First notice how the two Mars photos are not completly the same. If they are the same, the are zoomed in at slightly different locations. That is hardly scientific. As you would want the exact same photos.
I understand the other points, but not this. the photo angle looks quite similar. It looks to me like any difference is at the very edges, the screens are a different aspect ratio.
Seems to be the same reason consumers favour shiny screens over matte.
As long as the colours are set to 100% MegaVibrance it's all good, right? Who cares about colour accuracy and correct brightness?
But hey, yet ANOTHER article praising the iPhone (or denigrating the competition) so it MUST be "pure garbage."
In all due fairness though, Dr. Soniera in the article stated that the iPhone's screen isn't the best there is, in fact, it fails quite miserably when other picture qualities are factored. In terms of color accuracy, OLEDs are more accurate by far, mainly due to there being no back light, so colors appear more nature. Whether colors appear over saturated, under saturated, gradated or not, those factors are largely determined by the internal rendering capabilities of electronic devices. To me, this article doesn't say that OLED screens are lacking, but rather the color processing capabilities of the Nexus are sub-par.
Try watching video in a less with brightly lit room. Any darkish scene is just a washed out mid-grey square. It looks dreadful. I've seen plenty of LCDs with terrible black levels before, but the iPhone is the worst of them all.
I'd say that compared to any competent scientific test, his method appears highly questionable.
Please explain what it is about "his method" that "appears highly questionable"?
Dr. Soneira indicated that he will publish in the second article (of three) the measurements for: color temperature and chromaticity, color gamut, intensity scale and gamma, brightness decrease with viewing angle, black level and contrast ratio shift with viewing angle, color shift with viewing angle, RGB display power consumption, OLED and LCD spectra. Are you saying that you anticipate the way these are achieved, or the measurements themselves are questionable?
In this first article, he discussed the measurements (for peak brightness, black-level brightness, contrast ratio, screen reflectance, high ambient light contrast rating, dynamic color and dynamic contrast, color depth and granularity, and display image) after generating the analytical test patterns with a spectroradiometer and measuring "in a perfectly dark lab to avoid light contamination with devices' backlight set for maximum brightness with the automatic brightness light sensor control turned off, and running on their AC power adapter with a fully charged battery, so that the battery performance and state was not a factor in the results." Was it something about this method that is questionable or lacks competence?
Clexman said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by clexman
My point is that his testing method does not prove which display is best, just which software + phone hardware + display combination is best.
...
This makes it kind of hard to conclude which display is best, just which total package is best.
However, Dr. Soneira stated up front that the "in-depth measurements and analysis were for the OLED and LCD displays on the Google Nexus One and the Apple iPhone 3GS", not the display technologies themselves. He said, "the inner details of the display technologies are very interesting, but our concern here is to evaluate the actual image and picture quality that they deliver." Do his methods not support his objectives?
He further stated that, "some of this is undoubtedly due to poor integration of the display hardware with the Android OS and software. Much of it, however, is simply due to very poor factory calibration and quality control." Was it this assertion you find incompetent?
Please explain, as your point about scientific testing competence is unclear to me. What would the "competent scientific test" consist of?
In all due fairness though, Dr. Soniera in the article stated that the iPhone's screen isn't the best there is, in fact, it fails quite miserably when other picture qualities are factored. In terms of color accuracy, OLEDs are more accurate by far, mainly due to there being no back light, so colors appear more nature. Whether colors appear over saturated, under saturated, gradated or not, those factors are largely determined by the internal rendering capabilities of electronic devices. To me, this article doesn't say that OLED screens are lacking, but rather the color processing capabilities of the Nexus are sub-par.
I'm inclinded to agree with you. The images that appear on my Zune HD's OLED screen don't seem to show any of the banding the N1 has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius
Do you ever stop and notice how much of a ridiculous fanboy you sound like?
Don't bother asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
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.
Him? Actually use a device other than the Apple product before just declaring the Apple product superior? Noooo... That's much too much work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Seems to be the same reason consumers favour shiny screens over matte.
As long as the colours are set to 100% MegaVibrance it's all good, right? Who cares about colour accuracy and correct brightness?
But hey, yet ANOTHER article praising the iPhone (or denigrating the competition) so it MUST be "pure garbage."
So by your logic, any article that praises Apple's competition and shows the short-comings of the iPhone or any other Apple product must also be "pure garbage" too right?
I guess it comes down priorities. Personally I would put text readability and clarity as no.1 on the list, and the OLED in the Nexus One, with it's deep blacks and razor sharp resolution is just streets ahead of the low-res (comparatively speaking) and washed out iPhone display.
If Apple were to offer a choice on the next iPhone between LCD and OLED, I'd choose OLED in an instant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kotatsu
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.
I agree 100%. I must wear reading glasses to use my iPhone for email and browsing, or zoom in quite a bit and do the scroll right/left thing. With the Nexus One I am able to read the text without reading glasses. That alone makes the N1 a better device for 95% of my usage.
The contrast is amazing on the Nexus One, and the blacks are actually black, no matter what brightness the screen is set to. My only gripe with the N1's screen is it is a bit over-saturated in the reds while watching video. That's a software issue, easily corrected when Google gets around to it. I can wait.
The resolution on the Nexus One is amazing. Check my twitter post from yesterday comparing screen captures of Google Earth from a Nexus One and an iPhone. I should try to take a picture of the two screens side by side to show that you really can see the difference, it's not just an issue of the screen resolution producing a larger picture.
Sheesh...you seriously think that just because Gizmodo aggregated the post onto their site that it's an accurate story? How much origianl content does Gizmodo (any Gawker site) produce? All they do is scour the net and repost other blog's/site's stuff. That doesn't make the original story accurate.
The conclusions in the original article are flawed. I tested myself, as did my friend with an N1, using the same photo the original tests did.
In the Gallery app, yes, there is banding. In the Browser app, there is not. SIDE-BY-SIDE on my N1 vs my iPhone 3G[s], in the browser, the N1 looks better, no banding, nothing negative. The application is flawed, not the hardware or OS. Google will update it, problem solved. Even if Google doesn't update Gallery, there are third party apps for viewing your pictures already (I use Astro File Viewer).
Look, I'm as big an Apple Fanboy as the next guy around here. Check my post history here and across all the other sites I'm sure we both visit. I've got 4 iPhones, one of each model. It was an amazing device that couldn't be compared to for 2.5 years...but like it or not, the Nexus One puts the iPhone line to shame in almost every respect. The only thing the iPhone does better, and not by much, is act as an iTunes-media media player.
Apple may wow us with the 4th gen iPhone, but it's vaporware until I see it. It's also going to be a locked down, Apple's way or the highway, device where I can't decide what the look and feel is, or even what kind of apps I want to put on it. Not that I want boob-jiggling apps, but it pisses me off that Apple's decided to go all prude on us and delete 5,000 "suggestive" apps. (I'll admit to having a swimsuit model app...LOL)
Quote:
Originally Posted by dcdttu
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.
The article is true. It's true in that some scientist performed an experiment and reported his results. What's inaccurate are the conclusions that the scientist made. He used one application to compare the results, and didn't allow for the fact that the application might be the problem, not the hardware. The application will be fixed, then the tests will be completely invalidated from that point forward.
In the context of the topic, LCDs don't necessarily facilitate comfortable long-term reading like an e-ink display would.
I'm starting to think they had decided to make the iPad a last minute competitor in the e-reader market. Tablet first, book reader second.
I have used a few E-Ink displays, and in all honestly, I am not impressed with those screens at all. Also, the whole idea of "LCD's don't necessarily facilitate comfortable long-term reading" is kind of BS.
When using a desktop computer, we are sitting with out back straight up in a specific position for possibly hours on end. That, in and of itself, is not a "natural reading experience". At the end of the day my eyes are not hurting because I have looked at an LCD for too long, but rather, my back is killing me from sitting in that position.
The Sun is many times brighter than an LCD backlit screen, and I don't hear people complain about their eyes hurting during day to day outdoor activity.
Using a laptop, even sitting on a couch, is also not a "natural reading experience" because of how unnaturally you have to hold the laptop. Flat on your lap or on a table in front of you. You also need to have it positioned at a distance so you can type on the keyboard.
The iPad, as well as other tablet devices before and after the iPad, have a much more natural shape and size that fits a reading device, just like a Kindle.
Also remember that not all E-Ink screens are the same technology. Some use actually pixels that rotate from black to white (or some shade of light gray), while others are little black dots that poke thru white or gray surface. All of the technologies, however, are slow. They have GREAT battery life, but everyone who I have talked to locally that has seen or used an eBook reader does not believe that the technology is anywhere near "mass market", and probably won't be for another 5-10 years.
Don't get me wrong though. I do want color E-Ink to become a technology that is used everywhere. Think of a color E-Ink computer monitor with response times that equal that of even the average LCD monitor.
We won't know how well or how bad the iPad will be for reading until it's actually out and people use it for extended periods of time.
When I first came across this article I read it on my Nexus one... I could CLEARLY see the difference between the two pictures, on the iPhone result I didn't see any banding at all. If this test was actually accurate then I shouldn't have been able to tell the difference between the two when viewing the pictures....
Edit:
Decided to look into this a little more.
I used the colour scale image on http://tech-lobby.com/wp-content/upl.../scaletest.jpg and opened it with Gallery and then with Astro Image Viewer. The image viewer had less banding. I even took screenshots with the Dalvic Debug Monitor to see side by side. The Gallery is lower quality, thus proving the results of this test flawed. Even if the iPhone screen is better it would be due to software, not hardware. Therefore "iPhone LCD trumps Nexus One OLED is an inaccurate statement, the test was limited by software, not hardware.
He further stated that, "some of this is undoubtedly due to poor integration of the display hardware with the Android OS and software. Much of it, however, is simply due to very poor factory calibration and quality control." Was it this assertion you find incompetent?
Please explain, as your point about scientific testing competence is unclear to me. What would the "competent scientific test" consist of?
Yes he is incompentent, he is saying that Nexus One only uses 16 bit color so it has banding and a poor pictures quality. If he had opened the same images on the browser or on other pitcure viewers he had noticed that there is no banding and a superb quality picture.
All the results about picture quality, lower display technology are totally wrong.
Yes he is incompentent, he is saying that Nexus One only uses 16 bit color so it has banding and a poor pictures quality. If he had opened the same images on the browser or on other pitcure viewers he had noticed that there is no banding and a superb quality picture.
All the results about picture quality, lower display technology are totally wrong.
Scientific? I don't whink so
I hope you don't mind; I sent your response to Dr. Soneira requesting his response for clarification.
Comments
I believe he was going for a little humor, at least it had me laughing out loud....a la 'Spies Like Us'.
It's good to know that some folks got it.
Yes Genius, compared to you, this "doctor" does appear highly questionable, doesn't he?
I'd say that compared to any competent scientific test, his method appears highly questionable.
The ipad is meant for reading
Yeah. Certainly not best for the 'web or movies or HDTV. And those are the things I'd use a tablet for.
My point is that his testing method does not prove which display is best, just which software + phone hardware + display combination is best.
This makes it kind of hard to conclude which display is best, just which total package is best.
Bingo. And from what he presents, it seem seems that the N1 loses big time.
Complete lies.
First notice how the two Mars photos are not completly the same. If they are the same, the are zoomed in at slightly different locations. That is hardly scientific. As you would want the exact same photos.
I understand the other points, but not this. the photo angle looks quite similar. It looks to me like any difference is at the very edges, the screens are a different aspect ratio.
Seems to be the same reason consumers favour shiny screens over matte.
As long as the colours are set to 100% MegaVibrance it's all good, right? Who cares about colour accuracy and correct brightness?
But hey, yet ANOTHER article praising the iPhone (or denigrating the competition) so it MUST be "pure garbage."
In all due fairness though, Dr. Soniera in the article stated that the iPhone's screen isn't the best there is, in fact, it fails quite miserably when other picture qualities are factored. In terms of color accuracy, OLEDs are more accurate by far, mainly due to there being no back light, so colors appear more nature. Whether colors appear over saturated, under saturated, gradated or not, those factors are largely determined by the internal rendering capabilities of electronic devices. To me, this article doesn't say that OLED screens are lacking, but rather the color processing capabilities of the Nexus are sub-par.
How much time do you spend watching video on a small handheld device?
About 2 hours a day. (train commute to work)
So yes, I'd like 16:9.
I always thought my iPhone screen was fine.
Try watching video in a less with brightly lit room. Any darkish scene is just a washed out mid-grey square. It looks dreadful. I've seen plenty of LCDs with terrible black levels before, but the iPhone is the worst of them all.
At least it has a fast response rate.
I'd say that compared to any competent scientific test, his method appears highly questionable.
Please explain what it is about "his method" that "appears highly questionable"?
Dr. Soneira indicated that he will publish in the second article (of three) the measurements for: color temperature and chromaticity, color gamut, intensity scale and gamma, brightness decrease with viewing angle, black level and contrast ratio shift with viewing angle, color shift with viewing angle, RGB display power consumption, OLED and LCD spectra. Are you saying that you anticipate the way these are achieved, or the measurements themselves are questionable?
In this first article, he discussed the measurements (for peak brightness, black-level brightness, contrast ratio, screen reflectance, high ambient light contrast rating, dynamic color and dynamic contrast, color depth and granularity, and display image) after generating the analytical test patterns with a spectroradiometer and measuring "in a perfectly dark lab to avoid light contamination with devices' backlight set for maximum brightness with the automatic brightness light sensor control turned off, and running on their AC power adapter with a fully charged battery, so that the battery performance and state was not a factor in the results." Was it something about this method that is questionable or lacks competence?
Clexman said:
My point is that his testing method does not prove which display is best, just which software + phone hardware + display combination is best.
...
This makes it kind of hard to conclude which display is best, just which total package is best.
However, Dr. Soneira stated up front that the "in-depth measurements and analysis were for the OLED and LCD displays on the Google Nexus One and the Apple iPhone 3GS", not the display technologies themselves. He said, "the inner details of the display technologies are very interesting, but our concern here is to evaluate the actual image and picture quality that they deliver." Do his methods not support his objectives?
He further stated that, "some of this is undoubtedly due to poor integration of the display hardware with the Android OS and software. Much of it, however, is simply due to very poor factory calibration and quality control." Was it this assertion you find incompetent?
Please explain, as your point about scientific testing competence is unclear to me. What would the "competent scientific test" consist of?
Please explain what it is about "his method" that "appears highly questionable"?
Dr. Soneira indicated that he will publish in the second article .......... {SNIP}
Please explain, as your point about scientific testing competence is unclear to me. What would the "competent scientific test" consist of?
Excellent post. You expect him to provide a substantive answer?
Good luck. iGenius is just another low value-added bomb-thrower.
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
lol, did you go to your own link? He's already updated the article.
In all due fairness though, Dr. Soniera in the article stated that the iPhone's screen isn't the best there is, in fact, it fails quite miserably when other picture qualities are factored. In terms of color accuracy, OLEDs are more accurate by far, mainly due to there being no back light, so colors appear more nature. Whether colors appear over saturated, under saturated, gradated or not, those factors are largely determined by the internal rendering capabilities of electronic devices. To me, this article doesn't say that OLED screens are lacking, but rather the color processing capabilities of the Nexus are sub-par.
I'm inclinded to agree with you. The images that appear on my Zune HD's OLED screen don't seem to show any of the banding the N1 has.
Do you ever stop and notice how much of a ridiculous fanboy you sound like?
Don't bother asking.
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.
Him? Actually use a device other than the Apple product before just declaring the Apple product superior? Noooo... That's much too much work.
Seems to be the same reason consumers favour shiny screens over matte.
As long as the colours are set to 100% MegaVibrance it's all good, right? Who cares about colour accuracy and correct brightness?
But hey, yet ANOTHER article praising the iPhone (or denigrating the competition) so it MUST be "pure garbage."
So by your logic, any article that praises Apple's competition and shows the short-comings of the iPhone or any other Apple product must also be "pure garbage" too right?
I guess it comes down priorities. Personally I would put text readability and clarity as no.1 on the list, and the OLED in the Nexus One, with it's deep blacks and razor sharp resolution is just streets ahead of the low-res (comparatively speaking) and washed out iPhone display.
If Apple were to offer a choice on the next iPhone between LCD and OLED, I'd choose OLED in an instant.
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.
I agree 100%. I must wear reading glasses to use my iPhone for email and browsing, or zoom in quite a bit and do the scroll right/left thing. With the Nexus One I am able to read the text without reading glasses. That alone makes the N1 a better device for 95% of my usage.
The contrast is amazing on the Nexus One, and the blacks are actually black, no matter what brightness the screen is set to. My only gripe with the N1's screen is it is a bit over-saturated in the reds while watching video. That's a software issue, easily corrected when Google gets around to it. I can wait.
The resolution on the Nexus One is amazing. Check my twitter post from yesterday comparing screen captures of Google Earth from a Nexus One and an iPhone. I should try to take a picture of the two screens side by side to show that you really can see the difference, it's not just an issue of the screen resolution producing a larger picture.
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
Sheesh...you seriously think that just because Gizmodo aggregated the post onto their site that it's an accurate story? How much origianl content does Gizmodo (any Gawker site) produce? All they do is scour the net and repost other blog's/site's stuff. That doesn't make the original story accurate.
The conclusions in the original article are flawed. I tested myself, as did my friend with an N1, using the same photo the original tests did.
In the Gallery app, yes, there is banding. In the Browser app, there is not. SIDE-BY-SIDE on my N1 vs my iPhone 3G[s], in the browser, the N1 looks better, no banding, nothing negative. The application is flawed, not the hardware or OS. Google will update it, problem solved. Even if Google doesn't update Gallery, there are third party apps for viewing your pictures already (I use Astro File Viewer).
Look, I'm as big an Apple Fanboy as the next guy around here. Check my post history here and across all the other sites I'm sure we both visit. I've got 4 iPhones, one of each model. It was an amazing device that couldn't be compared to for 2.5 years...but like it or not, the Nexus One puts the iPhone line to shame in almost every respect. The only thing the iPhone does better, and not by much, is act as an iTunes-media media player.
Apple may wow us with the 4th gen iPhone, but it's vaporware until I see it. It's also going to be a locked down, Apple's way or the highway, device where I can't decide what the look and feel is, or even what kind of apps I want to put on it. Not that I want boob-jiggling apps, but it pisses me off that Apple's decided to go all prude on us and delete 5,000 "suggestive" apps. (I'll admit to having a swimsuit model app...LOL)
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.
The article is true. It's true in that some scientist performed an experiment and reported his results. What's inaccurate are the conclusions that the scientist made. He used one application to compare the results, and didn't allow for the fact that the application might be the problem, not the hardware. The application will be fixed, then the tests will be completely invalidated from that point forward.
Reminder: This is an All-things-Apple website so if you're allergic to apples, ...
Interesting article. I hope they do a comparison with the Motorola Droid too.
Come on, if you think iPhone pales to N1, don't have to say you own 4 iPhones.
In the context of the topic, LCDs don't necessarily facilitate comfortable long-term reading like an e-ink display would.
I'm starting to think they had decided to make the iPad a last minute competitor in the e-reader market. Tablet first, book reader second.
I have used a few E-Ink displays, and in all honestly, I am not impressed with those screens at all. Also, the whole idea of "LCD's don't necessarily facilitate comfortable long-term reading" is kind of BS.
When using a desktop computer, we are sitting with out back straight up in a specific position for possibly hours on end. That, in and of itself, is not a "natural reading experience". At the end of the day my eyes are not hurting because I have looked at an LCD for too long, but rather, my back is killing me from sitting in that position.
The Sun is many times brighter than an LCD backlit screen, and I don't hear people complain about their eyes hurting during day to day outdoor activity.
Using a laptop, even sitting on a couch, is also not a "natural reading experience" because of how unnaturally you have to hold the laptop. Flat on your lap or on a table in front of you. You also need to have it positioned at a distance so you can type on the keyboard.
The iPad, as well as other tablet devices before and after the iPad, have a much more natural shape and size that fits a reading device, just like a Kindle.
Also remember that not all E-Ink screens are the same technology. Some use actually pixels that rotate from black to white (or some shade of light gray), while others are little black dots that poke thru white or gray surface. All of the technologies, however, are slow. They have GREAT battery life, but everyone who I have talked to locally that has seen or used an eBook reader does not believe that the technology is anywhere near "mass market", and probably won't be for another 5-10 years.
Don't get me wrong though. I do want color E-Ink to become a technology that is used everywhere. Think of a color E-Ink computer monitor with response times that equal that of even the average LCD monitor.
We won't know how well or how bad the iPad will be for reading until it's actually out and people use it for extended periods of time.
Edit:
Decided to look into this a little more.
I used the colour scale image on http://tech-lobby.com/wp-content/upl.../scaletest.jpg and opened it with Gallery and then with Astro Image Viewer. The image viewer had less banding. I even took screenshots with the Dalvic Debug Monitor to see side by side. The Gallery is lower quality, thus proving the results of this test flawed. Even if the iPhone screen is better it would be due to software, not hardware. Therefore "iPhone LCD trumps Nexus One OLED is an inaccurate statement, the test was limited by software, not hardware.
He further stated that, "some of this is undoubtedly due to poor integration of the display hardware with the Android OS and software. Much of it, however, is simply due to very poor factory calibration and quality control." Was it this assertion you find incompetent?
Please explain, as your point about scientific testing competence is unclear to me. What would the "competent scientific test" consist of?
Yes he is incompentent, he is saying that Nexus One only uses 16 bit color so it has banding and a poor pictures quality. If he had opened the same images on the browser or on other pitcure viewers he had noticed that there is no banding and a superb quality picture.
All the results about picture quality, lower display technology are totally wrong.
Scientific? I don't whink so
Yes he is incompentent, he is saying that Nexus One only uses 16 bit color so it has banding and a poor pictures quality. If he had opened the same images on the browser or on other pitcure viewers he had noticed that there is no banding and a superb quality picture.
All the results about picture quality, lower display technology are totally wrong.
Scientific? I don't whink so
I hope you don't mind; I sent your response to Dr. Soneira requesting his response for clarification.