[corydorcutt]

Your setup looks almost exactly like mine. What kind of projector/ screen material you using?

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

[Johnly]

Pentile is like a belt driven motor, while it is good, it is not direct drive or ture IPS. What is there to debate?

[Dreamliner330]

Your setup looks almost exactly like mine. What kind of projector/ screen material you using?

I have a 136" Carada Criterion screen and a Panasonic PT-AE7000 projector.

Pentile is like a belt driven motor, while it is good, it is not direct drive or ture IPS. What is there to debate?

Thats what I'd like to know. Apparently my use of the phrase 'image quality' in regards to a comparison between LCD & AMOLED and its use of subpixel sharing started a 'debate.' It's my fault I guess for not explicitly stating 'subpixel sharing.'

[Kevin O'Quinn]

Besides the fact that there are standards for what is correct, and what isn't. If you prefer something that isn't technically correct (which is what all those standards that are being quoted determine) then that's perfectly fine. The ultimate goal of any display is to make things appear as they do in real life (at least it should be). Whichever display does that better is clearly superior (as measured with fancy equipment that can tell us these things). Display quality is not subjective. It is a clearly measured thing. It can be boiled down to numbers and charts. Whether or not you prefer a particular display, though, is personal preference.

Every single AMOLED display I've ever seen of any variety isn't capable of a truly white white. It always has a tinge of something else (usually blue or yellow), but the SLCD2 on my One X produces a true white, and really good black levels (though AMOLED will always rule here).

So yes, which display you prefer is a choice, and is up to the individual. But that doesn't make it better subjectively, that just mean they prefer something that's less than ideal or perfect.


It's actually kind of funny to hear people say that you can't measure how good a display is, and then quote all kinds of standards that you calibrate your display to. Kind of an oxymoron, right? Standards exist for a reason, and one of them is so that we CAN subjectively compare the quality of a display without opinion getting in the way.

[corydorcutt]

I have a 136" Carada Criterion screen and a Panasonic PT-AE7000 projector.

'

I'm so jelly of you man. Those 3d projectors look friggen awesome. Looking to upgrade my Epson PowerLite soon I think.


Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

[sirheck]

I have the Galaxy Note and have flashed the OnlyOne (Goldie) ROM on it
which is basically the GS3,s whole software system and the screen is
way better looking. HD everything.

[Dreamliner330]

I'm so jelly of you man. Those 3d projectors look friggen awesome. Looking to upgrade my Epson PowerLines soon I think.

Power Lens Memory on the Panasonic is awesome.

[Suntan]

Besides the fact that there are standards for what is correct, and what isn't. If you prefer something that isn't technically correct (which is what all those standards that are being quoted determine) then that's perfectly fine. The ultimate goal of any display is to make things appear as they do in real life (at least it should be).

I couldn't disagree with this more. First of all, no display made has ever come close to reproducing what the eye actually sees in nature. Second people making visual content (both movies and still images) put *a lot* of effort into making the content, and thus the resulting output, look at lot different than what was actually there in real life.

In any case, since you reference “technically correct,” I’ll put forth the same challenge that Dreamliner has completely dodged. Namely, what are the “technically correct” values that make a “perfect” cell phone screen?

Every single AMOLED display I've ever seen of any variety isn't capable of a truly white white. It always has a tinge of something else (usually blue or yellow), but the SLCD2 on my One X produces a true white, and really good black levels (though AMOLED will always rule here).

I’ll take your word for it, as I said I’ve not seen the HOX in person and I don’t have a lot of hands-on time with amoled screens in general. Not being a dink about it either. I remember the SLCD screen I played with on the Dinc2 and remember thinking it looked like a really nice screen. That said, it is still all just personal preference, even if the majority of us tend to have similar preferences.

So yes, which display you prefer is a choice, and is up to the individual. But that doesn't make it better subjectively, that just mean they prefer something that's less than ideal or perfect.

So the individual can choose what they find to be ideal, but if they choose something that disagrees with group-think then they are choosing the non-ideal one that isn’t perfect? You don’t see the hubris there? Does the collective group-think determine what’s “correct?”

At one time, the iphone was considered the ideal standard for cell phones according to the group-think of cell phone owners. I mean it had by far the largest share of smartphone volume at one time. If the notion that people buy the most ideal phone for them and the notion that the largest consensus of what is ideal creates the true standard of what is ideal, does that mean that all the rest of us chose imperfect phones that were less than ideal? Was it a case of us being “blissfully ignorant” that we didn’t even know we were picking inferior phones, like your-man suggested up above? Or did we just place different levels of importance on subjective criteria and there is no one true standard that makes up the ideal phone?

Surely we could measure the snot out of cell phones, so we can say that we can quantify what makes up the ideal, perfect phone, it just has to have a 3.5” screen with 960-640 pixels, a round button of X mm in diameter centered on the face and Y mm up from the bottom edge, etc. etc…

Yeah, sounds pretty silly. So is the notion that there is one ideal screen standard and that anyone who chooses something other than that is choosing something “imperfect.”

It's actually kind of funny to hear people say that you can't measure how good a display is, and then quote all kinds of standards that you calibrate your display to.

Again, you are not measuring “display quality” directly. You are measuring measurable variables that a group of people agree leads to the opinion of what makes a good screen. You are not directly measuring the quality of the display. It may seem like a trite distinction, but it is there.

Standards exist so a group of people can be sure that multiple displays will perform as closely together as possible so that what one sees on one screen will look as close as possible to what another sees on another.

That said, each "visual market" has their own standards. What is a properly setup display for movie playback, according to the tradegroups of that industry will not be acceptably correct according to the tradegroups that work in graphics art and still imagery. Likewise, neither groups' settings would be considered acceptable for the medical imaging world, and the wheel goes round and round.

The mere fact that there are so many different "standards," depending on what you use a display for and who you talk to, points to the fact that there is no "one correct" standard for display quality.

-Suntan

[Suntan]

I have a 136" Carada Criterion screen and a Panasonic PT-AE7000 projector.

Then it is doubly sad that you have invested so much time and resources into the visual hobbies and still hold such a myopic and uninformed view of the topic.

I'll also add that it is rather ironic about you owning one of the Panny AE PJs yet complaining about pentile screens on phones not being acceptable.

Most of the A/V nuts deride the AE line of PJs for having Panny's "smooth screen" filter, which intentionally blurs the image. Then there are the anamorphic lens purists that deride the lens zoom method for attaining a cinimascope output because the pixel fill factor is not as high. Finally you have the DLP folk that **** on anything LCD stating that it is inferior and that needing a dynamic iris to attain high contrast ratios is junk and the CRT guys that gripe about all the other types of PJ for not being able to properly output the full gamut of colors.

So I suppose all those people are also wrong and that an LCD PJ with a dynamic iris bouncing around, with smooth screen blurring the image, with the lens zoomed in so the pixels don't properly fill the up all the space on the screen and the red channel colors being weak is the standard for a HT display...

-Suntan

[Kevin O'Quinn]

I couldn't disagree with this more. First of all, no display made has ever come close to reproducing what the eye actually sees in nature. Second people making visual content (both movies and still images) put *a lot* of effort into making the content, and thus the resulting output, look at lot different than what was actually there in real life.

In any case, since you reference “technically correct,” I’ll put forth the same challenge that Dreamliner has completely dodged. Namely, what are the “technically correct” values that make a “perfect” cell phone screen?




I’ll take your word for it, as I said I’ve not seen the HOX in person and I don’t have a lot of hands-on time with amoled screens in general. Not being a dink about it either. I remember the SLCD screen I played with on the Dinc2 and remember thinking it looked like a really nice screen. That said, it is still all just personal preference, even if the majority of us tend to have similar preferences.




So the individual can choose what they find to be ideal, but if they choose something that disagrees with group-think then they are choosing the non-ideal one that isn’t perfect? You don’t see the hubris there? Does the collective group-think determine what’s “correct?”

At one time, the iphone was considered the ideal standard for cell phones according to the group-think of cell phone owners. I mean it had by far the largest share of smartphone volume at one time. If the notion that people buy the most ideal phone for them and the notion that the largest consensus of what is ideal creates the true standard of what is ideal, does that mean that all the rest of us chose imperfect phones that were less than ideal? Was it a case of us being “blissfully ignorant” that we didn’t even know we were picking inferior phones, like your-man suggested up above? Or did we just place different levels of importance on subjective criteria and there is no one true standard that makes up the ideal phone?

Surely we could measure the snot out of cell phones, so we can say that we can quantify what makes up the ideal, perfect phone, it just has to have a 3.5” screen with 960-640 pixels, a round button of X mm in diameter centered on the face and Y mm up from the bottom edge, etc. etc…

Yeah, sounds pretty silly. So is the notion that there is one ideal screen standard and that anyone who chooses something other than that is choosing something “imperfect.”





Again, you are not measuring “display quality” directly. You are measuring measurable variables that a group of people agree leads to the opinion of what makes a good screen. You are not directly measuring the quality of the display. It may seem like a trite distinction, but it is there.

Standards exist so a group of people can be sure that multiple displays will perform as closely together as possible so that what one sees on one screen will look as close as possible to what another sees on another.

That said, each "visual market" has their own standards. What is a properly setup display for movie playback, according to the tradegroups of that industry will not be acceptably correct according to the tradegroups that work in graphics art and still imagery. Likewise, neither groups' settings would be considered acceptable for the medical imaging world, and the wheel goes round and round.

The mere fact that there are so many different "standards," depending on what you use a display for and who you talk to, points to the fact that there is no "one correct" standard for display quality.

-Suntan

Did you not state that you have a monitor setup specifically to reproduce images that will look identical to how they look when you print them? What's the goal of that? To make images and prints that look as close to reality as possible, right? Unless your intended goal is something a little more "artistic" at least.

People invest thousands of dollars into high-end photography equipment so that they have the best equipment available to capture images as close to how they look to the human eye.

There are definitely accepted standards. Take white level, for example. Would you agree that daylight is the accepted standard for lighting and for "white"? If so it's commonly accepted that daylight is 6500k, regardless of what industry you're talking about. Adobe has color space specifications (which you should be familiar with being into photography). Black level is also measurable. So is color accuracy, sharpness, contrast, brightness, I can really keep going.

The perfect display doesn't exist. Until the idea of the pixel is non-existent it never will. The human eye has an absurdly high resolution limit, but a limited range for color, which is where displays typically focus.

It has nothing to do with groups, or majority of users. That has no impact or affect on what is "good" or "bad". A majority of people could love AMOLED displays, but that won't change the fact that have difficulty with true whites.

To your last point, I think you may be getting something confused. All of the things that I've said can be measured to determine which display is better has nothing to do with the use case. Sure, there are certain measurements that a specific industry might pay more attention to, but that doesn't make those measurements meaningless.

To your point about the filmmakers making things not look like reality on purpose...you still need a display capable of displaying things as accurately as possible or it won't look the way they intended. Those same filmmakers go to great lengths and trouble to make sure the lighting they use simulates day light as much as possible (or whatever time of day they're trying to simulate at the time).


Saying that different industries have different requirements is a moot point. Every display has to be capable of accurately displaying colors and be capable of getting bright enough to do so. Ideally brightness would have no impact on image quality, but we aren't to that point yet. It doesn't matter what I watch The Dark Knight on, it needs to look the same on whatever display I happen to be viewing it on.

The monitor you use to finalize your photos probably looks really amazing, honestly, because if it's high-quality and calibrated correctly it should be extremely lifelike.

[Suntan]

Did you not state that you have a monitor setup specifically to reproduce images that will look identical to how they look when you print them? What's the goal of that? To make images and prints that look as close to reality as possible, right? Unless your intended goal is something a little more "artistic" at least.

That’s just it. My desktop display is setup to mimic the look of Endura print paper. Which does not and cannot look just like the real world. The desire is to have confidence that what is created on screen will faithfully be recreated when printed. But the more important aspect of it is that if you were to sit down and watch a movie on the display, or even worse, play a video game on the display you would think it was a cheap piece of crap because the colors would look dull and not “lifelike” the way you are used to seeing them when you game or watch a movie.

More importantly, that’s just one use case and it costs a lot of money just to get that. So if all you wanted the display for was to watch movies on it, you would think it was a POS that cost way too much, and you’d be right.

Do you use your phone for just one thing and one thing only? Or do you expect it to be a jack of all trades?

It may seem silly to press the point, but I’ll give a real example. When I got my Droid 3 I really liked the pentile screen because it used a “white” pixel as the extra pixel, allowing the screen to be nice and bright without draining the battery. At the time my day job required me to take notes while out in the bright sun quite often during the summer. Being able to use the phone to take pictures, embed them into a quickoffice document and then put notes with the pictures for further review back at the office was great and was actually feasible because the screen was nice and bright and the black text on a white background was really sharp and clear. I could use it all day with the backlight maxed, taking pictures and making notes and not be too worried about the battery going out.

At the time it was the ideal screen for the job, yet some people here would like to tell me that it was my own “blissful ignorance” that I didn’t know I should want a traditional RGB array screen instead.

Now let’s talk about after hours, the screen worked ok for video, although the pentile matrix could be annoying from time to time. It was rather drab for games where I much prefer brighter and punchier colors and amoled would have been a benefit back there. No need to try and mimic “real life” when I’m slingshotting birds at green pigs…

Was I “blissfully ignorant” about movie playback and lack of saturated colors for games? Heck no, I could see it plain as day. But the reality is that you’re stuck making subjective choices about what will best fit your needs and nobody is making the “perfect” screen.

People invest thousands of dollars into high-end photography equipment so that they have the best equipment available to capture images as close to how they look to the human eye.

Not really. Most of the time the goal is to produce an image the way the photographer wants to portray it to the viewer. First and foremost, don’t let me break it to you that those girls weren’t made to look that way by their momma. Don’t believe me? Have a mouse-over on some of these girls.



"That doesn’t count," you say. But it does. The reality is that we have been conditionally trained to expect what we see on a display to look different from what we see in real life.

If I take an image of some kids playing in a school gymnasium, do you really want the resulting image to look a sickly greenish-yellow from the sodium vapor lights? Or do you want them to look “normal?” When you are at the gym yourself your eye/mind automatically corrects for the whitepoint of the lights. When you see the result that would be a faithful representation of the lighting in a picture you would think it looks terrible.

Now you may be thinking, well yeah that’s obvious, but that is just one example (one that most people can relate to) of many things that have to change to make a “picture” look normal, whether it is printed or displayed on a screen. And that doesn’t even touch on all the lighting and color change tricks that can and do get used to shift the resulting images (both video and stills) so that they end up looking like what you expect them to look like on your display.

If you still don’t believe me, have a google for terms like “CSI Miami colors” or “Michael Bay Colors” those are two off the top of my head that are usually the most obvious and complained about, but there are entire classes taught about changing colors to fit something other than “real life.” Usually the effect is to try and make the new video mimic the limitations and constraints of old film, because that’s what we want our movies to look like. Google for something like “cinestyle color correction” and you should probably find a lot of hits.

There are definitely accepted standards. Take white level, for example. Would you agree that daylight is the accepted standard for lighting and for "white"? If so it's commonly accepted that daylight is 6500k, regardless of what industry you're talking about. Adobe has color space specifications (which you should be familiar with being into photography). Black level is also measurable. So is color accuracy, sharpness, contrast, brightness, I can really keep going.

Yes, there are standards based on the specific industry you are in, and yes I do agree that 6500K is the generally agreed upon reference for “daylight.” Where I disagree is that everyone has to like “daylight” as their absolute preferred reference and strive to only use or own displays that only output such.

Just check the menu of your regular desktop monitor. I bet it has a number of different settings for “warm” or “cool” or perhaps it just gives color temps like 5500K and 6500K and maybe 7000K. The reality is that some people like to look at the warmer colors if they are doing text work on their computer screens all day. Are they “imperfect” for wanting this?

Or for that matter, type “White paint” into the search field of the Home Depot website and see how many hits you come up with. Are all but one of those imperfect choices?

The perfect display doesn't exist. Until the idea of the pixel is non-existent it never will. The human eye has an absurdly high resolution limit, but a limited range for color, which is where displays typically focus.

Not really. We’re actually the other way around. The good folks at SMPTE and THX have put a fair amount of work into figuring out the human eye. Basically they suggest that for someone with 20/20 vision (…but of course all of us here are better than average…) their eye can resolve about 1/60 of a degree of arc. Beyond that, it doesn’t matter. Based on this, and some other things, they have standards for movie viewing. Now we use our phones for more than just movies, but it is interesting to take a look at the numbers. Basically, for a 4.8” screen with a 1280x720 res; the ideal distance someone should hold their phone to maximize acuity without having the individual pixels too obvious a person should hold the phone pretty much at 11.2” from their eyes. Which I would say that is on the close side of where someone would normally hold their phone. So we’re pretty much there already for resolution.

As for color, here is the color gamut for sRGB.



The triangle in the middle is the sRGB colorspace (which is a pretty small colorspace compared to some of the other prominent ones) and the swoopy triangle like envelop around it represents what the average human eye can make out. As you can see, sRGB isn’t even hitting half of all the colors that we can see. And no phone display is even coming close to accurately filling the whole sRGB gamut.

If anything, displays need to get going on color if we ever want them to replicate “real life.” But as we discussed above, people have been conditioned to expect our displays to show use something other than “real life” and so when we see displays that show a lot of vibrant colors (like amoled) we instantly point a finger and denounce it for having “amped up” colors that are “realistic.”

It has nothing to do with groups, or majority of users. That has no impact or affect on what is "good" or "bad". A majority of people could love AMOLED displays, but that won't change the fact that have difficulty with true whites.

They have difficulty with 6500K “daylight.”

To your last point, I think you may be getting something confused. All of the things that I've said can be measured to determine which display is better…

Can be measured to determine which display meets a subjective set of criteria for which we can choose to agree looks “better.” There’s a difference.

-Suntan

[Dreamliner330]

Suntan, the more you swing the bat, the more you strike out. Sad, really.

You've moved way beyond the topic of this thread because you are unable to admit defeat. Stop now before you **** off a moderator.

[nkd]

WOW can we close this thread already and put it at the end of forum universe. I can't believe what this turned in to, lol. Pentile is ok if done right, It sucks on motorola phones and it shined on galaxy nexus and it would be even better on GS3. Lets just put it at that.

[sniffs]

This AC blog post clearly shows why I won't be keeping my SGIII.

White is supposed to be white, not blue-ish.

http://www.androidcentral.com/offici...snt-smartglass

Look at that SGIII screen and contrast it to the white space around the blog post.

If all our monitors did this by default, whoever made the monitors would be out of business, yet it's OK if it's a smartphone? Ever wonder why Apple will not ever use a pentile matrix in their hardware? Apple strives for the highest quality and accepts nothing less.. In Apple's eyes, pentile is inferior regardless of anyone's opinion.

[nkd]

This AC blog post clearly shows why I won't be keeping my SGIII.

White is supposed to be white, not blue-ish.

http://www.androidcentral.com/offici...snt-smartglass

Look at that SGIII screen and contrast it to the white space around the blog post.

If all our monitors did this by default, whoever made the monitors would be out of business, yet it's OK if it's a smartphone? Ever wonder why Apple will not ever use a pentile matrix in their hardware? Apple strives for the highest quality and accepts nothing less.. In Apple's eyes, pentile is inferior regardless of anyone's opinion.

You do realize the phone comes with different preference for color tone right? You can select which one you want. Plus the image quality of the picture has a big question mark. Looks like taken with a low res camera phone.

The post isn't even about galaxy S. way to just judge a phone by looking a picture, and not taking any variables in to account. I am sure you will have an iphone 5 readily available if you chose to do so.

[sniffs]

You do realize the phone comes with different preference for color tone right? You can select which one you want. Plus the image quality of the picture has a big question mark. Looks like taken with a low res camera phone.

The post isn't even about galaxy S. way to just judge a phone by looking a picture, and not taking any variables in to account. I am sure you will have an iphone 5 readily available if you chose to do so.

I'm assuming you've never seen a Galaxy Nexus then either. Hold that phone, or an SGIII up next to an HTC One X with the same white screen and the GN and SGIII are inherently blue-er due to the larger blue pixels.

That post isn't about the Galaxy S or the SIII, but that phone in the image IS an SIII.

[LazrRocketArm]

I'm assuming you've never seen a Galaxy Nexus then either. Hold that phone, or an SGIII up next to an HTC One X with the same white screen and the GN and SGIII are inherently blue-er due to the larger blue pixels.

That post isn't about the Galaxy S or the SIII, but that phone in the image IS an SIII.

No offense dude, but I can't take you seriously if you are really judging the SGSIII screen, based on your screens presentation of a photo of the screen.

People can argue all day about what measures you may judge a screen, but the eye test never fails.

[n8ter#AC]

Pentile has been given a bad name. I had the galaxy nexus for a bit and pentile on that looks 100 times better than razr maxx my friend has.

I am not too worried about it. However galaxy nexus did look bad on low brightness when there was white background. From what I have read in reviews, samsung has tweaked the colors and screen and that issue is no longer there.

However, the Galaxy Nexus screen can burn-in, so that's also a consideration. I personally have never seen an IPS screen burn-in, but I've seen tons of sAMOLED screens with burn-in. Pen-Tile on a 720p display is practically invisible to the naked eye, though. You will not notice the difference without at least a magnifying glass - for the most part. It's not a factor.

It was more of a factor at WVGA (1st gen GS devices) and qHD (devices like the Droid Bionic, that screen is disgusting with the Pen-Tile checkerboard).

I think the Droid Razr/Razr Maxx have qHD screens so yea the Galaxy Nexus screen does blow them away.

[corydorcutt]

I couldn't disagree with this more. First of all, no display made has ever come close to reproducing what the eye actually sees in nature. Second people making visual content (both movies and still images) put *a lot* of effort into making the content, and thus the resulting output, look at lot different than what was actually there in real life.


-Suntan

Exactly. They put a lot of effort into making it look the way they did. So using a display that accurately reproduces that output the way they designed it to look would obviously be the most ideal thing, would it not? It seems silly to talk about preserving the colors and tones made by the artist to defend a display that has a higher level of distortion/saturation.


Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums

[Suntan]

Exactly. They put a lot of effort into making it look the way they did. So using a display that accurately reproduces that output the way they designed it to look would obviously be the most ideal thing, would it not? It seems silly to talk about preserving the colors and tones made by the artist to defend a display that has a higher level of distortion/saturation.

Actually, in the home theater world this debate is known as preference vs. reference. Half the group says you'd be silly to watch output that is different than the director intends. The other half argue that you would be silly to knowingly watch a reference setup when you know you like the look a different way.

Feel free to pick the side you want to be on.

-Suntan

[neiljay6]

Suntan, the more you swing the bat, the more you strike out. Sad, really.

You've moved way beyond the topic of this thread because you are unable to admit defeat. Stop now before you **** off a moderator.

Wow. He’s gonna **** off a moderator because of his opinion?? He has in no way been disrespectful or rude in anyway.
Anyhoo, this thread has become ridiculous. Don’t know why some people must go to great lengths to prove that what they have or like is the best or is the correct thing to have.
My good friend bought a gnex and the screen on that thing is amazing to me. And from what I can gather the gs3 screen is even better.
Based on that experience and my experiences with other phones I have used in the past, I will say I prefer the look of amoled screens any day of the week. And If anyone is gonna come here and tell me that my preference is dumb or I am naive because of my opinion or preference, then that individual has lost all credibility and is not worth arguing with.
My advice to people is don’t let me or anyone here sway your opinion on what you want to buy. Especially people that don’t have the phone in their possession. If possible look at the phone and screen in person and decide for yourself what is acceptable and good for you.
I’m buying this phone and based on my experiences with amoled screens in the pass it will be the best for me.

[corydorcutt]

Not really. Most of the time the goal is to produce an image the way the photographer wants to portray it to the viewer.

You see, you said it again yourself.

Actually, in the home theater world this debate is known as preference vs. reference. Half the group says you'd be silly to watch output that is different than the director intends. The other half argue that you would be silly to knowingly watch a reference setup when you know you like the look a different way.

Yes, I agree some people may choose that they prefer to change the output slightly to their liking, however I don't think any true visual hobbiest would prefer a display that is physically incapable of portraying an output that is similar to the original over one that can, rather they would adjust it back in forth via software for whatever they may find useful on their application of choice at the time. Over saturation maybe be useful for some shots, which can be achieved with software adjustments. But when your display can't adjust the opposite way, say on a darker image, you're simply stuck with details being totally turned black and obscured and there is nothing you can do about it.

[Kevin O'Quinn]

Wow. He’s gonna **** off a moderator because of his opinion?? He has in no way been disrespectful or rude in anyway.
Anyhoo, this thread has become ridiculous. Don’t know why some people must go to great lengths to prove that what they have or like is the best or is the correct thing to have.
My good friend bought a gnex and the screen on that thing is amazing to me. And from what I can gather the gs3 screen is even better.
Based on that experience and my experiences with other phones I have used in the past, I will say I prefer the look of amoled screens any day of the week. And If anyone is gonna come here and tell me that my preference is dumb or I am naive because of my opinion or preference, then that individual has lost all credibility and is not worth arguing with.
My advice to people is don’t let me or anyone here sway your opinion on what you want to buy. Especially people that don’t have the phone in their possession. If possible look at the phone and screen in person and decide for yourself what is acceptable and good for you.
I’m buying this phone and based on my experiences with amoled screens in the pass it will be the best for me.

I'm definitely not going to get mad or angry because someone disagrees with me or presents evidence to support their case.

Each person definitely chooses what they like. You're not wrong for having a preference.


+suntan, I'm well aware of sRGB vs Adobe RGB. The reason AMOLED displays in particular look so saturated is because they are capable of displaying more than the sRGB range, but not quite all the way to the Adobe RGB. The signal (and what everything is really designed to work with) is the sRGB color space. So what happens with all the extra range the display is capable of displaying? It gets turned into the next closest thing, which is what oversaturates the display. Samsung can try to correct for this, but it's like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound.

Also, with SLCD2 on the One X it's capable of plenty of brightness to be able to be used in direct sunlight, without having to resort to subpixel trickery to falsely raise the brightness. No one said that there isn't a place for something like that, though, and as I stated above there are people that will prefer this over a truly accurate display because they need it to be functional in that particular use case. It's a compromise that has to be made in order to use your phone the way you need to use it. Until we have a perfect display (which won't happen for quite a while) everyone will have to choose a display that makes a compromise in some way or another.

I also didn't state that anybody should try to undo the work of a director or artist that purposely makes something look like something other than reality. If the display is calibrated correctly then it'll look exactly as the director/artist intended. I'm not going to use Transformers to calibrate a display.


Just to clarify, are you saying that you don't try to make your pictures as close to reality as possible (assuming you aren't purposely making it look different)? Because if you are, then you obviously choose paper, ink, and a printer that will accurately print what's on your display. And your display should be calibrated to display pictures as close to reality as possible, and I'm just making a natural assumption that you're using a really good camera (DSLR) that takes awesomely accurate pictures (with proper white balance and such).

[sirheck]

The new iphone5,s transparent screen blows them all away.

[corydorcutt]

Wow. He’s gonna **** off a moderator because of his opinion?? He has in no way been disrespectful or rude in anyway.
Anyhoo, this thread has become ridiculous. Don’t know why some people must go to great lengths to prove that what they have or like is the best or is the correct thing to have.
My good friend bought a gnex and the screen on that thing is amazing to me. And from what I can gather the gs3 screen is even better.
Based on that experience and my experiences with other phones I have used in the past, I will say I prefer the look of amoled screens any day of the week. And If anyone is gonna come here and tell me that my preference is dumb or I am naive because of my opinion or preference, then that individual has lost all credibility and is not worth arguing with.
My advice to people is don’t let me or anyone here sway your opinion on what you want to buy. Especially people that don’t have the phone in their possession. If possible look at the phone and screen in person and decide for yourself what is acceptable and good for you.
I’m buying this phone and based on my experiences with amoled screens in the pass it will be the best for me.

Nobody is saying that your opinion is dumb, if you prefer the oversaturation of AMOLED, you should buy it, as it's obviously better for you. The point that's being made is that from a technical standpoint, the display that can more accurately reproduce colors and has a higher rate of clarity is a better overall display.

Sent from my HTC One X using Android Central Forums