Thoughts on the pentile screen?

sniffs

Well-known member
Dec 3, 2009
1,792
83
0
Visit site
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.

dxvsatrix1.png
 

Suntan

Well-known member
Mar 16, 2011
1,603
86
48
Visit site
^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

Well-known member
Mar 16, 2011
1,603
86
48
Visit site
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.

Click to view quoted image

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

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2011
1,026
42
48
Visit site
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

Well-known member
Mar 16, 2011
1,603
86
48
Visit site
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

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2011
1,026
42
48
Visit site
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)
 

Suntan

Well-known member
Mar 16, 2011
1,603
86
48
Visit site
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.

Elena-D2X-Mode-2.jpg


Elena-Passport-Profile.jpg


Elena-Portrait.jpg


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.

DSC_6392.jpg


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

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2011
1,026
42
48
Visit site
^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:
103727_full.jpg


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).
 
  • Like
Reactions: crackberrytraitor

Johnly

Retired Moderator
Oct 6, 2010
4,916
319
0
Visit site
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

Well-known member
Sep 3, 2011
1,026
42
48
Visit site
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 OQuinn

AC Team Emeritus
May 17, 2010
9,267
496
0
Visit site
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.
 

sirheck

Well-known member
Jul 5, 2010
207
35
0
Visit site
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.
 

Suntan

Well-known member
Mar 16, 2011
1,603
86
48
Visit site
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

Well-known member
Mar 16, 2011
1,603
86
48
Visit site
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 poop 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 OQuinn

AC Team Emeritus
May 17, 2010
9,267
496
0
Visit site
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.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Shepx13

Trending Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
942,409
Messages
6,913,953
Members
3,158,399
Latest member
pauloxcavalcante