Related
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.
Many people believe that SAMOLED screens on Samsung devices are far superior in every way to other devices. Recently with the addition of all these new and similarly spec'd WP7 phones, it seems like a big deciding factor is the screen display.
I have used a focus and a htc surround for a week in addition to my iphone 4. Watching avatar on both devices, I realize that both screens have their setbacks, thats right even the AMOLED!
The general consensus with htc devices is that the viewing angles are terrible. Check out any video review of a HD7 or Surround and you can see that the screens are extremely washed out when viewed at an angle, and unfortunately, many of these reviewers shoot their videos not head on for obvious viewing reasons.
But when viewed normally, the wp7 htc devices are definitely not as awful as at an angle. Still, it is nowhere near SAMOLED crispness or vibrancy. One thing I did notice, however, is that when watching the same video or viewing the same webpages on my iphone 4, I can rightfully say that the lcd screens from htc are just as good as the overly praised retina display. The differences of colors and sharpness between the two are too subtle to tell.
The SAMOLED screens "pop" in color and vibrancy. Whites are glowing white and blacks are dead on black. No one can say that the Samsung did a bad job on their new screens. However, one thing that people tend to misjudge is the color production on their devices like the focus or omnia 7. It seems that while the surround may not produce white and dark as vibrantly, the ACTUAL colors (red, blue, green) are pretty close to what they should appear. What I am saying is the SAMOLED screens are TOO SATURATED. Again this could all be subjective, but I find that the SAMOLED screen just goes for as vibrant and colorful as they can get, disregarding true color tones. For instance, skin in pictures looks intensely orange and I have never seen skies so blue in real life. Webpage colors can be a bit to contrasting as well. And my opinion is from comparing the SAMOLED to my macbook pro LED screen.
I watched avatar on my blu ray and compared it to the surround and the focus. unfornately to say, the focus just makes the navis look almost syrup-y bubblegum blue. The high contrast of samsung screens are good in some ways but in others, it just seems overdone.
HTC may have made their screens to warm in color, thus appearing a bit washed out when comparing to other wp7 devices. But the AMOLED screen seems too saturated in color production, not just compared to my surround, but also my macbook's screen as well as my LED tv.
So in the end which would you pick? What are your guy's thoughts?
I've never done that kind of testing but my captivate has an awesome screen and I would put it against any other screen. The ritna screen isn't as impressive as apple makes it out to be. At least for me. But I will say these are the best out of all of them. My friend just picked up the x10 and boy does the screen look like $h!#, next to mine.
Sent from my cogcap
I 100% agree with you, infact I have had alot of iphone 4 users comment on how good the screen is on the HD7 which shows what a difference using the phone in a normal way makes when compare to viewing at some obsure angle.
I also have always though the colours look wrong on OLED screens, but having said that, I have always though that about samsungs HDTVs, they seem to over exagerate all the colours and sharpness to make you initially go "WOW", then when you think about it, they just look wrong.
Personally, im happy with my HD7 LCD, and would take SLCD over OLED at the moment.
The over-the-top vibrance is a reason why I went SLCD.
That and the Pentile pattern. My eyes are still well enough to notice fringing on rendered text as well as the pattern generally on evenly lit surfaces.
I had a Nexus One, the OMG-in-your-face colors get old quickly.
thanks for input, the captivate looks amazing running android and playing videos I agree.
But do you think there is a line between displaying vibrancy vs true colors?
Sometimes when I view images in the focus, it feels like I opened a photo in Lightroom or Photoshop and just cranked up the vibrancy settings to the max, resulting in some drastic color contrasts.
But then again, the LCD screens of HTC do seem last generation. If only they could meet in the middle.
@ Tom Servo, I actually think the Nexus One did a good job on their screens. They use regualr AMOLED screens just like the Zune HD from microsoft.
Color production was beautiful. Only complaint with those screens are that they practically turn invisible in sunlight haha.
For me, WindowsPhone7 is all about white letters on black background and some coloured squares in between.
I do not watch videos on the phone and I don't have much photos to display.
So I chose the Omnia7 with that gorgeous SAMOLED screen because it's superior for my use.
SAMLOED ftw. IPSLCD (retina display) is old, Apple just upped the pixel count. Put that many pixels in a SLCD and would look gorgeous.
Take a peek at this article, it has all you need to know:
displaymate.com/Galaxy_S_ShootOut.htm
Scroll down to section 8: Gamut.
You'll see that the SAMOLED is way over-saturated and that the
iPhone4 is very washed-out.
I own a Focus and a Droid, as well as an e-IPS and s-IPS panels, and I can
tell you that the article is spot on. Colors on the Focus are like crayola simple.
If you want accurate colors, then go somewhere else, but if you want the
"wow factor" then go SAMOLED hands down.
Hope that helps.
mrroey said:
@ Tom Servo, I actually think the Nexus One did a good job on their screens. They use regualr AMOLED screens just like the Zune HD from microsoft.
Color production was beautiful. Only complaint with those screens are that they practically turn invisible in sunlight haha.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I went from Nexus to Trophy. Looking at the same pictures, I actually preferred SLCD. That and as I said, some people notice the Pentile pattern. Which also makes text fuzzier. With Metro being pretty sparse in busy textures and mostly text based, I think it makes more sense to use the display technology that has full resolution on all color channels. AMOLED has currently half the horizontal resolution on the red and blue channels.
In relation to Samsung devices, it's possible they're running their Digital Natural Imagine Engine in background. I haven't had a direct Samsung device with AMOLED, so I can't say.
Oranjoose said:
Take a peek at this article, it has all you need to know:
displaymate.com/Galaxy_S_ShootOut.htm
Scroll down to section 8: Gamut.
You'll see that the SAMOLED is way over-saturated and that the
iPhone4 is very washed-out.
I own a Focus and a Droid, as well as an e-IPS and s-IPS panels, and I can
tell you that the article is spot on. Colors on the Focus are like crayola simple.
If you want accurate colors, then go somewhere else, but if you want the
"wow factor" then go SAMOLED hands down.
Hope that helps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was a GREAT article and very informative, though it can get a bit technical at times. To quote some interesting conclusions from the articles...(NOTE THAT THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN PRIOR TO WP7 PHONE RELEASE)
"We compared the Galaxy S side-by-side to a calibrated Professional Sony High Definition Studio Monitor using a large set of DisplayMate Calibration and Test Photographs. All of the photos on the Galaxy S had too much color saturation, to the point of appearing gaudy, particularly faces and well known objects such as fruits, vegetables, flowers, grass, even a Coca-Cola can. Photos that include very color saturated objects, such as a fire engine, were in some cases painful to look at. These effects are similar to setting an HDTV to a Vivid picture mode and then turning up the Color and Sharpness Controls. The punchy and excessively vibrant looking images on the Galaxy S may initially get lots of oohs and aahs, like in many of the early reviews, but after a while the gaudy looking images will become tiresome and unpleasant."
"There is no decisive winner as each of the three “Super” displays significantly outperforms the others in more than one important area and significantly underperforms in other areas. The iPhone 4 by far has the brightest and sharpest display and is the most power efficient of the displays. The Motorola Droid by far has the best picture quality and accuracy. The Samsung Galaxy S by far has the lowest screen reflectance and largest Contrast for both bright and dark ambient lighting, and the best viewing angles. On the flip side, the iPhone 4 has a weak color gamut and viewing angles, the Motorola Droid has weak screen reflectance and viewing angles, and the Samsung Galaxy S has lower brightness, excessive color saturation, higher power consumption and some sharpness issues. "
so there you have it. according to Displaymate,
iphone 4 = best mobile display
motorola droid (surprisingly) = best mobile picture quality
Samsung vibrant = best mobile display technology
Samsung is notorious for producing display panels with oversaturated color pallet.
It is true for their Plasma, LCD, LED's on the consumer grade television sets and now SAMOLED displays on the mobile devices.
the oversaturation of the AMOLED's have been well documented prior to now. it doens't seem to be a problem for many as everyone has different interpretation of colors in their own eyes anyway.
I just think when u put these phone side by side...and contrast and vibrance of the samsung phones is just ridiculous...true color representation kinda falls to the side
The Retna screen is very impressive because the pixel density is much higher than on other screens. That makes reading on the screen MUCH easier on the eyes than on other screens. You may not consciously know it, but eye fatigue does happen and it's a huge consideration when buying a device you will spend so much time looking at. It also means the text will look much better when/if you zoom in on it.
It's like comparing a crappy CRT monitor to a high class LCD.
The color reproduction on sAMOLED is nice.
However, there's more to a phone than the screen.
HD7 has more RAM than other WP7 devices. It has a bigger screen than other WP7 devices. It has more storage than many other WP7 devices.
The only major downside to that phone, IMO, is small battery and the fact that the screen is flush with the front of the phone. Unlike something like a Vibrant, if you drop an HD2 or HD7 on its face it can destroy your screen.
Of course, that can be somewhat fixed with a case... Some people don't like cases, though...
I like the SAMOLED screens, but when I looked at the HD7 it was better than I thought it would be. That being said I do still want the SAMOLED. The other factors leaning me toward the focus (or samsung in general) are the fact that the screen has gorilla glass, making it much less likely to be scratched and when I was playing with the Focus and the Quantum/Surround/HD7 the screen on the Focus also seemed much more sensitive and responsive compared to the others.
Omega Ra said:
...the screen on the Focus also seemed much more sensitive and responsive compared to the others.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This might have to do with the fact Samsung places the SAMOLED display directly beneath the capacitive screen. Other phones have a much larger space between the two.
The result is Samsung phones are often thinner, and they appear to be more accurate and responsive.
i put my omnia 7 up against a hd7 in the flesh ( metal/plastic) and there is no comparison. Theres just no going back to LCD now. and as for viewing angles, seriously?, viewing angles on a mobile phone? are you kidding me? no one holds their phone at an angle! its not like we are going to mount our phones onto walls and have 10 people gathered around to watch it.
Since having my desire with amoled display for about half a year I won't go back to lcd/slcd because I think the colors are far more superior at least to me.
I went for the Omnia 7 as business device and I couldn't be happier. Build quality is surprisingly very good, perfect screen size for my needs and all in all I'm glad that I didn't choose the HD7 imho.
Regards
It may not be the sharpest of display and not produce the most accurate colour and I wasn't particularly impressed with Galaxy S S-AMOLED screen on android!
However IMHO S-AMOLED looks stunning on WP7 OS, it really compliments the Metro-UI and when put side by side with S-LCD running the same OS it's just not the same! It's for this very reason that I went for Omnia 7 over HD7.
lqaddict said:
Samsung is notorious for producing display panels with oversaturated color pallet.
It is true for their Plasma, LCD, LED's on the consumer grade television sets and now SAMOLED displays on the mobile devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Samsung plasma and in general any plasma is not as oversaturated as other technologies. LCD and LED displays from all manufacturers are setup to be in the "torch" mode (sometimes called dynamic by the manufacturers) to stand out on the floor. And to compensate for the grayish black level they oversaturate the color.
After you calibrate though, they all look the same, almost. LEDs will have a bit of blooming, LCDs will not be as black as plasmas and plasmas will lack the brightness in case you want to watch in a sunlit room.
The iPhone 4's screen looks pretty good, but 3.5 inches? Ugh.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f8PGWHjvz3w
Hi all.
Just a quick video comparing the two for anyone trying to decide between the two. Or go from the GNex to the One X. Sorry for the shameful self promotion but there is no point making videos if nobody us going to watch them
While both are 720p, there shouldn't be any contest between the Super LCD 2 and PenTile AMOLED.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda premium
i owned a gnex while my daily was a gs2. after one day of use i was certain the gs2 had a more superior screen in all respects except for the resolution. e.g. under very brightness colors were inconsistent or dimmer on the gnex. viewing angles weren't that great neither.
so when i got a hold of my current HOX, it blew the gs2 out of the water. i was mesmerized by the magic of the one x's display. it sticks to the surface and even feels like it pops out. viewing angles make the screen look unreal like a picture painted on the glass. it defies belief that it isn't a dummy model handset with a still picture.
i don't know what's responsible for that and it might actually be how HTC has the curved stretched edges by the bezel. all i know is that i believe it's the first device of this display standard. images and wallpapers just hypnotise you... the widgets and icons look so fine.
some said 'this is a bit like what's available on apples retina display'. it is only true to certain degrees only. for example, if you look at the retina display, you can still see a fine black line or border separating the wallpaper from the bezel of the phone producing an effect that there is still a layer of glass above the actual image/wallpaper. this effect is practically non existent on the HOX. besides, the retina display simply doesn't compare even to that of the s2 on one ground alone and that is the size of the screen. it is just too small. 5" plus is too big... 4" less is too small. just my opinion.
i was wowed by the gnex beside my gs2 at first purely on the high res and sharpness in detail. but the color reproduction and the viewing angles just put me off.
gosh, i still have the hots for the galaxy nexus and wouldn't regret doing a trade for my HOX.
Thread closed..
Read Rules for General sticky...
I have an ipad air and in fact reading ebooks on its screen is amazing
I want to ask about how do ebooks look on the screen of tab s as it has 16:9 aspect ratio not 4:3 like the ipad and does reading ebooks on it does drain the battery like i heared or not
Thanks
The screen is 16:10, actually, and reading books on it is amazing and doesn't drain the battery excessively. I'm a pretty heavy reader, and it outlasts me.
If you can deal with a black background and white or gray text, the battery will last even longer, as the Tab S has an OLED screen which doesn't use a backlight because each pixel generates its own (each pixel is 3 tiny LEDs). Therefore, the less pixels on, the less battery drain (on a device with already fantastic battery life).
As far as aspect ratio goes, a paperback page is 10:16. At least most of mine are. Or at least 'American Gods' is (I busted out the calipers), and it's the same size as the rest on the shelf. I measured 6.70"x4.15" (~1.61 aspect), for reference 16:10 is 1.6, and the InterWebs says the standard is 6.75"x4.25 (~1.59 aspect).
The iPad is 4:3 (~1.33 aspect), and in portrait with *2* pages, each page would have a 2:3 ratio (which would get us closer at 1.5 aspect). I *personally* don't like 2 page views, even on a 4:3 screen.
Subjectively, I think the 2560x1600 OLED screen on the Tab S (keep in mind, with OLED, black is really and truly *black*) is better to read on than ePaper (in almost every case), LCD, and even some cheap printed books. I can read this screen in direct daylight. The *only* place this screen looses to ePaper is when glare is unavoidable, and even then ePaper with a screen protector or a not perfectly matte finish doesn't do well, either.
Sent from my SM-T700 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
I just bought a S4 mini and flashed cm12.1 as I did not intend to use Samsungs Android.
I immediately noticed that the screen looks dirty/grainy
This can be seen best on the "power control widget" background. It looks like a sand paper texture.
But I see that on every not over saturated single colored area also.
I am aware that all AMOLED display do not have super good accuracy, but it is not that I have to stick my face to the screen to notice.
I see this every time without any effort and I find it ugly. It just looks dirty.
I compared with my PS VITA (1st gen) AMOLED and I really really have to concentrate and try hard to see that dirty look there. It is far more clean than my S4 Mini display.
Can anyone confirm? Or is is just bad luck with my unit?
I noticed this too since I got my first S4 mini.
I have two phones and looked at other ones (store, friends). All are the same - grainy.
It's not because of the PPI, I have other phones with lower PPI and backgrounds are clear.
It's most probably because S4 mini doesn't have the "classic" subpixel layout where RGB are close to each other.
The used arrangement is this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...pg/1280px-Samsung_Galaxy_Note_2_subpixels.jpg
nick_white said:
I noticed this too since I got my first S4 mini.
It's most probably because S4 mini doesn't have the "classic" subpixel layout where RGB are close to each other.
The used arrangement is this: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipe...pg/1280px-Samsung_Galaxy_Note_2_subpixels.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi thanks for confirming and thanks for not telling my that I am crazy
But the reason is not only the strange subpixel layout. It seems to be also just bad quality.
Our strange subpixel layout leads to color edges left right top and bottom of a white square on black instead of just left (red) and right (blue), but apart from that it should produce clean single colored areas (whicht it obviously doesn't).
The Vita in addition to producing better single colored areas has the real RGB stripe layout which reduces color edges. I wonder why Samsung gave up on these. Maybe it was too expensive to build(?)
http://mydevelopersway.com/ru/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/Display-Sub-Pixels.png