Just curious how the qHD screen on the evo 3d compares to the super amoled screen? A buddy of mine is set on getting the nexus s 4g versus the evo 3d for a couple of reasons. 1) he wants a google phone in order to receive all updates first 2) he wants super amoled.
Device(s): Samsung EPIC 4G, Asus EeePad Transformer
Carrier: Not Provided
Thanks: 73
Thanked 74 Times in 54 Posts
qHD and Super AMOLED improve over standard WVGA TFT displays in different ways. Super AMOLED displays have the same pixel resolution, but colors appears more rich and vibrant, less washed out, and Super AMOLED displays have better clarity, improved viewing angles, and are more visible in direct light.
qHD refers to the pixel resolution (960x540). You may be able to read text more easily on web pages without zooming in, things that are zoomed in on will look less pixelated, and video will look more crisp.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FreakyLocz14 For This Useful Post:
Personally I don't like Amoled/Super Amoled..it reminds me of a big screen TV with the settings set totally wrong. Doesn't look right. I prefer the look of my TFT EVO screen to the Epic 4G Super Amoled screen.
The Following User Says Thank You to effluent For This Useful Post:
I agree. My wife's phone the Samsung epic has nice colors, but the grainy look of the Amoled screen ruins it for me. Now, Super Amoled plus from pictures i have seen resolve this issue. I believe the new samsung phones will have that screen and it looks Very nice. So, that will be the comparison I really want to know is how the qHD compares to the Super Amoled plus...
Here is a link explaining the new Super Amoled plus screens.
Is the qHD screen actually an LCD then? And how does it compare to Apple's "retina" display? IMHO the reina displaye nicest of what is currently available on the market.
__________________
"A dog is the only thing on earth that loves you more than you love yourself" - Josh Billings
The Following User Says Thank You to lordofthereef For This Useful Post:
This is a question i would like to know. If it is a superlcd like the the new incredible then thats tits. But if it is the same 250k color display as the og evo that blows. I like the evo i got, but 250k colors? My old sanyo m1 had 250k color back in 2007 and cnet was bitching about it back then. The resolution is great on the display but the color on the evo is very bland. My epic is night & day better as far as that goes.
From what ive seen it looks as though the colors are infact better on the new evo but who knows.
The Following User Says Thank You to liketotallybro For This Useful Post:
I agree. My wife's phone the Samsung epic has nice colors, but the grainy look of the Amoled screen ruins it for me. Now, Super Amoled plus from pictures i have seen resolve this issue. I believe the new samsung phones will have that screen and it looks Very nice. So, that will be the comparison I really want to know is how the qHD compares to the Super Amoled plus...
Here is a link explaining the new Super Amoled plus screens.
The grainyness you see in the Epic is due to the PenTile matrix. That really has nothing to do with the OLED panel. You can have a standard square pixel with 3 equal RGB pixel elements as an (S)(AMO)OLED (PLUS).
A lot of people had issues with how crappy the PenTile made text look, so the newer Samsung phones are going back to a regular square pixel. The article makes mention of this as well.
Personally, the colors on Samsung panels look oversaturated to me, and while it has better contrast ratio, it doesn't matter to me on a phone. For my TV where I can control my ambient light levels, those blacks become way more important.
__________________
The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it. -Neil deGrasse Tyson
Help me out: Sign up with Dropbox and we both get 250-500MB extra space. Thanks!
The Following User Says Thank You to novox77 For This Useful Post:
Honestly, if the any of the new Amoled screens on any phone still have the blue hue to the screen at anything other than direct viewing angles, then im not interested. That drove me crazy...
The Following User Says Thank You to Cavemansol For This Useful Post:
This is a question i would like to know. If it is a superlcd like the the new incredible then thats tits. But if it is the same 250k color display as the og evo that blows. I like the evo i got, but 250k colors? My old sanyo m1 had 250k color back in 2007 and cnet was bitching about it back then. The resolution is great on the display but the color on the evo is very bland. My epic is night & day better as far as that goes.
From what ive seen it looks as though the colors are infact better on the new evo but who knows.
I would guess (and hope) that with it having 3D capabilities they will need to use a full 16mill (or whatever is the bee's knees now) display. I would also hope that it's a SLCD and not a standard LCD, since most of HTC's new phones use SLCD. AMOLED whatever is over saturated to compensate for the wacky pentile stuff, still a nice looking display but if you read a lot of emails and doc's on your phone its not so hot. Haven't seen any Super AMOLED + times 12 yet so I don't know how they look.
__________________ So I'm guessin' there's questions that need addressin' like how he fresh in the adolescence and wreckin em' Rules & Guidelines, Zero Tolerance Policy.
The Following User Says Thank You to CRPercodani For This Useful Post:
I have a Desire with AMOLED, a few of my colleagues have Desire's with SLCD, there's pretty much nothing in it; both types of screen are bright, vivid and clear. I'm sure if you got a magnifying glass out you could see some differences, but if you like the way the screen looks, what does it matter what type it is?
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to partridge For This Useful Post:
The only thing worrisome (to me) is that no reviewer/previewr has made much mention about screen quality. One would think that with a giant leap forward in pixel density (and hopefully color saturation - is that the correct term?) that those journalists (and whomever else) that have seen the actual product would have been blown away (or at least noticed a gorgeous display) right?
The only thing worrisome (to me) is that no reviewer/previewr has made much mention about screen quality. One would think that with a giant leap forward in pixel density (and hopefully color saturation - is that the correct term?) that those journalists (and whomever else) that have seen the actual product would have been blown away (or at least noticed a gorgeous display) right?
(this was an overuse of parentheses)
The live stream I watched from the unveiling at CTIA put an OG Evo right next to it, and commented on how much better the 3D's screen looked. That said, that's about the only time I've heard anyone comment on it.
The Following User Says Thank You to Jackietreehorn For This Useful Post:
The live stream I watched from the unveiling at CTIA put an OG Evo right next to it, and commented on how much better the 3D's screen looked. That said, that's about the only time I've heard anyone comment on it.
Well that is some good news. I have seen pictures and it doesn't seem all that different (but pics of a screen aren't really going to tell you much, if anything, about the quality). The way I see it, there are two options:
1.) The screen isn't all that much better
2.) Everyone was so enamored by the actual device that they failed to give a decent opinion on screen quality.
The Following User Says Thank You to lordofthereef For This Useful Post:
Hey, it's the advertisers' fault this confusion exists, not regular cats trying to smoke out truth from fiction in a maze of buzzwords that get tossed out there.
And they're going to continue tossing out this nonsense buzzwordology to cover up that the emperor has no clothes - they're all claiming media-friendly, but show me one with a contrast and any color adjustments (c'mon, gamma!) - doesn't exist.
So, rather than do real work and provide the needed feature and maybe some freaking explanation of REAL benefits to their tech selections, it's just words of the selling kind.
Anyway, that's what I think.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Hey, it's the advertisers' fault this confusion exists, not regular cats trying to smoke out truth from fiction in a maze of buzzwords that get tossed out there.
And they're going to continue tossing out this nonsense buzzwordology to cover up that the emperor has no clothes - they're all claiming media-friendly, but show me one with a contrast and any color adjustments (c'mon, gamma!) - doesn't exist.
So, rather than do real work and provide the needed feature and maybe some freaking explanation of REAL benefits to their tech selections, it's just words of the selling kind.
Anyway, that's what I think.
I agree with you completely. This reminds me of the recent trends of LCD manufacturers to call their TVs LED TVs. God that annoys me. If they want to name the tv after its backlighting why didn't they call the older ones CCFL TVs. Or how everyone and their mothers now has a 4G network when imo the biggest discriminator of 4G is an all IP network which HSPA+ just doesn't have.
But like you said, the marketing machines are trying to blind consumers with everything but facts.
The Following User Says Thank You to Auzo For This Useful Post:
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Samsung Galaxy Note II, Transformer Prime
Carrier: Sprint
Thanks: 49
Thanked 127 Times in 94 Posts
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to Cobravision For This Useful Post:
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.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to novox77 For This Useful Post:
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.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
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.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to novox77 For This Useful Post:
Sprint continues their EVO line of Android Phones with what is certainly a first for them - a 3D phone. The HTC EVO 3D boasts 3D technology on a beautiful 4.3-inch screen and get this: you don't even need glasses to enjoy the 3D experience!
B... Read More
How does qHD compare to Super AMOLED?
