Got to compared them myself, kinda

[badankles]

Compared the EVO with the Captivate. Hands down, the super AMOLED is noticeably crisper. Text and pics were awesome. Touch and transitions were as or smoother. Although the Captivate screen felt like it had plastic screen protector on, I didn't think to ask.

Brought up same youtube video on both, with 3g on both, so did not do HQ on EVO. The EVO was better quality, interesting.

I'd love to see what Sprint has in store for their version.

 

[SebastianX]

Compared the EVO with the Captivate. Hands down, the super AMOLED is noticeably crisper. Text and pics were awesome. Touch and transitions were as or smoother. Although the Captivate screen felt like it had plastic screen protector on, I didn't think to ask.

Brought up same youtube video on both, with 3g on both, so did not do HQ on EVO. The EVO was better quality, interesting.

I'd love to see what Sprint has in store for their version.

A few questions, why didn't you compared in HQ on the YouTube app? You can do so in any Galaxy S by hitting Menu > Change to HQ. I haven't compared the two tho it's technically impossible that any Evo would ever even come close in video quality to any Galaxy S phone, I take it you're eyes are deceiving you.

Let's compare for a second:

Evo - TFT LCD - 65,000 colors

Comments: Absolutely HORRIBLE video quality on ANY setting if the screen is anywhere near your face (under a foot away) it becomes really noticeable, believe me this was one of my biggest grips when I had it for almost a month. The screen was absolute garbage, felt like something you imported from Chinese knock off shop and a screen that size reveals the problem even more.

Epic 4G (or Galaxy S in general) - Super AMOLED 16,777,216 colors

Comments - Only having seen the unlocked and the T-Mobile version in person I can say without a shadow of a doubt the screen takes it to another level and completely smashes the Evo in any video comparison under any condition.

The HTC Evo (or any current HTC LCD Android device recently released) cannot even reproduce a proper black, it's freakin' Grey. You cannot honestly compare a back illuminated LCD to a Super Amoled and ever in your wildest dreams say the Evo wins, you're delusional. No pun intended but you must have a really bad eye.

 

[EarlyMon]

Let's compare for a second:

Evo - TFT LCD - 65,000 colors

Actually, that was 65536 colors, as in 16-bit color, and that was the rated spec.

As it turns out, that's due to a deficiency in all Android 2.1 photo gallerys - hence that spec.

The actual hardware is 24-bit color, as in 16+ million colors.

And perhaps a proper comparison would be to hold up either phone with a calibrated HDTV in the background, so that the two (phone and TV) are relatively the same size - and compare with two movie sources running at the exact same time. I recommend Big Buck Bunny.

While your new, shiney SAMOLD is pretty swell, get over it, it's a mobile display and is in no way any more perfect than any other display.

The above test will prove that to you.

The EVO under that test does surprising well. A slight red/purple tint that could use a serious adjustment - but the black crushing was surprisingly low.

BTW - the SMPTE standards pretty much say that if you are watching video on a screen the size of the EVO, you're pretty much done if you come in less than 9" - with about a foot away being pretty optimal.

For movies.

SAMOLED is a great technology. It's vibrant.

Get back to me when any mobile display features full color (gain, offset, chroma) and contrast adjustments.

And by the way - the EVO does get grey from black - when you leave the brightness auto-adjust on. Probably why no one does.

Bash LCD all you want, but you're kinda on your way to becoming a fan boy, so, best luck with that.

You're preaching to people from on high when you have no foundation in actual facts.

Get over it, with all of our thanks in advance.

 

[rasstar]

Nope the actual hardware spec is a 16bit display. That's one thing I noticed about the Evo when I had it. The colors looked really washed out. I know the Android OS is 16bit but videos should not show in 16bit colors. If that was the case the Epic 4G videos would also look dull. HTC has a history of using 16bit displays since the Windows Mobile days.

Another problem is color banding. I could see this depending on the image I was viewing. I noticed how bad the Evo screen looked mainly because I was coming from a Palm Pre that has a 24bit LCD screen. When I compared it to the Evo the difference was shocking.

 

[EarlyMon]

Nope the actual hardware spec is a 16bit display.

The actual hardware does seem to shake out as 24-bit.

YouTube - evo.mts

Battle Royale 2: Smartphones face off, screen to screen | Dialed In - CNET Blogs

The gradient file can be downloaded here:

http://androidforums.com/htc-evo-4g/109685-why-did-htc-put-16bit-65k-color-lcd-device-droid-x-has-18bit-24-million-both-phones-199-a-4.html#post1099737

And yes, if the hardware were 16-bit, then banding would be evident on video.

And it's not on mine.

I've had mine since 6/6 and initially (strongly!) rejected ideas that it's 24-bit - I wasn't impressed at all at first, and did see banding in number of places.

I started looking more carefully as this information surfaced, for me, post-1.47 upgrade - I've compared it to an iP4 running the same video, a Moment (plain AMOLED) - and two separate HDTVs.

The Galaxy-class phones seem to have highly saturated colors - hold yours up to a calibrated HDTV as I've suggested. Choose something rich in color, such as Freda, your choice. (And don't source the video to the HDTV from the phone.)

If you adjust the brightness of the Evo to try to compete with another screen's higher saturation, it does wash out - so don't do that.

The SAMOLEDs are pretty nice, but no mobile display is color accurate.

Nor perfect. Here's the 3 display technologies in the sun, as a different metric; from left to right, SAMOLED, AMOLED and LCD.

YouTube - Galaxy S vs X10 vs Desire in direct sunlight

(Warning - this last vid is from a confessed EVO fan, so I don't take his negative comments too seriously. I just thought that others who've not seen an EVO or one beside a Galaxy-class phone would enjoy the dimensional comparison, if nothing else.)

YouTube - HTC EVO 4G vs Samsung Galaxy S Hardware

Colorfulness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

If you prefer the Samsung, fine - it's a great device. My prejudices for both the EVO and Epic are completely positive - personally, we're waiting on the Epic 4G to upgrade my wife's phone.

But the Evo is 24-bit and its appearance has improved over time.

FWIW - Android OS is 24-bit color, it was just photo gallery that got farkled.

Color | Android Developers

Tthe Android model supports the the ARGB color model: 24-bit + an alpha channel for opacity.

Finally, and this is most important - I sincerely thank you for your measured response based upon your own experiences and observations that you made without resorting to invective or the ad hominem.

PS - 16-bit color hardware will cover the same range as 24-bit - it would simply do it with less variability. Washed out colors are an indication of either brightness or contrast being way off - and you can achieve washed out colors on the finest HDTV as an obvious proof of that simply by whacking the brightness up - so, a washed out experience is not indicative of color depth in the hardware.

 

[badankles]

i have read the published specs, reviews and watched many of the video reviews and compares. all good info, and since i have the evo in hand, i wanted to see for myself. obviously, i can only compare it to a demo display of the Captivate and really, the sales guys there left me alone as they were busy closing shop.

my main goal at the time was to see for myself the difference in how the two display the same text, pics and video. i chose to do so with both stock browsers.

with the short time i had, i did not know how to change the youtube video setting of the Captivate so decided to compare via 3G on both in non-HQ. it was pretty obvious the video on the Captivate was more pixelated than on the EVO, and the EVO filled it out to top/bottom edges, while the Captivate had borders all around. Could it be att's doing with their 3G, or the hardware/software settings? i don't know, i just know what i saw.

i'll see if i can stop by store again to compare via HQ, now that i know how to look for it on Captivate. then again, youtube is over the air, so yes, the true compare would be of an on-board video, the same HQ video on both.

in re-reading my OP, as for the smoothness of the OS, that was not a good compare as the EVO had emails and other background synch going on, so ignore that.

i am perplexed as to the feel of the Captivate's screen. it's not glass smooth like the EVO. it's smooth with some texture to it, like it had the boxwave screen cover on. (i have boxwave cover on my other phone.) i am going to check on that for sure.

 

[rasstar]

I had the device and HTC listed the specs as 16bit 65K colors. Are you saying they lied? The colors and the display in general looked rather dull.

 

[EarlyMon]

I had the device and HTC listed the specs as 16bit 65K colors. Are you saying they lied? The colors and the display in general looked rather dull.

I'm saying that they were typically sloppy and in consumer goods, this caveat always applies: Specifications subject to change without notice.

The only surprising thing is that didn't play 24-bit specsmanship, and were conservative in face of the known photo gallery limitation.

And a dull appearance isn't an indication of color depth, it's an indication of brightness and/or contrast being out of whack.

 

[Adrift]

I'm saying that they were typically sloppy and in consumer goods, this caveat always applies: Specifications subject to change without notice.

The only surprising thing is that didn't play 24-bit specsmanship, and were conservative in face of the known photo gallery limitation.

And a dull appearance isn't an indication of color depth, it's an indication of brightness and/or contrast being out of whack.

Lol... HTC overlooked a main selling point and listed it as inferior to what it truely is. Yeah, sorry not buying that.

 

[EarlyMon]

Lol... HTC overlooked a main selling point and listed it as inferior to what it truely is. Yeah, sorry not buying that.

That's your prerogative.

No need for facts when your mind's made up.

 

[crow11ad]

I was out withmy wife and kids yestersay and there was an AT&T store. I had to go see the Galaxy S first hand. Even though it was not the Epic..I was comparing it to my Moment.

Build...it felt like it was made out of good quality. The screen was awesome. It was fast and swype was fun. In 2 minutes I already knew it was the right phone. Now come on Sprint give up the price and release date.

 

[Eazail70x7]

i have read the published specs, reviews and watched many of the video reviews and compares. all good info, and since i have the evo in hand, i wanted to see for myself. obviously, i can only compare it to a demo display of the Captivate and really, the sales guys there left me alone as they were busy closing shop.

my main goal at the time was to see for myself the difference in how the two display the same text, pics and video. i chose to do so with both stock browsers.

with the short time i had, i did not know how to change the youtube video setting of the Captivate so decided to compare via 3G on both in non-HQ. it was pretty obvious the video on the Captivate was more pixelated than on the EVO, and the EVO filled it out to top/bottom edges, while the Captivate had borders all around. Could it be att's doing with their 3G, or the hardware/software settings? i don't know, i just know what i saw.

i'll see if i can stop by store again to compare via HQ, now that i know how to look for it on Captivate. then again, youtube is over the air, so yes, the true compare would be of an on-board video, the same HQ video on both.

in re-reading my OP, as for the smoothness of the OS, that was not a good compare as the EVO had emails and other background synch going on, so ignore that.

i am perplexed as to the feel of the Captivate's screen. it's not glass smooth like the EVO. it's smooth with some texture to it, like it had the boxwave screen cover on. (i have boxwave cover on my other phone.) i am going to check on that for sure.

On android phones, youtube videos on low quality will not fill up the screen usually, at least my phone doesnt. Once you put it in HQ, then it uses more screen real estate and looks MUCH clearer.

Check out Androidcentral.com for a head to head comparison of youtube between The Captivate, Evo, Droid X and Nexus 1. The maker of the video agrees that the Captivate was te clear winner

 

[Eazail70x7]

i have read the published specs, reviews and watched many of the video reviews and compares. all good info, and since i have the evo in hand, i wanted to see for myself. obviously, i can only compare it to a demo display of the Captivate and really, the sales guys there left me alone as they were busy closing shop.

my main goal at the time was to see for myself the difference in how the two display the same text, pics and video. i chose to do so with both stock browsers.

with the short time i had, i did not know how to change the youtube video setting of the Captivate so decided to compare via 3G on both in non-HQ. it was pretty obvious the video on the Captivate was more pixelated than on the EVO, and the EVO filled it out to top/bottom edges, while the Captivate had borders all around. Could it be att's doing with their 3G, or the hardware/software settings? i don't know, i just know what i saw.

i'll see if i can stop by store again to compare via HQ, now that i know how to look for it on Captivate. then again, youtube is over the air, so yes, the true compare would be of an on-board video, the same HQ video on both.

in re-reading my OP, as for the smoothness of the OS, that was not a good compare as the EVO had emails and other background synch going on, so ignore that.

i am perplexed as to the feel of the Captivate's screen. it's not glass smooth like the EVO. it's smooth with some texture to it, like it had the boxwave screen cover on. (i have boxwave cover on my other phone.) i am going to check on that for sure.

On android phones, youtube videos on low quality will not fill up the screen usually, at least my phone doesnt. Once you put it in HQ, then it uses more screen real estate and looks MUCH clearer.

Check out Androidcentral.com for a head to head comparison of youtube between The Captivate, Evo, Droid X and Nexus 1. The maker of the video agrees that the Captivate was te clear winner

 

[Adrift]

That's your prerogative.

No need for facts when your mind's made up.

Couldn't the same be said for you?

Every single site listing EVO specs has the screen listed as 16bit 65K colors, now I understand most would just use published specs and be done with it, but not everyone. Especially when doing head to head reviews, if there was such a large oversight it would be noticed when comparing to a phone that is supposed to have a similar 16bit, or even a phone with an AMOLED screen.

You are saying that you are the only person on the entire internet to find that the EVO has a 24bit display?

*edit* Nevermind I see there is thread of people, you included, who are supporting the idea.

Hey if it's true, that's cool. But I doubt it, doesn't make sense, especially when so many users complain about the quality of it, and ample proof it is in fact 16 bit.

 

[SebastianX]

Couldn't the same be said for you?

Every single site listing EVO specs has the screen listed as 16bit 65K colors, now I understand most would just use published specs and be done with it, but not everyone. Especially when doing head to head reviews, if there was such a large oversight it would be noticed when comparing to a phone that is supposed to have a similar 16bit, or even a phone with an AMOLED screen.

You are saying that you are the only person on the entire internet to find that the EVO has a 24bit display?

*edit* Nevermind I see there is thread of people, you included, who are supporting the idea.

Hey if it's true, that's cool. But I doubt it, doesn't make sense, especially when so many users complain about the quality of it, and ample proof it is in fact 16 bit.

HTC Evo users unite! Let's all get together throw offical manufacturer specs out the window and make up our own! Then we can all get together and try to shut down even the slightest hint that we might be delusional.

It's a 16bit display if it was 24bit HTC would be sure to publish it, there isn't a chance in hell a phone maker will try to down spec a newly released phone, now users who bought into the hype and want it to be better that what it really is... that's a whole nother story.

 

[EarlyMon]

Build...it felt like it was made out of good quality. The screen was awesome. It was fast and swype was fun. In 2 minutes I already knew it was the right phone. Now come on Sprint give up the price and release date.

I'm going with Boy Genius Report's guess that it's around August 20.

Samsung Epic 4G to launch by August 20th? Boy Genius Report

 

[EarlyMon]

Every single site listing EVO specs has the screen listed as 16bit 65K colors, now I understand most would just use published specs and be done with it, but not everyone. Especially when doing head to head reviews, if there was such a large oversight it would be noticed when comparing to a phone that is supposed to have a similar 16bit, or even a phone with an AMOLED screen.

You are saying that you are the only person on the entire internet to find that the EVO has a 24bit display?

No. The first thing I showed was a test from a graphics professional and ways to repeat the test.

Every single site listing EVO specs has the screen listed as 16bit 65K colors...

Every single site except CNET - who actually bothered to test the graphics for themselves.

The next thing I showed was the link to the CNET report where they actually tested the video.

What did CNET say, based on actual video testing?

The iPhone 4 and the HTC Evo 4G were able to display 24-bit color.

Catcalling me simply does not change the fact - if you go past the blogosphere that simply regurgitates one another and look at two independent sources that actually tested the display - it comes up as 24-bit color.

It's really just that simple.

You and your buddy there might want to actually check links when provided.

I'll wait why you explain to the CNET guy that tested the phone how your logic and opinion regarding the EVO and how published specs works takes precedence over his actual test results.

Let me know how that works out for you.

Meanwhile - gee, I guess it's just impossible to imagine somebuddy in Taiwan or with Sprint working on the job to rush the EVO out on time, and transposing the hardware spec with the photo gallery spec. Or, that they might even have had a concern about liability when claiming 24-bit performance when a key software component only did 16-bit.

I'll ponder just how impossible and implausible that is while you go argue with CNET.

I can see the comment now: "Hey, CNET! You better not believe your own tests! I have a spec sheet! From now on, please use the spec sheet instead of actually testing things!"

Oh, yeah. That's going to go over really big with them.

(Nothing personal, all in good fun.)

 

[Adrift]

You are completely right, Silly HTC and Sprint always getting their hardware specs wrong...

I hardly see why this is even important in a thread about Samsung EPIC, unless you are threatened by the fact that a device released after the EVO might somehow be better? Then you better start preparing for the coming months. Fanboyism is childlish, no matter how hard you try.

 

[EarlyMon]

You are completely right, Silly HTC and Sprint always getting their hardware specs wrong...

I hardly see why this is even important in a thread about Samsung EPIC, unless you are threatened by the fact that a device released after the EVO might somehow be better? Then you better start preparing for the coming months. Fanboyism is childlish, no matter how hard you try.

I'm in line for an Epic 4G, too.

Try again.

All I did was dispassionately refute misinformation laid down by the second poster - I didn't start this, nor did I start the catcalling.

All I'm doing is laughing about it.

The hardware is what the hardware is. Why are you and your pal so wrapped up to prove otherwise?

Don't answer that, you'll just dig yourself in deeper.

After all - your response when I simply pointed out a CNET test result that disagrees with your worldview is that makes me the fanboy, according to you. :lmao:

Again - no need for facts when you're mind's made up.

Hey if it's true, that's cool. But I doubt it, doesn't make sense, especially when so many users complain about the quality of it, and ample proof it is in fact 16 bit.

Say it with me: washed out color is NOT indicative of color depth.

It is indicative of brightness and contrast issues.

And by the way - that was a nice, congenial remark, and I responded in good, clean fun.

Such hostility and invective is really rather counterproductive, you know.

I'm happy with my Evo for what it is and couldn't care less about the rated spec. It does well. Someone came out with new information, and I simply changed my mind.

You do what you think best, though.

PS - I completely and sincerely apologize for the first three words of this thread: Compared the EVO... Clearly any remarks I've made after that were because I started it all. :rofl:

 

[Adrift]

I'm in line for an Epic 4G, too.

Try again.

All I did was dispassionately refute misinformation laid down by the second poster - I didn't start this, nor did I start the catcalling.

All I'm doing is laughing about it.

The hardware is what the hardware is. Why are you and your pal so wrapped up to prove otherwise?

Don't answer that, you'll just dig yourself in deeper.

After all - your response when I simply pointed out a CNET test result that disagrees with your worldview is that makes me the fanboy, according to you. :lmao:

Again - no need for facts when you're mind's made up.




Say it with me: washed out color is NOT indicative of color depth.

It is indicative of brightness and contrast issues.

And by the way - that was a nice, congenial remark, and I responded in good, clean fun.

Such hostility and invective is really rather counterproductive, you know.

I'm happy with my Evo for what it is and couldn't care less about the rated spec. It does well. Someone came out with new information, and I simply changed my mind.

You do what you think best, though.

PS - I completely and sincerely apologize for the first three words of this thread: Compared the EVO... Clearly any remarks I've made after that were because I started it all. :rofl:

So you are either intentionally trolling or doing it on accident? Everything you claim I am doing, in fact you are.

 

[EarlyMon]

So you are either intentionally trolling or doing it on accident? Everything you claim I am doing, in fact you are.

 

[wodin6]

EarlyMon, just give up. You cannot win this kind of argument lol

 

[Adrift]

Hey, I was trying to have a conversation. I stated the facts, that I knew of, was corrected that there is 1 website that says otherwise. The "good clean fun" comments Earlymon made came off more as sarcastic insults. If you would read through my comments, I tried to have a normal conversation.

 

[Eazail70x7]

What was this topic about again??

 

[badankles]

What was this topic about again??

uh, yeah, what was it?

oh, right. i wanted to see with my very own eyes. i liked reading the reviews, speculations and watching the videos, but being able to compare with my own eyes...priceless.