Related
So lately I've been hearing commercials now about the incredible where they reference their new "Super LCD" displays. Please help me re-affirm my assumptions that this is a marketing change and not a technological one. That is, phones with LCD displays are trying to claim they're still relevant/getting better without ACTUALLY changing anything about the technology (and grabbing the "super" from "super amoled"). Or am I incorrect and they actually did make some progress at making LCD any better? Not that I'd ever trade in my precious epic, but I'm just the kind of guy who likes to call BS on everything marketing.
It is better the LCD..but its no Super AMOLED...think of it like TVS...when LCD first came out and LCD now...Super LCD is just a higher quality LCD..but its still LCD...
Aka is it an improvement? Yes, is it a marketing gimmick? Yes..
There is also an increase from 800x480 to 960x680 if not mistaken, but yeah it went up.
lepapirriky said:
There is also an increase from 800x480 to 960x680 if not mistaken, but yeah it went up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nah, thats not true. the only manufacturers that have a 960x640 resolution in a cellphone is Apple(retina display) and Sharp (yet to be released is03)
SLCD supposedly has a better viewing angle - essentially an IPS screen.
What about battery life? IS SLCD better than our AMOLED screens in terms of how much energy is sucked down?
Apollo83 said:
What about battery life? IS SLCD better than our AMOLED screens in terms of how much energy is sucked down?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This really depends on the display configuration. If you have a SAMOLED display with a light background and dark text, you're going to use up a LOT of power, especially in bright daylight. LCD *technically* uses less power in this scenario; LCD requires most power when displaying an all-black screen, as ALL the transistors, and thereby display crystals, are being subjected to power, effectively blocking out the backlight. It's possible though that some screens are smart enough to dim the backlight in this case, increasing your contrast, but as long as any white is being displayed, the backlight will goto full.
So, on dark backgrounds, SAMOLED wins quite easily, whereas LCD will suck down the same amount of power no matter what is displayed, with the very small exception that displaying all black (or dark) will draw a negligibly-larger amount of power.
From my own testing, I can see that SAMOLED occupies a lot more battery usage percentage than when I had the Evo. This could be because the Epic's radio power management is better, or because it has been using more power to display, I'm not quite sure, though I'll venture to say that it's the display.
That's why I use dark backgrounds for whatever I can - it does make a difference, and saves on wear and tear. Honestly though, it might be within 10-20% power requirement difference between the two technologies at any given time.
greengoldmello said:
nah, thats not true. the only manufacturers that have a 960x640 resolution in a cellphone is Apple(retina display) and Sharp (yet to be released is03)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah, wrong display.
Ok, so there was a huge thread going on about the differences and about the samoled+ being over-saturated and such: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1016334&highlight=pentile&page=4
It has been closed down, for a reason. Egos where burning up, and with every argument more friendliness disappeared.
I think it all started with a picture of parrots, where you couldn't see the black on the feathers good enough or something. (damn its starting to sound really silly atm)
ANYWAY, I wanted to clear up the parrot issue, samsung uses something called DNIe+ to improve the rendering an imaging of pictures and video's. Since the shown pictures are quite old, it was using the demo version of the s2, which had (pretty much untested) DNIe+.
Try the picture on your own phone and you will see what I mean. Samsung did a good job fixing the (oversaturation blah blah blah) colouring. We can all be happy now with a nice vibrant screen. And if you cant handle it, get the I9003 which uses some cheaper tech
Peace
Heres a link explaining what it does for samsung tv's which is in fact quite similar..
http://www.techtipspro.com/2009/08/what-is-dnie-pro-in-samsung-tv.html
The problem with doing comparative studies of displays with camera is the fact that most people do full brightness tests.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED Plus both tend to have much higher brightness and contrast ratio than LCDs.
If you are using auto settings to shoot, your camera will adjust aperture and shutter which wont be suitable for either LCD(be it retina, SLCD SCLCD) or SAMOLED display. It will either make AMOLED looks too bright and washed out or it will make LCD too dark.
The best way to do this is to use your eyes to determine the appropriate brightness level on all 3 displays so that you are getting best possible result from them and shoot at ISO100 and smallest possible aperture setting that your camera can do manually and preferably 1/30 shutter and then compare pics. It will be highly subjective test, but it will be fair one.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED + both tend to look way over saturated indoors even to naked eye if kept at full brightness.
Any test using a camera should be done with a DSLR using manual (and constant settings), but even then it's hard to say if the problems you see come from the screen, the camera, or the screen on which you're looking at the pictures. So yeah, the only way to make your opinion is by comparing the screens side by side by yourself.
Also, it's often a matter of personal tastes : For example I want my TV and PC monitor to have very accurate colors, but I really don't mind if my phone has over saturated colors since I rarely use it to look at pictures or movies, and even when I do it's not in optimal conditions so I don't care, and I prefer to have vivid colors in the UIs.
Funkym0nkey said:
SAMOLED and SAMOLED Plus both tend to have much higher brightness and contrast ratio than LCDs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I disagree : They have a much better contrast ratio (virtually infinite) because the blacks are truly black. But the brightness is on par with most LCDs and lower than the best LCD screens. You can see the figures in this article by anandtech : Super AMOLED screens are around 350-400 nits whereas iPhone 4 is at 571, chich is why it's better in the sunlight.
I still think I prefer Spuer AMOLED + though because I mainly use my phone indoors and it's amazing to have true blacks.
So which technology is the winner?
P/S: I heart that Samsung will make a super amoled plus screen with high resolution as something called "retina" by apple.
It will be included in Samsung galaxy S3. Can anyone confirm such rumours for me?
azulgranas said:
So which technology is the winner?
P/S: I heart that Samsung will make a super amoled plus screen with high resolution as something called "retina" by apple.
It will be included in Samsung galaxy S3. Can anyone confirm such rumours for me?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have a read.
http://www.oled-info.com/super-amoled-plus-resolution-further-details
I can more-or-less confirm this. I mean, just read. The technology is there, it just needs a new production line and product line "components".
Samsung also have the advantage here, because they have the biggest AMOLED production facilities and so they can produce these AMOLED screens, whereas it is too expensive for other companies to do the same.
The link says they don't know when they're going to be using it. WRONG! If you follow some links to more recent articles, on the similar topic, it says they plan to have these being produced by the end of the year - so there's a high chance, that this time next year, we're gonna see a 300PPI+ Super AMOLED screens.......................................................................or flexible ones. :S
Funkym0nkey said:
The problem with doing comparative studies of displays with camera is the fact that most people do full brightness tests.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED Plus both tend to have much higher brightness and contrast ratio than LCDs.
If you are using auto settings to shoot, your camera will adjust aperture and shutter which wont be suitable for either LCD(be it retina, SLCD SCLCD) or SAMOLED display. It will either make AMOLED looks too bright and washed out or it will make LCD too dark.
The best way to do this is to use your eyes to determine the appropriate brightness level on all 3 displays so that you are getting best possible result from them and shoot at ISO100 and smallest possible aperture setting that your camera can do manually and preferably 1/30 shutter and then compare pics. It will be highly subjective test, but it will be fair one.
SAMOLED and SAMOLED + both tend to look way over saturated indoors even to naked eye if kept at full brightness.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The best way is to actually run measurements of contrast, gamma and color saturation. I have run measurements on the SGSII display:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1124669
If there is someone in Frankfurt who has an iPhone 4 or a phone with SLCD, I am happy to measure them too (takes less than 1 hour per phone).
How to watch Live streaming on Samsung galaxy ?
Here is link may solve your problem
Watch Live stream on mobile...
Can't really compare them all as long as Sammy makes/or at least made money on those 3 screen techs, with the Super Amoled plus on the S2, Super clear lcd in gt-i9003 and the display in apple products (esp. the iphone, the oh so called "retina display") being supplied by Sammy (or companies which Sammy have investments).
The lack of AMOLED is currently the only reason I haven't switched to a Sony device yet, so I just wanted a thread to gauge interest in having AMOLED screens on future devices.
I know the pros and cons of both AMOLED and LCD/IPS so there's not much point discussing those unless you really want to.
Don't necessarily care for it. More interested in a 5.5 or 5.7 inch screen.
Amoled can be better for the battery but I dislike the screen burn that occurs after a year or so. (Can vary based on how much phone is used.)
Sent from my SM-G900P
AMOLED looks real nice but between burn in and extra battery drain on light colors, I'll stick with LCD.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
I much prefer IPS over AMOLED. AMOLED is overly saturated and typically in a pentile subpixel arragement leading to an inferior amount of subpixels.
IPS is one of the reasons I prefer Sony devices.
I can still see the pixellation in AMOLED screens, even in the Galaxy S5. Most people don't notice it, but I do - and because I know it's there, it will always bother me. AMOLED has poor color reproduction, and the screen has the potential to burn in (review units at any big box store are almost invariably burned in, even after only two weeks of constantly being on).
IPS LCD is the only thing I will consider.
IPS+ LCD is the best vivid display with true-to-life colours, especially with x-reality and Triluminos display.
Gorgenapper said:
at any big box store are almost invariably burned in, even after only two weeks of constantly being on).
IPS LCD is the only thing I will consider.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
npaladin2000 said:
AMOLED looks real nice but between burn in and extra battery drain on light colors, I'll stick with LCD.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Burn in has stopped being a problem a long time ago. I have a Note 2, no burn in issues, nor on my Note 1 before, or Galaxy S2 or Galaxy S before that.
You should have the screen auto switch-off after 10 minutes (or less) anyway, it will just drain the battery. The reason you see demo models getting burn in is because they never switch the screen off. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not..
wrsg said:
Burn in has stopped being a problem a long time ago. I have a Note 2, no burn in issues, nor on my Note 1 before, or Galaxy S2 or Galaxy S before that.
You should have the screen auto switch-off after 10 minutes (or less) anyway, it will just drain the battery. The reason you see demo models getting burn in is because they never switch the screen off. I thought that was obvious, but I guess not..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right, but even if you don't consider burn-in, AMOLED definitely has it's tradeoffs. LG, Sony, Apple, HTC all use IPS LCD. Off the top of my head Samsung and Motorola are the only companies using AMOLED in high end devices, definitely the minority, not the majority.
Also keep in mind that the Note 2 does not use the typical pentile matrix that most AMOLED panels use
se1000 said:
Right, but even if you don't consider burn-in, AMOLED definitely has it's tradeoffs. LG, Sony, Apple, HTC all use IPS LCD. Off the top of my head Samsung and Motorola are the only companies using AMOLED in high end devices, definitely the minority, not the majority.
Also keep in mind that the Note 2 does not use the typical pentile matrix that most AMOLED panels use
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just because it's the minority doesn't make it inherently bad. It's less used because it's more expensive, which is why Samsung and Motorola devices are usually more expensive than the others.
It has its tradeoffs but it also has benefits, less battery draw, more comfortable on the eyes, better contrast (imo). A lot of it is subjective, but I just want to raise awareness of the benefits and hopefully get more people asking the companies for AMOLED.
The day Sony introduce AMOLED, that's the day I will for sure stop supporting them.
Less battery draw is situational. Only when you're dealing with dark apps will there be less battery draw, since black pixels draw no power on AMOLED. Looking at Facebook or websites or other things with a lot of bright or white backgrounds requires more pixels to be lit up, thereby consuming more power.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
npaladin2000 said:
Less battery draw is situational. Only when you're dealing with dark apps will there be less battery draw, since black pixels draw no power on AMOLED. Looking at Facebook or websites or other things with a lot of bright or white backgrounds requires more pixels to be lit up, thereby consuming more power.
Sent from my LG-D851 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Untrue
http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/oleds-ready-for-the-mainstream
wrsg said:
Untrue
http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/oleds-ready-for-the-mainstream
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That article was from TWO THOUSAND AND NINE!!!!!! A lot has changed for both technologies. Overall, I would say AMOLED and LCD are pretty close, with the edge actually going to LCD these days. Just lookup different devices with the same specs and look at screen on time figure. For example, the G2 had better screen on time figures than the S4 by a long shot (and I believe the S5 as well)
I'm in no way saying that AMOLED is bad by any means, I'm just saying that it isn't a superior technology either.
Personally as long as a screen has +400ppi it's really going to be sharp from any reasonable viewing distance. IPS has made strides in contrast ratio and color accuracy (gamut). AMOLED has improved in green/blue cast, and the ppi increases have negated the pentile issue.
In the end, a good screen is a good screen.
wrsg said:
Untrue
http://www.electronicsnews.com.au/news/oleds-ready-for-the-mainstream
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should understand that battery drain doesn't only comprise of the display itself. You must take other things into considerations. (wakelock, background apps, etc.) And if you really talk about display wise, it's true that AMOLED display allows better saturation in terms of colours and also better contrast ratio due to the no-black-pixel lighting up, but on light surfaces it still suffers on battery drain. You want a phone without such issues? Just go back to Nokia 3310 then
And if AMOLED screen is as expensive as an IPS+ LCD screen, I suggest you go check with factories and see how much it's actually made. From my source, they would either practically be the same price, or IPS+ screen tends to be slightly more expensive.
Display is always personal preferences. I'd rather an IPS+ screen due to the natural colors that it produce and it really stands out on the Z2/Z3 as I had hands-on on both of them. And if you are going to discuss this, why not head towards the General Android section? There will be a hell lot of people which will be throwing a lot of facts out making you understand better. No point making this discussion here. Not like Sony will ever go for AMOLED display. They'd rather the real colors then over-saturated and unnatural colors.
I don't want a phone with AMOLED, because the color representation isn't accurate as IPS.
What I would like to see is a phone with LCD IPS display lightened by RGB LED, most LCD panels use WLED (white LED).
RGB LED increase the color representation and color contrast.
When you see small tracks on a solid color picture (from light blue to dark blue for example) it's a problem that RGB LED don't suffer from.
Sent from my Xperia Z2 using Tapatalk
I wouldn't say IPS is a deal breaker to me but, oh man, Z3 would be catching my attention much more with a Amoled display. I was using a Galaxy s4 and now I'm on moto g (gave the s4 to my wife) and I really miss the dark blacks. The blacks on ips is just a light gray.
As the Note4 Display has just been tested as the best mobile display currently available, there is no reasonable argument not to opt for AMOLED in the future - except availability and price.
This includes brightness, color accuracy AND brightness as well as efficiency!
Based on our extensive Lab tests and measurements, the Galaxy Note 4 is the Best performing Smartphone display that we have ever tested. It matches or breaks new records in Smartphone display performance for: Highest Absolute Color Accuracy, Highest Screen Resolution, Infinite Contrast Ratio, Highest Peak Brightness, Highest Contrast Rating in Ambient Light, and the smallest Brightness Variation with Viewing Angle. Its Color Management capability provides multiple Color Gamuts – a major advantage that is not currently provided by any of the other leading Smartphones
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm
Bäcker said:
As the Note4 Display has just been tested as the best mobile display currently available, there is no reasonable argument not to opt for AMOLED in the future - except availability and price.
This includes brightness, color accuracy AND brightness as well as efficiency!
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed, people seem to be either grossly misinformed or because X brand uses LCD instead of OLED, they've either become a fanboy of the former or opponent of the latter. Samsung's newer AMOLEDs are hands down the best mobile displays available. There isn't even any competition, to claim otherwise is silly.
They offer far better blacks, contrast ratio (which is vital on a mobile - daylight and outdoors), much wider colour gamut (and accuracy) than any *mobile* IPS panel and lower power draw. Aside from this, pixel responsiveness is effectively instant; for motion, games and overall fluidity and responsiveness they are MASSIVELY better than IPS .. this is the reason the Samsung phones seem so smooth (not because they're faster or have some kind of software or driver based special sauce). Also, because the panel is less brittle, it's less likely to suffer catastrophic damage or the glass/plastic cover smash or crack. They also use fewer toxic substances than LCDs.
As far as I'm concerned, the only other game in town is Sharp's IZGO technology. This because it can potentially eliminate bezels much more easily than competing display tech (see latest Sharp phones), and it reduces IPS-like panels' power draw.
The Quantom Dot filters in Amazon's Kindle tablet do improve colours and blacks a little, but it's really expensive at the moment, and is perhaps a better partner for VA panels, which have much deeper blacks and better contrast than IPS (Sony uses QD filters in their Triluminos VA panel TVs). Also they use Cadmium Selenide, and Cadmium is a very nasty substance.
Emissive Quantum Dot (once they have eliminated Cadmium) is perhaps the holy grail, in a few years time, since it should have none of the longevity issues of OLEDs, and all of the low power, (potentially) low cost, high gamut, high responsiveness benefits.
Anyway, for now I'll be happy with my Z3 Compact that'll be arriving early next week, and use it to complement my Jolla, hopefully with a Sailfish port in due time .... but a Samsung AMOLED screen on a Z4 or 5 Compact would only make it more desirable, in my view.
mudnightoil said:
this is the reason the Samsung phones seem so smooth
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Frankly that is a laughable statement, as Samsung Android devices are anything but smooth given their TouchWIZ-based bloat.
mudnightoil said:
The Quantom Dot filters in Amazon's Kindle tablet do improve colours and blacks a little, but it's really expensive at the moment, and is perhaps a better partner for VA panels, which have much deeper blacks and better contrast than IPS (Sony uses QD filters in their Triluminos VA panel TVs).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Xperia Z3 is supposed to be using Triluminous technology that includes quantum dots. That will probably have to be confirmed once the phones are released, since in the past there have been Triluminous phones without incorporating quantum dots, but the possibility exists.
While there are some things I like about AMOLED, unless you have content optimized for it, it's very battery inefficient. And the most popular smartphone applications are generally things like Facebook, web browsing, and a few other things that still don't offer a "dark" mode optimized for AMOLED, that minimizes the number of lit background pixels. White backgrounds are not a friend of AMOLED. .
Hey guys,
I am thinking of buying one of this mobiles. They both seems very good, got 3GB of RAM, big display (i want some bigger phone), but.... I am wondering which one have better display and which one got better battery. This is probably the most important for me.
If someone have more experience and use some of this i would appreciate your thinking.
Thanks in advance.
Note 4
Luckily for you, I've owned both phones since the month each got released.
Note 4:
Pros- bigger battery ( I've noticed slightly longer battery life)
- outstanding screen
- Pen
- Removable battery
- dont need to turn off phone to remove micro sd
- Ir blaster
- plethora of cases/accessories
Cons:
- Phone sometimes feels cumbersome to use
- Touchwiz sucks
Xperia z5
Pros:
- Sexy as hell
- Waterproof
- Normal screen size
- Camera button
Cons:
- Back gets warm pretty quick
- Doesn't have any of the pros listed for note 4
------------------------------------
Get the note. Every time I use my note 4 for something I notice how much crisper the screen is, and I hate not having that on the Xperia. Samsung did a really good job packing a ton of features in the note 4 and the screen will keep it future-proof longer than the Xperia. I actually prefer the note 4 to note 5. ( buy the unlocked version and install note 5 rom on it, you'll get the note 4's removable back + new software)
I also owned both and I should say Z5 screen is way superior to note 4.at least mine.I still have note 4 and can answer questions if you have any.
PS:note is easier to root and flash CM if you care.I had to return my Z5 because of lack of root for locked BL.I'm back to my Z2 and N4 is collecting dust.lol.
RE
Man,
Thanks a lot for this brief.
I always think that Sony have better display, probably because I am a big fan of Sony. But now when I see that Note wins bots display and battery I will for sure go for Note 4.
Just one more thing, because i am not that kind good with android and software. When you installed new custom rom to Note 4 you had no bugs or something like that? I found on forums that it can be very bad doing this so i need your opinion?
Thanks in advance!
Lol, comparing an OLED display vs any LCD display and pretending that LCDS can be on par or better than OLED displays is so dillusional its actually funny!
I would still choose Z5 but for different reasons: 1 performance, note 4 has a weaker cpu and gpu, z5 camera is more sophisticated than note 4 camera except z5 camera has no OIS and lacks several manual functions, but me and many others can live with that, Z5 has real radio, Z5 has water proof support and z5 has dedicated camera button.
Re
So many different opinions.
@ TheWarKeeper
Can you please tell me your experience with battery. I need it for my job and i am using a lot of calls, email-s, social networks.... Can it last at least one day.
TheWarKeeper said:
Lol, comparing an OLED display vs any LCD display and pretending that LCDS can be on par or better than OLED displays is so dillusional its actually funny!
I would still choose Z5 but for different reasons: 1 performance, note 4 has a weaker cpu and gpu, z5 camera is more sophisticated than note 4 camera except z5 camera has no OIS and lacks several manual functions, but me and many others can live with that, Z5 has real radio, Z5 has water proof support and z5 has dedicated camera button.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's not black and white. LCDs can and tend to be able to display proper white (sometimes you need to tweak it via white balance settings but YOU can have it unlike OLEDs) while OLEDs tend to have difficulty with it and never truly achieves proper whites and you have to calibrate with time due to OLEDs organic nature. But in contrary OLEDs displays deep blacks due to switching of the organic pixel (LCDs cant switch of becouse the R G B channels are just filters on top of the backlight). White is more important though as that is what is used most in apps, themes and so on. And due to the OLED being organic the blue, red and green pixel component each have a life length and blue has less than the other 2 which means having bright/white things displayed on your OLED would shorten the blue components life length faster resulting in uneven colors on the screen, "burn-ins" and it just gets worse with time.
LCDs dont have this problem becouse the only thing you lose with time is the brightness due to the backlight getting worn and so you can compensate by increasing brightness intensity. And Sony TFT and IPS LCD for their Z1+ lineup comes with Triluminos which adds an extra component to help the pixels and extends the color range to 85% of Adobe RGB 1998 ICC color profile which is far more than a regular LCD can do giving rich and accurate colors that without problems rivals OLEDs while still being proper and true to life without typical OLED oversaturation. Triluminos also helps with the black but cant rival OLEDs 'pixel switching off' blacks.
Now latest OLEDs from Samsung does better than older but they still tend to oversaturate since they also can display beyond standard sRGB color scheme that is the standard but cant really accomodate to it like an LCD with Triluminos can due to its organic nature and how it works.
You want precision that holds for years and proper white you go with Z5 but if you want deep blacks, "popping" colors and less precision you go with OLED. OLEDs also have better response time but that would mostly only be of importance if you play games at fast framerates.
In my opinion, you should also consider the UI of Samsung and Sony because TouchWiz (Samsung UI) is notorious for lagging as months passed by and when multitasking, while Sony UI is always smooth and rarely lags. :good:
I had a Note 4 before getting a Z5P. Stock Samsung is garbage. You have to look into AOSP/CM for the Note 4 and it may not be 100% stable. The Note 4's camera is definitely though. Z5 camera is only good on paper but in real world situation Note 4 wins easily. Z5 has way too many pixels can't produce a good image unless the source is extremely well lit.
EQ2000 said:
It's not black and white. LCDs can and tend to be able to display proper white (sometimes you need to tweak it via white balance settings but YOU can have it unlike OLEDs) while OLEDs tend to have difficulty with it and never truly achieves proper whites and you have to calibrate with time due to OLEDs organic nature. But in contrary OLEDs displays deep blacks due to switching of the organic pixel (LCDs cant switch of becouse the R G B channels are just filters on top of the backlight). White is more important though as that is what is used most in apps, themes and so on. And due to the OLED being organic the blue, red and green pixel component each have a life length and blue has less than the other 2 which means having bright/white things displayed on your OLED would shorten the blue components life length faster resulting in uneven colors on the screen, "burn-ins" and it just gets worse with time.
LCDs dont have this problem becouse the only thing you lose with time is the brightness due to the backlight getting worn and so you can compensate by increasing brightness intensity. And Sony TFT and IPS LCD for their Z1+ lineup comes with Triluminos which adds an extra component to help the pixels and extends the color range to 85% of Adobe RGB 1998 ICC color profile which is far more than a regular LCD can do giving rich and accurate colors that without problems rivals OLEDs while still being proper and true to life without typical OLED oversaturation. Triluminos also helps with the black but cant rival OLEDs 'pixel switching off' blacks.
Now latest OLEDs from Samsung does better than older but they still tend to oversaturate since they also can display beyond standard sRGB color scheme that is the standard but cant really accomodate to it like an LCD with Triluminos can due to its organic nature and how it works.
You want precision that holds for years and proper white you go with Z5 but if you want deep blacks, "popping" colors and less precision you go with OLED. OLEDs also have better response time but that would mostly only be of importance if you play games at fast framerates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problems with white balance for oled displays are long gone, those issues were only present in the first few oled screens ever produced because back then the organic material for red and green were degrading at a different level than the blue.
My Galaxy S6 has the purest white any LCD dreams of and also a much bigger color gamut, also it has a fraction of the pixel response time of any gaming tft lcd out there producing less ghosting and blurring when in motion, on top of the pure blacks as you acknowledged also.
As for the over saturation, the oversaturation comes by default to boast the contrast capabilities of the oled screens, normally found in test units, my galaxy s6 for example came out of the box with such a toned down saturation that nobody would even dare to call it an OLED, but anytime i want to enable eye popping colours i just change the color scheme from the display settings itself.
Theres no reason to vote for a LCD anymore, except if you are concered about buying a monitor/tv thats always ON and not bothered with image quality, then LCD is best as it doesnt suffer from burn in issues, or color degradation, but frankly thats just about it.
EDIT: i also forgot to mention that the best LCD screen ive ever come across in any phone was the Xperia Z1 Compact screen, perfect color reproduction at everything, which put Xperia Z2, Xperia Z3 (both normal and compact) and Xperia Z5(Again, both normal and compact) screens to shame.
So for me the Xperia Z5 screens are dissapointing and white balance by default is over the top, too much RED, to calibrate it properly youll loose other screen abilities.
---------- Post added at 05:35 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:20 PM ----------
TedNall said:
So many different opinions.
@ TheWarKeeper
Can you please tell me your experience with battery. I need it for my job and i am using a lot of calls, email-s, social networks.... Can it last at least one day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The phone should last a day as long as you dont push it and dont enable brightness to maximum all the time.
If it doesnt well, you can always get a pocket charger as the competition of z5 will last only a slightly more time which is negligible.
I would choose the Xperia Z5 over the note 4 anyday though, its a great phone and it wont dissapoint any average user.
Xperia Z5 only dissapoints enthusiasts like myself but not because of its quality, quality is great, but because of DRM and locked features which makes no sense beying locked.
What are you guys talking about? Note 4 has one of the best screens on the market. Near perfect white balance (6562K) and 99% Adobe RGB. Just use Photo Mode. Adaptive Display mode is over saturated but optional.
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note4_ShootOut_1.htm
Also color burn is an old issue from Galaxy Nexus devices and earlier. Samsung displays have burn-in protection.
Moving from Note 4 to Z5P was definitely a downgrade in color accuracy and white balance, but upgrade in pixels. I honestly thought I would care more, but I actually don't. I rather have no screen door effect in VR and higher resolution. Now if Samsung released a 4K AMOLED screen...
TheWarKeeper said:
The problems with white balance for oled displays are long gone, those issues were only present in the first few oled screens ever produced because back then the organic material for red and green were degrading at a different level than the blue.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They still suffer from uneven colors and shades over the display.
My Galaxy S6 has the purest white any LCD dreams of and also a much bigger color gamut, also it has a fraction of the pixel response time of any gaming tft lcd out there producing less ghosting and blurring when in motion, on top of the pure blacks as you acknowledged also.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The whites are though life dependant and Triluminos widens the color gamut to 85% of Adobe RGB 1998 ICC profile.
As for the over saturation, the oversaturation comes by default to boast the contrast capabilities of the oled screens, normally found in test units, my galaxy s6 for example came out of the box with such a toned down saturation that nobody would even dare to call it an OLED, but anytime i want to enable eye popping colours i just change the color scheme from the display settings itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting. So kind of cheating for tests/demoing regarding readability as you cant have both maximum readability and accurate colors.
Theres no reason to vote for a LCD anymore, except if you are concered about buying a monitor/tv thats always ON and not bothered with image quality, then LCD is best as it doesnt suffer from burn in issues, or color degradation, but frankly thats just about it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The highlighted part goes against your first comment. All 3 color channels degrade independantly of each other based on what is displayed and how colors are used. Blue is still used the most.
EDIT: i also forgot to mention that the best LCD screen ive ever come across in any phone was the Xperia Z1 Compact screen, perfect color reproduction at everything, which put Xperia Z2, Xperia Z3 (both normal and compact) and Xperia Z5(Again, both normal and compact) screens to shame.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have not tunned the Z5c LCD but it does actually for my unit use to much blue. Though my Z1 has near perfect white balance with minimal tweaks aswell as boosting impressive contrast, top notch color reproduction and good viewing angles. For being a TFT LCD with Triluminos it is quite close to IPS LCD regarding viewing angles except when brightness on displayed material goes above a certain threshold but immensly better than a regular TFT LCD. I have a JDI panel btw.
So for me the Xperia Z5 screens are dissapointing and white balance by default is over the top, too much RED, to calibrate it properly youll loose other screen abilities.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Strangely enough it either goes for to much red or blue. Maybe panels come with different "qualities" and/or different assembly fabrics and quality. As long as you dont have to 'mute' a color channel to much to get good whites it should be OK else you lose brightness and contrast.
---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------
CLShortFuse said:
I had a Note 4 before getting a Z5P. Stock Samsung is garbage. You have to look into AOSP/CM for the Note 4 and it may not be 100% stable. The Note 4's camera is definitely though. Z5 camera is only good on paper but in real world situation Note 4 wins easily. Z5 has way too many pixels can't produce a good image unless the source is extremely well lit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Aint as clear cut as you think regarding the camera.
http://www.manilashaker.com/sony-xp...v10-galaxy-note-5-nexus-6p-camera-comparison/
EQ2000 said:
Aint as clear cut as you think regarding the camera.
http://www.manilashaker.com/sony-xp...v10-galaxy-note-5-nexus-6p-camera-comparison/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The camera is really bad in real world situations. Despite what you read in reviews that only test extremely bright or extremely dark environments, taking photos at home or indoors is pointless. People's faces will look like they were smeared with peanut butter. http://imgur.com/0OhbSaq
It performs worse http://imgur.com/Pfd76nR than my Note 4 http://i.imgur.com/wOvr0kl.png in indoor lighting, which means the camera was a straight-up downgrade for me. I don't bother trying to take pictures unless they're daylight or I can use flash which, to make matters worse, is still extremely weak. This all seems like extremely crappy postprocessing smudging pixels together and there's no way to turn it off since there's no RAW support.
CLShortFuse said:
The camera is really bad in real world situations. Despite what you read in reviews that only test extremely bright or extremely dark environments, taking photos at home or indoors is pointless. People's faces will look like they were smeared with peanut butter. http://imgur.com/0OhbSaq
It performs worse http://imgur.com/Pfd76nR than my Note 4 http://i.imgur.com/wOvr0kl.png in indoor lighting, which means the camera was a straight-up downgrade for me. I don't bother trying to take pictures unless they're daylight or I can use flash which, to make matters worse, is still extremely weak. This all seems like extremely crappy postprocessing smudging pixels together and there's no way to turn it off since there's no RAW support.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I own the Z5c and cant relate to what you are sayinh although it sure needs some white balance and algorithm tweaking. In your photo comparision it looks like the Z5 photo was taken with zoom and possibly older firmware vs just a crop from the Note 4. Without ISO and shutter speed info it's also quite pointless "comparision". Exif would show it zoom was used and much more. I can say though that not even with ISO 6400 in low light does my Z5c produce such bad image quality. Only with zoom.
And the test I linked to is properly done with information and different scenes with different lighting conditions unlinke the "tests" by random people on the interwebs posting photos without exif data nor information and croppings where you have no orignal fullsize photo as reference either. Who has more credibility, that test or your "test"? Anyway it's pretty much settled in stone that the Z5 is better.
EQ2000 said:
I own the Z5c and cant relate to what you are sayinh although it sure needs some white balance and algorithm tweaking. In your photo comparision it looks like the Z5 photo was taken with zoom and possibly older firmware vs just a crop from the Note 4. Without ISO and shutter speed info it's also quite pointless "comparision". Exif would show it zoom was used and much more. I can say though that not even with ISO 6400 in low light does my Z5c produce such bad image quality. Only with zoom.
And the test I linked to is properly done with information and different scenes with different lighting conditions unlinke the "tests" by random people on the interwebs posting photos without exif data nor information and croppings where you have no orignal fullsize photo as reference either. Who has more credibility, that test or your "test"? Anyway it's pretty much settled in stone that the Z5 is better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And you missed the point...
The point is, these are real world samples. The first shot was me at a wedding. Yeah, it's zoomed, but not the point. The point is the heavy smearing of pixels the post processor does, ruining the quality, just because to Sony all noise is bad.
The second was my Note 4 and Z5P both taking a picture at the exact same distance of something I have at home in dim lighting. The Z5 is straight up worst and if you can't see that, that's some serious " fanboyism" there. And yeah, my Z5P running 6.200, so no, it's not an "older firmware." You don't need EXIF data to see the point I'm making. In dim lighting, the Z5 severely underperforms. But you rather believe my sharing of these photos is part of some conspiracy to maliciously fake a comparison so the Note 4 is better go right ahead.
TheWarKeeper said:
Lol, comparing an OLED display vs any LCD display and pretending that LCDS can be on par or better than OLED displays is so dillusional its actually funny!
Well then.check it from the mouth of note 4 users.The quality control is aweful as it was with N3.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/note-4/general/note4-amoled-screen-quality-t2906365
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
josephnero said:
TheWarKeeper said:
Lol, comparing an OLED display vs any LCD display and pretending that LCDS can be on par or better than OLED displays is so dillusional its actually funny!
Well then.check it from the mouth of note 4 users.The quality control is aweful as it was with N3.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/note-4/general/note4-amoled-screen-quality-t2906365
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for the link! This pretty much validates my points about OLED flaws.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/gal...-replacement-s6-due-to-screen-t3074865/page95
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
EQ2000 said:
They still suffer from uneven colors and shades over the display.
The whites are though life dependant and Triluminos widens the color gamut to 85% of Adobe RGB 1998 ICC profile.
Interesting. So kind of cheating for tests/demoing regarding readability as you cant have both maximum readability and accurate colors.
The highlighted part goes against your first comment. All 3 color channels degrade independantly of each other based on what is displayed and how colors are used. Blue is still used the most.
I have not tunned the Z5c LCD but it does actually for my unit use to much blue. Though my Z1 has near perfect white balance with minimal tweaks aswell as boosting impressive contrast, top notch color reproduction and good viewing angles. For being a TFT LCD with Triluminos it is quite close to IPS LCD regarding viewing angles except when brightness on displayed material goes above a certain threshold but immensly better than a regular TFT LCD. I have a JDI panel btw.
Strangely enough it either goes for to much red or blue. Maybe panels come with different "qualities" and/or different assembly fabrics and quality. As long as you dont have to 'mute' a color channel to much to get good whites it should be OK else you lose brightness and contrast.
---------- Post added at 03:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:18 PM ----------
Aint as clear cut as you think regarding the camera.
http://www.manilashaker.com/sony-xp...v10-galaxy-note-5-nexus-6p-camera-comparison/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok well it makes me think that you didnt own a proper OLED phone, maybe you did own a bad one in the past and the screen was crap (defective).
First of all, OLED screens do not result in color saturation shift when degrading because the software inside their panel drivers automatically correct the color shifting, (my galaxy s2 still has top notch colors).
As for the cheating, i have no idea what you mean by that, you can saturate the colors or desaturate them at your will, i dont know what cheating is involved because there isnt any cheating at all xD
I have tuned my Xperia Z5 screen and i had to keep red to minimum and blue and green almost to max to get a proper white balance, doing so, resulted in severly desaturated colors and bad luminosity (as the panel software disallows maximum brightness values when colors are calibrated).
I never liked the Xperia Z1 screen, a small tilt resulted in horrid washed out colors, Xperia Z1 Compact is a completely different beast with the best IPS panel ive ever seen in any phone 1800:1 contrast ratio (native)!
As for that complaint in the note 4 forums, its obvious that the user of that phone suffers from the typical defective screens that samsung fails to stop at production, uneven color or tints of any kind on the screen is not a characteristic of an oled screen, its a characteristic of a defective unit, i have to change 2 galaxy s6 untill i got 1 with perfect colours, i had to change 1 galaxy s2 to get the good screen and the galaxy s4 i got it with perfect color reproduction from start.
Finally, LCD screens were always the worst type of screens in term of image quality and color fidelity, even at professional image editing level which means wasting thousands of dollars on a proper IPS LCD screen, professionals were never really satisfied with its color reproduction and instead choose to use old school CRT monitors (myself included).
The only reasons why LCDs are successfull is because of good marketing, they suck at color accuracy, they suck at pixel response time and they suck at image definition. (My OLD Sony CRT ran 75hertz at 2048x1536)
It was a joy to use in any type of situation, movies, playing games and image editing software.
TheWarKeeper said:
Ok well it makes me think that you didnt own a proper OLED phone, maybe you did own a bad one in the past and the screen was crap (defective).
First of all, OLED screens do not result in color saturation shift when degrading because the software inside their panel drivers automatically correct the color shifting, (my galaxy s2 still has top notch colors).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You still lose luminosty and or/color representation quality when correcting the other channels to lowest common denominator uniformly. S2, S3 and played with S4 and S5. The former ones wher just horrible. You could almost spot the pentile matrix design and colors overly saturated. "Eye bleeders"! :laugh:
As for the cheating, i have no idea what you mean by that, you can saturate the colors or desaturate them at your will, i dont know what cheating is involved because there isnt any cheating at all xD
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Contrast ratio tests which is what is mostly looked at compared to proper color output.
I have tuned my Xperia Z5 screen and i had to keep red to minimum and blue and green almost to max to get a proper white balance, doing so, resulted in severly desaturated colors and bad luminosity (as the panel software disallows maximum brightness values when colors are calibrated).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You mean you had to set green and blue close to 255? That sounds like your screen is way off. I might look into mine later and see how much it needs to be tweaked via the white balance setting.
I never liked the Xperia Z1 screen, a small tilt resulted in horrid washed out colors, Xperia Z1 Compact is a completely different beast with the best IPS panel ive ever seen in any phone 1800:1 contrast ratio (native)!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well then that was the AUO panel. They made an ugly one by having different panels. I got the good one, JDI and I can tilt it and have very close results to that of an IPS LCD as long as the displayed graphics aint overly bright (lots of white) where it then performs worse but then I am talking about extreme viewing angles. Btw OLED also looses quality when tilting at sides and has 'color switching' and black suffers (if pixels aint switched off).
Finally, LCD screens were always the worst type of screens in term of image quality and color fidelity, even at professional image editing level which means wasting thousands of dollars on a proper IPS LCD screen, professionals were never really satisfied with its color reproduction and instead choose to use old school CRT monitors (myself included).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still better than having uneven colors and blotches. Nothing worse than having a display that looks like a CRT that has been abused with a magnet (not as bad though but still!).
The only reasons why LCDs are successfull is because of good marketing, they suck at color accuracy, they suck at pixel response time and they suck at image definition. (My OLD Sony CRT ran 75hertz at 2048x1536)
It was a joy to use in any type of situation, movies, playing games and image editing software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I did wait for the longest before switching to LCD from a CRT. Loved my Sony Trinitron monitor. Atleast it failed with pride.
As for that complaint in the note 4 forums, its obvious that the user of that phone suffers from the typical defective screens that samsung fails to stop at production, uneven color or tints of any kind on the screen is not a characteristic of an oled screen, its a characteristic of a defective unit, i have to change 2 galaxy s6 untill i got 1 with perfect colours, i had to change 1 galaxy s2 to get the good screen and the galaxy s4 i got it with perfect color reproduction from start.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Right.. 3 on a row, 5 on a row, most/all retail store display units.. Then going by what you say Samsung has horrible QA for their OLED displays and you are in for a ride in the lottery. Tons of people in the 95 page thread going through multiple units all with the pink/green blotches with varying severity. Pretty few getting a rplacement display that has none. All showing some color hues and some reporting it going worse by time. You even got a video showing differences in white point color to at same display color settings!
I even checked at local mobile phone store and S6, Note 5 units had color blotches on a white background. Some better some worse but still there.
Just Google it.
https://www.google.com/search?q=s6+...en&ie=UTF-8&gws_rd=cr&ei=91W2VuCDMseyO9WDq7gB
http://forum.xda-developers.com/galaxy-s6-edge/help/pink-tint-near-screen-t3081656
http://forum.xda-developers.com/gal...-replacement-s6-due-to-screen-t3074865/page95
https://www.buyfromwhere.com/galaxy-s6-the-ugly-truth-about-its-screen/
Lots of users getting this with hard evidence to prove it. #Pink#Gate
You guys looks like one work at Samsung and one at Sony ??
If you're colorblind, please disregard this thread. Rate this thread to express how you deem the color saturation and accuracy of the Samsung Galaxy Note 8's display. A higher rating indicates that you think that color accuracy is very high and saturation is excellent.
Then, drop a comment if you have anything to add!
1 star . My one is very yellow
Adaptive advanced red off green off blue max
And it is almost white
Might have to return ?
I have the unlocked version, I won't give it a number, but I feel the phone's screen is very good.
Menchelke said:
I have the unlocked version, I won't give it a number, but I feel the phone's screen is very good.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Generally very pleased. But Basic mode on display still is very saturated . Also since when was warm a pink hue? Ive always led to believe warm is short wavelength that should exhibit a yellow hue which mine doesn't.
3 stars
Sent from my SM-T819Y using Tapatalk
I would like to know the settings for best accuracy since I'd like to edit photos on this, I read the screen has an excellent accuracy but mine is pretty yellowish. Tried the basic mode but its absolutely lifeless and lacks contrast.
Hello. Home theater enthusiast here. Thought I would share my opinion as I have my own calibration tools (i1d3 with HCFR, Lightspace and DisplayCal, and eeColor boxes for 3D LUTs for 1080p and lower content (4K boxes are still too expensive IMO).
This is by far the best display I own. This thing is just as good as my LG E6 OLED... with a 3D LUT! I'd like to mention that the E6 and similar displays are deployed and used for critical grading of movies due to their accuracy and gamut coverage. Without a 3D LUT they're pretty crappy due to limited and buggy built-in calibration controls (you can only have part of the gamut accurate by sacrificing accuracy everywhere else. Skin tones, memory colors or a distributed error focusing on improving the 50-70% saturated colors, can only have one of these or none at all.
Sorry, getting off topic, back to the Note 8 display.
This is very important. DON'T USE ADAPTIVE MODE IF YOU WANT ACCURATE COLORS -OR- THE STANDARD D65 WHITE POINT COLOR TEMPERATURE.
Adaptive has a fairly aggressive boost to saturation. Also, the RGB slider controls are for controlling the SECOND saturation boost on top of what Adaptive has already boosted!
Adaptive/Cinema/Photo use a DCI-P3 in BT.2020 colorspace
Basic uses rec.709/sRGB colorspace.
All non-HDR content (movies, pictures, graphics) do not use this color space. The colors will not be converted properly (primaries and secondaries have an axis shift. Also, 50% saturation in sRGB/rec.709 (non-HDR movies) will be at a different location in the visible spectrum (i.e. not the same color). This is a notable difference if you can quickly do an A/B comparison.
Basic is the most accurate colorspace simply because it's rec.709/sRGB and that is what everything was made for. Use Cinema or Photo if you want/like the saturation boost that happens when viewing /rec.709/sRGB content with a DCI-P3 in bt.2020 colorspace.
HDR videos have embedded metadata (sort of like ID3 tags for music files) which will trigger the display to automatically change to the appropriate and totally separate color space that you can't choose in the display options. The reason for this is because HDR by spec needs each pixel of the screen to produce drastically higher luminance (nits). rec.709/sRGB generally reach up to around 300-400 nits at peak on a quality display while HDR has a defined peak of 10,000 nits by spec. No current display can reach this yet, most are around 2-5000 nits (OLEDs are in the 700-1800 range. See AVSForum for discussions about OLED vs LCD/Quantum dot/Projector HDR nit levels).
This prevents users from using HDR levels of luminance for extended periods of time. More nits needs more voltage, more volts means not only faster battery drainage, but also more heat is generated and shortens the life of each OLED subpixel as the organic compound ages (more voltage quickens aging).
Image BURN IN is caused when some OLED subpixels have aged faster than others near it. This IS permanent.
Image RETENTION is NOT permanent yet looks just like image burn in. This is from voltage that has built up and can no longer be contained in the components controlling each pixel. Simply discharge them by turning the screen OFF (As in power off. I think Always On Display keeps them primed and ready for use). You could also look at animated full screen color noise/static patterns. This would improve uniformity by fully charging the components for remaining pixels. (ex: The old and free ".js" file version of jscreenfix. Present version is web based and not full screen).
If you're worried about being blinded by the high HDR nits, don't be.
The intent of HDR is to NOT cap peak brightness and provide a fixed gamma transfer function (layman: How bright something is relative to your display's darkest possible black and brightest possible white).
To explain what I mean, let's say we have two identical displays with an impossible 100% for color accuracy. And let us assume we have a perfectly mixed movie for both SDR and HDR (alot of movies are only graded once from the source material and then that graded copy gets regraded for the other releases. Basically this is bad but most movie studios are either trying to save money or simply don't care unless it's a "blockbuster" movie....
So again, let's say he have a perfect SDR and HDR release.
Side by side they will be 90% identical. The "HDR" levels are ONLY for specular highlights, like light reflections water/chrome/etc, clouds, sparks and other generally small details. Having something at 10,000 kits that is only, let's say, ~30x30 pixels isn't going to appear blindingly bright but will appear brighter in relation to the pixels around it (which again is the whole point of HDR).
Now for the other three screen modes...
Despite what you think you're seeing, CINEMA/PHOTO/BASIC MODES ARE NOT "TOO RED". ADAPTIVE DOES HAS TOO MUCH BLUE.
Adaptive is default, and by the time you get to the display options your brain has already adapted to this colder color temperature and you perceive the change as having too much red.
Instead of trying to explain why this happens, look at THIS ILLUSION.
The biological and science mechanics at the core of this illusion is exactly why you should NEVER compare colors by sight alone, and this is basically what happens when switching back and forth between modes after adapting to one mode. The rods/cones on our retina are not digital and takes time for them to adapt to changes in stimulation to light entering your eyes.
It appears this way because most displays come from the factory with a cooler color temperature than the industry standard D65 white point. This makes displays look better on a showroom floor under all their fluorescent lights. Simply put, if you think it's "too red", it's because you're used to seeing something that's "too blue".
Actually use these other modes for a day or there about so you have put real hours into looking at the screen, not just a few minutes of the day. Then try switching back to your adaptive settings. You may be surprised to find your opinion to be different about the other modes being too red.
This doesn't mean you can't prefer adaptive mode's saturation boost and/or cooler warmer temperature (aka a more "blue" screen), nor am I criticizing anyone who does not use Basic.
I'm just presenting fact, and not my opinion, based on data in regards to accuracy.
Personally I use Cinema mode and only switch to Basic for drawing.
TL;DR:
Adaptive has terrible accuracy, doesn't have a D65 white/color temperature, uses an HDR colorspace for non-HDR content (this is bad), and two levels of built-in saturation boost (RGB slider controls effect only one of these boosts).
Straight from the factory basic has color accuracy rivaling even the best ISF calibrated displays with a 3D LUT, has D65 white/color temperature, and uses same SDR colorspace that non-HDR content was made with.
I've done my own measurements with my own calibration equipment, and my results support their findings. Not that I doubt their results, I mean DisplayMate is known in the Home Theatre scene for their technical articles. If you don't agree with them then do your own measurements to get factual data for comparison. Human eyes are lying sacks of crap (read: adaptive) and you can search AVSForum if you need explanations and/or proof of this.
Here is DisplayMate's shootout for anyone enterested.
http://www.displaymate.com/Galaxy_Note8_ShootOut_100.htm
Just turned my phone to basic. Looks a lot better now. No more super bright cartoons colours. It also makes the colours of my graphic design logos more accurate.
I've always used Basic mode in all my previous Samsung devices inc my tablet.
However, the basic mode on the N8 shows a pink hue which is not tolerable to my eyes. Now, if the basic mode showed a true warmer tone like a slight yellow hue it wouldn't be so bad.
Talking of which, I was always under the impression that the term "warm" in respect of display technology meant whites would appear somewhat yellower , not pink like this display. ?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Isn't there an app to fully calibrate the screen?
Limeybastard said:
I've always used Basic mode in all my previous Samsung devices inc my tablet.
However, the basic mode on the N8 shows a pink hue which is not tolerable to my eyes. Now, if the basic mode showed a true warmer tone like a slight yellow hue it wouldn't be so bad.
Talking of which, I was always under the impression that the term "warm" in respect of display technology meant whites would appear somewhat yellower , not pink like this display. ?
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you're trying to compare how the screen looks by your eyes alone, you're doing it wrong. Look at Illusion link in my long post.
How that illusion works is the best "short" version of explaining why you think Cinema/Photo/Basic looks pink.
If you really want to know if the screen is in fact too red, or too blue or even green, you need to use calibration equipment (colorimeter, spectrometer/spectroradiograph, and software; HCFR and DisplayCal are free, Light Illusion, CalMan, ChromaPure are expensive.
Getting your own gear is quite costly, but you might be able to rent it for half a day or so for a fraction of the price. If anyone is even remotely interested in this go to AVSforums.
I've actually measured 5 others (1 European and the rest USA variants) besides mine (Korean version), and every one was within the repeatability tollerances for my i1d3 pro. I don't think there will be any differences from manufacturing randomness due to how accurate they are straight from the factories, and I feel the same for any regional differences.
I'm not trying to offend anyone, but you are extremely likely to be wrong if you think Cinema/Photo/Basic modes are too red/warm using your eyes or another display as reference. Human eyes will adapt to warmer or cooler color temperatures regardless of accuracy, and factual data from tools all point to those display modes having amazing accuracy (See DisplayMate's shootout).
As for the question about color temperature...
The visible spectrum of light the typical human eye see will see more green colors than red and blue combined.
Blue is the portion we see the least of.
D65 is the standard white point which is based on the spectral pattern of light from the sun.
Since white is all colors, having D65 white means colors will interact with other colors realistically so there is no drastic change in perception around other light sources like tinting only under fluorescent lights but not incandescent lights.
Warm and Cool are how we describe which corner on a CIE chart a white is closer too in relation to where D65 is.
The above isn't totally true, but I didn't want to go into detail, but it's close enough I think. See AVSforum for the truth from people far more knowledgeable than I, like real ISF certified calibrators, Calibration hardware/software companies used by movie studios and scientists, etc).
Try using the phone for a couple of hours straight while set to Basic, then go back and change it. Do you still think it looks pink?
Before I forget again, it's possible a screen protector can cause a tint, as the material of the protector and any coatings it has (polarization, anti-glare, oleophobic, etc) will change the spectral distribution of the primary colors red/green/blue. This will change your perception of color based on your environmental lighting. So it could look perfectly fine in one room of your house and different in another if they had different types of light. That's just an example, as there are so many types of lights and each have their own color temperature and spectral distribution. Not just like incandescent vs fluorescent lights, but various types of incandescents (size, shape, power consumption, bulb material, diffuse coating, etc).
EMJI79 said:
Isn't there an app to fully calibrate the screen?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android does not have any real color management, so you can't really calibrate the screen.
It's not really needed with this models' display, from the factory they are one of if not the most accurate displays you can get. It is on par with OLED displays with a 3D LUT that are used by movie studios for color grading.
Take a gander at DisplayMate's shootout for the Note 8. This is a technical analysis made by DisplayMate who's business is dealing with grading level accurate displays for those studios.
I just realised I may look like I'm advertising for AVSforum. I'm not.
It's just that what XDA is to Android and related stuffs, AVSforum is to home theatre and related stuffs. Actually they're better as they actually have active "official" members of the industry and not representatives. It's great being able to talk to people at or close to the source. I say active because they're not just there to advertise or sell you something. You can learn 99% of everything about calibration, for free, from the same people who's job is calibration or ISF instructors who hold paid or college classes. The equivalent type of people missing from XDA would be like engineers, lead techs and top level technical people from smartphone divisions from all the companies.
Kamikaze_Ice said:
Android does not have any real color management, so you can't really calibrate the screen.
It's not really needed with this models' display, from the factory they are one of if not the most accurate displays you can get. It is on par with OLED displays with a 3D LUT that are used by movie studios for color grading.
Take a gander at DisplayMate's shootout for the Note 8. This is a technical analysis made by DisplayMate who's business is dealing with grading level accurate displays for .
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think for colour accuracy it also comes to personal preference, like for sound equalization.
I used mine initially in the AMOLED Photo mode but did notice that colors were oversaturated. I've since switched to Basic mode and so far prefer it to the other modes. No, it isn't perfect, but whites are more white than Adaptive mode and colors are less over-saturated than the other modes. AMOLED Photo would still be my second choice. Adaptive mode has whites that are much too blue.
I found amoled screen to be really dependent to orientation. In the best one it is better than IPS and in all the other ones it is worse. They really got to fix this.
EMJI79 said:
I think for colour accuracy it also comes to personal preference, like for sound equalization.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Accuracy is NOT and NEVER WILL BE personal preference (unless you prefer accuracy, lol). Preference is an opinion, and has nothing to do with the truth. I prefer Cinema mode, despite knowing Basic is the most accurate mode for all content shown on the screen (HDR will trigger HDR mode, which use completely different settings.)
In this case the screen accuracy is referencing the standard it was made for (BT.2020 and Rec.709).
You're free to think Basic looks too red, but there is a 99% chance that you are wrong (<1% chance due to bad screen protector materials/polariaztion filter/dot matrix/oleophobic & other coatings and your environmental lighting).
Again, the screen is one of the most accurate displays ever made. Take it to any calibrator (not "geek squad"...) and they will get the same results as DisplayMate... assuming the calibrator has a spectro to profile his meters to the amoled screen.
I won't even get into sound. I'll just point everyone to Head-fi.org forums as well as AVSforums. Way to many variables to cover, even for IEMs which take your "room sound" out of the equation. Both places will do a far better job at explaining the science behind everything for audio and (digital) visual things. And yes, real science. Everything I've mentioned has hard proof (measurements) and not ancedotal or biased opinion.
None of this means you can't like something that's "not accurate". Just wanting to make it known that yes many don't know what they're talking about (Not trying to be rude here. Just sayin').
Bs, who tells you I have the exact same eye as you. Who tells you present measurements or even science covers whole phenomena variables (plus Godel and other scientist prove science can't completely theorise a phenomena).
Unless you have attended to MIT or Princeton chances are you haven't achieved science study level I have.
I don't appreciate the haughty way you commented my post.
EMJI79 said:
Bs, who tells you I have the exact same eye as you. Who tells you present measurements or even science covers whole phenomena variables (plus Godel and other scientist prove science can't completely theorise a phenomena).
Unless you have attended to MIT or Princeton chances are you haven't achieved science study level I have.
I don't appreciate the haughty way you commented my post.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What's your screen issues. ? Just out interest.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk
No real issue but I am not satisfied with the way greens are displayed, like on vegetation pictures.
Kamikaze_Ice said:
Despite what you think you're seeing, CINEMA/PHOTO/BASIC MODES ARE NOT "TOO RED". ADAPTIVE DOES HAS TOO MUCH BLUE.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is probably true, however, I grew accustomed to a more blueish white, that the basic mode appears too warm now.
I remember last year, after trading my Note 7 for the second time and going to the LG V20, that I thought the LG had a way too bright white, noticeably more blue. However, after having had that for about a year and finally switching back with the Note 8 a few days ago, the basic just doesn't feel right anymore. I really like the adaptive (that is, with a few minor adjustments to the sliders), but whenever I am in a game or watching something, then the adaptive mode has way too much saturation. Then the only thing that does help is switching back to Basic mode, but I get annoyed by how warm it appears to be as soon as I hit anything with a white background (like settings or text messaging). The laptop I'm writing this on also has a more blueish white, my Samsung SHUD TV seems to be somewhat in the middle of it all but less red than my Note.
While basic may be the best setting, I can't say I really like it. Switching back and forth between the modes is a workaround, not really a solution. I really want to like this phone, but it is quite an annoyance to me personally, even more so when I consider I'm paying 950 USD for it. I am going to give it a few more days to see if I can get better used to basic mode or if I am going to return it to the store. It saddens me a bit that there's no option to add a little bit more blue to the basic mode, which, to me, is really all it needs.
I would also like to add more blue even to adaptive mode.
Sent from my Samsung SM-G955F using XDA Labs
svache said:
This is probably true, however, I grew accustomed to a more blueish white, that the basic mode appears too warm now.
I remember last year, after trading my Note 7 for the second time and going to the LG V20, that I thought the LG had a way too bright white, noticeably more blue. However, after having had that for about a year and finally switching back with the Note 8 a few days ago, the basic just doesn't feel right anymore. I really like the adaptive (that is, with a few minor adjustments to the sliders), but whenever I am in a game or watching something, then the adaptive mode has way too much saturation. Then the only thing that does help is switching back to Basic mode, but I get annoyed by how warm it appears to be as soon as I hit anything with a white background (like settings or text messaging). The laptop I'm writing this on also has a more blueish white, my Samsung SHUD TV seems to be somewhat in the middle of it all but less red than my Note.
While basic may be the best setting, I can't say I really like it. Switching back and forth between the modes is a workaround, not really a solution. I really want to like this phone, but it is quite an annoyance to me personally, even more so when I consider I'm paying 950 USD for it. I am going to give it a few more days to see if I can get better used to basic mode or if I am going to return it to the store. It saddens me a bit that there's no option to add a little bit more blue to the basic mode, which, to me, is really all it needs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although a different device, the basic mode on my Samsung tab S2 LTE is awesome. It's a night and day difference to the Note 8 , albeit both adaptive modes on both devices are closer in my eyes . However, the basic mode on the tab s2 doesn't go pink but a more warmer yellow type mode.
I agree with you , the basic mode in my eyes on the N8 is rubbish.
Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk