near impossible to calibrate?
What an utter load of crap!!!!!!!! You are such a fanboy it's sickening.
First off near impossible to calibrate???? The latest Amoled is the most realistic screen ever when in movie mode. True to life blacks and high contrasts. It has 100% green accuracy and approximately 97% color accuracy on other colors. While also having a very good white balance. In RGB mode it has close to same accuracy, but not as perfect while having better white balance than IPS. Or you can leave it alone and have it saturated they way the most people "save for online jealous haters" actually prefer. It can do saturated and overall realistic both better.
Amoled as a tech is also less reflective. It takes IPS displays that are 100-200 nits brighter to get the same or minutely better sun reflective scores.
Degradable? Yes, but not even close to this two year marrk. Most Omnia HD Amoled screens are fine let alone Galaxy S1 screens. And they are only getting brighter and lasting longer.
Your blindness is horrifying. It's people like you that help create and spread hate and misconceptions.
......Not to mention the simple fact this thread makes no sense. We are comparing a PPI to a display type. Retina is not a display type it's a pixel density. Amoled has had retina screens on phones. Sony had Retina first and just about any phone is Retina now a days.
----------
Lacking blacks and contrasts makes LCD false and inaccurate. The difference Amoled can be tuned for both. The Galaxy S4 shows this with a more realistic screen then any other.
----------
HDTV is more power efficient than High density 4-5inch screen!!!!!!!????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Who deals you your drugs?
----------
Sorry to say, but they are right and just calling you out. So you make up a bunch of fanboy crap, lie, troll, and even get rude...Then you are called out for it and your response is to scapegoat your actions onto them for doing so...Quit being so butthurt and get over yourself
Well, here it goes.
I'm almost never butthurt. Especially not over a thread that's over a year old. And I don't think I was ever butthurt back then, either.
AMOLEDs are near impossible to calibrate, not because they oversaturate everything (that itself being a sign of miscalibration) but because of its gamma curve. The difference in brightness between the lowest setting and when the screen is off is ridiculously high. One can visualize this with a logarithmic curve of brightness. The contrast ratio may be high, but this uneven increase in brightness causes the screen to fluctuate in gamut throughout the dynamic range. One would need a specialized gamma curve just to fit each model of AMOLED displays, not to mention the fluctuation in this curve over time with use.
On the other hand, LCD screens have a constant backlight and there is a floor to how dim it can get. This does result in lower contrast ratios, but it has its upsides. The gamma is constant and tends to vary less between displays, resulting in much more uniform displays with consistent performance and experience with ease of calibration.
We are also talking about laptop displays, not cell phone displays. Reflectance is not a very big issue. You can even ask anyone using rMBPs if glare bothers them much.
One also expects a laptop to last at least 4 years, if not longer. A desktop monitor, 7+ years for me at least. If I buy any AMOLED display on the market right now it will not last that long and still give the performance it did when I first bought it. LCDs will. It may not matter as much on a phone, but it sure as hell matters on a computer being used for color critical work.
The eye strain issue is also very real. Going from one extreme to the other is very bad for your eyes, just like how using a super bright display in a super dark room will make your eyes hurt.
HDTV is more power efficient than High density 4-5inch screen!!!!!!!??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
Who deals you your drugs?
Probably mistyped back then. I meant "more efficient to make" not "power efficient."
So putting the trolls, lies, and fact that Retina is not a display technology aside...
Amoled is the screen of the future. It has a couple issues" which are excessively over exaggerated and hyped due to jealousy and hate", but so does everything. It's considered unnatural by being saturated. Save for online jealous haters most people like that. LCD is also unnatural in the same aspect by lacking blacks and having poor contrasts. The difference Amoled can be tuned to have natural and realist colors. While doing so it retains true blacks and massive contrasts. Especially with the tuning available now Amoled can do realistic and saturated both better. Even IPS on most screens has only recently hit some of it's own accurate and bright levels. Amoled is much newer, but rapidly over growing and over taking.
It has higher contrasts, more color options, true blacks, overall less power consuming, can achieve more proper white balance than IPS"at least by settings", vastly superior response times"greater than LCD may ever achieve same as contrast levels", better viewing angles, less reflective, flexible, more even lighting, thinner, no back light, and only getting better as we speak.
Burn in has happened, but in very small scales and is no where even close to the fraction of the panic it was hyped to be. It is also more to do with early generations. As stated. It's only getting way better.
LCD can easily be a little brighter"though the colors and contrast plus less reflectivity of amoled actually mostly negate the difference", slightly better whites"in some cases", less power consumed on white, they need a backlight and are thicker, not flexible, no blacks, lacking contrast, not bendable, cannot be as saturated or overall realistic, Don't look as amazing, last a little longer, generally are not fully and evenly lit, ok viewing angles, so on.
This is only to talk about 4-7inch displays and such. Now when we talk about now from when this page started onward to next year and the following Amoled is even more advanced and will only be much further improved. Wait until you see the color/contrast/black/reflective and angle difference in large scales such as 20-60inch displays. Especially the ghosting effect on Laptops and even good HDTV's. The difference will be stunning. AMoled will especially make laptops amazing. Especially if they make a white pixel. Power consumption and viewing will be magnificently improved.
Man, you're going on and on about this, huh...
The numbers clearly show how accurate AMOLEDs are compared to LCDs. Delta E of the most accurate AMOLED display, or so you say, that of the Galaxy S4, come at a ridiculously high 7.4+ according to AnandTech. You need a dE of 2.0 or lower to not notice a deviation from the control. Most modern LCD monitors come within 1.0, and the iPhone 5 achieves a very close 3.4.
You're also ignoring the rate of development of the LCD display. As AMOLEDs struggle to catch up to what LCDs achieved 10-15 years ago, LCD displays are achieving greater gamut, greater contrast, greater viewing angles and general usability. Resolution and refresh rates are also rising, with 4K displays and 120Hz monitors around nowadays.
You can also see the direction of development AMOLEDs are taking to not care much about colors. It's much more geared toward flexible displays and 3D panels. They're working on size, though, if that makes you happy.
If you want to go into the very specifics of why color improvement on AMOLEDs is so hard, it's because energy is quantized. Chemicals can only emit certain frequencies of light specific to them, and this creates a spectrum of colors. Dyes must filter this spectrum so a certain wavelength passes though (for example, green) while rest is absorbed by the dye. And you know what happens when dye absorbs radiation: it degrades little by little until it is no more.
LCDs function similarly, but the original light source (CFL, RGB LED, white LED) contains a much more balanced spectrum. CFLs too are limited by the chemistry of phosphors, but this technology has had decades of research into it and we are now able to recreate almost any spectrum of light using different phosphor compounds. Another advantage is that LCDs do not use dyes, but rather synthetic liquid crystals as this "dye" material. They do not degrade, and as such, provide much more consistent performance over time.
One year passed, the gamma and gamut control problems have clearly not been solved. Like I said before, it'll be years until this issue is fixed and AMOLEDs find a foothold in computer displays. Like you said, AMOLEDs are the displays of the future. It'll take many, many years to get to that future. Until then, LCDs are more than enough.
