Related
The SGS2 retains it's 800x480 resolution. Yet it further increases its screen size.
That's the only factor that's hampering me from purchasing one.
Even the Atrix gets a heightened resolution and yet over a smaller area.
Anyone else facing this dilemma?
Well the Atrix has pentile matrix sub-pixels like the SGS had, but the SGS2 doesn't.
So the effective resolution should be pretty similiar.
More here.
I'm thinking of getting a Nexus S over the Samsung S2...Do you think the screen on the Samsung S2 is a huge jump from the Super AMOLED Nexus S? Is it really worth it...
Long story short, the SGS2 has more sub-pixels than the Atrix, and double the SGS.
Captivate, XDA Premium
Lol. Off-putting seems to be going viral.
Here is another way to look at it.
The PPI for the SGS 2 is 218.49, the PPI for the SGS is 233.24, and the PPI for the Atrix is 275.36. BUT, if we add in the extra sub-pixels from the SuperAmoled Plus display the theoretical PPI is 327.74. The iphone 4 has a PPI of 326, so it is actually sharper than an iphone 4.
Didn't realize it was so sharp but when you put it that way, it makes me want this phone even more. =)
ryude said:
Here is another way to look at it.
The PPI for the SGS 2 is 218.49, the PPI for the SGS is 233.24, and the PPI for the Atrix is 275.36. BUT, if we add in the extra sub-pixels from the SuperAmoled Plus display the theoretical PPI is 327.74. The iphone 4 has a PPI of 326, so it is actually sharper than an iphone 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
correct me if i'm wrong but PPI is PPI - sub pixels contribute nothing to PPI so your theory above is totally wrong.
And all the people just repeating jibberish about how more sub pixels make a display clearer/ significantly better are clueless about resolution.
kona786 said:
correct me if i'm wrong but PPI is PPI - sub pixels contribute nothing to PPI.
And all the people just repeating jibberish about how more sub pixels make a display clearer/ significantly better are clueless about resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a theoretical boost to PPI, because it does actually increase sharpness and reduces eye strain due to clearer text/images. Sub-pixels do actually make the display clearer.
Here's a video showing Super Amoled Plus vs an iphone 4 (IPS display).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDIEUv-xkfI
ryude said:
Here is another way to look at it.
The PPI for the SGS 2 is 218.49, the PPI for the SGS is 233.24, and the PPI for the Atrix is 275.36. BUT, if we add in the extra sub-pixels from the SuperAmoled Plus display the theoretical PPI is 327.74. The iphone 4 has a PPI of 326, so it is actually sharper than an iphone 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just all wrong. The iphone 4 uses a regular rgb stripe arrangement. Its definitely the highest ppi out.
Samoled+ its simply a standard rgb layout.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
eallan said:
Just all wrong. The iphone 4 uses a regular rgb stripe arrangement. Its definitely the highest ppi out.
Samoled+ its simply a standard rgb layout.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong.
Super AMOLED Plus displays are an upgrade to Super AMOLED. They use a real-stripe subpixel matrix and not pentile - and so has 50% more sub-pixels. The PPI is a bit larger but Samsung will soon make them at much higher resolutions. Super AMOLED Plus displays are also thinner, brighter and use 18% less energy than the older Super AMOLED displays.
Super AMOLED has 2 sub-pixels per Pixel. So, for a resolution of 800*480, it has 768000 sub-pixels.
The Super AMOLED Plus has 50% more sub-pixels than Super AMOLED with PenTile Matrix. So, for a resolution of 800*480, it has 1152000 sub-pixels.
A Standard Matrix RGB use 3 sub-pixels per pixel. So, for a resolution of 800*480, it has 1152000 sub-pixels. Exactly the same number as the Super AMOLED Plus.
Retina Display has a resolution of 960*640 with 3 sub-pixels per pixel wich gives 1843200 sub-pixels.
ryude said:
Wrong.
Super AMOLED Plus displays are an upgrade to Super AMOLED. They use a real-stripe subpixel matrix and not pentile - and so has 50% more sub-pixels. The PPI is a bit larger but Samsung will soon make them at much higher resolutions. Super AMOLED Plus displays are also thinner, brighter and use 18% less energy than the older Super AMOLED displays.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Both the iphone screen and SAMOLED+ have the same amount of subpixels the iphone has a higher ppi but the color are better on SAMOLED+
scores87 said:
Both the iphone screen and SAMOLED+ have the same amount of subpixels the iphone has a higher ppi but the color are better on SAMOLED+
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, the iphone has more pixels but from my experience side by side with a captivate and an iphone 4 the sgs 2 will blow the iphone out of the water.
ryude said:
Yes, the iphone has more pixels but from my experience side by side with a captivate and an iphone 4 the sgs 2 will blow the iphone out of the water.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It comes to personal preference in the end really. I prefer the my Desire's AMOLED, while my friend prefers the iPhone's display over his SGS' SAMOLED.
ryude said:
Wrong.
Super AMOLED Plus displays are an upgrade to Super AMOLED. They use a real-stripe subpixel matrix and not pentile - and so has 50% more sub-pixels. The PPI is a bit larger but Samsung will soon make them at much higher resolutions. Super AMOLED Plus displays are also thinner, brighter and use 18% less energy than the older Super AMOLED displays.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm quite right. Samoled+ is awesome but your explanation in relation to the iphone 4 (or really and lcd except the atrix) was incorrect.
Sent from my MB860 using Tapatalk
Does that mean that the SGS had been having the poorest resolution all along? Seeing that it has only 2 sub pixel.
ShadedCyan said:
Does that mean that the SGS had been having the poorest resolution all along? Seeing that it has only 2 sub pixel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really, it's not that simple. It has a resolution of 800x480. Each of those pixels can be made of whatever type of sub-pixel layout the decide. The atrix looks quite a bit different than the normal SAMOLEDs. The SGS2's subpixel resolution is lacking I suppose. Typically people can't make out individual subpixels.
Too put it another way:
Red and blue were 240x400 on the SGS. Green was the full 480x800.
On the SGS 2, all three will be 480x800.
On my phone, when the battery is low, the solid red battery meter looks like checkerboard.
Also, who cares about the iPhone's screen... It's just going to shatter anyway with it's wanna-be gorilla glass.
Captivate, XDA Premium
I was at the Gadget Show Live yesterday and compared the 920 and 820 side by side with the same themes and the same photos. The blacks on the 820 were more darker than the 920 and blended with the black display bezel more. The red tiles were more red on the 820 and more orangey on the 920. I guess this is because the 820 has an amoled screen and the 920 has a tft screen. So despite the drop in resolution (which is hardly noticeable on a 4.3" screen) in my eyes the 820 has a better screen (to the eye) than the 920. Reds are red and blacks are blacker. Interesting.
I guess the Samsung Ativ S would have an even better screen with a Super Amoled display. Hmmm!
Amoled has too much rich colours.It is far behind the reality.IPS of Lumia 920 has more natural colours and better view angels.
tboy2000 said:
I was at the Gadget Show Live yesterday and compared the 920 and 820 side by side with the same themes and the same photos. The blacks on the 820 were more darker than the 920 and blended with the black display bezel more. The red tiles were more red on the 820 and more orangey on the 920. I guess this is because the 820 has an amoled screen and the 920 has a tft screen. So despite the drop in resolution (which is hardly noticeable on a 4.3" screen) in my eyes the 820 has a better screen (to the eye) than the 920. Reds are red and blacks are blacker. Interesting.
I guess the Samsung Ativ S would have an even better screen with a Super Amoled display. Hmmm!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IPS panels have better color accuracy than any other technology and that's why they are used in displays demanding accurate color interpretation. I have no idea where you got the idea that the screen was tft, but it's not.
More saturated colors and deeper blacks don't necessarily equal more accurate colors.
IPS FTW. I like Amoled but technology has since advanced. I do like the rich colors in AMOLED but even the Super IPS display on the One X has better natural feel.
As far as I can tell you from my Galaxy S2, the SuperAMOLED wears out VERY quickly! I have a stain where the android status bar is already (after about 6 months)...
Sent from my GT-I9100G using xda app-developers app
Both technology have pros and cons:
Pros for AMOLED:
* deeps black and contrast is infinity.
* more colorful or vivid (can be con for others).
* much faster pixel response time (LCD can't even come close to it even the new 920 LCD).
* No viewing angle limitations.
Cons for AMOLED:
* not as bright as LCD.
* consumes more power when display mostly white screen.
* Colors are not accurate
* Pixel density currently can't match LCDs (the top of line 720p panels are using PenTile to fake the resolutions).
* Burn in is an real issue. Panel life span is around 8000 to 14000 hours.
Pros for LCD:
* Can be very bright. A few times more than AMOLED.
* Accurate color reproduction.
* Power consumption is constant given a back light level regardless of screen pixel color.
* Much higher pixel density than AMOLED without using the PenTile.
* No burn-in. Panel life is as long as the backlight.
Cons for LCD:
* Blacks can't be true black. The best LCD screen can only have true contrast level around 1000:1 (don't trust those marketing numbers using so called dynamic contrast ratios).
* Pixel response time is slow and noticable.
* Viewing angle is not as good as AMOLED. Off angle colors are way off.
The blacks of the 920 are really dark grey - to me anyway.
my brother got the nexus 4 about a week ago...I compared the screens of both devices, and honestly, there is just a tad bit of difference between the screens in terms of sharpness...however one thing I did notice is that the amaze screen is significantly brighter, both devices set on highest brightness...the could be due to the super lcd screen, vs ips lcd, but the iphone 4s also has a ips lcd and its screen seems much much sharper and brighter on the highest setting.
I wonder if anyone has more information about these kinds of discrepencies...
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.
I want to buy an android phone , but i am not understanding that which display is better for smart phone.
Please tell me that which type of display is suitable for me , Like
super amoled
IPS QHD Touchscreen, 16M colors, Multitouch
HD LCD Display
16M colors, IPS LCD captive touchscreen
FWVGA Screen
IPS LCD capacitive touchscreen, 16M colors, Multitouch
WHICH ONE IS BETTER IN ABOVE DISPLAYS
Hello
Some explanations :
FWVGA : resolution of 850 x 480
QHD : resolution of 2560 x 1440
qHD : resolution of 960 x 540
HD : 1280x720
you talk about screen technology too :
IPS
Super Amoled
Generally, Super Amoled will be better to display black pixel as it can deactivate pixel. By the way, with this technology the power consumption can be reduced too. Displayed colors are not very accurate too. Used by Samsung
IPS is older and had several evolution. Used by all other
My recommendation :
HD IPS LCD Display 16M colors multitouch