Related
Rumor is around that HTC are prepping for an upgrade to HD2 with WinMo 7 .. http://wmpoweruser.com/?p=12268
I like amoled screen after seeing the Nexus One vs the HD2's but I would prefer it being the size of the HD2's. The screen on a phone that size is a gigantic plus of the HD2. I also like the 4gb internal memory and micro sd card feature.
Good looking phone. My hope is the HD2 can be upgraded to WM7 so I can have a honest choice when my wallet catches up to my desires.
The phone mentioned in that story is reported to have a 3.7" screen.
Since the HD2's biggest statement is its screen size, I would not call anything an upgraded HD2 if it has anything less than a 4.3" screen.
addicus said:
I like amoled screen after seeing the Nexus One vs the HD2's but I would prefer it being the size of the HD2's. The screen on a phone that size is a gigantic plus of the HD2. I also like the 4gb internal memory and micro sd card feature.
Good looking phone. My hope is the HD2 can be upgraded to WM7 so I can have a honest choice when my wallet catches up to my desires.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if Nexus one that size I would get it in a heartbeat!
wonderbread57 said:
Since the HD2's biggest statement is is its screen size, I would not call anything an upgraded HD2 if it has anything less than a 4.3" screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
+1
Anything less than 4.3 would be a downgrade!
I think a 3.7" display would be fine..I love my HD2, but if it was a touch smaller, I wouldn't grumble either!!
Yeah, not just because screen it´s not bigger you can´t call it an upgrade.
Personally I prefer a screen of 3.7"
They're releasing an HTC HD2 with a smaler screen but AMOLED and better drivers.
Wow.
Amazing like a broken PC... lol.
IMHO this isn't a better device only because it has got 512MB RAM.. the HTC HD2's 4.3" screen is simply the better thing never seen. If only it would be AMOLED.........
Anyway, I think that I'll stay with my HTC HD2 for more than a year if they're releasing devices like this as a successor.
The only good thing to have is WM7 on the HD2.
kholk said:
IMHO this isn't a better device only because it has got 512MB RAM.. the HTC HD2's 4.3" screen is simply the better thing never seen. If only it would be AMOLED.........
Anyway, I think that I'll stay with my HTC HD2 for more than a year if they're releasing devices like this as a successor.
The only good thing to have is WM7 on the HD2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I read somewhere that the screen of HD2 is capable of displaying 16 million colors but is limited to 65K because of WM 6.5. If this is true, we should be able to get 'near Amoled' experience with HD2 running WinMo 7.
dnwizard said:
I read somewhere that the screen of HD2 is capable of displaying 16 million colors but is limited to 65K because of WM 6.5. If this is true, we should be able to get 'near Amoled' experience with HD2 running WinMo 7.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hardly. You won't even get close to OLED black levels on the HD2 screen, nor will you get the kind of smoothness of motion and lack of blur/judder that an OLED display gives you, nor will you get the major battery-life-extending benefits of OLED.
Even if the HD2's display is theoretically capable of >65k colours, it quite possibly still can't do 24-bit colour - most phone LCD displays are only 18-bit.
On the other hand, thus far most OLED screens seem to deliberately over-saturate the colours. My HD2's white point is a bit pushed to blue, but otherwise the colours are quite accurate. OLED sunlight readability is also often poor (although it has to be said the HD2's is pretty bad because the screen is so glossy).
Heh, well, the AMOLED display saturation is somehow superior in some images and it's not good while exposet at sunlight, but the battery life of an AMOLED screen device is really, REALLY SUPERIOR, because AMOLED simply powers down the pixel if it is pure black and it consumes less power because it plays on the voltage/amperage of an AMOLED pixel for "colouring" it.
Anyway, I'm just happy with my HTC HD2 and with his pretty BIG screen.... we can only wait and see if WM7 will use 24bit colors with the HD2's screen!
...I think the battery (1230 mAh) is not enough for this specs.
the obsession is just another device from htc coming after hd2 doesnot mean it is an upgrade to hd2 if it was we would consider td2 as an upgrade to blackstone
and upgrade means huge different in specifications (like between hd1 and hd2 so the 64 mb more ram is not a really upgrade as they have the same processor running at 1gz )
cause its size i think its more diamond3 than hd3... looks like my next phone
this would be my next phone too....but..who knows when we will ever see it....at best it's still 9 months away!!!
bnm7bnm said:
cause its size i think its more diamond3 than hd3... Looks like my next phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you are right it seems to be upgrade for diamond 2
Whatever devices come out next, I`m hoping they will have a TV out (or even HDMI).
It would be great, to have a mobile film player wherever we go ( for the kids of course), but also would not have to remote desktop using a tiny screen.
hoss_n2 said:
you are right it seems to be upgrade for diamond 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's being released awfully late if it's an upgrade to the TD2; the TD2 launched last April, but the Obsession isn't out till October - HTC doesn't usually leave that long between refreshes. And from a 3.2" screen to 3.7" is quite a jump, especially bearing in mind that the TD2 was positioned specifically as a smaller and lighter equivalent of the Touch HD and TP2.
Still, I agree that the consensus does seem to be that it's a Diamond 2 replacement (possibly originally intended to ship earlier but delayed by the late arrival of WM7).
Any news up on this? Waiting for snapdragon WM6.5 phone with no giant screen to replace my Diamond1.
looking at the thread i was just wondering is there anyone who loves small and sharp displays
http://gawker.com/5558442/how-apple-tricks-you
Read the pile of BS Steve has been heaping on the world. Time to send in the Androids.
This is worth reading. This is the CRAP people believe. Got to love the Fanboys
I don't get the conspiracy about the screen... the resolution has been doubled horizontally and doubled vertically. That means that where there was previously one pixel, there are now four. Am I missing something?
HONESTLY, I will tell you I am not particularly fond of Apple. I prefer actual use to "gagets". However, there is no conspiracy here as uansari1 mentioned. They have done quite a nice job as always.
The iPad among other devices is quite impressive too, but quite useless. Still, it has had very impressive sales numbers.
Hey, you don't need the geeks' approval to sell your product . You are marketing to the masses...
Okay who am I kidding I HATE APPLE LOL.
Nope. You're pretty much right. Retina display did just that. 4 pixels squeezed to one spot as opposed to 1 pixels squeezed in 3gs/3g per spot. Theoretically, it'll look better.. but is it any better than Super AMOLED or let's just compare it with AMOLED.. better or not noticeable?
arctu said:
Nope. You're pretty much right. Retina display did just that. 4 pixels squeezed to one spot as opposed to 1 pixels squeezed in 3gs/3g per spot. Theoretically, it'll look better.. but is it any better than Super AMOLED or let's just compare it with AMOLED.. better or not noticeable?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its all about fidelity. I think that AMOLED on our Nexus still has a noticeable advantage. Why would anyone want such a high-res 3.5 inch display? I was hoping 4.0 inch, it seems optimal.
wesbalmer said:
Its all about fidelity. I think that AMOLED on our Nexus still has a noticeable advantage. Why would anyone want such a high-res 3.5 inch display? I was hoping 4.0 inch, it seems optimal.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Like, how the hell would Steve know that it even has 300+ ppi or ****? Lol, his eye can only see up to 300. =P Unless he's some Jobsbot or ****. ROFL.
Dumb Apple. It's not only the res that bothers me, it's also how close to fraud they are on their ads.
uansari1 said:
I don't get the conspiracy about the screen... the resolution has been doubled horizontally and doubled vertically. That means that where there was previously one pixel, there are now four. Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know if I trust Apple's claim yet. You know how Google's kinda stretching the truth with the 800x480 claim for the resolution of the nexus one's screen? You know, because of the pentile sub-pixel layout, where the green sub-pixels are 800x480, but the red and blue sub-pixels are actually half that in a checkerboard layout? I can't help but wonder if Apple is doing something like this, too.
In Engadget's article on the Vietnamese iphone 4 leak where they look at the display under a microscope, http://www.engadget.com/2010/05/29/iphone-4g-put-under-a-microscope-960-x-640-looks-like-a-lock, the pixels seem to be layed out in a diagonal pattern, rather than the typical horizontal/vertical rows and columns. It looks very much like the checkerboard pattern of the blue and red sub-pixels in the nexus one's pentile display, except with green added. They may be counting their pixels the same way google counts the red and blue sub-pixels on the nexus one, in which case there's actually only half the pixels present as there should be for a typical display of the claimed resolution, and they're using shady wordplay and interpretation of the definition of resolution to achieve their claimed resolution. Basically, they'd be selling a display with 307,200 pixels in a different arrangement as a 960x640 display, even though a 960x640 display should actually have 960 x 640 = 614,400 physical pixels present.
So, it's quite possible Apple's trying to pull a fast one here and give their specs an artificial boost. I could be totally wrong, but I sure wouldn't be surprised.
chowlala said:
Like, how the hell would Steve know that it even has 300+ ppi or ****? Lol, his eye can only see up to 300. =P Unless he's some Jobsbot or ****. ROFL.
Dumb Apple. It's not only the res that bothers me, it's also how close to fraud they are on their ads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, the reason is probably very clear. It wasn't done for looks, the goal was compatibility with older apps - clean and fast upscaling. When you double the resolution and have some way of distinguishing between "older" and "newer" apps, you can as simple as stretch each "old" pixel on 2x2 "new" pixels, without involving any math - and it makes fast and easy upscaling.
[edit] Moreover, it might even be the default way of app execution - unless the app triggers something that notifies the OS that it's capable of using the full resolution, and then it isn't upscaled.
[edit 2] If it indeed works that way - which I'm quite sure it does - then it's a real cause to be pissed at Apple for not telling that upscaled graphics on older apps will look just the same as they did on the older iPhone, until they're updated for compatibility.
Based on the PPI #'s, it is 2x better, not 4x better. Also, based on their PPI claim, it would have to be a a full on 960x640 display with no staggering of any of the pixels.
chowlala said:
Like, how the hell would Steve know that it even has 300+ ppi or ****? Lol, his eye can only see up to 300. =P Unless he's some Jobsbot or ****. ROFL.
Dumb Apple. It's not only the res that bothers me, it's also how close to fraud they are on their ads.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because it's twice the old PPI Not hard to know that if you are selling the device for over 3 years with same PPI all the time
I still get a kick out of seeing 'Retina Display'. Rofl!
.... looking for how this affects Nexus One.... Not seeing it. Spam.
Fellas, the issue with the screen resolution claim is about the acutal image they displayed while talking about it.
What they showed as beingthe 4x iteration, wasn't actually a properly upsampled letter.
ZERO to do with the actual screen technology and 100% to do with whoever put the video demo together.
Just to be clear here. The discrepancy here is not due to the 2xPPI == 4x#pixels issue.
Apple is claiming that the new screen is double the "pixels per inch" in both dimensions which gives it 4 times the pixels. Ignoring whether they have some sort of non-standard pixel layout like the pen-tile AMOLED screens, nobody is debating that math.
But, the problem that was pointed out in that article is that in their marketing images they are showing an example of what a character looks like when rendered anywhere from 3x to 5x the number of "pixels per inch" which means they are showing what a character looks like on a screen with somewhere between 9x to 25x the number of "megapixels" or pixels per square inch.
In reality, what they are doing is just showing a pixelated character and then a character at full resolution on whatever medium they are describing the improvement without regard to whether the number of pixels is correct to match the specs. They are trying to show you what "type" of improvement you will see, not the exact "extent" of that improvement. In the case of the projection screens at the keynote, it is probably not likely that a difference of merely 2x2==4 would have been visible from the rear seats in the auditorium so they went up to 5x5==25 to get the point across. The image on their web site looks like it is closer to 3x3==9 which is much closer, but still an exaggeration.
In either case, the images should have been tagged with a disclaimer that the resolution difference was exaggerated to show the nature of the improvement.
On a related side note - I also get a kick out of the claims that 300 DPI is beyond the resolution of the human eye (paraphrasing).
Ummm... DPI is not related to the eye's ability to resolve details, unless it is combined with distance. You can have a 5 DPI display at a hundred feet or so and the eye might not be able to see the pixels. Or, you could put a 600 DPI display right in front of the eye and see all the pixels you want to see. Until you couple a DPI rating with a viewing distance it has no bearing on whether the eye can resolve the pixels.
This isn't so much a lie, though, as I'm sure they are referring to 300 DPI at the typical distance a phone is used from the eye, but that isn't universally true for eveyone's usage habits. But, I'm sure quite a few Apple ignorami will believe that Apple has somehow fundamentally irreversibly and magically exceeded a universal threshold that has taken their technology beyond the absolute limits of human perception. Umm, right.
And, on a practical note, I would care about this distinction since I do commonly use my phone to do a little light reading with Alkido before I go to sleep and when I do that I have my glasses off and the phone maybe 2 inches from my face (I have really bad myopia) and I can see all of the pixels on the N1 (which is not so far away from the 300 DPI limit that they claimed) in all of their pixelated glory. I'm sure I would see the pixels on the new iPhone when I did that as well... :-(
[Update - I never watched the original keynote and I have now seen a few sites that discuss the advances in the iPhone 4 display who have more completely quoted Steve Jobs as having said "at a distance of about a foot" or something along those lines. That makes the statement actually reasonably appropriate so my comments above are based on quotes that were incomplete. You can't equate DPI to the eye's ability to resolve details without mentioning a viewing distance and it appears that Jobs correctly included the distance...]
khaytsus said:
.... looking for how this affects Nexus One.... Not seeing it. Spam.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good Point...I'm not seeing it either.
I'm very surprised the Nexus S didn't come out with a higher resolution Super Amoled screen. Apparently, 2.3 supports higher resolution according to wikipedia. I'm just waiting for a new android phone with a higher resolution/pixel density to put the iphone 4 to shame.
Imagine, a Super Amoled screen with a 1024x768 or 1280x720 resolution would be the best mobile phone screen in the world.
When do you think we will realistically see android phones with higher resolution displays?
The current Super AMOLED screen already trades blows with the Retina Display. I'm sure there will be higher res screens at some point but whats the rush? Wouldnt a higher resolution screen be more of a burden on battery than the current screens already are anyway? I'd see resolutions that high being more relevant for tablets and PMP than phones.
Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)
Well, android definitely needs to match or better the 640x960 resolution of the iPhone 4 to maintain feature parity.
The current SuperAMOLED screens are less battery consuming than old LCD and Retina, so bigger resolutions shouldn't be a battery problem.
But what's the point of having 1280x768 on a 4" screen?
I'm pretty satisfied with 480x320 on 3.2" and 800x480 on 4" looks also awesome.
The Meizu M9 have a 960x640 display, but (even if you are in china) this little boy is still difficult to find.
The next Meizu (M9ii) will have a 1280×854 or 1280×800 4" screen, and should be animated by a Tegra2 with 1Gb of RAM. They said that the release date will be on middle 2011, so maybe we will be able to grap it in the late 2011.
The two phones are running on a custom android 2.2 (the UI is very different from the classical Android).
For the battery, it's more backlight that drains power.
A higher resolution will only put a little more stress on the GPU, but if the OS is well coded, it should not consume a lot more.
DPI, its all about DPI
You can have all the DPI in the world, but all its gonna mean is LAG and Battery if we're still relying on the CPU to push pixels.
dimon222 said:
Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have absolutely no comprehension of what resolution is. Look at the iphone going from 480x320 to 960x640. Did the icons get smaller? No I didn't think so. You simply put more pixels into an icon the same size. Because it seems you're under the impression that pixel count determines image size.
however, there is no need for a higher resolution because the display is that too small. better resolution would look like the same as the resolution looks on current phones.
I can see several reasons to be interested in higher screen resolution (but IMHO you will need at least a 3.5" display):
Games
ok, that's not for today, but with ports like the unreal engine on android, phones will become more like a mobile console (PSP phone, for example). A better resolution sounds like a better playing experience, but will still need more powerful hardware (and that's on the way with multi core SOC)
Video
isn't that obvious? and it's essential if you're watching videos with subtitles
Internet
I don't know for you, but on my 800x480 handset, i have to zoom out to have the full page, and zoom in, etc...
With a better screen resolution, the navigation will be easier
It's not interesting for everybody, but I think clivo360 and I are not the only guys looking for a higher resolution screen
Although 4.3" is probably the upper limit for what you'd consider "pocketable", I'd still be attracted to bigger screens and more powerful phones because there are things that can take advantage of them, such as video. Imagine 1080p screens on a phone!
At some point though, phones are probably going to suffer the same problem that PCs did - that hardware outdoes all user needs. Imagine a point where the hardware has reached such a point where for the average user, they don't need the most potent phone anymore. We're already well on the way there. It happened with PCs, where the average user needs office software such as word processing, a spreadsheet, and the Internet, but nothing that demands crazy hardware (the average user is not a high end gamer we're talking here).
A better resolution makes even more difference on an SAMOLED screen compared to an LCD/SLCD - due to the PenTile matrix configuration of pixels a 800x480 SAMOLED screen doesn't really have as many pixels as an 800x480 standard LCD.
Just take a close look at the screen of a Nexus One or Nexus S at some text and you'll see it's slightly fuzzy. See here for more info
Better resolutions aren't available yet because a) it's a relatively new technology and b) manufacturers are having a hard enough time making enough just to cover the existing devices that use them.
AFAIK, there is only one Android device with a larger screen resolution that, as long as you don't live in the good old US of A (and even there it can be done), can make calls: the Samsung Galaxy Tab. But not exactly small enough to fit in your trouser pocket (although it does slip easily into a jacket pocket).
PS: The Tab is fantastic for video (1080p MKV supported), games and general browsing (with plugins set to on-demand) plus the odd short book, although you do look very strange if you answer calls on it without a BT headset (very Trigger Happy).
Ugh, I won't flame people saying we don't need higher resolution, though I wanted to...
Here is one basic application where the higher resolution really does make a difference: Reading text .PDFs.
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Higher resolution does not nesc. need more battery/CPU power: it's the brightness that uses the battery most.
critofur said:
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't your phone's AMOLED screen use the PenTile matrix? If so, that's a huge factor. I have 2 Droid Incredibles, one AMOLED w/PenTile matrix, the other SLCD. The SLCD has MUCH smoother text despite both being the same 480x800 resolution. AMOLED w/PenTile matrix has a "screen door effect".
Anyway, Toshiba might make your dream come true, and even exceed what you'd like to see.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/16/toshiba-enters-pixel-density-fray-with-367ppi-lcds-for-cellphone/
its true about the screen door effect. texting the g2x is very smooth dispite the resolution being the same as the vibrant.
Not sure I could put larger than 4.3" in my pocket
Hi,
I am looking for a replacement phone for my Galaxy S and I am doubting whether to buy the SGS II or the HTC Sensation, the most important thing is the screen!
And since the SGS had an aweful Pentile Matrix Layout RGBG, I would never buy another phone with a PM layout.
So straight to the point does the htc sensation have a Pentile Matrix layout?
Thanks in advance
Screen is an LCD and therefore has a RGB stripe subpixel layout. Pentile is used for oled screen technology.
walk.away said:
Screen is an LCD and therefore has a RGB stripe subpixel layout. Pentile is used for oled screen technology.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then, what is that?
http://www.anandtech.com/show/4165/the-motorola-atrix-4g-preview/4
Wow, I wonder why they did that, I'm not buying the blue phosphor stuff as how many lcd screens have you seen noticeably affected by this. Is this the only pentile lcd screen?
I wouldnt have thought that the Sensation would use pentile as none of the new HTC models with S-LCD screens have pentile as far as I'm aware.
I don't think this one is pentile matrix, but I don't have anything solid to back that up.
The SGSII is definitely not pentile matrix.
The screen on the sensation is super LCD qhd I'm pretty sure the super amoled plus screen on the sg2 is pentile matrix
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA Premium App
The SGS II doesn't have a pentile matrix that's for sure, since the plus in super amoled plus, stands for the extra subpixel (compared to Super Amoled)
Now I was wondering whether the HTC Sensation has a pentile matrix because the Atrix 4G has a pentile matrix aswell and that's qHD too!
hiraj_panosian said:
The SGS II doesn't have a pentile matrix that's for sure, since the plus in super amoled plus, stands for the extra subpixel (compared to Super Amoled)
Now I was wondering whether the HTC Sensation has a pentile matrix because the Atrix 4G has a pentile matrix aswell and that's qHD too!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
qHD is only a spec of resolution, not of screen type. qHD is one quarter of full HD resolution:
1920/2= 960
1080/2= 540
The qHD notation could be use on amoled, samoled, lcd, slcd or any type of screen, as long as it is 960 x 540 resolution.
Killbynature said:
The screen on the sensation is super LCD qhd I'm pretty sure the super amoled plus screen on the sg2 is pentile matrix
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The sgs2 is NOT a pentile matrix.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium App
walk.away said:
Wow, I wonder why they did that, I'm not buying the blue phosphor stuff as how many lcd screens have you seen noticeably affected by this. Is this the only pentile lcd screen?
I wouldnt have thought that the Sensation would use pentile as none of the new HTC models with S-LCD screens have pentile as far as I'm aware.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Has nothing to do with the blue. The white pixel lends brightness. I'm sure its cheaper for them and easier to make. Ideally it should increase battery life.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium App
Killbynature said:
The screen on the sensation is super LCD qhd I'm pretty sure the super amoled plus screen on the sg2 is pentile matrix
Sent from my HTC Glacier using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I see others have corrected you, but since your post my in reply to mine I felt irked enough to reply anyways. The SGSII screen is definitely NOT pentile. Samsung made a big deal about that at the launch, and its been widely publicised since. Using Google occasionally, before posting, is a great way to avoid espousing fictions publicly.
eallan said:
Has nothing to do with the blue. The white pixel lends brightness. I'm sure its cheaper for them and easier to make. Ideally it should increase battery life.
Sent from my Xoom using XDA Premium App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Erm, there is no suchh thing as a white pixel. Red Green and Blue combine to make white light. The anandtech article explains it well.
I do acknowledge that the blue may shut down quicker, but no other LCD uses this, so i dont believe its the reason Motorola used pentile matrix. Possibly too reduce the cost of creating a screen with high resolution by reduction the number of sub pixels to cram in. (or wichever lcd manufacturer moto uses)
Anyone know the answer to the OP?
As with many other people I'm torn between the SGS2 and the HTC Sensation... For me this could be the deciding factor.
Erm, there is no suchh thing as a white pixel. Red Green and Blue combine to make white light. The anandtech article explains it well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I believe the Atrix uses a RGBW PenTile arrangement - you can see it in the Anandtech cloe-up.
The sgs2 is NOT a pentile matrix.
Repetition of what others have said but,
GSII has no pentile matrix, the PLUS in super AMOLED Plus stands for 50% increase i sub pixels SO when you look at the screen, it'll appear in it's FULL resolution! No pixelating due to pentile.
Link will tell you what you need to know.
http://www.oled-info.com/super-amoled-plus
daivik said:
Repetition of what others have said but,
GSII has no pentile matrix, the PLUS in super AMOLED Plus stands for 50% increase i sub pixels SO when you look at the screen, it'll appear in it's FULL resolution! No pixelating due to pentile.
Link will tell you what you need to know.
http://www.oled-info.com/super-amoled-plus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THANK YOU! That description is accurate without the implied hyperbole of making it higher res and stuff. Sorry, I just hate the propaganda spewed by all companies and think that its hyperbole has no place here. Saying it makes it look higher res than it is is wrong, while your statement of "it'll appear in it's FULL resolution! No pixelating due to pentile." is perfectly accurate.
solsearch said:
THANK YOU! That description is accurate without the implied hyperbole of making it higher res and stuff. Sorry, I just hate the propaganda spewed by all companies and think that its hyperbole has no place here. Saying it makes it look higher res than it is is wrong, while your statement of "it'll appear in it's FULL resolution! No pixelating due to pentile." is perfectly accurate.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
even thought you'd think they'd "bat for AMOELD" it's a VERY good website. Just lays the facts of AMOLED.
So have you made your mind up yet??
daivik said:
even thought you'd think they'd "bat for AMOELD" it's a VERY good website. Just lays the facts of AMOLED.
So have you made your mind up yet??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best kind of sites, the ones that will speak the impartial truth.
And yeah, the Sensation is the one I'll get. The camera is better on the Samsung but the higher res screen is a godsend for me (the resolution closes in on that of the original Galaxy Tab, HTC Flyer, and BB Playbook). Plus, I am upgrading from a Touch Pro 2, I really don't think any dual-core phone will disappoint me (except maybe for a Tegra2 one because I want High Profile H.264 decoding). I don't like the ergonomics of the SII or their UI (though their browser is buttery smooth). The new zoom method on the SII seems interesting but also seems to lack the precision needed to really make it useful (it'll most likely improve with time). Also, HTC in general is great with updates (I'm not saying anything bad about Samsung), they had 5 different ROMs for my TP2 and the latest update was released February of this year.
In summary these are my reasons for choosing the Sensation:
Higher resolution screen: great for reading web pages, novels, comics and I assuming it'll be great for document editing/formatting/creation. The colours on SAMOLED+ might be prettier but not as functional for me.
Camera, I need the cameras in general for spontaneous moments and for reference. To show what I was talking about or documentation moments, things, etc. (or even just avoiding the wasted paper of photocopies). I do wish it had more detail but it's enough for what I need (though what DOES bug me about it is that from some shots/videos you can see that it IS capable of capturing finer detail which makes me think the blurry/pastel-y parts are due to compression or noise reduction algorithms that are just too aggressive).
UI and HTC familiarity and product support (I honestly get the impression that Google's decision to ask companies to support devices for 18 months is going to affect HTC's practices and I mean that in a good way).
The processor might not be as good (MIGHT as it is still an ongoing debate and don't want people to jump down my throat) but it is better tenfold than the one I have at the moment.
And hey, I figure the "buttery smoothness" of the SII should be coming to all halfway decent phones, including the Sensation, when Ice Cream Sandwich comes out as Honeycomb supposedly supports GPU acceleration and so the Sandwich should too.
I am an informed shopper. I make sure I am aware of not only the advantages, but also the deficiencies, of what I buy but make the choice based on what's best for ME based on my likes/wants and NEEDS at the moment and near future.
Now I just have to do two things:
1) wait for reviews if they don't take too long to see if there's anything seriously wrong with the Sensation or something else that could change my decision (I doubt it).
2) Choose whether to buy an imported sim-unlocked version or import one from T-Mobile (This decision might be heavily influenced by the release date of unlocked versions and the programs pre-installed on the T-Mob version.
How about you Daivik? Make your choice? And don't worry, whatever it is I won't try to dissuade you
p.s. I read the Sensation manual and like that it has bilingual support for the keyboard/text prediction.. Something which is very useful for me (though for all I know the SII could have it).
solsearch said:
Best kind of sites, the ones that will speak the impartial truth.
And yeah, the Sensation is the one I'll get. The camera is better on the Samsung but the higher res screen is a godsend for me (the resolution closes in on that of the original Galaxy Tab, HTC Flyer, and BB Playbook). Plus, I am upgrading from a Touch Pro 2, I really don't think any dual-core phone will disappoint me (except maybe for a Tegra2 one because I want High Profile H.264 decoding). I don't like the ergonomics of the SII or their UI (though their browser is buttery smooth). The new zoom method on the SII seems interesting but also seems to lack the precision needed to really make it useful (it'll most likely improve with time). Also, HTC in general is great with updates (I'm not saying anything bad about Samsung), they had 5 different ROMs for my TP2 and the latest update was released February of this year.
In summary these are my reasons for choosing the Sensation:
Higher resolution screen: great for reading web pages, novels, comics and I assuming it'll be great for document editing/formatting/creation. The colours on SAMOLED+ might be prettier but not as functional for me.
Camera, I need the cameras in general for spontaneous moments and for reference. To show what I was talking about or documentation moments, things, etc. (or even just avoiding the wasted paper of photocopies). I do wish it had more detail but it's enough for what I need (though what DOES bug me about it is that from some shots/videos you can see that it IS capable of capturing finer detail which makes me think the blurry/pastel-y parts are due to compression or noise reduction algorithms that are just too aggressive).
UI and HTC familiarity and product support (I honestly get the impression that Google's decision to ask companies to support devices for 18 months is going to affect HTC's practices and I mean that in a good way).
The processor might not be as good (MIGHT as it is still an ongoing debate and don't want people to jump down my throat) but it is better tenfold than the one I have at the moment.
And hey, I figure the "buttery smoothness" of the SII should be coming to all halfway decent phones, including the Sensation, when Ice Cream Sandwich comes out as Honeycomb supposedly supports GPU acceleration and so the Sandwich should too.
I am an informed shopper. I make sure I am aware of not only the advantages, but also the deficiencies, of what I buy but make the choice based on what's best for ME based on my likes/wants and NEEDS at the moment and near future.
Now I just have to do two things:
1) wait for reviews if they don't take too long to see if there's anything seriously wrong with the Sensation or something else that could change my decision (I doubt it).
2) Choose whether to buy an imported sim-unlocked version or import one from T-Mobile (This decision might be heavily influenced by the release date of unlocked versions and the programs pre-installed on the T-Mob version.
How about you Daivik? Make your choice? And don't worry, whatever it is I won't try to dissuade you
p.s. I read the Sensation manual and like that it has bilingual support for the keyboard/text prediction.. Something which is very useful for me (though for all I know the SII could have it).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that is a good reasoning!! Personally I think I'm swaying to the GSII.
1) I'm on T-mobile UK, who get all their phones late! :/ SO I don't think I could wait for the sensation (as it is the GSII is coming in in June...or later)
2) I prefer the sense look and feel, but I'm coming up from a Desire, so I feel as if I'm just buying a "Desire-pro"/"Desire-EPIC-HD" etc (you get the point?) and I'm the sort of person that likes change!
I also ended up just using launcherPro over sense on my desire also.
3) Watch is a big feature on HTC...but I have A RUBBISH 2mb internet speed, on a good day, so downloading movies is something that I haven't been able to do (without leaving my pc on over night!)
4)Being honest, I'm not totally happy about the TouchWiz messaging of contacts (it looks very "blocky/rectangular", but that's something I'll change/get over.)
5) the RAM, even though it is more that enough, it's just the sort of thing that will bug me, knowing that the GSII has 1GB. And internal memory, again even though 1GB is enough, I just fear running out, like on my desire.
And the GSII, should be coming on T-Mobile earlier than the Sensation, so it's the one i'll go for - But still will feel gutted that I won't be seeing qHD.
there's always next year...when hopefully, we'll be seeing 300+ PPI Super AMOLED plus panels!
Read a post today regarding why Android phones are so much bigger than the iPhone and it makes my blood boiled:
http://www.displayblog.com/2012/01/16/why-android-smartphones-are-bigger-than-the-iphone/
If he was true, I wouldn't complain. But that guy totally made things up by himself. It's clear that he had not done research to back up his "theory" -- he just made it up himself. Any Android users who had changed the LCD density of their devices would know that it's fairly easy to change the lppi. When a manufacturer increase the physical resolution of its device, it will adjust the LCD density to accommodate the denser display. That guy could find out the truth easily by asking around.
The article makes perfect sense to me. I for one would much rather have a smaller screen with higher pixel density.
does it really matter. you have a device and it works for you, if you read every post where somebody whines about the most trivial things then i feel sorry for you. get a life
I think I'll try to rebut this.
There are four DPI levels (MDPI is baseline):
LDPI: ~120DPI
MDPI: ~160DPI
HDPI: ~240DPI
XHDPI: ~320DPI
What this means is that when resolution increases from ~120 ppi (I prefer ppi when discussing pixel-based digital displays) to ~159 ppi fonts and icons will get smaller. This applies to all three levels of in-betweens. And displays north of ~320 ppi will continue to get smaller with no reprieve.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
True. But manufacturers do not create screen sizes of EVERY possible density. They tend to aim for a certain density. And I don't see why they won't round up 159ppi up to 160. They wouldn't (with minor exceptions) create a screen perfectly at the middle between HDPI and MDPI, for example.
If displays size were kept at 3.2 inches from the G1, the corresponding resolutions (ppi) would be:
G1: 180.23
Nexus One: 291.55
Nexus S: 233.24
Galaxy Nexus: 458.94
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would you want to convert the screen sizes to 3.2 inches first? This doesn't make sense! Oh, and I think you calculated the Nexus S wrongly.
But because Android renders text and graphics like desktop OSes (e.g. Windows, OS X) increasing resolution above 320 ppi means smaller UI elements. The display had to grow in size to compensate for shrinking UI elements. iOS renders the Retina display not by shrinking UI elements by one fourth but by doubling clarity and sharpness. Unless Google adds an additional “DPI level” beyond XHDPI, Android smartphones that match or beat the iPhone 4/4S in resolution will always be bigger, much bigger.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Android would never need to go past 320dpi, just like the iPhone, for it is at the verge of the human eye's visual acuity.
FYI for those who don't know, 4 copies of the UI elements are created, for each of the different display densities. So scaling up would simply mean swapping the element with the identical one of the higher density. Anything past the highest density is also past 320dpi, higher than the limit the human eye can distinguish.
UI elements created for XHDPI are usually purposefully created such that they are big enough for the density, allowing UI elements to be comfortably big enough for users.
Then why are 1280×720 Android smartphones much bigger? Because UI elements would get too small if they were much smaller than 4.5 inches.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no point of having a screen higher than 320dpi. It would be hard for one to differentiate a screen of 320dpi and 360dpi of the same size. There is no point in google trying to compete in resolution with the iPhone at this point. And besides, a manufacturer could easily release a 3.5 inch phone matching the iPhone's screen perfectly with no problems.
So there is seriously no practical point in trying to squeeze 1280x720 into a small 3.5 inch screen. I doubt manufacturers will want to try that when a 320ppi screen could do the exact same job (which by calculations, a 960x640 screen fits perfectly), without users noticing any difference. This is when resolution does not mean everything. DPI is much more important than resolution.
Disclaimer: I am not an app developer, but this is what I understand from the documentation from the android developer website.
DirkGently said:
The article makes perfect sense to me. I for one would much rather have a smaller screen with higher pixel density.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If what he said was true, then it made perfect sense. The problem is, he's wrong, completely. An OEM will change the ro.sf.lcd_density in build.prop to adjust the LCD density so that the font size and icon size scale up as the physical resolution increase, period. That's a fact and I have not seen a single OEM who doesn't do that. In fact, if an end user roots his device, he can change the setting himself.
No offensive to the iOS fans, but I just couldn't stand for some of them who think they know everything and keep inventing new things to praise how great their OS is, when they couldn't even get the fact right. I mean, if he's saying a 3.5" screen is the perfect size, that's one thing because it's personal preference and no one can argue that. But he wasn't doing that. He just made up a theory that is just plain wrong and present it as a fact.