Originally Posted by Damn_Its_Hot
It does not surprise me from everything I've read that its better. OLED will be better at some point - I think its just not there yet (witness: no one can make one for a 19" TV for less than the price of a house.)
It doesn't scale up to large sizes very well, but handheld devices seem to be the growth area in consumer electronics.
Originally Posted by extremeskater
Actually I believe OLED will die before it ever truly gets off the ground. OLED has its advantages but it has some fairly large disadvantages.
The first would be lifespan. I beleive the halflife is around 14000-15000 compared to 60,000 for LCD.
Color balance issues are still an issue with OLED. Blue seems to be the color with most of the problems.
OLED also consumes 40% more power then LCD.
OLED is also subject to burn-in.
Maybe over time most of this can be worked out but right now its not ready for prime time.
Last I heard, OLED has 30k hours now, and it's a half-life, in 30k hours, it's half as bright. Still, getting to 30k is about 3.4 years of being constantly on, day, night, weekday, weekend & holidays. Assuming it's on 40 hours a week, 50 weeks a year, that's 15 years of use. If you're using it 2000 or more hours a year, then I'd say it's probably worth replacing every few years, and you might never notice it fade before it's long obsolete anyway.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I'm pretty sure that's exactly what Dr. Soneira as well as this article said also. "Vibrant" just means colourful and rich. It's pretty much a given that an over-saturated display will come off as vibrant. What you'd want is vibrant colour that is also accurate colour.
It seems they're saying it has a wider color gamut. It's up to the rendering engine to make sure the image properly mapped to the gamut of the output device.
Now the banding is kind of an issue, wider gamut doesn't help so much if it's that prone to banding, one step forward, one step back.
Originally Posted by kotatsu
I wish they'd go 16:9 personally. Video is mostly 16:9 these days, so the near 4:3 ratio of the iPhone seems pretty nonsensical. There's plenty of empty space above and below the screen too, so no need to make the device any larger.
It's a 3:2 ratio, not that close to 4:3. Exact fit for SLR photos, works well for just every other use, some space is black for videos, but that is only one use of the device. Also, there are components under the "empty space" that's not apparent unless you tear the device apart, it's not simply a matter of stretching the screen.
How much time do you spend watching video on a small handheld device? Personally, the only device that I want 16:9 is my TV. For every other use, 16:9 makes the small dimension feel cramped, I get the same cramped feeling on the ZuneHD and my parent's laptop with 16:9 screen. My parents have never used the laptop to watch movies, so why must the screen be an exact fit for a particular use that it's only rarely going to see, and a poor fit for most other uses? There aren't a lot of taller screen laptops available now.