youngzayiles
Well-known member
- Dec 17, 2009
- 695
- 55
- 0
Who cares in 2-3 months both phones will be old news... They both are cool just depends on what u use them for...
I wish someone could review phones on an individual basis so we can get an accurate expectation of performance.
Saying X phone is faster/smoother than Y phone or slower/choppier than Z phone means absolutely nothing to me as if I do not own the Y or Z phone. Even if I can try said phones in a store it still doesn't give me an accurate representation of how the phone will perform on an everyday basis.
It's like when sites compare how quickly webpages load on two phones. They each take about 15 seconds, but one is about .4 s faster and declared a winner. Really? How is this useful other than internet bragging rights?
Screen comparisons are even more nauseating. We have these SAMOLED screens so now the Evo's screen is being denigrated to seem like it's watch a 1978 Philco tube set vs 2010 Samsung LED TV. Come on, the Evo's screen is gorgeous. Does the Epics screen look better? Yes...when held side by side or because you are told it's supposed to be better. But you'll drive yourself nuts worrying about these kind of things.
I'll end the rant but these types of things are why phones get hyped up so much and fail. They get touted based on features/specs that are in the end minuscule. It would just be nice if someone would use a phone for a week and come back with an honest opinion instead of setting up a bunch of lab tests to determine which is "better."
http://www.androidcentral.com/att-samsung-captivate-benchmarks-and-graphicsgaming-test
Evo 25fps
Galaxy S 55fps
I actually noticed there was something wrong with epic screen from the first day I got it so got rid of it the next day. It's just something I pay attention to but not something most people don't care about. I noticed the color depth of the screen was not capable of true colors then I checked the specs to find out it's only 16bit 65k colors. My old mp3 player from 5 years back was 18bit 265k colors. Sorry I didn't think the evo screen was beautiful. Since I look at lots of videos on the phone it was important to at least have a screen capable of 16.7 million colors.
Of course he can see the difference. He can also feel the 45nm chip and taste the GPU. He can hear it when he makes calls. All fanboys develop synesthesia at some point.
I attached some comparison photos at different bit levels. You can actually tell the difference between the 24-bit (original) and16-bit photos that it was enough for you to return a phone like the Evo? Seems peculiar if you are that discerning that it's a dealbreaker that you would buy the phone in the first place without looking up the spec. Don't get me wrong, if I stare at the photos, I can see a tiny bit of difference. But, I would at worst chalk it up to the quality of the photo, not to a vast inferiority of the screen.
Not telling you how to spend your money, I really don't care. But I'm just curious if you hadn't read the screen was 16-bit could you really know.
You are looking at 3 pics and asking me to spot the difference? I was viewing the web and looking at a movie on the Evo that's how I realized the color was off. It looks washed out and not vibrant at all.
I have a Palm Pre and even that screen which is also 24 bit blows the Evo away in quality. When I was looking at web images on the Evo I noticed how dark areas didn't look clear and I could see some color banding in some images.
LOL. The reviewer clearly tested the displays and found the Evo screen to be 24bit. There are other people who have tested the screen and concluded that it's 24bit. Both the Epson and Novatek screens spec out at 24bit. But based on an erroneous spec on the HTC site (and your almost superhuman visual acuity), it MUST be 16bit.
LOL.
LOL. The reviewer clearly tested the displays and found the Evo screen to be 24bit. There are other people who have tested the screen and concluded that it's 24bit. Both the Epson and Novatek screens spec out at 24bit. But based on an erroneous spec on the HTC site (and your almost superhuman visual acuity), it MUST be 16bit.
LOL.
It's possible that it's a 24-bit screen driven at 16-bit normally. No different than you can drop the bit depth on a PC.
That would be reasonable considering with a 800x480 display at 24-bit, you're chewing up a ton of memory for marginal visual improvement. People already complain about the framerate, don't want to bog it down with even more data.
Yes. And that's one example.So you are saying HTC made an error and listed the display as 16 bit? You really think the reviewer can make an accurate judgement from that one picture? lmao
Yes. And that's one example.
You know what's LOL? That these people examined the screen in depth while you take a quick look and all of a sudden know that it's 16 bit.
Gosh, it's so hard to admit you're wrong, huh?
