharpness. Pentile sucks but the yields are better I guess and it does have some advantages such as decreased power consumption.
Finally, an often overlooked issue: many modern LCD displays use voltage controlled display brightness regulation where all AMOLED displays use PWM. Why is this important? PWM can cause eye strain and headaches. Especially due to the low frequency of 240 Hz that many AMOLED displays use. Your eyes won't necessarily notice the flickering but they can be irritated by it anyway.
PS. Typed this on my phone... Should have switched to laptop. What a pain to do this write-up.
↑ now THAT is a great post. Kudos.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using XDA Labs
hackdrag0n said:
No, it's your opinion that amoled is superior. It's not a hard fact.
I'm also not sure how your pixel can be brighter when review sites have it listed at under 400 nits and the Mate 9 is listed at over 600.
Actually, I'll rephrase that: if contrast ratio is the most important factor to you then yes amoled is a must. Other than that I still maintain that there are still areas where lcd has advantages.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look at the world of TV's. As is sits, LG's OLED TV's are the pinnacle of displays. They are the absolute best. No question, no contest, every quality review site agrees, as do the owners (myself included). I said the Pixel is brighter because I have enabled the Samsung panel brightness boost mode via root and a custom kernel - it acts just like the sunlight brightness boost on the S7/S7E, except I can enable it whenever I want. It is just as bright, if not brighter, than the Mate 9. The only advantage LCD has today is higher peak brightness, and that is only true in TV's since they have much larger backlights. Cellphones, AMOLED is actually much better in terms of outdoor viewing as tested by GSM Arena, due to a combination of peak brightness and lower reflectivity. Other than the potential for burn-in/image retention, there is zero benefit to an LCD in a cell phone.
Trixanity said:
LG has somewhat solved that on their TVs because they use 4 sub pixels: RGBW. They therefore create white separately and can save power that way.
Huawei most likely used LCD for the regular Mate 9 because no decent 6" AMOLED was available which explains why the Pro variant has a 5.5" display.
AMOLED is more prone to burn-in and is also prone to display degradation due to each sub pixel aging at varying rates.
AMOLED doesn't have RGB but RG-BG sub pixels resulting in some odd problems including potentially green tint and reduced display quality and sharpness. Pentile sucks but the yields are better I guess and it does have some advantages such as decreased power consumption.
Finally, an often overlooked issue: many modern LCD displays use voltage controlled display brightness regulation where all AMOLED displays use PWM. Why is this important? PWM can cause eye strain and headaches. Especially due to the low frequency of 240 Hz that many AMOLED displays use. Your eyes won't necessarily notice the flickering but they can be irritated by it anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Someone who actually knows something about AMOLED too on XDA! It's like finding a unicorn... just a few things to add...
LG does add a 4th white subpixel in their TV's, but it's moreso to increase peak brightness and not really save power. When display white, there are actually 3 subpixels turned on (I believe it's red, blue, and white) so it's not making much difference there... but it is certainly brighter because ALL the subpixels are WHITE subpixels (red, blue, and green have color filters), so having a white subpixel without a color filter eliminates brightness loss on those subpixels.
It blows my mind that Huawei couldn't get a decent ~6" AMOLED panel. Motorola did it for the Nexus 6. And hell, Samsung made them a custom 6.6" AMOLED display for the Honor Note 8! Oh well... maybe Samsung wanted less competition against the S8.
I will say that AMOLED phone panels have had a nasty tendency to burn-in. I can't say how the 2016 panels perform in normal usage (store burn-in is not a fair baseline), but it seems to improve every year. Neither of my 2016 LG OLED TV's show any burn-in, and 1 of them has been used as a PC monitor its entire time. I have taken a few steps to mitigate it (I hide icons behind browser windows, have the task bar set to auto-hide, and turn the brightness down slightly), but nothing major and it is perfectly fine. Image retention and uneven wear on the display is often confused with burn-in. For instance, the nav bar on my Pixel XL is clearly visible if I go fullscreen on a gray background (the most obvious color for burn/IR tests), but that is mostly because the black pixels there just never get used... so they're actually brighter, ever so slightly, than the rest of the screen. By running a manual compensation cycle when I'm not using the phone (such as white noise, or inverted colors), it mostly fixes the issue. That is an acceptable trade-off to me, especially considering the fact that the nav bar is always there. My TV's run black-screen compensation cycles automatically every 8 hours or so (after shutdown), so this is the nature of the beast.
True about the RG-BG pentile garbage. But that's Samsung's doing since they have terrible yields with full RGB. They did make at least 1 phone years ago that had true RGB AMOLED, and they marketed that specific feature too, literally telling customers how much sharper RGB is compared to pentile! - funny how they went away from it. Probably why their OLED TV division failed as well, since RGB AMOLED is clearly impossible to produce good yields right now, especially at larger sizes. I am hoping that the S8 brings back RGB AMOLED in the mobile world... rumors say it will.
AMOLED phone panels certainly do use PWM, but LG OLED TV's do not use PWM.
Nitemare3219 said:
Look at the world of TV's. As is sits, LG's OLED TV's are the pinnacle of displays. They are the absolute best. No question, no contest, every quality review site agrees, as do the owners (myself included). I said the Pixel is brighter because I have enabled the Samsung panel brightness boost mode via root and a custom kernel - it acts just like the sunlight brightness boost on the S7/S7E, except I can enable it whenever I want. It is just as bright, if not brighter, than the Mate 9. The only advantage LCD has today is higher peak brightness, and that is only true in TV's since they have much larger backlights. Cellphones, AMOLED is actually much better in terms of outdoor viewing as tested by GSM Arena, due to a combination of peak brightness and lower reflectivity. Other than the potential for burn-in/image retention, there is zero benefit to an LCD in a cell phone.
Someone who actually knows something about AMOLED too on XDA! It's like finding a unicorn... just a few things to add...
LG does add a 4th white subpixel in their TV's, but it's moreso to increase peak brightness and not really save power. When display white, there are actually 3 subpixels turned on (I believe it's red, blue, and white) so it's not making much difference there... but it is certainly brighter because ALL the subpixels are WHITE subpixels (red, blue, and green have color filters), so having a white subpixel without a color filter eliminates brightness loss on those subpixels.
It blows my mind that Huawei couldn't get a decent ~6" AMOLED panel. Motorola did it for the Nexus 6. And hell, Samsung made them a custom 6.6" AMOLED display for the Honor Note 8! Oh well... maybe Samsung wanted less competition against the S8.
I will say that AMOLED phone panels have had a nasty tendency to burn-in. I can't say how the 2016 panels perform in normal usage (store burn-in is not a fair baseline), but it seems to improve every year. Neither of my 2016 LG OLED TV's show any burn-in, and 1 of them has been used as a PC monitor its entire time. I have taken a few steps to mitigate it (I hide icons behind browser windows, have the task bar set to auto-hide, and turn the brightness down slightly), but nothing major and it is perfectly fine. Image retention and uneven wear on the display is often confused with burn-in. For instance, the nav bar on my Pixel XL is clearly visible if I go fullscreen on a gray background (the most obvious color for burn/IR tests), but that is mostly because the black pixels there just never get used... so they're actually brighter, ever so slightly, than the rest of the screen. By running a manual compensation cycle when I'm not using the phone (such as white noise, or inverted colors), it mostly fixes the issue. That is an acceptable trade-off to me, especially considering the fact that the nav bar is always there. My TV's run black-screen compensation cycles automatically every 8 hours or so (after shutdown), so this is the nature of the beast.
True about the RG-BG pentile garbage. But that's Samsung's doing since they have terrible yields with full RGB. They did make at least 1 phone years ago that had true RGB AMOLED, and they marketed that specific feature too, literally telling customers how much sharper RGB is compared to pentile! - funny how they went away from it. Probably why their OLED TV division failed as well, since RGB AMOLED is clearly impossible to produce good yields right now, especially at larger sizes. I am hoping that the S8 brings back RGB AMOLED in the mobile world... rumors say it will.
AMOLED phone panels certainly do use PWM, but LG OLED TV's do not use PWM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the first time I've been called a unicorn. I like it.
Thanks for the correction on the LG OLED TVs. I was under the impression they used the W-pixel to both produce higher brightness and reduce the added power consumption from going full tilt on each of the other pixels. I did not know they used filters like that actually. I thought they used similar tech to Samsung but apparently not But that also explains why their yields are so different.
About Pentile: that phone was the Samsung Galaxy S2 (coincidentally my first Android phone) - released in 2011. I guess the yields weren't good enough and at the same time they wanted to increase screen density. Maybe it made the yields plummet and then pushing towards HD and full HD made it unfeasible. The S2 had a 800x480 resolution by the way.
I'm hoping the S8 can do away with both Pentile and PWM. Then I'd probably buy it instantly but that's wishful thinking.
PWM is apparently used to avoid hue shifts which I suspect might be because of the Pentile arrangement but I'm not sure. I've not seen measurements on the S2 but I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was actually not using PWM.
It might also explain why LG doesn't use it on their TVs; that they simply don't have that problem with hue shifts because their panels are so different. I wish LG would get back in the OLED display game for smaller screens including phones, tablets, laptops and monitors. It would be so awesome with some competition.
By the way, interesting note on the peak brightness. Can the brightness boost be maintained indefinitely or does it dim after a while? I know LG had a booster on their recent LCDs (of all things) and it dimmed shortly after. One thing I should note that the Mate 9 reaches up to 700 nits and that's not limited to auto brightness like Samsung's is meaning that you can manually boost it to that at all times. The Pixel XL only manages 400 in the same scenario but if you can boost the peak brightness through a mod and keep it there (perhaps even without auto brightness?) then that's impressive especially if goes over 700. I do believe 700 nits is about as bright as you'll get on a smartphone LCD. The only reason we even need it is because of sunlight. 700 nits would be blinding to my eyes in any other scenario
If only they could invent a display that could switch between being emissive and reflective with few drawbacks - that would solve a lot of problems.
Edit: forgot to address the Huawei panel. Whether Huawei could get a 6" panel for the phone or not is uncertain. I'm just guessing; I have no sources to back that up but it seems to be the case that they couldn't find a panel that suited their needs. They probably also had a good deal with JDI since they've used their panels for some years and AMOLED was only just about to become the expected standard. We've long seen LCD being used by most manufacturers - it's only in the recent year or two that it has spread to other brands than Samsung. I mean Apple, LG, HTC, Sony and Huawei have all been using LCD either exclusively or primarily. That's about to change in the coming years.
I'm thinking the AMOLED panels they could get weren't up to the standard they were looking for. The LCD panel they used was pretty damn good although poorly calibrated. Although now that I think of it the reason the Pro is is 5.5" might be more to do with the requirement for a curved display which limits their options quite a bit. Also, keep in mind a custom display is expensive so producing a phone on the scale of a Mate 9 would probably limit them to off-the-shelf components to avoid gutting their profit margins. I'm sure they could have gotten any display they wanted if they were willing to pay the price.
With that being said: there are probably many reasons not to go AMOLED for the regular Mate 9 and all we can do is guess what their reasons are.
Trixanity said:
About Pentile: that phone was the Samsung Galaxy S2 (coincidentally my first Android phone) - released in 2011. I guess the yields weren't good enough and at the same time they wanted to increase screen density. Maybe it made the yields plummet and then pushing towards HD and full HD made it unfeasible. The S2 had a 800x480 resolution by the way.
I'm hoping the S8 can do away with both PenTile and PWM. Then I'd probably buy it instantly but that's wishful thinking.
PWM is apparently used to avoid hue shifts which I suspect might be because of the Pentile arrangement but I'm not sure. I've not seen measurements on the S2 but I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was actually not using PWM.
It might also explain why LG doesn't use it on their TVs; that they simply don't have that problem with hue shifts because their panels are so different.
By the way, interesting note on the peak brightness. Can the brightness boost be maintained indefinitely or does it dim after a while? I know LG had a booster on their recent LCDs (of all things) and it dimmed shortly after. One thing I should note that the Mate 9 reaches up to 700 nits and that's not limited to auto brightness like Samsung's is meaning that you can manually boost it to that at all times. The Pixel XL only manages 400 in the same scenario but if you can boost the peak brightness through a mod and keep it there (perhaps even without auto brightness?) then that's impressive especially if goes over 700. I do believe 700 nits is about as bright as you'll get on a smartphone LCD. The only reason we even need it is because of sunlight. 700 nits would be blinding to my eyes in any other scenario
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The S2... man, long time ago. They probably only managed RGB because of the low resolution and/or realized then just how bad the yields were.
I've never noticed PWM, so it's no issue for me. I believe the color hue shifts when viewing at an angle is actually because the display is pentile. LG's OLED TV's have mind blowing viewing angles - it is essentially perfect no matter where you view from in terms of color, AND the brightness does not decrease either like on an LCD - forgot to mention that too! LCD panels get much dimmer if you view off-axis... OLED do not.
As far as I know, the Pixel can maintain the brightness boost indefinitely. I have used it for upwards of 20 minutes or so before. I can manually enable it via widget, or have it set to function automatically as well. I'm not sure I want to test long periods of time though... there could be a downside to it over time (perhaps why Samsung does not allow it to be user enabled). I know LG's phones in the past have quickly turned down their peak brightness due to heat issues. I wonder if the Mate 9 could suffer from the same problem eventually? Probably not seeing as how Apple manages to have displays that bright as well without issue. I think LG's mobile division is just really, really lacking right now. Hopefully they bring OLED to their phones again soon (they've used P-OLED a few times, and I experienced it in their Watch Urbane LTE 2nd edition smartwatch, and that was fantastic).
Nitemare3219 said:
The S2... man, long time ago. They probably only managed RGB because of the low resolution and/or realized then just how bad the yields were.
I've never noticed PWM, so it's no issue for me. I believe the color hue shifts when viewing at an angle is actually because the display is pentile. LG's OLED TV's have mind blowing viewing angles - it is essentially perfect no matter where you view from in terms of color, AND the brightness does not decrease either like on an LCD - forgot to mention that too! LCD panels get much dimmer if you view off-axis... OLED do not.
As far as I know, the Pixel can maintain the brightness boost indefinitely. I have used it for upwards of 20 minutes or so before. I can manually enable it via widget, or have it set to function automatically as well. I'm not sure I want to test long periods of time though... there could be a downside to it over time (perhaps why Samsung does not allow it to be user enabled). I know LG's phones in the past have quickly turned down their peak brightness due to heat issues. I wonder if the Mate 9 could suffer from the same problem eventually? Probably not seeing as how Apple manages to have displays that bright as well without issue. I think LG's mobile division is just really, really lacking right now. Hopefully they bring OLED to their phones again soon (they've used P-OLED a few times, and I experienced it in their Watch Urbane LTE 2nd edition smartwatch, and that was fantastic).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a heads up, I've added an edit to my previous post.
I wish I could afford an OLED TV One would be foolish not to pick up an LG OLED TV over any LCD display out there today (barring the price that is).
I don't think maintaining peak brightness is an issue unless you're standing out in direct sunlight all day with your phone. I mean you wouldn't switch to manual brightness and crank it up when you're inside. Most probably use auto brightness anyway and that means it won't be anywhere near the maximum unless you're outside. I'm sure it might reduce the lifespan of the LEDs or maybe increase the likelihood of a defect.
I was actually quite intrigued by LG's G Flex series (aka banana phone) which had a P-OLED display. It might be a bit gimmicky especially the 'self-healing' back cover but it looked different but it was plagued by poor sales and the second iteration was let down by the Snapdragon 810.
The G6 will have their new 18:9 (2:1 really) 5.7" LCD display. It will have 2880 x 1440 resolution. So not this time.
While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag. They can also suffer from burn in. Oled/amoled may be the technology of the future if they sort the niggling issues. Right now lcd still has merits. Quantum dot might bring lcd to the fore again though, time will tell
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
hackdrag0n said:
While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag. They can also suffer from burn in. Oled/amoled may be the technology of the future if they sort the niggling issues. Right now lcd still has merits. Quantum dot might bring lcd to the fore again though, time will tell
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt the input lag stems from the panel technology. Input lag is usually related to processing lag in the display controller and other IC. However they can achieve 1 ms response time and theoretically 100000 Hz refresh rate, so it has the potential to be the best gaming display technology ever.
As previously mentioned: what many consider burn-in is merely image retention which is very much reversible and it does continue to get better in that regard.
Trixanity said:
I doubt the input lag stems from the panel technology. Input lag is usually related to processing lag in the display controller and other IC. However they can achieve 1 ms response time and theoretically 100000 Hz refresh rate, so it has the potential to be the best gaming display technology ever.
As previously mentioned: what many consider burn-in is merely image retention which is very much reversible and it does continue to get better in that regard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well "burn-in" is actually the leds "burning" so there is no way to recover them.
Lodix said:
Well "burn-in" is actually the leds "burning" so there is no way to recover them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't really refute what I said. That's merely an explanation for what burn-in is. What I said is that many think image retention is burn-in when they're two different things (or more accurately you could say that the symptoms are the same but the prognosis is different especially if given the right medication - so to speak). Image retention is reversible as I said.
Trixanity said:
That doesn't really refute what I said. That's merely an explanation for what burn-in is. What I said is that many think image retention is burn-in when they're two different things (or more accurately you could say that the symptoms are the same but the prognosis is different especially if given the right medication - so to speak). Image retention is reversible as I said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the problem with oled panels is the burn-in, not the retention. Maybe this year they have manged to solve it someway since Apple is implementing it in their iPhones and people are very nitpicking with their devices.
PD: I am all over AMOLED panels, it is one of the reason why I got the 9 Pro.
I don't mind a quality 1080 panel. Huawei makes me rethink my love of AMOLED displays.
I personally don't see a major difference unless it's the newest Samsung flagship. Not a major change from my 6p or Nexus 6 but these weren't cream of the crop AMOLED displays.
I truly thought this would be the mate that got the qhd AMOLED especially after the honor note 8 that released not long before this one. Extremely happy with the LCD panel.
Last 2 LCD phones I used was LeEco s1 and lg v10. The s1 had a great LCD panel that look AMOLED. Lg v10 just looked washed out most of the time.
hackdrag0n said:
While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag. They can also suffer from burn in. Oled/amoled may be the technology of the future if they sort the niggling issues. Right now lcd still has merits. Quantum dot might bring lcd to the fore again though, time will tell
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're wrong. In 2015, yes they were ****. I had an EG9600 and it had about 50ms of input lag. I have 2 2016 TV's now, a C6 and a B6. The B6 just got an update and it does 28ms of input lag at 4:2:2, but close to 70ms at 4:4:4. The C6 does 34ms of input lag at either setting (4:2:2, or 4:4:4). The lag is NOT noticeable at all, and part of this is because the pixels respond instantly to new frames (<.1ms) whereas IPS and VA can take MANY milliseconds to update the pixels - some panels take dozens of milliseconds for a full transition for some colors. OLED is the fastest refresh for a panel today. My C6 has hundreds of hours of PC use ONLY, and has ZERO burn in... NONE.
Lodix said:
But the problem with oled panels is the burn-in, not the retention. Maybe this year they have manged to solve it someway since Apple is implementing it in their iPhones and people are very nitpicking with their devices.
PD: I am all over AMOLED panels, it is one of the reason why I got the 9 Pro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is a lot of people mistake burn-in for image retention because they don't come back and check again later after viewing different content on the display for awhile. I will say that burn-in can be an issue for phones though, depending on how you use them/set them up. My friend's S5 has the keyboard ghosted/burned into the display. He must text a LOT or something. Blew my mind when I saw that.
hackdrag0n said:
While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not in Gaming/PC Mode on the most recent models. On the 2017 OLED the input lag is 21ms in virtually all situations.
Trixanity said:
I wish I could afford an OLED TV One would be foolish not to pick up an LG OLED TV over any LCD display out there today (barring the price that is).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For pricing, you just have to wait until Black Friday for deals on the current year's models. That's the best time to buy a TV that will last you many years. Picked up the LG 65" C7P for $1900 last Fall. I wouldn't consider Samsung's QLED TV's over LG's RGBW OLED. However, there is the advantage of luminance. QLED have a higher luminance. Also keep in mind that although RGBW is not Pentile and doesn't suffer from inferior sub-resolution, you do lose color volume to an extent when using the higher levels of luminance (You'll be depending on the additional white sub-pixel). I'd say this is a fairly tertiary concern but could be important if you use the OLED in a bright living room. If using a dark room, there's absolutely no contest. Personally, I have the C7P in a living room and still completely satisfied. There's a reason why it's a champ on every review site. Oh and for reference, all the LG 2017 OLED have essentially the same panel irregardless of price.
Trixanity said:
About Pentile: that phone was the Samsung Galaxy S2 (coincidentally my first Android phone) - released in 2011. I guess the yields weren't good enough and at the same time they wanted to increase screen density. Maybe it made the yields plummet and then pushing towards HD and full HD made it unfeasible. The S2 had a 800x480 resolution by the way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Samsung Galaxy Note II (2012) also had a Full RGB AMOLED Display (720P HD). That was the last time for phones. However, Samsung also still does Full RGB AMOLED for the larger 9.7" models in their premium lines of tablets (Galaxy Tab S2, Tab S3). Those have the same 4:3 resolution as the iPad (2048x1536). The 10.5" Galaxy Tab S has a 2560x1600 Full RGB AMOLED Display as well. I certainly hope Samsung turns away from Pentile sometime in the future, but I don't think they'll do so anytime soon for smartphones. However, there is some hope.
I've seen various terms thrown around, such as super AMOLED, Fluid AMOLED, Apple LTPO, Samsung LPTO 2.0, Dynamic AMOLED 2X, LTPO2 Fluid AMOLED. Where can I learn more about these? I'm still a noob, so I only know the basic advantages and functionality of say, amoled and super amoled compared to older display tech, but I want to learn even more. For example I've been struggling to find how different exactly is Apple's LPTO from Samsung's.
Most importantly, which display technology has the perfect combination of power consumption, RR, color accuracy and resolution?
Welcome to XDA
The Beast has a near perfect fixed refresh rate display that eats any Apple and likely all of the newer* variable refresh rate displays alive.
All variable refresh rate AMOLED displays are harder to color/gamma calibrate and suffer as a result to a greater or lesser extent.
What you want to learn is multifaceted and spans many different disciplines of science. It's a very steep learning curve. As you progress you'll see what I mean.
Take just color calibration, alone it can take a week and more to begin to appreciate it's complexity. Take a piece at a time and use Google searches. Here's one excellent site, Canon, Nike and B&H Photo have excellent primers gear more towards cams and color calibration/throughput. They all come together and each one influences/effects the others.
Color calibration is a big deal on smartphones, if the Android manufacturer didn't do it right, it will never be right. Apples can be color calibrated with 3rd party apps like Spyder I believe but have limited display capabilities. The N10+ marks the zenith, so far, in Android color calibration and throughput as best I know.
*full tests aren't out yet, but the writing's on the wall.