[Dreamliner330]

^It's only 'opinion' because people 'don't notice' the lower quality. The quality of image is simply better on LCD vs AMOLED. Any other conclusion simply falls under the heading of 'ignorance is bliss.'

Sometimes a concession on a feature is made to obtain other features, that does not diminish the facts when comparing screens. Subpixel sharing always leads to a lower image quality, there is simply no way around it. You can't 'cheat' and get better results.

[mrHands]

The pentile display of GS3 is never a deal breaker. The main reason is that it has a bigger display. That in itself would intuitively make users move their head at a certain distance from the phone. Use a microscope and yes, it's evident that the image quality indeed suffers. But who on earth has microscopic vision or what kind of genius holds their phone 2 centimeters from their head. It still has amazing image quality and I agree that the pentile display suffered a bad reputation based on previous poor designs.

But for the record, I still believe that the One X still has one hell of a display.

[jroc]

^It's only 'opinion' because people 'don't notice' the lower quality. The quality of image is simply better on LCD vs AMOLED. Any other conclusion simply falls under the heading of 'ignorance is bliss.'

Sometimes a concession on a feature is made to obtain other features, that does not diminish the facts when comparing screens. Subpixel sharing always leads to a lower image quality, there is simply no way around it. You can't 'cheat' and get better results.

So....if I look at my Rezound and RAZR right now...and at my normal viewing distance..... Pentile plays absolutely no part in the screen sharpness....

Ignorance is bliss?

When looking at Netflix at any distance...Pentile or the screen res of the Rezound has no effect on the video...

Ignorance is bliss?

Playing games at any distance Pentile and non Pentile makes no difference....

Ignorance is bliss?

I notice the difference when both phones are held closer than normal in certain instances. Thats a fact. But I dont use my phone at that distance unless laying in bed. And for me thats a rarity. I use my phone at a distance where I can hold the phone with one hand and type with the other....comfortably.

Its sorta like ppl complaining about one handed use of big phones. I wonder do ppl really know how much they do or dont use their phones one handed. I text with 2 hands for the most part to hold the phone steady.

If we all held or used our phones at the same distance...that would be another story. When does ignorance is bliss become real world, every day use? In HDTV forums...I never use the calibrated settings or the recommended settings. They always seem off to me. Is that an example of ignorance is bliss....or my eyes like what they like....no matter what the pros say. Specs are specs, no denying that...but if it doesnt bother me especially after comparing it to a supposedly better screen.....I dont see how thats ignorance is bliss. Maybe for those who dont compare it..or dont know...it is. For those of us that do compare it....its opinion.

[TiCarpi]

The pentile display of GS3 is never a deal breaker. The main reason is that it has a bigger display. That in itself would intuitively make users move their head at a certain distance from the phone. Use a microscope and yes, it's evident that the image quality indeed suffers. But who on earth has microscopic vision or what kind of genius holds their phone 2 centimeters from their head.

Fair comment, however there are times when people use phones up close. For me as someone who wears glasses but has excellent close-up vision I often check my phone in bed without my glasses on.
I have played with the S3 and I definitely can see the pixel arrangement when held at about 8 inches.

In 'normal use' however you naturally hold the phone further away and the screen is stunning - better than the GNex from what I can tell.

Pretty certain I'll be getting one when the bank balance says I'm allowed...


Sent from my HTC Desire S using Android Central Forums

[kronosqq]

So....if I look at my Rezound and RAZR right now...and at my normal viewing distance..... Pentile plays absolutely no part in the screen sharpness....

Ignorance is bliss?

When looking at Netflix at any distance...Pentile or the screen res of the Rezound has no effect on the video...

Ignorance is bliss?

Playing games at any distance Pentile and non Pentile makes no difference....

Ignorance is bliss?

I notice the difference when both phones are held closer than normal in certain instances. Thats a fact. But I dont use my phone at that distance unless laying in bed. And for me thats a rarity. I use my phone at a distance where I can hold the phone with one hand and type with the other....comfortably.

Its sorta like ppl complaining about one handed use of big phones. I wonder do ppl really know how much they do or dont use their phones one handed. I text with 2 hands for the most part to hold the phone steady.

If we all held or used our phones at the same distance...that would be another story. When does ignorance is bliss become real world, every day use? In HDTV forums...I never use the calibrated settings or the recommended settings. They always seem off to me. Is that an example of ignorance is bliss....or my eyes like what they like....no matter what the pros say. Specs are specs, no denying that...but if it doesnt bother me especially after comparing it to a supposedly better screen.....I dont see how thats ignorance is bliss. Maybe for those who dont compare it..or dont know...it is. For those of us that do compare it....its opinion.

If I could weigh in a bit on this. While which display you prefer for your own use is a matter of opinion, in an actual screen comparison review that takes a look at every aspect of the display, slcd2 will win over samoled simply because it has greater color accuracy, it's not perfect but it's not as insanely over-saturated as samoled.

Sent from my EVO using Android Central Forums

[Chdwil]

I had the One X and the screen clarity and crispness was outstanding. It did however hav very poor black levels. So for viewing pictures it was top notch, but anyone who has ever worked with tvs or home theater can tell you black levels are key. So for viewing movies, games, etc the Galaxy s3 should be top notch.

[Tcd74]

The display of sgs3 is better looking then that of sgs2 (i guess because of the resolution) i have both phones and i really cant see that its a pentile... Maybe under a microscope and why would i look at my phone through a microscope? Viewing thr screen very closely... It looks perfekt.

[jroc]

If I could weigh in a bit on this. While which display you prefer for your own use is a matter of opinion, in an actual screen comparison review that takes a look at every aspect of the display, slcd2 will win over samoled simply because it has greater color accuracy, it's not perfect but it's not as insanely over-saturated as samoled.

Sent from my EVO using Android Central Forums

I had the One X and the screen clarity and crispness was outstanding. It did however hav very poor black levels. So for viewing pictures it was top notch, but anyone who has ever worked with tvs or home theater can tell you black levels are key. So for viewing movies, games, etc the Galaxy s3 should be top notch.

These 2 post right here is what I mean about overall the screens will be a matter of opinion. Even when the Incredible and Galaxy S 1 came out....color accuracy went to LCD screens back then. The One X I assume has more accurate colors this time too.

Watching Lets Golf 2 game on my RAZR and Rezound....I like it better on my RAZR....due to the over saturated colors. Blue sky looks blue. Pentile..yea a non Pentile screen is better for sharpness. But if I only see it in certain situations....and most of those situations are extremely close to my face....I take back about not seeing the difference on Lets Golf 2 on my RAZR and Rezound...thing is...I have to hold the phone....extremely....close to see it. So close that the only way I would see it while playing a game is take a shot, then hold the phone right to my face.

The only times Pentile reared its ugly head on my RAZR is in the Youtube app with the red letters, words under icons on my home screen. Some colors on my home screen, notification area. Again...at my normal distance its barely to not noticeable. And its even less noticeable on the G Nex. Where I dont even notice it at all is browsing the web. Maybe I'm picking the right color combos on web sites to not see it...lol.

dreamliner...I agree 100% that ignorance is bliss....for those that dont know or dont compare. Cuz some ppl think all phones are created equal. Some dont realize a phone can have better or worse reception than others.

[rbess1965]

As a Razr owner I have to concede that the screen on any 720p device is always going to look better than the qhd on this Maxx but between my Samsung Charge restarting all the freaking time and the radio issues exhibited by the Nexus, I'll just have to keep my reliable Razr if you don't mind. Nexus owners are on shaky ground when criticizing a Maxx solely for its screen. There are Nexus owners converting to the Maxx everyday on these forums and you won't see any moving from the Maxx to a Nexus. You won't find anyone saying "I had to change to a Nexus. I just couldn't handle that Maxx screen any longer". Apparently there are more important things than screen technology.

Sent using Droid Razr Maxx

[Suntan]

^It's only 'opinion' because people 'don't notice' the lower quality. The quality of image is simply better on LCD vs AMOLED. Any other conclusion simply falls under the heading of 'ignorance is bliss.'

Sometimes a concession on a feature is made to obtain other features, that does not diminish the facts when comparing screens. Subpixel sharing always leads to a lower image quality, there is simply no way around it. You can't 'cheat' and get better results.

Image quality is subjective. End of story.

You can ascribe all manner of quantitative measures and claim they directly impact subjective opinions of what the “average person” is looking for in good image quality, but at the end of the day, there is no direct measure for image quality.

If a person has spent an extended period of time with both screens, in various real-world use scenarios, they can be qualified to give their personal opinion. But at the end of the day it is still just their opinion. There is no *direct measure* of image quality.

Now in case you mistake my comments in thinking I am trying to defend one phone or another, that is not the case. I have not seen either the HOX or the GSIII in person and so I will not claim to have an opinion on which phone looks better. Even if I had time with both, I would be completely at ease to acknowledge if I thought the phone I didn’t own had a better looking screen. My issue has more to do with the general annoyance I feel when people start making absolute comments about something that has no absolute answer. I get even more annoyed when people start throwing around insinuations that disagreement with their personal opinion must be a sign of a bout of blissful ignorance.

-Suntan

[sniffs]

I find the annoyance less about the pixel density, and more about the blue tint.

Hold a white screen up on my One X and it's really white, like my computer monitor.


Hold a white screen up on my SGIII and the SGIII looks like it's got a blue tinted screen protector on it.

[tekhna]

I find the annoyance less about the pixel density, and more about the blue tint.

Hold a white screen up on my One X and it's really white, like my computer monitor.


Hold a white screen up on my SGIII and the SGIII looks like it's got a blue tinted screen protector on it.

Conversely, black text is going to be much better on the GS3. Every screen has advantages and disadvantages.

[Dreamliner330]

My issue has more to do with the general annoyance I feel when people start making absolute comments about something that has no absolute answer. I get even more annoyed when people start throwing around insinuations that disagreement with their personal opinion must be a sign of a bout of blissful ignorance.

If you could explain how a display that shares sub-pixels could produce a clearer image with one that does not, that would be great. Thanks.

[Suntan]

If you could explain how a display that shares sub-pixels could produce a clearer image with one that does not, that would be great. Thanks.

If you first explain to me the physical measurement of "clear image" and what unit of measurement it is measured with, I'll see what I can do...

Let’s see:

Do you measure "clear image" with line pairs, like you do with resolution?

Do you measure "clear image" as a ratio of light intensity like you do contrast ratio?

Or is "clear image" just a straight measurement of foot-lamberts like you measure brightness?

Perhaps you measure "clear image" in milliseconds, like you measure grey-to-grey response time?

Or do you measure “clear image” according to how close it can faithfully track to the sRGB colorspace, since these are internet based gadgets. Or for that matter, since these are “HD” displays, maybe “clear image” is higher if it tracks closely to REC 709?

Now maybe “clear image” is measured in line-ratio-lambert-milli-sRGB’s because what goes into the subjective opinion of a display’s performance is a combination of all the above and more?

Perhaps none of those… Maybe, since what is considered a “clear image” is completely subjective, maybe it is measured in “smiles” or perhaps it is measured in “Ooos&Ahhssss.”


Anyway, you get back to me with the unit of measure that “clear image” is measured with and I’ll look into quantifying the difference.


-Suntan

[Dreamliner330]

^Yes, because the first thing I do when determining image clarity is grab my light meter and determine foot Lamberts. How ignorant.

Unbelievable.

[sniffs]

Here we go.. tell me which you think is better.

Here's a closeup of an LCD RGB display on the LEFT.

Pentile matrix on the right.

[Dreamliner330]

^oh well, I'm sure 'better' is an opinion. .

[Suntan]

^Yes, because the first thing I do when determining image clarity is grab my light meter and determine foot Lamberts. How ignorant.

Unbelievable.

That was my point. Image quality can't be measured. The ignorance is yours for making inferences that it can be.

-Suntan

[Suntan]

Here we go.. tell me which you think is better.

Here's a closeup of an LCD RGB display on the LEFT.

Pentile matrix on the right.

Obviously I think the LCD image has better defined edges to the words and letters. I'm not defending pentile and I'm not a fanboy that thinks samoled is second to none. My comments were specifically to disagree with the faulty logic that the other poster was using, not the topic.

-Suntan

[Dreamliner330]

Obviously I think the LCD image has better defined edges to the words and letters. I'm not defending pentile and I'm not a fanboy that thinks samoled is second to none. My comments were specifically to disagree with the faulty logic that the other poster was using, not the topic.

-Suntan

If somebody showed you the picture above and asked you which one was more clear, you wouldn't understand the question?

My original question was perfectly clear:

If you could explain how a display that shares sub-pixels could produce a clearer image with one that does not, that would be great. Thanks.

You are simply choosing to be overly difficulty just to drag out the debate.

[Suntan]

If somebody showed you the picture above and asked you which one was more clear, you wouldn't understand the question?

Huh?

I stated in the first sentence that I believe the picture of the LCD looked better than the pentile. Which is a perfectly valid answer.

You are simply choosing to be overly difficulty just to drag out the debate.

And you are obstinately insisting that all subjective criteria that go into someone's opinion of what looks good and what doesn't should be boiled down to one, quantified variable. Which I find willfully ignorant.

-Suntan

[Dreamliner330]

And you are obstinately insisting that all subjective criteria that go into someone's opinion of what looks good and what doesn't should be boiled down to one, quantified variable. Which I find willfully ignorant.

-Suntan

I guess if you are able to say with a straight face that an opinion could possibly vary as to which looks better in the picture above, then we have nothing to debate.

Thanks for the laughs.

-Dreamliner330 (in case anybody didn't know who wrote this)

[Newtoandroid99]

Here we go.. tell me which you think is better.

Here's a closeup of an LCD RGB display on the LEFT.

Pentile matrix on the right.

So the one on the right is the sg3 and the one on the left is the one x? Because if it's not then these pictures do not prove anything.

[Suntan]

I guess if you are able to say with a straight face that an opinion could possibly vary as to which looks better in the picture above, then we have nothing to debate.

That picture is a red herring. It is one little crop taken so close as to approximate looking at your phone from 4 inches away. If you want to argue that, have at it. I have stated multiple times that I agree that the pentile looks worse in that image yet you keep hanging on it while ignoring everything else I am saying.

Display quality is subjective. Claiming anything differently is silly.

You obviously came here looking to pick a fight with anyone that isn't willing to say that pentile is always and forever going to be crap next to a traditional LCD matrix. Fine you've said your piece. My original comments to the OP on this subject was little more than to tell the OP that they should wait until the phone is in stores to look at it for themselves if they have doubts. That's the extent of the position I'm taking on the GSIII screen.

You obviously want me to say that pentile sucks and so this screen will suck. Sorry, I'm not going to say that as I haven't even seen the thing.

But in the spirit of giving it one last try, here is a picture I took a while back of my daughter. (I did these up quick and dirty for a photography lesson I was giving so they aren't directly applicable here, but they are what I have on dropbox at the moment.) They're all the same image, but processed differently to mimic the colors and tones from different imaging systems.

Which one is "best?" You tell me.







I know which one is color correct to the original scene and will match a quality printout from any pro printing lab, so I know which one is "correct." But even then, I wouldn't say any one of them are any "better" than the other when just talking about Joe6Pack viewing them on their uncalibrated and profiled computer screen at home. Same thing with phone displays.

Now speaking of digital pictures, my home/desktop display is an eizo CG243W. It's only a 24" display at 1920x1200. By looking at just those specs its actually quite tame by a lot of people's standards. If you were to look at it, you would probably find it quite drab, not very vibrant and rather lacking in brightness. All those conditions that you might find objectionable I find desirable because I have it specifically setup to mimic what a picture would look like if it were printed on Kodak Endura Luster paper. So you see, in subjective terms I can find the output of the screen outstanding while you can sit there and think it looks poor, and we can both be right!

Now, here's an image of my basement.



It's properly calibrated to REC 709, the light output is also properly adjusted to the SMPTE recommended 15 ft-lamberts (yeah, some of us do break out our light meters to gauge the quality of a screen...) When watching in a totally light controlled room, it looks awesome. But if you were to turn the lights on it would look very dim and you'd probably think it looked poor. So which is right? Both!

Now it looks bang on amazing when playing back Blu Rays, which are properly encoded at Rec 709, but it can look slightly off when running DVDs that are output at Rec 601. So does that mean it is or isn't correct? Neither. It is what it is because display output ultimately is subjective.

Not only that, but I tend to prefer the colors cranked up a little more when I'm playing Playstation on it because it makes games pop a little more. So if I wasn't able to adjust the colors on it (like you can't on cellphones) would the display be good or bad? Probably depends on how many movies you watch vs. how many games you want to play. Subjective with no one right answer.

Now am I saying all these things and showing you my basement to try and brag? No (maybe.) What I am trying to convey is that I've spent a couple of decades studying and dealing with display technology. I've used *a lot* of different type of displays with more acronyms than I can remember. I've yet to find anyone that is seriously into any of the visual hobbies that would stand up and make a blanket claim that one technology is always better than another.

Anyway, if you want to really talk about the subject, that's fine. If you just want everyone to agree with you that pentile or amoled always sucks, we can leave it right there.

-Suntan

[Dreamliner330]

^You should upgrade to the AE7000, I did and it's much better. Also, there is some debate that Rec 709 doesn't look 'right' at certain screen sizes...but that depends on your screen size there.

As we seem to be comparing...This is before I put in my furniture and upgraded my subwoofers:


Also, If I had to guess, the 3rd one is the closest to the original and the 2nd one is the furthest (as the colors are greatly manipulated and oversaturated). I personally prefer the 1st one.

Now, if you would like to change the structure of the pixels that make up the image, that would be a more accurate comparison to what we are talking about, as color temperature and saturation tends to be more subjective.

I'm simply saying that a pentile/amoled screen is not able to produce the image clarity of LCD because of fundamental differences in subpixel structure. Its not an opinion, its a fact.

I have personally run into issues where I have not been able to read text from a video on my phone simply because it has a pentile screen. On LCD phone screens, its clearly visible; this is why I debate this issue, the pixels are not so small that its indiscernible, because it clearly is (pun intended).