kind of a let down!

[JHBThree]

Agreed, it's pretty pointless to argue with someone who thinks these are stripes:

View attachment 76856

Reading comprehension is an important skill, and I'll leave it at that.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[bamabun]

Some of the hands-on for the Ultra and Maxx made it clear that it was noticeable that it was not a normal rgb stripe.

could you please link to any of these hands on or reviews?

 

[JHBThree]

could you please link to any of these hands on or reviews?

http://mobile.theverge.com/2013/7/23/4549256/droid-ultra-mini-maxx-hands-on
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tdizzel]

could you please link to any of these hands on or reviews?

Ultra, Mini, and Maxx: hands-on with Verizon's newest, longest-lasting Droids | The Verge
Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Direct quote from that article that you linked: "The screens are still not the RGB stripe displays like those used in the HTC One or iPhone 5, but use an alternate pixel pattern. We'll have to get a unit in our hands to learn more,"
So you're saying it was a "hands on review" even though they admit to not having a unit in their hands. You seem very confused.

 

[SteelGator]

Direct quote from that article that you linked: "The screens are still not the RGB stripe displays like those used in the HTC One or iPhone 5, but use an alternate pixel pattern. We'll have to get a unit in our hands to learn more,"
So you're saying it was a "hands on review" even though they admit to not having a unit in their hands. You seem very confused.

I am not confused but I may have posted the link for the wrong video. The video I saw was a hands-on unboxing and review where the reviewer stated that the display text was not as crisp on the 5 inch display as it was on the 4.7 inch display. He mentions it in 2 of the 3 videos he posted.

My original comment was just to say I hope it is not that bad.

It seems early reports here think the screen looks great , which is encouraging.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk 4

 

[Honestabebread]

The screens are very nice. I played with these phones a ton this weekend and they look good.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[SteelGator]

The screens are very nice. I played with these phones a ton this weekend and they look good.

Posted via Android Central App

I just played with them some tonight

• I agree -- the screens are fine. Even though Phil just said in his review today it seemed less dense. Compared to my GN, it was brighter and the white were whiter. I also noticed in his video, the Ultra was Whiter than the X.
• I was surprised by the body size of the Maxx. It is basically the same size as my GN, and I was expecting it to be slightly bigger.
• I was not wild about the Ultra. The back does have a plastic feeling like so many of commented on. The Maxx felt much better in hand.

 

[JHBThree]

Direct quote from that article that you linked: "The screens are still not the RGB stripe displays like those used in the HTC One or iPhone 5, but use an alternate pixel pattern. We'll have to get a unit in our hands to learn more,"
So you're saying it was a "hands on review" even though they admit to not having a unit in their hands. You seem very confused.

Also read their update. And the title. Oh, and the picture they posted of a close up of the screen that shows it has the same pixel pattern as the note 2. They had one in their hands and it wasn't straight rgb. It also wasn't pentile.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tdizzel]

Also read their update. And the title. Oh, and the picture they posted of a close up of the screen that shows it has the same pixel pattern as the note 2. They had one in their hands and it wasn't straight rgb. It also wasn't pentile.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Read the update? You mean the one that said its not Pentile or RGB-Stripe. guess what...I never said it was either of those. But it is RGB.
Read the title? Ok...because websites never,eeeevvvveeeerrrrr post misleading titles to get more clicks(the sad thing is you probably believe that)
Look at the closeup? Ok, it looks like an rgb display where the blue pixel is larger than the red and green, but its still rgb. Not rgb stripe, but rgb nonetheless.

If you read the article, its clear that the "hands on review" was limited to trying out a couple of features and they weren't able to conduct a thorough review of the screen's pixel arrangement and they were going off what they heard and not what they saw.

 

[JHBThree]

Read the update? You mean the one that said its not Pentile or RGB-Stripe. guess what...I never said it was either of those. But it is RGB.
Read the title? Ok...because websites never,eeeevvvveeeerrrrr post misleading titles to get more clicks(the sad thing is you probably believe that)
Look at the closeup? Ok, it looks like an rgb display where the blue pixel is larger than the red and green, but its still rgb. Not rgb stripe, but rgb nonetheless.

If you read the article, its clear that the "hands on review" was limited to trying out a couple of features and they weren't able to conduct a thorough review of the screen's pixel arrangement and they were going off what they heard and not what they saw.

We have been down this road before. What is pictured is not an RGB display. Just like pentile is not RGB, and the galaxy note is not RGB. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. (Even moreso now that you're trying to deny that the verge had a hands on despite the fact that they have close up pictures of the screen that the could only get if they had the phone in their hands)

As stated previously, the arrangement of the pixels and pixel geometry matter. This screen is not RGB.

 

[JHBThree]

Oh, and to answer your question from a bit ago, I've highlighted the RGB stripe that you failed to see in the CRT monitor macro you posted. The RGB stripe is clear as day, but the pixel geometry is different. (On an angle instead of vertical)

The type of geometry/pixel layout Moto and Samsung use is not RGB.

 

[tdizzel]

We have been down this road before. What is pictured is not an RGB display. Just like pentile is not RGB, and the galaxy note is not RGB. You were wrong then and you are wrong now. (Even moreso now that you're trying to deny that the verge had a hands on despite the fact that they have close up pictures of the screen that the could only get if they had the phone in their hands)

As stated previously, the arrangement of the pixels and pixel geometry matter. This screen is not RGB.

So if I copied and pasted that same picture to my facebook page would that mean that I had the phone in my hands? Or would it be possible that I got the picture from somewhere else? Because if I can copy a picture from somewhere, so can they. But anyways...

Directly from moto's website:
Display
AMOLED (RGB) HD 720p (720x1280) with Active Display

I can link it if you want. Near the bottom in the specs section.

Droid Ultra by Motorola Think Thin - A Google Company

Do you have any idea whatsoever how much trouble moto would be in if they put that on their site and the screen wasn't RGB? That would be very illegal. The reason that TVs list their sizes as "class" instead of just inches is because they were getting sued out of their pants for advertising a spec that wasn't accurate. So either its RGB, or you're right and moto is trying to put themselves out of business. Which is it?
You seem to be stuck on the idea that in order for a screen to be RGB it has to be RGB-Stripe. That is not now and has never been the case but for some unknown reason you're insistent on it. I've explained it to you in words, and shown it in pictures but you are just stuck on it for some reason. So I tell you what. Show me one reputable source(not wikipedia or some blogger with an agenda) that proves that a display is RGB only if it is striped, and I will concede this argument to you.

 

[tdizzel]

Oh, and to answer your question from a bit ago, I've highlighted the RGB stripe that you failed to see in the CRT monitor macro you posted. The RGB stripe is clear as day, but the pixel geometry is different. (On an angle instead of vertical)

The type of geometry/pixel layout Moto and Samsung use is not RGB. View attachment 77045

On the LCD...yes, you're right. On the PC-CRT...not so much. The way the pixels are, to get from one blue to the next blue(for example) you actually pass through both the red and the green.In other words it you actually connected the pixels, and not just drew a line through them, they would overlap. in a pure stripe configuration,there would be enough space between them that there would be no overlap. The lines you drew are stripes, but the pixels themselves are not.

 

[JHBThree]

On the LCD...yes, you're right. On the PC-CRT...not so much. The way the pixels are, to get from one blue to the next blue(for example) you actually pass through both the red and the green.In other words it you actually connected the pixels, and not just drew a line through them, they would overlap. in a pure stripe configuration,there would be enough space between them that there would be no overlap. The lines you drew are stripes, but the pixels themselves are not.

Wrong, again. The pixel geometry is different but it is still arranged in an rgb pattern. Since you also appear to think you know what you're talking about, then you'll also know that CRT monitors are unable to take advantage of subpixel rendering due to how they were built, which makes your statement even more untrue.

No matter how you attempt to spin it, neither the ultra or the moto x have an rgb display. Their pixel layout proves it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[JHBThree]

So if I copied and pasted that same picture to my facebook page would that mean that I had the phone in my hands? Or would it be possible that I got the picture from somewhere else? Because if I can copy a picture from somewhere, so can they. But anyways...

Directly from moto's website:
Display
AMOLED (RGB) HD 720p (720x1280) with Active Display

I can link it if you want. Near the bottom in the specs section.

Droid Ultra by Motorola Think Thin - A Google Company

Do you have any idea whatsoever how much trouble moto would be in if they put that on their site and the screen wasn't RGB? That would be very illegal. The reason that TVs list their sizes as "class" instead of just inches is because they were getting sued out of their pants for advertising a spec that wasn't accurate. So either its RGB, or you're right and moto is trying to put themselves out of business. Which is it?
You seem to be stuck on the idea that in order for a screen to be RGB it has to be RGB-Stripe. That is not now and has never been the case but for some unknown reason you're insistent on it. I've explained it to you in words, and shown it in pictures but you are just stuck on it for some reason. So I tell you what. Show me one reputable source(not wikipedia or some blogger with an agenda) that proves that a display is RGB only if it is striped, and I will concede this argument to you.

It isn't illegal for moto to claim it is an rgb display, just like it wasn't illegal when Samsung did the same for the galaxy note 2. But, its just not accurate.

Also, you continue to try and argue against the science and design of these displays. The layout of the pixels matter when identifying what they are. Identifying a display as RGB actually means something, and it isn't just the presence of red, green and blue pixels. The order that they are displayed matters, as does the geometry of the pixels. The display Motorola is using, sourced from Samsung, is not, nor will it ever be, an rgb display. A blue pixel to the left of stacked red and green pixels, is not an rgb display. It is something else entirely.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tdizzel]

Wrong, again. The pixel geometry is different but it is still arranged in an rgb pattern. Since you also appear to think you know what you're talking about, then you'll also know that CRT monitors are unable to take advantage of subpixel rendering due to how they were built, which makes your statement even more untrue.

No matter how you attempt to spin it, neither the ultra or the moto x have an rgb display. Their pixel layout proves it.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

I've been saying all along that PC CRTs are RGB. Now you're saying that I'm wrong and that...its an RGB pattern? Umm...Ok.

It isn't illegal for moto to claim it is an rgb display, just like it wasn't illegal when Samsung did the same for the galaxy note 2. But, its just not accurate.

Also, you continue to try and argue against the science and design of these displays. The layout of the pixels matter when identifying what they are. Identifying a display as RGB actually means something, and it isn't just the presence of red, green and blue pixels. The order that they are displayed matters, as does the geometry of the pixels. The display Motorola is using, sourced from Samsung, is not, nor will it ever be, an rgb display. A blue pixel to the left of stacked red and green pixels, is not an rgb display. It is something else entirely.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

I'm not gonna bother pulling up every law on the planet, so I'll just use this one from California as an example:
California Business and Professionals Code 17500:
"It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or
association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or
indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform
services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature
whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation
relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or
disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or
disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state
before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other
publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or
proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including
over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal
property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning
any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed
performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading,
and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care
should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm,
or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or
disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the
intent not to sell that personal property or those services,
professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein,
or as so advertised. Any violation of the provisions of this section
is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine."

tl;dr-It's illegal to advertise a spec that's inaccurate.

So once again I'm backing up my words and claims with actual sources while you just keep repeating yourself and saying I'm wrong. Do you have any actual facts and sources to back up your claims? I'm guessing that you don't and you're just going to tell me that I'm wrong. So please, show me this science and design that I'm arguing against. Show me from a source other than you just repeating yourself over and over again that I'm wrong.


Edit:And yes, I completely expect you to ignore that the law I posted is just one example, act like it is all encompassing and say that Moto doesn't care about a $2,500 fine, meanwhile ignoring the fact that i'm just using that example to show that it is illegal and that it is just one of the many many laws they would be violating which could also lead to civil suits and much more severe punishments.

 

[JHBThree]

I've been saying all along that PC CRTs are RGB. Now you're saying that I'm wrong and that...its an RGB pattern? Umm...Ok.

No. You were trying to claim that it was not an rgb stripe, which it is. The pixel geometry is different, as is the underlying technology, compared to current LCDs.

I'm not gonna bother pulling up every law on the planet, so I'll just use this one from California as an example:
California Business and Professionals Code 17500:
"It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or
association, or any employee thereof with intent directly or
indirectly to dispose of real or personal property or to perform
services, professional or otherwise, or anything of any nature
whatsoever or to induce the public to enter into any obligation
relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or
disseminated before the public in this state, or to make or
disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated from this state
before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other
publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or
proclamation, or in any other manner or means whatever, including
over the Internet, any statement, concerning that real or personal
property or those services, professional or otherwise, or concerning
any circumstance or matter of fact connected with the proposed
performance or disposition thereof, which is untrue or misleading,
and which is known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care
should be known, to be untrue or misleading, or for any person, firm,
or corporation to so make or disseminate or cause to be so made or
disseminated any such statement as part of a plan or scheme with the
intent not to sell that personal property or those services,
professional or otherwise, so advertised at the price stated therein,
or as so advertised. Any violation of the provisions of this section
is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment in the county jail not
exceeding six months, or by a fine not exceeding two thousand five
hundred dollars ($2,500), or by both that imprisonment and fine."

tl;dr-It's illegal to advertise a spec that's inaccurate.

So once again I'm backing up my words and claims with actual sources while you just keep repeating yourself and saying I'm wrong. Do you have any actual facts and sources to back up your claims? I'm guessing that you don't and you're just going to tell me that I'm wrong. So please, show me this science and design that I'm arguing against. Show me from a source other than you just repeating yourself over and over again that I'm wrong.


Edit:And yes, I completely expect you to ignore that the law I posted is just one example, act like it is all encompassing and say that Moto doesn't care about a $2,500 fine, meanwhile ignoring the fact that i'm just using that example to show that it is illegal and that it is just one of the many many laws they would be violating which could also lead to civil suits and much more severe punishments.

It certainly is not illegal. That law you reference doesn't say what you think it does. Even Motorola admits the screen isn't actually rgb, and that it isn't pentile either.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

 

[tdizzel]

No. You were trying to claim that it was not an rgb stripe, which it is. The pixel geometry is different, as is the underlying technology, compared to current LCDs.



It certainly is not illegal. That law you reference doesn't say what you think it does. Even Motorola admits the screen isn't actually rgb, and that it isn't pentile either.

Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk 2

Ok, I'm done. You're not worth any more of my time. I'll stick with talking to people who understand the English language

Posted via my Droid Bionic while waiting for my email notification from Verizon telling me when the Droid Bionic will be available

 

[NotJustAPhone]

This thread has run its course. Thread closed.

I suggest that the participants here not take their bickering to other threads.

Sent from my Galaxy S4