The handset has a resolution that is too low, and a contrast ratio of about 100.
160ppi is low res now?
Comparatively speaking it is. The iPhone has kept the same dot pitch since the first iPhone, demoed over 3 years ago. It's definitely time for a bump. Here is some maths I did last month on this subject...
When the iPhone came out its PPI was above the standard, now it's well below the standard. I expected a higher dot-pitch last time so this time around I think it's absolutely necessary. I don't expect Apple matching some other devices out there as those devices are using it as a selling point since they don't have much else, but I would expect at least 25% more in each direction and hopefully as much as 50% in each direction. By now, any power saving that could be had from rendering less pixels should be easily handled going into the 4th iteration.
. .Current :: 165 ppi = 153,600 / 3.5" = 480 x 320
. 25% more :: 206 ppi = 240,000 / 3.5" = 600 x 400 = (480 x 1.25) x (320 x 1.25)
. 50% more :: 247 ppi = 345,600 / 3.5" = 720 x 480 = (480 x 1.50) x (320 x 1.50)
. . . . . .?? . . . . ? . . . . . . . .?
.Nexus One :: 252 ppi = 384,000 / 3.7" = 800 x 480
Moto Droid :: 264 ppi = 409,920 / 3.7" = 854 x 480
Now this is pure garbage. Anybody and everybody knows an OLED screen is superior. The colors may look exagerated but that's only because the screen has pure inky blacks and the colors pop.
I've read everything now- JEESH.
Good old Tekstud. Lacking anything intelligent to say, he goes out of his way to prove just how stupid he really is. If anybody and everybody knows that OLED is superior, why is it that when you actually do a scientific test to measure the difference, OLED loses. What you're bragging about is that you let your uninformed biases overwhelm reason.
We already knew that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tiroger
"Scientific analysis finds iPhone LCD trumps Nexus One OLED"
That is until the next revision of the iPhone gets an OLED screen. And then everyone will claim how Apple has revolutionized screen technology and how you shouldn't even be in the phone market if you don't offer an OLED screen!
Why don't you wait to see what happens before having your wet dreams? If Apple switches to OLED, you can bet that it will be high quality screens, not the bargain basement garbage that others use. Apple has a long history of using very high quality components.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TEKSTUD
Do you always believe everything your read on a a fanny website. I'm sure there is another "doctor" maybe a hundred that would say the exact opposite. Grow up.
Tell you what - if you're so sure there's another doctor (no need for quotation marks unless you're alleging that this researcher fabricated his diploma - which is way out there, even for you)), then why can't you provide a name? Where's the academic research to back up your position?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
Unfortunately Apple thinks 4:3 is the wave of the future. They advertise how great video and movie playback is on the iPad, yet they slap it with a 4:3 screen. Keep dreaming.
I don't think Apple ever said that 4:3 was the wave of the future. In fact, Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to really push 16:9.
Apple is just smart enough to realize that you don't need the same format for every device from an iPod to a big screen TV. 4:3 makes more sense for the iPad because of the way it's held.
I'm surprised that iPhone screen is considered weakest part of iPhone.
I'm perfectly happy with the screen, but think iPhone's radio is really missperforming. It could be network or even firmware related - I don't know - but me and people I know (owning iPhone) all have significantly worst reception with iPhones compared to other devices (in my case Nokia E63 and Blackberry Pearl).
Every showroom cranks up the intensity on the display monitors precisely to sucker buyers like you into oohing and aahing about the 'vibrancy'. That's an inaccurate way of judging the accuracy of the colors.
I've read several photographers who've seen the iPad's display and who are saying its the first device they've seen that they'd use to display their photos precisely because of its accuracy.
'Pop' is a sucker's way of assessing screen quality.
A screen is a visual device, it it looks better what other issue makes any damn difference????
P.S. The two phones in question were owned by two of my firends. So your comment is even more stupid....
I don't think Apple ever said that 4:3 was the wave of the future. In fact, Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to really push 16:9.
While Apple was probably one of the first to push 3:2 and 16:10, they trailed with regard to 16:9. All their notebooks and separate monitors are still 16:10, when it seems like the rest of the computer industry went to 16:9.
I don't think Apple ever said that 4:3 was the wave of the future. In fact, Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to really push 16:9.
Apple is just smart enough to realize that you don't need the same format for every device from an iPod to a big screen TV. 4:3 makes more sense for the iPad because of the way it's held.
It's interesting, we've seen a lot of mockups which look like they were from Apple. We've seen a lot tablets come and go over the years, and we've seen a plethora of new arrivals at CES trying to get the jump a then rumoured Apple tablet. Now we have the iPad using an display ratio that that was considered "old tech" and likely not considered by anyone yet Apple thinks it's ideal for that device type and usage.
Personally, I think one of the worst things about netbooks is the insistence on using a 16:10 ratio on a 10" display. They are just god awful for reading text because of that and I'm sure not a single one of those companies seriously considered 4:3 as an option because it wasn't the "cool look". Even the 13" MB's display is shorter than the 12" PB's display, though barely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133
I'm surprised that iPhone screen is considered weakest part of iPhone.
If that is the weakest part of that phone then that is a pretty damn good phone.
I hope they don't move to 16:9 in their notebooks.
I agree, I intentionally left my opinion out of that post so the facts could stand on their own. From what I understand, the 16:10 ratio was intended for working with two portrait oriented documents or adjacent pages. 3:2 was intended for working with video, that's the dot ratio of the old DV standard, at least in NTSC (720x480). In my opinion, 16:9 serves only videos and on laptops, needlessly shortens the useful screen height. I regularly watch videos on my computer, and I don't mind the black bars, I don't want to cut them out and hamper the other uses for my computer.
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.
For handheld and small devices that are most likely going to be replaced in 3-4 years or sooner its not really an issue. However when considering this technology for an HDTV I believe OLED still has a way to go. The biggest issue is still with the color blue, which the last time I read has a halflife of around 7000-10000k. If you look at OLED TV's they always have blue hue to them.
I had an iPhone and replaced it with a Google Nexus One (which I love, btw). Dr. Soneira needs to get his eyes checked. The N1 screen blows the iPhone's screen right out of the water. It's brighter, sharper and the colors are much more appealing. And the screen is also considerably larger than the iPhone's. Every time I show my N1 to my friends who own iPhones their jaws drop. It's that much better.
Now this is pure garbage. Anybody and everybody knows an OLED screen is superior. The colors may look exagerated but that's only because the screen has pure inky blacks and the colors pop.
I've read everything now- JEESH.
Huh? you mean like Apple's glossy displays when compared to matte displays??
The LCD screen on the iPhone 3GS is far from perfect, but it's also significantly better than the much-touted AM-OLED display on the Google Nexus One, a scientific comparison of the two displays has found.
Seriously now... Who with a Ph.D. would spend their time doing this so called "scientific" comparison???
It wasn't long ago that all you Lemmings thought OLED was the best display since Microsoft was putting one in the Zune HD and you begged that Apple better do the same. Now you fanboys are defending the iPhone and agreeing that OLED isn't that great because you don't like the Nexus One, and the article points out flaws in an OLED display.
Which ones? Which "fanboys" were begging Apple to go OLED and are now dismissing same?
UPDATE II: Multiple reports from users are claiming that some third party apps?galleries and browsers?eliminate the image banding seen above. This points to a software issue rather than a hardware issue, which means that Google could conceivably fix some aspects of this display strangeness with a software update.
I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt, they'll likely fix it. I mean how much crap have we iPhone users put up with over the years, waiting for the next firmware update to correct...
For handheld and small devices that are most likely going to be replaced in 3-4 years or sooner its not really an issue. However when considering this technology for an HDTV I believe OLED still has a way to go. The biggest issue is still with the color blue, which the last time I read has a halflife of around 7000-10000k. If you look at OLED TV's they always have blue hue to them.
This article was about handheld device displays. You don't need to repeat yourself about large TV use, I already agreed with you on that.
I'm pretty sure those life numbers are a few years old.
Almost all TVs are set to a blue hue to show best under bright fluorescent lighting in a retail setting. They need to be re-calibrated for use in a home environment, regardless of type, including LCD and plasma.
I seriously doubt the next iPhone will sport OLED screen. Apple seems to be adopting all its products with IPS screen after the iMac got IPS last year and more recently iPad so I wager we would see an updated MacBook Pro with IPS screen in the near future and a new iPhone with IPS screen in June.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morky
Apple will boost the resolution on the iPhone only when it makes sense to go to 960x640 so they can pixel double and retain full compatibility with existing apps, a la iPad
With Sony pulling their OLED TV production, for lack of interest, it's obvious that OLED has a long way to go as a 'consumer' item. This is despite LG's doggedly pursuing a 40" OLED TV for 2012.
Comments
160ppi is low res now?
.... A real test would have involved removing the displays from each phone and using the same equipment to generate the images on the displays.
...
How do you propose that I use the display without the phone?
The handset has a resolution that is too low, and a contrast ratio of about 100.
160ppi is low res now?
Comparatively speaking it is. The iPhone has kept the same dot pitch since the first iPhone, demoed over 3 years ago. It's definitely time for a bump. Here is some maths I did last month on this subject...
Now this is pure garbage. Anybody and everybody knows an OLED screen is superior. The colors may look exagerated but that's only because the screen has pure inky blacks and the colors pop.
I've read everything now- JEESH.
Good old Tekstud. Lacking anything intelligent to say, he goes out of his way to prove just how stupid he really is. If anybody and everybody knows that OLED is superior, why is it that when you actually do a scientific test to measure the difference, OLED loses. What you're bragging about is that you let your uninformed biases overwhelm reason.
We already knew that.
"Scientific analysis finds iPhone LCD trumps Nexus One OLED"
That is until the next revision of the iPhone gets an OLED screen. And then everyone will claim how Apple has revolutionized screen technology and how you shouldn't even be in the phone market if you don't offer an OLED screen!
Why don't you wait to see what happens before having your wet dreams? If Apple switches to OLED, you can bet that it will be high quality screens, not the bargain basement garbage that others use. Apple has a long history of using very high quality components.
Do you always believe everything your read on a a fanny website. I'm sure there is another "doctor" maybe a hundred that would say the exact opposite. Grow up.
Tell you what - if you're so sure there's another doctor (no need for quotation marks unless you're alleging that this researcher fabricated his diploma - which is way out there, even for you)), then why can't you provide a name? Where's the academic research to back up your position?
Unfortunately Apple thinks 4:3 is the wave of the future. They advertise how great video and movie playback is on the iPad, yet they slap it with a 4:3 screen. Keep dreaming.
I don't think Apple ever said that 4:3 was the wave of the future. In fact, Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to really push 16:9.
Apple is just smart enough to realize that you don't need the same format for every device from an iPod to a big screen TV. 4:3 makes more sense for the iPad because of the way it's held.
I'm perfectly happy with the screen, but think iPhone's radio is really missperforming. It could be network or even firmware related - I don't know - but me and people I know (owning iPhone) all have significantly worst reception with iPhones compared to other devices (in my case Nokia E63 and Blackberry Pearl).
But the article was about color ACCURACY.
Every showroom cranks up the intensity on the display monitors precisely to sucker buyers like you into oohing and aahing about the 'vibrancy'. That's an inaccurate way of judging the accuracy of the colors.
I've read several photographers who've seen the iPad's display and who are saying its the first device they've seen that they'd use to display their photos precisely because of its accuracy.
'Pop' is a sucker's way of assessing screen quality.
A screen is a visual device, it it looks better what other issue makes any damn difference????
P.S. The two phones in question were owned by two of my firends. So your comment is even more stupid....
I don't think Apple ever said that 4:3 was the wave of the future. In fact, Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to really push 16:9.
While Apple was probably one of the first to push 3:2 and 16:10, they trailed with regard to 16:9. All their notebooks and separate monitors are still 16:10, when it seems like the rest of the computer industry went to 16:9.
I don't think Apple ever said that 4:3 was the wave of the future. In fact, Apple was one of the first computer manufacturers to really push 16:9.
Apple is just smart enough to realize that you don't need the same format for every device from an iPod to a big screen TV. 4:3 makes more sense for the iPad because of the way it's held.
It's interesting, we've seen a lot of mockups which look like they were from Apple. We've seen a lot tablets come and go over the years, and we've seen a plethora of new arrivals at CES trying to get the jump a then rumoured Apple tablet. Now we have the iPad using an display ratio that that was considered "old tech" and likely not considered by anyone yet Apple thinks it's ideal for that device type and usage.
Personally, I think one of the worst things about netbooks is the insistence on using a 16:10 ratio on a 10" display. They are just god awful for reading text because of that and I'm sure not a single one of those companies seriously considered 4:3 as an option because it wasn't the "cool look". Even the 13" MB's display is shorter than the 12" PB's display, though barely.
I'm surprised that iPhone screen is considered weakest part of iPhone.
If that is the weakest part of that phone then that is a pretty damn good phone.
All their notebooks and separate monitors are still 16:10, when it seems like the rest of the computer industry went to 16:9.
I hope they don't move to 16:9 in their notebooks.
I hope they don't move to 16:9 in their notebooks.
I agree, I intentionally left my opinion out of that post so the facts could stand on their own. From what I understand, the 16:10 ratio was intended for working with two portrait oriented documents or adjacent pages. 3:2 was intended for working with video, that's the dot ratio of the old DV standard, at least in NTSC (720x480). In my opinion, 16:9 serves only videos and on laptops, needlessly shortens the useful screen height. I regularly watch videos on my computer, and I don't mind the black bars, I don't want to cut them out and hamper the other uses for my computer.
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.
For handheld and small devices that are most likely going to be replaced in 3-4 years or sooner its not really an issue. However when considering this technology for an HDTV I believe OLED still has a way to go. The biggest issue is still with the color blue, which the last time I read has a halflife of around 7000-10000k. If you look at OLED TV's they always have blue hue to them.
Now this is pure garbage. Anybody and everybody knows an OLED screen is superior. The colors may look exagerated but that's only because the screen has pure inky blacks and the colors pop.
I've read everything now- JEESH.
Huh? you mean like Apple's glossy displays when compared to matte displays??
The LCD screen on the iPhone 3GS is far from perfect, but it's also significantly better than the much-touted AM-OLED display on the Google Nexus One, a scientific comparison of the two displays has found.
Seriously now... Who with a Ph.D. would spend their time doing this so called "scientific" comparison???
It wasn't long ago that all you Lemmings thought OLED was the best display since Microsoft was putting one in the Zune HD and you begged that Apple better do the same. Now you fanboys are defending the iPhone and agreeing that OLED isn't that great because you don't like the Nexus One, and the article points out flaws in an OLED display.
Which ones? Which "fanboys" were begging Apple to go OLED and are now dismissing same?
Gizmodo who also picked up the same story, show the problem also affecting the browser. So no the article is not a lie.
http://gizmodo.com/5477320/the-nexus...secret-updated
UPDATE II: Multiple reports from users are claiming that some third party apps?galleries and browsers?eliminate the image banding seen above. This points to a software issue rather than a hardware issue, which means that Google could conceivably fix some aspects of this display strangeness with a software update.
I'll give Google the benefit of the doubt, they'll likely fix it. I mean how much crap have we iPhone users put up with over the years, waiting for the next firmware update to correct...
This article isn't true.
You guys should update this article, as it is not true.
It must be true. The article says it is scientific. And the guy who did it is a Doctor.
For handheld and small devices that are most likely going to be replaced in 3-4 years or sooner its not really an issue. However when considering this technology for an HDTV I believe OLED still has a way to go. The biggest issue is still with the color blue, which the last time I read has a halflife of around 7000-10000k. If you look at OLED TV's they always have blue hue to them.
This article was about handheld device displays. You don't need to repeat yourself about large TV use, I already agreed with you on that.
I'm pretty sure those life numbers are a few years old.
2007:
http://www.macnn.com/news/48102
2008:
http://www.engadget.com/2008/01/25/t...-exceeds-lcds/
Almost all TVs are set to a blue hue to show best under bright fluorescent lighting in a retail setting. They need to be re-calibrated for use in a home environment, regardless of type, including LCD and plasma.
I seriously doubt the next iPhone will sport OLED screen. Apple seems to be adopting all its products with IPS screen after the iMac got IPS last year and more recently iPad so I wager we would see an updated MacBook Pro with IPS screen in the near future and a new iPhone with IPS screen in June.
Apple will boost the resolution on the iPhone only when it makes sense to go to 960x640 so they can pixel double and retain full compatibility with existing apps, a la iPad
With Sony pulling their OLED TV production, for lack of interest, it's obvious that OLED has a long way to go as a 'consumer' item. This is despite LG's doggedly pursuing a 40" OLED TV for 2012.