The contrast levels on IPS screens are absolutely amazing and better than any other screen by a country mile with the one exception of AMOLED. To characterise the excellent although admittedly "second best" contrast of Apple's screens as "poor" is extremely misleading at best.
Actually, he didn't characterize it as "poor". He characterized it as "relatively poor". As in, "in relation to" a Super AMOLED. I would certainly classify a contrast ratio of 800:1 as "relatively poor" in comparison to 100,000:1, wouldn't you?
I just don't understand the level of hypocrisy around here. The iPhone does very well from a user experience perspective in spite of the fact that its specs are generally (though not always) inferior to high end Android phones. Whenever specs (processor speed, camera MP, screen size, NFC, etc.) are brought up to imply that the iPhone is behind the curve, the ensuing ruckus could wake the dead. Clearly you all agree that lower specs don't necessarily diminish the quality of a well-designed product. With that in mind, why pan this display, which none of you have seen, when by all accounts it will lead to a wonderful user experience?
"Specs" refer to features or numbers that are represented on a spec sheet, but really only tell part of the story as far as real world performance is concerned. Ghz, RAM, MPs are perfect examples of "specs". So is as-of-yet impractical features such as NFC. Humans tend to gravitate to specs, as they allow us to quantify which is "best" and fall back on heuristic crutch arguments, like "8MPs is better than 5"... which could be correct, but doesn't necessarily correlate specifically with the number of MPs. But it looks good on paper, and makes our decisions "easier".
Arguing about the quality of the display does not fit the "specs" argument, unless you start splitting hairs about the number of PPI (326 vs 315). It's perfectly fair to analyze the quality, color accuracy, etc. It's important to note, however, that, much like screen size, much is subjective to the person, and there is not exactly one right or wrong answer.
Not having uses a SUPER AMOLED+ (seriously?) screen, I can't form a subjective decision. All I know is that, to me, the 4S's display is absolutely perfect, and I don't really see how you could improve upon it. If Samsung's display really is "better" is likely a marginal difference at best.
Actually, he didn't characterize it as "poor". He characterized it as "relatively poor". As in, "in relation to" a Super AMOLED. I would certainly classify a contrast ratio of 800:1 as "relatively poor" in comparison to 100,000:1, wouldn't you?
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
I just don't understand the level of hypocrisy around here. The iPhone does very well from a user experience perspective in spite of the fact that its specs are generally (though not always) inferior to high end Android phones. Whenever specs (processor speed, camera MP, screen size, NFC, etc.) are brought up to imply that the iPhone is behind the curve, the ensuing ruckus could wake the dead. Clearly you all agree that lower specs don't necessarily diminish the quality of a well-designed product. With that in mind, why pan this display, which none of you have seen, when by all accounts it will lead to a wonderful user experience?
Look at everyone's impression of the device. Every single person that has had hands on time with this device say it's absolutely gorgeous and incredibly responsive.
That's all we have to go off right now since nobody on this board has actually touched or seen this in person. Just saying... The people that CAN judge it have said nothing but good things about it.
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
Easily. Show a completely black image on your iphone, and compare it to a completely black image on any amoled android.
"Specs" refer to features or numbers that are represented on a spec sheet, but really only tell part of the story as far as real world performance is concerned. Ghz, RAM, MPs are perfect examples of "specs". So is as-of-yet impractical features such as NFC. Humans tend to gravitate to specs, as they allow us to quantify which is "best" and fall back on heuristic crutch arguments, like "8MPs is better than 5"... which could be correct, but doesn't necessarily correlate specifically with the number of MPs. But it looks good on paper, and makes our decisions "easier".
Arguing about the quality of the display does not fit the "specs" argument, unless you start splitting hairs about the number of PPI (326 vs 315). It's perfectly fair to analyze the quality, color accuracy, etc. It's important to note, however, that, much like screen size, much is subjective to the person, and there is not exactly one right or wrong answer.
Not having uses a SUPER AMOLED+ (seriously?) screen, I can't form a subjective decision. All I know is that, to me, the 4S's display is absolutely perfect, and I don't really see how you could improve upon it. If Samsung's display really is "better" is likely a marginal difference at best.
To me it sounds like we agree totally. The article was talking about the PPI and the subpixel count, both of which are numbers describing and object (the very definition of a specification). Just in case we aren't in agreement, my point was that the lower PPI that the article and some of the readers were trashing probably will not actually lead to an inferior user experience. My other point is that too many readers and authors on this site are blind to their hypocrisy. We agree, don't we?
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
That 2,000,000 : 1 on your TV is dynamic contrast ratio, which is a completely useless spec. TV manufacturers use it to fool customers.
However, iPhone's 800:1 and Super AMOLED's 100,000:1 are both values for static contrast ratios. And the difference is clearly visible.
"The panel looks downright gorgeous, with unbeatable viewing angles, remarkably crisp text and graphics and a beautiful feel as one swipes across it"
Don't tell me, that was said by someone in cheerleader mode, just like Andy Rubin, who said about Siri:
"I don?t believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn?t be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone."
Here's an observation:
****
Gsheep can delude themselves just as much as iSheep.
I just don't understand the level of hypocrisy around here. The iPhone does very well from a user experience perspective in spite of the fact that its specs are generally (though not always) inferior to high end Android phones. Whenever specs (processor speed, camera MP, screen size, NFC, etc.) are brought up to imply that the iPhone is behind the curve, the ensuing ruckus could wake the dead. Clearly you all agree that lower specs don't necessarily diminish the quality of a well-designed product. With that in mind, why pan this display, which none of you have seen, when by all accounts it will lead to a wonderful user experience?
What is funny to watch is the response when iPhone hardware is shown to be superior to Android phones where the ASSUMPTION is always made that Android hardware HAS to be superior.
Daniel Eran Dilger, also known for roughlydrafted.com
Just to add context, Slash is one of his known aliases. Though even if it was unknown, DED's Title choices and wording style is fairly easy to spot.
That being said, there is a HUGE difference between LCD Pentile (or rather, what you see on the atrix, bionic, etc) and what you'll see on a AMOLED screen.
I have an AMOLED Incredible (the same basic screen as the Nexus 1). I don't notice the banding effect unless I put it side by side my old droid (which is LCD), but even then I have to look for it. Compare that to the Bionic, where the banding is a lot easier to spot.
And none of those screens are superAMOLED. Does it have as many sub pixels per inch as the iphone4? No. Does it matter? No. Every hands on (there are no real reviews yet) says that the screen looks amazing. I know that this is hard for some people to accept, but it is possible to have an amazing product without being the "first" in increasingly nonsensical areas.
There are always tradeoffs and compromises with such young technology.
"I want it all, I want it all, I want it all....."
Knowing that there are tradeoffs is one of the reasons that I generally buy Apple products. Apple seems to know where to make the tradeoffs in such a way as to get the most useful device possible within the technology limitations. Competitors' products generally tend to focus on specs rather than usability.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom
Quoting people that have used the device...
"The panel looks downright gorgeous, with unbeatable viewing angles, remarkably crisp text and graphics and a beautiful feel as one swipes across it"
Find a single bad first impression of the screen. Tip: You can't. It's still super amoled. Even when compared side by side with any iphone 4.
Pentile Matrix has better outdoor performance, white performance, and better battery life. At that PPI, you would have to put it under a microscope to see subpixels.
Not sure why this article is trying to imply that the iphone4's screen is any better.... I sure hope everyone has compared things like black performance between an iphone's LCD display and any amoled display
It's fun to watch you guys dig to the bottom of the barrel to try and find something wrong with it.
It's funny to watch the Android shills come out of the woodwork any time anyone suggests that their product is anything less than God's gift to the universe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MaroonMushroom
Look at everyone's impression of the device. Every single person that has had hands on time with this device say it's absolutely gorgeous and incredibly responsive.
That's all we have to go off right now since nobody on this board has actually touched or seen this in person. Just saying... The people that CAN judge it have said nothing but good things about it.
Just curious - how do you know if EVERYONE's impression is so overwhelmingly positive if you don't know anyone who has used one?
Oh, I get it. You're telling us what Samsung wants you to say.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
About the ONLY time the blacker blacks are useful is watching movies. Otherwise its absolutely worthless.
And even then, on a screen so small, it barely makes any difference.
ROTFLMAO. So when there's some tiny, insignificant advantage to an Android phone, it's the end for Apple - even if you need a microscope to see it, but a visible, obvious disadvantage to the Samsung phone is insignificant - just because you say so?
Comments
...but relatively poor black-levels.
Actually not.
The contrast levels on IPS screens are absolutely amazing and better than any other screen by a country mile with the one exception of AMOLED. To characterise the excellent although admittedly "second best" contrast of Apple's screens as "poor" is extremely misleading at best.
Actually, he didn't characterize it as "poor". He characterized it as "relatively poor". As in, "in relation to" a Super AMOLED. I would certainly classify a contrast ratio of 800:1 as "relatively poor" in comparison to 100,000:1, wouldn't you?
I just don't understand the level of hypocrisy around here. The iPhone does very well from a user experience perspective in spite of the fact that its specs are generally (though not always) inferior to high end Android phones. Whenever specs (processor speed, camera MP, screen size, NFC, etc.) are brought up to imply that the iPhone is behind the curve, the ensuing ruckus could wake the dead. Clearly you all agree that lower specs don't necessarily diminish the quality of a well-designed product. With that in mind, why pan this display, which none of you have seen, when by all accounts it will lead to a wonderful user experience?
"Specs" refer to features or numbers that are represented on a spec sheet, but really only tell part of the story as far as real world performance is concerned. Ghz, RAM, MPs are perfect examples of "specs". So is as-of-yet impractical features such as NFC. Humans tend to gravitate to specs, as they allow us to quantify which is "best" and fall back on heuristic crutch arguments, like "8MPs is better than 5"... which could be correct, but doesn't necessarily correlate specifically with the number of MPs. But it looks good on paper, and makes our decisions "easier".
Arguing about the quality of the display does not fit the "specs" argument, unless you start splitting hairs about the number of PPI (326 vs 315). It's perfectly fair to analyze the quality, color accuracy, etc. It's important to note, however, that, much like screen size, much is subjective to the person, and there is not exactly one right or wrong answer.
Not having uses a SUPER AMOLED+ (seriously?) screen, I can't form a subjective decision. All I know is that, to me, the 4S's display is absolutely perfect, and I don't really see how you could improve upon it. If Samsung's display really is "better" is likely a marginal difference at best.
Actually, he didn't characterize it as "poor". He characterized it as "relatively poor". As in, "in relation to" a Super AMOLED. I would certainly classify a contrast ratio of 800:1 as "relatively poor" in comparison to 100,000:1, wouldn't you?
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
I just don't understand the level of hypocrisy around here. The iPhone does very well from a user experience perspective in spite of the fact that its specs are generally (though not always) inferior to high end Android phones. Whenever specs (processor speed, camera MP, screen size, NFC, etc.) are brought up to imply that the iPhone is behind the curve, the ensuing ruckus could wake the dead. Clearly you all agree that lower specs don't necessarily diminish the quality of a well-designed product. With that in mind, why pan this display, which none of you have seen, when by all accounts it will lead to a wonderful user experience?
Look at everyone's impression of the device. Every single person that has had hands on time with this device say it's absolutely gorgeous and incredibly responsive.
That's all we have to go off right now since nobody on this board has actually touched or seen this in person. Just saying... The people that CAN judge it have said nothing but good things about it.
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
Easily. Show a completely black image on your iphone, and compare it to a completely black image on any amoled android.
The difference is huge.
"... gives it a lower pixel density and poorer color accuracy than Apple's Superior Retina Display
without that, it just sounds boring.
"Specs" refer to features or numbers that are represented on a spec sheet, but really only tell part of the story as far as real world performance is concerned. Ghz, RAM, MPs are perfect examples of "specs". So is as-of-yet impractical features such as NFC. Humans tend to gravitate to specs, as they allow us to quantify which is "best" and fall back on heuristic crutch arguments, like "8MPs is better than 5"... which could be correct, but doesn't necessarily correlate specifically with the number of MPs. But it looks good on paper, and makes our decisions "easier".
Arguing about the quality of the display does not fit the "specs" argument, unless you start splitting hairs about the number of PPI (326 vs 315). It's perfectly fair to analyze the quality, color accuracy, etc. It's important to note, however, that, much like screen size, much is subjective to the person, and there is not exactly one right or wrong answer.
Not having uses a SUPER AMOLED+ (seriously?) screen, I can't form a subjective decision. All I know is that, to me, the 4S's display is absolutely perfect, and I don't really see how you could improve upon it. If Samsung's display really is "better" is likely a marginal difference at best.
To me it sounds like we agree totally. The article was talking about the PPI and the subpixel count, both of which are numbers describing and object (the very definition of a specification). Just in case we aren't in agreement, my point was that the lower PPI that the article and some of the readers were trashing probably will not actually lead to an inferior user experience. My other point is that too many readers and authors on this site are blind to their hypocrisy. We agree, don't we?
Should have added the word 'Superior' to the first sentence.
"... gives it a lower pixel density and poorer color accuracy than Apple's Superior Retina Display
without that, it just sounds boring.
Inferior works too. It's LCD...
Is that contrast ratio use the same calculation as Plasma TVs? I know my Samsung plasma has a "2,000,000:1" contrast ratio... But it's not really any noticeably different than a Samsung LCD with a much "lower" contrast ratio; I had read its not a universal calculation.
Or perhaps it's that 800:1 is so good, that "1,000,000:1" isn't as noticeably better than you'd think. Can you really detect that blacks are 1,250x more black?
That 2,000,000 : 1 on your TV is dynamic contrast ratio, which is a completely useless spec. TV manufacturers use it to fool customers.
However, iPhone's 800:1 and Super AMOLED's 100,000:1 are both values for static contrast ratios. And the difference is clearly visible.
That 2,000,000 : 1 on your TV is dynamic contrast ratio, which is a completely useless spec. TV manufacturers use it to fool customers.
However, iPhone's 800:1 and Super AMOLED's 100,000:1 are both values for static contrast ratios. And the difference is clearly visible.
Agreed.
Still, the easiest way to show this is putting a full black image on your devices when you compare them.
Difference is night and day
Quoting people that have used the device...
"The panel looks downright gorgeous, with unbeatable viewing angles, remarkably crisp text and graphics and a beautiful feel as one swipes across it"
Don't tell me, that was said by someone in cheerleader mode, just like Andy Rubin, who said about Siri:
"I don?t believe that your phone should be an assistant. Your phone is a tool for communicating. You shouldn?t be communicating with the phone; you should be communicating with somebody on the other side of the phone."
Here's an observation:
****
Gsheep can delude themselves just as much as iSheep.
***
***
Here's another perspective on Pentile displays: http://techcrunch.com/2011/10/20/the...8TechCrunch%29
Galaxy Nexus is at 315
Iphone is at 326
amoled will outperform the LCD any day
It has a "real" ppi of 200... Thats the whole freaking point of the article.
Agreed.
Still, the easiest way to show this is putting a full black image on your devices when you compare them.
Difference is night and day
About the ONLY time the blacker blacks are useful is watching movies. Otherwise its absolutely worthless.
And even then, on a screen so small, it barely makes any difference.
I just don't understand the level of hypocrisy around here. The iPhone does very well from a user experience perspective in spite of the fact that its specs are generally (though not always) inferior to high end Android phones. Whenever specs (processor speed, camera MP, screen size, NFC, etc.) are brought up to imply that the iPhone is behind the curve, the ensuing ruckus could wake the dead. Clearly you all agree that lower specs don't necessarily diminish the quality of a well-designed product. With that in mind, why pan this display, which none of you have seen, when by all accounts it will lead to a wonderful user experience?
What is funny to watch is the response when iPhone hardware is shown to be superior to Android phones where the ASSUMPTION is always made that Android hardware HAS to be superior.
Why is that, is it because the OS is so shit?
Who or what is DED?
Daniel Eran Dilger, also known for roughlydrafted.com
Easily. Show a completely black image on your iphone, and compare it to a completely black image on any amoled android.
The difference is huge.
Easily, show black text on a white background on an Amoled pentile display and compare it to the IPS LCD retina display of an iPhone.
The difference is huge!
Now the question is, do I spend more time looking at completely black images or looking at screens of text?
Daniel Eran Dilger, also known for roughlydrafted.com
Just to add context, Slash is one of his known aliases. Though even if it was unknown, DED's Title choices and wording style is fairly easy to spot.
That being said, there is a HUGE difference between LCD Pentile (or rather, what you see on the atrix, bionic, etc) and what you'll see on a AMOLED screen.
I have an AMOLED Incredible (the same basic screen as the Nexus 1). I don't notice the banding effect unless I put it side by side my old droid (which is LCD), but even then I have to look for it. Compare that to the Bionic, where the banding is a lot easier to spot.
And none of those screens are superAMOLED. Does it have as many sub pixels per inch as the iphone4? No. Does it matter? No. Every hands on (there are no real reviews yet) says that the screen looks amazing. I know that this is hard for some people to accept, but it is possible to have an amazing product without being the "first" in increasingly nonsensical areas.
I new the minute I saw that headline that this was written by DED.
Oh wait, never mind. Apparently the problems with Android are not just the conspiracy cocktails of one person, but fetid, gravid and endemic.
Slash Lane is DED to me.
There are always tradeoffs and compromises with such young technology.
"I want it all, I want it all, I want it all....."
Knowing that there are tradeoffs is one of the reasons that I generally buy Apple products. Apple seems to know where to make the tradeoffs in such a way as to get the most useful device possible within the technology limitations. Competitors' products generally tend to focus on specs rather than usability.
Quoting people that have used the device...
"The panel looks downright gorgeous, with unbeatable viewing angles, remarkably crisp text and graphics and a beautiful feel as one swipes across it"
Find a single bad first impression of the screen. Tip: You can't. It's still super amoled. Even when compared side by side with any iphone 4.
Pentile Matrix has better outdoor performance, white performance, and better battery life. At that PPI, you would have to put it under a microscope to see subpixels.
Not sure why this article is trying to imply that the iphone4's screen is any better.... I sure hope everyone has compared things like black performance between an iphone's LCD display and any amoled display
It's fun to watch you guys dig to the bottom of the barrel to try and find something wrong with it.
It's funny to watch the Android shills come out of the woodwork any time anyone suggests that their product is anything less than God's gift to the universe.
Look at everyone's impression of the device. Every single person that has had hands on time with this device say it's absolutely gorgeous and incredibly responsive.
That's all we have to go off right now since nobody on this board has actually touched or seen this in person. Just saying... The people that CAN judge it have said nothing but good things about it.
Just curious - how do you know if EVERYONE's impression is so overwhelmingly positive if you don't know anyone who has used one?
Oh, I get it. You're telling us what Samsung wants you to say.....
About the ONLY time the blacker blacks are useful is watching movies. Otherwise its absolutely worthless.
And even then, on a screen so small, it barely makes any difference.
ROTFLMAO. So when there's some tiny, insignificant advantage to an Android phone, it's the end for Apple - even if you need a microscope to see it, but a visible, obvious disadvantage to the Samsung phone is insignificant - just because you say so?
Gotcha.