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
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.
Hi,
I was wondering if someone who has the S2 and has had or spent some time with an iPhone 4 can comment on how clear the screen/text is when reading web pages etc.
I have a Nexus One and the resolution is horrible compared to the iPhone 4.
Does the RGB vs Pentile make a big difference?
I don't have the galaxy yet, but yes text will look much sharper. The nexus one had the pentile pixel layout, new galaxy does not.
Just play with the inspire or thunderbolt. They have same size large screen with same proper pixel layout as the new galaxy s, but it will also have amoled ad well. Best of both worlds.
much much better than sgs pentile but it suffers from heavy aliasing on web pages.i did notice this as soon as i got the phone even engadget points this out. the screen is great but the text on web pages are not as sharp as i'd like them to be(i did take into consideration that iphone's ips display has higher res).i wish some dev's could start on fixing this I'd more than happy to buy them a few beers.
the screen over all is great.heck its the best out there.
I wonder why it would have worse aliasing than the nexus one or first galaxy s, since they have pentile pixels. This has higher resolution, more pixels, yet has an aliasing issue. Very strange, and disappointing...
RogerPodacter said:
I wonder why it would have worse aliasing than the nexus one or first galaxy s, since they have pentile pixels. This has higher resolution, more pixels, yet has an aliasing issue. Very strange, and disappointing...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably just a bug in Samsung's browser, it'll be fixed eventually.
maybe try opera or dolphin HD and see.
I wonder if the screen on the galaxy s ii will look the same as the galaxy s with voodoo color.
Super Amoled Plus = Super Amoled w/ voodoo color?
I hope supercurio cooks come kernels for this phone!
It will look better cause the galaxy s2 has physically more pixels than the super amoled.
Got an SGS2 last week and need to say I was quite deluded by text clarity. Not only does not compare to Iphone of gf (miles away) but it is even worse than Xperia Arc. I notice the aliasing on most letters not only in browser (stock or otherwise, tried several) but also on Gmail and Kindle, basically anywhere that there is a strong contrast between font color and background (ie black on white or viceversa). I'm not sure if the phone is victim of its own features like super contrast that makes jaggies more visible or there is a problem with my handset. Would appreciate if other people having the SGS2 and another phone (not pentile matrix based ofc) could report their experience.
Scaven said:
Hi,
I was wondering if someone who has the S2 and has had or spent some time with an iPhone 4 can comment on how clear the screen/text is when reading web pages etc.
I have a Nexus One and the resolution is horrible compared to the iPhone 4.
Does the RGB vs Pentile make a big difference?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not 100% but i believe so. The RGB has a 50% increase in sub-pixels which basically gives the appearance of having a higher resolution/ppi. (at least that's what I've been led to believe)
I have heard people say the pentile screens make edges look jagged etc. Is this true? I mean at something like 280+ppi I wouldn't think it would look jagged at all! Is it true?
It varies by device. I've not used a Note, but it should be similar to a Galaxy Nexus. The colors are visibly greener than the Super AMOLED+ (non-pentile) displays I've used, but the Nexus at least does not have the jagged edge issues that appear on the RAZR and some of the other qHD displays I've used. I don't know if it's because of the higher resolution/pixel density or some other property of the subpixel matrix, but I've never heard that particular criticism of a Note.
Not at this PPI.
Maroon Mushroom said:
Not at this PPI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed, only of you zoom in super super close on text.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk
Also something to keep in mind is that pentile offers better outdoor performance and battery life
Maroon Mushroom said:
Also something to keep in mind is that pentile offers better outdoor performance and battery life
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just so I know, why is that?
ap3604 said:
Just so I know, why is that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the same reason people say it looks "bad" because it has less sub pixels so it will use less power. Though at this pixel density you would have to have a microscope because on my captivate you would have to be viewing red on black and be obnoxiously close to see it. Also it has better outdoor visibility because it can I believe get brighter then non pentile displays. For more info Google is amazing.
I have PenTile on my Photon 4G and while I can certainly see it, it doesn't bother me. When the brightness is turned way up you notice it more. I agree that at 1280x800 on a 5.3" display you're not going to notice it.
As others noted, PenTile RGBW has the advantage of offering more brightness for less power (due to the "W", I believe?) but it depends on the screen. The Droid 4 is PenTile, yet it is significantly darker than my Photon 4G (also PenTile) - both are Moto phones, so I was surprised by that difference. The Photon has the brightest, most outdoor-readable display (non-reflective) I have ever seen.
I can't recall reading anything other than "awesome" to describe the Note screen, though, so I think there's nothing to worry about here.
hausman said:
I have PenTile on my Photon 4G and while I can certainly see it, it doesn't bother me. When the brightness is turned way up you notice it more. I agree that at 1280x800 on a 5.3" display you're not going to notice it.
As others noted, PenTile RGBW has the advantage of offering more brightness for less power (due to the "W", I believe?) but it depends on the screen. The Droid 4 is PenTile, yet it is significantly darker than my Photon 4G (also PenTile) - both are Moto phones, so I was surprised by that difference. The Photon has the brightest, most outdoor-readable display (non-reflective) I have ever seen.
I can't recall reading anything other than "awesome" to describe the Note screen, though, so I think there's nothing to worry about here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The brightness of a LCD screen (almost all Moto Droid phones are PenTile LCD) is determined by the backlite light source, not the screen pixel layout. To LCD screens, the power usage is constant regardless of the screen pixels on of off unless you can also turn the backlite light down.
AMOLED doesn't have a backlite light source. It depends on each pixels to emit light itself.
Yeah, I forgot that there are multiple PenTile layouts. Most Moto phones are RGBW, while the Note screen is RGBG, so it doesn't have the same outdoor visibility/brightness advantage.
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.