Database Users

Galaxy Note True Resolution

From my research, it seems with the PenTile display, the native resolution of the screen is 400 x 640, while Samsung is claiming it as 800 x 1280. This is equivalent of painting a a picture on a deflated balloon and blowing it up. The image will lose detail and look awful. I just thought I let the rest of you know, if you were deciding on purchasing it just for that high resolution.

How? 10cbar

cadavar said:
From my research, it seems with the PenTile display, the native resolution of the screen is 400 x 640. While Samsung is claiming it as 800 x 1280. This is equivalent of painting a a picture on a deflated balloon and blowing it up. The image will lose detail and look awful. I just thought I let the rest of you know if you were deciding on purchasing it just for that high resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I work in the print industry and we have a saying: "If it looks right, it is right". In other words who cares about the maths? As long as you like it, enjoy it.

cadavar said:
From my research, it seems with the PenTile display, the native resolution of the screen is 400 x 640, while Samsung is claiming it as 800 x 1280. This is equivalent of painting a a picture on a deflated balloon and blowing it up. The image will lose detail and look awful. I just thought I let the rest of you know, if you were deciding on purchasing it just for that high resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your research is very wrong. If you are gonna do math, do it right. Each pixel has two sub pixels instead of three, so the correct numbers would be (2/3)*800 x (2/3)*1280 = 533 x 853 (rounded). But then again, reports says that this is not noticeable to the eye. There are more things to it then sub pixels.

cadavar said:
From my research, it seems with the PenTile display, the native resolution of the screen is 400 x 640, while Samsung is claiming it as 800 x 1280. This is equivalent of painting a a picture on a deflated balloon and blowing it up. The image will lose detail and look awful. I just thought I let the rest of you know, if you were deciding on purchasing it just for that high resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think many people are not buying a smartphone for it's colour accuracy, resolution, digital to analogue converters etc. They want a reliable functional device. All the rest is icing on the cake!
I used to have (as you may have gathered rom my sig) an HTC6500 - even a colour screen of any sort was wondrous! My early phones had grey dot matrix displays where a phone number was too big for the screen and had to be scrolled!
Times change and whilst I appreciate the info, I also agree with other who don't really care about sub-pixel density etc. As long as its reasonably accurate in its rendering does it matter? Next thing will be that people will be moaning that the voice bandwidth of a phone is only around 3.5kHz when their surround system at home has Dolby and a flat response up to 25kHz !

Your research is simply wrong.
Pentile is not true 1280x800, but it is much more than 640x400.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5000/galaxy-nexus-pentile-discussion-confirmed
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...D---is-the-PenTile-matrix-bad-for-you_id23134
Skerved said:
Your research is very wrong. If you are gonna do math, do it right. Each pixel has two sub pixels instead of three, so the correct numbers would be (2/3)*800 x (2/3)*1280 = 533 x 853 (rounded). But then again, reports says that this is not noticeable to the eye. There are more things to it then sub pixels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In fact is much more because the pentile is not a 33% less on vertical and horizontal pixels.
The efective resolution in subpixels is 1045x653
And well, to the eye it is simple to compare.
Galaxy note:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Galaxy S2:
Iphone 4:
Look at the detail of the train number for example. Even with pentile the note is better than the others.
And I ****ing hate pentile, and I wish that note 2 can got a "plus" screen, but the actual isn't bad either.

kersh said:
In fact is much more because the pentile is not a 33% less on vertical and horizontal pixels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, can you briefly explain how it works? Or maybe I'll just go do some research on my own.

Phoneareana seems to think the Galaxy Note screen is very good and provides higher pixel density:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...D---is-the-PenTile-matrix-bad-for-you_id23134

Skerved said:
Okay, can you briefly explain how it works? Or maybe I'll just go do some research on my own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I saw the explanation in the anandtech article, so i'll make a copy-paste. I can't post the direct link but if you click on the "all comments" link it is on the second page.
One thing I will say is that this was intended to be a quick means of showing where the display should fall.
I believe a clearer way of showing this difference would be to actually compute a weighted sum of the displays, eg
(720*1280/2)*2/3 + (720*1280)*1/3 = 614,400 pixels in RGBG land
as opposed to
(1280*720) = 921,600
and then
614400/921600 = 2/3
which shows exactly the 'RGBG uses 2/3rds the pixels of RGB' line. Then you can do sqrt(2/3) = 0.8164, and then scale each dimension accordingly, eg 0.8164 * 1280 = 1045 0.8164 * 720 = 588, so then the display is "effectively" 1045 x 588.
Then work backwards, to sqrt(1045^2 + 588^2)/4.65 = 257.8 effective subpixels per inch.
The problem is that tackling this either has to happen in subpixels/inch, or pixels/inch. And mixing one up in place of the other makes results that aren't comparable.
-Brian
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Galaxy S has Pentile right? If so then I'm cool with it, I never had a problem with Galaxy S' screen. Text or otherwise.

kersh said:
I saw the explanation in the anandtech article, so i'll make a copy-paste. I can't post the direct link but if you click on the "all comments" link it is on the second page.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I don't have energy to follow that right now, but it seems more complicated than I thought.
It' surely not 400 x 640 tho.

kersh said:
I saw the explanation in the anandtech article, so i'll make a copy-paste. I can't post the direct link but if you click on the "all comments" link it is on the second page.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1045 x 588 doesn't seem right either, since it is not 16:10 aspect ratio.

cadavar said:
The image will lose detail and look awful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Want to bet? Find a single youtube video of someone using the device that says the screen looks awful. I dare you. They, in fact, generally say it's absolutely amazing.
In fact, I'll make it easier - There are many videos of someone comparing the Note and the Galaxy S2/iphone side by side. Find one that says the iphone/S2 is noticably better. Hell, find one where they even imply the Note's screen is worse.
That's the bottom line. You can number crunch all you want, and pixel peep all you want. It's how the device actually feels when you use it is what matters.
There was some interview with Samsung where they say flat out that amoled+ has resolution advantages over Amoled.
However they stated that those advantages basically dissapear as you hit higher resolutions, and amoled was cheaper to manufacture and has less of a battery drain. So that's a pretty positive tradeoff, imho.
- Frank

kersh said:
I saw the explanation in the anandtech article, so i'll make a copy-paste. I can't post the direct link but if you click on the "all comments" link it is on the second page.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
ChodTheWacko said:
Want to bet? Find a single youtube video of someone using the device that says the screen looks awful. I dare you. They, in fact, generally say it's absolutely amazing.
In fact, I'll make it easier - There are many videos of someone comparing the Note and the Galaxy S2/iphone side by side. Find one that says the iphone/S2 is noticably better. Hell, find one where they even imply the Note's screen is worse.
That's the bottom line. You can number crunch all you want, and pixel peep all you want. It's how the device actually feels when you use it is what matters.
- Frank
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We are not talking about brightness/saturation or any other aspects of the display. I don't care if it looks better or worst than any other device. I care mostly about the real resolution, which plays a huge part in viewing images of higher resolution and playing videos. Also, it seem a lot of people care about it as well according to the poll so far.

cadavar said:
1045 x 588 doesn't seem right either, since it is not 16:10 aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's the maths for the nexus screen, the note is 1045x653

kersh said:
Your research is simply wrong.
Pentile is not true 1280x800, but it is much more than 640x400.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/5000/galaxy-nexus-pentile-discussion-confirmed
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Sams...D---is-the-PenTile-matrix-bad-for-you_id23134
In fact is much more because the pentile is not a 33% less on vertical and horizontal pixels.
The efective resolution in subpixels is 1045x653
And well, to the eye it is simple to compare.
Galaxy note:
Galaxy S2:
Iphone 4:
Look at the detail of the train number for example. Even with pentile the note is better than the others.
And I ****ing hate pentile, and I wish that note 2 can got a "plus" screen, but the actual isn't bad either.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks kersh for the explanation and the images than talk more than 1000 words

I hope any of Galaxy note users answer this question.
In real life:
if you stare at the screen from 3inchs (~8 cm) from your eyes. Are you able to see the pixels (tiny circles or rectangles) clearly?
Just for the sake of making a comparison, from the same distance I can see clearly my fingerprints.
Please provide how the screen looks like + if you can see your fingerprints (lol what a scientific test).

cadavar said:
We are not talking about brightness/saturation or any other aspects of the display. I don't care if it looks better or worst than any other device. I care mostly about the real resolution, which plays a huge part in viewing images of higher resolution and playing videos. Also, it seem a lot of people care about it as well according to the poll so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The real resolution is 1280x800. The display drivers do few tricks to get the image colors right by borrowing nearby sub-pixels and this can cause a checkerboard effect with full red and blue pictures, but with pixel density of the galaxy note its not noticeable unless you have a really good eyesight and look closely.

cadavar said:
We are not talking about brightness/saturation or any other aspects of the display. I don't care if it looks better or worst than any other device. I care mostly about the real resolution, which plays a huge part in viewing images of higher resolution and playing videos. Also, it seem a lot of people care about it as well according to the poll so far.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And your point is what? I didn't say anything about brightness/saturation.
I haven't seen a single video where people who have actually used the device imply the iphone/galaxy S2 has noticably better resolution. Yes, they do, but it's not noticable. So what difference does that make?
It's one thing to look at raw specs and say, 'gee, that's horrible, that will never work'. You are reminding me of all the people who say, 'That will never fit in a pocket' when in reality, it fits comfortably in almost all pockets just fine. I thought the former, too - but I tried it and now I know better.
- Frank

The display looks awesome that's all I need to know. Typing this message on this display.
Sent from my GT-N7000 using Tapatalk

Its the same: Galaxy Note 10.1 vs. Ipad 3 (Retina) Display

Hi
I made an amazing discovery when a colleague at work who owns a new Ipad 3 with Retina display compared the screen to my Galaxy Note 10.1. I always knew that pixel density was a big subject and specifically people worry that the mentioned Samsung tablet would fall behind because of a lower pixel count per inch. So we did a real life test to see for ourselves how much better the Apple display is.
My colleague sent me a picture he had preinstalled on the Ipad. You know one of those great looking flower pictures to really show the display quality. We were then holding both tablets next to each other to compare. Of course we both suspected that there would be quite a difference. But actually its the same! Both displays look amazing with great contrast and colors. The only visible difference was when we looked at the screen from about 10cm (4 inches). There you could see that the Samsung tablet has less pixels. But it is completely irrelevant as you would never use it from that distance. So bottom line I think if you worry about this tablets pixel density then try to compare the displays next to each other and you will see that the display is in fact excellent. So my conclusion is that the color quality, contrast and brightness are much more important because thats what you can actually see in real life scenarios.
P.S.: My colleague is quite an Apple fan (he owns Iphone, Ipad, Macbook, Ipod). So the fact that he also said its the same quality really means something. And second, we both don't wear glasses or lenses and should therefore see difference quote clearly (of course its not a lab test).
Hope that helps some other people to make a decision...

The pixel density difference shows up mainly in very small fonts, for instance, if you look at a web page in overview, portrait. Other than that you don't notice much difference.

mitchellvii said:
The pixel density difference shows up mainly in very small fonts, for instance, if you look at a web page in overview, portrait. Other than that you don't notice much difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
And both displays are limited to similar 10 inch screen real estates. These displays have already surpassed the resolutions at which "normal user" productivity/usability will be impacted by further gains.
The retina display is visually striking on my wife's iPad 3, yes, but does not make her more productive. There is only so much information that the human hand, eye and mind can efficiently access at any one time on a 10 inch screen, and increasing resolutions will not overcome this, IMHO.
JC

It's particularly frustrating when reviewers argue that 1280x800 isn't 'good enough' anymore. Worse, they argue most new tablets are higher resolution. In fact, they aren't. Even the Infinity was announced at the same time as the TF300 which has 1280x800.
What they miss is that the Infinity has lower run time and the iPad 3 had to add a beefier battery, making it heavier and thicker, to keep the battery life up because of the higher resolution screen.
Higher resolution IS better, but it's not a linear improvement. Doubling the screen resolution doesn't give you more information - it makes the same information look a bit better. And I'd say QVGA is about as good as it needs to get unless tablets get physically larger.
Unfortunately, most techbloggers are Apple fans and so whatever Apple does is definitively 'the best and the right way to do it' and if someone doesn't go that way - they start with two strikes against them. (Of course, if they DO do it the same way, then they're 'copying'... there's really no way to win with Apple fans...)

bancswissunique said:
Its the same: Galaxy Note 10.1 vs. Ipad 3 (Retina) Display
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, it's not. It's kind of ridiculous to say it is. Text and other visual elements with fine details are significantly better on a FHD display. I notice the graininess all the time in the browser and when reading books or magazines. Is it a show stopper? No. Would I have paid $50 more for a FHD display on the Note? Yes. All the other features (to me) outweighed the 720P display which is why I bought the Note and am happy with my decision. But I wouldn't buy a 720P TV over a 1080P TV all things being equal and I don't think most of you would either.

With a better display you wouldn't have Wacom. Then it would just be an Android iPad clone.

I went from the Infnity to the note and there is a definite and obvious difference in the image quality due to the screen resolution. It goes from extremely noticeable to only slightly noticeable depending on what you are looking at but the difference is obviously there. I'm sure that the retina display has an equally different look. I love the note but no need to deny it's shortcomings.

Agreed. That said, the resolution is a limitation of the Wacom. I'll take Wacom and deal with a mildly substandard screen.

I feel the difference every single second I am using my tablet (unless I am looking at something low resolution zoomed in). Other advantages outweighed this disadvantage, but it's far from being the same as an iPad, or even other 10" tablets that have 1080p screen.

Interesting, since I rarely feel the difference.

Pick one.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

BarryH_GEG said:
Pick one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The XOOM is MVA.

BarryH_GEG said:
Pick one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Neither one applies. Only thing I wish for is IPS.

TheWerewolf said:
It's particularly frustrating when reviewers argue that 1280x800 isn't 'good enough' anymore. Worse, they argue most new tablets are higher resolution. In fact, they aren't. Even the Infinity was announced at the same time as the TF300 which has 1280x800.
What they miss is that the Infinity has lower run time and the iPad 3 had to add a beefier battery, making it heavier and thicker, to keep the battery life up because of the higher resolution screen.
Higher resolution IS better, but it's not a linear improvement. Doubling the screen resolution doesn't give you more information - it makes the same information look a bit better. And I'd say QVGA is about as good as it needs to get unless tablets get physically larger.
Unfortunately, most techbloggers are Apple fans and so whatever Apple does is definitively 'the best and the right way to do it' and if someone doesn't go that way - they start with two strikes against them. (Of course, if they DO do it the same way, then they're 'copying'... there's really no way to win with Apple fans...)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"QVGA"... You think 320x240 is a "good" tablet resolution?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA Premium HD app

The above example with the zoomed in fonts is kinda meaningless. I mean, who holds the screen close enough to see that? I have both the Ipad3 and the Note 10.1. With my eyesight--even with glasses on--I do not see a difference with movies or pictures. In fact, movies look better on the Note because you get roughly 44.5 square inches of screen with the Note compared to 34.5 with the Ipad. (Given a 16:9 movie.) BTW, I have 20:30 near vision and 20:20 distant vision. So it's not like I have horrible vision. As good or better than 90% of the population.
The only time I can see a difference is with small fonts, eyeglasses on, screen held too close. Now, someone with outstanding eyesight may indeed see a difference in fonts. For those people, it could very well be that a higher resolution screen would be a big deal. Myself, even without the pen, it's not worth the marginal difference in sharpness given the compromises necessary to get FHD. With FHD Android tablets, render time is so slow as to make those tablets worthless to me. With the Ipad, the battery makes the Apple 44% heavier per usable square inch of screen area. (Again, given a 16:9 movie...)
Given the constraints current technology imposes, I prefer the resolution on the Note 10.1. A year or two down the road, when compromises aren't required, sure I'd like FHD. I'd pay an extra $50 to get it. I wouldn't pay an extra $100.

Nakel said:
The above example with the zoomed in fonts is kinda meaningless.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So is any discussion that says 147PPI is equal to 264PPI. It makes a difference. If it doesn't make a difference to you that's your thing.

I compared the displays. I don't notice a difference at normal viewing distance so I definitely don't want to pay for more res. For images (pics & video), I like the Note's color & contrast better than the iPad. I don't want any more res until they increase the display size to at least 11.5". But, I thought the iPad 2 also looked good (sharp, clear, easy to read) at normal viewing distance and it has less res than the Note!
---------- Post added at 10:10 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:56 PM ----------
BarryH_GEG said:
So is any discussion that says 147PPI is equal to 264PPI. It makes a difference. If it doesn't make a difference to you that's your thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's obviously more pixels. It makes a difference only if you can *see* the difference. VGA (720x480) looks horrendously jagged to me on almost any size display. The text on my Samsung 720p TV doesn't look as good as the Note. I do see the pixels. The display is 42" though.
When you look at the Note's display at your normal reading distance, do you see the individual pixels? Do you need more pixels to make the text look smooth and clear? Maybe 1280x800 looks (to you) as bad as VGA looks to me?
-------
I'm not trying to give you a hard time. I only know how I see or how things look to me.

There is a difference even with the xda forums regarding the fonts between the note and retina display.
However, the difference is not a deal breaker because the notes display is still very good.

well I haven't used the Ipad but When I had both the infinity and note at thesame time I noticed a big difference When looking at websites and reading comics.the performance tradeoff for the infinity screen was not worth it for me though. I still think about the infinity screen sometimes even several weeks later but the overall benefits of the note are worth the lesser screen for me. I don't even have great vision but the difference was still obvious for me. The pen and smooth performance of the note won out although I do miss the infinity dock also.

BarryH_GEG said:
So is any discussion that says 147PPI is equal to 264PPI. It makes a difference. If it doesn't make a difference to you that's your thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Certainly there's a difference, it's ludicrous to say there isn't. However, depending on eyesight and viewing distance, the difference can be anything from negligible to huge. That's why I pointed out in my post that for some it could be a big deal. For me, at the viewing distance I use, it's negligible. I think the important thing for people is not just to jump to the conclusion that FHD is a big deal without comparing screens for themselves. Some people are going to look at the two screens and think "BFD, what's the difference?" Others will look at the screens and say "Wow, I really like the FHD better." Only actual comparisons will really be useful for buyers. I think all the threads here show just that point. Some could care less about the difference, some think it's noticeable, some think it's a big deal. There's no right or wrong answer. Everyone I've shown both my tablets too can't discern the difference in resolution looking at videos and pictures. But then again, almost every one of those people has been over 45, so eyesight has certainly played a role there.
Just so you know BarryH_GEG, I didn't mean any disrespect with my comment. Your posts have been tremendously helpful to me with a number of devices. I'm very thankful that people like you do so much to help everyone here.

GSM Arena One vs S4

http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_galaxy_s4_vs_htc_one-review-913.php
A must read

AW: GSM Arena One vs S4
It's really the best and most thorough comparison, I've read in a long time. Ultimately it's up to personal preference, which phone you choose.

paranoid2007 said:
It's really the best and most thorough comparison, I've read in a long time. Ultimately it's up to personal preference, which phone you choose.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah it did not make my decision easier, I want them both after reading it

It seemed like a good article although I think they were a bit biased towards the S4 without real justification at times.
For instance, they list the screen size as being in favour of the S4. That is entirely subjective as we know. Personally I prefer 4.7 to 5. Some will rather have 5.

I saw somewhere in local forums that S4's camera is very bad. But GSMarena are in fact saying otherwise.

it's clearly biased in a lot of areas
especially with this BS "it couldnt care less about it looks in a way its making a stronger statement than it's competitor"
a draw in the design area? are you kidding me?
also the screen and battery tests are both very flawed
he did not mention the power saver or brightness during the battery tests (actually brightness)
as for the screen, nothing makes sense, the One has a brighter screen and better view angles, nearly every other review said so
i am willing to accept the ultra pixel comparison, if Samsung indeed is giving a proper 13MP sensor without noise or low light issues than it will definitely destroy the HTC One camera but i have to say they did not do a real low light test
but yes yes if i have to chose i would go for the camera on the S4, its still better than than the big sacrifice in detail
i'm pleased OIS really works on the One and disappointed by the extremely narrow field of view on the S4

Surprisingly, the Samsung Galaxy S4 has the better low-light camera performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What.

Eggcake said:
What.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
but dont miss this, it means the s4 is using a slow shutter speed in low light:
Samsung Galaxy S4. Surprisingly, the Samsung Galaxy S4 has the better low-light camera performance. You'll have to snap several photos to make sure you have a good one, but the end result will be better than what the HTC One produces. The Galaxy S4 has a slight advantage in low-light video too.
The HTC One is more reliable - thanks to its OIS you can snap just one photo and know it will be about as good as it gets. But the camera's performance is simply nothing to write home about, and there are cases when OIS just isn't helping at all (when shooting moving subjects).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

Eggcake said:
What.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some blogs consider evening light as "low light" - then traditional cameras still take better pics. Ultrapixels shine when "low light" means night in a city or a pub.

AW: GSM Arena One vs S4
hamdir said:
a draw in the design area? are you kidding me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it's a draw in the hardware area, which the S4 scores only because of its sd slot and removable battery. I think that's a fair judgement.
As to pure design quote :
From a pure design standpoint, the HTC One wipes the floor with the Samsung Galaxy S4.

Brac20 said:
It seemed like a good article although I think they were a bit biased towards the S4 without real justification at times.
For instance, they list the screen size as being in favour of the S4. That is entirely subjective as we know. Personally I prefer 4.7 to 5. Some will rather have 5.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dude the two phones are the same size. 5 inch is obviously better than 4.7 if the overall size is the same. But you dont get boomsound on the s4.

My only complaint with this review is what they considered low light.
It was still enough light for my OG EVO to capture a decent picture.
Other than that very detailed comparison.
Sent from my EVO using Tapatalk 2

yea they missed the low light point completely
the area the S4 wins is brightness and not light capture, you can easily adjust this on the HTC One using the settings
but like i said i personally would go with a camera like on the S4 but it's not fair to say to claim we are not winning anything at all in low light
we saw tons of samples to prove this already
and most important shutter speed remains the most important area in a smartphone camera, unless you like repeating your photos

epicfailguy2 said:
Dude the two phones are the same size. 5 inch is obviously better than 4.7 if the overall size is the same. But you dont get boomsound on the s4.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry but i disagree. In one handed use i can reach all points on a 4.7 inch screen but not on a 5 inch. So for me the overall unit size isn't the key. Also The One has vastly superior sound so is worth the extra size.
But this is exactly what I mean. It is a completely subjective decision, so putting it in pros and cons in an objective review is biased.

and yes the sound, they say its slightly better but that is also untrue, its vastly as confirmed by many reviews

The worst review I ever seen on photo part. Whatever photo once upscale, it will be bad in quality.
Only GSMArena reviewer will ever upscale the photo size for comparison, fail!
Beside this, the review was obvious biase in certain part.

by the way Gsmarena camera results are really worrying
im almost convinced there are two different sensors used in the HTC One

If you think this could be a reliable test, take a look at this...
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
+47 minutes equals -15 hours??

hamdir said:
by the way Gsmarena camera results are really worrying
im almost convinced there are two different sensors used in the HTC One
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, apparently HTC is working on a software update to help with the camera "issues" that the One is having. I'll withhold judgement on the camera until that is put out and we have time to see how it affects camera performance.

I think the GSMArena takes manipulation of the mind to the level an art (like others do too), the way they twist some characterstics to seem like advantages and then go completely the other way around when it comes to others. Even when they give high praise to a phone's characteristic they can make it so that you feel like the other one is even better. It is an art which is played mostly at an subconscious level.
In the end it's not a conspiracy, it is problably just a need for good web traffic=money and they can make it so by praising the dominant company. There are probably dozens of millions of Samsung users and it is better to make them think and be at ease with the Samsung product they have chosen, being gratified with the fact that they are on the best side - its just a mind calming factor + gets your site lots of mouse clicks.
S4 is a beast but for me the qualities i seek in a phone put the HTC One on top and the S4 problably not even second.
PS: the most worrying thing is what hamdir said about the camera. Hope it does not turn out to be true but there seem to be a big difference in the quality of the photos between different reviews. Seems like this delayed launch is good for me as i can look further into this problem.

LG please do not need to artificially increase the saturation and sharpness

Because there is a halo
http://www.phonearena.com/news/The-dark-side-of-the-LG-G3-5-mighty-annoying-features_id57222
and unnatural colors
(not visible horizontal stripes)
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
(not true color)

Is it sharpness control, or simply some content not looking good due to the content's native resolution? Qhd monitors can have the same issue and depends how well the panel works with the gpu that is outputting signal. Maybe something that can be corrected in a low level hardware update.
Several reviews have pointed this out as well as some users, but not widespread enough to suggest all content is over sharpened.
BTW, this thread is a lit match for the fuse and powder keg known as G3 fans.

more http://anandtech.com/show/8169/the-lg-g3-review/2

Fans will still deny and call the naysayers trolls. I guess Anandtech is a troll now along with other reviews and users pointing out the Qhd was more a negative than a positive for the display compared to 1080p.
Still, can the over sharpness be fixed, or an issue with the display? Great for owners if can be turned off.

the font sharpening on some background colors is really bad and hard to read for the eyes. i hope lg gives us the option to disable it or reduce it for a better reading experience.

rushless said:
Fans will still deny and call the naysayers trolls. I guess Anandtech is a troll now along with other reviews and users pointing out the Qhd was more a negative than a positive for the display compared to 1080p.
Still, can the over sharpness be fixed, or an issue with the display? Great for owners if can be turned off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can understand them.
About sharpness and saturation, I read that they artificially (using software) made it such a. At a very low level. I do not know whether it is possible to fix

LG, fix it asap.
thank you.

rushless said:
Fans will still deny and call the naysayers trolls. I guess Anandtech is a troll now along with other reviews and users pointing out the Qhd was more a negative than a positive for the display compared to 1080p.
Still, can the over sharpness be fixed, or an issue with the display? Great for owners if can be turned off.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh, yeah. Me thinks that Anand is tooo nit-picking. I guess the future Galaxy F review will be all praise and kudos. But I definitely sure that LG will turn off oversharping in some future updates, maybe will just leave it on in Asia and Korean ROMs

This is how bad the sharpening is.
Image taken with screenshot (no sharpening from display): http://i.imgur.com/J61hGfV.png
What you see when you look at the display (sharpening): http://i.imgur.com/ksWu5e7.jpg , http://i.imgur.com/HWDQrHE.jpg

dhkx said:
This is how bad the sharpening is.
Image taken with screenshot (no sharpening from display): http://i.imgur.com/J61hGfV.png
What you see when you look at the display (sharpening): http://i.imgur.com/ksWu5e7.jpg , http://i.imgur.com/HWDQrHE.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please tell me your not comparing a screenshot to a selfie taken in a mirror -_-
I've read all this stuff before when i bought my yoga 2 pro, being the first 3200x1800 res laptop. Nothing but comparisons to 1080p displays, critics talking about color inaccuracies. All the credible reviews said it was a total failure and more of a negative that a plus. But i'm glad I picked it up, I was able to hold it and hold a samsung notebook with a 1080p display and honestly it was night and day, the higher res wins. Maybe that's just me cuz i have 20/10 vision but if resolution is important to you don't overthink it and take all these display calibration tests too seriously. Make the judgement for yourself.

Heisenberg420 said:
Please tell me your not comparing a screenshot to a selfie taken in a mirror -_-
I've read all this stuff before when i bought my yoga 2 pro, being the first 3200x1800 res laptop. Nothing but comparisons to 1080p displays, critics talking about color inaccuracies. All the credible reviews said it was a total failure and more of a negative that a plus. But i'm glad I picked it up, I was able to hold it and hold a samsung notebook with a 1080p display and honestly it was night and day, the higher res wins. Maybe that's just me cuz i have 20/10 vision but if resolution is important to you don't overthink it and take all these display calibration tests too seriously. Make the judgement for yourself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mirror? What mirror? That is a picture I took of my G3. What do you even mean by "make the judgement for yourself"? I bought the G3 and have it with me, do you? The oversharpening is a flaw in the LG's software or display. It causes display problems with certain fonts (most obvious with a black font and a light coloured background) and it is a significant issue if you read ebooks. Hopefully this is something that LG can fix through a firmware update.

I previously had a G2, I think the G3 screen (color wise) looks fantastic.
Sent from my LG G3 using Tapatalk

dhkx said:
Mirror? What mirror? That is a picture I took of my G3. What do you even mean by "make the judgement for yourself"? I bought the G3 and have it with me, do you? The oversharpening is a serious flaw in the LG's software or display. It causes display problems with certain fonts and it is a significant issue if you read ebooks. Hopefully this is something that LG can fix through a firmware update.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point is 90% of the critics are complaining about things most people wouldn't ever notice on their own. No I don't own a g3 right now and no I don't normally read ebooks. (and I can't really see anything wrong with the text in your pic)
When I say make the judgement for yourself I'm talking to the majority of us who don't own the phone, because I see way too many people (on here, reviews, supercurio) saying terrible things about the display. Just saying that from experience as I've been in this boat before buying the first 'next gen display' while it's being compared to 1080p displays that have been on the market for a while that have all the kinks worked out already.

Heisenberg420 said:
and I can't really see anything wrong with the text in your pic
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you might need to borrow my glasses then. maybe lay off the bong for a few days

Enddo said:
I think you might need to borrow my glasses then. maybe lay off the bong for a few days
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol I have 20/10 vision but I guess your eyes have better judgement.

dhkx said:
This is how bad the sharpening is.
Image taken with screenshot (no sharpening from display): http://i.imgur.com/J61hGfV.png
What you see when you look at the display (sharpening): http://i.imgur.com/ksWu5e7.jpg , http://i.imgur.com/HWDQrHE.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This looks pretty bad. Would you be kind and show us classic Kindle black text on white bck? I'd greatly appreciate it!

I noticed this when my phone's firmware got upgraded a few days back. The text seems a bit weird.

Heisenberg420 said:
My point is 90% of the critics are complaining about things most people wouldn't ever notice on their own. No I don't own a g3 right now and no I don't normally read ebooks. (and I can't really see anything wrong with the text in your pic)
When I say make the judgement for yourself I'm talking to the majority of us who don't own the phone, because I see way too many people (on here, reviews, supercurio) saying terrible things about the display. Just saying that from experience as I've been in this boat before buying the first 'next gen display' while it's being compared to 1080p displays that have been on the market for a while that have all the kinks worked out already.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have seen the sharpness issue and the only way you will not notice it is if the new device pixie dust does not wear off. Anandtech and other reputable sites as will as users have noticed it.
Should be a simple setting that LG can turn off. Hopefully.

Well, I love my G3, I haven't been near a bong in years, and my vision is perfectly good (with contacts).
I find the oversharpening is irritating too, though. So any software fix would be very welcome.
Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk

rushless said:
I have seen the sharpness issue and the only way you will not notice it is if the new device pixie dust does not wear off. Anandtech and other reputable sites as will as users have noticed it.
Should be a simple setting that LG can turn off. Hopefully.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Definitely is. The find 7 uses the same screen and doesn't do the over sharpening. I think they did it to try to emphasize the need for the resolution.

Confusing reviews

Hi guys. I rang my local store here today and got a price of €420 euro for the z3 without contract which seems pretty good given that the samsung alpha here is €570. Also the z3 compact is priced at being £430 in the uk so not quiet sure why its cheaper here in Ireland as usually we pay more for products then anywhere else ha
Anyways iam tempted to pull the trigger but for some confusing reviews i have read! Most reviews claim the resolution is poor and the screen is not as sharp as the competition, images look washed out and the camera is not as good as you would expect from a 20.7mp camera , color accuracy is way off and images look washed out etc and one review claimed the battery life was ok but not as good as sony claimed!
However i have also seen two reviews that say the opposite and claim the display is the best 720p they have ever seen, the camera is among the best out there and that battery life is incredible!
Can anyone that owns the device give they're impressions?
Currently own a htc one m7 which has been good to me . I often change phones regularly but have kept this for almost 2 years and it works flawlessly and is still as snappy as ever to this day so iam slightly worried about the z3 compact not being a significant upgrade! Ill miss the htc sense widgets and although iam not fan of the sony home screen and lock screen look , Iam loving the specs and the fact i can use the phone comfortable in one hand! Would have got the z3 but see it as being a little too big

Blaalad12 said:
Hi guys. I rang my local store here today and got a price of €420 euro for the z3 without contract which seems pretty good given that the samsung alpha here is €570. Also the z3 compact is priced at being £430 in the uk so not quiet sure why its cheaper here in Ireland as usually we pay more for products then anywhere else ha
Anyways iam tempted to pull the trigger but for some confusing reviews i have read! Most reviews claim the resolution is poor and the screen is not as sharp as the competition, images look washed out and the camera is not as good as you would expect from a 20.7mp camera , color accuracy is way off and images look washed out etc and one review claimed the battery life was ok but not as good as sony claimed!
However i have also seen two reviews that say the opposite and claim the display is the best 720p they have ever seen, the camera is among the best out there and that battery life is incredible!
Can anyone that owns the device give they're impressions?
Currently own a htc one m7 which has been good to me . I often change phones regularly but have kept this for almost 2 years and it works flawlessly and is still as snappy as ever to this day so iam slightly worried about the z3 compact not being a significant upgrade! Ill miss the htc sense widgets and although iam not fan of the sony home screen and lock screen look , Iam loving the specs and the fact i can use the phone comfortable in one hand! Would have got the z3 but see it as being a little too big
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll soon be buying this phone as well. About the resolution, my current phone has the same resolution on a slightly smaller display of 4.3", with a pixel density of 342 ppi and the image is so sharp that I cannot distinguish pixels with the naked eye no matter how hard I try. The Z3 Compact has 319 ppi on its 4.6" display, which really isn't much lower at all. I can imagine the pixels will still be too small to distinguish with the naked eye. Okay, maybe if, for some reason, you use the phone under a magnifying glass or if you hold it flat against your face, it won't look very sharp (duh). But if you just use your phone like normal, I'm sure the display on the Z3C will appear perfectly sharp.
About the colour: ExpertReviews, for example, claims that the whites are white enough (they describe it as "ice white"). They mention the white balance option on the device, but said that they felt no need to adjust the white balance.

With regard to camera quality, most reviews had it in Superior Auto Mode that saves the file about 8MP. Those who own one are saying the Manual Mode is where you can see the pic quality excel. I trust DXO mark more than others. Here's how they rank the phones based on IQ. This is the older generation Z2 that is using very similar lens albeit there is slight improvement on the Z3. Just not sure if the improvement is in the hardware or software. Full review can be found here:
http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles/Sony-Xperia-Z2-overview-Revised-model-takes-first-place-in-Mobile-rankings
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}

I just got my Z3c today; I've had a M8 until today and a M7 before that. I honestly can't tell that the screen is 720 instead of 1080, and everything, from pictures to videos to text, looks very sharp. I don't see any color accuracy issues, and I'd say color reproduction is the same (as far as I can tell) as on the M8 and M7. I love the size of the device, and it's a great feeling to be able to use my phone with 1 hand lol. I'd say go for it!

LastQuark said:
With regard to camera quality, most reviews had it in Superior Auto Mode that saves the file about 8MP. Those who own one are saying the Manual Mode is where you can see the pic quality excel. I trust DXO mark more than others. Here's how they rank the phones based on IQ. This is the older generation Z2 that is using very similar lens albeit there is slight improvement on the Z3. Just not sure if the improvement is in the hardware or software. Full review can be found here:
http://www.dxomark.com/Mobiles/Sony-Xperia-Z2-overview-Revised-model-takes-first-place-in-Mobile-rankings
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uhh they have the Nokia 1020 under the Iphone 5 and s4... that can't be right

First off, 720/1080p means nothing. Pixel density is what actually matters, and 720p at 4.6" is more than high enough to be a non-issue unless you hold the phone up to your eyeballs.
Likewise, megapixel count doesn't mean as much as people think. The sensor size matters more, and at 1/3" it's larger than most. It's not the best smartphone camera on the market, but it's still quite good.
The colors are poorly calibrated out of the box, and it does look bad, but it's trivial to fix in the color settings, so that's not really a big deal.
Battery life is never as good as the manufacturer claims, but it's still pretty good so far. I haven't had it long enough to really tell you for sure though.

Blaalad12 said:
Hi guys. I rang my local store here today and got a price of €420 euro for the z3 without contract which seems pretty good given that the samsung alpha here is €570. Also the z3 compact is priced at being £430 in the uk so not quiet sure why its cheaper here in Ireland as usually we pay more for products then anywhere else ha
Anyways iam tempted to pull the trigger but for some confusing reviews i have read! Most reviews claim the resolution is poor and the screen is not as sharp as the competition, images look washed out and the camera is not as good as you would expect from a 20.7mp camera , color accuracy is way off and images look washed out etc and one review claimed the battery life was ok but not as good as sony claimed!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
- I'm sorry but any review that complains about the resolution not being sharp enough you can just ignore, because that reviewer clearly has no idea what he/she is talking about...
- Color calibration in terms of the screen can be changed to your liking, most/many people don't like the default color scheme so they did some adjustments.
- Camera really isn't as bad as they say... in some situations it's not as good as the rest, but it's NOT BAD (That's mostly in low light situations)
My tip for you:
Don't get your phone based on other people reviews, because they seem to affect you A LOT! There are more positive reviews than bad ones, but yet you seem to have picked out the bad ones.
Get the phone in your hands (in a shop), play with it and then decide.

The display for me is the single most important aspect of any mobile, and I've not bought any of the Z Series because of it (although the Z2 display did look good). For that reason I was extremely judgemental when first using the Z3C.
I don't think you have anything to worry about in terms of quality or sharpness. The contrast is great and the default calibration does indeed produce icy whites (which I personally prefer to warmer whites).
I haven't used the camera yet, but other things that have impressed me are the build quality - especially the finish of the plastic sides, the bezels, which looks smaller in person than the promo photos suggest, and the sheer speed of the device. It's incredibly snappy!
I'm more impressed than I thought I'd be
Sent from my LT26i using Tapatalk

@stormbeta, it's a 1/2.3 sensor

Cronis said:
Uhh they have the Nokia 1020 under the Iphone 5 and s4... that can't be right
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem with the 1020 is it's great at certain things, awful at others. It's a really inconsistent camera. DxO's ratings reward consistency - a camera that's pretty good at everything trumps one that's really good at some things. That's why the last few iPhones have scored so high - they do a decent job of most things.
In their element, the 1020 and 808 are unbeaten. Unfortunately they aren't that great as day-to-day snappers.

I'm very impressed by this device so far coming from a galaxy s3. The display is absolutely fine. Everyone that says otherwise is just a spec whore (xcuse my language). And you can even tweak the colors yourself!
And the best part: 720p with high end hardware means silky smooth operation in every situation. I have never held an android device this fast. Even turning the screen on is just instant. No lag whatsoever. I'd say this is even faster than iPhone.
Camera? I have no idea about quality but the dedicated button is more important for my use than quality. If I want to make quality pictures I don't use my smartphone anyway..
If you want a high end smartphone in a smaller form factor this is the best device out there. No doubt about it.