'Retina' vs SAMOLED+ - stop the BS

[blesio]

OP, good that we're not you.
For us, iPhone users pixel density is what drove is to buy this phone.
I personally had the SGS II and while it's display is better than the one on SGS I don't think that it's better then the Retina on the iPhone 4. Sure it has better contrast and color saturation but that's not that much important for me. I need crystal clear and sharp text and graphics which I don't get even on the SAMOLED+, so sorry. Retina is for me. You can keep yours, like I care.

 

[fertilized-egg]

People (including me) used to use 17" or larger monitors running at 1024x768 and it was perfectly fine. Pretending anything less than that res on a handheld 3.5" screen is just silly.

No it's silly to pretend 300+ DPI isn't where things are headed. We already have printed books without pixels showing up and that's the target all devices will eventually be. One of iPad's most often quoted hardware weaknesses is its pixel density.

Also at the practical level, who'll produce all the SAMOLED+ displays? Right now only Samsung can make it since LG has said they are out of the small OLED game for at least a few years. Samsung is having trouble matching their own demand, do you really think they can match Apple's massive demand reliably? And we haven't mentioned the current AMOLED burns through battery faster as well. Yes I know in the near future things will be fixed, but the currently available display in production don't. I also think Apple will use OLED eventually but that'll be after things have settled down and they have achieved higher pixel density and the production capacity.

 

[ViPhone]

Yeah. I'm waiting for an iPad HD (assuming it will have closer to "retina" specs). As for Super AMOLED Plus, I'm sure it's great on the devices that have it. But I do know that my Epic 4G's Super AMOLED doesn't even come close to the iPhone 4's "retina" display. Pixel density is everything, once you've experienced it.

Feeling the same way.

 

[ped]

He was saying the iPad can have a better screen than it currently does.

I agree with that. We would both like to see an improved iPad 3.

From what I can read, I think you think that's idiotic, but I can't speak for you.

Not quite. What I'm saying is it's silly to discuss anything lower than the current iPhone res as if it's inadequate for a smartphone to have, when the iPad is 8 times larger and has almost the same resolution and is fine. Both are handheld devices used in close proximity to the user.

No it's silly to pretend 300+ DPI isn't where things are headed. We already have printed books without pixels showing up and that's the target all devices will eventually be. One of iPad's most often quoted hardware weaknesses is its pixel density.

Also at the practical level, who'll produce all the SAMOLED+ displays? Right now only Samsung can make it since LG has said they are out of the small OLED game for at least a few years. Samsung is having trouble matching their own demand, do you really think they can match Apple's massive demand reliably? And we haven't mentioned the current AMOLED burns through battery faster as well. Yes I know in the near future things will be fixed, but the currently available display in production don't. I also think Apple will use OLED eventually but that'll be after things have settled down and they have achieved higher pixel density and the production capacity.

Samsung is producing 8 million screens a month right now and will be at 30 million per month by year end. Plenty for their own needs and Apple's.

 

[D1G1T4L]

Why is this an issue? Is there any rumors that the next iPhone is switching to the SAMOLED screen?

 

[LoganT]

Why is this an issue? Is there any rumors that the next iPhone is switching to the SAMOLED screen?

Some people want others to know how much better they are for purchasing a Samsung Galaxy S2.

 

[ped]

Why is this an issue? Is there any rumors that the next iPhone is switching to the SAMOLED screen?

There have been, yes. Any other reason for Apple to be filing OLED patents recently?

 

[fertilized-egg]

Samsung is producing 8 million screens a month right now and will be at 30 million per month by year end. Plenty for their own needs and Apple's.

AFAIK, those figures are based on 3" diagonal so it's not as many as they say especially when you consider there will be so many other applications for OLEDs, plus it's still Samsung and Samsung only. For displays Apple usually like to get multiple suppliers. Where's the second supplier?

Not to mention we don't even know how soon Samsung can produce 300+ DPI AMOLED display, right now they cannot.

 

[D1G1T4L]

There have been, yes. Any other reason for Apple to be filing OLED patents recently?

So you think Apple is going to use an OLED screen on the next iPhone? Interesting. Have to talk a look and see if I like it.

 

[Tarzanman]

So you think Apple is going to use an OLED screen on the next iPhone? Interesting. Have to talk a look and see if I like it.

Some of us (those of us who aren't fanboys) predicted that Apple would eventually go with OLED or AMOLED because it looks that much better than current LCD displays.

This message board is just funny sometimes. The easiest way to start a huge argument is to point out a feature that Android has that iPhone doesn't have (flash, AMOLED, etc). Its like the fanboys get upset when you remind them that their favorite phone is demonstrably NOT the most technologically advanced phone available.

Do Android people get upset? Not really. Any new software feature that someone else comes up with is usually available on a ROM for those phones within 3 months.

 

[2IS]

Not quite. What I'm saying is it's silly to discuss anything lower than the current iPhone res as if it's inadequate for a smartphone to have, when the iPad is 8 times larger and has almost the same resolution and is fine. Both are handheld devices used in close proximity to the user.

iPad being "fine" is very relative term. For one, you don't really have an option for a high PPI tablet. Secondly, there are those who have not jumped on an iPad 2 because we've experienced the pixel density of the iPhone 4 (myself included) then there are those who do have an iPad/iPad 2 and would jump on an iPad 3 even if the only difference is having a "retina" display.

I'm not sure why you felt the need to create another thread discussing the superiority of OLED. You failed to change anyone's mind the first time around, and that thread is still active, what makes you think you'll have more success this time? Now you just seem like an annoying fanboy who thinks everyone should share his opinion. Some of us want resolution. Get over it.

 

[fertilized-egg]

Do Android people get upset? Not really. Any new software feature that someone else comes up with is usually available on a ROM for those phones within 3 months.

And they put up with buggy ROMs with wonky GPS, non-working wifi or a ringing tone that goes ringing for no reason when you receive a text message, etc. Then you go around install another ROM but that has another little bug, and then you try another ROM that almost works but just as a tiny little bug that crashes your messaging app after a certain app is run, etc.
(/rant of an Android user)

But this OLED thing is really simple. Are there more than ony company that can supply OLED screens of 300+ DPI? No there isn't. And current AMOLEDs suffer from oversaturation and high battery usage. In the future sure, but we're not in the future.

 

[ped]

AFAIK, those figures are based on 3" diagonal so it's not as many as they say especially when you consider there will be so many other applications for OLEDs, plus it's still Samsung and Samsung only. For displays Apple usually like to get multiple suppliers. Where's the second supplier?

Not to mention we don't even know how soon Samsung can produce 300+ DPI AMOLED display, right now they cannot.

Which is the point of this thread - there's no need for 300 ppi for a smartphone.

And as for Apple preferring a second supplier who is the second supplier of the curent screen? There is none that I know of - it's just LG.

 

[MythicFrost]

Perhaps SAMOLED+ displays do have better colours, etc., but the pixel density offered by the retina display is great.

In a normal situation increasing resolution whilst maintaining the same physical screen size (consequently increasing PPI) simply makes everything smaller. Which is somewhat useless if you can't actually see what's on the screen very well. But, since iOS scales accordingly in order to keep everything the same physical size, it results in more detailed controls, text, images, movies, etc. (Assuming, of course, that the images and movies are HD)

Unless there is a SAMOLED+ display that offers the same PPI, you have to choose what you prefer most, more detailed content, or brighter colours. I'm in the former boat.

 

[fertilized-egg]

Which is the point of this thread - there's no need for 300 ppi for a smartphone.

Yes there is. Eventually all displays will move toward higher res because it improves legibility of text and simply looks nicer. We already have books and magazine with 300+ ppi and people will eventually look for the same type of reading experience on their electronic devices, it's inevitable.

And as for Apple preferring a second supplier who is the second supplier of the curent screen? There is none that I know of - it's just LG.

I believe CMI is supplying both iPhone and iPad displays in addition to LG. Also Samsung have been supplying some of the iPad displays since the first iPad. And we know that there have been reports that Apple already invested billions to Japanese plants of LCD displays so Apple is definitely looking to get even more suppliers as LG has often expressed how tight the supply has been.

Perhaps SAMOLED+ displays do have better colours, etc., but the pixel density offered by the retina display is great.

OLED has great black, contrast and fast response time as well as nice uniform light without the flicker problem, but I am using an AMOLED phone and find its colours to be inferior. Not only the white balance is very off - which I suppose is more of software problem - the colours are simply oversaturated. When I compare pictures on it to calibrated monitors, the colours pop too much. The OLED colours are not really better, but different.

 

[Fernandez21]

OLED > ISPLCD, 300+dpi > less than 300dpi.

Resolution is independent of screen technology. OLED is better technology than what's in the iPhones screen tech, ISPLCD, but the higher the resolution and dpi, the better and easier it is to read text.

Quit trying to make this an iPhone argument, what you're really arguing is that you would rather have better screen technology instead of higher resoluton while others here are saying they would rather have higher resolution than a better screen technology.

 

[mikelegacy]

I don't think that anyone here is going to argue that the true black display and the color contrast isn't awesome on the S AMOLED screen, but I still prefer the clarity of the iPhone. If there is even a little bit of pixelation on text, I can't stand it.

It's all about preference, so OP, you're words are all subjective and pretty much mean nothing to anyone here that doesn't agree with you.

Plus, it's been proven that the iPhone screen is easier to read in sunlight, which is a major plus for me on top of the clarity.

Which is the point of this thread - there's no need for 300 ppi for a smartphone.

And as for Apple preferring a second supplier who is the second supplier of the curent screen? There is none that I know of - it's just LG.

I'm a graphic designer and am completely ANAL about any sort of pixelation or poor rendering and I haven't seen another phone that has none of that like the iPhone, so the iPhone wins for me. It's just a preference. If you don't mind a little pixelation on small text, for a better color contrast screen that's all on you.

 

[fertilized-egg]

OLED > ISPLCD, 300+dpi > less than 300dpi.

Resolution is independent of screen technology.

Yeah the problem here is that it's been stated the current OLED manufacturing has trouble mass producing 300+ DPI screens. So for now, if you go with OLED, it means you have to give up on the higher pixel density. The OP simply cannot understand why anybody would want high pixel density It just looks better and makes text easier to read.

 

[boss.king]

OP, what you are arguing is a matter of preference/opinion, not fact. I agree that people don't need a 326 PPI phone, but I don't see anything wrong with them wanting it since it's there. If Apple upped the screen size and dropped the PPI to about 250 I'm sure many wouldn't be able to tell the difference after a few mins of use, but the point is that the logical step is to improve the screen in every aspect, including resolution.

As for monitors, I use a 1336x768 15" plus a 1600x900 19" and I'd happily take an upgrade in resolution (and size) any day.

 

[w00t951]

I don't know why everyone loves the AMOLED displays. They look dim, blue, and blurry. Maybe it's just a matter of personal preference, but it just looks like a display where some three year old screwed up the saturation and color settings.

 

[twitt3r]

It seems many of the Apple loyalists here try to argue against SAMOLED+ screens based on only one factor; pixel density/resolution. Mostly I feel that's because it's the only aspect of an AMOLED that is lesser on a spec sheet than the iPhone 4's screen. In every other measurable stat the AMOLED+ beats the iPhone 4's screen. So why does pixel density matter? To be blunt it really doesn't. Why is that? Because arguing that 300 ppi+ is necessary of a 3.5" diagonal phone screen is ridiculous. Apple's own iPad is a 9.7" diagonal screen that runs at nearly the same resolution as the iPhone 4, but has many times the screen surface area (8X as much). So if an iPad can look so awesome at 8X the screen size with the same resolution there seems little reason to complain about the slightly-lower resolution of SAMOLED+, and act as if it's a reason to stay with the inferior LCD technology.

People (including me) used to use 17" or larger monitors running at 1024x768 and it was perfectly fine. Pretending anything less than that res on a handheld 3.5" screen is just silly. It also assumes that all phones that came before it, iPhones included, were inadequate, which is again just silly.

Point being?

So you are saying that a 17" monitor running 1024 x 768 is perfectly fine when put up against one running at 1080p or higher? So, I assume then, that you have not upgraded your monitor and stuck with 1024 x 768? No? Interesting...

Yes, SAMOLED+ is a great (acronym heavy - wonder what the next evolution will be?) technology. However, on an Android OS, it's wasted. The iPhone is never anything but smooth. On Android, playing Angry Birds is a joke even on newer handsets.

SAMOLED+ isn't perfect though, as people have already pointed out. I much prefer the clear, sharp retina display. Who cares what the tech behind it is? Fact is, the iPhone display takes some beating. Clearly, Android users would disagree...

 

[MonkeySee....]

Super Amoled Plus > Retina.

That's my opinion on it and I doubt it'll ever change, Super Amoled + is just superior in every way exc. pixel density.

I'd choose retina display all day over s amoled.

S amoled reminds me of watching my nans TV with the contrast and brightness turned all the way up.

 

[VulchR]

OK - let us actually talk specs here. The quality of any display depends not just on the pixel density but other factors, like brightness, color saturation, color gamut, crosstalk among pixels, how fast the pixels can be switched on and off, and the geometry of the pixels. We do not often hear about these other specs.

What strikes me about the SGS2 is that when I was finally able to get a salesperson to actually show me the freakin' phone in operation (rather than inundating me with specs), I could see the black gaps between the pixels. I couldn't see them in the iP4. That was just my impression, and I have to admit I've only manage to see for any length of time one SGS2.

So... I am just wondering what proportion of the total screen surface area is actually active in emitting light (versus the gaps between pixels) in the SGS2 versus the Retina display. Anybody willing to do a side-by-side picture at the same high magnification to show this in the SG2 versus iP4? Are there any graphs showing the color gamut of the two phones? How does the switching speed of pixels in the Retina display compare to SAMOLED? Contrast ratios for the two phones? Power consumption? etc. Without these additional pieces of information nobody can argue about the superiority of one display over another without simply expressing a subjective preference.

Mine is for the iP4, but the SGS2 was easy on the eye.

 

[chestvrg]

I'm been subjective, but not bias and I have owed both, the iphone4 and the Galaxy SII (now I have the Galaxy SII) and I can tekk you I feel the quality of the iphone4 is much better than that of the galaxy SII.

Sent from my GT-I9100

 

[Tarzanman]

I'm been subjective, but not bias and I have owed both, the iphone4 and the Galaxy SII (now I have the Galaxy SII) and I can tekk you I feel the quality of the iphone4 is much better than that of the galaxy SII.

Sent from my GT-I9100

Really? Is it the iPhone4's cracking glass or the malfunctioning antenna that is higher quality than the SGSII? They fixed the proximity sensor, right?