How does qHD compare to Super AMOLED?

[EarlyMon]

You make an interesting tie-in about LED TVs - they do exist - but you see them in stadiums and yes, they're like Lite Brites - but _huge_ ones. But LCDs back-lit by an LED array - guess what? That's what a lot of phones have - so, I'm just glad no one's tried to market these things as LED displays the way they have for TVs - we got enough troubles.

PS - and the ITU is to blame for taking forever to decide on final specs for 4G - so long so that in the end, they said that HSPA+, WiMAX and LTE in the US could be called 4G because they were all leaps better than 3G - even though none of them meets the 4G spec. Go figure.

 

[Cobravision]

The blue tint on SAMOLED screen bothered me quite a bit, but that it seemed much more pronounced in the Galaxy S phones and not as strong with the OG DINC. My theory was that either due to the blue LED not matching light output or because it decays faster than the red and green LEDs, Samsung tinted the screen blue to compensate. If you look at a Galaxy S phone with the screen off, it's very clearly blue. But I suspect that the SAMOLED+ screens will beat the Evo3D screens in all areas (black levels, visibility in sunlight, viewing angle, etc) except for resolution.

 

[novox77]

The blue tint on SAMOLED screen bothered me quite a bit, but that it seemed much more pronounced in the Galaxy S phones and not as strong with the OG DINC. My theory was that either due to the blue LED not matching light output or because it decays faster than the red and green LEDs, Samsung tinted the screen blue to compensate. If you look at a Galaxy S phone with the screen off, it's very clearly blue. But I suspect that the SAMOLED+ screens will beat the Evo3D screens in all areas (black levels, visibility in sunlight, viewing angle, etc) except for resolution.

Back when Epic was first released, the two display models clearly had the blue tint. It was really noticeable. Then I read somewhere on the Epic forums that not all of the screens are like that. Who knows. Along with the PenTile matrix, I was pretty turned off by the display.

But I don't think that just because the screen looks blue when it's off means that it's tinted blue. Sometimes that color indicates an anti-glare coating, or, on high-end camera and binocular lenses, it means the glass is coated to allow more light to pass through. Some eyeglasses and museum-quality picture frame glass are coated. The glass can appear to be green, blue, or even orange when viewed slightly off-angle, but if you look straight through, there's no tint.

 

[EarlyMon]

I've taken a number of phone displays, played Big Buck Bunny through them, sync'd in time to the same playing on my calibrated HDTV, holding the phone between me and the TV.

If you work it right, you use two phone at a time doing this.

What I learned was that all of my side-by-side phone comparisons weren't as straight as I'd thought I'd gotten them. Compared to a reference source, they all come up short, just a matter of direction and degree - and they do suffer unit-to-unit variations that are quite large.

Hence my insistence that until we get at least contrast and gamma adjustments, no one can say anything wrong on the quality of phone display technologies because subjective judgments are always valid a priori.

I prefer the display on _my_ Evo - can't say how it looks compared to others, there aren't any adjustments - and no display is correct out of the box, none of them.

 

[novox77]

The other thing is: use a particular display long enough, and your brain gets used to it. Any photographer will tell you our brains are very good at white balancing; cameras are not. That's why tungsten bulbs cast a very orange tint on a photo, and fluorescents cast a green tint.

I compared my Evo to my color-corrected desktop monitor. It tends to skew a bit purple overall. But if I had no basis for comparison, the Evo's screen looks very good. Good contrast, good brightness, and vivid colors.