Related
An article about AMOLED screen of N1 is here, should be applicable to Desire as well.
The jist of the article is that the true resolution of the N1/Desire screen is 392x653 and not 480x800, since each pixel only has two of the three RGB colours.
AMOLED isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if sharp text is important to you.
Moandal said:
The jist of the article is that the true resolution of the N1/Desire screen is 392x653 and not 480x800, since each pixel only has two of the three RGB colours.
AMOLED isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if sharp text is important to you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not quite fare, the N1 has 480 lines of independently addressable pixels per row and 800 rows. It does have an 800x480 res it's just that there are only 2 channels per pixel. The images are manipulated and diliberatly out of focus otherwise, and I quote from the authors subsequent comment...
"The shot of the screen that is blurry is intentionally blurrier than what the screen actually looks like, it's the only way to get rid of the moire effect of the camera's CCD interfering with the pixel grid of the N1 screen. It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
What he is saying is that if they didn't blur the image the camera would have seen the optical illusion you are supposed to see. Having a mixture of RG and BG Pixels is not really an issue and most certainly doesn't mean the resolution is lower.
He also says that stippled images are where you see it and only in certain circumstances... Once commenter noted that if you zoom by 1% the effect on his example images vanishes, the example images where designed to look wrong on a N1 screen, as comenter points out, if images designed to look wrong on a N1 do infact look wrong on an N1, does it matter, I can't see too many people designing images specifically to trip up the N1!
If you read the comments, all the users of N1 who posted said it is stupid to say it's a poor screen, they unanimously agree that it is the best screen they have ever seen on a phone, including some ex Droid users!
Also this a feature of the N1, and possibly the desire not AMOLED screens in general. actually, your entire post is totally inaccurate!
farnsbarns said:
That's not quite fare, the N1 has 480 lines of independently addressable pixels per row and 800 rows. It does have an 800x480 res it's just that there are only 2 channels per pixel. The images are manipulated and diliberatly out of focus otherwise, and I quote from the authors subsequent comment...
"The shot of the screen that is blurry is intentionally blurrier than what the screen actually looks like, it's the only way to get rid of the moire effect of the camera's CCD interfering with the pixel grid of the N1 screen. It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
What he is saying is that if they didn't blur the image the camera would have seen the optical illusion you are supposed to see. Having a mixture of RG and BG Pixels is not really an issue and most certainly doesn't mean the resolution is lower.
He also says that stippled images are where you see it and only in certain circumstances... Once commenter noted that if you zoom by 1% the effect on his example images vanishes, the example images where designed to look wrong on a N1 screen, as comenter points out, if images designed to look wrong on a N1 do infact look wrong on an N1, does it matter, I can't see too many people designing images specifically to trip up the N1!
If you read the comments, all the users of N1 who posted said it is stupid to say it's a poor screen, they unanimously agree that it is the best screen they have ever seen on a phone, including some ex Droid users!
Also this a feature of the N1, and possibly the desire not AMOLED screens in general. actually, your entire post is totally inaccurate!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If my post is inaccurate, why does the author say that "the fairest way of counting raw pixels on the screen" gives a result of 392*653? How can a pixel that can only display 2 out of 3 colours count as a full pixel of resolution? If you want to count it that way, go ahead but you're only fooling yourself.
The author of the article is an N1 user, and he clearly doesn't think the screen is the best he has ever seen on a phone. Neither is he alone: "many of us were disappointed in the lack of crispness of text".
Maybe future AMOLED screens will have a different solution that allows for all 3 colours per pixel, but in the meantime potential Desire owners should at least be aware of the limitations of their AMOLED screen.
I'll end on something you quoted at me, which I thank you for since you proved my point so nicely:
"It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
Moandal said:
If my post is inaccurate, why does the author say that "the fairest way of counting raw pixels on the screen" gives a result of 392*653? How can a pixel that can only display 2 out of 3 colours count as a full pixel of resolution?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is a resolution of N1 camera? 5MP you say? But every pixel out of this 5 million can record only 1 color (red, green or blue). It is same for professional cameras too. How about that?
"fairest way of counting" is just his opinion, not scientific fact. And there are 800 physical vertical pixels, like on every other WVGA display. Only difference is horizontally, so 392*653 is just his approximation, do not take it literally.
As author says there is not issue in pictures, just in hard edged objects like letters (or his patterns). Maybe it will be improved with better smoothing algorithms.
Is it a general AMOLED issue or only the problem of the N1 and Desire?
Does this affect web browsing?
Moandal said:
If my post is inaccurate, why does the author say that "the fairest way of counting raw pixels on the screen" gives a result of 392*653? How can a pixel that can only display 2 out of 3 colours count as a full pixel of resolution? If you want to count it that way, go ahead but you're only fooling yourself.
The author of the article is an N1 user, and he clearly doesn't think the screen is the best he has ever seen on a phone. Neither is he alone: "many of us were disappointed in the lack of crispness of text".
Maybe future AMOLED screens will have a different solution that allows for all 3 colours per pixel, but in the meantime potential Desire owners should at least be aware of the limitations of their AMOLED screen.
I'll end on something you quoted at me, which I thank you for since you proved my point so nicely:
"It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look if you feel the N1 screen is poor that is a matter of opinion but...
The definition of a pixel is a physical screen location that can be addressed and manipulated directly in the video RAM regardless of the BPP or number of colours it can display. That is a simple fact. The N1 has 480 of these per row and 800 rows. It is not questionable, it is an unwavering fact, you were wrong! as was the man who posted it until he backtraked in the comments with CAPITALS stating an important point (so important he didn't edit his original post
You also said that AMOLED is not all it's cracked up to be, AMOLED is not the culpret, Google/HTC is, AMOLED displays with 16 BPP (RGB pixels rather than RG / BG) already exist so AMOLED is all it's cracked up to be. Perhaps the N1 screen isn't but that wouldn't be because of AMOLED it would be because HTC decided to use RG BG pixels on THEIR AMOLED screen instead of RGB which is perfectly possible.
Both the statements in your post were unequivocabley and fundamentally inacurate. It is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. You regurgitated someone else's inaccurate statement with no research, thought or even knowledge of the technologies involved.
If you believe "It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen" proves either of your original points you are mistaken.
I'm not saying the N1 screen is good or bad and I (unlike you) made it clear that I was repeating other peoples opinions. If you feel aggrieved about your screen then I really feel for you but misinformation and repetition of inaccurate information is still a bad thing.
Well, please, this is not an issue on AMOLED, read this article:
http://www.displayblog.com/2010/01/20/nexus-one-pentile-matrix-oled-display/
And comments from user "NPS_CA" in this blog:
http://androidcommunity.com/nexus-one-display-not-true-wvga-20100325/
Then you will understand the situation.
When it (this technology) saves battery life and produce better viewing experience, I will take it any day.
I wont complaint about the actual number of pixels
With the pixel density, and considering how "small" the pixel is to the human eye, i highly doubt that the normal human eye will spot that issue *unless you are hawk LMAO*
you should not forget, what matters here is the human eye reception, I dont care what kind of display hardware/software they are implementing as long as they look pretty, .. AND those kind of displays are HUUUGE battery Savior, .. about 33% more efficient than the regular LCD (yes, probably because they are using the PenTile Matrix, hence using less sub-pixels to display).
so lets recap whats going on here (keeping in mind that the most important factor here is us, the humans, not the machines)
AMOLED looks way better (from a human point of view, not a hawk) than TFT or LCD screens on mobile phones
AMOLED saves you alot of battery life (around 33% compared to other TFT)
gogol said:
Well, please, this is not an issue on AMOLED
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, its the pentile tehnology that the author goes to great lenghts to explain in *yawn* detail.
Not that I care but does anyone even know if the Desire has this technology?
bcmobile said:
No, its the pentile tehnology that the author goes to great lenghts to explain in *yawn* detail.
Not that I care but does anyone even know if the Desire has this technology?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the Nexus One has it.
the Desire has the same screen as nexus one.
so using proof by induction, the Desire has it
does a screen of 460x800 pixel (or 392*653) really look ****ty for text?? i don't think so, there are many pixels!
look at the screen of an iphone! the half amount of pixels but you still can read text. a screen with that dpi can't be not good! i'm happier with more pixels than a supercalifragilisticflexpialidocious-sharp display. and by the way, more pixels means more details or more information on the same view! and i also don't think that you surf on the web without any zooming to the article!
the screen can't be so blurry as mentioned in the link of the first post. otherwise all the people of MWC 2010 are liing to us, they are stunned about the screen and its resolution.
Today I bougth HTC Desire and what I first mention was jagged font. Simply say - display is not so silky as on Touch Pro. On all texts you can see "dots shadow".
This behaviour is very much seen on typing cursor when blicking - it is not vertical simple line, but dotted line.
At first I think, that this is a fault, but after some reads and si this thread I start to thinking, that this is feature.
I think this is because of the OLED screen. Right?
I think so. But waiting to meet people with another Desire to compare if this is not bad display.
irkan said:
With the pixel density, and considering how "small" the pixel is to the human eye, i highly doubt that the normal human eye will spot that issue *unless you are hawk LMAO*
you should not forget, what matters here is the human eye reception, I dont care what kind of display hardware/software they are implementing as long as they look pretty, .. AND those kind of displays are HUUUGE battery Savior, .. about 33% more efficient than the regular LCD (yes, probably because they are using the PenTile Matrix, hence using less sub-pixels to display).
so lets recap whats going on here (keeping in mind that the most important factor here is us, the humans, not the machines)
AMOLED looks way better (from a human point of view, not a hawk) than TFT or LCD screens on mobile phones
AMOLED saves you alot of battery life (around 33% compared to other TFT)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
100% agreed...if it looks gud 2 human eyes, that's it...
To be honest, I don't really like it and get pretty annoyed by the pixelly text.
I have to mention: only when I keep phone within 30cm of my eyes. Any further and it's perfect.
Browsing trough the WP7 ROM dump, I came across this folder:
Code:
Phone_DPI_262
This seems to be a new resolution, because Windows mobile always supported DPI 192, 120 and 96.
Maybe this means a higher resolution for the coming Windows Phones.
Just a thought. Let me know what you think about it.
[ElCondor] said:
Browsing trough the WP7 ROM dump, I came across this folder:
Code:
Phone_DPI_262
This seems to be a new resolution, because Windows mobile always supported DPI 192, 120 and 96.
Maybe this means a higher resolution for the coming Windows Phones.
Just a thought. Let me know what you think about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe 800x800 or something. Sounds like an ugly squared tablet.
TheDeadCpu said:
Maybe 800x800 or something. Sounds like an ugly squared tablet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you know it's 800X800? I was more thinking about 1280X800.
Probably, but come to think of it.. Theres something called XGA and thats 1024×768.
To keep the widescreen ratio with 800x480 they would need something like 1200x720. Of course they are going to have other aspect ratios so I don't know.
This is a nice graphic that shows all resolutions...
I think WXGA would be the one that comes very close as it is 5:3 resolution just like WVGA.
262 DPI was actually mentioned by MS at MIX when they were talking about WVGA. I personally completely fail to understand what it means - it's supposed to be dots per inch, right? So without the size of the screen DPI is what exactly?
Well the screens won't get much bigger than the HD2 I think, expect if they're going to make tablets.
The problem is, the bigger the screen the lower DPI you should get at the same resolution. However, all VGA and WVGA devices previously had 192DPI in WM, regardless of screen size. So I guess it's a different thing here. What exactly it is I don't know.
vangrieg said:
The problem is, the bigger the screen the lower DPI you should get at the same resolution. However, all VGA and WVGA devices previously had 192DPI in WM, regardless of screen size. So I guess it's a different thing here. What exactly it is I don't know.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true. I guess it doesn't tell us much, but at least it's bigger so either the screen size, or the screen resolution will probably be bigger.
WinMo 6.x supported 4 Logical DPIs (note that logical DPI is different from physical DPI, which is the bit that varies with each LCD panel/resolution)
96, 128, 131, 192
Note that a 5 inch panel might be operating at the same logical DPI as a 4 inch panel (lets say 192), but the physical DPI would be less on the 5 inch panel (larger physical pixel size)
If you were to change the logical DPI on a 4 inch screen from 192 to 262, while leaving the physical DPI the same (screen size/resolution does not change) - all on-screen elements would appear larger - more pixels would be used to draw each icon, scrollbar, etc.
Windows Phone 7 is showing 4 logical DPI's right now too:
96, 131, 192, 262
Just that we've lost 128 and picked up 262
Okay. But does that mean higher resolutions? Do you know if there will be higher resolutions?
The design of WinPhone 7 pretty much allows an arbitrary resolution, it's designed to be fully scalable. 1920x1280 @ 262 DPI @ 4 inches would make one ridiculous high res screen
As for what's in store, I wouldn't be surprised to see a large-format screen device like a tablet in the months following WP7's release.. but I don't have any specific knowledge of one yet.
Da_G said:
The design of WinPhone 7 pretty much allows an arbitrary resolution, it's designed to be fully scalable. 1920x1280 @ 262 DPI @ 4 inches would make one ridiculous high res screen
As for what's in store, I wouldn't be surprised to see a large-format screen device like a tablet in the months following WP7's release.. but I don't have any specific knowledge of one yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, yeah that would be indeed an amazing screen resolution for such a small screen!
A tablet would be very cool, I wonder if that's what HTC is working on.
Da_G said:
As for what's in store, I wouldn't be surprised to see a large-format screen device like a tablet in the months following WP7's release.. but I don't have any specific knowledge of one yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But you do have general knowledge of one
RustyGrom said:
But you do have general knowledge of one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hehe nice one there. I'd like to know that too.
Maybe they need it for fully working HDTV support, although we're yet to see WP7 device that supports HDMI interface...
Possibly.
Zune supports it, so it would be odd if they wouldn't add HDMI support for WP7.
dont forget guys...higher resolution doesnt necessarily mean a larger screen.
you can still have a 1280 X 1024 etc etc higher res screen while still making it into a 3.7-4.3 inch screen.
hell you could even have a higher res screen into a 2.8 inch slot.
the difference with display screen isnt always about the resolution however its about the Pixel Size, the larger each pixel is the large the screen is, the smaller the pixels the smaller the screen.
just to give you guys a head up, at work i was wokring with an OLED Microdisplay screen that had the resolution of 1280 X 1024, YES better resolution than most HD TVS, however the display screen was less than an inch small, the reason is was because of how small the pixels were. its pretty cool.
hasseye said:
dont forget guys...higher resolution doesnt necessarily mean a larger screen.
you can still have a 1280 X 1024 etc etc higher res screen while still making it into a 3.7-4.3 inch screen.
hell you could even have a higher res screen into a 2.8 inch slot.
the difference with display screen isnt always about the resolution however its about the Pixel Size, the larger each pixel is the large the screen is, the smaller the pixels the smaller the screen.
just to give you guys a head up, at work i was wokring with an OLED Microdisplay screen that had the resolution of 1280 X 1024, YES better resolution than most HD TVS, however the display screen was less than an inch small, the reason is was because of how small the pixels were. its pretty cool.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, oh that's nice. Such screens would be really amazing on mobile devices.
Then isn't that blocking manufacturers from competing with iPhone 4's 960x640 'Retina Display' straight from the get go?
I know they will no doubt be able to make some cracking looking screens at that resolution but it is a bit disheartening to know that it can never meet the resolution of the iPhone, and I imagine by the end of the year there will be several competing Android devices that have matched that resolution too.
Do you think Microsoft will stick to this requirement?
Seems like Microsoft wants to make sure all devices run perfect at launch in hopes of rave reviews for WP7 so all the limitations. I suspect them to open it up very quickly after launch so it doesn't get left behind.
I'd rather them hang on for a bit to be honest. The only reason the iPhone's new screen is that resolution is simply because its double the last one. So they can easily resize content for the screen. It's only 10-15% higher pixel density than phones we've already got, so not that big of an improvement, unless you're comparing it to the other iPhones of course.
Might as well wait a year or so and go for 1280x720. Better to standardise the platform on a resolution like that every couple of years than to have lots of inbetween resolutions competing and wasting developer resources.
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
The term 'retina display' is bull, in reality you would have to hold the iPhone 18 inches from your face to reach the limits of your eyes.
Which brings me to the main point: If you have a bigger display, you can hold it farther from your eyes and have the same effect.
940 or 800 pixels? It hardly matters. What matters more is the actual size of the screen and any WP7 device with a 3.7" or 4" screen at WVGA is to be preferred to the iPhone's too small 3.4" screen.
I believe the 480x800 was a minimum spec, and that the other would be an exception to the rule for some other devices.
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
vangrieg said:
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HVGA is good if you need a compact device, not everyone wants a large device, some want's it slim and compact.
I belive that it will not make a big difference to have it as 800x480 or 960x640 (it would matter if the screen was big, but in the iphone case it wouldn't).
The usage of this resolution is pure technical and i really respect this move. now the only thing they need to do to maintain the apps compatability of the old iPhone is to render the apps 2 times larger on both axis (x,y) so if you have an image that is 20 pixels height and 50 pixels width (20x50)it would be (40x100), notice this will not affect the aspect ratio nor will result in a distortion or pixelating the image (the same screen size but having more pixels).
Now if you come to the real world, i will not matter for the naked eye, i would love to see this screen compared to the WVGA i have on my HD2. i doubt that there will be a noticable difference.
Pure physics say that the Naked Human Eye at a distance of 30cm can see objects that are 0.1mm, any object smaller (or objects that have a distance of 0.1mm or less will appear as 1 object, so this returns us to the "a mere 78 micrometers" (0.078mm) means that you can notice that the pixel itself is a an object that cannot be seen by the naked eye easily, that's why each pixel for us will be represented as almost 1.5 pixels). now i'm not saying that it is the same, not at all. it makes difference from the old screen they were using, but the same result we would get if they made a bit lower resolution screens (0.1mm).
Anyhow, for that particular screen size, the resolution usage is more a technical point of view than a real function point of you. you will enjoy the new screen resolution but you will not see all the pixels
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
And don't forget! iPhone's screen is 4:3 as ours are 16:9 (roughly). Should you put the iPhone's screen in 16:9 form, it would be 960x540... So the improvement isn't that great... (And i'm not mentionning that most sites are still being written to fit a 800x600 pc screen, so having a 800x480 hold in landscape will render the site 100% accurately... in theory that is xD)
Sure it looks like the iPhone will have a great resolution but at 3.5" screen size it doesn't make it and where near what I'd be looking for. I want a bigger screen and I've found the pixel density of 800x480 is good enough to make everything look crisp. Maybe MS will add 1600x960 and 960x640 to there list of supported resolutions seems how that just doubling what they currently have as standards. Ok maybe 1600x960 is a bit much but hey it can happen.
NoWorthWhile said:
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. If you have a very high res (960*640) screen but are limited to the same screen proportions as a very low res screen (480*320) you've lost a lot of the advantage.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Partly agreed. If they get cleartype to work properly (both portrait and landscape, and on OLED screens) then 800*480 is good for images and text.
I'm all for high res, but 800*480 is good, plus OLED is the way forward and hasn't reached full 800*480 resolution yet.
I think the foundational technologies (surrounding silverlight) enable resolution-independence very easily and may even enforce it, so moving to any widescreen resolution should be easy in future, with only the potential problem of bitmap pixellation.
I think we're reaching a point where the resolution in no longer important.
We all remember a couple of years ago when we "drool" about having vga resolution phone.
Now that the 800x480 are the standard and the 960x640 are becoming a standard also, all resolutions beyond this point becomes meaningless as we, humans, cannot see the difference in a standard size phone terminal.
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
ROCOAFZ said:
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
rogeriopcf said:
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, more pixels on the screen = more pixels to render = slower performance. For example, a lot of the XNA games made will probably be 320x480 and automatically scaled up for performance reasons.
As far as I remember, Da_G said they are working hard on completing DPI_262, which opens new resolutions, like 1280x720 and so on .
I think that even Hummingbird from Samsung, which is way faster (in GPU even more) than Qualcomm Snapdragon, will perform quite well with those resolutions. And when they come, we will have even better CPUs and GPUs.
lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance, but in general, yes. There's a reason why printers don't print at 300 dots per inch any more - it's because the eye can easily detect a difference between 300 pixels per inch and 600. In fact, even going from 600dpi to 1200 makes a visible difference sometimes.
Or, to look at it another way, is there a visible difference when you switch ClearType on and off? ClearType multiplies the resolution by three on one axis. If you can see a difference then the original resolution is comfortably below the finest your eye can resolve.
I'd focus more on screen clairity, color depth/contrast/brightness, ect. before trying to cram more pixels into a sub 5" screen. How about a nice OLED? ...I'd rather have this as compared to more dpi.
This is one of the things that always comes up to my mind when I'm using my Samaung Focus and iPhone 4, what if my Samsung Focus had a Retina Display?
Or if iPhone 4 had three buttons and WP7
If the Samsung Focus had a retina display it would have a higher screen resolution.
please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS
Man, my focus with a lousy 3.5" screen would be terrible. What I want is WP7 on one of those new 4.5" super amoled + displays they're gonna put on that android phone they're making. That'd be the cheese, right there.
800*480 OLED with normal sub-pixels is good for phone sizes.
Text is most important and with normal subpixels you can turn on cleartype and have a boost in effective resolution. At 800*480 I think it's good for both images and text.
Pentile has lower actual resolution and doesn't have OS sub-pixel support.
revrak said:
please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.
The thing though, is that I've never had a situation where I was using my phone and needed those types of viewing angles. As long as the phone is readable from a 100-120 degree viewing angle is seems like it's good enough for me.
The iPhone's viewing angles are good, but the screen size IMO worked against it for situations where the viewing angles would be a saver (showing stuff on your phone to others).
Also, the iPhone is still not that great when viewing it in direct sunlight, although it is better than some other LCD panels.
The Pixel Density is the biggest thing about the screen. It makes text, pictures, and even video look better than on lots of other lower-res phones...
Yeah, the screen size is on the smallish side. I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size. But I'm finding other things about the iPhone screen (the whole screen - LCD and plate) that really make up for size deficiencies. I think Apple is using the Oleo-phobic tech on the iPhone because it is so much easier to move your finger across it than on other displays. I have Fruit Ninja on both my iPhone and HD7 and slashing the fruit is painless on the iPhone. Slashing the fruit on my HD7 is a bit of a chore because the finger want to adhere to the surface...like the squeak you get when running a squeegee over a clean pane of glass. The touch response seems to be a bit more accurate on the iPhone, too. But that is likely due to the coding of the game and nothing to do with the HD7's tech.
I think MS just simply ported FN to WP7 without even optimizing it because the display is squished rather than having the proper aspect ratio (a circle being oblong...like a football...rather than a true circle).
MartyLK said:
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, it is IPS LCD, which gives the best viewing angle among LCDs. But the main thing with the "Retina display" is the pixel density. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining the iPhone 4's display:
"The display of the iPhone 4 is designed by Apple and is manufactured by LG. It features an LED backlit TFT LCD capacitive touchscreen with a pixel density of 326 pixels per inch (ppi) on a 3.5 in (8.9 cm) (diagonally measured), 960×640 display. Each pixel is 78 micrometres in width. The display has a contrast ratio of 800:1. The screen is marketed by Apple as the "Retina Display", based on the assertion that a display of approximately 300 ppi at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm) from one's eye is the maximum amount of detail that the human retina can process.[35] With the iPhone expected to be used at a distance of about 12 inches from the eyes, a higher resolution would allegedly have no effect on the image's apparent quality as the maximum potential of the human eye has already been met. This claim has been disputed. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, said in an interview with Wired Magazine, that the claims by Jobs are something of an exaggeration: "It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far." Soneira stated that the resolution of the human retina is higher than claimed by Apple, working out to 477 ppi at 12 inches (305 mm) from the eyes.[36]
However, Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine.
S Amoled plus anyone?
domineus said:
S Amoled plus anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those
revrak said:
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hang out for the new organic display tech. It sounds like each dot can be any color, rather than having each pixel made up of red, green, blue separate dots. If this is the case, the definition will shoot through the roof.
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Lightemitting+Material+May+Usher+in+Era+of+Cheap+OLEDs/article20915.htm
MartyLK said:
I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such a screen size would be appropriate only if they change drastically their UI. Just think where usually are the main navigation controls on the iPhone - on the upper side of the screen. I am struggling to navigate comfortably with one hand on 3.5”, cannot imagine how can do that on bigger size. So much for the vaunted apple UI…
What is the highest resolution that WP7 supports? It seems strange that even Samsung do not want to increase the pixels on their new models announced at MWC. I feel WVGA is too 'basic' and not as pin sharp.
amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".
MartyLK said:
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.
Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
was the toshiba device the e900 series? i believe it was a 3.2 WVGA screen, so it had a high pixel density on a mere 3.2 inch screen. Correct me if i'm wrong.
revrak said:
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, it doesn't matter.
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
rcobourn said:
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I would agree. Actually made me sick.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Belimawr said:
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Oyeve said:
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree. 2k is simply not enough. 4k is not enough either, but it would be a bit better. I think we are really going to need about 4k per eye in order for it to become truly fantastic. Maybe 8k per eye. So we are talking something like 7680x4320 or even 15360x4320. I doubt that smartphones are going to be the vehicle to deliver this in future.
But for now, 4k would be nice.
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
nomailx said:
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly hope it is years before they even think about a 4K screen. Our processors can barely push 2K at this point and battery life is pretty terrible currently compared to 1080p phones such as the iPhone 7. It's not worth it for such a niche feature. I mean, the Rift and Vive are not even at that resolution because desktop PCs can barely push it.
Belimawr said:
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure that's all true, but in any event, with a phone with a 2k screen the pixel density is not high enough and it won't be at 4k either. With 2k each eye is getting an image something like 1,000 pixels across (the two VR windows don't use the full screen width, so less than half of 2560 each), which for a virtual image which is bigger than even the very biggest TV screens (100"+) this is not enough pixels and the image is visibly (very badly) pixellated.
I am sure refresh rate matters too, but we really need very high pixel density and fast refresh (and low latency and wide viewing angles) for what in the end will be "perfect" VR.
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Belimawr said:
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For gaming, I agree that the Note 8 with a 4k Screen won't be much Help. But I never really enjoyed VR for gaming, it's more like a "side fun activity". But to watch video content, a 4K Display Note with an 10nm processor would be more than enough to remove the screen door effect, and give the ability to watch awesome 180/360 content, and 3D movies on a huge VR theatre.
May I remind you that VR for gaming is failing generally right now. But for some shady reason VR for videos is not... (go figure... xD )
notefreak said:
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the Sony Xperia Yoshino!