Related
The one thing I wish the EVO had going for it is an AMOLED screen. I'm coming from a Nexus one with said screen, and it's gorgeous. Almost useless in direct sunlight, but gorgeous. Now their was an early Sprint ?Coming Soon site claiming the phone had an AMOLED screen http://www.androidguys.com/2010/03/28/sprints-htc-evo-4git-sizzles/ ---but this was prob an error. My question is: is their a huge, noticeable, difference in the two types of screens? EVO owners, give me your opinions!
thefoss said:
The one thing I wish the EVO had going for it is an AMOLED screen. I'm coming from a Nexus one with said screen, and it's gorgeous. Almost useless in direct sunlight, but gorgeous. Now their was an early Sprint ?Coming Soon site claiming the phone had an AMOLED screen http://www.androidguys.com/2010/03/28/sprints-htc-evo-4git-sizzles/ ---but this was prob an error. My question is: is their a huge, noticeable, difference in the two types of screens? EVO owners, give me your opinions!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just had a live evo in my hands, and the screen is a beaut. I wouldnt worry about it not being AMOLED at all.
The screen is really a great screen.
I really don't notice much of a difference in colors / contrast / etc when compared to the ZuneHD, maybe it's the higher resolution / size that makes it look just as good.
meh, on the whole, AMOLED is all hype no show
AMOLED is trash I have a Nexus and an Evo and in direct sunlight my EVO is noticeable, AMOLED drains battery, LCD saves, colors are sharper but not brighter on AMOLED, brightness all the way up they both match up but the nexus(AMOLED) has a sharper scene
all in all not a big differ and Evo screen (IMO) has a better screen
1- colors are the same but sharper in AMOLED
2- direct sunlight LCD wins
3- colors are both bright
4- LCD battery saver
just a few details!
I thought that the amoled was more efficient.. so better than lcd
????
Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk
Dan330 said:
I thought that the amoled was more efficient.. so better than lcd
????
Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its not, uses more battery
Phone Scoop comparesEvo screen to Nexus One Amoled
See below for review comparing the Evo screen to the Nexus One Amoled
Here is the link to the full article.
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=373&p=2666
Screen
The screen on the HTC Evo 4G was, at times, a bit disappointing. Under medium indoor light, the screen is crisp and clear. Text looks sharp and legible and the dark, contrasty interface looks polished. Outside, the Evo 4G couldn't hold up to bright daylight. This made it tough to use for normal email and calling tasks, and nearly impossible to use the camera, since you have to tap an onscreen button to take a shot. In almost every way, the screen fared better than the AMOLED display on the smaller Nexus One. It was a bit brighter with warmer colors and much better outdoor performance. But it could still stand some improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SoFarGone said:
its not, uses more battery
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect, AMOLED has no back light and consumes roughly the same power that a TFT LCD uses just on the TFT portion of the screen. The TFT Portion of a Active Matrix OLED screen controls light on a PerPixel basis, illuminating each OLED pixel at whatever color is required vs LCD where the current is constantly on(except in a pure 0 0 0 black pixel) and controlling the Liquid Crystal portion rotating the LC to whatever degree to allow the backlight(A large % of the consumption) to shine through at a given color. And because of AMOLEDs aforementioned lack of back light it uses significantly less power.
I'm also confused as to what you mean by "color sharpness" Are you talking about the actual edge sharpness of an image or the color reproduction.
In which case the color reproduction on a AMOLED is more SATURATED not specifically more accurate, though the increased saturation makes the image appear better on average because most people enjoy over saturated images. The contrast ratio, which is the ratio of black to white, e.g. when a TV says it has a 3,500:1 contrast ratio then the luminance of a pure white pixel 255,255,255 is 3,500 times higher than that of a pure black 0,0,0 pixel. AMOLED displayes typically have a much higher contrast ratio due to the lack of a back light and the fact they can produce much "deeper" black pixels.
AMOLED actually bugs me, not only are they useless in direct sunlight(which I find myself under quite often) but it feels like colors are often OVER saturated, like the reds and oranges on my friend's Incredible look awful while I've never had that with my Hero, some colors on mine might be washed out but I'd rather have that than have a giant hodgepodge of colors on an AMOLED.
Another thing to consider is AMOLEDs "burn in". That means that pixels that do not change on the screen for a long time tend to burn in and show permanent shadows. This happens on the status bar a lot since it is nearly always displayed and unchanging.
Here is a thread of NexusOne owners documenting it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=673513
As of last week I just switch over from At&t to Sprint wireless. I had two lines on my contract, wifey with the Samsung Moment and myself with the HTC Hero just to hold me off until the Evo release.
From what I thought isn't the Samsung Moment screen also uses the Amoled technology and the Hero is LCD?
Side by side comparison from low brightness to 100 percent, the Hero display looks so much better quality wise compare to the Moment. Hero seem more saturated and crisp whereas the Moment IMO seem much more dulled. Especially in the setting menu with the black background, the Moment is kind of like greenish black whereas the Hero is spot on black. Outside I'm having a very difficulty time navigating around Moment (brightness all the way up) whereas the Hero is still manageable.
By any mean I'm no expert in this display stuff but this is just my own little comparison of what I've seen between the two display.
Anyone know if the Evo screen is transreflective? A related question would be, is it even possible for AMOLED to be transreflective?
I compared my Evo screen with my old Hero screen and the Hero was a little brighter and with darker blacks. Even between LCDs there are differences.
Everyone has been raving on the DVP's screen, but having had the HD7 while waiting for my DVP to arrive, I've gotta say - I have mixed emotions!
While the colors are substantially better side by side...anyone notice how pixelated the DVP's screen is on text and such? The battery indicator is a good example of what I'm talking about...
I think I might actually prefer the LCD of the HD7 better, despite the lesser black level and color saturation.
Anyone else have any thoughts?
I see what you are talking about... I didn't realize this before you mentioned.
AMOLED in VP is a little bit too much saturated and the HD7 is a wee bit too washed up
A middle ground would have been awesome.
Maybe SLCD or SAMOELD hits that middle ground. My friend is getting the Captivate, will compare this side by side and let you know.
I have a slight blue tint on my whites at certain angles. I dont see a big difference in the two screens, but i expected more from the AMOLED.
937dytboi said:
I have a slight blue tint on my whites at certain angles. I dont see a big difference in the two screens, but i expected more from the AMOLED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think that was my big let-down. I had (probably overinflated) high expectations of the AMOLED. I didn't see much on the net talking about it, and in fact, most reviews talk about the sharpness of the display, so I was confused if it was just my unit?
I *WAS* able to find a couple of sites that talk about AMOLED having sub-pixels vs a standard LCD/SLCD, and therefore it's not as good for small text or sharpness...
I must say, though, I love the keyboard, and I'm still going to keep the DVP over the HD7 - just a little surprised at the lack of impact from the screen, considering what they've done to build this device (gorilla glass, etc).
I agree with you on the fact that the AMOLED on the dvp has noticeable pixels more than the HD2 that I have. What’s even more sad is that they have the same resolution yet HD2 has a larger screen – Thus I should see more pixels from the HD2, however, this is the opposite.
Why does the DVP have noticeable pixels? Can anyone compare this with the Nexus One and see if they are the same?
Pen-tile matrix effect, probably what you are seeing here. However I cant see what scenario would occur to make me prefer the washed out screen of the HD7, just too darn low quality for me.
Its the nature of the AMOLED screens, my Focus had the same thing. However, overall, I find the screen on the DVP far, far superior to the HD7.
it was my understanding this is more a fault with windows phone 7 as it does not use 16m colours like the display can do.
Personally owning both.. the DVP has a MUCH better screen. Especailly if you change brightness to high.
ive never see an amoled screen before, but coming from the HD2, i was very disappointed.
i guess the hype of amoled screens made me have high expectations which were too high by the time i saw a real amoled screen.
Now that I have a DVP in hand all I can say is the difference is clear, the Dell's AMOLED screen is superior. Maybe some are being swayed by the size but for someone who has had an HD2 for almost 9 months the size is not really a factor and the lack of colour, dim lifeless screen is just no competition for the AMOLED on the Dell.
HD7 Advantages
+Noticeable advantage in color accuracy
+Larger screen offers better spacing on keyboard (portrait)
+Good black levels while inside optimum viewing angles
+/-Brightness is more than adequate (auto brightness is a little conservative though)
+/-Decent viewing angles (No issues during regular use)
HD7 disadvantages
-/+Decent viewing angles (Poor viewing angles make kickstand less useful)
-Slightly less responsive (my opinion)
-Lacks sharpness while viewing pictures (not sure why but they aren't as sharp as the rest of the time with the HD7)
-Color saturation could be better
Venue Pro Advantages
+Excellent contrast with fantastic black levels
+Slightly more responsive touchscreen (my opinion)
+Good brightness
+Excellent color saturation (somewhat oversaturated though)
+Perfect size (my opinion)
+/-Sharpness (pixels aren't noticeable during normal use)
Venue Pro Disadvantages
-/+Sharpness (some users may notice more pixelation)
-Very high color temperature (extremely unusual coming from a calibrated display)
-Can't use the brightness to your advantage without battery drain
-Keyboard felt a little cramped coming from the HD7
I miss the color accuracy of the HD7 but love the size and responsiveness of the Venue Pro. The HD7 gets a bad reputation because of viewing angles but during normal use this is a non-issue and possible advantage with curious onlookers (there will be plenty). It offers better black levels and shadow detail than the iphone 4 but gets hammered for viewing angles. The Venue Pro offers fantastic build quality, an almost perfect size (my opinion) and a more responsive touchscreen (my opinion). It has a very high color temperature but offers superb black levels and color saturation. It is also sleeker than I had anticipated from all the comments saying that it is a beast.
Sorry for the double post
Samsung has bastardized AMOLED with pentile imo. It prolongs display life but the tradeoff in picture quality is too great. There are AMOLED's with normal subpixels, and they look fantastic (Cowon S9, Zune HD, etc).
drleospaceman said:
Samsung has bastardized AMOLED with pentile imo. It prolongs display life but the tradeoff in picture quality is too great. There are AMOLED's with normal subpixels, and they look fantastic (Cowon S9, Zune HD, etc).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a great point - the ZuneHD I have looks amazing! Still loving my phone, though...
Zoom Sharpness?
I purchased the DVP to have something that will show my pictures a little more accurately than the LCD I have on my HD2 (the slightly extra saturation is better than the washed out look on the HD2) but I now find that there is no sharpness to the images when zooming in.
I have a photo of the lights of Chicago at night and when at the full screen zoom level, it looks ok but zoom in and it is a blurry mess. My HD2 is very sharp when zoomed.
In the Zune software I have tried full size pictures compressed by Zune, pre-compressed images with Zune left on "Original" with no compression and nothing seems to make the images better when zoomed.
Anyone else seeing this problem? This could be a deal breaker for me as far as AMOLED screens go unless it is a WP7 problem. I would love to see how my images look on a Droid device with AMOLED.
jetjockgordo said:
I purchased the DVP to have something that will show my pictures a little more accurately than the LCD I have on my HD2 (the slightly extra saturation is better than the washed out look on the HD2) but I now find that there is no sharpness to the images when zooming in.
I have a photo of the lights of Chicago at night and when at the full screen zoom level, it looks ok but zoom in and it is a blurry mess. My HD2 is very sharp when zoomed.
In the Zune software I have tried full size pictures compressed by Zune, pre-compressed images with Zune left on "Original" with no compression and nothing seems to make the images better when zoomed.
Anyone else seeing this problem? This could be a deal breaker for me as far as AMOLED screens go unless it is a WP7 problem. I would love to see how my images look on a Droid device with AMOLED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you. Images seem way too pixilated. I mean, I can actually see them which is so sad when I compare it to the HD2. When I am going to do is wait for WP7 to be release on the HD2 by Cotulla and then compare if it the OS or specifically the DVP.
Has anyone seen another amoled screen before in real life? This is my first time I’ve seen an amoled screen. I am not impressed…. At all. Lol but the colors are lovely. Image quality drops, while color saturation grains points
If you read the Cnet phone screen shootout you will see that the HD7 has some pixelation on images of text when zoomed. I have also seen some softness and pixelation on my wifes HD7 when zoomed in. This only really seems to be when viewing images so I would guess it is OS related and not specific to the Venue Pro.
I own a Nexus S and DVP and the dell is getting returned today. Main reason is android is a better fit for me but close second is NS screen is head and shoulders better. No pixelation like I had on dvp.
I think I had a lemon too my dvp was freezing quite a bit.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
ruprick said:
I own a Nexus S and DVP and the dell is getting returned today. Main reason is android is a better fit for me but close second is NS screen is head and shoulders better. No pixelation like I had on dvp.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I find this odd. I had a Focus and an Epic 4G - both have the same screen as the Nexus S - and they had the same pixelation issue as the DVP. It has to do with the AMOLED screen.
I heard that only at first Htc used Amoled display for Legend, and later on Super lcd. How to check the type of our scrren (display)?
Sent from my HTC Legend using XDA App
read the specs on back of the white box the legend was in
I just know about AMOLED Devices.
The switch from AMOLED to SuperLCD has been done at the Desire and as far as I know not on the Legend
I am very satisfied with display on Legend. Is there any significant difference (better or worse) with S-LCD?
well i compared it with a SLCD htc desire and i think the AMOLED is much better
Legend only uses AMOLED anyway, don't worry about it
S-LCD almost the same that amoled, only maybe contrast have some little difference
if i'm not mistaken
s-lcd
Super LCD is much nice when reading text and websites AMOLED is better for watching video,
SLCD is much sharper but isnt stand out bright and over saturated like AMOLED which is fuzzy and soft around sharp corners like text
look here and it shows you actual pictures were you can see the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Desire
jul644 said:
Super LCD is much nice when reading text and websites AMOLED is better for watching video,
SLCD is much sharper but isnt stand out bright and over saturated like AMOLED which is fuzzy and soft around sharp corners like text
look here and it shows you actual pictures were you can see the difference
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTC_Desire
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Note though that the Desire AMOLED had a PenTile arrangement which seems to account for the marked difference in the shift to SLCD. The Legend's AMOLED screen uses a conventional RGB arrangement so probably wouldn't have suffered the same comparisons had it also moved to SLCD.
This page has a good breakdown of the differences.
http://jtra.cz/stuff/android/htc/desire-vs-legend/display/index.html
Yes, you are all right. I have bought desire z and I can see the difference. S-lcd is much sharper, but amoled has much better contrast - black is really black
Sent from my HTC Vision using XDA App
Some webshops often say that the black HTC legend is equiped with LCD and the silver one with AMOLED. My collegue has a black one, I have a silver one and both have amoled.
You can easily see the difference when you tilt them. Amoled's colors almost don't change (even if you're almost at 180°), LCD's colors go weird...
kyomity said:
Some webshops often say that the black HTC legend is equiped with LCD and the silver one with AMOLED. My collegue has a black one, I have a silver one and both have amoled.
You can easily see the difference when you tilt them. Amoled's colors almost don't change (even if you're almost at 180°), LCD's colors go weird...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, Thanks ! Is that the simple way to tell ?
My new Virgin Mobile Canada Legend's box says AMOLED but I think the box is lying. Wonder if I can sue somebody, LOL, jk. I guess HTC may be at partial fault too since their spec page claims AMOLED: http://www.htc.com/www/product/legend/specification.html
I recall some article quoting an HTC rep saying the "backward" move to LCD would save power, but then tests (and common tech sense?) showed that was a lie. I originally was disappointed at the loss of AMOLED, but from what I've read though, I'd prefer LCD if given the choice, simply due to the better legibility. On the down side, LCD takes more power, doesn't have the deeper blacks and colors, and may be a bit harder to see in the bright outdoors.
Bell supposedly dropped the Legend because of the AMOLED supply issue. AFAIK all of the later (after last summer or there-abouts ?) Legends are LCD. Would be nice if we could tell via serial numbers or something.
My Legend's colors start going weird somewhere around 170 degrees or so (just a rough guess). So I guess I have LCD ?
You could also take a cheap microscope and look at the screen. The difference is startling. Amoled will be made up of a lot of lines, more red than blue (I think). LCD would look completely different
Sent from my Legend using XDA App
TheGrammarFreak said:
You could also take a cheap microscope and look at the screen. The difference is startling. Amoled will be made up of a lot of lines, more red than blue (I think). LCD would look completely different
Sent from my Legend using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With the screen on and white, right ? I tried this with a jewelers loupe and see lines about twice as high vertically as horizontaly (with the phone speaker up and mike down). It looks like there are thin red lines and thicker green lines that are somewhat blue-ish.
Would there be any difference in device drivers loaded ? I see a driver in dmesg with "oled" in the name.
This microscope diagnostic method will not work on Legend and it has an RGB matrix - the Desire LED had pentile matrix.
All you have to do is display a mostly black screen (the android settings menu is a good example), find a dark environment and look at the display. An SLCD will seep light from black areas where an LED will be an almost perfect black.
Sent from my HTC Legend using XDA App
i have legend with amoled my friend have desire (i guess it lcd)
i can notice his display has slight better screen in the menu like smoother or something but on the legend view aspect is higher than on the desire....
both of them are good
Ok, so there was a huge thread going on about the differences and about the samoled+ being over-saturated and such: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1016334&highlight=pentile&page=4
It has been closed down, for a reason. Egos where burning up, and with every argument more friendliness disappeared.
I think it all started with a picture of parrots, where you couldn't see the black on the feathers good enough or something. (damn its starting to sound really silly atm)
ANYWAY, I wanted to clear up the parrot issue, samsung uses something called DNIe+ to improve the rendering an imaging of pictures and video's. Since the shown pictures are quite old, it was using the demo version of the s2, which had (pretty much untested) DNIe+.
Try the picture on your own phone and you will see what I mean. Samsung did a good job fixing the (oversaturation blah blah blah) colouring. We can all be happy now with a nice vibrant screen. And if you cant handle it, get the I9003 which uses some cheaper tech
Peace
Heres a link explaining what it does for samsung tv's which is in fact quite similar..
http://www.techtipspro.com/2009/08/what-is-dnie-pro-in-samsung-tv.html
The problem with doing comparative studies of displays with camera is the fact that most people do full brightness tests.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED Plus both tend to have much higher brightness and contrast ratio than LCDs.
If you are using auto settings to shoot, your camera will adjust aperture and shutter which wont be suitable for either LCD(be it retina, SLCD SCLCD) or SAMOLED display. It will either make AMOLED looks too bright and washed out or it will make LCD too dark.
The best way to do this is to use your eyes to determine the appropriate brightness level on all 3 displays so that you are getting best possible result from them and shoot at ISO100 and smallest possible aperture setting that your camera can do manually and preferably 1/30 shutter and then compare pics. It will be highly subjective test, but it will be fair one.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED + both tend to look way over saturated indoors even to naked eye if kept at full brightness.
Any test using a camera should be done with a DSLR using manual (and constant settings), but even then it's hard to say if the problems you see come from the screen, the camera, or the screen on which you're looking at the pictures. So yeah, the only way to make your opinion is by comparing the screens side by side by yourself.
Also, it's often a matter of personal tastes : For example I want my TV and PC monitor to have very accurate colors, but I really don't mind if my phone has over saturated colors since I rarely use it to look at pictures or movies, and even when I do it's not in optimal conditions so I don't care, and I prefer to have vivid colors in the UIs.
Funkym0nkey said:
SAMOLED and SAMOLED Plus both tend to have much higher brightness and contrast ratio than LCDs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree : They have a much better contrast ratio (virtually infinite) because the blacks are truly black. But the brightness is on par with most LCDs and lower than the best LCD screens. You can see the figures in this article by anandtech : Super AMOLED screens are around 350-400 nits whereas iPhone 4 is at 571, chich is why it's better in the sunlight.
I still think I prefer Spuer AMOLED + though because I mainly use my phone indoors and it's amazing to have true blacks.
So which technology is the winner?
P/S: I heart that Samsung will make a super amoled plus screen with high resolution as something called "retina" by apple.
It will be included in Samsung galaxy S3. Can anyone confirm such rumours for me?
azulgranas said:
So which technology is the winner?
P/S: I heart that Samsung will make a super amoled plus screen with high resolution as something called "retina" by apple.
It will be included in Samsung galaxy S3. Can anyone confirm such rumours for me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a read.
http://www.oled-info.com/super-amoled-plus-resolution-further-details
I can more-or-less confirm this. I mean, just read. The technology is there, it just needs a new production line and product line "components".
Samsung also have the advantage here, because they have the biggest AMOLED production facilities and so they can produce these AMOLED screens, whereas it is too expensive for other companies to do the same.
The link says they don't know when they're going to be using it. WRONG! If you follow some links to more recent articles, on the similar topic, it says they plan to have these being produced by the end of the year - so there's a high chance, that this time next year, we're gonna see a 300PPI+ Super AMOLED screens.......................................................................or flexible ones. :S
Funkym0nkey said:
The problem with doing comparative studies of displays with camera is the fact that most people do full brightness tests.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED Plus both tend to have much higher brightness and contrast ratio than LCDs.
If you are using auto settings to shoot, your camera will adjust aperture and shutter which wont be suitable for either LCD(be it retina, SLCD SCLCD) or SAMOLED display. It will either make AMOLED looks too bright and washed out or it will make LCD too dark.
The best way to do this is to use your eyes to determine the appropriate brightness level on all 3 displays so that you are getting best possible result from them and shoot at ISO100 and smallest possible aperture setting that your camera can do manually and preferably 1/30 shutter and then compare pics. It will be highly subjective test, but it will be fair one.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED + both tend to look way over saturated indoors even to naked eye if kept at full brightness.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best way is to actually run measurements of contrast, gamma and color saturation. I have run measurements on the SGSII display:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1124669
If there is someone in Frankfurt who has an iPhone 4 or a phone with SLCD, I am happy to measure them too (takes less than 1 hour per phone).
How to watch Live streaming on Samsung galaxy ?
Here is link may solve your problem
Watch Live stream on mobile...
Can't really compare them all as long as Sammy makes/or at least made money on those 3 screen techs, with the Super Amoled plus on the S2, Super clear lcd in gt-i9003 and the display in apple products (esp. the iphone, the oh so called "retina display") being supplied by Sammy (or companies which Sammy have investments).
Which one should I get? There's no difference in price.
There are pros and against for either but i'l say get the samoled. Colours look more vibrant, makes it a joy use everyday
+1 samoled
Sent from my Nexus One using Tapatalk
White girl said:
Which one should I get? There's no difference in price.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Get the super-AMOLED for sure , its super vibrant and it really goes well with contour display aka (bent screen).
S AMOLED Without a doubt
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Not taking the Samoled would be a noob move
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA App
Super amoled. There's no comparison, and it's better for battery life.
i'm sure if you were to sell a nexus s, it would be easier to sell the samoled for more $$ than the slcd.
Actually slcd is better on battery
Samoled is nicer tho
Sent from my XT720 using XDA App
I would get an SLCD.
Much sharper (no pentile), more natural and accurate colors, much easier on battery on displaying light content (like this page), no pixel burn in.
Its all about preference. SLCD has the most natural colors and in the sunlight its actualy better then the samoled. I've seen it with my own eyes. I held them both in my hand and I enjoyed mine more. Samoled is just a big fuss imo, just like the retina display. And where in jesus christ did you read that the slcd consumes more battery?
Anyway, its up to you, true colors over sarurated colors.
I would vote SLCD as the clarity it offers over the Pentile matrix is great. Sure you lose some contrast, but I think it's worth it.
Also it's not as over-saturated, although some would call that less vivid. Swings & roundabouts, take a good look at both and see what you prefer.
Personally I think the oversaturated reason is flawed as you can just use voodoo color settings to adjust to your liking but I prefer Samoled because I like the blacks and the colors. If you like white and stuff then I would recommend slcd instead.
Sent from my Nexus S using XDA Premium App
Google costumized 2.3 for Samoled with the blacks to save energy! why you would take a slcd ?
If it were just SAMOLED vs. SLCD I'd say SAMOLED. However, the Nexus S's SAMOLED display loses a PenTile matrix, which has 1/3 fewer subpixels than regular displays, greatly reducing its effective resolution (google for details).
I hate PenTile matrix with a passion, others barely notice it. Of course it also depends on what you do:
Mostly videos, photos => AMOLED version
Mostly text => SLCD version
Want it all and can live without Voodoo sound => save up for an SGS2
i would say the colors on the lcd look more natural
Super Amoled for me... good contrast and more vivid colors.
Many of you are talking absolute bull****.
The SuperLcd does not have more natural colours, neither is it better in sunlight.
I can barely see anything on the SuperLcd version outside.
Let me tell you why you should get the SuperAmoled:
Screen response time is 0.1ms, vs 25ms on the SuperLcd (better for everything, including video, and scrolling).
Much better colours. (colours look washed out on the superlcd version)
Thinner display = Lighter weight, which again equals: less damage when dropped.
Way better in sunlight.
fallenguru said:
If it were just SAMOLED vs. SLCD I'd say SAMOLED. However, the Nexus S's SAMOLED display loses a PenTile matrix, which has 1/3 fewer subpixels than regular displays, greatly reducing its effective resolution (google for details).
I hate PenTile matrix with a passion, others barely notice it. Of course it also depends on what you do:
Mostly videos, photos => AMOLED version
Mostly text => SLCD version
Want it all and can live without Voodoo sound => save up for an SGS2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In another thread she stated that it would be too big for her hand? xD
dario3040 said:
Many of you are talking absolute bull****.
The SuperLcd does not have more natural colours, neither is it better in sunlight.
I can barely see anything on the SuperLcd version outside.
Let me tell you why you should get the SuperAmoled:
Screen response time is 0.1ms, vs 25ms on the SuperLcd (better for everything, including video, and scrolling).
Much better colours. (colours look washed out on the superlcd version)
Thinner display = Lighter weight, which again equals: less damage when dropped.
Way better in sunlight.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I held them both in my hand in direct sunlight and I can tell you 100% that the SLCD is brighter. My friend which owned the super amoled version agreed with me and we tested in different colors.
The Samoled has vribrat colors tho and they indeed look very nice, but vibrant colors != natural colors.
Super amoled is just very advertised and hyped but that doesn't mean it's the "best" display technology. Like I said, it's all about preferance, and I prefered the SLCD over the Samoled simply because of the sunlight thingy. If people care to analyze, some might find the SLCD to suit their needs better, so they deserve to know the pros and cons of both. I personally don't care about the Samoled black at all, I need a bright white color when browsing and in daily use its not like its very noticeable, they all look black in the end.