Watch the video. The LCD is considerably more washed out and the black background is a hazy shade of gray. Straight-on looks as bad as it does on an angle for what you would expect black to look like.
It is a joke to consider an LCD as comparable to AMOLED or even super AMOLED.
I did watch the video. That's were I got the screen grab. Here it is again, bigger:
As I say, straight on, pretty comparable, at least in that video. AMOLED has much better off axis viewing and more color saturation.
Watch the video. The LCD is considerably more washed out and the black background is a hazy shade of gray. Straight-on looks as bad as it does on an angle for what you would expect black to look like.
It is a joke to consider an LCD as comparable to AMOLED or even super AMOLED.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
The one on the right is considerably washed out. Blacks aren't black, grays are whitish. It's just bad color representation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by g3pro
It's probably the screen you're using. If you have brightness at the right level, you will see the difference and washed out colors.
Another way to see what I'm talking about is to look at the angled photos of the screen.
G3, you've got to be kidding. There is almost zero difference between those images at anything close to normal viewing angle.
G3, you've got to be kidding. There is almost zero difference between those images at anything close to normal viewing angle.
If there is a significant change when viewed at an angle, then there must be a difference when viewed straight on, but it's less significant than the side angle.
The colors are washed out regardless of what the angle is, it's just more pronounced in some angles more than others.
The screen is craptastic. LCD is a dinosaur. Apple should have AMOLED or Super AMOLED in the next screen, there shouldn't be argument about this.
G3, you've got to be kidding. There is almost zero difference between those images at anything close to normal viewing angle.
You're looking at a YouTube video of someone's crappy camera filming two phones.
The MASSIVE difference between the two at an angle should CLEARLY hint to you the difference in quality on the screen, and I'm willing to bet the difference is actually MUCH more pronounced when viewed in person. Both phones are also on the home screen, which is mostly ugly black and icons (not sure how people can stare at that all day). Compare the screen quality of both phones when they are each playing an HD video and then come back and say they look the same.
To say that the screens look exactly the same when viewed head on, despite KNOWING the absolutely massive technological difference in screen quality, is just complete fanboy denial. Seriously, you can't be THAT ignorant?
If there is a significant change when viewed at an angle, then there must be a difference when viewed straight on, but it's less significant than the side angle.
The colors are washed out regardless of what the angle is, it's just more pronounced in some angles more than others.
The screen is craptastic. LCD is a dinosaur. Apple should have AMOLED or Super AMOLED in the next screen, there shouldn't be argument about this.
Look at the goddamned images. Their is very little (if any) difference. And no, just because you see a difference at an angle--that doesn't mean there is a difference in straight viewing.
Super AMOLED might be the way to go. I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about what was posted. I would also disagree that the iPhone's screen is "craptastic."
Yep, and this is what they look like when viewed in the manner most people would be looking at their phones:
That is, pretty much indistinguishable, beyond slightly punchier colors for the AMOLED. So the big plus for AMOED is that it looks much better if I choose to look at my phone by holding it at an oblique angle, for some reason.
I watched the video as well as looked at your screenshot closely. While at first glance, there seems to be indistinguishable, a closer, longer look shows that the iPhone's screen does have a very slight grey tint to its black background. And while watching the video, the icons on the Super AMOLED screen pops and stands out more. There's this...haze...that the iPhone screen has. I'm talking about the direct-on viewing.
The iPhone screen is by no means crappy, but it just isn't as vibrant.
I watched the video as well as looked at your screenshot closely. While at first glance, there seems to be indistinguishable, a closer, longer look shows that the iPhone's screen does have a very slight grey tint to its black background. And while watching the video, the icons on the Super AMOLED screen pops and stands out more. There's this...haze...that the iPhone screen has. I'm talking about the direct-on viewing.
The iPhone screen is by no means crappy, but it just isn't as vibrant.
Sure, I've got no problem with that. From what I've read, super AMOLED should be able to do better blacks in general, which will give more pop to colors.
But my guess is that unless you've got them side by side most people wouldn't find the difference in straight on viewing to be that noticeable, although of course the difference increases steadily as you go off-axis. And which is why I take exception to the idea that, for the way most people use their phones, super AMOLED is a stunning advancement. Better, sure, stunning, no.
Well we know what the iPhone 2010 looks like on the outside(!)
What do we think the changes of getting the FM radio w/Live Pause, Nike+ pedometer from the 5G Nano on the new iPhone? Seems odd that the flagship product is missing features. Shouldn't the flagship product (iPhone) get them in July, iPod touch in September and iPod Nano the following year?
Well we know what the iPhone 2010 looks like on the outside(!)
What do we think the changes of getting the FM radio w/Live Pause, Nike+ pedometer from the 5G Nano on the new iPhone? Seems odd that the flagship product is missing features. Shouldn't the flagship product (iPhone) get them in July, iPod touch in September and iPod Nano the following year?
Why on Earth would you want the pedometer from the Nano? The iPhone already has built-in Nike+ support with the shoe sensor (no need for the receiver), which is far better than the Nano's pedometer. The sensor is just $19 and gives you everything you need for a far better solution than a simple pedometer.
Comments
battery life and text that's where its at
reading a bunch of web pages, documents etc
i want better battery life with that screen please
+1
battery life, battery life, battery life !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Watch the video. The LCD is considerably more washed out and the black background is a hazy shade of gray. Straight-on looks as bad as it does on an angle for what you would expect black to look like.
It is a joke to consider an LCD as comparable to AMOLED or even super AMOLED.
I did watch the video. That's were I got the screen grab. Here it is again, bigger:
As I say, straight on, pretty comparable, at least in that video. AMOLED has much better off axis viewing and more color saturation.
I did watch the video. That's were I got the screen grab. Here it is again, bigger:
As I say, straight on, pretty comparable, at least in that video. AMOLED has much better off axis viewing and more color saturation.
The one on the right is considerably washed out. Blacks aren't black, grays are whitish. It's just bad color representation.
Not on the MacBook Pro I'm looking at that shot on. The differences are slight, and mostly seem to involve a bit of saturation.
It's probably the screen you're using. If you have brightness at the right level, you will see the difference and washed out colors.
Another way to see what I'm talking about is to look at the angled photos of the screen.
Watch the video. The LCD is considerably more washed out and the black background is a hazy shade of gray. Straight-on looks as bad as it does on an angle for what you would expect black to look like.
It is a joke to consider an LCD as comparable to AMOLED or even super AMOLED.
The one on the right is considerably washed out. Blacks aren't black, grays are whitish. It's just bad color representation.
It's probably the screen you're using. If you have brightness at the right level, you will see the difference and washed out colors.
Another way to see what I'm talking about is to look at the angled photos of the screen.
G3, you've got to be kidding. There is almost zero difference between those images at anything close to normal viewing angle.
G3, you've got to be kidding. There is almost zero difference between those images at anything close to normal viewing angle.
If there is a significant change when viewed at an angle, then there must be a difference when viewed straight on, but it's less significant than the side angle.
The colors are washed out regardless of what the angle is, it's just more pronounced in some angles more than others.
The screen is craptastic. LCD is a dinosaur. Apple should have AMOLED or Super AMOLED in the next screen, there shouldn't be argument about this.
G3, you've got to be kidding. There is almost zero difference between those images at anything close to normal viewing angle.
You're looking at a YouTube video of someone's crappy camera filming two phones.
The MASSIVE difference between the two at an angle should CLEARLY hint to you the difference in quality on the screen, and I'm willing to bet the difference is actually MUCH more pronounced when viewed in person. Both phones are also on the home screen, which is mostly ugly black and icons (not sure how people can stare at that all day). Compare the screen quality of both phones when they are each playing an HD video and then come back and say they look the same.
To say that the screens look exactly the same when viewed head on, despite KNOWING the absolutely massive technological difference in screen quality, is just complete fanboy denial. Seriously, you can't be THAT ignorant?
If there is a significant change when viewed at an angle, then there must be a difference when viewed straight on, but it's less significant than the side angle.
The colors are washed out regardless of what the angle is, it's just more pronounced in some angles more than others.
The screen is craptastic. LCD is a dinosaur. Apple should have AMOLED or Super AMOLED in the next screen, there shouldn't be argument about this.
Look at the goddamned images. Their is very little (if any) difference. And no, just because you see a difference at an angle--that doesn't mean there is a difference in straight viewing.
Super AMOLED might be the way to go. I'm not arguing that. I'm talking about what was posted. I would also disagree that the iPhone's screen is "craptastic."
Yep, and this is what they look like when viewed in the manner most people would be looking at their phones:
That is, pretty much indistinguishable, beyond slightly punchier colors for the AMOLED. So the big plus for AMOED is that it looks much better if I choose to look at my phone by holding it at an oblique angle, for some reason.
I watched the video as well as looked at your screenshot closely. While at first glance, there seems to be indistinguishable, a closer, longer look shows that the iPhone's screen does have a very slight grey tint to its black background. And while watching the video, the icons on the Super AMOLED screen pops and stands out more. There's this...haze...that the iPhone screen has. I'm talking about the direct-on viewing.
The iPhone screen is by no means crappy, but it just isn't as vibrant.
I watched the video as well as looked at your screenshot closely. While at first glance, there seems to be indistinguishable, a closer, longer look shows that the iPhone's screen does have a very slight grey tint to its black background. And while watching the video, the icons on the Super AMOLED screen pops and stands out more. There's this...haze...that the iPhone screen has. I'm talking about the direct-on viewing.
The iPhone screen is by no means crappy, but it just isn't as vibrant.
Sure, I've got no problem with that. From what I've read, super AMOLED should be able to do better blacks in general, which will give more pop to colors.
But my guess is that unless you've got them side by side most people wouldn't find the difference in straight on viewing to be that noticeable, although of course the difference increases steadily as you go off-axis. And which is why I take exception to the idea that, for the way most people use their phones, super AMOLED is a stunning advancement. Better, sure, stunning, no.
What do we think the changes of getting the FM radio w/Live Pause, Nike+ pedometer from the 5G Nano on the new iPhone? Seems odd that the flagship product is missing features. Shouldn't the flagship product (iPhone) get them in July, iPod touch in September and iPod Nano the following year?
Well we know what the iPhone 2010 looks like on the outside(!)
What do we think the changes of getting the FM radio w/Live Pause, Nike+ pedometer from the 5G Nano on the new iPhone? Seems odd that the flagship product is missing features. Shouldn't the flagship product (iPhone) get them in July, iPod touch in September and iPod Nano the following year?
Why on Earth would you want the pedometer from the Nano? The iPhone already has built-in Nike+ support with the shoe sensor (no need for the receiver), which is far better than the Nano's pedometer. The sensor is just $19 and gives you everything you need for a far better solution than a simple pedometer.