Related
Has anyone else seen the iphone 4 commercial saying the screen is the highest resolution screen ever on a phone?
I thought the vibrant had a better screen? It definitely looks better than the iphone four though.
The iPhone 4 does have the highest resolution ever. Samsung claims that the SAMOLED screens have better viewing angles and all that ****. Its really just what u think overall I guess.
Sent from my SCH-I500 using XDA App
The pixels and the screen size on the iphone 4 have a better looking screen while the vibrant has a bigger screen but lesser pixels so yeah the iphone 4 screen is better but iOS sucks =]
the iPhone 4 has a 3.5 inch LCD screen has a resolution of 960 x 640
the vibrant has a 4 inch S-AMOLED screen that has a resolution of 800 x 480
the S-AMOLED screen displays colors clearer and truer and is easier to see in the sun, the iPhone 4 has an insane pixel density that makes things look cleaner
its a matter of preference really once you let an iPhone 4 owner watch Avatar on your vibrant they will be extremely jealous
That's pretty surprising.
The kid with the iphone 4 finally got pissed at me and quoted the commercial lmao.
But I still think the vibrant looks cleaner plus bigger screen=better.
We compared angry birds visuals on lowest brightness. I won
xSunny said:
The pixels and the screen size on the iphone 4 have a better looking screen while the vibrant has a bigger screen but lesser pixels so yeah the iphone 4 screen is better but iOS sucks =]
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"Better looking screen"?! Are you for real?
http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?deskto...e.com/watch?v=xiO3s8NdQ34&v=xiO3s8NdQ34&gl=US
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
ive compared the I4 and Vibrant tirelessly after seeing my friends I4. I was blown away and confused by how good the I4 OS looks, its pretty shocking because there is nothing else like it, at least in the domestic mobile device arena. I was actually pissed off that my vibrant looked so much fuzzier, i almost stopped using it and just pulled out my old nexus I was so bummed.
But after I looked into it further it became clear that the I4's visual advantage is limited to the OS, which is definitely important but it doesnt include media, so the Vibrant's samoled does have an advantage in that department. Also, I think the I4 is much easier to see in daylight, the Vibrant is somewhat better than than the Nexus, which is virtually invisible under the sun, but the Vibrant is still no treat to use outside.
The I4 is far and away better looking as far as the operating system which basically includes all lines; apps and their icons, text, the browser, you cant see pixels, its not even close. Also, the old and new Iphones alike scroll without blurring like Android does (I believe its because of GPU acceleration which, if Im not mistaken, Android will add with Gingerbread?), it keeps its resolution while scrolling which makes a big difference visually, particularly in the browser. With Android phones, once you are pressing the screen to scroll in the browser, you can see a huge difference between pressing and not pressing, as soon as you let up the screen goes back to its optimal quality. But the Vibrant absolutely looks better with all media.
I4 has more pixels on a smaller screen with crazy pixel density, so that part really cant be personal preference, unless you prefer fuzzier lines/text. But it is relative, if the I4 didnt exist I would be wild for the Vibrants screen in media and the OS alike. But the I4 obviously has a better look in the OS alone, but not media.
tonomon said:
That's pretty surprising.
The kid with the iphone 4 finally got pissed at me and quoted the commercial lmao.
But I still think the vibrant looks cleaner plus bigger screen=better.
We compared angry birds visuals on lowest brightness. I won
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Comparing Angry Birds is a bad comparison - the iPhone version is not optimized for the iPhone4 display, I don't think. It's a lower resolution than the Android version.
Retina display has higher pixel density, and you have to try real hard to distinguish between the pixels, however if you put two screens together and just look at them without digging your nose into your phone you can hardly see that SAMOLED is a bit washed out compared to the Retina, but once you fire up a high quality video SAMOLED will take it any day due to its brightness and dynamic contrast. I do think colors on Sammy are over saturated like with almost all of their LCD/LED panels.
tehmanmuffin said:
the iPhone 4 has a 3.5 inch LCD screen has a resolution of 960 x 640
the vibrant has a 4 inch S-AMOLED screen that has a resolution of 800 x 480
the S-AMOLED screen displays colors clearer and truer and is easier to see in the sun, the iPhone 4 has an insane pixel density that makes things look cleaner
its a matter of preference really once you let an iPhone 4 owner watch Avatar on your vibrant they will be extremely jealous
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very true, my iphone 4 friends are jealous of my screen
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
yeah the iphone 4 have a better screen when we are talking about pixels but when it comes to watching video files, there's no way any other phone will beat our super duper amoled screen.
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
DMaverick50 said:
ive compared the I4 and Vibrant tirelessly after seeing my friends I4. I was blown away and confused by how good the I4 OS looks, its pretty shocking because there is nothing else like it, at least in the domestic mobile device arena. I was actually pissed off that my vibrant looked so much fuzzier, i almost stopped using it and just pulled out my old nexus I was so bummed.
But after I looked into it further it became clear that the I4's visual advantage is limited to the OS, which is definitely important but it doesnt include media, so the Vibrant's samoled does have an advantage in that department. Also, I think the I4 is much easier to see in daylight, the Vibrant is somewhat better than than the Nexus, which is virtually invisible under the sun, but the Vibrant is still no treat to use outside.
The I4 is far and away better looking as far as the operating system which basically includes all lines; apps and their icons, text, the browser, you cant see pixels, its not even close. Also, the old and new Iphones alike scroll without blurring like Android does (I believe its because of GPU acceleration which, if Im not mistaken, Android will add with Gingerbread?), it keeps its resolution while scrolling which makes a big difference visually, particularly in the browser. With Android phones, once you are pressing the screen to scroll in the browser, you can see a huge difference between pressing and not pressing, as soon as you let up the screen goes back to its optimal quality. But the Vibrant absolutely looks better with all media.
I4 has more pixels on a smaller screen with crazy pixel density, so that part really cant be personal preference, unless you prefer fuzzier lines/text. But it is relative, if the I4 didnt exist I would be wild for the Vibrants screen in media and the OS alike. But the I4 obviously has a better look in the OS alone, but not media.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about, I've used my phone in direct sunlight in the middle of the day and the screen is easily readable with MINIMUM brightness, unless your screen is dirty and is being extra reflective because of it, this screen works amazing in the sun, on full its clear even with glare
Also, my vibrant's browser does not blur, I just tested it for a goods few mins and no bluring at all
And lastly on discussion, the i4's screen resolution + the smaller size of the screen kinda makes you think its sharper but its a smaller screen...does a higher resolution help it at all? Do you see any distinguishable difference from a lower res screen?
The only advantage i4 has is how dim and how bright the display can get because its an lcd however super amoled wins overall
Sent from my SXY-T959
Doesn't super-Amoled give a blueish tint on whites? on my i4 the browser sucks, it gives pattern checker board things when scrolling super fast, and on android i never got this.
IMHO overall the S-amoled is better, the colors are more vivid but it's funny how the maker of both displays is Samsung
Hexmaster93 said:
IMHO overall the S-amoled is better, the colors are more vivid but it's funny how the maker of both displays is Samsung
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol then samsung wins
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
kanwal236 said:
What are you talking about, I've used my phone in direct sunlight in the middle of the day and the screen is easily readable with MINIMUM brightness, unless your screen is dirty and is being extra reflective because of it, this screen works amazing in the sun, on full its clear even with glare
Also, my vibrant's browser does not blur, I just tested it for a goods few mins and no bluring at all
And lastly on discussion, the i4's screen resolution + the smaller size of the screen kinda makes you think its sharper but its a smaller screen...does a higher resolution help it at all? Do you see any distinguishable difference from a lower res screen?
The only advantage i4 has is how dim and how bright the display can get because its an lcd however super amoled wins overall
Sent from my SXY-T959
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've had the blurry browser srolling on all my Google phones. Its more noticeable if you've used an iPhone for a while then used a Google phone for a while. Just go to this forum, and look at the arrows pointing right and the icons especially the envelopes to the left of the thread titles. Now slowly scroll, you'll notice the envelopes almost blinking, and the lines become jagged off and on. So when you scroll normally theres a subtle choppiness. But really its only annoying because iPhones don't do it they are smooth, I thinking its the gpu acceleration which we should have shortly. Android hadn't said why they have put off gpu acc so long. Or maqybe they have but I don't know about it. As far as sunlight it could he better but coming from a nexus I would say the vibrant is indeed a treat
I hope this isn't too off topic. I've over clocked and lag fixed my vibrant, I'm trying to show up this guy at my job that has iphone4 how do you run a benchmark test on iphone so we can compare? I'm at 1700 benchmark right now
Joshochoa187 said:
I hope this isn't too off topic. I've over clocked and lag fixed my vibrant, I'm trying to show up this guy at my job that has iphone4 how do you run a benchmark test on iphone so we can compare? I'm at 1700 benchmark right now
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's linpack for iPhone, but it isn't made by the same company, so I am not sure how *valid* the comparison would be. There isn't really any universal benchmarking tools that exists on both platforms. So you are SOL at the moment.
Dunno why this turned into a iphone vs galaxy s post but here is a link for an unbiased view on both of these phones screens (scroll to bottom);
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9000_galaxy_s_vs_apple_iphone_4-review-500p3.php
Most people won't be able to tell the difference in my opinion. Now if you are blowing up pics and text you will probably will see the difference. The super amoled blew me away the first time I saw avatar on it, Iphone can't do that.
I'd like to hear from people who currently own the SIII or have compared it directly to a HTC One X and iPhone 4 or 4S.
Specifically what I'd really like to know is how the screens of these devices compare to each other. From personal experience, I find the screen of the iPhone 4 and 4S to be a bluish hue whereas the One X has a wonderfully white display. (When both devices are at full brightness with auto brightness disabed.)
I'd like to know if anyone has experience comparing the SIII screen to the 4/4S and/or the One X. What I can tell from comparision videos so far is that the SIII has a bluish screen (a la the iPhone) compared to the One X.
Also, the issue the One X has with multitasking is well documented by now. Does the SIII share this issue?
Thank you in advance for any answers. After seeing the leaked next gen iPhone pics, I'm seriously contemplating getting the SIII when it comes to AT&T.
I am picky about screens. Or I should say, I became picky after owning the iphone 4.
The iphone 4 screen is 2 years old. It did not change for the iphone 4s.
Yet, it is still the king of the hill. The benchmark. Nice and bright with typical IPS viewing angles and a standard hdtv-like presentation (~500 nits) This does NOT speak to Apple's greatness. It only speaks to Apple's leverage and high standards for parts. They got exclusivity, and a high quality part, at a mass market price. Not sure if another maker could have gotten such a nice screen at an affordable price, nor am I sure if another maker would care to the degree that Apple does about using premium components. Colors are a bit undersaturated if you ask me. Thankfully other makers are now catching up to the iphone 4's display. But a tip of the hat to the iphone 4, which started it all and is still at the very top of the heap even 2 years later, an eternity in the smartphone world.
HTC One X, is the first screen that surpasses the iphone 4's screen, simply b/c it's bigger but maintains the same quality. I'd say that white is more truly white on the One X, and the screen is slightly brighter (~550 nits). Colors pop more and are more fully saturated. I would choose the One X or the iphone 4s screen soley based on your preferred screen size.
S3 I have not seen, but I have seen the Note's screen and Galaxy Nexus. My main issue is that they are not nearly bright enough. Blue cast, and of course the pentile matrix display. The matrix was easily visible to me, and the ovrriding reason why I downgrade the screens vs the One X and iphone 4. Next comes max brightness (~330 nits). You want a higher brightness when watching videos and using it in the sun. On the plus side, the blacks are the deepest they can be b/c the pixels are completely off. Can't beat that. Colors are very saturated, which is better than undersaturated. Also wonderful viewing angles.
My opinion is in the minority. Most people think that the S3's screen is wonderful and amazing. They are not bothered by the measurably less peak brightness, and the easily visible (to me) pentile matrix. I believe that IPS tech is still the superior one simply b/c it looks more natural, or maybe it's b/c what we're most used to, even outside of smartphone displays.
lamenramen said:
I am picky about screens. Or I should say, I became picky after owning the iphone 4.
The iphone 4 screen is 2 years old. It did not change for the iphone 4s.
Yet, it is still the king of the hill. The benchmark. Nice and bright with typical IPS viewing angles and a standard hdtv-like presentation (~500 nits) This does NOT speak to Apple's greatness. It only speaks to Apple's leverage and high standards for parts. They got exclusivity, and a high quality part, at a mass market price. Not sure if another maker could have gotten such a nice screen at an affordable price, nor am I sure if another maker would care to the degree that Apple does about using premium components. Colors are a bit undersaturated if you ask me. Thankfully other makers are now catching up to the iphone 4's display. But a tip of the hat to the iphone 4, which started it all and is still at the very top of the heap even 2 years later, an eternity in the smartphone world.
HTC One X, is the first screen that surpasses the iphone 4's screen, simply b/c it's bigger but maintains the same quality. I'd say that white is more truly white on the One X, and the screen is slightly brighter (~550 nits). Colors pop more and are more fully saturated. I would choose the One X or the iphone 4s screen soley based on your preferred screen size.
S3 I have not seen, but I have seen the Note's screen and Galaxy Nexus. My main issue is that they are not nearly bright enough. Blue cast, and of course the pentile matrix display. The matrix was easily visible to me, and the ovrriding reason why I downgrade the screens vs the One X and iphone 4. Next comes max brightness (~330 nits). You want a higher brightness when watching videos and using it in the sun. On the plus side, the blacks are the deepest they can be b/c the pixels are completely off. Can't beat that. Colors are very saturated, which is better than undersaturated. Also wonderful viewing angles.
My opinion is in the minority. Most people think that the S3's screen is wonderful and amazing. They are not bothered by the measurably less peak brightness, and the easily visible (to me) pentile matrix. I believe that IPS tech is still the superior one simply b/c it looks more natural, or maybe it's b/c what we're most used to, even outside of smartphone displays.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As someone who has compared the iPhone 4 and One X screens side by side, I agree entirely with your assessment. (I do think the One X has a definitive edge overall compared to the iPhone 4 screen.) However I think you'd need to see the SIII in person before making any assessments regarding it's quality. The impression I'm getting from HD YouTube videos is that the SIII screen possess a bluish hue, a la iPhone 4/4S, however the pentile display does not seem to produce a great deal of pixelation as I originally feared.
I've seen them all, and HTC One X's screen is definitely the best. You'll really notice the difference if you put them side-by-side for sure.
plisk3n said:
I've seen them all, and HTC One X's screen is definitely the best. You'll really notice the difference if you put them side-by-side for sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Screen aside, I don't like the One X. Multitasking issues. Camera bump on the back. Prefer the hardware home buttons of the iPhone and SIII.
Htc one x screen is awful. Is clean yes but colors r not natural. White is not clear white whilr black is grey.
I own both and I will say this:
The One X screen is amazing. It is pin sharp. Fonts looks amazing. Colours are very natural and look good. (Sorry Totòòò, I disagree with you, perhaps your screen was faulty)
But, the Galaxy is better in 9/10 ways. It's near impossible to notice the pentile matrix. You have to zoom in on a font to even notice, beyond regular reading levels. The One X screen is just that bit more sharp, where in the above scenario, you still cannot make out any dots. EDIT: Although I have found that different fonts yield different results. For example, the font used in the stock browser looks really good, even when zoomed in a fair bit. The font used in Chrome Beta, does not. I notice the pentile matrix a lot more when using this font.
The galaxy S3 screen has deeper colours (if you've seen AMOLED before you know what I mean), and I find it more pleasurable to look at.
The only detractor with the S3, is that when scrolling text on white backgrounds (e..g web pages), and scrolling it fast, the fonts tend to blur a little bit due to the pentile matrix. When you stop scrolling, the fonts are pin sharp. The One X did not suffer from this.
Overall (and believe me I am picky about my screens) I find the S3 screen to *just* have the edge over the One X screen, due to the fact the colours being that little bit more pleasurable to look at.
Of course, this is all subjective. YMMV. At the end of the day they are both very good screens.
One X shty multi is the same as Sensations, totally a disaster. Plus closed case, cannot change acu, no microsd and huge slowness. Seriously this phone sucks. SGS3 on the other hand, like SGS2 do not have such problems.
Damn, i want my gs3 what is going on with Samsung,is there anyone who got the pepple blue in EU delivered.
Sorry guys,of topic i know
No there's noone, because Samsung stopped deliverys of blue one for around three weeks! Get a white one, it's hot!
Wysyłane z mojego GT-I9300 za pomocą Tapatalk 2
Hello everyone, nokia lumia 920 has the best screen of the new iPhone5?
I am interested in the details of the display.
SuperXDADev said:
Hello everyone, nokia lumia 920 has the best screen of the new iPhone5?
I am interested in the details of the display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
iPhone screen is no longer the best anymore. There are a lot of phones at this point has higher PPI than iPhone. In this case, Lumia 920 has more advanced technologies than iPhone. Fast refresh rate (the only 1 that has 60Mhz refresh rate screen), high PPI, ClearBlack for easy reading outside, IPS panel, and also super sensitivity.
spincel said:
iPhone screen is no longer the best anymore. There are a lot of phones at this point has higher PPI than iPhone. In this case, Lumia 920 has more advanced technologies than iPhone. Fast refresh rate (the only 1 that has 60Mhz refresh rate screen), high PPI, ClearBlack for easy reading outside, IPS panel, and also super sensitivity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Display of Lumia 920 is better of iphone5 in the details?
yes, i'm not sure what other details you want, but in every technical way, the l920's screen is better than the iphone 5. most newer android phones are better in many ways as well.
here's the ways its better:
higher pixel density (text is sharper, images are crisper)
higher refresh rate (images move smoother)
clearblack display (easier to read in sunlight)
supersensitive touch (can use with gloves, fingernails, or anything else that isn't your finger, as well as your finger)
spincel said:
iPhone screen is no longer the best anymore. There are a lot of phones at this point has higher PPI than iPhone. In this case, Lumia 920 has more advanced technologies than iPhone. Fast refresh rate (the only 1 that has 60Mhz refresh rate screen), high PPI, ClearBlack for easy reading outside, IPS panel, and also super sensitivity.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a 60Hz display and pretty much every modern smartphone has a 60Hz screen. It's just marketing! As for Clearblack that was for the OLED screen in the 900, this one is IPS and is called PureMotion HD +
As for the screen quality itself I've found the colours are pretty damn good. Waiting for Display Mate to do their analysis though.
PyroCF said:
It's a 60Hz display and pretty much every modern smartphone has a 60Hz screen. It's just marketing! As for Clearblack that was for the OLED screen in the 900, this one is IPS and is called PureMotion HD +
As for the screen quality itself I've found the colours are pretty damn good. Waiting for Display Mate to do their analysis though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I had read somewhere that they had gotten it to 23Hz? I may be wrong though.
They polarized (a layer? of) the screen so that it's easier to read in sunlight.
Also, although it's called PureMotion HD+ and they've dropped the ClearBlack name, they still reference to that type of display technology for darker blacks in comparison to other SLCD2 technologies (ex. HTC 8x/One X)
@OP, just recapping, but....
Better than iPhone because:
Bigger screen (more opinion than anything)
Higher pixel density (332 ppi vs iPhone 5's 326)
Ability to use screen with gloves (i.e. skin contact not required to operate screen)
The screen is essentially better in every way in comparison to the iPhone 5 other than the lamination that the iPhone has (i.e. the screen appears much closer to the surface of the glass itself when compared to the Lumia 920's). If you're REALLY looking into great screens, you should just go to Verizon and pick up their Droid DNA.
oceansaber said:
I had read somewhere that they had gotten it to 23Hz? I may be wrong though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry but do you even understand screen refresh rates? 23Hz would be appalling by anyone's standards.
The higher, the better for future reference!
PyroCF said:
I'm sorry but do you even understand screen refresh rates? 23Hz would be appalling by anyone's standards.
The higher, the better for future reference!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry thinking ms. My bad. I remember something about the PureMotion HD+ referring to having the smallest delay between touch and response. I don't know where, but there's a couple articles and stuff referencing it haha. It supposedly has the fastest response times of any screen for a smartphone on the market.
actually the lumia 920 is the first smartphone with a 60hz refresh rate and its response time is in the single digits
just check out some of the more detailed/reputable reviews and it will give you a compare of other brands, i can't recall which ones exactly as i read them in passing
and clearblack is nokias name for their polarization filter on screens
PyroCF said:
It's a 60Hz display and pretty much every modern smartphone has a 60Hz screen. It's just marketing! As for Clearblack that was for the OLED screen in the 900, this one is IPS and is called PureMotion HD +
As for the screen quality itself I've found the colours are pretty damn good. Waiting for Display Mate to do their analysis though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, I don't think every smartphone has 60Hz screen. As for the name, Nokia combine those techs into one and called it PureMotion HD+, which consists of:
1. WXGA resolution
2. IPS LCD with 60Hz refresh
3. ClearBlack technology for viewing outdoor
4. High PPI
5. Super sensitivity touch
So if you take all of them and combine them all, it is PureMotion HD+.
Every smartphone other than the Lumia 920 has a 30Hz screen. The 920 is the first phone with a 60Hz screen.
Clearblack is a combination of a polarizing layer to reduce glare and improve visibility in sunlight and also (iirc) they are also using an optically bonded stack, fuzing the digitizer to the cover glass.
Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Board Express
Also iphone5 have a 30hz panel display?
Inviato dal mio Galaxy Nexus con Tapatalk 2
Misleading title !
adiliyo said:
Every smartphone other than the Lumia 920 has a 30Hz screen. The 920 is the first phone with a 60Hz screen.
Clearblack is a combination of a polarizing layer to reduce glare and improve visibility in sunlight and also (iirc) they are also using an optically bonded stack, fuzing the digitizer to the cover glass.
Sent from my RM-820_nam_att_100 using Board Express
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you cite this please? This would mean every other phone would look like it's running at 30fps which you would notice. Also clear black was marketing for nokias oled screens.
PyroCF said:
Also clear black was marketing for nokias oled screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, and that's the phrase they marketed because that was all they had that was unique to them in the screen department. Now, they use Puremotion HD+, which includes ClearBlack along with a number of other technologies/features, as noted above. Nokia's own developer 920 spec page lists "ClearBlack" in both the description and the list of display technologies.
The screen is simply amazing. It puts any other smartphone screen I have seen to shame in actual real world usage.
This is the first phone I have owned that I can read the screen in the sun, with my sunglasses on. Amazing.
The viewing angles are incredible, the colors are bright and vibrant but not as saturated as AMOLED, and not as dull and lifeless as HTC Screens.
crawlgsx said:
The screen is simply amazing. It puts any other smartphone screen I have seen to shame in actual real world usage.
This is the first phone I have owned that I can read the screen in the sun, with my sunglasses on. Amazing.
The viewing angles are incredible, the colors are bright and vibrant but not as saturated as AMOLED, and not as dull and lifeless as HTC Screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's funny you mention this because coming from a Dell Venue Pro with an amoled screen that I've used for a year and half, I immediately noticed the terribly dull colors of my 920 screen. Now that I've used my 920 for a few days, I booted up my DVP for giggles and I couldn't help but notice how really overly saturated the colors were! I am truly enjoying my 920's screen as I think it is a good blend between SLCD and Amoled and outdoor viewing really kicks butt on this screen.
The source is from here http://conversations.nokia.com/2012/11/16/how-nokia-gave-the-lumia-920-the-worlds-fastest-screen/ which cites Nokia's Senior Technology Manager. The main take away from this is that the L920 LCD screen has a 9ms pixel response time while others on average is about 23ms. There is no mention of iPhone so we don't know what response time of iPhone screen is.
This is not about 60Hz vs 30Hz. It is about pure pixel response time which is critical in display moving objects in video of games. For comparison, your typical PC desktop LCD monitor need to have < 5ms response time to be comfortable for playing games. 23ms response time is only good for reading emails.
To recap, Nokia's screen has better pixel density than iPhone's retina display. Higher resolution than iPhone5. Maybe faster pixel response time and higher contrast than iPhone (we don't know until someone benchmarked it). Tradditionally, iPhone screens have very high color accuracy. We don't know what Nokia screen has.
I see so much hate for the iPhone here, actually iPhone screen is pretty good they both have 60hz, Lumia has a little higher PPI(but not noticeable) and can be used with gloves, iPhone in its own side has the in cell technology that take away the touch panel and implement it directly in, igzo technology that reduce battery usage.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
batna.antab said:
I see so much hate for the iPhone here, actually iPhone screen is pretty good they both have 60hz, Lumia has a little higher PPI(but not noticeable) and can be used with gloves, iPhone in its own side has the in cell technology that take away the touch panel and implement it directly in, igzo technology that reduce battery usage.
Sent from my HTC One X using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is nothing but fan boys citing from their side of marketing BS. I mean both sides. For example, you made it like iPhone5 invented in panel touch implementation. I'm not so sure. Samsung did it with its Super AMOLED Plus screen about two years ago to reduce the screen thickness and sun reflection. Apple probably just re-invented (like many of its claims) for LCD panels.
I thought this was very interesting, somewhat common sense to some of us geeks/nerds/smarties out there, and worth a share.
Origin: http://blogs.tribune.com.pk/story/16554/is-the-samsung-galaxy-s4-really-worth-it/
Despite the amazing features in recent mobile phones that include, high speed quad core processors, large screen sizes, high-fidelity Graphic Processing Units (GPUs) and innovative designs, the mobile phones manufacturers are desperately trying to surpass each other.
A number of marketing tactics are being used to get us all excited, and persuade us to upgrade our phones.
Due to the tremendous advancements in hardware and software technology and the challenges posed by a very competitive market, the smart phone manufacturers are left only with the screen resolution to boast about and as an immediate eye-catching feature for a potential upgrade.
Samsung is already making a big deal about the full High Definition (HD) resolution of its Galaxy S4 introduced this month. Although the S4 is not the first phone to be equipped with an HD resolution, the terrific success of the S2 and S3 makes it an appealing get-as-soon-as-possible feature for Galaxy lovers.
If you are charmed by the HD resolution and intend on throwing extra money to upgrade your phone to S4, let us first analyse if a full HD smart phone screen is really worth draining your wallet.
Resolution is the prime determinant of a screen’s clarity. HD resolution refers to a High Definition screen having either 1280 x 720 pixels (720p) or 1920 x 1080 pixels (1080p/full-HD) spread along the width and height of the smart phone’s screen.
The pixel is the elementary area of illumination on the screen. The image displayed is composed of pixels. Therefore, higher the number of pixels, the sharper and crisper an image appears on the screen.
For an immediate comparison, you can check the resolution of your old smart phone (For example a Nokia 6600, 176 x 208 pixels) and that of a recent smart phone (like the Samsung Galaxy S3, 720 x 1280 pixels). You will immediately notice that the high resolution produces a much clearer and sharper image.
Nevertheless, resolution is not the only factor responsible for a sharper screen. Keeping the resolution the same and increasing the screen’s size separates the pixels, thus resulting in lost sharpness.
What really matters for determining a screen’s quality is the number of pixels packed in a given area. The term Pixel Per Inch (PPI) represents how many pixels there are in one inch of a screen’s area; the larger the number, the better the screen’s quality.
As an example, Nokia 6600 launched in 2003 has a PPI density of 130, whereas, Apple’s iPhone 4, sensationalised and marketed by the brand name Retina Display, has a PPI of 330. This produces a much sharper and vibrant image on the screen and makes other older phones look lacklustre.
Increasing the resolution does increase the PPI, provided that the screen size is not increased significantly. Two smart phones having the same screen sizes but different resolutions will have different figures for PPI.
Does it mean increasing the PPI indefinitely will produce even sharper images on the screen? The answer is no.
Our eyes can determine the quality of the contents on a screen if the pixels are distinguishable at the normal viewing distance. The reason why Apple called their iPhone 4 screen ‘Retina Display’ was that the 326 PPI pixel density was so high that individual pixels were indistinguishable to the human eye at the normal viewing distance. However, Retina Display is no longer an industry-leading figure.
HTC was one of the companies to develop a display beating that of the iPhone 4 with HTC Rezound (342 PPI). Nevertheless, if you compare the screens of Iphone 4 and HTC Rezound, I can bet you won’t be able to tell the difference.
The reason is that the human eye cannot distinguish the difference in PPI when the figure reaches a saturation point of about 300 (slightly exaggerated, otherwise some studies suggest a threshold of 250 PPI). Therefore, having a PPI of more than 300 will not make any difference to normal human eye unless you use a magnifying glass or have the screen pressed up against your eyeballs to see the subtle difference (of course you don’t want to do that).
Even for people with 20/20 vision, a full HD resolution would be a waste because most people’s eye can’t resolve sharpness above 250 PPI. The same goes for observing the photos quality. The pixel details in a photograph is always spread over more than one pixel and never perfectly aligned with the pixel structure of the display. So it will not matter whether you view the photographs on a 1080p or 720p display; they will appear the same. If you come across a smart phone having a PPI above 350, safely take it as a marketing stunt. It is not going to make the smart phone’s screen any sharper.
Consequently, a full HD (1080p) resolution is no better looking than 720p resolution in smart phones. A full HD resolution is only better for tablets, laptop screens, or monitors where the human eyes can resolve such a high resolution. The smart phones having 720p resolutions and sizes ranging from 4.3 to 4.7 inches have PPIs within the range 312 to 341. This PPI range is more than enough. Therefore, Samsung’s claim to give a sensational screen experience is pretty pompous.
Whereas, a full HD resolution necessitates using larger screen size (at least 5 inches) which is pretty annoying for small-sized phones lovers.
Another issue is the increased power consumption. The extra features in electronic devices don’t come for free. The price usually has to be paid in terms of high power consumption. A full HD display makes more demand from the processor and the GPU, which in turn needs more power to help it cope.
Although, the S4 has much improved battery (2600 mAh) as compared to the S3 (2100 mAh), it is still not sure if we can get improved battery life as well. We must not forget that the Apple iPad 4′s screen has a higher than 1080p resolution (2048 x 1536, but a PPI of 264), and a battery rated as 11666 mAh, while the iPad2 has a less than 720p resolution (1024 x 768, 132 PPI). Yet both provide the same 10-hours of use before needing a recharge.
The only advantage of a full HD screen in smart phone is that it gives more space for user interface elements such as button and text. For example, a webpage can fit to the screen, but the size of the contents decreases due to high resolution. In most of the cases, the viewer has to zoom in the contents to view them easily.
Due to these reasons, I still prefer to stick to my Xperia S with 720p resolution and a PPI of 341.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting read. Though I can definitely tell there is a difference when comparing my lte and the HTC one side by side. That being said when they aren't side by side I can't tell.
Sent from my EVO using xda app-developers app
I would wager that you can only 'tell' because you read the spec .
My .02¢
Sent from my EVO using xda premium
scottspa74 said:
I would wager that you can only 'tell' because you read the spec .
My .02¢
Sent from my EVO using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can see pixelation on my Evo's screen if I look closely. I can't see the same pixelation on the DNA's screen. There's a real difference, although you have to be a serious gadget nerd (like me) to care.
Sent from my EVO using xda premium
scottspa74 said:
I would wager that you can only 'tell' because you read the spec .
My .02¢
Sent from my EVO using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's exactly my thinking.
maxpower7 said:
I can see pixelation on my Evo's screen if I look closely. I can't see the same pixelation on the DNA's screen. There's a real difference, although you have to be a serious gadget nerd (like me) to care.
Sent from my EVO using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly cannot tell the difference at all. Although I saw a slight difference between my 3D and this EVO LTE. Maybe because I knew the specs though =p. I'm a big fan of sleeping at night. Lol.
... Sent from my 'Maybe the LTEvo wasn't such a bad idea afterall,' using the XDA Developers app.
Hi, i'm interested in buying this phone to replace my current S7.
Coming from an Amoled display makes me curious about the IPS screen quality of the Mate 10.
Compared with other Flagship's IPS displays out there, Is it on par with let's say the iphone 7/8's screen or is it better/worse?
Would appreciate for your responses, thanks for the attention.
It's slightly worse display, I just switched from an iPhone 7+. Colors on the iPhone are more vibrant and can display more colors I think.
Seems like it's not DCI P3 compliant.
I switched from my Galaxy Note Edge and found the LCD display worse at first but I have gotten used to it. Make sure to turn on vivid mode (which doesn't seem to be on by default but makes so much difference - you can see how washed out the Mate 10 colors are in the shop side by side with the Mate 10 Pro which I find so stupid because as soon as I turn on vivid mode for them, they look more comparable), switch off the auto-brightness and set the resolution to QHD and turn off smart display resolution (Battery life will take a slight hit but it is so worth it). You will grow to like it that way especially when you see how crisp the display is when playing high resolution games. Viewing angles can't compare to the Samsung AMOLED screen though.
Worst, bad experience in sunny day. M9 have better display. I have M10Pro