An article about AMOLED screen of N1 is here, should be applicable to Desire as well.
The jist of the article is that the true resolution of the N1/Desire screen is 392x653 and not 480x800, since each pixel only has two of the three RGB colours.
AMOLED isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if sharp text is important to you.
Moandal said:
The jist of the article is that the true resolution of the N1/Desire screen is 392x653 and not 480x800, since each pixel only has two of the three RGB colours.
AMOLED isn't all it's cracked up to be, especially if sharp text is important to you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not quite fare, the N1 has 480 lines of independently addressable pixels per row and 800 rows. It does have an 800x480 res it's just that there are only 2 channels per pixel. The images are manipulated and diliberatly out of focus otherwise, and I quote from the authors subsequent comment...
"The shot of the screen that is blurry is intentionally blurrier than what the screen actually looks like, it's the only way to get rid of the moire effect of the camera's CCD interfering with the pixel grid of the N1 screen. It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
What he is saying is that if they didn't blur the image the camera would have seen the optical illusion you are supposed to see. Having a mixture of RG and BG Pixels is not really an issue and most certainly doesn't mean the resolution is lower.
He also says that stippled images are where you see it and only in certain circumstances... Once commenter noted that if you zoom by 1% the effect on his example images vanishes, the example images where designed to look wrong on a N1 screen, as comenter points out, if images designed to look wrong on a N1 do infact look wrong on an N1, does it matter, I can't see too many people designing images specifically to trip up the N1!
If you read the comments, all the users of N1 who posted said it is stupid to say it's a poor screen, they unanimously agree that it is the best screen they have ever seen on a phone, including some ex Droid users!
Also this a feature of the N1, and possibly the desire not AMOLED screens in general. actually, your entire post is totally inaccurate!
farnsbarns said:
That's not quite fare, the N1 has 480 lines of independently addressable pixels per row and 800 rows. It does have an 800x480 res it's just that there are only 2 channels per pixel. The images are manipulated and diliberatly out of focus otherwise, and I quote from the authors subsequent comment...
"The shot of the screen that is blurry is intentionally blurrier than what the screen actually looks like, it's the only way to get rid of the moire effect of the camera's CCD interfering with the pixel grid of the N1 screen. It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
What he is saying is that if they didn't blur the image the camera would have seen the optical illusion you are supposed to see. Having a mixture of RG and BG Pixels is not really an issue and most certainly doesn't mean the resolution is lower.
He also says that stippled images are where you see it and only in certain circumstances... Once commenter noted that if you zoom by 1% the effect on his example images vanishes, the example images where designed to look wrong on a N1 screen, as comenter points out, if images designed to look wrong on a N1 do infact look wrong on an N1, does it matter, I can't see too many people designing images specifically to trip up the N1!
If you read the comments, all the users of N1 who posted said it is stupid to say it's a poor screen, they unanimously agree that it is the best screen they have ever seen on a phone, including some ex Droid users!
Also this a feature of the N1, and possibly the desire not AMOLED screens in general. actually, your entire post is totally inaccurate!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If my post is inaccurate, why does the author say that "the fairest way of counting raw pixels on the screen" gives a result of 392*653? How can a pixel that can only display 2 out of 3 colours count as a full pixel of resolution? If you want to count it that way, go ahead but you're only fooling yourself.
The author of the article is an N1 user, and he clearly doesn't think the screen is the best he has ever seen on a phone. Neither is he alone: "many of us were disappointed in the lack of crispness of text".
Maybe future AMOLED screens will have a different solution that allows for all 3 colours per pixel, but in the meantime potential Desire owners should at least be aware of the limitations of their AMOLED screen.
I'll end on something you quoted at me, which I thank you for since you proved my point so nicely:
"It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
Moandal said:
If my post is inaccurate, why does the author say that "the fairest way of counting raw pixels on the screen" gives a result of 392*653? How can a pixel that can only display 2 out of 3 colours count as a full pixel of resolution?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is a resolution of N1 camera? 5MP you say? But every pixel out of this 5 million can record only 1 color (red, green or blue). It is same for professional cameras too. How about that?
"fairest way of counting" is just his opinion, not scientific fact. And there are 800 physical vertical pixels, like on every other WVGA display. Only difference is horizontally, so 392*653 is just his approximation, do not take it literally.
As author says there is not issue in pictures, just in hard edged objects like letters (or his patterns). Maybe it will be improved with better smoothing algorithms.
Is it a general AMOLED issue or only the problem of the N1 and Desire?
Does this affect web browsing?
Moandal said:
If my post is inaccurate, why does the author say that "the fairest way of counting raw pixels on the screen" gives a result of 392*653? How can a pixel that can only display 2 out of 3 colours count as a full pixel of resolution? If you want to count it that way, go ahead but you're only fooling yourself.
The author of the article is an N1 user, and he clearly doesn't think the screen is the best he has ever seen on a phone. Neither is he alone: "many of us were disappointed in the lack of crispness of text".
Maybe future AMOLED screens will have a different solution that allows for all 3 colours per pixel, but in the meantime potential Desire owners should at least be aware of the limitations of their AMOLED screen.
I'll end on something you quoted at me, which I thank you for since you proved my point so nicely:
"It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look if you feel the N1 screen is poor that is a matter of opinion but...
The definition of a pixel is a physical screen location that can be addressed and manipulated directly in the video RAM regardless of the BPP or number of colours it can display. That is a simple fact. The N1 has 480 of these per row and 800 rows. It is not questionable, it is an unwavering fact, you were wrong! as was the man who posted it until he backtraked in the comments with CAPITALS stating an important point (so important he didn't edit his original post
You also said that AMOLED is not all it's cracked up to be, AMOLED is not the culpret, Google/HTC is, AMOLED displays with 16 BPP (RGB pixels rather than RG / BG) already exist so AMOLED is all it's cracked up to be. Perhaps the N1 screen isn't but that wouldn't be because of AMOLED it would be because HTC decided to use RG BG pixels on THEIR AMOLED screen instead of RGB which is perfectly possible.
Both the statements in your post were unequivocabley and fundamentally inacurate. It is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact. You regurgitated someone else's inaccurate statement with no research, thought or even knowledge of the technologies involved.
If you believe "It's not as bad as it looks, just worse than the Droid's screen" proves either of your original points you are mistaken.
I'm not saying the N1 screen is good or bad and I (unlike you) made it clear that I was repeating other peoples opinions. If you feel aggrieved about your screen then I really feel for you but misinformation and repetition of inaccurate information is still a bad thing.
Well, please, this is not an issue on AMOLED, read this article:
http://www.displayblog.com/2010/01/20/nexus-one-pentile-matrix-oled-display/
And comments from user "NPS_CA" in this blog:
http://androidcommunity.com/nexus-one-display-not-true-wvga-20100325/
Then you will understand the situation.
When it (this technology) saves battery life and produce better viewing experience, I will take it any day.
I wont complaint about the actual number of pixels
With the pixel density, and considering how "small" the pixel is to the human eye, i highly doubt that the normal human eye will spot that issue *unless you are hawk LMAO*
you should not forget, what matters here is the human eye reception, I dont care what kind of display hardware/software they are implementing as long as they look pretty, .. AND those kind of displays are HUUUGE battery Savior, .. about 33% more efficient than the regular LCD (yes, probably because they are using the PenTile Matrix, hence using less sub-pixels to display).
so lets recap whats going on here (keeping in mind that the most important factor here is us, the humans, not the machines)
AMOLED looks way better (from a human point of view, not a hawk) than TFT or LCD screens on mobile phones
AMOLED saves you alot of battery life (around 33% compared to other TFT)
gogol said:
Well, please, this is not an issue on AMOLED
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, its the pentile tehnology that the author goes to great lenghts to explain in *yawn* detail.
Not that I care but does anyone even know if the Desire has this technology?
bcmobile said:
No, its the pentile tehnology that the author goes to great lenghts to explain in *yawn* detail.
Not that I care but does anyone even know if the Desire has this technology?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the Nexus One has it.
the Desire has the same screen as nexus one.
so using proof by induction, the Desire has it
does a screen of 460x800 pixel (or 392*653) really look ****ty for text?? i don't think so, there are many pixels!
look at the screen of an iphone! the half amount of pixels but you still can read text. a screen with that dpi can't be not good! i'm happier with more pixels than a supercalifragilisticflexpialidocious-sharp display. and by the way, more pixels means more details or more information on the same view! and i also don't think that you surf on the web without any zooming to the article!
the screen can't be so blurry as mentioned in the link of the first post. otherwise all the people of MWC 2010 are liing to us, they are stunned about the screen and its resolution.
Today I bougth HTC Desire and what I first mention was jagged font. Simply say - display is not so silky as on Touch Pro. On all texts you can see "dots shadow".
This behaviour is very much seen on typing cursor when blicking - it is not vertical simple line, but dotted line.
At first I think, that this is a fault, but after some reads and si this thread I start to thinking, that this is feature.
I think this is because of the OLED screen. Right?
I think so. But waiting to meet people with another Desire to compare if this is not bad display.
irkan said:
With the pixel density, and considering how "small" the pixel is to the human eye, i highly doubt that the normal human eye will spot that issue *unless you are hawk LMAO*
you should not forget, what matters here is the human eye reception, I dont care what kind of display hardware/software they are implementing as long as they look pretty, .. AND those kind of displays are HUUUGE battery Savior, .. about 33% more efficient than the regular LCD (yes, probably because they are using the PenTile Matrix, hence using less sub-pixels to display).
so lets recap whats going on here (keeping in mind that the most important factor here is us, the humans, not the machines)
AMOLED looks way better (from a human point of view, not a hawk) than TFT or LCD screens on mobile phones
AMOLED saves you alot of battery life (around 33% compared to other TFT)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
100% agreed...if it looks gud 2 human eyes, that's it...
To be honest, I don't really like it and get pretty annoyed by the pixelly text.
I have to mention: only when I keep phone within 30cm of my eyes. Any further and it's perfect.
Related
Then isn't that blocking manufacturers from competing with iPhone 4's 960x640 'Retina Display' straight from the get go?
I know they will no doubt be able to make some cracking looking screens at that resolution but it is a bit disheartening to know that it can never meet the resolution of the iPhone, and I imagine by the end of the year there will be several competing Android devices that have matched that resolution too.
Do you think Microsoft will stick to this requirement?
Seems like Microsoft wants to make sure all devices run perfect at launch in hopes of rave reviews for WP7 so all the limitations. I suspect them to open it up very quickly after launch so it doesn't get left behind.
I'd rather them hang on for a bit to be honest. The only reason the iPhone's new screen is that resolution is simply because its double the last one. So they can easily resize content for the screen. It's only 10-15% higher pixel density than phones we've already got, so not that big of an improvement, unless you're comparing it to the other iPhones of course.
Might as well wait a year or so and go for 1280x720. Better to standardise the platform on a resolution like that every couple of years than to have lots of inbetween resolutions competing and wasting developer resources.
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No.
The term 'retina display' is bull, in reality you would have to hold the iPhone 18 inches from your face to reach the limits of your eyes.
Which brings me to the main point: If you have a bigger display, you can hold it farther from your eyes and have the same effect.
940 or 800 pixels? It hardly matters. What matters more is the actual size of the screen and any WP7 device with a 3.7" or 4" screen at WVGA is to be preferred to the iPhone's too small 3.4" screen.
I believe the 480x800 was a minimum spec, and that the other would be an exception to the rule for some other devices.
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
vangrieg said:
480x800 is fine, they need to get rid of this HVGA crap though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HVGA is good if you need a compact device, not everyone wants a large device, some want's it slim and compact.
I belive that it will not make a big difference to have it as 800x480 or 960x640 (it would matter if the screen was big, but in the iphone case it wouldn't).
The usage of this resolution is pure technical and i really respect this move. now the only thing they need to do to maintain the apps compatability of the old iPhone is to render the apps 2 times larger on both axis (x,y) so if you have an image that is 20 pixels height and 50 pixels width (20x50)it would be (40x100), notice this will not affect the aspect ratio nor will result in a distortion or pixelating the image (the same screen size but having more pixels).
Now if you come to the real world, i will not matter for the naked eye, i would love to see this screen compared to the WVGA i have on my HD2. i doubt that there will be a noticable difference.
Pure physics say that the Naked Human Eye at a distance of 30cm can see objects that are 0.1mm, any object smaller (or objects that have a distance of 0.1mm or less will appear as 1 object, so this returns us to the "a mere 78 micrometers" (0.078mm) means that you can notice that the pixel itself is a an object that cannot be seen by the naked eye easily, that's why each pixel for us will be represented as almost 1.5 pixels). now i'm not saying that it is the same, not at all. it makes difference from the old screen they were using, but the same result we would get if they made a bit lower resolution screens (0.1mm).
Anyhow, for that particular screen size, the resolution usage is more a technical point of view than a real function point of you. you will enjoy the new screen resolution but you will not see all the pixels
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
And don't forget! iPhone's screen is 4:3 as ours are 16:9 (roughly). Should you put the iPhone's screen in 16:9 form, it would be 960x540... So the improvement isn't that great... (And i'm not mentionning that most sites are still being written to fit a 800x600 pc screen, so having a 800x480 hold in landscape will render the site 100% accurately... in theory that is xD)
Sure it looks like the iPhone will have a great resolution but at 3.5" screen size it doesn't make it and where near what I'd be looking for. I want a bigger screen and I've found the pixel density of 800x480 is good enough to make everything look crisp. Maybe MS will add 1600x960 and 960x640 to there list of supported resolutions seems how that just doubling what they currently have as standards. Ok maybe 1600x960 is a bit much but hey it can happen.
NoWorthWhile said:
I have to agree with everyone above me. While yes, things will look crispier on that iPhone screen, you have to remember also that they're not taking advantage of that screen estate... As someone above me stated, the icons won't be smaller for you to fit more info on the screens, the icons will have the same size, but will look sharper.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good point. If you have a very high res (960*640) screen but are limited to the same screen proportions as a very low res screen (480*320) you've lost a lot of the advantage.
Is it worth it? Don't know... 960x640 is a lot. But can you see the difference to our 800x480? Sorry, but if you do, you should be in a secret american bunker.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Partly agreed. If they get cleartype to work properly (both portrait and landscape, and on OLED screens) then 800*480 is good for images and text.
I'm all for high res, but 800*480 is good, plus OLED is the way forward and hasn't reached full 800*480 resolution yet.
I think the foundational technologies (surrounding silverlight) enable resolution-independence very easily and may even enforce it, so moving to any widescreen resolution should be easy in future, with only the potential problem of bitmap pixellation.
I think we're reaching a point where the resolution in no longer important.
We all remember a couple of years ago when we "drool" about having vga resolution phone.
Now that the 800x480 are the standard and the 960x640 are becoming a standard also, all resolutions beyond this point becomes meaningless as we, humans, cannot see the difference in a standard size phone terminal.
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
ROCOAFZ said:
Won't more pixels on the screen though lead to better touch perfomance?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
rogeriopcf said:
What does performance have to do with pixel resolution??
The digitalizer (that plastic layer above the LCD) takes care of the touch input, not the LCD itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also, more pixels on the screen = more pixels to render = slower performance. For example, a lot of the XNA games made will probably be 320x480 and automatically scaled up for performance reasons.
As far as I remember, Da_G said they are working hard on completing DPI_262, which opens new resolutions, like 1280x720 and so on .
I think that even Hummingbird from Samsung, which is way faster (in GPU even more) than Qualcomm Snapdragon, will perform quite well with those resolutions. And when they come, we will have even better CPUs and GPUs.
lordcanti86 said:
Considering the screen sizes we are talking about, does anything north of 480×800 really make that much of a difference to the naked eye?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It depends on the size of the screen and the viewing distance, but in general, yes. There's a reason why printers don't print at 300 dots per inch any more - it's because the eye can easily detect a difference between 300 pixels per inch and 600. In fact, even going from 600dpi to 1200 makes a visible difference sometimes.
Or, to look at it another way, is there a visible difference when you switch ClearType on and off? ClearType multiplies the resolution by three on one axis. If you can see a difference then the original resolution is comfortably below the finest your eye can resolve.
I'd focus more on screen clairity, color depth/contrast/brightness, ect. before trying to cram more pixels into a sub 5" screen. How about a nice OLED? ...I'd rather have this as compared to more dpi.
Hi, I really want to buy a Desire but when I tried it in a store I could easily notice the fuziness caused by the Pentile subpixel layout. This was on white text on a medium coloured background - I've read it's worst on black/white. I also looked at the Galaxy S and the fuzziness was much less noticable - I just hate the look and feel of that phone.
The problem is I have a pretty low tolerance to small details like that and pretty good eyesight, so I was wondering if anyone here is as anal about visual flaws as me but happily lives with the Desire's screen? I want my next phone purchace to last a couple of years at least...
I also thought it might be nice to wait and see if HTC release a Desire with a S-LCD screen - sharpness wins over deep blacks for me considering the other potential flaws with the AMOLED screens. Any thoughts?
(If the Wildfire had either an AMOLED RGB screen or a higher resolution LCD then I'd just settle for that - it looks sexy enough to live with the lack of power.)
any thoughts? eh, sure. I don't see the the "potential flaws" of AMOLED screens at all. Sure a true LCD display will have sharper definition for black on white text, but I hardly would clal my Desire screen blurred or fuzzy. I think its fine. I do a lot of reading on the net too and its absolutely fine, but you are right an LCD like iPhone is sharper for text.
I prefer the colours and the perfect blacks myself. Makes using the phone for watching movies etc a pleasure. If you use it just for very small text though, get something else. If your as picky as you seem, you will definitely have problems with this one with its amoled screen. I won't even mention the over saturated colours or the pink hue when viewing grays. You won't like that either.
i compared the screen on my desire to my friends new iphone 4 and honestly i could only tell the difference when i got so close it was physically hurting my eyes to focus on it, i really think that the screen on the desire is top and i dont seem to have much trouble with it in the daylight either for some reason
By potential flaws I meant the uneven & relatively fast fading and the burn in that some people are reporting.
I looked for the pink hue in the shop but couldn't notice it. Isn't that a hit or miss thing?
OLED is a major selling point for me. But then is resolution (<3 my x50v)
Anyone think the Desire with an S-LCD would be a big improvement?
Yeah, daylight didn't seem to be an issue at all, compared to other devices I've used over the years.
I definitely see a huge difference between Desire and iPhone 4 though. Desire is actually about on par with the previous iPhones in terms of actual blurryness, but the fact the pattern is staggered makes it more noticeable.
Schmeggma said:
I looked for the pink hue in the shop but couldn't notice it. Isn't that a hit or miss thing?
Anyone think the Desire with an S-LCD would be a big improvement?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No the pink hue effects all AMOLED screens when displaying certain gray shades. I suggest you read the sticky post all about the AMOLED Pentile display and how it works.
Is the Desire available with S-LCD? If not, whats the point? Just get yourself a phone with LCD and be happy. The power drain on a desire with LCD would be significantly increased too. Sure AMOLED uses more on a 100% white screen, but it use much less on darker themed screens or coloured screens.
I've read the sticky and think I have a good grasp of the issue, but I've seen reports from people saying the pinkness varies.
I also have 20/20 vision and this screen is fine, the only times I'm disappointed is while text is scrolling there is a visable wave in the letters and outdoor in direct sunlight you need to find the good angle to read.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App
I used to be very anal about my phone. And of course you might be different but for me trying to choose the perfect one / making the perfect one ever more perfect just does not work. Huge effort, lots of frustration, little or no results and even the ones you get are brief. That's the problem with this attitude - you'll just always find another flaw to frown upon.
What worked for me was taking positive action rather than getting rid of all the faults. I implemented Allen's GTD system and I'm using my phone as a collection/organisation tool. Works great and now my phone is a very useful tool instead of being just a gadget. Flaws don't matter anymore. And with GTD I can be as anal as I only wish and still happy
BTW totally agree on Galaxy S. It's so much better phone than Desire but it's simply atrocious. Couldn't bear the thought of carrying something that makes me wanna puke for next 2/3 years.
mcgon1979 said:
No the pink hue effects all AMOLED screens when displaying certain gray shades. I suggest you read the sticky post all about the AMOLED Pentile display and how it works.
Is the Desire available with S-LCD? If not, whats the point? Just get yourself a phone with LCD and be happy. The power drain on a desire with LCD would be significantly increased too. Sure AMOLED uses more on a 100% white screen, but it use much less on darker themed screens or coloured screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Pink hue is not AMOLED related since it shows also in software emulator (on PC) and varies among phones. Sticky post is wrong all around but arguments for that are buried too deep in long thread.
AS for OP, HTC announced LCD Desire, and I would like to see one. I can notice PenTile artifacts and don't like it (together with over saturated colors and pink hue), but phone is so good in other segments it is worth owning.
Lots of anal talk in this thread!
Seriously, I have never seen the pink everyone is talking about and I have had my phone since the middle of april. It's weird that some phones are affected and some are not.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
Yeah sure the screen has some negatives about it but when compared side to side to my old iPhone's screen its blows the iPhone out of the water. I prefer AMOLED because I can turn it up full brightness and not be blinded by an annoying backlight that make sthe phone more suitable as a flashlight than a screen.
I thought I replied earlier, but it seems Opera 10.60 is a little glitchy with the forum (and in general...)
Anyway, thanks for all the replies guys. On the way home I had a look at the Desire again in another store and found the screen a lot more agreeable. I tried it sitting down, making me naturally hold it a couple of inches farther away, which makes a big difference. Plus I had more of an "how nice is this display?" attitude rather than "can I notice the flaw?"
So I came home and ordered one online. If the text bugs me that much, I can always stick to my Axim for ebooks.
edit: Still eager to see what S-LCD brings to the table, though.
Apparently, S-LCD does not stand for 'Super LCD', it is just a name of Samsung-Sony LCD factory.
Schmeggma said:
I thought I replied earlier, but it seems Opera 10.60 is a little glitchy with the forum (and in general...)
Anyway, thanks for all the replies guys. On the way home I had a look at the Desire again in another store and found the screen a lot more agreeable. I tried it sitting down, making me naturally hold it a couple of inches farther away, which makes a big difference. Plus I had more of an "how nice is this display?" attitude rather than "can I notice the flaw?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you know that PenTile OLED was in tens of thousands of cell phones for over a year before anyone noticed that they were different? If one has to be told that they are different... well that tells me that they work as designed.
Full Disclosure: I'm one of the inventors of PenTile technology.
PenTile technology was actually designed with a specific minimum distance from which to view it. Bring it too close to one's eyes, one will see the pattern. Actually the same thing also happens with the legacy RGB Stripe matrix, but since one is used to seeing that pattern, one mentally filters it out. The same should happen with the PenTile screen, once one is used to seeing it, one no longer "sees" it, if you can pardon my circular explanation, but it's true. If you use the phone at a more comfortable distance, as opposed to as close to your eyes as you can get, the screen will appear as intended.
vlasac said:
Apparently, S-LCD does not stand for 'Super LCD', it is just a name of Samsung-Sony LCD factory.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That makes me happy, if it's just another IPS or whatever then I know what to expect.
DisplayGeek said:
Did you know that PenTile OLED was in tens of thousands of cell phones for over a year before anyone noticed that they were different? If one has to be told that they are different... well that tells me that they work as designed.
Full Disclosure: I'm one of the inventors of PenTile technology.
PenTile technology was actually designed with a specific minimum distance from which to view it. Bring it too close to one's eyes, one will see the pattern. Actually the same thing also happens with the legacy RGB Stripe matrix, but since one is used to seeing that pattern, one mentally filters it out. The same should happen with the PenTile screen, once one is used to seeing it, one no longer "sees" it, if you can pardon my circular explanation, but it's true. If you use the phone at a more comfortable distance, as opposed to as close to your eyes as you can get, the screen will appear as intended.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I definitely would have noticed it if I didn't know in advance. (I'm not trying to imply there's anything good about extreme pickiness - it's a compulsive disorder and a bloody nightmare.)
I appreciate the minimum distance thing, but obviously it varies with eyesight - hence the brief controversy over Apple's 'retina' claims. It's just going to require a slight adjustment to my habits while standing to compensate for this.
As for the RGB thing, I feel that's easier to mentally filter out because it's consistent vertically whereas Pentile alternates the relatively larger red/blue subpixels. I imagine this is why the effect was less noticeable on the Galaxy S's RGBW layout, despite the slightly lower DPI?
markuz85 said:
Lots of anal talk in this thread!
Seriously, I have never een the pink everyone is talking about and I have had my phone since the middle of april. It's weird that some phones are affectewd and some are not.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So your saying the new forum theme doesn't look pink to you on your phone? All the grey bits around the forum are definitely pink in colour on mine. Maybe i have one of the affected phones.
vlasac said:
Pink hue is not AMOLED related since it shows also in software emulator (on PC) and varies among phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then it can be fixed with firmware right.
markuz85 said:
Lots of anal talk in this thread!
Seriously, I have never seen the pink everyone is talking about and I have had my phone since the middle of april. It's weird that some phones are affected and some are not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you have not noticed the pink? well then you are not anal enough. try harder
DisplayGeek said:
Did you know that PenTile OLED was in tens of thousands of cell phones for over a year before anyone noticed that they were different?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As above, I think this is subjective. Some people stare at their phones looking for dust, looking for a hint of pink, looking for a mark in the case, looking for... etc etc etc... If you want to treat it like that you will be a very miserable camper. It's a phone, it has an average lifespan of 2 years probably. Use it. It reminds of these people who own a beautiful Ferrari but on't drive it. just keep it in a garage and rub it with a cloth. whats the point?
I think the only thing thats variable on the pink hue thing is the persons opinion of how pink it is. not noticeable or noticeable. some people will say its not there, some people will say it sso pink they cannot even see any other colours.
I had my eyes colour calibrated in a 16 hour operation at an optical lab in switzerland 4 weeks ago, they now recognise 400 shades of pink and have 20/20 vision, so I KNOW my phone has pink. etc etc LOL
FSake said:
So your saying the new forum theme doesn't look pink to you on your phone? All the grey bits around the forum are definitely pink in colour on mine. Maybe i have one of the affected phones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The forum doesn't look at all pink on my phone, I've never seen this issue either.
mcgon1979 said:
people who own a beautiful Ferrari but on't drive it. just keep it in a garage and rub it with a cloth. whats the point?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Rubbing certain things can be very, um, therapeutic...
DisplayGeek said:
Full Disclosure: I'm one of the inventors of PenTile technology.
PenTile technology was actually designed with a specific minimum distance from which to view it. Bring it too close to one's eyes, one will see the pattern. Actually the same thing also happens with the legacy RGB Stripe matrix, but since one is used to seeing that pattern, one mentally filters it out. The same should happen with the PenTile screen, once one is used to seeing it, one no longer "sees" it, if you can pardon my circular explanation, but it's true. If you use the phone at a more comfortable distance, as opposed to as close to your eyes as you can get, the screen will appear as intended.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but all your arguments don't add up. On LCD screens i have perfectly straight horizontal and vertical lines, there is no need to filter out anything.
On PenTile displays i dont have straight lines because of the pattern that is used. THAT is the problem. Lines look like zigzag-lines not straight ones. And no i'm not looking at my phone from 1 cm distance, i'm looking at it from a normal distance and i can see the pentile effect on my Nexus One. I also had a Motorola Milestone which comes with an LCD that surpasses any AMOLED PenTile screen quality regarding resolution. (while both claim to have wvga)
There is a very easy test for this. Take a Motorola Droid and a Nexus One. Place them side by side and open a webpage on full zoomed out view. You will see the difference in resolution quality VERY clearly. Anybody who claims that there is no difference is lying. You can't just imply that the eye can't see an difference because there are many people out there with normal eyesight (i'm not talking about eagle eyes here) which see the pentile pattern too clearly.
The whole topic is quite frustrating because when buying a nexus one you make one step forward (generall hardware) and two steps back (pentile).
As you all know, the new batch of Desire for Telus will come with SLCD.
androidpolice.com/2010/07/15/htc-desire-headed-to-canada-on-telus
I'm not from Canada so just wondering should I wait for SLCD to available worldwide or just grab the current AMOLED.
The main concern of mine is AMOLED with pinkish issue.
Anyone can tell me which is better ? Please to explain to me as I'm totally don't have any knowledge regarding SLCD & AMOLED.
Many thanks
kelvintan said:
The main concern of mine is AMOLED with pinkish issue.
Anyone can tell me which is better ? Please to explain to me as I'm totally don't have any knowledge regarding SLCD & AMOLED.
Many thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it comes down to personal preference. I kind of like the AMOLED screen, and mine has a very soft neuance of a pinkish hue. But nothing that is annoying or anything. The SLCD is as you know the secondary preference of HTC, but it seems to be as good as the first choice..
I genuinely think if I wasn't a member of this forum and read pretty much everything about the desire, I wouldn't have noticed the pinkish tint to grey colours... That's just me, it really isn't bad and certainly not a deal breaker. For how often that colour even shows up, its not worth concerning yourself about. If you want AMOLED over an SLCD screen which I think is probably wiser seeing as it was HTC's first choice then get one now.. All I can say is the screens beautiful and full of colour, not having seen SLCD screens I can't say if it will be any different but unless its an improvement, then get an AMOLED one
Nit3m4re said:
I genuinely think if I wasn't a member of this forum and read pretty much everything about the desire, I wouldn't have noticed the pinkish tint to grey colours... That's just me, it really isn't bad and certainly not a deal breaker. For how often that colour even shows up, its not worth concerning yourself about. If you want AMOLED over an SLCD screen which I think is probably wiser seeing as it was HTC's first choice then get one now.. All I can say is the screens beautiful and full of colour, not having seen SLCD screens I can't say if it will be any different but unless its an improvement, then get an AMOLED one
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can't agree more. Haven't seen a SLCD live but I really like the shiny colors and this is enough reason for me to choose AMOLED over lcd I really don't care about the slight pink effect and anyway it's almost gone in 2.2.
I'm really happy with my desire
Regards
If you don't notice anything wrong with the screen on a Desire with amoled screen then don't bother with the canadian version.
Some people are just more geeky and uptight about these things.
Personally the oversaturated colors was the first thing I noticed when I saw the phone in a shop without having read about the issue on the internet.
Amoled: The colors is punchier and fuller, the blacks will be deeper.
This sounds really good and most people dont find the oled on the desire bad
at all. Because of the type of amoled they used on the desire the screen wont
seem as sharp as a hvga screen should be. If you want to see amoled screen
done right, check out the samsung omnia hd, just perfect.
Lcd: The colors arent as full but after having had a tp2 for 6 months i think it looks really good anyway. Any lcd screen with hvga resolution will appear alot sharper than the one on the desire. Also i found while the colors werent as deep as on a oled i found the color spectrum to appear wider than on desire. Dont know if thats true that just the way it appears to me and what I prefer.
The Slcd they will use on the canadian Desire will be a lcd with a
ips panel. ips panels arent normally used on cell phones but alot of
graphics artists use them on lcd monitors when doing photo work.
I think theyre supposed to show colors more accuratley than
tn or pva panels.
I know the viewing angles on them are really good,
like 160 degrees. The downside has been that they don't have quite as
fast response time as tn or pva panels but it isnt a big deal if youre
not a twitch fps player.
Also, I read that SLCD drains more power than AMOLED.
abvmoose said:
Also i found while the colors werent as deep as on a oled i found the color spectrum to appear wider than on desire.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is a contradiction. If colors are deeper then spectrum is wider. Amoled can display colors which LCD can't, and which doesn't even exists in any normal (sRGB) picture
abvmoose said:
The Slcd they will use on the canadian Desire will be a lcd with a
ips panel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you share a source of that info?
phentex said:
Also, I read that SLCD drains more power than AMOLED.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you have two horses, one drinks 5 liters of water per day no matter what is doing, and other drinks 2 liters doing nothing and 10 if runs all day in full gallop, which one drinks more?
Consider you need additional 200 liters everyday to clean them and stables. Does it matter at all which one drinks more?
vlasac said:
It is a contradiction. If colors are deeper then spectrum is wider. Amoled can display colors which LCD can't, and which doesn't even exists in any normal (sRGB) picture
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think that the colors are deeper and the color spectrum or color space is the same thing, maybe im wrong. I found the colors the desire screen showed were deeper, by deeper i mean more intense and fuller, as one should expect from a oled display. To me, the colorspace didnt seem as wide as on my tp2's lcd screen. That's my personal impression of it. It could be because of the pinkish hue wish also might add to the oversaturation of some colors. I found the color red specially to be oversaturated wich gave me the impression of the colorspace not to be so wide.
It's true that Amoled can show more colors than lcd, at least when oled
is done right.
Can you share a source of that info?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You know what, im not sure that I can. I was pretty sure that ive read somewhere that S-lcd is the buzzword for Samsung's and Sony's joint venture for creating newer generation lcd displays with ips panels.
But now that I look for it im not so sure. I was certain i read an post on Engadget where they clearly stated that it was ips panel but I cant find that now.
There is one source vaugley explaining it here:
http://androidcommunity.com/htc-for...ft-lcd-from-amoled-due-to-shortages-20100625/
But it says:
"But, the big question is: what is Super TFT LCD? Well, you’ve actually heard of it before, because it has a nickname that’s come up recently in the news (after the announcement of a certain tablet). Super TFT LCD’s nickname is IPS. Which, yes, became “famous” thanks to Apple’s iPad tablet. It provides a wide viewing angle, and provides very clear images — even if the colors aren’t as “distinguished” when compared to an AMOLED display."
But the source of those news is:
http://www.oled-display.net/the-sma...tc-must-switch-the-display-from-amoled-to-lcd
Wich really doesnt say anything about being an ips panel
If the SLCD is even vaguely readable in direct sunlight, go for it. Because the AMOLED isn't, I don't care what people claim.
If it's an IPS panel, the I'd be very tempted to give 'SLCD' a try.
But whenever I pick up another phone since getting my Desire I notice the muddy, bleeding blacks that OLED eliminates.
It's official now. Wondering any review which is better..
youtube.com/watch?v=gY6qpnoziZM
Google chose to stop selling Nexus One instead of putting LCD monitor to it.
This decision says a lot.
fadasma said:
Google chose to stop selling Nexus One instead of putting LCD monitor to it.
This decision says a lot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry, but I don't think the AMOLED shortage had *anything* to do with Google shutting up shop on selling the Nexus One!
Regards,
Dave
tomek_fcb said:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=gY6qpnoziZM
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That video kinda makes me feel good about having an AMOLED screen.
There's no screens named SLCD. S-LCD is the COMPANY that makes the screens wich will replace AMOLED-screens on HTC DESIRE. S-LCD is a joint venture between Samsung and Sony. According to wikipedi, S-LCD makes S-PVA panels (wich is even worse than IPS). The video showing the "new" screen on desire is clearly a S-PVA panel.
janroar said:
There's no screens named SLCD. S-LCD is the COMPANY that makes the screens wich will replace AMOLED-screens on HTC DESIRE. S-LCD is a joint venture between Samsung and Sony. According to wikipedi, S-LCD makes S-PVA panels (wich is even worse than IPS). The video showing the "new" screen on desire is clearly a S-PVA panel.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Patterned vertical alignment and super patterned vertical alignment (S-PVA) are alternative versions of MVA technology offered by Samsung's and Sony's joint venture S-LCD. Developed independently, they offer similar features to MVA, but with higher contrast ratios of up to 3000:1.....
PVA and S-PVA offer the best black depth of any LCD type along with wide viewing angles. S-PVA also offers fast response times using modern RTC technologies.
Source: Search Wikipedia for TFT LCD
I've had a new HTC Desire with S-LCD in my hand for a while, along with my old Amoled one.
It's surely a lot better than my old LCD (Touch HD).
What impressed me is the clarity of the display, the whites, the good contrast compared to old LCD and the fact that (I think) the phone is lighter.
Of course blacks and contrast are miles better on amoled.
But where it failed me, is better readability in direct sunlight. It's more or less the same as amoled, which is (for me) average. I can live with that, but I expected the S-LCD to compensate more for its shortcomings.
All in all, I feared worse, but I would take amoled any day.
according to my box, I have the amoled screen.
Must say I'm pleased with whatever it is !!
This is one of the things that always comes up to my mind when I'm using my Samaung Focus and iPhone 4, what if my Samsung Focus had a Retina Display?
Or if iPhone 4 had three buttons and WP7
If the Samsung Focus had a retina display it would have a higher screen resolution.
please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS
Man, my focus with a lousy 3.5" screen would be terrible. What I want is WP7 on one of those new 4.5" super amoled + displays they're gonna put on that android phone they're making. That'd be the cheese, right there.
800*480 OLED with normal sub-pixels is good for phone sizes.
Text is most important and with normal subpixels you can turn on cleartype and have a boost in effective resolution. At 800*480 I think it's good for both images and text.
Pentile has lower actual resolution and doesn't have OS sub-pixel support.
revrak said:
please, lets stop using merchandising bs terms, its just a higher res screen, its not a new technology, its just a buzz word.
i have a samsung focus too, and i would reall really like it to have a higher res screen and RGB configuration, but not at the cost of changing from SAMOLED to IPS
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.
The thing though, is that I've never had a situation where I was using my phone and needed those types of viewing angles. As long as the phone is readable from a 100-120 degree viewing angle is seems like it's good enough for me.
The iPhone's viewing angles are good, but the screen size IMO worked against it for situations where the viewing angles would be a saver (showing stuff on your phone to others).
Also, the iPhone is still not that great when viewing it in direct sunlight, although it is better than some other LCD panels.
The Pixel Density is the biggest thing about the screen. It makes text, pictures, and even video look better than on lots of other lower-res phones...
Yeah, the screen size is on the smallish side. I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size. But I'm finding other things about the iPhone screen (the whole screen - LCD and plate) that really make up for size deficiencies. I think Apple is using the Oleo-phobic tech on the iPhone because it is so much easier to move your finger across it than on other displays. I have Fruit Ninja on both my iPhone and HD7 and slashing the fruit is painless on the iPhone. Slashing the fruit on my HD7 is a bit of a chore because the finger want to adhere to the surface...like the squeak you get when running a squeegee over a clean pane of glass. The touch response seems to be a bit more accurate on the iPhone, too. But that is likely due to the coding of the game and nothing to do with the HD7's tech.
I think MS just simply ported FN to WP7 without even optimizing it because the display is squished rather than having the proper aspect ratio (a circle being oblong...like a football...rather than a true circle).
MartyLK said:
It's a bit more than a higher res screen. It is LCD tech but it has a viewing angle that is as good as OLED. There is no loss of detail or washout at angles...extreme angles.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True, it is IPS LCD, which gives the best viewing angle among LCDs. But the main thing with the "Retina display" is the pixel density. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia explaining the iPhone 4's display:
"The display of the iPhone 4 is designed by Apple and is manufactured by LG. It features an LED backlit TFT LCD capacitive touchscreen with a pixel density of 326 pixels per inch (ppi) on a 3.5 in (8.9 cm) (diagonally measured), 960×640 display. Each pixel is 78 micrometres in width. The display has a contrast ratio of 800:1. The screen is marketed by Apple as the "Retina Display", based on the assertion that a display of approximately 300 ppi at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm) from one's eye is the maximum amount of detail that the human retina can process.[35] With the iPhone expected to be used at a distance of about 12 inches from the eyes, a higher resolution would allegedly have no effect on the image's apparent quality as the maximum potential of the human eye has already been met. This claim has been disputed. Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, said in an interview with Wired Magazine, that the claims by Jobs are something of an exaggeration: "It is reasonably close to being a perfect display, but Steve pushed it a little too far." Soneira stated that the resolution of the human retina is higher than claimed by Apple, working out to 477 ppi at 12 inches (305 mm) from the eyes.[36]
However, Phil Plait, author of Bad Astronomy, whose career includes a collaboration with NASA regarding the camera on the Hubble Space Telescope, responded to the criticism by stating that "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4’s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixellated. If you have average eyesight, the picture will look just fine.
S Amoled plus anyone?
domineus said:
S Amoled plus anyone?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those
revrak said:
the only difference is that they have RGB instead of pentile right?
if that's the case, i would like to have one of those
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hang out for the new organic display tech. It sounds like each dot can be any color, rather than having each pixel made up of red, green, blue separate dots. If this is the case, the definition will shoot through the roof.
http://www.dailytech.com/New+Lightemitting+Material+May+Usher+in+Era+of+Cheap+OLEDs/article20915.htm
MartyLK said:
I wish Apple would consider a 4.3 being the minimum size.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Such a screen size would be appropriate only if they change drastically their UI. Just think where usually are the main navigation controls on the iPhone - on the upper side of the screen. I am struggling to navigate comfortably with one hand on 3.5”, cannot imagine how can do that on bigger size. So much for the vaunted apple UI…
What is the highest resolution that WP7 supports? It seems strange that even Samsung do not want to increase the pixels on their new models announced at MWC. I feel WVGA is too 'basic' and not as pin sharp.
amtrakcn said:
You are just talking about IPS panel.
iPhone4 and iPad do use IPS, but iPod Touch 4 does not have IPS. However Apple still call it "retina" display, so the term "retina" just means the 960X640 resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".
MartyLK said:
The iPhone 4 has a pixel density of 326ppi on a screen size of 3.5".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.
Halle said:
Sure, it's all about the pixels. Steve also mentioned that the limit for what the human eye can se is 300ppi. Therefore, we already have a bunch of "retina"displays around, and also have had for years. Among them, The Sony Ericsson Xperia X1 from 2007 had a ppi of 320, if I remember correctly. Toshiba had an device many years ago with ppi 311.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
was the toshiba device the e900 series? i believe it was a 3.2 WVGA screen, so it had a high pixel density on a mere 3.2 inch screen. Correct me if i'm wrong.
revrak said:
when talking about density, the screen size does not matter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, it doesn't matter.
It's actually a serious question. From what I've been reading, I'm supposed to dislike it, but no website I've found had been able to give a quantitative reason why. The screen on my GNex looks perfectly fine to me. Not perfect, but color reproduction is at least reasonable. If I don't have the brightness on full, whites look a little grey, but nothing that would make me say it's terrible. response time for pixels is very good. Images look very sharp and clear to me. I even looked at it with a magnifying glass, and lines looked really clear up close even.
So, what's wrong with Pentile that I'm missing?
Traditional pixels on an LCD have three sub-pixels, red, green and blue. Each lights up at a different level to give you whatever color you need to. For yellow, the red and green pixels light up 100% and blue stays down at 0%. For white, they all light up 100%, gray, they're all ~50%. Etc.
PenTile, in essence, uses some clever tricks to use only two subpixels in each pixel. Every pixel might have a green pixel, but only every other one has a red pixel, with each empty spot being filled with blue. So when you want the same yellow color as before, some pixels will light up 100% (R&G) and others will light up 50% (since it has a green subpixel at 100% and a blue at 0%), creating a slight checkerboard effect that can be visible if the pixels are too large (like on the Nexus One).
However, the pixels on the GN are tiny. You don't see them in normal use. They don't cause many of the problems people ascribe to them (I've read complaints about color accuracy, banding and other crap), thus anyone complaining about them are usually being neckbeards or trolls. It would be preferable to have an RGB 720p vs PentTile 720p, but again you're really not going to notice unless you go look for it.
Archpope said:
It's actually a serious question. From what I've been reading, I'm supposed to dislike it, but no website I've found had been able to give a quantitative reason why. The screen on my GNex looks perfectly fine to me. Not perfect, but color reproduction is at least reasonable. If I don't have the brightness on full, whites look a little grey, but nothing that would make me say it's terrible. response time for pixels is very good. Images look very sharp and clear to me. I even looked at it with a magnifying glass, and lines looked really clear up close even.
So, what's wrong with Pentile that I'm missing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you will find that a lot of the hate comes from people associating what are screen defects with pentile, rather than pentile issues themselves.
So it was poorly-implemented Pentile that they were complaining about, I suppose. People really seem to hate it, though. There's a group on FB for people who hate Pentile, but none for people who like it. If even the best implementation just means people are OK with it, is there some other benefit, like faster rendering, better battery life, or thinner panels?
Archpope said:
So it was poorly-implemented Pentile that they were complaining about, I suppose. People really seem to hate it, though. There's a group on FB for people who hate Pentile, but none for people who like it. If even the best implementation just means people are OK with it, is there some other benefit, like faster rendering, better battery life, or thinner panels?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cheaper manufacturing and better battery life.
Archpope said:
So it was poorly-implemented Pentile that they were complaining about, I suppose. People really seem to hate it, though. There's a group on FB for people who hate Pentile, but none for people who like it. If even the best implementation just means people are OK with it, is there some other benefit, like faster rendering, better battery life, or thinner panels?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Given the state of technology, you can only make the subpixels so small. So given the timeframe last year, Google/Samsung probably had to choose between having a PenTile AMOLED 1280x720 or an RGB AMOLED 960x540, or go with an LCD which may have worse contrast or power drain. Given the amount of defects on early GN screens, they were clearly pushing the state of the art of AMOLED, even using PenTile. As technology improves, expect PenTile to eventually disappear. It already has on LCD's.
Pentile on resolutions below 720p - sucks and thats a fact. Those ppl on fb are/have used Pentile screens at lower res, 840*48X or even below, as the pixels can be seen and every object looks like as if they were stitched (lil dots) and not glossy smooth.
mythamp said:
Pentile on resolutions below 720p - sucks and thats a fact. Those ppl on fb are/have used Pentile screens at lower res, 840*48X or even below, as the pixels can be seen and every object looks like as if they were stitched (lil dots) and not glossy smooth.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most of those people talking about that are probably using Moto devices, which many use a Pentile rgb-w arrangement.
Makes everything look like cheesecloth is overlayed on it.
ATnTdude said:
Traditional pixels on an LCD have three sub-pixels, red, green and blue. Each lights up at a different level to give you whatever color you need to. For yellow, the red and green pixels light up 100% and blue stays down at 0%. For white, they all light up 100%, gray, they're all ~50%. Etc.
PenTile, in essence, uses some clever tricks to use only two subpixels in each pixel. Every pixel might have a green pixel, but only every other one has a red pixel, with each empty spot being filled with blue. So when you want the same yellow color as before, some pixels will light up 100% (R&G) and others will light up 50% (since it has a green subpixel at 100% and a blue at 0%), creating a slight checkerboard effect that can be visible if the pixels are too large (like on the Nexus One).
However, the pixels on the GN are tiny. You don't see them in normal use. They don't cause many of the problems people ascribe to them (I've read complaints about color accuracy, banding and other crap), thus anyone complaining about them are usually being neckbeards or trolls. It would be preferable to have an RGB 720p vs PentTile 720p, but again you're really not going to notice unless you go look for it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the issue is not wanting 720p rgb, it's about prefering having like 580p rgb over 720p pentile