I can't comment on these particular pictures, but AMOLEd displays are much less bright than a decent LCd display. They always run at the very bottom of the test charts. I did notice on those photo's however, that the backgrounds on most of the AMOLED pictures were darker. Brighten it up somewhat, to match the other pictures, and the displays would appear more washed out.
I Thought you would comment on the exposures. But their conclusions tally with all the other independent sites that have compared the Samsung super AMOLEDs against the IP4 in direct sunlight, so unless you are a conspiracy theorist and argue they are all in cahoots against the IP4, there really is no reason to believe those photos or conclusions are biased.
Quote:
It's interesting that reviews of AMOLED devices say that they are unusable outdoors in direct sunlight.. All of the ones I've seem have been as well. I'm never impressed with pictures of screens. It really doesn't tell us much, as we don't know the variables.
The reviews I have read, in fact say quite the opposite. Spin-city, as I said.
I have used my Wave to shoot videos while skiing in bright sunlight and can see the screen well enough to judge what I am framing most of the time.
Engadget compared the displays of the Samsung Galaxy S and iPhone 4 in real life conditions - including direct sunlight - and concluded the Samsung AMOLED display was marginally better :http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/i...-amoled-fight/
They also made a little video of the IP4 and Galaxy S side by side in sunlight:
Samsung?s Super AMOLED screen has to be one of the best screens i have ever seen on a mobile phone, and I?ve seen a lot of mobile phones. The colours are crisp and bright, the blacks are rich and at times is hard to distinguish between where the phone chassis stops and the screen starts. In sunlight the handset performs very well, on par with the iPhone 4 in my testing.
Hands down the best screen I have used on a smartphone. It is highly responsive and looks splendid in all conditions. The colours are incredibly vibrant and the screen content feels as though it is closer to the glass than most other smartphones. The main advantage of this screen is the performance in bright sunlight. I tested it next to the iPhone, (ed. 3GS) which is very good in bright conditions, and it is much, much better. When I saw AMOLED on the specs sheet my heart dropped because they are often unreadable in bright conditions, but the mDNIe technology (whatever that is?) used here really does work. The viewing angles are to the extreme and it is simply wonderful to look at and use. Superb!
As is that site. It often favors anything Android.
And this site doesn't favour Apple and put down Android and every other non Apple piece of software or hardware on the planet? Glass houses and throwing stones springs to mind, not to mention the good old bible, how apropos!:
Quote:
Matthew 7 >>
King James Version\t
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
I have used my Wave to shoot videos while skiing in bright sunlight and can see the screen well enough to judge what I am framing most of the time.
Nice anecdote. But a bit dangerous. However, continue.
Quote:
Engadget compared the displays of the Samsung Galaxy S and iPhone 4 in real life conditions - including direct sunlight - and concluded the Samsung AMOLED display was marginally better :http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/i...-amoled-fight/
Marginally better? It's almost not worth you de-railing this thread for that kind of comparison.
Quote:
And this site doesn't favour Apple and put down Android and every other non Apple piece of software or hardware on the planet? Glass houses and throwing stones springs to mind, not to mention the good old bible, how apropos!:
This site favours Apple, but that argument doesn't advance your argument - you would have to prove us wrong.
That would be why my Samsung Wave has significantly better battery life (GSM-Arena tests) than an IP4 and why independent display shoot-outs usually give the nod to the Samsung Super AMOLEDS being more legible in sunlight?
...
Samsungs new Super AMOLED Plus screen in the Galaxy S 2 is even brighter, so pulls further ahead of the IP4 in terms of visibility in direct sunlight.
You really shouldn't rely on AI for all your tech opinions, they might be just the slightest bit biased. AI is a 'Temple of Spin'
This is not correct, expect perhaps in the anecdotal sense. The displays do look brighter in the picture, but it's very slight and is likely not be due to inherent "brightness" but the greater contrast of the AMOLED display.
AMOLED's have "lack of brightness in direct sunlight" as one of their main disadvantages. You can look this up almost anywhere. Samsung "super" AMOLED's solve this problem to a degree, by layering the display elements together tighter than other manufacturers, but the problem still remains.
One advantage AMOLED's do have however is ridiculous levels of contrast (almost infinite), so it's likely that while the iPhone 4 screen in the pic doesn't look as bright to the eye, what's actually happening is that the very low contrast of the LCD compared to the AMOLED is showing itself. I did a bit of photoshop manipulation on the pic and when you raise the contrast on the iPhone 4 screen it looks almost identical to the AMOLED one's. That's not scientific of course, but maybe that's why they look brighter to the eye.
Anyway, there are many advantages and disadvantages to both screen types but the things that matter to Apple (consistent accurate colour reproduction, clarity, wide angles of view, consistent colour through angles of view, etc.), are all better on the LCD's than the AMOLED's at the moment.
I bet Apple would *love* to have the contrast and the rich blacks of the AMOLED screens but isn't ready to give up the other stuff. They have a reputation to uphold when it comes to screens as theirs have typically (and always), been the best quality screens you can buy, so they can't just go with something because "most people like it" or anything like that. They have to always have the best. There are a lot of creatives who would jump ship if Apple started to make AMOLED screens.
The day AMOLED truly is the best display technology (in all areas), you can bet that Apple will use it in a heartbeat. In fact, the way you will know that day has come is when Apple decides the tech is good enough for them to use.
That would be why my Samsung Wave has significantly better battery life (GSM-Arena tests) than an IP4...'
1) You choose one source and didn?t state which test you are referring to. GSM Arena even admits there overall tests aren?t scientific and open for debate. I appreciate their fair-mindedness.
And let?s be clear about one thing ? we?re not publishing the results from a scientific test here. Without specialized equipment, you can?t be truly objective about battery life tests.
2) Even they didn?t get any Samsung phone to beat the iPhone in the results I read. I don?t know of another phone that does beat the iPhone in every category.
Here?s a little spoiler for you. The Apple iPhone 4 excelled in the dedicated video playback test. It scored the whopping 9 hours and 40 minutes of looped playback of our usual test video (converted to the proper format, of course).
The Samsung Wave did 8 hours and 40 minutes in the same challenge, while the Samsung Galaxy S managed nearly 7 hours and 30 minutes. Now that?s something, right?
3) Even if the iPhone was to beat every other device hands down in every category that wouldn?t be enough, at least not for me. I?d still want to know the battery mAh capacity to see if the device in question really is more power efficient or if it?s just a larger battery. But even that isn?t enough but better HW that can increase the user experience can affect the power usage. All these things can be a balancing act where being tops isn?t being best all around, which is something I think Apple has excelled at for 4 years in their iPhone decisions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
You're talking out of it or you would like it handed to you on a plate?
You?ve got admit, asdasd, that was a good response!
I'm starting to think Apple should really own a screen manufacturing plant (and the technology) outright so as to deny their innovations and ideas to others.
tbh it doesn't sound like any of this is Apple's innovation. It is Sharp's. I very much doubt that Apple does any innovation in displays other than talking to suppliers about what is coming out of their research labs and figuring out how to best apply it to their devices.
I prefer a bit of "heft" to my devices. Otherwise its not good for text entry etc. Also, same goes for thinness. It can be TOO thin, and TOO light. I hope they are considering that in the future.
he didn't say pa semi made batteries. he said they bought pa semi and they make their own batteries. if i say i bought gum and tied my shoes, do you read that to mean my gum tied my shoes?
It does if I misread the sentence.
perhaps i can interest you in purchasing version 9 of some of my very talented gum? :-)
FWIW, a few minutes spent doing Google searches on "Super AMOLED compare to LCD" does seem to give the nod to Super AMOLED in most cases. Perhaps some here are assuming that all AMOLED displays share the same general characteristics, which appears not to be the case. Or just expect Apple is already using the display with the best possible characteristics?
1) You choose one source and didn?t state which test you are referring to.
The test I was referring to was the general suite of tasks test where the Wave lasted
84 hours against the IP4s 68.
Given the date GSM Arena ran those tests, the Wave they tested would have been running the original release firmware. I have noticed a significant improvement in battery life with my Wave with it's current firmware (not the latest available) and suspect if GSM Arena were to run the test again with the firmware I am currently using, they could well see over 90 hours. I charge mine about twice a week.
Quote:
2) Even they didn?t get any Samsung phone to beat the iPhone in the results I read.
84 hours doesn't beat 68?. The link to the Waves result is right there on the page you quoted from.
Quote:
I don?t know of another phone that does beat the iPhone in every category.
Here?s a little spoiler for you. The Apple iPhone 4 excelled in the dedicated video playback test. It scored the whopping 9 hours and 40 minutes of looped playback of our usual test video (converted to the proper format, of course).
The Samsung Wave did 8 hours and 40 minutes in the same challenge, while the Samsung Galaxy S managed nearly 7 hours and 30 minutes. Now that?s something, right?
Quite something yes, but the Wave can play just about any video format you throw at it including MKV. That too is something, I think. I suspect also that if GSM Arena had run the test with Mp4 video on the Wave - as they did on the IP4 - instead of the Xvid they used, the Wave may well have done a lot better.
Quote:
The final verdict is that the iPhone 4 is a pretty good performer. Its score is day shorter than what Galaxy S and Samsung Wave achieved but my guess is you?d have a hard time depleting the iPhone 4 battery on a single day of regular use. And compared to the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 4 is hands-down a superior performer, although at the announcement Apple promised only a marginal improvement. Well, that?s one lie we can take.
As to derailing the thread. I will happily keep my mouth shut if people will stop stating bollocks such as AMOLED being a battery hog and unviewable in sunlight.
The most likely explanation as to why Apple don't use AMOLED is that Samsung couldn't make enough of them to supply Apple. They couldn't even meet their own in-house demand, which is probably why the Wave 2 came out with an inferior LCD screen so production capacity could be diverted to the Galaxy and other higher margin models.
Obviously the rechargeable double As Apple sells are just rebranded Eneloops, but I believe that Apple's batteries are created in-house because of the heavy credit placed on Apple's engineers in the intro video and in the text on Apple's site.
That could easily be chalked up to Apple stealing credit, so additionally, if they weren't created by Apple, wouldn't the manufacturer come forward to be recognized? Particularly since Apple's batteries are easily the best on the market. At least a leak of data would have happened by now, but nothing. Everyone knows Apple used to use Sony and Toshiba batteries, but I'm just pretty sure they're in-house now.
What Apple does is to give specs to the manufacturers they work with, who then come up with the batteries. There's some give and take there as what Apple may want may not be practical. But on the whole, they are not Apple's batteries.
I Thought you would comment on the exposures. But their conclusions tally with all the other independent sites that have compared the Samsung super AMOLEDs against the IP4 in direct sunlight, so unless you are a conspiracy theorist and argue they are all in cahoots against the IP4, there really is no reason to believe those photos or conclusions are biased.
The reviews I have read, in fact say quite the opposite. Spin-city, as I said.
I have used my Wave to shoot videos while skiing in bright sunlight and can see the screen well enough to judge what I am framing most of the time.
Engadget compared the displays of the Samsung Galaxy S and iPhone 4 in real life conditions - including direct sunlight - and concluded the Samsung AMOLED display was marginally better :http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/i...-amoled-fight/
They also made a little video of the IP4 and Galaxy S side by side in sunlight:
And this site doesn't favour Apple and put down Android and every other non Apple piece of software or hardware on the planet? Glass houses and throwing stones springs to mind, not to mention the good old bible, how apropos!:
I'm not interested in what some individuals say. I'd rather see the numbers. And the numbers show that even the new AMOLEDS from Samsung are less bright than a good LCD. In fact, there are no AMOLEDS that are as bright as a good LCD. There will be at some point, but not yet.
It confuses people because as the blacks are much darker, the whites seem to be brighter. But they are not. I've seen the Galaxy II, and it is brighter than the Galaxy I, but not that bright. My iPhone 4 is noticeably brighter.
I'm not interested in what some individuals say. I'd rather see the numbers. And the numbers show that even the new AMOLEDS from Samsung are less bright than a good LCD. In fact, there are no AMOLEDS that are as bright as a good LCD. There will be at some point, but not yet.
It confuses people because as the blacks are much darker, the whites seem to be brighter. But they are not. I've seen the Galaxy II, and it is brighter than the Galaxy I, but not that bright. My iPhone 4 is noticeably brighter.
And please, don't quote the bible. It's childish.
Mel, any comment on the video comparison I linked? the Super AMOLED display certainly looked brighter and more saturated than the IPS-LCD. And isn't the appearance more important than a number to the user?
FWIW, a few minutes spent doing Google searches on "Super AMOLED compare to LCD" does seem to give the nod to Super AMOLED in most cases. Perhaps some here are assuming that all AMOLED displays share the same general characteristics, which appears not to be the case. Or just expect Apple is already using the display with the best possible characteristics?
I've met people with AMOLEd phones, and every one claimed that their phone was brighter. But when we set out phones on the brightest setting, my iPhone was brighter. Usually, much brighter. As I said, contrast makes it look brighter, even when it's actually dimmer.
I haven't seen a single review yet, from a site that I would trust, that has found an AMOLED phone usable in direct daylight.
There are a lot of no account sites out there who purportedly do reviews. But without the equipment that's required, the reviews are just here-say. And the equipment costs thousands of dollars. Look to Anandtech as a premier site for this.
Mel, any comment on the video comparison I linked? the Super AMOLED display certainly looked brighter and more saturated than the IPS-LCD. And isn't the appearance more important than a number to the user?
First, let me state that these videos aren't very useful. The item being photographed must be shot perpendicularly. All the photo's and videos I've been seeing are shot at an angle.
In this video, the Samsung is the closest to being perpendicular. The two others are at a greater angle. Take a phone and hold it at an angle, and the picture changes. One good thing about an LEd screen is that it doesn't change with angle, like a CRT.
So these phones become dimmer, and lose contrast when photographed at an angle. There is also more reflection at that greater angle.
So that's why online photo's and videos hold no interest for me. I've been in commercial photography for 40 years, and these problems irk me.
First, let me state that these videos aren't very useful. The item being photographed must be shot perpendicularly. All the photo's and videos I've been seeing are shot at an angle.
In this video, the Samsung is the closest to being perpendicular. The two others are at a greater angle. Take a phone and hold it at an angle, and the picture changes. One good thing about an LEd screen is that it doesn't change with angle, like a CRT.
So these phones become dimmer, and lose contrast when photographed at an angle. There is also more reflection at that greater angle.
So that's why online photo's and videos hold no interest for me. I've been in commercial photography for 40 years, and these problems irk me.
I'm guessing you didn't watch the entire video? Both the Samsung and iPhone were shown perpendicular, and one above the other.
Comments
I can't comment on these particular pictures, but AMOLEd displays are much less bright than a decent LCd display. They always run at the very bottom of the test charts. I did notice on those photo's however, that the backgrounds on most of the AMOLED pictures were darker. Brighten it up somewhat, to match the other pictures, and the displays would appear more washed out.
I Thought you would comment on the exposures.
It's interesting that reviews of AMOLED devices say that they are unusable outdoors in direct sunlight.. All of the ones I've seem have been as well. I'm never impressed with pictures of screens. It really doesn't tell us much, as we don't know the variables.
The reviews I have read, in fact say quite the opposite. Spin-city, as I said.
I have used my Wave to shoot videos while skiing in bright sunlight and can see the screen well enough to judge what I am framing most of the time.
Engadget compared the displays of the Samsung Galaxy S and iPhone 4 in real life conditions - including direct sunlight - and concluded the Samsung AMOLED display was marginally better :http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/i...-amoled-fight/
They also made a little video of the IP4 and Galaxy S side by side in sunlight:
http://vodpod.com/watch/3896872-ipho...ys-in-sunlight
Samsung?s Super AMOLED screen has to be one of the best screens i have ever seen on a mobile phone, and I?ve seen a lot of mobile phones. The colours are crisp and bright, the blacks are rich and at times is hard to distinguish between where the phone chassis stops and the screen starts. In sunlight the handset performs very well, on par with the iPhone 4 in my testing.
http://www.techanist.com/2010/08/11/...part-1-screen/
Hands down the best screen I have used on a smartphone. It is highly responsive and looks splendid in all conditions. The colours are incredibly vibrant and the screen content feels as though it is closer to the glass than most other smartphones. The main advantage of this screen is the performance in bright sunlight. I tested it next to the iPhone, (ed. 3GS) which is very good in bright conditions, and it is much, much better. When I saw AMOLED on the specs sheet my heart dropped because they are often unreadable in bright conditions, but the mDNIe technology (whatever that is?) used here really does work. The viewing angles are to the extreme and it is simply wonderful to look at and use. Superb!
http://www.pda-247.com/wordpress/201...view-part-two/
As is that site. It often favors anything Android.
And this site doesn't favour Apple and put down Android and every other non Apple piece of software or hardware on the planet? Glass houses and throwing stones springs to mind, not to mention the good old bible, how apropos!:
Matthew 7 >>
King James Version\t
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
cnocbui, my arse.
You're talking out of it or you would like it handed to you on a plate?
I have used my Wave to shoot videos while skiing in bright sunlight and can see the screen well enough to judge what I am framing most of the time.
Nice anecdote. But a bit dangerous. However, continue.
Engadget compared the displays of the Samsung Galaxy S and iPhone 4 in real life conditions - including direct sunlight - and concluded the Samsung AMOLED display was marginally better :http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/i...-amoled-fight/
Marginally better? It's almost not worth you de-railing this thread for that kind of comparison.
And this site doesn't favour Apple and put down Android and every other non Apple piece of software or hardware on the planet? Glass houses and throwing stones springs to mind, not to mention the good old bible, how apropos!:
This site favours Apple, but that argument doesn't advance your argument - you would have to prove us wrong.
This is Apple.
We don't know in which wretched hive of scum and villainy you found our prototype, but we want it back.
Any further description, publication or retransmission of the details and configuration of this device will result in legally illegal action.
You know our address.
That is all.
Really?
That would be why my Samsung Wave has significantly better battery life (GSM-Arena tests) than an IP4 and why independent display shoot-outs usually give the nod to the Samsung Super AMOLEDS being more legible in sunlight?
...
Samsungs new Super AMOLED Plus screen in the Galaxy S 2 is even brighter, so pulls further ahead of the IP4 in terms of visibility in direct sunlight.
You really shouldn't rely on AI for all your tech opinions, they might be just the slightest bit biased. AI is a 'Temple of Spin'
This is not correct, expect perhaps in the anecdotal sense. The displays do look brighter in the picture, but it's very slight and is likely not be due to inherent "brightness" but the greater contrast of the AMOLED display.
AMOLED's have "lack of brightness in direct sunlight" as one of their main disadvantages. You can look this up almost anywhere. Samsung "super" AMOLED's solve this problem to a degree, by layering the display elements together tighter than other manufacturers, but the problem still remains.
One advantage AMOLED's do have however is ridiculous levels of contrast (almost infinite), so it's likely that while the iPhone 4 screen in the pic doesn't look as bright to the eye, what's actually happening is that the very low contrast of the LCD compared to the AMOLED is showing itself. I did a bit of photoshop manipulation on the pic and when you raise the contrast on the iPhone 4 screen it looks almost identical to the AMOLED one's. That's not scientific of course, but maybe that's why they look brighter to the eye.
Anyway, there are many advantages and disadvantages to both screen types but the things that matter to Apple (consistent accurate colour reproduction, clarity, wide angles of view, consistent colour through angles of view, etc.), are all better on the LCD's than the AMOLED's at the moment.
I bet Apple would *love* to have the contrast and the rich blacks of the AMOLED screens but isn't ready to give up the other stuff. They have a reputation to uphold when it comes to screens as theirs have typically (and always), been the best quality screens you can buy, so they can't just go with something because "most people like it" or anything like that. They have to always have the best. There are a lot of creatives who would jump ship if Apple started to make AMOLED screens.
The day AMOLED truly is the best display technology (in all areas), you can bet that Apple will use it in a heartbeat. In fact, the way you will know that day has come is when Apple decides the tech is good enough for them to use.
That would be why my Samsung Wave has significantly better battery life (GSM-Arena tests) than an IP4...'
1) You choose one source and didn?t state which test you are referring to. GSM Arena even admits there overall tests aren?t scientific and open for debate. I appreciate their fair-mindedness.2) Even they didn?t get any Samsung phone to beat the iPhone in the results I read. I don?t know of another phone that does beat the iPhone in every category.3) Even if the iPhone was to beat every other device hands down in every category that wouldn?t be enough, at least not for me. I?d still want to know the battery mAh capacity to see if the device in question really is more power efficient or if it?s just a larger battery. But even that isn?t enough but better HW that can increase the user experience can affect the power usage. All these things can be a balancing act where being tops isn?t being best all around, which is something I think Apple has excelled at for 4 years in their iPhone decisions.
You're talking out of it or you would like it handed to you on a plate?
I'm starting to think Apple should really own a screen manufacturing plant (and the technology) outright so as to deny their innovations and ideas to others.
tbh it doesn't sound like any of this is Apple's innovation. It is Sharp's. I very much doubt that Apple does any innovation in displays other than talking to suppliers about what is coming out of their research labs and figuring out how to best apply it to their devices.
he didn't say pa semi made batteries. he said they bought pa semi and they make their own batteries. if i say i bought gum and tied my shoes, do you read that to mean my gum tied my shoes?
It does if I misread the sentence.
perhaps i can interest you in purchasing version 9 of some of my very talented gum? :-)
I found this video to be particularly telling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA9oTNhSRaw
That's not a bad set of ideas, you know. Except for the all glass design (likely to break.) I vote for transparent aluminum.
You'd think they would have figured that out with the iphone4 ; )
cnocbui, mo thoin.
Póg ma thoin
1) You choose one source and didn?t state which test you are referring to.
The test I was referring to was the general suite of tasks test where the Wave lasted
84 hours against the IP4s 68.
Given the date GSM Arena ran those tests, the Wave they tested would have been running the original release firmware. I have noticed a significant improvement in battery life with my Wave with it's current firmware (not the latest available) and suspect if GSM Arena were to run the test again with the firmware I am currently using, they could well see over 90 hours. I charge mine about twice a week.
2) Even they didn?t get any Samsung phone to beat the iPhone in the results I read.
84 hours doesn't beat 68?. The link to the Waves result is right there on the page you quoted from.
I don?t know of another phone that does beat the iPhone in every category.
Quite something yes, but the Wave can play just about any video format you throw at it including MKV. That too is something, I think. I suspect also that if GSM Arena had run the test with Mp4 video on the Wave - as they did on the IP4 - instead of the Xvid they used, the Wave may well have done a lot better.
The final verdict is that the iPhone 4 is a pretty good performer. Its score is day shorter than what Galaxy S and Samsung Wave achieved but my guess is you?d have a hard time depleting the iPhone 4 battery on a single day of regular use. And compared to the iPhone 3GS, the iPhone 4 is hands-down a superior performer, although at the announcement Apple promised only a marginal improvement. Well, that?s one lie we can take.
As to derailing the thread. I will happily keep my mouth shut if people will stop stating bollocks such as AMOLED being a battery hog and unviewable in sunlight.
The most likely explanation as to why Apple don't use AMOLED is that Samsung couldn't make enough of them to supply Apple. They couldn't even meet their own in-house demand, which is probably why the Wave 2 came out with an inferior LCD screen so production capacity could be diverted to the Galaxy and other higher margin models.
Oh, sorry! Didn't see that.
Obviously the rechargeable double As Apple sells are just rebranded Eneloops, but I believe that Apple's batteries are created in-house because of the heavy credit placed on Apple's engineers in the intro video and in the text on Apple's site.
That could easily be chalked up to Apple stealing credit, so additionally, if they weren't created by Apple, wouldn't the manufacturer come forward to be recognized? Particularly since Apple's batteries are easily the best on the market. At least a leak of data would have happened by now, but nothing. Everyone knows Apple used to use Sony and Toshiba batteries, but I'm just pretty sure they're in-house now.
What Apple does is to give specs to the manufacturers they work with, who then come up with the batteries. There's some give and take there as what Apple may want may not be practical. But on the whole, they are not Apple's batteries.
I Thought you would comment on the exposures.
The reviews I have read, in fact say quite the opposite. Spin-city, as I said.
I have used my Wave to shoot videos while skiing in bright sunlight and can see the screen well enough to judge what I am framing most of the time.
Engadget compared the displays of the Samsung Galaxy S and iPhone 4 in real life conditions - including direct sunlight - and concluded the Samsung AMOLED display was marginally better :http://www.engadget.com/2010/06/24/i...-amoled-fight/
They also made a little video of the IP4 and Galaxy S side by side in sunlight:
http://vodpod.com/watch/3896872-ipho...ys-in-sunlight
http://www.techanist.com/2010/08/11/...part-1-screen/
http://www.pda-247.com/wordpress/201...view-part-two/
And this site doesn't favour Apple and put down Android and every other non Apple piece of software or hardware on the planet? Glass houses and throwing stones springs to mind, not to mention the good old bible, how apropos!:
I'm not interested in what some individuals say. I'd rather see the numbers. And the numbers show that even the new AMOLEDS from Samsung are less bright than a good LCD. In fact, there are no AMOLEDS that are as bright as a good LCD. There will be at some point, but not yet.
It confuses people because as the blacks are much darker, the whites seem to be brighter. But they are not. I've seen the Galaxy II, and it is brighter than the Galaxy I, but not that bright. My iPhone 4 is noticeably brighter.
And please, don't quote the bible. It's childish.
I'm not interested in what some individuals say. I'd rather see the numbers. And the numbers show that even the new AMOLEDS from Samsung are less bright than a good LCD. In fact, there are no AMOLEDS that are as bright as a good LCD. There will be at some point, but not yet.
It confuses people because as the blacks are much darker, the whites seem to be brighter. But they are not. I've seen the Galaxy II, and it is brighter than the Galaxy I, but not that bright. My iPhone 4 is noticeably brighter.
And please, don't quote the bible. It's childish.
Mel, any comment on the video comparison I linked? the Super AMOLED display certainly looked brighter and more saturated than the IPS-LCD. And isn't the appearance more important than a number to the user?
FWIW, a few minutes spent doing Google searches on "Super AMOLED compare to LCD" does seem to give the nod to Super AMOLED in most cases. Perhaps some here are assuming that all AMOLED displays share the same general characteristics, which appears not to be the case. Or just expect Apple is already using the display with the best possible characteristics?
I found this video to be particularly telling:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dA9oTNhSRaw
I've met people with AMOLEd phones, and every one claimed that their phone was brighter. But when we set out phones on the brightest setting, my iPhone was brighter. Usually, much brighter. As I said, contrast makes it look brighter, even when it's actually dimmer.
I haven't seen a single review yet, from a site that I would trust, that has found an AMOLED phone usable in direct daylight.
There are a lot of no account sites out there who purportedly do reviews. But without the equipment that's required, the reviews are just here-say. And the equipment costs thousands of dollars. Look to Anandtech as a premier site for this.
Mel, any comment on the video comparison I linked? the Super AMOLED display certainly looked brighter and more saturated than the IPS-LCD. And isn't the appearance more important than a number to the user?
First, let me state that these videos aren't very useful. The item being photographed must be shot perpendicularly. All the photo's and videos I've been seeing are shot at an angle.
In this video, the Samsung is the closest to being perpendicular. The two others are at a greater angle. Take a phone and hold it at an angle, and the picture changes. One good thing about an LEd screen is that it doesn't change with angle, like a CRT.
So these phones become dimmer, and lose contrast when photographed at an angle. There is also more reflection at that greater angle.
So that's why online photo's and videos hold no interest for me. I've been in commercial photography for 40 years, and these problems irk me.
First, let me state that these videos aren't very useful. The item being photographed must be shot perpendicularly. All the photo's and videos I've been seeing are shot at an angle.
In this video, the Samsung is the closest to being perpendicular. The two others are at a greater angle. Take a phone and hold it at an angle, and the picture changes. One good thing about an LEd screen is that it doesn't change with angle, like a CRT.
So these phones become dimmer, and lose contrast when photographed at an angle. There is also more reflection at that greater angle.
So that's why online photo's and videos hold no interest for me. I've been in commercial photography for 40 years, and these problems irk me.
I'm guessing you didn't watch the entire video? Both the Samsung and iPhone were shown perpendicular, and one above the other.