Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yet an other Galaxy S3 v.s. iPhone Thread
- Thread starter Oracle1729
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That's some nonsense for people that never owned a phone with an AMOLED screen.
You end up with a screen so dim and hard to see that you have to crank up your brightness to use your device, but now you've got power consumption issues, so you eat your battery alive.
There might some suckers that still fall for the AMOLED spin, but those that have been there certainly know better.
The GS3 screen is not good.
Well since I can get a nice big 720p screen from any other high end vendor, I'd say it's pretty accurate. Maybe for 2010 it was a decent screen but my calendar says 2012...apple is literally years behind.
It is not. Resolution determines exact amount of information the picture delivers. Pixel density on the other hand is meaningless without knowing the viewing distance.
That's just your biased opinion. Now let's see what experts say about SGSIII display. GSMArena:
"Sunlight legibility is splendid too - the HD Super AMOLED isn't the brightest around, but its reflectivity is so low that even outside in the brightest day, you'll still be able to see what's on the screen quite clearly. As a matter of fact, the Galaxy S III managed to top our sunlight legibility charts."
We know the viewing distance of a phone more or less no?
iPhone 5 326 PPI
S3 306 PPI
Yes, the S3 has more pixels, but the screen is larger. Anyway, calling the iPhone 5 display lo-res is just stupid.
I've used phones with LCD screens, I've used phones with AMOLED screens. They're both fairly equal in viewability in sunlight. No sane person could tell the difference without looking side-by-side. Both are perfectly viewable in sunlight.
And you're insanely biased for saying the GS3 screen is not good. Every review says it's a great screen, even though it's no longer at the top of the pack (that honor goes to the HTC One X and iPhone 5 screens). I've seen the screen myself and it's bright, vivid, sharp, and overall a great display.
iPhone 5's resolution is not that low (although Android phones have 27% higher resolution). It's main problem is a weird shape. It's just too long and narrow. It's OK for movies (but who watches movies on the phone?) but it's sub-optimal for reading, games etc.
Not for a proper definition of resolution, which does refer to pixel density, which broadcast television use, per the quote above. How does Android (an operating system) guarantee 27% more pixels btw, surely that comes down to the handset and it's screen.
SmartPhone is a computer and not a TV set. Why would you bring broadcast TV terminology in this discussion? n computer terminology, pixel density is just that - density. Resolution refers to the absolute number of pixels in two dimensions which the Wikipedia page that you referenced explains quite clearly.
Sorry but can't take you seriously here. The S3 has a fantastic screen, as very much every review from reputable publications agree. Is is the best there is? No, but to say that it is garbage or not good is nonsense and just reeks of bias.
Last edited:
Because, the reference make note of the fact that the broadcast standard properly refer to pixel density. The amount of pixels doesn't tell you anything about image quality, if you do not also mention the area.
The problem here is that Apple is not producing its own map data. They use data from Tom Tom which in 2008 acquired Tele Atlas. Tele Atlas is the company behind map data. Tele Atlas has been in map data business for much longer than Google (since 1984). While they do have decent road/street data they do not have the wealth of information that Google has. They have not been able to collect this data since 1984. How long do you think it may take them to catch up with Google? Forever?
----------
Except for the voice commands, that is something we have been able to do do with Smart Phones for about a decade now. No reason to get too excited. Since then we've come to expect way more from Maps applications.
Obviously with Google Maps (non Android) you can do all this and muuch more. For example, when stopped at the intersection you can tap a StreetView icon and the phone will show you the view of the next intersection on your route where you have to make a turn. I helps to know in advance what to expect in unfamiliar places.
"Properly" in this context only refers to the original meaning of the word "resolution". The amount of pixels tells you how much bits of information the picture delivers. Density is absolutely irrelevant. You can reach any density you need by choosing the viewing distance.
----------
And I thought they did it by keeping 7100 workers on their map team, the fleet of Google cars, paying for quality satellite info, developing software that can scan and interpret the imagery obtained by Google cars. It turns out I was wrong. It was those pesky iPhone users who did the job for Google
Yes, but we know that the S3 which was used as an example here earlier has a larger screen. It would be pretty bad if you could not view more on a larger screen.
Which in a phone means the ability to chose the length of ones arm.
Anyway, I hope we can quit this, both have hi-res screens no matter how you chose to interpret 'resolution'. I mainly felt like comment due to the "lo-res" talk here earlier.
The confusion seems to stem from you referring to Display Resolution (physical dimensions in pixels), where many in the graphics field like me would think of it as pixel density. 326 ppi and a display size of 1136x640 px is not exactly low-res for a phone, is it? The iPhone gains "retina" status at 10.2", where the Pentile display of the SIII requires 15.9".
Most of that is trolling, but basically as I'm sure you already know the iPhone 5 screen is the best around, producing far better images than the SIII, as the iPhone has a properly-calibrated screen and the SIII doesn't; the colours are off and over-saturated. As a photographer you should appreciate that.
Claiming it has a worse screen than the competition is flying in the face of reality; it has better colour, better contrast, better brightness than the SIII, produce sharper images, and has less reflectiveness than any other handheld device. It is a quality screen by any measure regardless whether you prefer another phone. Calling 1136x640 pixels "low-res" for a 4" screen shows your lack of objectiveness. If we were talking about a Tablet, I'd agree that not having 720p would be bad, but we're not; this is a phone. Unlike things like a Galaxy Note, it isn't trying to pretend to be a tablet. It's designed to be a phone that can be operated by one hand and fits easily in a pocket.
Certainly the race to thinness that phones had for decades is questionable at the current level, companies always want something to brag about like the Razr and thinness, just as cameras had the Megapixel race or computers the Megahertz race, none of which had much to do with quality. But there's something to be said for a small light phone that is also a powerhouse. In the case of the iPhone, they have sacrificed battery life, I'd wish for it to be better and I would gladly sacrifice an amount of thinness and weight for it.
Not having LTE before now is hardly an issue as it is only really coming online now to any extent and more specifically the power-efficient chips have only now become available. Same for NFC; it is currently in its infancy and not much used anywhere, so having it is no great benefit. Some had hoped that having it in the iPhone would have kick-started its adoption. Having magnetic coils only makes your phone larger, and personally I hope they don't adopt it as I don't like the idea of another magnetic field being placed near my head, there are enough questions about longterm exposure to phone radiation (microwaves) causing cancers as it is. I don't like the idea of phones becoming wallets either.
As for durability, as I'm sure you know various sites have done drop tests and the iPhone 5 has proven to be extremely durable, tougher than the SIII.
I'm personally not in a hurry for a new phone and will look at what is available in a few years; my 4s serves me well for now.
If a 2x2 screen is retina, it's as high-res as it has to be for a human to not be able to see the pixels at regular viewing distance.
1080p is low res on a 100-foot diagonal display.
----------
Well, Steve gave me an iMac that fell apart and ran very slow after a couple of years. He also sold me The Search for Spock on iTunes but refused to let me play it once I bought it. Oh, and let's not forget Ping.
Last edited:
Bigger displays have to have more pixels, and the other smartphones have huge displays compared to the 4" iPhone. If you think 720p is so good, how about you view a 720p video projected onto a 16000x9000-inch canvas while sitting 5 feet away. It won't be pretty despite how great you seem to think 720p is.
There is important context that you are missing, as you can see. You need to take screen size and viewing distance into account when you're talking about "high/low res". The iPhone is already high-res enough so that it's at the point where adding more pixels while keeping the same screen size would not look any better at normal viewing distance (which is called "retina", and I suggest you look it up before calling people names).
If you want some statistics, the iPhone 5 has 326PPI, and the S3 has 306PPI. And here's a tidy list of the Apple competitors' screen pixel densities: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_displays_by_pixel_density
If you want me to buy a high-end Android device for some reason, you should be boasting the upgradeable storage capacity, not the lower-res (in context) screens.
Here, you can read more about meaningless market BS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina_Display
Last edited:
NFC has been around for years. Its only new to iPhone users, and is used quite a bit, outside of the US. A lack of it in my iPhone 4S proved to be a bit annoying in Denmark, but that's aside from the point.
AMOLED is a technology to watch, but currently it is immature. LCD TV screens were originally panned, Plasma fans deriding its technical qualities. Now that LCD has matured, you don't find many, if any, Plasmas around. Apple has chosen the right technology for the current state of play, in the future when Amoled's colour balance, oversaturation, and power consumption issues are dealt with, Apple will presumably adopt it if they judge it to be a better or as-good for cheaper alternative. The iPhone 5's screen is superb, and Apple has properly calibrated the colours, unlike the Galaxy 3's display which is uncalibrated and badly oversaturated. Which is not a reflection of the display's potential.
Last edited by a moderator:
Just curious...what is your exact experience with the display? And what have you done about that in the settings?
The SG3 offers various color tone setting (to be exact 4) and every preset will cater to someone out there, e.g. I find the "video" preset oversaturated, but YMMV.
Second by default the SG3 uses very little power due to a setting of "Automatic Tone correction" where the phone analyses the pic and then decides how to display the content. Sometimes it's really annoying on text-heavy web pages to have the white so toned down...
...but nevertheless I can go at least two days on a charge in typical use. Hope you can say that for your phone
1. No. You can believe that, though.
2. So, you're going to speak for everyone who hasn't held both an iPhone 5 and a Galaxy S III? Is this issue not a matter of personal preference?
3. What I should've said is, "Siri was the main selling point for the iPhone 4S, which brought Apple in a lot of revenue." It's likely that the main feature of a product would greatly affect the sales of that product, yes?
4. Are you saying that only "fanbois" compare smartphone cameras?
5. For smallness, see this. For 720p, does it really matter, as long as the screen looks good? If I have a 720p screen, and an iPhone 5 screen, and there's no discernible difference between the two, apart from the number of pixels, should it matter? Again, personal preference, but I'm inclined to think it shouldn't. Probably because I'm an iSheeple who has a temple to Jobs in my house.
6. You're saying the iPhone 5 battery life is worse than the 4S? I'm not sure about that.
7. If my Samsung Galaxy S III LTE with a quad-core Samsung Exynos 1400 MHz performs worse than my iPhone 5 with a "mere" 2 core, 1 GHz processor, then it shouldn't matter what the raw specs are.
Last edited:
My god:
iPhone 5 has better build quality, better screen quality, great internals, great camera, and solid battery life.
Samsung has larger display, good internals, good camera, poor materials, bad design (you can't say the S3 has a better physical design). AND IT'S LACKIN WIRELESS CHARJING DUDEZ..
Get a clue. NFC has tiny real-world utility right now. The iPhone 5 is the better overall device, but many people will still be drawn by the huge screen of the GS3.
HTC One X has always been better than the GS3, IMO.
iPhone 5 has better build quality, better screen quality, great internals, great camera, and solid battery life.
Samsung has larger display, good internals, good camera, poor materials, bad design (you can't say the S3 has a better physical design). AND IT'S LACKIN WIRELESS CHARJING DUDEZ..
Get a clue. NFC has tiny real-world utility right now. The iPhone 5 is the better overall device, but many people will still be drawn by the huge screen of the GS3.
HTC One X has always been better than the GS3, IMO.