Related
is it amoled or ?
it has a high-resolution capacitive touchscreen
dr154 said:
it has a high-resolution capacitive touchscreen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That didn't answer his question.
I remember reading somewhere that it is LCD, unfortunately...
24-bit TFT, I think. AMOLED isn't necessarily the bee's knees, even though people like to use it as a buzz word.
I don't really care if it is AMOLED or not, but I like to know what sensor is used in the screen. As far as I know, the droid/milestone had a dual touch screen, and from videos I've seen it looks much less responsive as e.g. the full 16 touch multitouch on the Samsung Galaxy S.
I'm aware that this is not an issue for many people, and I'm not yet sure how important it is for me. But there seem to be differences in the different sensor technologies used, and I would like to know where the droid x stands.
e.g. this article claims that the sensor in the galaxy has a "response time of 7 milliseconds which is 2-3 times faster than current multi-touch displays.", and that it can recognise up to 16 different touches.
androidcommunity.com/samsung-galaxy-s-has-the-best-multi-touch-screen-ever-20100524/
yes but who has 16 fingers much less that you can fit on a 4 inch screen....
It's an IPS LCD like the original Droid.
It's a TFT screen. It says on the consumer site, near the bottom under "Physical". (Sorry, new to the site, can't post the active link)
motorola.com/Consumers/US-EN/Consumer-Product-and-Services/Mobile-Phones/ci.Motorola-DROID-X-US-EN.alt
Ryan Frawley said:
I remember reading somewhere that it is LCD, unfortunately...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If it had amloed i wouldnt be getting it. I returned my incredible for this reason. Txt is blurry on amloled....i dont understand how people dont see its inferior.
suzook said:
If it had amloed i wouldnt be getting it. I returned my incredible for this reason. Txt is blurry on amloled....i dont understand how people dont see its inferior.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. I had an Incredible and the text was jagged. Not to mention AMOLED gets "burn-in" which means after a while the status bar will be permanently burned into the top of the screen. The colors are better, and the power draw is lower. Those are the only 2 advantages over LCD, ever where else they fall short.
The lagged text has something to do with how they make AMOLEDs. They use RGB like LCD for each pixel, but they only have 1 green per 2 pixels. So in effect its like the screen has less pixels over all.
More information on this here. http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news...exus-ones-screen-science-color-and-hacks.ars/
AMOLED is a buzz word. LCD work better in the sun and the text is more crisp.
Burn in will not be an issue on any phone. It's just like a TV. If you had say, some sort of icon constantly open on the screen in the exact same location for many hours continuously alright. But on a phone you rarely have anything open without changing for >6 hours anyway. and burn-in requires more than 6 hours, it only happens after usually a year or two of a TV displaying something static like a network logo.
Colors are much richer, but a bit less accurate. This isn't as crucial since you're on a phone and not exactly going for insane color accuracy, and lcd screens in general aren't extraordinarily accurate (seem to be either overly red or blue, or "warm" and "cool")
AMOLED also uses a LOT less power, and I really doubt you're going to see a huge difference in screen legibility in the sun.
(can't post links yet)
engadget.com/2010/06/21/super-amoled-vs-amoled-vs-lcd-in-direct-sunlight-fight/
engadget has a nice comparison video, all look pretty bad except for maybe the SAMOLED and the iphone 4 is apparently alright. then again, if you literally just shield it a bit with your body (turn away from the sun) all screens are fairly readable. The sun sucks, and screens universally suck in sun compared to indoors.
Last point: AMOLED is really awesome at night. The blacks are indeed REALLY black. So far nothing but the OLED displays can reach that level (since it is 100% black, no light is actually emitted, giving it theoretically infinite contrast ratio).
No need for sour grapes, there are no 4.3 inch OLED phones that I know of in the US anyway, and if you want a large screen the droid x will deliver.
I'd be more concerned about multitouch sensors that amoled vs LCD, those will make or break a phone, I hope motorola invested in some sensors similar to the evo/incredible.
winnernet5000 said:
you want a large screen the droid x will deliver.
I'd be more concerned about multitouch sensors that amoled vs LCD, those will make or break a phone, I hope motorola invested in some sensors similar to the evo/incredible.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I am worried about... I saw the video of the evo and incredible and the screen response issues.. it was pretty awful to say the least...
theineffablebob said:
It's an IPS LCD like the original Droid.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is that IPS like iPhone 4's S-IPS? I know the resolutions are different but is the tech otherwise the same? I've compared my Incredible to the iPhone 4 and I really didn't see a significant difference in color quality.
Droid X has a TFT LCD screen...
Droid Incredible has an AMOLED & STFT LCD screen...
First Droid Inc have the AMOLED and newer releases has STFT... mixture of both...
Touch Screen Sensor
Not sure the exact manufacturer or model, but I found a good test of the touch sensor / multitouch for the Droid X.
Youtube link: (apparently can't post outside link yet)
Google "DroidXMultitouchTest". 2nd link
Results look great. My last reservation is removed. By the way, there isn't a "hitch" like the guy says, it's the font and changing sides. That's why you don't see it in the second test.
Until we see Pixel Qi screens, it doesn't really matter. Pixel Qi is worlds better than any display available now, including the iPhone 4 and the Galaxy S. I'm hoping the rumored "display like you've never seen" comment from HTC is a smartphone with a Pixel Qi screen.
Watch this, a laptop with a Pixel Qi screen versus the iPad in bright sunlight: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NotK4TVQ-6E
Edit: by the way, Pixel Qi screens can "turn off" but still display a grayscale image just like the e-ink technology on the Amazon Kindle. It's pure win. People are all excited about the 4G/LTE networks coming, but IMO, most people should be MORE excited for Pixel Qi displays in smartphones.
Roland Deschain said:
Pixel Qi displays in smartphones.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
im excited about both... 4g and pixel qi display...
I have heard report that the Evo 4G Lte doesnt have the same display like the HTC One X. Instead of the SLCD 2,The Evo 4G Lte is using the IPS display with a 1280 x 720p HD resolution. So is The IPS display better or not?
Can you link your source?
SLCD2 is an IPS display and heres where hes pulling it from..
http://androidcommunity.com/htc-evo-4g-lte-hands-on-20120508/
There are some differences between IPS and SLCD2 if you want to get really technical but the fact here is the One X and the Evo 4G LTE have the same screens.
Don't be alarmed, as he ^ said, they are practically the same thing. In any case, here is a comparison of the two pulled from http://techlogg.com/2010/12/ips-vs-amoled-vs-slcd-smartphone-displays-explained/1877 that should dampen any doubt on the quality of an IPS screen:
SLCD – Super liquid-crystal display
LCD has been the mainstay for display panels from PDAs to notebooks to TVs over the last 15 years or so. What makes Super LCD so super is said to be improved light bleeding so that blacks actually look a bit more like black than they typically used to, giving better overall contrast. In comparisions with AMOLED, some reviews suggest that SLCD gives warmer colours than AMOLED. However, battery life appears to be worse with SLCD displays.
SLCD shouldn’t be confused with S-LCD, which is the name for the Samsung/Sony joint venture for manufacturing LCD panels.
Smartphone maker HTC began using SLCD panels in its Desire smartphones in August 2010 due to shortages in AMOLED panels from Samsung. If you have an early Desire, it’ll more likely have an AMOLED panel whereas those manufactured after August 2010 will have an SLCD panel instead.
IPS – In-plane switching
Apart from poor contrast ratios, the other issue with LCD panels is poor viewing angles. The further you move of the centre axis of an LCD panel, the worse the image becomes until you begin to see the reflected negative of that display. In-plane switching is a more expensive solution to the viewing angle problem by changing the direction in which the liquid crystal molecules move. So instead of the normal right-angle or perpendicular switching, IPS panels switch molecules in the same plane as the panel. It means light transmitted through the molecules can be seen at (almost) any angle.
IPS technology is most often used in LCD monitors – and usually at prices three times the going rate. It’s the technology behind Apple’s Retina display in the iPhone 4.
Sounds to me like IPS is a major upgrade from SLCD.
Not real thrilled about the battery life comment though...
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. .
What do you think about the CGS/LTPS display ? I'm okay with the resolution but not sure if it will be close to enough to being as good as an Amoled. The G6 display in comparison to S8 looked quite poor to me. I'm guessing Essential is sourcing these displays from Sharp.
Matter of taste - I prefer a good LCD to an AMOLED, not least because I keep my phones for a few years and AMOLED degrades with use (colour shifts and loss of brightness for sure, burn-in for some people).
My advice is always to see what the actual display is like rather than making assumptions based on specs.
I have also noticed in some situations that super amoled has certain response timing issues. Which can cause significant Halo. It's not terrible. But I am a firm believer that just because everyone wants it. Doesn't make it best. Amoled definitely has pros and cons.
More confirmation of Essential Phone using Sharp's display
https://www.neowin.net/news/sharps-...-style-photo-showing-camera-cutout-in-display
As an S8 user and someone that very pro AMOLED I scoffed when I saw the display specs. However I picked up a Mate 9 last week and was extreamly impressed with the LCD display. I'm not going to say it's better but it's it's nice enough for me to use and not miss the AMOLED. I did end up returning it as the software side drove me nuts.
What about battery life? Isn't LCD (with its backlight) generally worse for battery life than AMOLED? Or is that less true than it used to be?
AMOLED efficiency depends a lot on the image. With a dark image it's efficient, with a lot of white it always used to use more power than LCD. With LCD the power usage doesn't really change with what you are displaying.
Quick question does the always on display move? I've read that movement helps prevent image retention in LCDs. Thanks
That should be for OLED panels
gerardolan64 said:
That should be for OLED panels
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Screen burn is to OLED while image retention is for LCD panels i think
Additional insights from others?
I think there is tiny movement. I've seen one review of G6 in the past and there were two different frames of the film that showed AOD and they were joined together. The phone did not changed its place but AOD info had moved a little bit but it was barely noticeable. So in my opinion there is some sort of safety implemented.
LG's Quantum IPS displays (unlike other lcd displays) are capable of developing image retention, this is true. However this is not permanent, like with amoleds, goes away after a few hours at most. It probably doesn't move.
Just use the analog clock in aod ,it has movement