It sure hasn't worked out that way side-by-side for me.
Except black levels. Those are terrific.
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.
Do you want a 4 inch Super AMOLED 960x640 screen with full RGB subpixels in iPhone 5?
- Thread starter wikoogle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except black levels. Those are terrific.
I can care less quite frankly.
1. I have 50' Plasma for home viewing purposes (the only place I choose to view anything longer than a quick youtube snip)
2. I don't play video games (if I did it would be on the PS3 at home)
3. For web surfing the size isn't that serious as I prefer my laptop for serious surfing.
Fickle consumers are never ever satisfied, give'm a little they will always always want more...
1. I have 50' Plasma for home viewing purposes (the only place I choose to view anything longer than a quick youtube snip)
2. I don't play video games (if I did it would be on the PS3 at home)
3. For web surfing the size isn't that serious as I prefer my laptop for serious surfing.
Fickle consumers are never ever satisfied, give'm a little they will always always want more...
IF they can find a magical way to do it without increasing the size of the phone, then YES! More than anything.
*Couldn't care less.
*Couldn't care less.
As surely as all those who dislike Apple were railing the original iPhone for being so large. Don't you have anything better to do with your time?
How is he trolling. It's a fair point. A few posters here play down any deficiences in apple devices, and claim that every apple device is perfect the way it is. For example, some such people said that Apple shouldn't do multitasking in iOS and that it's unneeded and no one would use it. Then once they did, those fanboys all came around.
What!? Everyone I know wanted multi-tasking. And Apple was working on it for some time as they wanted it perfected. Very poor example.
First off, don't count on this product coming out. Dig me up if I'm wrong. I'll admit to it. Second, poor example. The 'fanboys' here are just as vocal about things they don't like as they are things which they do like. Who's going to complain about a choice in phones? Unless Apple did away with the smaller model, in which case I would gladly bet money that there would be complaining.
People do tend to be defensive when they're attacked, though.
A 'few posters' don't warrant that kind of general attitude. They're here, absolutely, but there are other people here as well. And multitasking is a poor exampleI wouldn't have shed a tear if giving up on multitasking meant not having to deal with a process manager and all that crap. Apple came up with a pretty terrific solution. Could still use some tweaking, though.
No. Before multi-tasking came out, everyone was on about how it was useless on a mobile device.
Then after it came out, everyone suddenly saw how wrong they were.
I remember this quite vividly because I was one of the people who thought that multitasking was essential. I hadn't joined yet but I was lurking and saw the kind of crap people posted before and after.
funny, I though that's what the point of the poll was. Or has voting changed since the last time I did it?
The bigger problem is that poll is terribly phrased since it bundles more then one distinct question. If it was a straight forward question, there wouldn't be less of this arguing and name calling.
While most of the arguing for 'yes' is around the 4" screen size, many people voting 'no' are voting simply not convinced of the merits of S-AMOLED tech. This muddies the poll to the point of it not being able to stand on it's own w/o further discussion.
That said, if wikoogle really is meaning to ask about the full package deal of increasing the phone size, screen size and using Super AMOLED then he needs to accept that many people just don't like that combination. If he is going to get upset about people not agreeing, he should not have included a poll in the thread.
I'm surprised that anyone has voted no. They've apparently never seen an OLED screen in person. You can call an LCD "retina" or any other fake term you like but that doesn't contradict the fact that OLED has it all over LCD.
- Pixel response time - good LCDs are at best around 2ms. OLED is around .02 ms currently (about two orders of magnitude faster) and will likely be even faster in later implementations.
- Refresh rate - 600Hz is an OLED's current refresh rate capability. 'Nuff said.
- Contrast ratio - 1,000,000:1 (and it's a real ratio unlike on LCDs which manipulate a backlight trying to get a better contrast ratio - OLEDs have no backlight - black means the pixel is off. Can't get blacker than that)
Apple applies for patents related to OLED screens:
http://www.oled-display.net/apple-files-three-oled-display-patents
- Pixel response time - good LCDs are at best around 2ms. OLED is around .02 ms currently (about two orders of magnitude faster) and will likely be even faster in later implementations.
- Refresh rate - 600Hz is an OLED's current refresh rate capability. 'Nuff said.
- Contrast ratio - 1,000,000:1 (and it's a real ratio unlike on LCDs which manipulate a backlight trying to get a better contrast ratio - OLEDs have no backlight - black means the pixel is off. Can't get blacker than that)
Apple applies for patents related to OLED screens:
http://www.oled-display.net/apple-files-three-oled-display-patents
Last edited:
You could read the thread. It's been explained many times...
You can toss around specs all you want (Best Buy must love you). Does anybody really care about Pixel response time anymore? No ghosting = no issue and 2ms handily delivers sharp motion.
The fact is that subjectively I find the look of the current iPhone display superior to every S-AMOLED screen that I have seen. S-AMOLED have great black levels, but still suffer in many other areas. My iPhone has better color reproduction, saturation and much sharper text.
Today, when I compare existing products, I strongly prefer IPS. I understand that S-AMOLED screens are getting better all the time and I'm willing to re-evaluate next-gen OLED; However, IPS wins this round for me.
Based on what exactly?
If you're talking image quality, there is absolutely no question that OLED produces vastly superior images.
There's a reason why television enthusiasts used to fork up over $5000 for Kuro tvs instead of normal HDTVs, because they had vastly superior blacks.
And OLED screens make Kuro displays look a generation behind. They are as black as black can be, their contrast ratio is just obscene, and the colors absolutely pop.
In terms of images, there is no question, OLEDs look superior. And when I evaluate displays, image quality is paramount, above anything else.
Kuro's don't obtain black levels by compromising resolution and color accuracy.
I find that text looks far better when displayed with full sub pixels and higher DPI. Solid Colors and smooth gradients look better with 24 bit color displays. Images look better w/o exaggerated saturation (Apple suffers here too, but not as bad).
Currently S-AMOLED screens are behind IPS in all of these areas. They have less then a third of the actual sub pixel density of IPS and rely on tricks like PenTile to fake up the resolution. They use dithering to fake 24 bit color range since they are natively 16bit. Again, I say show me a S-AMOLED that address these issues and I'll consider it.
For me these qualities are more important in a phone display then black levels. Obviously your priorities in differ.
For the record, I agree that OLED is the future of display technology, but from what I have seen so far, they have a few years to go before supassing LCD in all areas.
Last edited:
You apparently didn't read the review you seem to be referring to.
http://www.displaymate.com/Nexus_One_ShootOut.htm
And...
These are issues with ANDROID not the AMOLED screen.
Watch this video of LG's new 31" OLED HDTV and tell me again how great LCD is...
http://www.engadget.com/2010/09/03/lgs-31-inch-oled-spin-slices-its-way-into-our-cold-lcd-hearts/
Check out this side-by-side comparison of an LCD's backlighting as compared to an OLED that doesn't need it? Look at the gray/blue of the bigger TV compared to the pure blackness of the OLED.
One of the killer items for OLED is 3D televisions. LCDs are not fast enough to do 3D properly, but OLEDs are more than fast enough.
Where is the agreement? There is no mention of display quality in those patents.
Besides I agree that OLED is the future. Just for the time being, IPS is my preference due primarily to sub pixel density being more then 3 times higher on LCD.
As for color depth, Google is referring to OS level dithering. The OLED screen hardware is only capable of 16bit color ranges to the limitation in the pixel refresh rate on OLED. Which is ironic given you earlier statement about refresh rates. You see, each sub pixel on an LCD can be 256 shades of the color, whereas OLED is either on or off. OLED emulates intensity by rapidly flashing each sub pixel. It needs 256 times the refresh rate of LCD to equal the same color depth. unfortunately it's it's even 10 times faster, so the practical limit of color depth is currently <16bit
For black levels; as I said, they are far less important to me on my phone then sharp text. Also IPS displays have far better black levels then any commodity LCD TV like the one on the video. As far I am am concerned, the only area OLED excels is black levels. I've already conceded that point but I just don't care.
Last edited: