Aren't you glad LG went with LCD?

[flyingkytez]

Sorry but no. You are consistently repeating statement that you know, beyond a shadow of a doubt, are entirely untrue. I have a guess as to why, but since I don't know it to be true, I will not elaborate on that part. But it is a simple fact that you have made dozens of threads repeating the same false claims despite the entire community having tried to explain the flaws in your arguments. But you don't listen to any of us, instead you just lie more and more. Why does it take so many threads and so many people to try to get you to see reason? So many people have tried to get you to understand how things actually work, whether it be displays, megapixels, or whatever.

You really believe you, and you alone, know more about mobile technology than the entirety of the mobile technology community, including the best of the hardware and software companies? Don't you ever consider that to be arrogant? The only reason that I and others even bother to engage with you is because it is vital to the integrity of the community to fight back against misinformation when it presents itself and luckily, you have made it easy to identify misinformation, as it exists in nearly every single one of your threads.

I sent multiple links to the reason of my conclusions, you have sent zero links to any studies and explanations from professionals. If you don't want to believe it, then that's fine. This is what I'm hearing from actual tests and professionals/engineers.

Here you go again:

From: https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/should-you-buy-oled-laptop/

Quote:

"These results were clear and consistent. Going OLED decreased battery life between 10 to 25 percent, depending on load...

Why does battery life shorten? It appears that, with current OLED panels, a fully lit screen uses a bit more power than an LCD screen. Remember, there’s no backlight with OLED. Instead, each individual pixel is lit, as needed. When all the pixels are lit, they’re downing a lot of juice."

LG G7's MLCD+ display technology explained:

https://www.androidauthority.com/lg-g7-thinq-mlcd-display-861285/

"LG Display engineers told us power consumption is lower than OLED displays too, which might have been part of the decision to pick this tech over the POLED panel the company used in the V30."

The reason why LG went with LCD was possibly because of better battery life.

Listen to a professional explain it:

At 5:45 "... As brightness of the display increases , its depiction of white becomes less accurate... White backgrounds consume significantly more power in AMOLED displays than IPS ones since all sub pixels must be set to max brightness whereas IPS lighting provides consistent lighting from the backlight underneath so often manufacturers will often limit the brightness of some sub pixels in these AMOLED displays to conserve battery life..."

https://youtu.be/Unry0ZDMFrQ



...Okay, so should I be blamed for my beliefs about AMOLED screens? Are these not legitimate information? From an LG engineer? An expert on displays? An actual case study? You can throw these information in the trash, that's fine, but it's the truth. You are using your personal beliefs to make claims. Again, OVERALL battery life is dependant on a variety of things, so don't get worked up about the screen. That's it, I'm not going to reply anymore, I think I gave enough proof.

The LG G7 went with IPS LCD to achieve the ultra brightness feature plus POSSIBLY the battery saving benefits (as claimed by an LG engineer). And, in my opinion, they want to avoid screen burn-in from the ultra brightness mode feature plus the notch displaying static icons and notifications on the "new second screen".

 

[flyingkytez]

....At this point, it's like beating a dead horse since we all know that you aren't going to say anything negative about any of LG stuff irrespective is it's great or bad

I'm not all for LG. I actually didn't like how they went with an all glass body and curved screens (I made a mega thread complaining about the removable battery), plus I didn't really like the notch on the G7. Also, I felt the G7 could've had a bigger battery, maybe 3300mAh (I guess to make room for the BoomBox chamber though). Also, their software is lacking, esp. their camera software/hardware is behind other flagships (still no dual pixel)... But good thing there was a dev that released the Pixel 2 camera app for the LG phones with SD 820 & 821 CPUs. Their UI doesn't look all that great unlike the Pixel 2 which has symmetrical icons. It's not perfect, but it's still the device for me because many manufacturers lack so much on hardware and features, LG still provides something as simple and useful as the headphone jack and micro SD slot, which nearly more than half of the flagships do not have. I mean, a Quad DAC built into the phone in such a slim and thin device? (LG is still king of slim phones as they were with the previous G series). Why not be amazed? Everything else is bland and boring.. okay cool the camera looks good, that's it? I used to be a hardcore Samsung fan but I just can't take that unnecessary curved edge screen, just NO!

 

[bhatech]

I am not all for LG. I actually didn't like how they went with all glass body and curved screens, plus the I didn't really like the notch on the G7. Also, I felt the G7 could've had a bigger battery, maybe 3300mAh. Also, their software is lacking, their camera software is behind other flagships... But good thing there was a dev that released the Pixel 2 camera app for the LG phones with SD 820 & 821 CPUs. Their UI doesn't look all that great unlike the Pixel 2 which has symmetrical icons. It's not perfect, but it's still the device for me because many manufacturers lack so much on hardware and features, LG still provides something as simple and useful as the headphone jack and micro SD slot, which nearly more than half of the flagships do not have.

Thanks for clarifying

I understand being fans of a particular brand, but sometimes people get so blindsided they start ignoring drawbacks and start defending companies for each and every decision they make. Glad you weigh the pros and cons, then make the decision that's best for you.

 

[flyingkytez]

Thanks for clarifying

I understand being fans of a particular brand, but sometimes people get so blindsided they start ignoring drawbacks and start defending companies for each and every decision they make. Glad you weigh the pros and cons, then make the decision that's best for you.

Yeah honestly, the choices are getting slim, manufactures are losing money such as HTC and Moto. I've heard that LG is trying to outlast these two and I think they're doing a good job, HTC isn't really sold in stores, Moto is losing its grip. ZTE and Huawei is banned. We have very little choices, LG is the only honest company that doesn't make decisions out of greed, such as removing the headphone jack to force people to buy their Bluetooth products or USB C headphones. Plus their prices don't break your wallet (phones are getting close to the $1000-1300 pricetag). LG is still affordable, but some people think it's "generic" because it's priced lower. I've heard people say, "Why'd you get an LG?..." Some people are uneducated about other phones and brainwashed by society, what Apple says, they follow, putting a high value on Apple when it's actually made in China and LG is made in Korea.

 

[ScottsoNJ]

LG G7's MLCD+ display technology explained:

https://www.androidauthority.com/lg-g7-thinq-mlcd-display-861285/

"LG Display engineers told us power consumption is lower than OLED displays too, which might have been part of the decision to pick this tech over the POLED panel the company used in the V30."

The reason why LG went with LCD was possibly because of better battery life. People are upset that the battery capacity is small, but don't realize the new technology that's included within the display itself, plus new processor and operation system.

View attachment 285557

LG went with LCD because that is what they always used until the V30 and also to keep the cost down. The V35 is $900 vs the G7 $750

 

[flyingkytez]

LG went with LCD because that is what they always used until the V30 and also to keep the cost down. The V35 is $900 vs the G7 $750

I beg to differ, let me ask you this question, for them to achieve 1000 nits brightness for their ultra brightness mode, would an AMOLED display be feasible? The clear answer is NO because 1. Like mentioned above by an LG engineer, the battery would drain quickly. 2. The technology might not be there yet (Samsung screen is dimmer than the G7? I thought Samsung was king of AMOLED?) 3. SCREEN BURN IN because a screen that bright on an AMOLED would be dangerous and people would experience premature screen burn in, it's UNAVOIDABLE, it would be costly for LG to replace all those screens through warranty.

Your claims that AMOLED screens are more expensive are FALSE:

https://m.gsmarena.com/production_cost_of_amoled_screens_is_now_lower_than_lcds-blog-17442.php

As of 2016: "According to an analysis done by IHS Technology, AMOLED screen production cost is now lower than that of LCD screens. Production costs in the first quarter of the year for a 5" 1080p display amount to $14.30 for an AMOLED panel compared to $14.60 for an LCD one."

I would say there's a supply and demand shortage for AMOLED so not all phones can get it, Apple hogged a lot of the supplies with their iPhone X and of course Samsung reserved some for themselves.

It has little to do with price but how much VALUE people place on these phones. Samsung has done a good job getting people to think their devices are more premium than others, encasing their phones sandwiched between two shiney curved glass perfectly. Remember when their phones were plastic? Yeah, not so premium right? (BTW glass is cheap stuff, not premium.. chips and cracks easier than plastic, just shinier and smooth) Prices don't matter, Apple could re-release the iPhone 6 again but change the color and price it at $900 and people will still buy it (hey, isn't that the iPhone 8 pretty much?). No I'm not saying this because I'm an LG fan, I'm just using logic and facts.

 

[chanchan05]

From a user standpoint, the fact that AMOLED uses less battery than an LCD stems from the fact that you can MAKE and AMOLED use less battery than an LCD, but an LCD will use the same amount of power all throughout.

An LCD showing a predominantly white screen will use LESS power than an AMOLED showing the exact same thing at the same brightness level in nits. However, tech allows us to use themes where in an LCD showing a predominantly black image will use more power than an AMOLED at the same brightness levels because well, every single pixel and backlight on an LCD will still be running as opposed to up to less than half for an AMOLED screen depending on what we're showing.

So comparing AMOLED to LCD is not an apples to apples conversation because AMOLED savings is situational. You want white backgrounds? LCD saves more power. You want blacks? AMOLEDs save more power.

Further, from the Youtube link @flyingkytez posted himself, LCDs would appear dimmer than an AMOLED in general because the light is coming from behind a translucent layer, so to achieve the same brightness that an AMOLED can, the backlight on the LCD needs to be shining brighter than the pixels on the AMOLED. Basically, to achieve 1000nits, an LCD would need brighter backlights than 1000nits because light is diffused/muted by the crystal layer to some extent. Basically, obviously a lightbulb will seem brighter if you look at it directly than from behind curtains, but a bigger lightbulb will appear as bright as a smaller one even when behind curtains.
The test with the laptops is also not conclusive because brightness levels were not objectively measured. They just used the built in brightness levels which do not mean equal actual brightness in nits when set to max.

Basically however, LCD is not better than AMOLED, nor is AMOLED better than LCD. It's a matter of tradeoffs. The power consumption difference is irrelevant because each person might be using a different theme anyway. Or, even if they don't the AMOLED panel is thinner than LCD, which allows for other possible innards configuration, which might actually allow for a slightly bigger batter capacity. Heck, if we're comparing say, a 3000mah G7 with LCD to a 3100 mag G7 with AMOLED, the battery longetivity might not be so big as to be irrelevant.

Personally LG going LCD on the G7 is better because they make LCDs better than they do AMOLEDs anyway. Stick to what you're doing best.

 

[ScottsoNJ]

I beg to differ, let me ask you this question, for them to achieve 1000 nits brightness for their ultra brightness mode, would an AMOLED display be feasible? The clear answer is NO because 1. Like mentioned above by an LG engineer, the battery would drain quickly. 2. The technology might not be there yet (Samsung screen is dimmer than the G7? I thought Samsung was king of AMOLED?) 3. SCREEN BURN IN because a screen that bright on an AMOLED would be dangerous and people would experience premature screen burn in, it's UNAVOIDABLE, it would be costly for LG to replace all those screens through warranty.

Your claims that AMOLED screens are more expensive are FALSE:

https://m.gsmarena.com/production_cost_of_amoled_screens_is_now_lower_than_lcds-blog-17442.php

As of 2016: "According to an analysis done by IHS Technology, AMOLED screen production cost is now lower than that of LCD screens. Production costs in the first quarter of the year for a 5" 1080p display amount to $14.30 for an AMOLED panel compared to $14.60 for an LCD one."

I would say there's a supply and demand shortage for AMOLED so not all phones can get it, Apple hogged a lot of the supplies with their iPhone X and of course Samsung reserved some for themselves.

It has little to do with price but how much VALUE people place on these phones. Samsung has done a good job getting people to think their devices are more premium than others, encasing their phones sandwiched between two shiney curved glass perfectly. Remember when their phones were plastic? Yeah, not so premium right? (BTW glass is cheap stuff, not premium.. chips and cracks easier than plastic, just shinier and smooth) Prices don't matter, Apple could re-release the iPhone 6 again but change the color and price it at $900 and people will still buy it (hey, isn't that the iPhone 8 pretty much?). No I'm not saying this because I'm an LG fan, I'm just using logic and facts.

I'm sorry but I disagree. Apple has went with LCD because it is cheaper than OLED. That's not me saying it that's Apple. They went with OLED for the X because that is the better technology. Again that is not me saying this it was Apple. Do you really think Apple went with an inferior screen for their flagship, top of the line phone? And then used an LCD on their 2nd best phone ? No. They went with OLED with the X and LCD with every other phone. You can disagree with me and everybody but Apple would never do that.

 

[Mike Dee]

From a user standpoint, the fact that AMOLED uses less battery than an LCD stems from the fact that you can MAKE and AMOLED use less battery than an LCD, but an LCD will use the same amount of power all throughout.

An LCD showing a predominantly white screen will use LESS power than an AMOLED showing the exact same thing at the same brightness level in nits. However, tech allows us to use themes where in an LCD showing a predominantly black image will use more power than an AMOLED at the same brightness levels because well, every single pixel and backlight on an LCD will still be running as opposed to up to less than half for an AMOLED screen depending on what we're showing.

So comparing AMOLED to LCD is not an apples to apples conversation because AMOLED savings is situational. You want white backgrounds? LCD saves more power. You want blacks? AMOLEDs save more power.

Further, from the Youtube link @flyingkytez posted himself, LCDs would appear dimmer than an AMOLED in general because the light is coming from behind a translucent layer, so to achieve the same brightness that an AMOLED can, the backlight on the LCD needs to be shining brighter than the pixels on the AMOLED. Basically, to achieve 1000nits, an LCD would need brighter backlights than 1000nits because light is diffused/muted by the crystal layer to some extent. Basically, obviously a lightbulb will seem brighter if you look at it directly than from behind curtains, but a bigger lightbulb will appear as bright as a smaller one even when behind curtains.
The test with the laptops is also not conclusive because brightness levels were not objectively measured. They just used the built in brightness levels which do not mean equal actual brightness in nits when set to max.

Basically however, LCD is not better than AMOLED, nor is AMOLED better than LCD. It's a matter of tradeoffs. The power consumption difference is irrelevant because each person might be using a different theme anyway. Or, even if they don't the AMOLED panel is thinner than LCD, which allows for other possible innards configuration, which might actually allow for a slightly bigger batter capacity. Heck, if we're comparing say, a 3000mah G7 with LCD to a 3100 mag G7 with AMOLED, the battery longetivity might not be so big as to be irrelevant.

Personally LG going LCD on the G7 is better because they make LCDs better than they do AMOLEDs anyway. Stick to what you're doing best.

We'll put, but some won't believe you.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

let me ask you this question, for them to achieve 1000 nits brightness for their ultra brightness mode, would an AMOLED display be feasible? The clear answer is NO because

Yes, they would have been able to do this. as evidenced by the Note 8, S8, S8+, etc. Other devices with AMOLED displays that are >= 1000 nits. The Note 8 btw is 1200.

 

[Itsa_Me_Mario]

I'm sorry but I disagree. Apple has went with LCD because it is cheaper than OLED. That's not me saying it that's Apple. They went with OLED for the X because that is the better technology. Again that is not me saying this it was Apple. Do you really think Apple went with an inferior screen for their flagship, top of the line phone? And then used an LCD on their 2nd best phone ? No. They went with OLED with the X and LCD with every other phone. You can disagree with me and everybody but Apple would never do that.

The article I linked earlier backs this up too. Apple intentionally went OLED because it's a better tech, even though it's more expensive.

 

[idon12no]

From a user standpoint, the fact that AMOLED uses less battery than an LCD stems from the fact that you can MAKE and AMOLED use less battery than an LCD, but an LCD will use the same amount of power all throughout.

An LCD showing a predominantly white screen will use LESS power than an AMOLED showing the exact same thing at the same brightness level in nits. However, tech allows us to use themes where in an LCD showing a predominantly black image will use more power than an AMOLED at the same brightness levels because well, every single pixel and backlight on an LCD will still be running as opposed to up to less than half for an AMOLED screen depending on what we're showing.

So comparing AMOLED to LCD is not an apples to apples conversation because AMOLED savings is situational. You want white backgrounds? LCD saves more power. You want blacks? AMOLEDs save more power.

Further, from the Youtube link @flyingkytez posted himself, LCDs would appear dimmer than an AMOLED in general because the light is coming from behind a translucent layer, so to achieve the same brightness that an AMOLED can, the backlight on the LCD needs to be shining brighter than the pixels on the AMOLED. Basically, to achieve 1000nits, an LCD would need brighter backlights than 1000nits because light is diffused/muted by the crystal layer to some extent. Basically, obviously a lightbulb will seem brighter if you look at it directly than from behind curtains, but a bigger lightbulb will appear as bright as a smaller one even when behind curtains.
The test with the laptops is also not conclusive because brightness levels were not objectively measured. They just used the built in brightness levels which do not mean equal actual brightness in nits when set to max.

Basically however, LCD is not better than AMOLED, nor is AMOLED better than LCD. It's a matter of tradeoffs. The power consumption difference is irrelevant because each person might be using a different theme anyway. Or, even if they don't the AMOLED panel is thinner than LCD, which allows for other possible innards configuration, which might actually allow for a slightly bigger batter capacity. Heck, if we're comparing say, a 3000mah G7 with LCD to a 3100 mag G7 with AMOLED, the battery longetivity might not be so big as to be irrelevant.

Personally LG going LCD on the G7 is better because they make LCDs better than they do AMOLEDs anyway. Stick to what you're doing best.

Going off what you said here, I just wanted to say that the G7's screen can be adjusted down to 720 and 1080p, as well as the usual colour saturation adjustments that I guess could affect battery life, and the ultrabright mode was achieved by adding an extra white bit to each pixel or something like that.

 

[chanchan05]

yeah

 

[chanchan05]

Going off what you said here, I just wanted to say that the G7's screen can be adjusted down to 720 and 1080p, as well as the usual colour saturation adjustments that I guess could affect battery life, and the ultrabright mode was achieved by adding an extra white bit to each pixel or something like that.

1. Adjustment of the resolution and color saturation is irrelevant. AMOLED screens do it too. So the arguments will still be the same. AMOLED might even use lower when using the decreased resolution because this means the AMOLEDs will have less diodes on, but the LCDs will still be using the entire backlight and ALL the pixels. Reducing the pixel resolution on an LCD just means that instead of one pixel making one color, a box of 4 pixels acts as one pixel. They're all still working.

2. The way super bright mode was achieved was that instead of all pixels displaying the image, some pixels were interspersed to ignore the image and let the light shine through in white. It still doesn't change the fact that to achieve the brightness, it's still shining through a translucent layer.

 

[Ryano89]

I beg to differ, let me ask you this question, for them to achieve 1000 nits brightness for their ultra brightness mode, would an AMOLED display be feasible? The clear answer is NO because 1. Like mentioned above by an LG engineer, the battery would drain quickly. 2. The technology might not be there yet (Samsung screen is dimmer than the G7? I thought Samsung was king of AMOLED?) 3. SCREEN BURN IN because a screen that bright on an AMOLED would be dangerous and people would experience premature screen burn in, it's UNAVOIDABLE, it would be costly for LG to replace all those screens through warranty.

Your claims that AMOLED screens are more expensive are FALSE:

https://m.gsmarena.com/production_cost_of_amoled_screens_is_now_lower_than_lcds-blog-17442.php

As of 2016: "According to an analysis done by IHS Technology, AMOLED screen production cost is now lower than that of LCD screens. Production costs in the first quarter of the year for a 5" 1080p display amount to $14.30 for an AMOLED panel compared to $14.60 for an LCD one."

I would say there's a supply and demand shortage for AMOLED so not all phones can get it, Apple hogged a lot of the supplies with their iPhone X and of course Samsung reserved some for themselves.

It has little to do with price but how much VALUE people place on these phones. Samsung has done a good job getting people to think their devices are more premium than others, encasing their phones sandwiched between two shiney curved glass perfectly. Remember when their phones were plastic? Yeah, not so premium right? (BTW glass is cheap stuff, not premium.. chips and cracks easier than plastic, just shinier and smooth) Prices don't matter, Apple could re-release the iPhone 6 again but change the color and price it at $900 and people will still buy it (hey, isn't that the iPhone 8 pretty much?). No I'm not saying this because I'm an LG fan, I'm just using logic and facts.

The Note8 tops out at 1200 nits in direct sunlight so, in short, yes an amoled panel could have been used.https://9to5google.com/2017/08/28/samsung-galaxy-note-8-display-test-brightness/

 

[idon12no]

1. Adjustment of the resolution and color saturation is irrelevant. AMOLED screens do it too. So the arguments will still be the same. AMOLED might even use lower when using the decreased resolution because this means the AMOLEDs will have less diodes on, but the LCDs will still be using the entire backlight and ALL the pixels. Reducing the pixel resolution on an LCD just means that instead of one pixel making one color, a box of 4 pixels acts as one pixel. They're all still working.

2. The way super bright mode was achieved was that instead of all pixels displaying the image, some pixels were interspersed to ignore the image and let the light shine through in white. It still doesn't change the fact that to achieve the brightness, it's still shining through a translucent layer.

Here you go:

"Instead of the usual red-green-blue RGB dot matrix, LG lists the G7 display as RGBW, adding... white pixels..."

https://www.phonearena.com/news/LG-G7-Super-Bright-display-technology-explained_id104586

Maybe we're both saying the same thing.

 

[chanchan05]

Here you go:

"Instead of the usual red-green-blue RGB dot matrix, LG lists the G7 display as RGBW, adding... white pixels..."

https://www.phonearena.com/news/LG-G7-Super-Bright-display-technology-explained_id104586

Maybe we're both saying the same thing.

That's what I said. Some pixels are set to white and just allowing light to shine through, but it doesn't change anything. This is basically, our curtain is brighter than other curtains because we poked holes in it. But you still have a curtain.

 

[bhatech]

I mentioned this earlier as well, G7 ultra bright mode can only be on for like 2 or 3 minutes at once and it'll automatically turn off. I don't think there is any such limitation on Note 8, S9+ AMOLED display on how long it can be on max brightness.

 

[evlarberryman]

I like whichever uses less energy and extends battery life.

 

[Nubwy]

To be honest, I have never liked Samsung displays. The colors are overly saturated and aren't accurate to actual colors in the real world. Add in burn in and the curved gimmick. Just not a fan.