The more things we learn about the Nexus One, the lousier of a device it seems.
Typical Google BETA.
At least to their credit, Google is pushing HMTL5.
I assume you have never bothered to actually use one. I have (a friend has one), and it's a very, very slick device. The screen is, to my eyes, amazing, and the overall speed and snappiness of the Nexus is leagues ahead of the iPhone. And multi-tasking is, as you might expect, enough to make any iPhone owner green with envy. I know I am.
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.
Quality Tekstud rant. If you were to replace your phrase "anybody and everybody knows" to just "I know", a couple people (maybe) would take you slightly more serious.
What anybody and everybody knows seems to dictate to the contrary, what you know.
This article isn't true. Did you guys test the N1?
The problem is that the Gallery app in the N1's 2.1 Android software is rendering images in such a way that the bars show up. Has nothing to do with the display (and by the way OLED and LED displays are apparently typically 18 bit, but coded in 16 bit. The iPhone is no exception).
If you go to the Browser in the N1 and go to the exact image of the sunset on Mars, you get a beautiful, barless rendering. This also works fine in any of the image viewers available in the Market. The display is a gorgeous OLED display capable of displaying as many colors as any other modern smartphone, including the iPhone...
You guys should update this article, as it is not true.
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.
Why would I want a pretend-iPhone when I can get the real thing?
This article isn't true. Did you guys test the N1?
The problem is that the Gallery app in the N1's 2.1 Android software is rendering images in such a way that the bars show up. Has nothing to do with the display (and by the way OLED and LED displays are apparently typically 18 bit, but coded in 16 bit. The iPhone is no exception).
If you go to the Browser in the N1 and go to the exact image of the sunset on Mars, you get a beautiful, barless rendering. This also works fine in any of the image viewers available in the Market. The display is a gorgeous OLED display capable of displaying as many colors as any other modern smartphone, including the iPhone...
You guys should update this article, as it is not true.
Gizmodo who also picked up the same story, show the problem also affecting the browser. So no the article is not a lie.
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.
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.
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 have seen them side by side and prefer the screen on the Nexus One..... It was sharper and more vibrant in my opinion...
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.
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.
The screen ratio is due to the fact that the iPad's more common use case will be in portrait mode. Did you notice the orientation Jobs held it in for the first unveil? Portrait.
A 16:9 screen would be relegated to being a movie viewer, which is not its primary focus.
Holding a 16:9 in portrait mode would be a joke, unbalanced, and resulting in narrow screen, ugly web pages and books.
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
The screen ratio is due to the fact that the iPad's more common use case will be in portrait mode. Did you notice the orientation Jobs held it in for the first unveil? Portrait.
A 16:9 screen would be relegated to being a movie viewer, which is not its primary focus.
Holding a 16:9 in portrait mode would be a joke, unbalanced, and resulting in narrow screen, ugly web pages and books.
Than it should be 8.5 X 11. Anything else then using your logic is a joke.
Sometimes I think the articles here are written solely to make people feel better about their investment. An article like this touting LCD as the great standard really wasn't necessary.
It wasn't touting" LCD" as the great standard.
It was comparing specifically the iPhone LCD to the AM-OLED display on the Google Nexus One.
The lack of AM OLED screen turns out to be one more gripe that I had with apple that was wrong. Don't get me wrong but when apple did not allow native apps or did not have a speaker in the Touch, or now when there is still no mic or video in the touch I was pretty pissed. But lack of flash (which I saw on a Nokia internet tablet, and it sucked major B@lls), and lack of OLED have actually turned out to be false gripes.
I am still in awe at how much better the iPhone is then other platforms. Music, video, internet and the way they all come together quickly and easily still blows me away. In fact if the original iPhone had an appstore, it would still be kicking everyone else's butts.
Scientific analysis finds iPhone LCD trumps Nexus One OLED
What's scientific about an opinion? He used no scientific equipment to actually test the two, just his eyes.
With that said, I'm not surprised that he finds the iPhone more accurate. A real test would have involved removing the displays from each phone and using the same equipment to generate the images on the displays.
Only a few manufacturers make LCDs, but they look very different on different brands of devices. If I had to guess, I'd say that its the iPhone software that's the reason for the more accurate images and not the quality of the display itself.
Pedantically speaking, a hypothesis could easily be deemed an opinion.
As for the article, the testing is sound. What you propose is a more involved and more accurate test, but that doesn't mean that the tests they did aren't valid.
What's scientific about an opinion? He used no scientific equipment to actually test the two, just his eyes.
The linked article did make measurements using a chromameter, that information didn't show up in the AI article.
Quote:
With that said, I'm not surprised that he finds the iPhone more accurate. A real test would have involved removing the displays from each phone and using the same equipment to generate the images on the displays.
Only a few manufacturers make LCDs, but they look very different on different brands of devices. If I had to guess, I'd say that its the iPhone software that's the reason for the more accurate images and not the quality of the display itself.
I agree, and you'd have to calibrate for each panel, panel types respond differently to signals, so the profiles will be different, not just a matter of plugging in panels to a neutral device. But Apple doesn't offer a way to tweak the settings, I would be pleased to find that Google offers a good way to do it, I've yet to see or hear about color calibration being available for consumer handheld devices.
Comments
The more things we learn about the Nexus One, the lousier of a device it seems.
Typical Google BETA.
At least to their credit, Google is pushing HMTL5.
I assume you have never bothered to actually use one. I have (a friend has one), and it's a very, very slick device. The screen is, to my eyes, amazing, and the overall speed and snappiness of the Nexus is leagues ahead of the iPhone. And multi-tasking is, as you might expect, enough to make any iPhone owner green with envy. I know I am.
Luckily, I don't think there are too many professional photographers editing photos on their phones.
I don't see why any of this really matters.
Sure
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.
Quality Tekstud rant. If you were to replace your phrase "anybody and everybody knows" to just "I know", a couple people (maybe) would take you slightly more serious.
What anybody and everybody knows seems to dictate to the contrary, what you know.
The problem is that the Gallery app in the N1's 2.1 Android software is rendering images in such a way that the bars show up. Has nothing to do with the display (and by the way OLED and LED displays are apparently typically 18 bit, but coded in 16 bit. The iPhone is no exception).
If you go to the Browser in the N1 and go to the exact image of the sunset on Mars, you get a beautiful, barless rendering. This also works fine in any of the image viewers available in the Market. The display is a gorgeous OLED display capable of displaying as many colors as any other modern smartphone, including the iPhone...
You guys should update this article, as it is not true.
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.
Why would I want a pretend-iPhone when I can get the real thing?
This article isn't true. Did you guys test the N1?
Who cares about truth on the site?
This article isn't true. Did you guys test the N1?
The problem is that the Gallery app in the N1's 2.1 Android software is rendering images in such a way that the bars show up. Has nothing to do with the display (and by the way OLED and LED displays are apparently typically 18 bit, but coded in 16 bit. The iPhone is no exception).
If you go to the Browser in the N1 and go to the exact image of the sunset on Mars, you get a beautiful, barless rendering. This also works fine in any of the image viewers available in the Market. The display is a gorgeous OLED display capable of displaying as many colors as any other modern smartphone, including the iPhone...
You guys should update this article, as it is not true.
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
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.
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 have seen them side by side and prefer the screen on the Nexus One..... It was sharper and more vibrant in my opinion...
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.
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.
The screen ratio is due to the fact that the iPad's more common use case will be in portrait mode. Did you notice the orientation Jobs held it in for the first unveil? Portrait.
A 16:9 screen would be relegated to being a movie viewer, which is not its primary focus.
Holding a 16:9 in portrait mode would be a joke, unbalanced, and resulting in narrow screen, ugly web pages and books.
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.
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.
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.
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.
The screen ratio is due to the fact that the iPad's more common use case will be in portrait mode. Did you notice the orientation Jobs held it in for the first unveil? Portrait.
A 16:9 screen would be relegated to being a movie viewer, which is not its primary focus.
Holding a 16:9 in portrait mode would be a joke, unbalanced, and resulting in narrow screen, ugly web pages and books.
Than it should be 8.5 X 11. Anything else then using your logic is a joke.
How much time do you spend watching video on a small handheld device?
Chinese and Koreans do spend a lot of time watching TV on their mobile phones
Sometimes I think the articles here are written solely to make people feel better about their investment. An article like this touting LCD as the great standard really wasn't necessary.
It wasn't touting" LCD" as the great standard.
It was comparing specifically the iPhone LCD to the AM-OLED display on the Google Nexus One.
I am still in awe at how much better the iPhone is then other platforms. Music, video, internet and the way they all come together quickly and easily still blows me away. In fact if the original iPhone had an appstore, it would still be kicking everyone else's butts.
Scientific analysis finds iPhone LCD trumps Nexus One OLED
What's scientific about an opinion? He used no scientific equipment to actually test the two, just his eyes.
With that said, I'm not surprised that he finds the iPhone more accurate. A real test would have involved removing the displays from each phone and using the same equipment to generate the images on the displays.
Only a few manufacturers make LCDs, but they look very different on different brands of devices. If I had to guess, I'd say that its the iPhone software that's the reason for the more accurate images and not the quality of the display itself.
What's scientific about an opinion?
Pedantically speaking, a hypothesis could easily be deemed an opinion.
As for the article, the testing is sound. What you propose is a more involved and more accurate test, but that doesn't mean that the tests they did aren't valid.
What's scientific about an opinion? He used no scientific equipment to actually test the two, just his eyes.
The linked article did make measurements using a chromameter, that information didn't show up in the AI article.
With that said, I'm not surprised that he finds the iPhone more accurate. A real test would have involved removing the displays from each phone and using the same equipment to generate the images on the displays.
Only a few manufacturers make LCDs, but they look very different on different brands of devices. If I had to guess, I'd say that its the iPhone software that's the reason for the more accurate images and not the quality of the display itself.
I agree, and you'd have to calibrate for each panel, panel types respond differently to signals, so the profiles will be different, not just a matter of plugging in panels to a neutral device. But Apple doesn't offer a way to tweak the settings, I would be pleased to find that Google offers a good way to do it, I've yet to see or hear about color calibration being available for consumer handheld devices.