Analysis ranks 9.7" iPad Pro screen as best performing mobile LCD ever made

2»

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 27
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Sog, you are a most confusing character. Here you are advocating for OLED.

    http://forums.appleinsider.com/discussion/192613/samsung-sees-10-profit-growth-on-better-than-expected-sales-of-flagship-galaxy-s7/p2

    Or do you believe only Apple would be able to implement it correctly?
    That was before I got to see the S7 myself. I thought they overcame the saturation issues but they haven't.



    No, there is no saturation issue.  You got to see an S7 set to it's default colour profile, which is likely overly saturated.  You did not see an S7 with the accurate colour profile in effect.  Since Android obtained the colour profile option, Samsung's Amoled displays have proven to be very accurate.  This isn't a new phenomenon restricted to the S7, it has been the case for at least three years.

    As for that pap about OLEDs  blue phosphors fading - here is my still in use 2010 Samsung Wave:



    That photo actually doesn't come close to doing justice to how intense that blue is to the naked eye.

    staticx57
  • Reply 22 of 27
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    sog35 said:
    staticx57 said:
    Do you deny that they CAN be calibrated? Samsung uses a non calibrated setting to sell in the same way TV makers crank up the brightness and saturation in store to sell.
    I don't know and don't care. I don't have time to calibrate my phone. For $800 I expect it to look great right out of the box, just like the iPhone.

    Sure you can calibrate it but then you run into all kinds of other problems.

    You really like making it up.  You don't laboriously 'calibrate an S6, S7, S5, Note 4, 5 etc, etc, you just choose a profile that is already calibrated - duh!

    Reading the utter tripe you make up is actually painful it is so divergent from reality.

    In the saturation sweep, both displays do an incredible job. I really don't have anything else to say here, because there's really no way to improve on the level of calibration Samsung has done on this display. Unless Samsung calibrates every single display in production, which is wildly impractical and effectively impossible to do, this is as good as it gets for a mass-produced device. Improving past this point will also be incredibly difficult to perceive, which means there's no real reason to go any further.

    In the Gretag MacBeth ColorChecker, we can get an idea for overall color accuracy, which paints a picture similar to the saturation test. The only real problem I've noticed with these displays are the viewing angles, which can produce color shifting when the display is tilted. This is a bit of an issue on the edge variant as I can see that the edges of the display appear somewhat green when viewed head on, but otherwise there are no real issues to be seen here.

    Overall, from a color standpoint it’s looking like Samsung has made one of the best displays available on the market today. Color accuracy is at the point where it’s pretty safe to say that the calibration doesn’t have clear color errors, and the peak brightness of the display is incredibly high.

    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9146/the-samsung-galaxy-s6-and-s6-edge-review/4




  • Reply 23 of 27
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    josu said:
    foggyhill said:
    WHy the hell are you even here, what's your point? Same thing Goldfish here, always the same constant regurgitated pap about Android crap.

     When your OLED screen declines to also ran in 2 years, the LCD screen will be essentially the same.
     3 years later, still mostly the same (considering this one can even self adjust the screen for gray scale, even more so than before).

    But, hey, hero worship, little dance, etc. Whatever.



    LCD screens degrade? When? Because my nine years old iPod Touch still looks bright and shiny to my eyes, even besides my sixth gen one. And my eight year old Laptop still looks the same even besides my year old retina one. I can't see the degradation, but OK maybe is that I'm accustomed to it, like when you are seeing a show for years and years and suddenly you see a first season episode and then notice how older the actors are now. Oh, I forgot, my seven year old LCD TV looks very good too.

    I know, I know, you are arguing against OLED, and defending LCD, but I'm only asking, seriously. Because in the LCD front, the degradation must be negligible by now, given my experience with LCDs live span.
    The backlight fades  with time, people often don't notice it because they just push the brightness up.

    If you have a reallly old LCD which you put at its original setting, you'll see that. I have LCD's from 2002 and they;re DIM.
    The 3GS I have is also certainly dimmer than initially at its default settings; I still use it as an Ipod.

    With this, they could automatically adjust this over time to an exact level (which you can't do yourself without an instrument to calibrate the screen).





    edited April 2016
  • Reply 24 of 27
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    lkrupp said:
    But the spec trolls say it’s all about how many pixels and pixel count trumps any stupid objective analysis. The screen with the most pixels wins! Or so they say.
    Many here said most pixels wins when Apple introduced the Retina display. 
    compared to the older displays pre retina, yes. more pixels compared to retina, no. diminishing returns 
  • Reply 25 of 27
    josujosu Posts: 217member
    foggyhill said:
    josu said:
    LCD screens degrade? When? Because my nine years old iPod Touch still looks bright and shiny to my eyes, even besides my sixth gen one. And my eight year old Laptop still looks the same even besides my year old retina one. I can't see the degradation, but OK maybe is that I'm accustomed to it, like when you are seeing a show for years and years and suddenly you see a first season episode and then notice how older the actors are now. Oh, I forgot, my seven year old LCD TV looks very good too.

    I know, I know, you are arguing against OLED, and defending LCD, but I'm only asking, seriously. Because in the LCD front, the degradation must be negligible by now, given my experience with LCDs live span.
    The backlight fades  with time, people often don't notice it because they just push the brightness up.

    If you have a reallly old LCD which you put at its original setting, you'll see that. I have LCD's from 2002 and they;re DIM.
    The 3GS I have is also certainly dimmer than initially at its default settings; I still use it as an Ipod.

    With this, they could automatically adjust this over time to an exact level (which you can't do yourself without an instrument to calibrate the screen).





    I have never change the brightness in the iPod as far as I remember. But I recognized that in the MacBook I push it all the way up, but is because I use it to watch TV Shows mostly, when not doing that I use it at mid level of brightness. But I do the same with my new one when I watch Netflix on it and when I use it for something like this, also at mid-level, and I don't see much more difference except the difference in display quality.

    But anyway thanks for the explanation all I wanted to say is that LCD is a very mature technology, so life span has probably reached a level in which you can use it for many years, as you notice, you can still use a 13 years-old device, and back then LCD wasn't as good quality as 2007, or 2008 or 2009, that are my older LCD devices, At least the ones I used, I still have a 1998 PowerBook G3 that I swear it still works. The LCD quality, of course, dismal, but I have not turn it on since...I can't remember, many, many years.
    sessamoid
  • Reply 26 of 27

    So 2 definite things for the next iPad Pro 12.9":

    • TrueTone.
    • Faster TouchID.
    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.