Engadget says EVO a little better than Epic in their Epic Review!

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."

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.
 
Last edited:
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.

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.
 
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.
 
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.

chuckle.

Seriously though, it is his decision to use whatever phone he chooses. Personally, I detest sliders so Epic is out of the question for me. I am eligible for an upgrade middle of September so I will get the Epic and try it out for 2 weeks out of curiousity.

I highly doubt that I will drop the EVO for it.
 
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.

That was a deal breaker for me and the lack of performance in certain games. Also the lack of keyboard was hard to get use to plus I found scrolling and pinch to zoom to be a little jerky.
 
Lol its just funny to me how hard some of you guys look at things... My god do you guys pick apart televisions like that when at other peoples house besides your own... lol woow..
 
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.

No, I admit they comparison photos are different, just don't agree that they're so different that it makes the Evo's screen at 16-bit so far inferior to another phones 24-bit as some people let on. The color vibrance issue you describe has nothing to do with bit depth, but color accuracy. But, that type of thing of thing can be subjective. People generally prefer artificially over-saturated images because they're more colorful. That doesn't mean it's more accurate to what the original is though. But that is almost 100% a choice of preference, so to each his own.

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.

Well, that's an issue there. Things are going to look better on the Palm Pre's screen regardless of the color depth being that the Evo's screen is 40% larger. This is true of any display at any size. The smaller will always show fewer artifacts or defects in the source material. Does that mean the smaller display is better? No, it may just mean the imperfections are too small to see. Again, you may prefer the smaller screen in that scenario, but it's not necessarily a knock against the larger screen. SD TV programming is passable on the 22" LCD in my kitchen, but it looks god-awful on the 42" in the living room. The source is the same, but the larger TV also enlarges the imperfections.
 
You know, I forgot to add this link to this conversation:

Battle Royale 2: Smartphones face off, screen to screen | Dialed In - CNET Blogs

Here's the interesting part:

"In this round of three, the Evo 4G was a fairly close second to the iPhone 4, although it had the lowest brightness and contrast ratio of the three. The Evo 4G couldn't compete with the iPhone 4 in white-level saturation, or real-world color, but was able to display 24-bit color, unlike the Droid. Also, its extra-large screen is the best for viewing text."

I don't know why HTC lists the screen at 16bit, but it is in fact a 24bit screen hardware wise, and displays 24bit color without a problem. The native picture viewer, as I understand, can only handle 16bit color.
 
The guy is mistaken. The display is 16bit and it was listed on the HTC website. There is not a chance that it is 24bit. You will never see color banding with 24bit but I saw it on the Evo screen with certain images. Depending on what you look at you might not be able to tell when a display is 16bit.
 
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.
 
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.

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
 
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.

The Epic 4G has a 4" screen and 24bit. It manages to get close to 60fps.
 
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?
 
Last edited:
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?

I am not the only one that noticed this. 24bit color does not cause color banding in images either. Look at that image on the Evo. You will notice some banding.
http://wallpapers.jurko.net/widescreen/uploads/wallpaper_2656.jpg

gradient32bit3ze.png
 
Last edited:
You're not going to believe me, but there's clear banding on the 16bit side, but no banding on the 32bit side. This is with Dolphin HD browser.

There is clear banding on both sides if I view the file through my photo viewer app.
 
So jamex why don't you hang out in the Epic forum since that is your device of choice and leave us happy EVO owners to ourself instead of just trying to bash the EVO? Do I smell something????
 

Latest posts

Trending Posts

Forum statistics

Threads
963,184
Messages
6,992,817
Members
3,164,988
Latest member
r3dpuk3