'Retina' vs SAMOLED+ - stop the BS

[ped]

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.

What about when the comparison is perfect contrast, better colors, faster refresh and response time, and better battery life? Are you still going to choose pixel density overkill?

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.

Yes, that's true. But in addition my point is that the SAMOLED+ is not only a far better screen than the iPhone 4's, it's ppi isn't inferior in any way that matters. Unless you look at your cellphone through a magnifying glass the resolution it provides on a 4" cellphone screen is perfect.

And once OLEDs move to LITI processing even this ppi point will be moot as OLEDs will have ALL the advantages including better battery consumption. In fact, OLED is so good as a display technology for TVs and other devices that there's nothing left to even FIX on the display side of the equation once OLED is in full stride. It fixes all the nagging aspects of the techs before it. The backlight low-contrast issues of LCD, the rainbow color effects of DLP, the light bleed muddying blacks on plasma, the slow pixel response and slow refresh rates of all of them.

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.

Proven? No it hasn't. In fact most of the reviews I've seen say the Galaxy S2 (with SAMOLED+) has the best outdoor viewing of any phone they've ever seen, Case in point, here's a video of a guy using his outdoors. Looks awesome to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2_ZsZsAoOQ

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.

Not always - remember that every step up in resolution increases memory consumption of the OS and apps, slows response of the OS, slows animation speed, and requires a faster CPU and GPU to handle moving things around.

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.

OLED is quite simply the best display tech ever created. They are fully tweakable (at least at the TV level where controls are available) to have perfect color calibration.

 

[fertilized-egg]

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?

You're confusing toughness of a design and the build quality. If cracking glass or malfunctioning antenna were actual indicator of the "quality," my $50 Nokia is much higher "quality" than either the Galaxy or the iPhone because it has a plastic LCD that won't crack and a body will take a beating without breaking anywhere. Also the Motorola Defy is a much higher quality phone than any other Android because it can be dunked into water and still come out fine.

As owner of the Galaxy S I can attest that Samsung uses some of the cheapest feeling filmsy material in the high end phones. On the other hand, Samsung's fit&finish is pretty decent unlike HTC, who has the exactly the opposite problem: HTC uses quality material but their fit&finish isn't as nice. In any case, no matter how much you dislike Apple or the iPhone, it's pretty hard to argue against that the iPhone 4 has the most sophisticated and precise build of any smartphone right now.

Not always - remember that every step up in resolution increases memory consumption of the OS and apps, slows response of the OS, slows animation speed, and requires a faster CPU and GPU to handle moving things around.

Not really. For 3D games yes but for the apps the higher resolution did little to slow down the iPhone 4. The current A5 processor should more than enough power to not exhibit any slow down even with 4X more pixels. It'll likely require more RAM though.

 

[ped]

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.

OLEDs beat every display tech out on all aspects other than pixel density at this point. And pixel density of the iPhone is useless on all but cellphones as the resolution they generate doesn't translate to large devices like HDTVs that need 1920x1280 over 42" or larger (keeping the same ppi would mean you'd have a TV with 4000x2800 res or something equally huge and above the HD res needed).

pixel response - .02 ms (vs 2ms on LCD)
refresh rate - 600Hz (vs 120Hz on LCD)
contrast ratio - 1,000,000:1 on HDTVs (vs 1,000:1 on LCD - some LCDs fake higher contrast by adjusting the backlight intensity to get higher contrast but that's a trick and not true contrast)

 

[ap3604]

Yes, that's true. But in addition my point is that the SAMOLED+ is not only a far better screen than the iPhone 4's, it's ppi isn't inferior in any way that matters. Unless you look at your cellphone through a magnifying glass the resolution it provides on a 4" cellphone screen is perfect.

And once OLEDs move to LITI processing even this ppi point will be moot as OLEDs will have ALL the advantages including better battery consumption. In fact, OLED is so good as a display technology for TVs and other devices that there's nothing left to even FIX on the display side of the equation once OLED is in full stride. It fixes all the nagging aspects of the techs before it. The backlight low-contrast issues of LCD, the rainbow color effects of DLP, the light bleed muddying blacks on plasma, the slow pixel response and slow refresh rates of all of them.

What about when the comparison is perfect contrast, better colors, faster refresh and response time, and better battery life? Are you still going to choose pixel density overkill?

Proven? No it hasn't. In fact most of the reviews I've seen say the Galaxy S2 (with SAMOLED+) has the best outdoor viewing of any phone they've ever seen, Case in point, here's a video of a guy using his outdoors. Looks awesome to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2_ZsZsAoOQ

Not always - remember that every step up in resolution increases memory consumption of the OS and apps, slows response of the OS, slows animation speed, and requires a faster CPU and GPU to handle moving things around.

OLED is quite simply the best display tech ever created. They are fully tweakable (at least at the TV level where controls are available) to have perfect color calibration.

OLEDs beat every display tech out on all aspects other than pixel density at this point. And pixel density of the iPhone is useless on all but cellphones as the resolution they generate doesn't translate to large devices like HDTVs that need 1920x1280 over 42" or larger (keeping the same ppi would mean you'd have a TV with 4000x2800 res or something equally huge and above the HD res needed).

pixel response - .02 ms (vs 2ms on LCD)
refresh rate - 600Hz (vs 120Hz on LCD)
contrast ratio - 1,000,000:1 on HDTVs (vs 1,000:1 on LCD - some LCDs fake higher contrast by adjusting the backlight intensity to get higher contrast but that's a trick and not true contrast)

Good lord man learn how to multi-quote like I just did above instead of posting 50 separate responses in a row

 

[MonkeySee....]

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?

Don't you think the guy you quoted was talking about screen quality and not the device itself.

 

[quagmire]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_5 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8L1 Safari/6533.18.5)

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?

Don't you think the guy you quoted was talking about screen quality and not the device itself.

No he just wanted to troll....

 

[polbit]

I like my iPhone 4 screen, but wish it was bigger. I like SAMOLED+ screens I've seen, but I wish they were higher density. Between the two however the difference is just not that great, and unless you spend an entire day starting at both side-by-side, it shouldn't matter. It's amazing how some people can focus on minute differences...

iPad's screen quality is great, but the resolution is definitely wanting. Reading books on it is not comfortable to me, and especially next to the iPhone it is not sharp at all. I've had the original iPad and sold it. I hoped iPad 2 would improve the resolution, and now waiting on iPad 3 - if it comes with 2048x1476, I'm buying it right away.

 

[twitt3r]

And once OLEDs move to LITI processing even this ppi point will be moot as OLEDs will have ALL the advantages including better battery consumption. In fact, OLED is so good as a display technology for TVs and other devices that there's nothing left to even FIX on the display side of the equation once OLED is in full stride. It fixes all the nagging aspects of the techs before it. The backlight low-contrast issues of LCD, the rainbow color effects of DLP, the light bleed muddying blacks on plasma, the slow pixel response and slow refresh rates of all of them.

We are not talking about the future, we are talking about now. I do not dispute what you say there, but the fact is, side-by-side, the iPhone is a much sharper, cleaner, more natural looking display compared to Galaxy S2. I have an iPhone 4 and a mate of mine just got the Galaxy S2, so I've done all the comparisons I need. All Apple need to do is increase the physical size of the screen a bit, and save for a slight reduction in pixel density, that will do just fine.

OLED will become standard eventually I'm sure, but the fact is as well that it is far better suited to larger panels where light consistency is an issue. It doesn't take much to make a small, bright, evenly lit screen.

 

[2IS]

OLED is quite simply the best display tech ever created. They are fully tweakable (at least at the TV level where controls are available) to have perfect color calibration.

But we're not talking about TV's are we? Please tell me which SAMOLED+ phone I can adjust so that if I take a pic of my girl on the beach wearing a red bikini it doesn't look fluorescent and the water doesn't look radio active?

You can say the only thing the iPhone does better is PPI, but I disagree. IMO, the only thing the SAMOLED+ phones do better is black levels and nothing else. The colors on the iPhone 4 look far closer to what I see with my naked eye in the real world than they do on any OLED phone I've come across so far.

I think it's time to troll more and create a third thread. Your second attempt to convince everyone to trash their iPhones and buy a Samsung appears to have failed.

 

[twitt3r]

You can say the only thing the iPhone does better is PPI, but I disagree. IMO, the only thing the SAMOLED+ phones do better is black levels and nothing else. The colors on the iPhone 4 look far closer to what I see with my naked eye in the real world than they do on any OLED phone I've come across so far.

Bingo, we have a winner. Colours on iPhone 4 are far more natural, as I stated previously. Not personal opinion either, just pure fact. Now...what YOU (not you 2IS) might consider as "better" is your opinion, and that's fine. Some people prefer artificially bright, over-saturated colours. I don't.

 

[Fernandez21]

Yes, that's true. But in addition my point is that the SAMOLED+ is not only a far better screen than the iPhone 4's, it's ppi isn't inferior in any way that matters. Unless you look at your cellphone through a magnifying glass the resolution it provides on a 4" cellphone screen is perfect.

And once OLEDs move to LITI processing even this ppi point will be moot as OLEDs will have ALL the advantages including better battery consumption. In fact, OLED is so good as a display technology for TVs and other devices that there's nothing left to even FIX on the display side of the equation once OLED is in full stride. It fixes all the nagging aspects of the techs before it. The backlight low-contrast issues of LCD, the rainbow color effects of DLP, the light bleed muddying blacks on plasma, the slow pixel response and slow refresh rates of all of them.

The screen technology in oled is of course much better than LCD, oled is the future. But, again, don't confuse this as an iPhone vs galaxy II. And oled hasn't fully matured yet. While it does draw less power when show dark screens with a lot of blacks, it actually uses more energy when showing bright screens with lots of white, like lets say a web page. The resolution still isn't as high as what we can get with LCD, and yes I can't tell the difference, I used an atrix for 4 months and while it had a similar resolution to my iPhone (960x540), the lower dpi made it worse when reading text. It wasn't bad or anything, just not as sharp as on the iPhone.

Right now oled has many advantages over LCD, as time goes on and oled matures those advantages will be even more striking and any disadvantage will be fixed, the thing is you want everyone to jump on the bandwagon now, while others still have some preferences that are not yet met with oled, mine is resolution, others here have stated theirs, and for others here it may just be that it hasn't been blessed by apple yet.

Also you argue as if we had a choice of which display we have on our phones, we don't. Even if the galaxy III has a 300dpi oled screen, I won't be getting it because I already tried android for 4 months and hated it. Now does that mean I don't think the screen would better than whatever is on the iPhone? Of course not, but the screen is but a piece the user experience, you have to take all things into account.

 

[ctbear]

You can say the only thing the iPhone does better is PPI, but I disagree. IMO, the only thing the SAMOLED+ phones do better is black levels and nothing else. The colors on the iPhone 4 look far closer to what I see with my naked eye in the real world than they do on any OLED phone I've come across so far.

Not really. Keep in mind OLED has a much faster response time as well. And many other improvements over LCD technologies.
The color on the retina screen is certainly more natural, but not necessarily a better thing. For instance a more saturated screen will look better than a washed out screen for pictures and movies.

 

[vitzr]

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.

Sounds like you may have simply seen one or two that were defective.

There are three versions, AMOLED, Super AMOLED, and Super AMOLED Plus.

The base model is just average, the Super is quite nice, and the Super AMOLED Plus is simply stellar.

I have the Super AMOLED Plus on my Galaxy S II and could not be happier. It compares quite nicely with the Retina on my iP4. Both top of the line in their respective camps.

Android and iOS, the best of the best. A great pair

 

[Xeem]

And once OLEDs move to LITI processing even this ppi point will be moot as OLEDs will have ALL the advantages including better battery consumption.

And THEN Apple can switch to a SAMOLED+ retina display and maybe you can be happy. Until then, the pixel density of the iPhone 4 is an advantage that Apple is unwilling to cede in the name of better black levels, contrast ratios, or response time, and many people (myself included) agree with their choice.

 

[2IS]

Not really. Keep in mind OLED has a much faster response time as well. And many other improvements over LCD technologies.
The color on the retina screen is certainly more natural, but not necessarily a better thing. For instance a more saturated screen will look better than a washed out screen for pictures and movies.

Well that's where we have a fundamental difference of opinion. I like my pictures looking natural, not over-saturated.

Response times would matter for a computer monitor or tv screen, not for a phone. I've NEVER noticed a problem with image ghosting or blurring with my iPhone.

So I'll say it again, for me, the only benefit of OLED is better black levels. I prefer natural over over-saturated colors, the better response time is of zero benefit on a phone, the resolution is better on LCD, power consumption in theory may be lower on OLED but in practice it's worse.

When I can calibrate my phone so that the color of the ocean looks like the color of the ocean and not something out of a 5 year olds coloring book, then maybe I'll experience a slight bit of OLED envy.

OLED might be the future, but in the now, it's a side-grade, not an upgrade to LCD. If the benefits are more beneficial to you than the drawbacks, go for it. That there is an example of personal preference and opinion. Something the OP has no concept of.

 

[ChazUK]

Just reading a Cnet UK review of the GSII and they put it perfectly IMO:

The brightness of the screen is also its undoing if you like realistic-looking images. Colours look stunning but they're far too oversaturated. Images and videos generally look brighter and more saturated than they would on a monitor or TV screen. Compared to an LED screen like the one on the iPhone 4, the Galaxy S2 seeks to blow your eyeballs away, rather than massage them with a realistic image. Still, we don't think the screen will annoy anyone except those who are obsessed with calibrating the colour temperature of their monitor.

http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s2-review-50002442/3/

SAMOLED+ is not for everyone. Personal preference and choice are great. We should be pleased that we all have such a choice.

 

[Statusnone88]

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.

OH GOD, THIS THIS THIS...

I own quite a few apple products, thought I was a "fanboy." But what makes the difference is calling them out on a flaw is like taking a dump on their home plate before they slide into it.

 

[B777Forevar]

Screw Retina and SAMOLED. VGA quality all the way!

 

[MonkeySee....]

Just reading a Cnet UK review of the GSII and they put it perfectly IMO:



http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s2-review-50002442/3/

SAMOLED+ is not for everyone. Personal preference and choice are great. We should be pleased that we all have such a choice.

Yep that pretty much sums it up for me. When i first saw the iPhone 4 display i was amazed. It looks like there is a magazine behind a bit of glass.

 

[boss.king]

Not always - remember that every step up in resolution increases memory consumption of the OS and apps, slows response of the OS, slows animation speed, and requires a faster CPU and GPU to handle moving things around.

That's a price that has to be paid though. We could keep low resolution screens and have the most fluid apps in the world, but who would want to use them if the aren't nice to look at. You have to remember that in the time it takes to implement a new standard in display resolution, processing power will still be advancing to outperform the load put on it. No matter how much you may dislike it, we are advancing to a point where higher pixel density is the norm.

 

[minimo3]

How are the SAMOLED+ screens in bright sunlight though? AMOLED screens like the one on the Nexus One are totally washed out outdoors, you can't see squat.

 

[ChazUK]

How are the SAMOLED+ screens in bright sunlight though? AMOLED screens like the one on the Nexus One are totally washed out outdoors, you can't see squat.

The SAMOLED screens in my Omnia 7 and Nexus S are far better than my Nexus One was. My AMOLED powered ZTE blade is just as bad as my Nexus too.

 

[Fernandez21]

That's a price that has to be paid though. We could keep low resolution screens and have the most fluid apps in the world, but who would want to use them if the aren't nice to look at. You have to remember that in the time it takes to implement a new standard in display resolution, processing power will still be advancing to outperform the load put on it. No matter how much you may dislike it, we are advancing to a point where higher pixel density is the norm.

+1.
if we kept worrying about increase CPU usage, then we might as well stick with mac os 1.0 and windows 1.0, they had very minimal power request, why if you put those os's on today's machines those things would fly, only use up megabytes of hard drive space, and would increase our battery life! Heck, why don't we drop iOS and go back to blackberry os while we're at it, our battery could last for days!

 

[ped]

But we're not talking about TV's are we? Please tell me which SAMOLED+ phone I can adjust so that if I take a pic of my girl on the beach wearing a red bikini it doesn't look fluorescent and the water doesn't look radio active?

You can say the only thing the iPhone does better is PPI, but I disagree. IMO, the only thing the SAMOLED+ phones do better is black levels and nothing else. The colors on the iPhone 4 look far closer to what I see with my naked eye in the real world than they do on any OLED phone I've come across so far.

I think it's time to troll more and create a third thread. Your second attempt to convince everyone to trash their iPhones and buy a Samsung appears to have failed.

Maybe this will help...

http://www.mobilechoiceuk.com/News/Mobile+Choice+Consumer+Awards+2011+-+Winners/6206

PHONE OF THE YEAR: Samsung Galaxy S II

BEST CAMERA PHONE: Samsung Galaxy S II

BEST VIDEO PHONE: Samsung Galaxy S II

BEST ANDROID PHONE: Samsung Galaxy S II

BEST MEDIA PHONE: Samsung Galaxy S II

And... MANUFACTURER OF THE YEAR: Samsung

----------

Just reading a Cnet UK review of the GSII and they put it perfectly IMO:



http://reviews.cnet.co.uk/mobile-phones/samsung-galaxy-s2-review-50002442/3/

SAMOLED+ is not for everyone. Personal preference and choice are great. We should be pleased that we all have such a choice.

Just a correction to their statement; there's no such thing as an "LED screen". LEDs are just used as backlighting for the LCD.

Seems a lot of people are (rightfully) trying to avoid using the term "LCD" anymore, even going to the point of making up terms like the above in order to avoid it.

That's a price that has to be paid though. We could keep low resolution screens and have the most fluid apps in the world, but who would want to use them if the aren't nice to look at. You have to remember that in the time it takes to implement a new standard in display resolution, processing power will still be advancing to outperform the load put on it. No matter how much you may dislike it, we are advancing to a point where higher pixel density is the norm.

As I've mentioned the PPI of the iPhone screen is not representative of what's needed in terms of pixel density. If it were, the iPad would need a 2560x1920 resolution (The iPad is roughly 7 times the screen size of the iPhone 4). If anyone thinks that's where displays should be for them to be "great" then consider that 2560x1920 is higher resolution than the Apple 27" Cinema display (2560x1440)!

How are the SAMOLED+ screens in bright sunlight though? AMOLED screens like the one on the Nexus One are totally washed out outdoors, you can't see squat.

Samsung Galaxy S2 outdoors:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q2_Z...k the LCD display on an iPhone is "brighter"?

 

[MonkeySee....]

Maybe this will help...

http://www.mobilechoiceuk.com/News/Mobile+Choice+Consumer+Awards+2011+-+Winners/6206.

Ha, phone of the year? That was released conveniently early.

----------

My 4S screen is the nuts by the way