Related
The one thing I wish the EVO had going for it is an AMOLED screen. I'm coming from a Nexus one with said screen, and it's gorgeous. Almost useless in direct sunlight, but gorgeous. Now their was an early Sprint ?Coming Soon site claiming the phone had an AMOLED screen http://www.androidguys.com/2010/03/28/sprints-htc-evo-4git-sizzles/ ---but this was prob an error. My question is: is their a huge, noticeable, difference in the two types of screens? EVO owners, give me your opinions!
thefoss said:
The one thing I wish the EVO had going for it is an AMOLED screen. I'm coming from a Nexus one with said screen, and it's gorgeous. Almost useless in direct sunlight, but gorgeous. Now their was an early Sprint ?Coming Soon site claiming the phone had an AMOLED screen http://www.androidguys.com/2010/03/28/sprints-htc-evo-4git-sizzles/ ---but this was prob an error. My question is: is their a huge, noticeable, difference in the two types of screens? EVO owners, give me your opinions!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just had a live evo in my hands, and the screen is a beaut. I wouldnt worry about it not being AMOLED at all.
The screen is really a great screen.
I really don't notice much of a difference in colors / contrast / etc when compared to the ZuneHD, maybe it's the higher resolution / size that makes it look just as good.
meh, on the whole, AMOLED is all hype no show
AMOLED is trash I have a Nexus and an Evo and in direct sunlight my EVO is noticeable, AMOLED drains battery, LCD saves, colors are sharper but not brighter on AMOLED, brightness all the way up they both match up but the nexus(AMOLED) has a sharper scene
all in all not a big differ and Evo screen (IMO) has a better screen
1- colors are the same but sharper in AMOLED
2- direct sunlight LCD wins
3- colors are both bright
4- LCD battery saver
just a few details!
I thought that the amoled was more efficient.. so better than lcd
????
Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk
Dan330 said:
I thought that the amoled was more efficient.. so better than lcd
????
Sent from my HERO200 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
its not, uses more battery
Phone Scoop comparesEvo screen to Nexus One Amoled
See below for review comparing the Evo screen to the Nexus One Amoled
Here is the link to the full article.
http://www.phonescoop.com/articles/article.php?a=373&p=2666
Screen
The screen on the HTC Evo 4G was, at times, a bit disappointing. Under medium indoor light, the screen is crisp and clear. Text looks sharp and legible and the dark, contrasty interface looks polished. Outside, the Evo 4G couldn't hold up to bright daylight. This made it tough to use for normal email and calling tasks, and nearly impossible to use the camera, since you have to tap an onscreen button to take a shot. In almost every way, the screen fared better than the AMOLED display on the smaller Nexus One. It was a bit brighter with warmer colors and much better outdoor performance. But it could still stand some improvement.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
SoFarGone said:
its not, uses more battery
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Incorrect, AMOLED has no back light and consumes roughly the same power that a TFT LCD uses just on the TFT portion of the screen. The TFT Portion of a Active Matrix OLED screen controls light on a PerPixel basis, illuminating each OLED pixel at whatever color is required vs LCD where the current is constantly on(except in a pure 0 0 0 black pixel) and controlling the Liquid Crystal portion rotating the LC to whatever degree to allow the backlight(A large % of the consumption) to shine through at a given color. And because of AMOLEDs aforementioned lack of back light it uses significantly less power.
I'm also confused as to what you mean by "color sharpness" Are you talking about the actual edge sharpness of an image or the color reproduction.
In which case the color reproduction on a AMOLED is more SATURATED not specifically more accurate, though the increased saturation makes the image appear better on average because most people enjoy over saturated images. The contrast ratio, which is the ratio of black to white, e.g. when a TV says it has a 3,500:1 contrast ratio then the luminance of a pure white pixel 255,255,255 is 3,500 times higher than that of a pure black 0,0,0 pixel. AMOLED displayes typically have a much higher contrast ratio due to the lack of a back light and the fact they can produce much "deeper" black pixels.
AMOLED actually bugs me, not only are they useless in direct sunlight(which I find myself under quite often) but it feels like colors are often OVER saturated, like the reds and oranges on my friend's Incredible look awful while I've never had that with my Hero, some colors on mine might be washed out but I'd rather have that than have a giant hodgepodge of colors on an AMOLED.
Another thing to consider is AMOLEDs "burn in". That means that pixels that do not change on the screen for a long time tend to burn in and show permanent shadows. This happens on the status bar a lot since it is nearly always displayed and unchanging.
Here is a thread of NexusOne owners documenting it.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=673513
As of last week I just switch over from At&t to Sprint wireless. I had two lines on my contract, wifey with the Samsung Moment and myself with the HTC Hero just to hold me off until the Evo release.
From what I thought isn't the Samsung Moment screen also uses the Amoled technology and the Hero is LCD?
Side by side comparison from low brightness to 100 percent, the Hero display looks so much better quality wise compare to the Moment. Hero seem more saturated and crisp whereas the Moment IMO seem much more dulled. Especially in the setting menu with the black background, the Moment is kind of like greenish black whereas the Hero is spot on black. Outside I'm having a very difficulty time navigating around Moment (brightness all the way up) whereas the Hero is still manageable.
By any mean I'm no expert in this display stuff but this is just my own little comparison of what I've seen between the two display.
Anyone know if the Evo screen is transreflective? A related question would be, is it even possible for AMOLED to be transreflective?
I compared my Evo screen with my old Hero screen and the Hero was a little brighter and with darker blacks. Even between LCDs there are differences.
is it good? I'm only used to OLED.
The IPS display on the Nexus 7 looks good from what I've seen. IPS is known for decent viewing angles.
it depends on the OLED screen you're comparing it to.
the galaxy s2 has super amoled plus, which has a full rgb subpixel matrix, but only a resolution of 800x480. the full rgb subpixel matrix makes everything look clearer and sharper.
the galaxy nexus, galaxy note, and galaxy s3 use a pentile subpixel matrix. its something like rgbg, which makes the display look greenish. its not as sharp as a full rgb matrix, and the colours arent as vivid due to the lack of subpixels (ends up being around 66% less subpixels).
however, the main advantage of the oled displays is that their pixels can be turned off. this means that in movies and games, you have a 'true' black, whereas in led backlit LCD displays (unless it has full led backlight with local dimming) blacks will always seem greyish. oled displays also tend to oversaturate the colours. the other advantage is that since black means the led/pixel is turned off, it means that using a black wallpaper on oled displays will reduce power consumption and improve battery life.
the nexus 7 uses an IPS panel. the general idea is that all the pixels are aligned/parallel, which leads to the image looking sharper compared to TFT and TN panels. the nexus 7 also has a full RGB subpixel matrix which makes it much sharper, and in combination with the IPS setup, it leads to more accurate colour representation. however, as it is not an oled display and it does not have local dimming with a full led backlight (having such a setup would make the device much thicker), it is unable to render 'true' black and as a result, blacks end up looking a bit grey.
cant really say much about which one is better as it is a personal preference thing. some like the oversaturated colours of OLED as it seems more vivid, whereas others prefer the accuracy of IPS panels and sharpness.
at the moment, i own a galaxy note with a pentile amoled display, and i use a 37inch Panasonic TV for my PC display, which uses an IPS panel. i'd say both are pretty good in their own way, but i prefer the IPS panel simply because of the full set of subpixels and colour accuracy.
Waiting to see how hard I rage about the non-black backgrounds.
anandtech measured nexus 7 black at 0.37 nits, whatever that means.
as souai said, it really depends.
generally OLEDs have much better colors and look better, IPS is much better in sunlight though because it's brighter and has insanely good viewing angles up to 178 degrees.
I have a first gen asus transformer which uses and IPS screen and though it's not as impressive color/quality wise as the Galaxy S III and even my Galaxy Nexus (sometimes) it's still excellent and i've never been bothered by it.
and given the fact that the N7 has such a high pixel density it should look great, and the reviews have backed this up.
This isn't apples to apples here but comparing the gnex to the one x I say I definitely prefer the IPS display. Now this is the best version possible probably of its type but I'm happy for the n7 to get an IPS screen. Almost all reviews have talked about how nice it is, only complaint being a little warm and a little dim compared to some other IPS displays. I like my oled screen but since good IPS high res screens have come out, they seem to be superior to oled at the moment. Oled uses up lots of battery in anything other than very black biased setups. IPS has that slight gray to the black but most people are used to their computer monitors and TVs having this as well. I think we won't have to sorry as much about color uniformity as much either with IPS.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
nvm
thanks for the replies. it's helpful.
The lack of AMOLED is currently the only reason I haven't switched to a Sony device yet, so I just wanted a thread to gauge interest in having AMOLED screens on future devices.
I know the pros and cons of both AMOLED and LCD/IPS so there's not much point discussing those unless you really want to.
Don't necessarily care for it. More interested in a 5.5 or 5.7 inch screen.
Amoled can be better for the battery but I dislike the screen burn that occurs after a year or so. (Can vary based on how much phone is used.)
Sent from my SM-G900P
AMOLED looks real nice but between burn in and extra battery drain on light colors, I'll stick with LCD.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
I much prefer IPS over AMOLED. AMOLED is overly saturated and typically in a pentile subpixel arragement leading to an inferior amount of subpixels.
IPS is one of the reasons I prefer Sony devices.
I can still see the pixellation in AMOLED screens, even in the Galaxy S5. Most people don't notice it, but I do - and because I know it's there, it will always bother me. AMOLED has poor color reproduction, and the screen has the potential to burn in (review units at any big box store are almost invariably burned in, even after only two weeks of constantly being on).
IPS LCD is the only thing I will consider.
IPS+ LCD is the best vivid display with true-to-life colours, especially with x-reality and Triluminos display.
Gorgenapper said:
at any big box store are almost invariably burned in, even after only two weeks of constantly being on).
IPS LCD is the only thing I will consider.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
npaladin2000 said:
AMOLED looks real nice but between burn in and extra battery drain on light colors, I'll stick with LCD.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Burn in has stopped being a problem a long time ago. I have a Note 2, no burn in issues, nor on my Note 1 before, or Galaxy S2 or Galaxy S before that.
You should have the screen auto switch-off after 10 minutes (or less) anyway, it will just drain the battery. The reason you see demo models getting burn in is because they never switch the screen off. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not..
wrsg said:
Burn in has stopped being a problem a long time ago. I have a Note 2, no burn in issues, nor on my Note 1 before, or Galaxy S2 or Galaxy S before that.
You should have the screen auto switch-off after 10 minutes (or less) anyway, it will just drain the battery. The reason you see demo models getting burn in is because they never switch the screen off. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, but even if you don't consider burn-in, AMOLED definitely has it's tradeoffs. LG, Sony, Apple, HTC all use IPS LCD. Off the top of my head Samsung and Motorola are the only companies using AMOLED in high end devices, definitely the minority, not the majority.
Also keep in mind that the Note 2 does not use the typical pentile matrix that most AMOLED panels use
se1000 said:
Right, but even if you don't consider burn-in, AMOLED definitely has it's tradeoffs. LG, Sony, Apple, HTC all use IPS LCD. Off the top of my head Samsung and Motorola are the only companies using AMOLED in high end devices, definitely the minority, not the majority.
Also keep in mind that the Note 2 does not use the typical pentile matrix that most AMOLED panels use
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because it's the minority doesn't make it inherently bad. It's less used because it's more expensive, which is why Samsung and Motorola devices are usually more expensive than the others.
It has its tradeoffs but it also has benefits, less battery draw, more comfortable on the eyes, better contrast (imo). A lot of it is subjective, but I just want to raise awareness of the benefits and hopefully get more people asking the companies for AMOLED.
The day Sony introduce AMOLED, that's the day I will for sure stop supporting them.
Less battery draw is situational. Only when you're dealing with dark apps will there be less battery draw, since black pixels draw no power on AMOLED. Looking at Facebook or websites or other things with a lot of bright or white backgrounds requires more pixels to be lit up, thereby consuming more power.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
npaladin2000 said:
Less battery draw is situational. Only when you're dealing with dark apps will there be less battery draw, since black pixels draw no power on AMOLED. Looking at Facebook or websites or other things with a lot of bright or white backgrounds requires more pixels to be lit up, thereby consuming more power.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Untrue
http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/oleds-ready-for-the-mainstream
wrsg said:
Untrue
http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/oleds-ready-for-the-mainstream
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That article was from TWO THOUSAND AND NINE!!!!!! A lot has changed for both technologies. Overall, I would say AMOLED and LCD are pretty close, with the edge actually going to LCD these days. Just lookup different devices with the same specs and look at screen on time figure. For example, the G2 had better screen on time figures than the S4 by a long shot (and I believe the S5 as well)
I'm in no way saying that AMOLED is bad by any means, I'm just saying that it isn't a superior technology either.
Personally as long as a screen has +400ppi it's really going to be sharp from any reasonable viewing distance. IPS has made strides in contrast ratio and color accuracy (gamut). AMOLED has improved in green/blue cast, and the ppi increases have negated the pentile issue.
In the end, a good screen is a good screen.
wrsg said:
Untrue
http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/oleds-ready-for-the-mainstream
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should understand that battery drain doesn't only comprise of the display itself. You must take other things into considerations. (wakelock, background apps, etc.) And if you really talk about display wise, it's true that AMOLED display allows better saturation in terms of colours and also better contrast ratio due to the no-black-pixel lighting up, but on light surfaces it still suffers on battery drain. You want a phone without such issues? Just go back to Nokia 3310 then
And if AMOLED screen is as expensive as an IPS+ LCD screen, I suggest you go check with factories and see how much it's actually made. From my source, they would either practically be the same price, or IPS+ screen tends to be slightly more expensive.
Display is always personal preferences. I'd rather an IPS+ screen due to the natural colors that it produce and it really stands out on the Z2/Z3 as I had hands-on on both of them. And if you are going to discuss this, why not head towards the General Android section? There will be a hell lot of people which will be throwing a lot of facts out making you understand better. No point making this discussion here. Not like Sony will ever go for AMOLED display. They'd rather the real colors then over-saturated and unnatural colors.
I don't want a phone with AMOLED, because the color representation isn't accurate as IPS.
What I would like to see is a phone with LCD IPS display lightened by RGB LED, most LCD panels use WLED (white LED).
RGB LED increase the color representation and color contrast.
When you see small tracks on a solid color picture (from light blue to dark blue for example) it's a problem that RGB LED don't suffer from.
Sent from my Xperia Z2 using Tapatalk
I wouldn't say IPS is a deal breaker to me but, oh man, Z3 would be catching my attention much more with a Amoled display. I was using a Galaxy s4 and now I'm on moto g (gave the s4 to my wife) and I really miss the dark blacks. The blacks on ips is just a light gray.
As the Note4 Display has just been tested as the best mobile display currently available, there is no reasonable argument not to opt for AMOLED in the future - except availability and price.
This includes brightness, color accuracy AND brightness as well as efficiency!
Based on our extensive Lab tests and measurements, the Galaxy Note 4 is the Best performing Smartphone display that we have ever tested. It matches or breaks new records in Smartphone display performance for: Highest Absolute Color Accuracy, Highest Screen Resolution, Infinite Contrast Ratio, Highest Peak Brightness, Highest Contrast Rating in Ambient Light, and the smallest Brightness Variation with Viewing Angle. Its Color Management capability provides multiple Color Gamuts – a major advantage that is not currently provided by any of the other leading Smartphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm
Bäcker said:
As the Note4 Display has just been tested as the best mobile display currently available, there is no reasonable argument not to opt for AMOLED in the future - except availability and price.
This includes brightness, color accuracy AND brightness as well as efficiency!
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, people seem to be either grossly misinformed or because X brand uses LCD instead of OLED, they've either become a fanboy of the former or opponent of the latter. Samsung's newer AMOLEDs are hands down the best mobile displays available. There isn't even any competition, to claim otherwise is silly.
They offer far better blacks, contrast ratio (which is vital on a mobile - daylight and outdoors), much wider colour gamut (and accuracy) than any *mobile* IPS panel and lower power draw. Aside from this, pixel responsiveness is effectively instant; for motion, games and overall fluidity and responsiveness they are MASSIVELY better than IPS .. this is the reason the Samsung phones seem so smooth (not because they're faster or have some kind of software or driver based special sauce). Also, because the panel is less brittle, it's less likely to suffer catastrophic damage or the glass/plastic cover smash or crack. They also use fewer toxic substances than LCDs.
As far as I'm concerned, the only other game in town is Sharp's IZGO technology. This because it can potentially eliminate bezels much more easily than competing display tech (see latest Sharp phones), and it reduces IPS-like panels' power draw.
The Quantom Dot filters in Amazon's Kindle tablet do improve colours and blacks a little, but it's really expensive at the moment, and is perhaps a better partner for VA panels, which have much deeper blacks and better contrast than IPS (Sony uses QD filters in their Triluminos VA panel TVs). Also they use Cadmium Selenide, and Cadmium is a very nasty substance.
Emissive Quantum Dot (once they have eliminated Cadmium) is perhaps the holy grail, in a few years time, since it should have none of the longevity issues of OLEDs, and all of the low power, (potentially) low cost, high gamut, high responsiveness benefits.
Anyway, for now I'll be happy with my Z3 Compact that'll be arriving early next week, and use it to complement my Jolla, hopefully with a Sailfish port in due time .... but a Samsung AMOLED screen on a Z4 or 5 Compact would only make it more desirable, in my view.
mudnightoil said:
this is the reason the Samsung phones seem so smooth
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Frankly that is a laughable statement, as Samsung Android devices are anything but smooth given their TouchWIZ-based bloat.
mudnightoil said:
The Quantom Dot filters in Amazon's Kindle tablet do improve colours and blacks a little, but it's really expensive at the moment, and is perhaps a better partner for VA panels, which have much deeper blacks and better contrast than IPS (Sony uses QD filters in their Triluminos VA panel TVs).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Xperia Z3 is supposed to be using Triluminous technology that includes quantum dots. That will probably have to be confirmed once the phones are released, since in the past there have been Triluminous phones without incorporating quantum dots, but the possibility exists.
While there are some things I like about AMOLED, unless you have content optimized for it, it's very battery inefficient. And the most popular smartphone applications are generally things like Facebook, web browsing, and a few other things that still don't offer a "dark" mode optimized for AMOLED, that minimizes the number of lit background pixels. White backgrounds are not a friend of AMOLED. .
Maybe Google has taken cuts with the phone?
I hear the moto x 2014 compared to galaxy S5, the screen difference is pretty big.
One uses amoled and one uses super amoled. Hopefully the 2k resolution will help the brightness and vibrancy.
What do you guys think? I haven't held a moto x and S5 together but I absolutely love the S5 screen.
Sent from my Nexus 7 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
If anything, the 2k screen will be less bright...
Sent from my LG G3
Resolution has nothing to do with brightness or vibrancy
Sent from my Nexus 5 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
It's harder to push light through more pixels, so sure you can get a stronger backlight, but then you get more power consumption and heat.
Sent from my LG G3
Nitemare3219 said:
It's harder to push light through more pixels, so sure you can get a stronger backlight, but then you get more power consumption and heat.
Sent from my LG G3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Huh? You don't push light through pixels with amoled screens. Per pixel brightness is certainly not affected by resolution, perhaps only with LCD screens.
Nitemare3219 said:
It's harder to push light through more pixels, so sure you can get a stronger backlight, but then you get more power consumption and heat.
Sent from my LG G3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Amoled displays don't have backlights, the display itself is the source of light.
Sent from my iPhone 6 using Tapatalk
My mistake, completely forgot that part about AMOLED. Been using IPS screens since I had a Galaxy Nexus, and that screen was junk.. so I've been wanting to stick to IPS. My G3 is gorgeous, so I'm kinda scared to see the N6 with AMOLED.
Sent from my LG G3
Black ink spots kill AMOLED screens for me.
theoneofgod said:
Black ink spots kill AMOLED screens for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mura affects aren't really part of amoled. Oled screens it is like on my ps Vita
Sent from my SM-N900T using XDA Free mobile app
RedBlueGreen said:
Maybe Google has taken cuts with the phone?
I hear the moto x 2014 compared to galaxy S5, the screen difference is pretty big.
One uses amoled and one uses super amoled. Hopefully the 2k resolution will help the brightness and vibrancy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMOLED is the screen technology. "Super AMOLED" is just Samsung's brand name for their own screens using AMOLED technology, not a separate technology. It remains to be seen what the Nexus 6 screen looks like when compared to Note 4.
Are you sure cause the S2 with Super AMOLED was significantly better than their regular AMOLED models like the GNEX.
HTC One M8
I've not used AMOLED since my Galaxy Nexus, but it was horrendous. Banding visible all over the screen on grey or beige (light colored) screens.
Plus, it had burn in on the status bar that I could always see on full screen youtube videos etc. Was terrible.
I'm wondering have they improved the hardware technology since then or can I expect that again on the Nexus 6,
Look forward to the reviews on here after launch. :laugh:
The OCD fanboys who buy the first wave will be busy detailing the issues. I used to be one of them. I'll wait till the second wave this time. haha :good::laugh:
gtalum said:
AMOLED is the screen technology. "Super AMOLED" is just Samsung's brand name for their own screens using AMOLED technology, not a separate technology. It remains to be seen what the Nexus 6 screen looks like when compared to Note 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Super AMOLED is based on AMOLED a technology, but has an integrated digitizer instead of it laid on top, making it brighter and more vibrant. It also reflects less sunlight than a standard AMOLED screen.
It is their marketing term, but does have some modifications
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
gtalum said:
AMOLED is the screen technology. "Super AMOLED" is just Samsung's brand name for their own screens using AMOLED technology, not a separate technology. It remains to be seen what the Nexus 6 screen looks like when compared to Note 4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
this>
jmm22 said:
Super AMOLED is based on AMOLED a technology, but has an integrated digitizer instead of it laid on top, making it brighter and more vibrant. It also reflects less sunlight than a standard AMOLED screen.
It is their marketing term, but does have some modifications
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Imagine if they used non pentile
This is a quick pull from wiki explaining the difference between all amoled screens
Super AMOLED[edit]
Super AMOLED is Samsung's term for an AMOLED display with an integrated digitizer, meaning that the layer that detects touch is integrated into the screen, rather than overlaid on top of it. According to Samsung, Super AMOLED reflects one-fifth as much sunlight compared to the first generation AMOLED.[21][22] The display technology itself is not changed. Super AMOLED is part of the Pentile matrix family. It is sometimes abbreviated SAMOLED.
For the Samsung Galaxy S III, which reverted to Super AMOLED instead of the pixelation-free conventional RGB (non-PenTile) Super AMOLED Plus of its predecessor Samsung Galaxy S II, the S III's larger screen size encourages users to hold the phone further from their face to obscure the PenTile effect.[23]
Super AMOLED Advanced[edit]
Ambox current red.svg
This section is outdated. Please update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information. (January 2014)
Super AMOLED Advanced is a term marketed by Motorola to describe a brighter display than Super AMOLED screens, but also a higher resolution – qHD or 960 × 540 for Super AMOLED Advanced compared to WVGA or 800 × 480 for Super AMOLED. It also is 25% more energy efficient. Super AMOLED Advanced features PenTile, which sharpens subpixels in between pixels to make a higher resolution display, but by doing this, some picture quality is lost.[24] This display equips the Motorola Droid RAZR.[25]
Super AMOLED Plus[edit]
The Samsung Galaxy S II, with a Super AMOLED Plus screen
Super AMOLED Plus, first introduced with the Samsung Galaxy S II and Samsung Droid Charge smartphones, is a branding from Samsung where the PenTile RGBG pixel matrix (2 subpixels) used in Super AMOLED displays has been replaced with a traditional RGB RGB (3 subpixels) arrangement typically used in LCD displays. This variant of AMOLED is brighter and therefore more energy efficient than Super AMOLED displays[26] and produces a sharper, less grainy image because of the increased number of subpixels. In comparison to AMOLED and Super AMOLED displays, the Super AMOLED Plus displays are even more energy efficient and brighter. However, Samsung cited screen life and costs by not using Plus on the Galaxy S II's successor, the Samsung Galaxy S III.[18]
HD Super AMOLED[edit]
Galaxy Note II subpixels representation, based on 400X image of the Note II display[27]
The Galaxy Nexus, with an HD Super AMOLED screen[28]
HD Super AMOLED is a branding from Samsung for an HD-resolution (>1280×720) Super AMOLED display. The first device to use it was the Samsung Galaxy Note. The Galaxy Nexus and the Galaxy S III both implement the HD Super AMOLED with a PenTile RGBG-matrix (2 subpixels/pixel), while the Galaxy Note II uses an RBG matrix (3 subpixels/pixel) but not in the standard 3 stripe arrangement.[27]
HD Super AMOLED Plus[edit]
A variant of the Samsung Galaxy S3 using Tizen OS 1 was benchmarked using a non-pentile HD Super AMOLED Plus screen in 2012.[29]
Full HD Super AMOLED[edit]
As featured on the Samsung Galaxy S4[30] and Samsung Galaxy Note 3. It has the broadest color gamut of any mobile display of up to 97% of the Adobe RGB color space, hence making it a wide-gamut display.[31][32]
Future[edit]
Future displays exhibited from 2011 to 2013 by Samsung have shown flexible, 3D, unbreakable, transparent Super AMOLED Plus displays using very high resolutions and in varying sizes for phones. These unreleased prototypes use a polymer as a substrate removing the need for glass cover, a metal backing, and touch matrix, combining them into one integrated layer.[33]
So far, Samsung plans on branding the newer displays as Youm.[34]
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OMFG are people here really this clueless? Samsung calls ALL their AMOLED panels Super AMOLED. That includes the ones they sell to Motorola and Nokia. They are ALL made by Samsung. The reason why the Moto X 2014 doesn't look as good as the Galaxy S5 is because Samsung ALWAYS sells the last generation to their competitors and saves the latest generation for themselves. In other words what you see on the Moto X is the same tech as the Galaxy S4, not the S5. And for those dumb people who keep on saying higher resolution means lower brightness, this is only true for LCD since they use a backlight and it has to shine through each pixel, with more pixels decreasing the brightness overall. AMOLED is completely different in that each pixel is its own light source and when you pack them together, they will be brighter not dimmer, just like how your vanity mirror in your restroom will be brighter with three small 600 lumen bulbs near each other versus just one 900 lumen bulb.
theoneofgod said:
Black ink spots kill AMOLED screens for me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah yes, now I remember those black spots too.. what exactly caused those and can we expect this on the N6?
Hopefully screen burn is a thing of the past, especially with the nav and status bars going transparent on the home screen.
If the display is PenTile, that will probably kill it for me right away. I can't stand the fuzziness that comes with that junky setup. I bought a Yoga 2 Pro and noticed it right away which is part of why I returned it. I also hate how AMOLED has a very blue/green hue to it.. guess we'll see how the N6 turns out.
Sent from my LG G3
For me both suck... cause of degradation of the organic led.. colors become toned... and burn in issue.. they are simply inadequate.. expecially at that price...
From what I recall Samsung makes all AMOLED displays so you should expect it to be great. Google wouldn't put a bad display on a flagship phone.
Nitemare3219 said:
Ah yes, now I remember those black spots too.. what exactly caused those and can we expect this on the N6?
Hopefully screen burn is a thing of the past, especially with the nav and status bars going transparent on the home screen.
If the display is PenTile, that will probably kill it for me right away. I can't stand the fuzziness that comes with that junky setup. I bought a Yoga 2 Pro and noticed it right away which is part of why I returned it. I also hate how AMOLED has a very blue/green hue to it.. guess we'll see how the N6 turns out.
Sent from my LG G3
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
screen burn isn't a thing of the past.. beacause the technology il still the same.. organic led degradate with use.. losing brightness and uncalibrating all screen colors (this with homogeneous wear) but some elements like status bar icons and navbar buttons are always in the same position!! And they will burn in inevitably
Pilz said:
From what I recall Samsung makes all AMOLED displays so you should expect it to be great. Google wouldn't put a bad display on a flagship phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nexus 4 & 5
In other words what you see on the Moto X is the same tech as the Galaxy S4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is a slight difference between the moto X 2014 and S4 screens.
>
Super AMOLED is a version of AMOLED display technology that integrates a capacitive touchscreen layer directly into the display instead of overlaying it on top of the display, as has traditionally been done. This results in a thinner design that uses less power and reflects less light, and as a result works better outdoors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Samsung website says it is TFT, but several reviews from earlier this year say it is IPS. Which is it ?
IPS is a type of TFT, so it's both.
Well, ah, sort a ...
From ASUS Zen Talk
IPS stands for In-Plane Switching and it is a further improvement on TFT LCDs. The way the crystals are electrically excited on them is different and the orientation of the crystal array is rotated. This orientation change improves viewing angles, contrast ratio and color reproduction. Energy consumption is also reduced compared to TFT LCDs. Because IPS LCDs tend to be better than TFT LCDs, they are also more expensive when put on a smartphone (or tablet).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From my own personal observations, IPS tends to be brighter and sharper. It biggest benefite is the vastly improved viewing angle with no color shift. This may not be an issue for phones and tablets, but it is HUGE for large screens used by artists and photographers.
Why wouldn't Samsung advertise this when their main low end competition, Amazon Fire HD 10, makes a big deal about ?