No excuses to not go OLED anymore - Samsung Galaxy S2 shows the way

[Phil A.]

One area where AMOLED is far superior to LCD is when you're using the device in the dark. Since there is no backlight, blacks are jet black with no light bleed. This is fantastic if you use your phone as a bedside clock: the iPhone lights up the room even if you have it set to the lowest brightness setting, whereas an AMOLED screen will just have the numbers illuminated. Conversely, AMOLED is absolutely terrible in daylight and almost unreadable in bright sunshine

If I was given the choice between the current resolution iPhone screen or a lower resolution AMOLED, I'd go with the current screen: The extra resolution brings clarity that is useful all the time, not just under specific circumstances

Of course, the ideal would be an AMOLED with improved daylight readability at retina resolution

Another issue is mass production: HTC moved from AMOLED to LCD on their Desire phones due to issues with screen production quantities not meeting demand, and they sell a lot less of those than Apple sell of the iPhone: Until the huge demand the iPhone generates can be met, Apple will stick with LCD

 

[JohnBossu]

Never say never

I've been using: Nokia -> Motorola -> Nokia -> iPhone -> .................. Samsung ???

Yeah I've hated it... now want to buy S2 - it's obviously the best!

As I've said, no matter how great it is, I wont even think about buying it. But then if you like then just get it mate

 

[ped]

i would much prefer to have a clearer screen.

battery life is a none issue, im getting 2 days out of my iPhone 4.

Every bit of battery life saved by the screen can be reclaimed in the form of skinnier designs, more memory or faster CPUs. It's not a "non issue" in ANY portable device.

Funny to see people in here claiming OLEDs need to be tweaked and aren't natural colors, etc, since Sony just launched two new PROFESSIONAL monitors using OLED - a 17" and a 25" model. these are to be used by video professionals like in broadcast television and by graphics pros. WHo is more picky about correct color balance than these people? And these sets are only about 10% more expensive than the LCDs they are replacing.

Video at the link below shows them...

http://www.oled-display.net/sony-sh...-trimaster-el-series-in-a-comparison-with-lcd

One area where AMOLED is far superior to LCD is when you're using the device in the dark. Since there is no backlight, blacks are jet black with no light bleed. This is fantastic if you use your phone as a bedside clock: the iPhone lights up the room even if you have it set to the lowest brightness setting, whereas an AMOLED screen will just have the numbers illuminated. Conversely, AMOLED is absolutely terrible in daylight and almost unreadable in bright sunshine

If I was given the choice between the current resolution iPhone screen or a lower resolution AMOLED, I'd go with the current screen: The extra resolution brings clarity that is useful all the time, not just under specific circumstances

Of course, the ideal would be an AMOLED with improved daylight readability at retina resolution

Another issue is mass production: HTC moved from AMOLED to LCD on their Desire phones due to issues with screen production quantities not meeting demand, and they sell a lot less of those than Apple sell of the iPhone: Until the huge demand the iPhone generates can be met, Apple will stick with LCD

Apple's demand will easily be met around May/June this year, when Samsung's new factory comes online. 30 million a month is enough even for Apple.

 

[JCCL]

Really? I don't think so ...

dual-core CPU
Most likely the next revision of the iPhone will use a dual general purpose CPU core processor. However, the A4 already uses a number of custom accelerator cores to accelerate common functions (e.g., video decoding). So the A4 is arguably already a multi-core CPU depending on how you define "core." Additionally, one of the reasons that Android phones makers are so hot and bothered about dual core CPUs (besides using it as a marketing buzz word) is that Android doesn't currently support GPU acceleration of the UI. This is why Android phones are a hair slower at UI functions than iPhones. So Android phones rely on the general purpose CPU for all these functions. Hence, adding a second CPU core will help a lot. For a system like the iPhone that already off-loads a lot of work to custom accelerators, adding a 2nd core might not be that noticeable.

16/32GB of storage
iPhone has had this since 3GS

1GB of RAM
iPhone 4 has 512MB of RAM. Besides looking good on a spec sheet, what do you need more RAM for? Note that an Xbox 360 has 512MB of RAM, and a PS3 only has 256MB. So if you use it efficiently, 512MB is plenty. Over provisioning a resource in a cell phone is a big deal, since it will draw additional power that you can't afford to waste.

8MP HD-video-recording camera
How many Mpixels do you need in your camera? You can make an 8x10 print at nearly 300ppi with 5 Mpixels. Do you print bigger than that? Adding more photosites will just hurt low light performance and burn more power for image processing and storage.

Typical fanboy reply.....You don't need more RAM, you don't need more megapixels in the camera. Then the iPhone 6 comes up and Apple catches up. "WOW Apple has really upped his game with all this RAM, it is amazing" "How can you stick with your old iPhone 4 that has half o the RAM of mine". Why do you have to look for an apology for every spec in which Apple is lacking???

 

[ped]

Typical fanboy reply.....You don't need more RAM, you don't need more megapixels in the camera. Then the iPhone 6 comes up and Apple catches up. "WOW Apple has really upped his game with all this RAM, it is amazing" "How can you stick with your old iPhone 4 that has half o the RAM of mine". Why do you have to look for an apology for every spec in which Apple is lacking???

Not to mention that HD video recording on the Galaxy S2 is 1080P recording. Nice spec, that! Now he'll tell us he has no need to record in 1080P and be able to play it back wirelessly over DLNA to his HDTV.

 

[2IS]

Funny to see people in here claiming OLEDs need to be tweaked and aren't natural colors, etc, since Sony just launched two new PROFESSIONAL monitors using OLED - a 17" and a 25" model. these are to be used by video professionals like in broadcast television and by graphics pros. WHo is more picky about correct color balance than these people? And these sets are only about 10% more expensive than the LCDs they are replacing.

Video at the link below shows them...

http://www.oled-display.net/sony-sh...-trimaster-el-series-in-a-comparison-with-lcd

So is Sony using identical OLED panels as Samsungs Super AMOLED? And are their OLED tv's of lower resolution than their current LCDs? If not then I suggest you ease up on the trolling.

More megapixels are nice but higher MP combined with **** optics and sensors isn't. Just look at the 8mp HTC phones. Both photo and video quality is worse than the iPhone's 5mp camera.

I'd love for the iPhone to have more MP, but not if it means getting a worse picture, which has been the case so far with every other phone I've personally come across.

I'd love for the iPhone to have the advantages of OLED, but not if it means having to give up on the advantages the current LCD has.

When I upgrade to newer technology, I want it ideally to be better at everything. I realize that's not always possible so I'll live with it being better at a lot of things, and at worst, being just as good at everything else.

 

[neshkito]

i would much prefer to have a clearer screen.

battery life is a none issue, im getting 2 days out of my iPhone 4.

2 days with or without talking

 

[ped]

He wasn't referring to Samsung's screens, he was referring to OLEDs in general. To which I replied with Sony's Pro series OLED monitors showing that color is NOT a problem as these displays kick LCD to the curb where it belongs.

 

[chrmjenkins]

He wasn't referring to Samsung's screens, he was referring to OLEDs in general. To which I replied with Sony's Pro series OLED monitors showing that color is NOT a problem as these displays kick LCD to the curb where it belongs.

It's not fair to compare desktop displays to mobile displays, though. For instance, find me an 8-bit or IPS mobile display. There are very few. Mobile displays are about low cost, and of the oversatured AMOLEDs I've seen, nothing suggests to me that they have better gamut.

 

[ped]

So is Sony using identical OLED panels as Samsungs Super AMOLED? And are their OLED tv's of lower resolution than their current LCDs? If not then I suggest you ease up on the trolling.

More megapixels are nice but higher MP combined with **** optics and sensors isn't. Just look at the 8mp HTC phones. Both photo and video quality is worse than the iPhone's 5mp camera.

I'd love for the iPhone to have more MP, but not if it means getting a worse picture, which has been the case so far with every other phone I've personally come across.

I'd love for the iPhone to have the advantages of OLED, but not if it means having to give up on the advantages the current LCD has.

When I upgrade to newer technology, I want it ideally to be better at everything. I realize that's not always possible so I'll live with it being better at a lot of things, and at worst, being just as good at everything else.

That sounds exactly like the argument I made 6 years ago in the ExtremeTech forums when I was criticizing LCDs. LCDs were not superior in almost ANY way to CRTs (NOT resolution-independent, slower pixel response, slower refresh rate). The ONLY benefits they brought were perfect convergence (obviously) and smaller size.

At least in OLED's case nearly EVERY aspect is improved over existing displays. Faster pixel response time (two orders of magnitude faster, in fact), faster refresh rate (3-4 times as fast as the best LCDs out now, after 15 years of LCD manufacturing/tweaking), and massively better contrast ratios (1,000,000:1 or higher).

 

[UCLAKoolman]

I would never buy a samsung phone. They look like cheap plastic toys next to an iPhone, and pretty much every other smartphone.

I wouldn't mind an iPhone with an OLED screen, as long as it keeps the same resolution and daylight visibility of the retina display

 

[2IS]

At least in OLED's case nearly EVERY aspect is improved over existing displays. Faster pixel response time (two orders of magnitude faster, in fact), faster refresh rate (3-4 times as fast as the best LCDs out now, after 15 years of LCD manufacturing/tweaking), and massively better contrast ratios (1,000,000:1 or higher).

For a phone however, resolution IMO is far more important than refresh rate and response times. Out of the three aspects you mentioned, only contrast ratio would be a tangible benefit on a phone and again, i feel resolution is more important.

If we're talking about TV's where you're watching sporting events or playing fast paced video games, the roles are completely reversed. Response and refresh rates are a huge plus and since we're only dealing with 1080p resolutions regardless of panel type, resolution becomes a non issue.

 

[fertilized-egg]

For a phone however, resolution IMO is far more important than refresh rate and response times. Out of the three aspects you mentioned, only contrast ratio would be a tangible benefit on a phone and again, i feel resolution is more important.

Yes I also think the black level is the single biggest benefit of an OLED screen right now. Refresh rate and response times, well let me put it this way. Where was the last time you saw an internet argument on iPhone screen being slow to update and laggy?

 

[tsolt]

Yay for crappy battery life!! (cheers)

 

[cocky jeremy]

Here we go again.

It's never been about the specs, it's the software silly.

It's all about specs.. when you lack software.

 

[ped]

OLED-Info just posted a Samsung video showing the differences between LCD and SAMOLED Plus:

http://www.oled-info.com/lcd-vs-sup...nfo+(OLED-Info:+OLED+tech+news+and+resources)

Yes I also think the black level is the single biggest benefit of an OLED screen right now. Refresh rate and response times, well let me put it this way. Where was the last time you saw an internet argument on iPhone screen being slow to update and laggy?

For phones that's mostly true (although gaming is happening a lot these days). but for laptops, computer displays and HDTVs the speed and black level of OLED will be a boon for consumers.

 

[204353]

OLED-Info just posted a Samsung video showing the differences between LCD and SAMOLED Plus:

http://www.oled-info.com/lcd-vs-sup...nfo+(OLED-Info:+OLED+tech+news+and+resources)

I'm not going to dive into this argument (or 'heated discussion', if you like), but I just noticed that at the 59-second mark of that video they spelt 'brilliant' as 'billiant'.

Billiant image quality. It must be better than other displays.

 

[Faux Carnival]

I'll tell ya why. Because Samsung won't let them. They won't sell Apple AMOLED screens, they can barely produce enough for themselves.

 

[ped]

I'm not going to dive into this argument (or 'heated discussion', if you like), but I just noticed that at the 59-second mark of that video they spelt 'brilliant' as 'billiant'.

Billiant image quality. It must be better than other displays.

Good catch - OLED-Info.com is run over in Asia somewhere I think, and their English isn't awesome. But the info is!

I'll tell ya why. Because Samsung won't let them. They won't sell Apple AMOLED screens, they can barely produce enough for themselves.

When the new Gen 5.5 plant opens in about 3 months they'll be going from 3 million/month to 30 million/month. They can supply anyone easily, even Apple, with that, and still have plenty for their own phones.

http://www.oled-info.com/samsungs-started-constuction-their-55-gen-amoled-plant-go-online-july-2011

 

[Ace134blue]

I was going to go on a lengthy post telling you what you were wrong about (pretty much everything you said), but then I thought "why bother?", as it's obvious to everyone who knows anything about OLED that you're wrong.

http://www.oled-info.com/tags/3d-oleds?page=1

So you are saying, a small OLED TV that costs 9k is better than a Plasma/other LCD? You're wrong. The visual Differences are minuscule at best, the only difference is blacks are blacker.
And the last Page proved it. You have to zoom in 10x on a photo to spot the differences.

Wow, your amazing technical argument has won me over ... also maybe you should learn to use the forum quote function.

And what pray tell do you think is wrong:
- A4 uses custom accelerators
- Android does not use GPU acceleration in the UI
- iPhone 5 will likely have dual core CPU

Sorry, this part
A4 uses custom accelerators

use a Zune HD for 5 minutes and then try to tell me the better contrast ratio is useless...it looks far superior, especially with black on the screen. Makes blacks on an iPhone look blue

Seriously? I just said the only difference is they blacks are actually blacker, which obviously is because the pixels are NOT lighted, The colours are not better.

 

[ped]

So you are saying, a small OLED TV that costs 9k is better than a Plasma/other LCD? You're wrong. The visual Differences are minuscule at best, the only difference is blacks are blacker.
And the last Page proved it. You have to zoom in 10x on a photo to spot the differences.

OLED is the only tech fast enough to do 3D properly. Off-axis viewing is far better than any other tech. The screens are thinner than any other tech. The contrast ratio is the best possible since OLED can do pure black.

ALL techs are more expensive when released. LCDs and plasmas were 10K+ when they released. So if that's your only argument then save it since we all know every new tech is expensive when first released. Difference is we ALSO know that OLED is cheaper to produce so will lead to sets with all the advantages of OLED but cost even LESS than LCDs.

 

[Dbrown]

So you are saying, a small OLED TV that costs 9k is better than a Plasma/other LCD? You're wrong. The visual Differences are minuscule at best, the only difference is blacks are blacker.
And the last Page proved it. You have to zoom in 10x on a photo to spot the differences.

You should stop posting about OLED since it seems that you know nothing about it. OLED is superior to LCD in any objective criteria that is used to evaluate the quality of a display. The only thing LCD has over OLED is resolution, and thats only because mass production of OLED is fairly new.

 

[Ace134blue]

OLED is the only tech fast enough to do 3D properly.

No? Panel technology generally has nothing to do with 3D.

A 120Hz LCD can display 3D
So can a Plasma TV.
And yes new technology will always be expensive, but as it is OLED does not provide major IQ differences

You should stop posting about OLED since it seems that you know nothing about it. OLED is superior to LCD in any objective criteria that is used to evaluate the quality of a display. The only thing LCD has over OLED is resolution, and thats only because mass production of OLED is fairly new.

Oh really? Show me a comparison about the differences of the two than

Oh wait, there aren't hardly any differences.

 

[Dbrown]

Oh really? Show me a comparison about the differences of the two than

Oh wait, there aren't hardly any differences.

Like I suggested earlier, you dont know anything about OLED if you think there are hardly any differences between OLED and LCD

 

[Ace134blue]

Like I suggested earlier, you dont know anything about OLED if you think there are hardly any differences between OLED and LCD

Like i said before, if you cant provide IQ differences that means there isnt hardly any at all, as the Photo on the previous page proved.