Related
Hi guys,
I own a Xperia X10 ( latest firmware version available)and i had the opportunity yesterday to use a Samsung Galaxy S for the whole day. SGS belogs to a friend of mine.
Here are my impressions of the Sam G. S in comparasion to our "beloved" X10.
1.Screen
Colours are more vivid on SGS, but X10 has better resolution. I could differentiate the pixels on SGS, but not on X10. I'm quite picky with screen resolutions. I own a Iphone4 aswell and i can say X10 its not very behind iPhone4 concerning the screen resolution and crispness image. X10 just needs the 2.1 to boost to 16 million colours and get more vivid contrast.
2.Touch screen.
Exactly the same. They're balanced. I just wish to get MT on X10. MT can be useful in certain situations.
3. UI Performance.
Although X10 has the old 1.6 Android, i had the impression that lags less (mine doesn't lag at all and i´ve plenty of applications installed) than the SGS. I felt that the fluidity of X10 is pretty good, now that i've used my friends SGS for a whole day. Switching screens was more laggy and the refreshment rate was worse than on X10 - i couldn't believe what i was experiencing.
4. Multimedia.
Oh god. I've just to say that there isn't any phone with such a great audio quality as the X10. Miles ahead of the SGS and even Iphone4 that i also own. Crispy and balanced tones on X10. SGS was pretty average.
Video is also interesting: Refreshing rates / fps were the same watching the same movie. X10 is more crispy and the SGS has more vivid colours.
conclusion:
Android 2.1 will leverage X10 to a much higher level and it will be on pair or even better than almost all Android phones including those with the 2.2 version.
I'm not replacing my X10 for the SGS as i was planning before.
Hope it helps!
That seems like a fair comparison and is very inline with what I experienced using the AT&T Captivate. I had that device for 28 days and replaced it with the X10.
The lag is generally believed to be because of the file system Samsung chose (RFS). It's not clear why they chose RFS and the lag fixes floating around basically make a new data partition with EXT2, EXT3, or EXT4. It doesn't matter for me at this point but I'm glad I don't have to rely on Samsung to fix all the issues on their Galaxy S devices. There are many other annoyances on the Captivate but I won't bother listing them. The bottom line is that for me the X10 is a much better device.
Thank you very much for an interesting post in a long time and thank you for a good clean review! Very much appriciated
Sent from my X10i using XDA App
miguelsantos1979 said:
4. Multimedia.
Oh god. I've just to say that there isn't any phone with such a great audio quality as the X10.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
REALLY??? I hope you are not talking about x10's speaker audio quality..
i LOVE x10.. but seriously.. i have to listen to everything through bluetooth headset or an earphone.. the sound is HORRIBLE when you just have it on the speaker, and it hurts my ears.. especially on higher volumes...and yes.. i've compared it to other phones.. my lg new chocolate sounds a lot better compared to x10.. (only comparing the speaker audio quality)
Seems fair both phones have their positives and negatives, i think the 2.1 update will make the x10 a lot more solid, some people think theres not much difference between between 1.6 and 2.1, but it has its obvious advantages. preferably i would have liked to have seen 2.2 on there but hey il take whatever i can get.
I have both phones and I agree with some of what your saying,yes it lags a bit and text in definitely not as sharp
but in the multimedia you made no sense... The sgs is far better when it comes to watching movies the sharpness is basically the same as the x10 plus more vibrant colours (it also has divx support out of the box). Audio quality is superior on the sgs without a shadow of a doubt even the gsm arena say so(lets not forget it has an equaliser). It has a better battery life and its fully rooted with full boot loader access you have missed out so many sections, sigh maybe i should make my own proper comparison.
I agree having owned both. SGS colors "pop" more, but the colors are not accurate at all. I used to compare to my Nexus One and colors were actually way off on the Samsung.
SGS plays just about any video codec you throw at it which is nice. Listening through headphones the X10 kills it. The screen is just a smooth I think as well.
Go on a Captivate and read web text while scrolling very slowly. There is a really bad "rolling" effect that actually bugged me while using it.
When the X10 gets 2.1 it will certainly hang with the Galaxy S models in my opinion. I just wish the Xperia had the internal storage of the SGS line.
btw, gps performance on the X10 is spot on where Samsungs tend to not be great in that area. Even after their gps "fix" it won't be as fast and accurate as the X10.
I work for AT&T and I see many problems coming in with the Captivate. The browser crashes often and the phone reboots itself a few times a day sometimes. I owned one and my gf still owns one and her's has some of these issues.
Just for clarification:
i meant that the audio quality via headphones...using high quality headphones. Yes X10 is the best in the market. I owned a Nokia N900 and i did the comparasion as well.
Sorry for disagreeing, but the X10 is also more sharp watching videos than the SGS. SGS has to saturated colours.
miguelsantos1979 said:
Just for clarification:
i meant that the audio quality via headphones...using high quality headphones. Yes X10 is the best in the market. I owned a Nokia N900 and i did the comparasion as well.
Sorry for disagreeing, but the X10 is also more sharp watching videos than the SGS. SGS has to saturated colours.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well i have to disagree in the audio department but thats down to audio taste i guess. But the sgs video quality is better than the x10 i have viewed the same HD video on both, side by side and you would be a fool to tell anyone the the x10 is better to look at.
Edit: In fact im looking at both now, the sgs blows it out of the water sorry. I can upload pics if you want proof.
rocketpaul said:
Well i have to disagree in the audio department but thats down to audio taste i guess. But the sgs video quality is better than the x10 i have viewed the same HD video on both, side by side and you would be a fool to tell anyone the the x10 is better to look at.
Edit: In fact im looking at both now, the sgs blows it out of the water sorry. I can upload pics if you want proof.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since tihs is a VS. Thread any proof can be uploaded.
I would like to ses the pics
berbecverde said:
Since tihs is a VS. Thread any proof can be uploaded.
I would like to ses the pics
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sure as soon as I get home around 6 ish my 14mp cam is at home.
What is the rom from SGS? I know that Sony Ericsson have 1GB SLC, 50% to ROM and 50% to Storage, in some websites shows 15GB of ROM to Samsung, others 2GB of ROM, 16GB os MLC in SGS is for ROM+Storage like the 1GB SLC in X10?
My best mate has a SGS. We compare all the time. For those in this thread that think the SGS screen is producing more saturated colours etc...
You are just not used to the REAL colours. The SGS has the best screen on the market. It has a 50000:1 contrast ratio! The blacks are near perfect. Which makes the non-black elements "pop" off the screen.
When we both load up the exact same black screen on the same brightness, my x10 looks like it's GREY compared to his SGS. I can use my full black screen in a dark bathroom as a dull light, he can not. As for video watching, the SGS screen is much clearer and and crisp. This is because of its extremely high contrast ratio. Moreover, the x10 on 1.6 can only show 65k colours on a TFT screen. While the SGS SAMOLED screen on 2.1 uses 16million!
I love my x10 guys, but the SGS screen and display is far superior and certainly looks like it when placed side by side with an x10.
Now, when x10 finally gets 2.1 which will allow the x10 to display 16m colours, it will be a whole lot different for comparison, but it still won't match up to the super high contrast ratio that the SGS has.
Samsung uses fake colours, the sony dont have the best screen, but is good, and with great resolution, Sony have 13.3' screen with 1920x1080 in notebooks, and others better than this, Apple and Sony are the kings of resolution
skydirt said:
My best mate has a SGS. We compare all the time. For those in this thread that think the SGS screen is producing more saturated colours etc...
You are just not used to the REAL colours. The SGS has the best screen on the market. It has a 50000:1 contrast ratio! The blacks are near perfect. Which makes the non-black elements "pop" off the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
REAL colours and 50000:1 contrast ratios? HAHAHA. First off, maybe a handful of lcds in current production produce accurate colors and they're not put in mobiles. Secondly, 50000:1 contrast ratios is a marketing gimmick and means something, but it isn't an objective measure in any sense as different companies scale it differently.
When we both load up the exact same black screen on the same brightness, my x10 looks like it's GREY compared to his SGS. I can use my full black screen in a dark bathroom as a dull light, he can not. As for video watching, the SGS screen is much clearer and and crisp. This is because of its extremely high contrast ratio. Moreover, the x10 on 1.6 can only show 65k colours on a TFT screen. While the SGS SAMOLED screen on 2.1 uses 16million!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that there is a huge exaggeration. Also, video quality also varies depending on the media file, player, And screen. Either way, lcd screens on mobiles aren't that great to begin with.
I love my x10 guys, but the SGS screen and display is far superior and certainly looks like it when placed side by side with an x10.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe, but you certainly don't have any compelling arguments as to why the Galaxy S is better than the x10. Even with the increase in colors, how many can the eye actually distinguish from another? Certainly not 16 million.
Now, when x10 finally gets 2.1 which will allow the x10 to display 16m colours, it will be a whole lot different for comparison, but it still won't match up to the super high contrast ratio that the SGS has.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Once again, contrast ratio is a subjective metric defined by manufacturers used as a marketing gimmick.
will.m said:
REAL colours and 50000:1 contrast ratios? HAHAHA. First off, maybe a handful of lcds in current production produce accurate colors and they're not put in mobiles. Secondly, 50000:1 contrast ratios is a marketing gimmick and means something, but it isn't an objective measure in any sense as different companies scale it differently.
Now that there is a huge exaggeration. Also, video quality also varies depending on the media file, player, And screen. Either way, lcd screens on mobiles aren't that great to begin with.
Maybe, but you certainly don't have any compelling arguments as to why the Galaxy S is better than the x10. Even with the increase in colors, how many can the eye actually distinguish from another? Certainly not 16 million.
Once again, contrast ratio is a subjective metric defined by manufacturers used as a marketing gimmick.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whats your point ? the x10 has a better screen?
He is suggesting that the samsung dont have a fantastic screen as it appears to be...
anjo2 said:
He is suggesting that the samsung dont have a fantastic screen as it appears to be...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well in all honesty its quite an amazing screen and down playing the specs doesnt make any less amazing.
Samsung is known for it's great picture quality, from it's out of this world LED Tv's to it's cell phones.
the Samsung Galaxy is a superior phone. The X10 better get a lot better with the 2.1 upgrade. Otherwise, Im upgrading it to 2.1 just to add a selling point.
In 2009 it stays in 4th place in TVs...
1º Pionner Kuduro
2º Philips
3º Panasonic
4º Samsung
5º Sony
Something like that, so, nothing impressive... btw, i dont like the samsung colors, totally fake...
Obviously, the ipad 3's new retina screen resolution can't be topped, whereas samsung's super amoled has better contrast ratios. Which screen will be more impressive in your opinion once the ipad 3 arrives in stores this friday?
I was kinda wondering this too. I watched a live feed about the reveal, and Im more than happy with my 7.7. Its still the best 7" tablet out there, and Ive never been an apple fan. And doubt I ever will be.
I have an iPad 3 on the way because I have more money than sense. If people are nice I will do a side by side screen comparison.
burhanistan said:
I have an iPad 3 on the way because I have more money than sense. If people are nice I will do a side by side screen comparison.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
rofl, I felt like I had more money than sense when I bought the 7.7 to replace my 8.9, but even though the iPad3 is probably going to look amazing, I can't stomach the Apple ecosystem. I got rid of my iPod, which was my first ever mp3 player, maybe six years ago after a four year run or so. I can only pray that some day, iTunes will rot in the special hell it deserves.
Whether people are nice enough for the comparison, thanks for a good laugh.
I love the 7.7 screen, I mostly use it for movie/tv watching, cant see myself ever going back to lcd panels. I had an ipad 2 and some archos devices before but they dont come close to the display quality of the 7.7.
And the 7.7 formfactor is perfect for me.
Look forward to seeing the ipad 3 screen in action
High resolution is nice, but almost all content will be blown up, not native. The dummied up examples that tech sites keep using are full of crap. Until 2048*1536 becomes default standard, i'll take amoled & native.
Wish I had more money than sense, LOL. I had to return my 7.0 plus, and a blackberry playbook to afford my 7.7. And it was worth every cent!
CBONE said:
High resolution is nice, but almost all content will be blown up, not native. The dummied up examples that tech sites keep using are full of crap. Until 2048*1536 becomes default standard, i'll take amoled & native.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We shall see, but I think older apps will just display in their native resolution rather than be upscaled. Where the "Retina" display will shine will be with text and photos.
I won't have time to video a proper comparison until maybe the week after the new iPad comes in, but I will show them both with a PDF, the XDA website, a 1080p video, and maybe Osmos HD or something. Any requests?
burhanistan said:
We shall see, but I think older apps will just display in their native resolution rather than be upscaled. Where the "Retina" display will shine will be with text and photos.
I won't have time to video a proper comparison until maybe the week after the new iPad comes in, but I will show them both with a PDF, the XDA website, a 1080p video, and maybe Osmos HD or something. Any requests?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Maybe a side by side comparison under direct sunlight?
CBONE said:
High resolution is nice, but almost all content will be blown up, not native. The dummied up examples that tech sites keep using are full of crap. Until 2048*1536 becomes default standard, i'll take amoled & native.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What content are you talking about? Certainly games for iPad2 will not be rendered at the full resolution, and it will probably be a while before many games are actually written for 2048x1536. Still, images and video--whose most common resolution nowadays, 1280x720, is already larger than the iPad2, not to mention 1080p blu-ray-sourced video--will certainly be able to take advantage. That's not even to mention the massive readability benefit for small text on web pages and documents.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to buy an iPad3 and I am never going to give up my Super AMOLED+ on my 7.7 until there is a WUXGA or better 8-9" tablet, but downplaying the benefit of a high-res screen just strikes me as foolish.
I wonder if a 720p content would still look good on that really high resolution
Last few week I've almost sell-off my iPad2 for a Galaxy TAB 7.7.
Now I'm stucked and in the same situation like lots of other people.
If Samsung could replace all their Galaxy TAB 8.9 & 10.1 LCD screen with a Super AMOLED FHD screen, then I'll buy 1. Until then, I'm getting the new iPad this weekend.
NewForce said:
Last few week I've almost sell-off my iPad2 for a Galaxy TAB 7.7.
Now I'm stucked and in the same situation like lots of other people.
If Samsung could replace all their Galaxy TAB 8.9 & 10.1 LCD screen with a Super AMOLED FHD screen, then I'll buy 1. Until then, I'm getting the new iPad this weekend.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can only imagine the possible technical difficulties when making 8.9 and 10.1 SuperAMOLED screens, they are even having issues with the 4.65 on the Nexus, 5.3 on the Note. All are quality related issues.
Although I really hate the closed system of iOS, but after using my friends ipad2 for a week, Im starting to like the tablet specific apps it has as compared to andriod.
At least with IPS, I only need to check for backlight bleeding, though Im worried what will happen to the 720p playback of my files since they are now going to be upscaled.
IMO, the New iPad's huge screen resolution is a cool idea and all, but for me, the 7.7's form factor and colour/contrast ratio are the biggest selling points (apart from NOT being Apple of course!).
I mean, if Apple is stating that a "Retina" display is determined by a ratio of viewing distance vs the ability to discern individual pixels, well then by that right (at least for me), the 7.7 already fit's that category under most viewing scenarios (again, for me).
In other words, under most circumstances, I already can't discern individual pixels on my 7.7 anyway, so just adding more of them isn't going to make a difference to me.
What does make a difference, is the superior contrast ratio of SAMOLED. Being that the New iPad's retina display is still an LCD, it is therefore very unlikely that it will be able to compete with SAMOLED in the contrast ratio department.
I suppose the ultimate display would be something of a hybrid of SAMOLED and IPS LCD, where you might have each individual pixel backlit by a single LED.
obviously it's going to be the new ipad there is no contest. I love android thats why i have a the 7.7 but i also love the ipad infact ill be getting my new ipad 64gb 3g at&t and a white 16gb wifi for my wife.
With that insane resolution and a quadcore gpu with buttery smooth OS i'll be a one happy camper.
Jade Eyed Wolf said:
IMO, the New iPad's huge screen resolution is a cool idea and all, but for me, the 7.7's form factor and colour/contrast ratio are the biggest selling points (apart from NOT being Apple of course!).
I mean, if Apple is stating that a "Retina" display is determined by a ratio of viewing distance vs the ability to discern individual pixels, well then by that right (at least for me), the 7.7 already fit's that category under most viewing scenarios (again, for me).
In other words, under most circumstances, I already can't discern individual pixels on my 7.7 anyway, so just adding more of them isn't going to make a difference to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For you, maybe. The pixels and rasterized fonts are quite visible to me on the 7.7 from arm's length.
Mind you, I quite like the 7.7 and am not going to get rid of it (Heck, I'll probably keep my now "old" 10.1). But, there will be lots of areas where it simply won't hold a candle to the new screen on the iPad.
burhanistan said:
For you, maybe. The pixels and rasterized fonts are quite visible to me on the 7.7 from arm's length.
Mind you, I quite like the 7.7 and am not going to get rid of it (Heck, I'll probably keep my now "old" 10.1). But, there will be lots of areas where it simply won't hold a candle to the new screen on the iPad.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough. I guess my point was that contrast, colour, and brightness are more important factors to me than sheer resolution. In that sense, especially with contrast, the new iPad display can't hold a candle up to SAMOLED+. Each one has its advantages I suppose.
teiglin said:
What content are you talking about? Certainly games for iPad2 will not be rendered at the full resolution, and it will probably be a while before many games are actually written for 2048x1536. Still, images and video--whose most common resolution nowadays, 1280x720, is already larger than the iPad2, not to mention 1080p blu-ray-sourced video--will certainly be able to take advantage. That's not even to mention the massive readability benefit for small text on web pages and documents.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Web pages and flowable documents should look great, as should images. Video will have to be scaled or be too small. The algorithm for stretching video won't be perfect. Same situation as SD video on an HDTV. They won't look the way they were meant to be viewed (inferior IMO) and will need adjustments. Games will need to have the increased resolution taken into account or look crap when they get stretched. Apps will be in the same situation.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not going to buy an iPad3 and I am never going to give up my Super AMOLED+ on my 7.7 until there is a WUXGA or better 8-9" tablet, but downplaying the benefit of a high-res screen just strikes me as foolish.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
High-res is great when everything takes it into account or content that isn't resolution dependent. There is this assumption with ipad3 that everything will just automagically look incredible.
Well, all of this is just speculation anyway. We shall see soon enough.
7.7 : Super AMOLED Plus
ipad3 : Retina Display (same as Iphone 4)
7.7 : 1280 x 800 pixels, 7.7 inches - (~ 196 ppi density)
ipad 3 : 1536 x 2048 pixels, 9.7 inches (~264 ppi density)
7.7 : Single Core GPU Mali-400
ipad 3 : Quad Core PowerVR SGX543MP4
i think we should say (even it's hard) apple bite Samsung now *sobbing
=============================================
but i'm still loyal with my GT-P6800
this is my first tablet and i love the size, the screen, the premium of silver metal back side
I just received my Google Nexus 10 yesterday. After reading all the great reviews about the video quality I must admit I was shocked how poor it was. Don't get me wrong, it isn't awful by any stretch. The detail is certainly there and there is so much detail it might actually be detriment to the product because I can pick up compression artifacts and pixelization I didn't even know was there on some of my videos. However, this really leads in to what I think the source of the problem is on this device, that is, the black level. The first video I took a look at was Ice Age since it came with the N10. If black level is off on animations they can look washed out and it certainly did in this case. My projector on a 100" screen could actually reflect a better image in my opinion. Moving over to other videos like a 1080p MKV of Battleship displayed some improvement, but the poor black levels were still there. Oh, and I should mention this was with using MX Player.
So, are others seeing something similar? Again, I'm not trying to really downplay the image entirely because the detail is certainly there, but again, I'm disappointed by the black level. Is there possibly a way to adjust it that I'm not aware of? All I can seemingly find is Brightness and that doesn't do enough. Perhaps a gamma control would help? Any guidance from others is appreciated.
U get ice age free with N10?
Sent from my Nexus 10 using XDA Premium HD app
verusevo said:
U get ice age free with N10?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes.
2 posts? Troll?
Techie2012 said:
2 posts? Troll?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the welcome. Did people say the same about you when you had 2 posts? Trust me, your accusation is utterly ridiculous. This is simply my first Android device and this was my initial impression. I hoped that there might be some kind of workaround or fix so I simply did a Google search for a Nexus 10 forum and wound up here. As I allued to in my initial post there are plenty of things I like about the device and black level might not be a deal killer, but if there was a way to resolve it, why not pursue it?
Techie2012 said:
2 posts? Troll?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Only 245 posts and a member since February of this year? You must clearly have very little to contribute anywhere since you don't have at least a 1k post count or year+ membership (sarcasm btw; post count and join dates means absolutely nothing in determining a person's status lol)
I believe a few others have mentioned black levels not being optimal on the N10. I myself don't really see it as a problem, but then again I rarely watch videos. I believe Contrast itself might be a better option to modify over Brightness, but I'm pretty sure Contrast isn't adjustable currently.
Possibly when Kernel development matures enough, we may be able to modify screen settings, but I don't think we're there quite yet. Maybe some video players might have an option for adjustments?
Those frequenting here have varying social skills. Be tolerant.
Suggest posting some pics of screen's black level, alongside another device used as a baseline. A thousand words and all that.
Also suggest searching Play store for "display settings" and try out the various widget/apps available.
That's seriously put me off buying this tablet now.
A poor black level can ruin video quality. I know this because my laptops black level is shocking bad, picture below.
Now I might either get a Note 10.1 or wait for something with a high res screen and a good black level.
Haha you guys are funny.
Anyway back to the original question, this device has a LCD screen, and like most LCD TVs, the black is not as black as you'd like or you would see on a PlasmaTV or Amoled screen.
If black levels are highly important to you, i'm sorry to say you bought the wrong device.
Ok, so I took a previous poster's advice and got a hold of an iPad3 with Retina Display and compared it against the N10. The difference was not as significant as I thought it might be. Ultimately, I didn't think either producing razor sharp images with inky blacks and that is because they don't my own HDTV's (LED) in my home along with my home theater projector crush both devices. Why? Well, first, I wasn't aware that the contrast ratio was so poor on all the tablet devices. Most of my other products have something like a 50,000:1 contrast ratio whereas the tablets are around 1000:1, a very big difference. Also, I'm accustomed to watching BluRays on those displays. BluRay quality just doesn't seem to exist on these tablets right now. So was I expecting too much from the N10? Yes.
Spending some time with both devices side-by-side allowed me to sort of critique both on my own terms and decide which one I like best. I'm probably an atypical user so my opinions here are my own and I don't expect others to find the same items valuable.
1. Display - the iPad wins here, but not by as much as I might have thought. Whites are more warm and not as bright on the N10 when compared to the iPad. Blacks are also better on the iPad, but I expected it to be a dramatic difference. It wasn't. I've included some images to this post that will help you see the difference a bit more. There are some images where the difference looks very pronounced, but that is the digital camera really exposing the faults of the N10 and making them appear more significant. I wouldn't say that is the case in reality. Also, something you'll notice from the images is the light leak. It is there on the N10, but not on the iPad. Too bad Samsung couldn't have done a better job here. It would have made it appear as a more quality product.
2. Form Factor - I find the form factor of the iPad better than the N10. I like to use portrait mode more often than most I think and the iPad gives you more space to work from horizontally when doing so. This makes web browsing much easier and I actually feel more cramped using the N10 to browse via landscape. I would MUCH prefer the N10 to have the iPad's shape.
3. Weight - I would have never thought 50 grams or whatever it is would make a difference, but to me it does and the N10 is a clear winner here. After handling both devices for some time I simply enjoyed holding the N10 more. The lightness made for a more enjoyable experience.
4. Rubber Backing - When I saw on this on the N10 I thought it was sort of a gimmick, but I really like it. Again, it just seems to feel more comfortable holding it.
5. Heat - I have no idea why, but the back of the iPad got pretty hot while using it. The N10 had some slight warmth, but ever since I've used it it has stayed relatively cool.
6. Speakers - The N10 really crushes the iPad here. The front two speakers are awesome and can push out good volume. Going back to the iPad with its rear mono speaker almost feels silly in comparison.
7. Web Browsing - The winner here is the iPad. Pages came up more quickly, they are easier to scroll through (only slightly), and are displayed better. In portrait mode the clear winner is the iPad since you have more horizontal space to work with, something I like.
8. Off-axis viewing - Not that you ever really need this because tablets are really made for a one person audience to be looking at the device head-on, but I did notice it. For whatever reason the iPad had a better image once you move off-axis from the device. The N10 was washed out more quickly as you moved off-axis.
9. Bugs - Oh man, Jelly Bean has them. I have essentially the base image on the N10 and I've already seen the battery information incorrect (stuck), freezes, my folders just disappearing after the device becoming frozen, and some other very quirky things. The iPad in comparison was stable. The iPad just feels a bit like driving a Lexus. It doesn't really do much to excite you, but it does what it is designed to do and does it well. The N10 is probably more like a BMW X6. Is it a sports car or an SUV? No one really knows. It does some things that are really neat, but in other categories it sort of falls apart. Just my own silly analogy.
So which will I keep. Based on all the criteria above I would say it is very close and probably a tie in my mind, but I'm leaning toward the N10. I'm not sure why, but I struggle a great deal with going to a closed environment like the iPad is. It feels boring to me and I just think I might enjoy tinkering with the N10 more. If I give it more thought I might change my mind, but for the moment this is where my head is.
I hope all this might help someone. If anyone has any questions about the comparison or the images please feel free to ask.
A lot people seem to crank the brightness even when they don't need it. The N10 with the back light turned up definitely has poor black levels but it's actually pretty decent when below 40%(more comfortable to view also)
I agree. I'm totally unimpressed by the video quality of Nexus 10. Maybe I'm doing something wrong here, but my older Galaxy Tab 2 P3100 had much better video quality than this. The colors are totally messed up and the it just seems bland and boring.
Frankly, I don't think this is an iPad killer in anyway, and I'm not an apple fanboy either. I had to download apps just to get the Volume to a reasonable level eventhough it has stereo. Wow, the ipad claims much less but delivers more, Nexus 10 claims tall but falls short.
Thinking about getting back the iPad 4 if the Nexus doesn't grow on me. Sorry, Nexus. Android has failed you :crying:
JPW1 said:
Most of my other products have something like a 50,000:1 contrast ratio whereas the tablets are around 1000:1, a very big difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The 50,000:1 contrast ratio is actually dynamic contrast ratio. How dark the screen is at it's lowest brightness and how bright the screen is at it's highest brightness. It's really just a marketing gimmick.
The real static contrast ratio could be anywhere between 1000-5000:1. Not a huge difference at all.
http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,23137918
Looking at your screenshots I can definitely say you have the brightness set waaaayyy to high on the Nexus 10. Turn it down and the picture will be drastically better.
And for the other little problems you have to wait some time. Most of them will be gone with the first good custom roms/kernels. The device is still brand new.
I tried both the Transformers and Ice Age films streaming from google play, and I thought the video was pretty poor. Wifi signal was strong.
Video quality from all the streaming services I've used on Android have relatively poor quality. If you are attempting to benchmark the device's fidelity then I suggest making a high bit rate rip of a Blu-Ray
The high bit rate 1080p and 1440p videos I've seen look pretty great, but I agree videos from streaming services look pretty awful in terms of both blurriness and contrast.
Also, the hardware decoders like most devices do not have as high of picture quality as some software decoder. For instance, for the same video the hw decoder will look softer than the sw decoder in MX Player
Samsung is advertising S8 and S8+ 2960 x 1440p the device defaults to Full HD+ and can be changed to Quad HD+ (WQHD+) in the settings. My concerns are why? Battery life? Better bragging rights concerning performance? I am going to play with one today and will report back on if it makes a difference switching but I wonder if reported battery life from Samsung is going off of Full HD or the full pixel count. It sucks to even have to question this.
Yup I've been posted about this for a few days now. They are being incredibly misleading and they are doing it on purpose to disguise the **** battery life. The Samsung battery life is using FHD I am pretty sure because on their spec sheet they say that the "default" resolution is FHD, which will then be what their rated battery life stats are based on. Of course they then have people comparing the S7 stats vs the S8 but the S7 ones were based on it running its native 1440p resolution because at the time of release, the ability to change resolutions did not exist, it came in Nougat. So effectively Samsung are being extremely sly. You have battery life stated on the S8 which is basically the same as the S7, and what they obviously don't want people to figure out is that the S7's was 1440p and the S8's was 1080.
How much difference that makes will be interesting. It will obviously make less difference on browsing and light use (but might still but noticaeble) and a lot more difference on video and games.
Of course the other issue is they keep touting how good this 1440p display is in all the advertising......but it doesn't run at 1440p by default does it? Noooooo, because the battery is ****!
Why use max hd it's only any use in vr
It uses FHD resolution by default
The Galaxy S8 and S8+ have QHD+ screens like its predecessors. Unlike its predecessors, however, Samsung is tuning down the screen resolution to 1080p by default. This is for power efficiency purposes, as it decreases the number of pixels that need you be rendered. This is the same optimization that Sony used on the Xperia Z5 Premium, but that had a 4K screen.
Of course, when the content calls for it, the Galaxy S8 switches to its native QHD resolution. And you can always set it to use QHD all the time. It’s just something you have to keep in mind if the user interface looks a tad too big for your eyes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
https://www.slashgear.com/8-things-to-know-about-the-samsung-galaxy-s8-30480276/
I see nothing shady or misleading but that is me.
RMXO said:
https://www.slashgear.com/8-things-to-know-about-the-samsung-galaxy-s8-30480276/
I see nothing shady or misleading but that is me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What has an article written by slashgear got to do with Samsungs underhand tactics regarding battery life?
---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------
bayfisher1958 said:
stock in android 7....can be reset to qhd.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
huh?
I took a few pics and very closely eye balled the settings while going through them. I have a true dedicated theater room I spared no expense on and literally a HUGE freak when it comes to imperfections with any display. Options are HD+ 1480 x 720, FHD+ 2220 x 1080 (out of the box) and WQHD+ 2960 x 1440 and you can tell a difference but it didn't bother me. Obviously the higher resolution is sharp and starts to fall off from there. In a blind test you would be able to notice at regular viewing distance imo however its not at all distracting and my guess is no one will ever question the beauty of the screen at even 720 to hunt down settings outside of people like us. Having said that, when I locked the demo unit it reverted back to WQHD+ so I compared at the screen resolution option right there.
ewokuk said:
What has an article written by slashgear got to do with Samsungs underhand tactics regarding battery life?
---------- Post added at 08:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:52 PM ----------
huh?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its your opinion and others that Samsung is underhand tactics with battery life. not everyone feels the same as you.
RMXO said:
Its your opinion and others that Samsung is underhand tactics with battery life. not everyone feels the same as you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not opinion its fact. If they weren't trying to make it look better than it is, they would provide a like for like comparison with the S7 instead of conveniently showing battery life stats that are almost the same as the S7........and leaving out the key detail that they are completely different resolutions and not comparable at all. It was pretty clear something was up during the reveal event when they VERY quickly flashed up the mah of each battery and then quickly skipped past it without mentioning the battery life at all.
I still don't see what relevance an article by slashgear has to do with anything. It's an article written by slashgear, barely mentions battery at all and provides no comment on the battery stats vs the S7.
Your argument is like saying its our opinion that the earth is round but not everybody believes it.....doesn't matter what they believe, it's just a fact. If they wanted to be open about it, they would have provided battery life stats for the higher resolution so that it can be directly compared to the S7, instead they provide a 1440 screen, go on about thish high resolution screen in all the advertising, then set the default resolution to 1080 and quietly provide battery stats that are based on 1080, but don't actually ever tell you that the stats are based on this, because that would make it clear it isn't a fair comparison to the same stats they provided for the s7.
Umm sorry to break it to you but the Galaxy S7 with Nougat also defaulted to the lower resolution and it made ZERO difference to battery life. There is plenty of reviews and comments about this. Though it does make a difference in some apps and games where the scaling works better at 1080 resolution as higher than that and the assets are so small they are harder to use with a touch screen. So instead of stating facts with no actual facts why don't we wait till some real reviews come out and test the battery before we jump to conclusions.
ewokuk said:
It's not opinion its fact. If they weren't trying to make it look better than it is, they would provide a like for like comparison with the S7 instead of conveniently showing battery life stats that are almost the same as the S7........and leaving out the key detail that they are completely different resolutions and not comparable at all. It was pretty clear something was up during the reveal event when they VERY quickly flashed up the mah of each battery and then quickly skipped past it without mentioning the battery life at all.
I still don't see what relevance an article by slashgear has to do with anything. It's an article written by slashgear, barely mentions battery at all and provides no comment on the battery stats vs the S7.
Your argument is like saying its our opinion that the earth is round but not everybody believes it.....doesn't matter what they believe, it's just a fact. If they wanted to be open about it, they would have provided battery life stats for the higher resolution so that it can be directly compared to the S7, instead they provide a 1440 screen, go on about thish high resolution screen in all the advertising, then set the default resolution to 1080 and quietly provide battery stats that are based on 1080, but don't actually ever tell you that the stats are based on this, because that would make it clear it isn't a fair comparison to the same stats they provided for the s7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i never said anything is facts, i said i don't believe what you're saying. You are coming out like its facts, so show me the facts! While I do understand your concerns but you're making it out to be facts when there isn't any yet.
bnathan said:
Umm sorry to break it to you but the Galaxy S7 with Nougat also defaulted to the lower resolution and it made ZERO difference to battery life. There is plenty of reviews and comments about this. Though it does make a difference in some apps and games where the scaling works better at 1080 resolution as higher than that and the assets are so small they are harder to use with a touch screen. So instead of stating facts with no actual facts why don't we wait till some real reviews come out and test the battery before we jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BIngo!
The one thing people seem to overlook with lowering the resolution is the positive effect it has on the processor. Samsung may very well have it set at FHD out of the box for better performance power for the general user. Obviously, they also say it very slightly improves battery life - but by all accounts - and even my own experience with my S7 - it's pretty negligible.
If you don't mind, I would love some clarification on the S7's ability to change the resolution:
First: doesn't the display draw power because it needs to produce light? Don't 2 pixels at half brightness create the same amount of light as 1 pixel at full brightness (since this is an OLED screen) or is that single pixel more power efficient because power draw isn't linear?
Second: does it physically turn off pixels or does it just change the DPI because turning off anything but 1/2 looks incredibly bad so I'm assuming it just changes the DPI. If it does just change the DPI than the power draw from the display should not change much but the GPU usage should fall.
Isn't the resolution also a function of the power savings plan settings which was new in the S7? The power savings plan also throttles the SoC and limits data speeds.
my 2 cents
When switching resolutions on my S7 Edge I haven't noticed any battery increase or decrease. So I just keep it at QHD
zathus said:
When switching resolutions on my S7 Edge I haven't noticed any battery increase or decrease. So I just keep it at QHD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think it's more about gaining performance, especially in games where you wouldn't really notice the lower resolution anyway. It's also easier on the eyes for some people in certain applications as the UI elements don't shrink so much.
It's nice to have the choice. When I swap between QHD and FHD phones the difference is negligible, certainly you can see a slight sharpness decrease if you look hard enough. Just not enough to warrant the loss in performance for many people.
There is a reason Apple haven't increased their screen resolutions yet. The need just isn't there for the average user. VR is the biggest reason for a higher res, that's something that definitely benefits from it. Again, not everybody has that need.
Personally, I like choice. I'll be switching between both depending on what I am doing.
Highspeed123 said:
I think it's more about gaining performance, especially in games where you wouldn't really notice the lower resolution anyway. It's also easier on the eyes for some people in certain applications as the UI elements don't shrink so much.
...
Personally, I like choice. I'll be switching between both depending on what I am doing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really disagree on most points.
First, the myth that people won't notice the difference, they will. In the near future when screens keep improving, you will notice how bad a low res screen looks so having QHD is nice in future proofing.
The UI elements can be changed by changing the DPI which Samsung did from the Note 4 to the Note 5 (Note 5's UI has smaller elements, they are both 1440p) so there are obviously people at Samsung working to make the UI visible and accessible and the resolution isn't a problem for them.
The performance hit isn't that big to be honest, it comes down to hardware and software optimization, a slight change in DPI will not make much of a difference.
And one last point, it's nice for phones to have great displays because it puts focus on display technology and increases research on those areas.
aalxx said:
I really disagree on most points.
First, the myth that people won't notice the difference, they will. In the near future when screens keep improving, you will notice how bad a low res screen looks so having QHD is nice in future proofing.
The UI elements can be changed by changing the DPI which Samsung did from the Note 4 to the Note 5 (Note 5's UI has smaller elements, they are both 1440p) so there are obviously people at Samsung working to make the UI visible and accessible and the resolution isn't a problem for them.
The performance hit isn't that big to be honest, it comes down to hardware and software optimization, a slight change in DPI will not make much of a difference.
And one last point, it's nice for phones to have great displays because it puts focus on display technology and increases research on those areas.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, I wasn't saying that phones shouldn't have a QHD screen. I was merely suggesting that it's nice to have a choice and Samsung has provided it. There is of course a slight difference between the two but because of the smaller screens phones have, there comes a point where the resolution doesn't make a difference anymore. 1080p to 4k on a TV is nice but even that isn't a huge leap, even on my 75 Sony.
The real difference comes from other areas such as colour and HDR. QHD is pretty much the max you'll ever need unless it's for VR.
I have had many phones and there is only a small difference between QHD and FHD but it is there. I will be using QHD for browsing the Internet and photo viewing etc and I will drop to FHD for gaming. Options are a good thing.
The difference in battery use between FHD and QHD is so small it's not really noticed. The reason FHD is default is because a lot of apps look sbetter in FHD.
ewokuk said:
but it doesn't run at 1440p by default does it? Noooooo, because the battery is ****!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Is that statement backed up by real world testing of S8 battery life or are just guessing?
dezborders said:
Is that statement backed up by real world testing of S8 battery life or are just guessing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very educated guessing for 2 reasons.
First: small battery/screen size ratio. Compared to the 3600mAh for 5.5in on the S7 Edge, the S8's 3000mAh for 5.8in is ridiculous.
Second: the new design. This happened the last time Samsung changed the design with the S6, the battery life was horrid on that. Plus this design seems to rely a lot on looking a thin and slick phone from the future and that has probably compromised the battery life.
Edit: and also the 10nm process isn't enough to make a difference, you could remove the processor from the S7 Edge entirely and there wouldn't be a difference comparable to 600mAh because the main power draw on any phone is the display.
Perhaps it was just interesting timing that my previous secondary phone (the HTC One) died when it did, but whatever the reason was, I ended up picking up a used Nexus 6 a few weeks ago to serve as a combination backup and secondary phone. When the battery in my daily driver, the Moto X Pure Edition, took a crap last week, the "backup" side of that purpose was put to the test. Here's how it went:
XDA Stuff: Unlocking the bootloader, obtaining root, and installing the Xposed Framework (along with MinMinGuad and GravityBox) & A.R.I.S.E. audio was extremely painless. You'd be hard pressed to find too many other newer Verizon-compatible devices that are this easy to get started with that stuff on.
Device's casing: For having a screen that is only .26" larger, this phone sure is a lot wider than the Moto X Pure Edition. It's also extremely slippery. I'm surprised these things last as long as they do among folks with "normal-sized" hands. Anything much wider than 3" is a recipe for droppage. Thankfully, I got it with one of those giant super-grip kickstand casings. While this improves the grip dramatically, it makes the device extremely cumbersome to pocket. The kickstand comes in handy all the time though. It's sad that this monstrosity covers up the loud-and-proud NEXUS badge on the back though. It's kind of like hiding the Verizon logo; you just don't do it.
Screen: Easily the Nexus 6's biggest weakness. Aside from Samsung, Motorola seemed to be one of the biggest proponents of Oled panels during the days of the Nexus 6 (and even before). I'm probably in the minority with this opinion, but the Pure Edition's LCD really spoiled me, so the Nexus 6's panel was a letdown. Not only is there no option to switch to a more natural color profile under the stock rom/kernel, but the panel also isn't the brightest and burn-in is a noticeable problem, especially thanks to Motorola's insistence on using software keys instead of hardware navigation buttons. Despite these flaws, it is functional and usable, but the cartoony/awful color calibration just looks goofy. Turning the brightness down low takes it from "kind-of silly" to laughably bad. As a short-term backup/tester, it is acceptable, but I wouldn't daily this thing long-term without installing a customer kernel and applying some corrections.
Quirks: Like the Moto X Pure Edition, the Nexus 6's screen is set very low on the face of the device (although it is less noticeable on the former). I'd imagine that this serves to make the machine slightly more manageable duing single-handed operation (like a hardware implementation of Apple's "reachability" ) and also to improve visual symmetry with those software navigation keys (while the screen is on).
Also, the MicroUSB port is strangely upside-down on this phone.
Camera, Speakers: Seems comparable to the Pure Edition. Optical stabilization makes getting a steady shot in low light (or any lighting, for that matter) much easier and negates the need for digital stabilization in video recording mode, which improves field-of-view. Speakers sound about the same, although the hardware/software that drive them is noticeably "crustier" sounding. Still, it's very much usable.
Wireless Radio performance and compatibility: Didn't test side-by-side, but anecdotally seems identical to the Pure Edition. The massive number of GSM, CDMA, and LTE bands supported by this device is highly impressive, just like the Pure.
Vibration motor: Still noisier than it should be, but not quite as terrible as the Pure Edition. Also feels a bit stronger.
Software: Bland and boring, but gets the job done. I miss the Motorola camera and flashlight gestures (although the power key double-tap eliminates the need for the former) as well as the IR-assisted active display feature. Also, the "attentive display" (which keeps the screen awake as long as the camera can see the user) was very much missed. Also also, I was disappointed to see that there is no way to enable any kind of "night mode," even on the latest-and-greatest Android 7.1.
Conclusion: Nexus 6 is a good phone for the price these days. The camera is better than I originally gave it credit for, but don't buy this phone for its screen. If you want a cheap (but modern) Android phone that works on Verizon Wireless and can have its bootloader unlocked easily, (but don't want to pony up the additional $35-60 that the Moto X Pure Edition sells for) it's hard to go wrong with the 6. The battery is not user-replaceable, but holds up well. And, unlike the Nexus 6p, it won't fold in half!
Bottom line: Budget-minded Verizon customers might be better off with the Pure Edition, but if even that phone costs too much, the Nexus 6 is not a bad consolation prize. I couldn't ask for a better secondary/tester device.
Bill720 said:
.
Software: Bland and boring, but gets the job done.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude this is vanilla android. Here we dont want crappy oems bloats and features. We want pure android. This is a Nexus not crapsung
Realistically, I have no idea what the OP is talking about when refers to the software being bland and boring. Motorola's implementation of Android was equally bland and boring. The few things Motorola added to Android didn't change matters.
That said, I'm guessing he's comparing the N6 to the Moto X Pure from 2014. The Moto X Pure/Style from 2015 my roommate uses has a camera with more megapixels but lacks OIS. I would argue the N6 camera is better despite having fewer pixels than the Moto X Pure (2015) 21MP shooter, simply because the N6 camera actually lets more light in. Then there is HDR+. People don't like it because it's slower than HDR from other manufacturers. HDR is faster because it's a software overlay on the image, rather than hardware compositing of images like HDR+.
Based on my experience with both the Moto X Pure (2015) and the Nexus 6, the Nexus 6 is the easier device to customize. Not only do you not have to beg Motorola for an bootloader unlock code with the N6, you also have more extensive custom ROM support. My roommate's Moto X is running Lineage OS because there's virtually no ROM support for the device.
The "Quirk" of having the screen set low on the body is because Motorola designed the display for both devices to always have the soft keys always up. With them up the usable display area is actually centered. Between the two, the N6's AMOLED screen, despite its issues in sunlight, is still the better screen. It's hard to beat a screen that actually displays the color black as black and not gray as it does on an IPS LCD.
thoughts on responses
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
That said, I'm guessing he's comparing the N6 to the Moto X Pure from 2014. The Moto X Pure/Style from 2015 my roommate uses has a camera with more megapixels but lacks OIS. I would argue the N6 camera is better despite having fewer pixels than the Moto X Pure (2015) 21MP shooter, simply because the N6 camera actually lets more light in. Then there is HDR+. People don't like it because it's slower than HDR from other manufacturers. HDR is faster because it's a software overlay on the image, rather than hardware compositing of images like HDR+.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I too am thinking of the 2015-release Pure Edition, which does indeed lack optical stabilization. Despite this, the seemingly-ludicrous resolution actually lends itself to capturing a lot of interesting detail that I've come to enjoy. Given that, I'd have to say that image quality is probably a draw, depending on conditions.
As for HDR+, I don't know if it's hardware-exclusive, but it does do some pretty amazing things, even in subpar conditions.
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
Based on my experience with both the Moto X Pure (2015) and the Nexus 6, the Nexus 6 is the easier device to customize. Not only do you not have to beg Motorola for an bootloader unlock code with the N6, you also have more extensive custom ROM support. My roommate's Moto X is running Lineage OS because there's virtually no ROM support for the device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't speak to the quality of the custom roms on the Pure Edition, but the stock Rom is pretty darn good, so it's not as big of a loss. The stock kernel is pretty decent too. All I needed to install with that unlocked bootloader was Root, the Xposed Framework, and A.R.I.S.E. audio. While getting to that state of unlocked bootloader was a bit more fiddly than on the Nexus 6, it's better than most Verizon-certified devices.
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
Between the two, the N6's AMOLED screen, despite its issues in sunlight, is still the better screen. It's hard to beat a screen that actually displays the color black as black and not gray as it does on an IPS LCD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
While the contrast is better, I don't consider the burn-in, green tint, (pink tint when the brightness is set low) and horrible default calibration to be worthy sacrifices to make for it. And this is coming from almost five years of Samsung Oled use. Compared to a low-grade LCD, the 6's screen might be arguably superior, but the Pure Edition has one of the best screens in the business, so the Nexus 6 is no match for it, both objectively and subjectively. Make no mistake - it's a decent and very much usable panel by itself, but definitely not the best.
Two years ago when I was in the market for a new device my final two choices were between the N6 and the Moto X Style. The Moto X Style lost. Not because it isn't a good device - my roommate has one - but because of two things. The screen, and the camera.
No matter how you slice it, LCDs are older technology, and not as battery efficient as AMOLED. As a more mature technology they are more trouble free than AMOLED however. But for media consumption, having your blacks actually be black more than compensates for burn in. Burn in which, I might add, I don't see on my device to any noticeable degree. Oh, and size did matter here.
As for the camera, ignoring the obvious, the lack of OIS, more pixels does not equal better pictures. Wonder why so few flagship devices go above 13 megapixels in 2017? It's because of the law of diminishing returns. A simple truth about a digital camera is that the more pixels a camera has the less light each pixel can take in due to decreased surface area of the individual CCDs making up the sensor. The solution OEMs came up with? Decrease the pixels and increase the aperture. For me, the decrease in pixels was more than offset by improved light gathering capability and the presence of OIS. HDR+ is a bonus but didn't figure in my decision.
Heading into 2018, I still would take the N6 over the Moto X Style. But about this time next year I anticipate having a Pixel 2XL, so there you go.
Two things I don't like about displays today:
1) Unnecessarily high resolution, which makes the SoC work harder, leading to less performance and worse battery life. There is no point in having more details than the eye can see (around 300 dpi).
2) Pentile on almost all amoled displays. It looks fuzzy, unless of course the resolution is unnecessarily high. It was noticeable on the Galaxy Nexus with its lower resolution, and it makes me think twice about the OnePlus 5.
Google should have given the N6 a 1920x1080 display without pentile.
screen technology and camera performance
runekock said:
Two things I don't like about displays today:
1) Unnecessarily high resolution, which makes the SoC work harder, leading to less performance and worse battery life. There is no point in having more details than the eye can see (around 300 dpi).
2) Pentile on almost all amoled displays. It looks fuzzy, unless of course the resolution is unnecessarily high. It was noticeable on the Galaxy Nexus with its lower resolution, and it makes me think twice about the OnePlus 5.
Google should have given the N6 a 1920x1080 display without pentile.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Bingo. The reason why the Galaxy Note 2 (that I used before) was able to get away with just 720x1280 on a 5.5" Oled panel was because it used a proper subpixel layout that did not share pixels. These days, 1080x1920 is probably a more appropriate choice for this size class, but if the panel uses the dreaded "pentile" layout, then it automatically decreases the perceived/effective resolution.
Thanks to its proper RGB subpixel layout, the Pure Edition could've gotten away with a 1080x1920 panel and had resolution to spare, but the Nexus 6 needs its 2K display in order to compensate for the loss in sharpness that is caused by use of pentile.
No matter the reason, as you mentioned, forcing the chipset to render exponentially-higher resolution graphics strains it more than would've been necessary.
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
Two years ago when I was in the market for a new device my final two choices were between the N6 and the Moto X Style. The Moto X Style lost. Not because it isn't a good device - my roommate has one - but because of two things. The screen, and the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's interesting that you mention this because, one year ago, I was in the market for a new device and the Pure Edition won on the basis of its unlockable bootloader, Verizon compatibility, and having one of the best screens in the industry. I'd been burned by Samsung and their "super" amoled nonsense twice in a row by that point and decided to get away from it altogether for future daily-driver smartphones (at least until the technology matured).
While I too was originally concerned by the high camera resolution, figuring that the mainstream reviewers' opinions were probably right, I was pleasantly surprised to find that it actually does a really good job. You are correct to say that resolution isn't everything, but I was pleasantly surprised. Lack of optical stabilization was a slight letdown, but I've been nothing short of blown away by the quality of the photos, especially when one considers how low the bar was set by the mainstream reviews.
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
No matter how you slice it, LCDs are older technology, and not as battery efficient as AMOLED. As a more mature technology they are more trouble free than AMOLED however. But for media consumption, having your blacks actually be black more than compensates for burn in. Burn in which, I might add, I don't see on my device to any noticeable degree. Oh, and size did matter here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The "battery efficiency" thing is debatable, but the contrast ratio of the Pure Edition is very good as it stands, especially considering its nearly-triple maximum brightness output when compared to the 6. The lack of "perfect black" is hardly even noticeable unless you're using the device in a particularly dark environment or are really looking for it.
I could give the 6 a pass here if the software complemented the hardware, but as it is, the default calibration is nothing short of horrendous (and it gets worse as you turn the brightness down). Having to install a custom kernel and fiddle around to get something that almost matches what the other phone can do out-of-the-box with the stock kernel is a noteworthy letdown for me.
Screen calibration? You've been watching too many of Erica Griffin's review videos on YouTube. She is the only device reviewer I'm aware of who goes so insanely into depth regarding the screen. And I get why she does it, since without a screen a smartphone is but a chunk of plastic, metal, and silicon. But there are more people like me than there are you: people who don't actively look for issues like that. That said, I have to wonder if my device, being a late vintage, used an updated panel. The colors are about as accurate as on my laptop.
I say that because I've never had to install a custom kernel to fix something that to me isn't broken.
some idiot comes into a nexus forum filled with a million ways to change anything you want and cries about not being able to change things... what?
@def1003: And who exactly is the idiot? Up until your post the discussion has been civil between @Bill720 and myself. We may not agree with each other, but he has put forth solid reasoning behind the assessment he made. He's earned respect for that, as the two devices are indeed very similar in specifications, and choosing between one and the other is difficult.
on Oled screens...
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
Screen calibration? You've been watching too many of Erica Griffin's review videos on YouTube. She is the only device reviewer I'm aware of who goes so insanely into depth regarding the screen. And I get why she does it, since without a screen a smartphone is but a chunk of plastic, metal, and silicon.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't say that I watch too many of her videos, (the last one I actually remember was the Galaxy Note 2 dummy phone drop test series) but I'll study up take a look at some of her thoughts on the Nexus 6.
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
But there are more people like me than there are you: people who don't actively look for issues like that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My opinion is based on more than benchmarks (which objectively demonstrate poor quality) however. I'm not "that guy" who has a calibration gadget and calibrates all his monitors, but I can tell the difference between "good enough" and when everything looks like a cartoon. It's not just that I'm accustomed to the Pure Edition and all of the other monitors and screens that I use on a regular basis; it's also the fact that, after looking at the real world and then the Nexus 6's portrayal of the world, the mind knows that something isn't right.
That's not to say that it isn't fun to look at sometimes, but the mediocre default calibration crushes the natural vibrance of the displayed image, both objectively and subjectively. And that's at normal brightness. Turn the dial down, and things go from disappointing to downright silly.
I realize that OEMs are bound by some unseen force to perpetuate the myth of Oled's "vibrance" by applying these hyped-up calibrations from the factory, but all I'm asking for is the option. In the Moto X Pure Edition's stock rom/kernel, the user is given a choice between a "natural" and "vibrant" profile. If they'd provided something like that on the Nexus 6's stock software, I'd be accepting of their willingness to make an effort. From what I've heard, Samsung and OnePlus now give at least 2 choices on their Oled-equipped phones. I understand that even the "natural" option isn't anywhere close to perfectly calibrated, (regardless of display technology) but it at least lands the ball in the park, which is all I want.
Ironically, that is what Google is doing for the Pixel 2/2XL. But only after people complained about the natural color palette Google used. If blame were to be applied for the punchy and vibrant colors of AMOLED, look no further than Samsung. And since they are the biggest Android OEM, more people see their screens and expect all other screens to look like that.
I think I'm one of them. My last device was a Galaxy S4.
thoughts on Oled calibration
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
Ironically, that is what Google is doing for the Pixel 2/2XL. But only after people complained about the natural color palette Google used. If blame were to be applied for the punchy and vibrant colors of AMOLED, look no further than Samsung. And since they are the biggest Android OEM, more people see their screens and expect all other screens to look like that.
I think I'm one of them. My last device was a Galaxy S4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Perhaps Samsung has trained its customers to expect cartoony results on Oled screens by using their marketing muscle to perpetuate the myth of Oled's "vibrance." This doesn't mean that it's a mainstream opinion though, as Apple has historically managed to get their iPhones in the ballpark as well. We'll have to see what they do with the new Oled-based iPhone X.
I don't know if it will do anything, but I just installed an Android 8.1 ROM and toggled the SRGB colorspace option in Developer Options.
Bill720 said:
Perhaps it was just interesting timing that my previous secondary phone (the HTC One) died when it did, but whatever the reason was, I ended up picking up a used Nexus 6 a few weeks ago to serve as a combination backup and secondary phone. When the battery in my daily driver, the Moto X Pure Edition, took a crap last week, the "backup" side of that purpose was put to the test. Here's how it went:
XDA Stuff: Unlocking the bootloader, obtaining root, and installing the Xposed Framework (along with MinMinGuad and GravityBox) & A.R.I.S.E. audio was extremely painless. You'd be hard pressed to find too many other newer Verizon-compatible devices that are this easy to get started with that stuff on.
Device's casing: For having a screen that is only .26" larger, this phone sure is a lot wider than the Moto X Pure Edition. It's also extremely slippery. I'm surprised these things last as long as they do among folks with "normal-sized" hands. Anything much wider than 3" is a recipe for droppage. Thankfully, I got it with one of those giant super-grip kickstand casings. While this improves the grip dramatically, it makes the device extremely cumbersome to pocket. The kickstand comes in handy all the time though. It's sad that this monstrosity covers up the loud-and-proud NEXUS badge on the back though. It's kind of like hiding the Verizon logo; you just don't do it.
Screen: Easily the Nexus 6's biggest weakness. Aside from Samsung, Motorola seemed to be one of the biggest proponents of Oled panels during the days of the Nexus 6 (and even before). I'm probably in the minority with this opinion, but the Pure Edition's LCD really spoiled me, so the Nexus 6's panel was a letdown. Not only is there no option to switch to a more natural color profile under the stock rom/kernel, but the panel also isn't the brightest and burn-in is a noticeable problem, especially thanks to Motorola's insistence on using software keys instead of hardware navigation buttons. Despite these flaws, it is functional and usable, but the cartoony/awful color calibration just looks goofy. Turning the brightness down low takes it from "kind-of silly" to laughably bad. As a short-term backup/tester, it is acceptable, but I wouldn't daily this thing long-term without installing a customer kernel and applying some corrections.
Quirks: Like the Moto X Pure Edition, the Nexus 6's screen is set very low on the face of the device (although it is less noticeable on the former). I'd imagine that this serves to make the machine slightly more manageable duing single-handed operation (like a hardware implementation of Apple's "reachability" ) and also to improve visual symmetry with those software navigation keys (while the screen is on).
Also, the MicroUSB port is strangely upside-down on this phone.
Camera, Speakers: Seems comparable to the Pure Edition. Optical stabilization makes getting a steady shot in low light (or any lighting, for that matter) much easier and negates the need for digital stabilization in video recording mode, which improves field-of-view. Speakers sound about the same, although the hardware/software that drive them is noticeably "crustier" sounding. Still, it's very much usable.
Wireless Radio performance and compatibility: Didn't test side-by-side, but anecdotally seems identical to the Pure Edition. The massive number of GSM, CDMA, and LTE bands supported by this device is highly impressive, just like the Pure.
Vibration motor: Still noisier than it should be, but not quite as terrible as the Pure Edition. Also feels a bit stronger.
Software: Bland and boring, but gets the job done. I miss the Motorola camera and flashlight gestures (although the power key double-tap eliminates the need for the former) as well as the IR-assisted active display feature. Also, the "attentive display" (which keeps the screen awake as long as the camera can see the user) was very much missed. Also also, I was disappointed to see that there is no way to enable any kind of "night mode," even on the latest-and-greatest Android 7.1.
Conclusion: Nexus 6 is a good phone for the price these days. The camera is better than I originally gave it credit for, but don't buy this phone for its screen. If you want a cheap (but modern) Android phone that works on Verizon Wireless and can have its bootloader unlocked easily, (but don't want to pony up the additional $35-60 that the Moto X Pure Edition sells for) it's hard to go wrong with the 6. The battery is not user-replaceable, but holds up well. And, unlike the Nexus 6p, it won't fold in half!
Bottom line: Budget-minded Verizon customers might be better off with the Pure Edition, but if even that phone costs too much, the Nexus 6 is not a bad consolation prize. I couldn't ask for a better secondary/tester device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For the same money, about $100, the Kodak Ektra has much faster overall performance and brighter screen.
RGB and Kodak
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
I don't know if it will do anything, but I just installed an Android 8.1 ROM and toggled the SRGB colorspace option in Developer Options.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That option is there in the stock rom too, but it doesn't do anything. In fact, if you back out of the developer options and go back in, you'll find that it is turned back off.
damiloveu said:
For the same money, about $100, the Kodak Ektra has much faster overall performance and brighter screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's an interesting-looking product for sure, and while I would have to assume that they put a decent camera in the thing, there's very little support or discussion on it anywhere. It doesn't even have a forum on XDA DEVELOPERS. The biggest non-starter for me, however, is lack of band 13 LTE and CDMA support/certification for Verizon. This could possibly be an attractive buy for AT&T or Tmobile customers, however, depending on how the rest of the experience holds up.
@Bill720: If I recall correctly it's nothing special, with its only claim to fame being the camera.
And I did notice that the SRGB toggle shut itself off.
Kodak fails to replace Motorola...
Strephon Alkhalikoi said:
@Bill720: If I recall correctly it's nothing special, with its only claim to fame being the camera.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably true. After reading/watching some of the few mainstream reviews that do exist for it, the conclusion reached is that the camera is acceptable, but nothing better than the high-end phones of 2016. The rest of the experience was average (at best) and the device does not appear to have gained enough mainstream traction for "XDA stuff" (root, Xposed, custom roms/kernels, etc.).
While we're on the topic of alternative phones however, for folks who can tolerate Oled, the OG Droid Turbo combines the camera, features/software, and elegance of the Moto X Pure Edition with the screen technology and chipset of the Nexus 6, while adding in a positively massive battery pack. The prices on that phone have now dipped down below $100, (with some being sold for as little as 75-85) but a $25 ransom must be paid to be able to unlock the bootloader. If it weren't for the Oled screen, that thing would come dangerously close to "daily driver material" for me personally, and the fact that the navigation keys are hardware instead of drawn on-screen does eliminate the prime cause of uneven Oled panel wear.
with the nexus rooted and using the paid app colour changer pro i have tweaked my nexus 6 to a really good screen with all the colours and tones looking perfect , without that app the screen was not the best , now i think it is , but using the same app on my samsung s8+ has boosted the look and feel perfectly , if your not happy with your screens look then try that app as it will make you enjoy your old nexus 6 or any oled or lcd phone.
@peekie: I'm sure he has already done that. As much as we may like the device, we have to keep in mind this device is not perfect. As someone new to the N6 he found the experience disappointing, mainly because of the screen. I can understand where he is coming from, even though I've not had any issues with the screen. What I did find laughable was the poster who thought a budget Kodak phone could in any way compete with two flagship-level devices.