Database Info

An amazing Article that will help you learn AMOLED screens and how to use them

I take no credit to post this information. They all belong to displaymate.com website
.......
The first famous OLED Smartphone was the Google Nexus One, launched in January 2010, which included a Samsung early generation OLED display. But by far the most successful series of OLED Smartphones has been Samsung’s own Galaxy S series that launched in mid 2010 – Galaxy S I with a 4.0 inch screen in June 2010, Galaxy S II with a 4.5 inch screen in June 2011, and the just released Galaxy S III with a 4.8 inch screen in June 2012. All are called “Super AMOLED” – some are Plus and others are PenTile – we’ll explain the differences below.
Not surprisingly, all new display technologies initially start near the back of the pack in performance compared to the established and more refined products – IPS LCDs in this particular case. Not surprisingly, the Google Nexus One came in last place in our Smartphone Display Shoot-Out. But six months later the Samsung Galaxy S I did a lot better and we gave it a DisplayMate Best Video Hardware Award for the Best New Display Technology. In this Shoot-Out we will examine in-depth the display performance of the three Galaxy S generations to see how OLEDs have been evolving and improving over time. This article will be a combination of objective praise and critical analysis of OLED displays.
OLED versus LCD and LED
Most Smartphones, Tablets, Laptops, Computer Monitors, and HDTVs currently use LCD display technology, which is a transmissive technology that requires a Backlight to produce the light for the image. That Backlight is being made increasingly with LEDs. Many manufacturers advertise their LCD displays and HDTVs that have LED Backlights as LED displays and HDTVs, but that is very misleading because the LEDs are just the Backlight for the LCD. There are actually no consumer LED displays or HDTVs. On the other hand, OLED displays are emissive devices that don’t require a Backlight because every pixel and sub-pixel gives off its own colored light to produce the image. That lack of a Backlight and its optics means that OLEDs are a lot thinner than LCDs and is also the reason why OLEDs will eventually become a lot cheaper to manufacture than LCDs.
OLED, PenTile AMOLED, Super AMOLED, Super AMOLED Plus, and HD Super AMOLED
The marketing terminology and puffery for displays varies among manufacturers and is confusing… The Google Nexus One was listed as having an “AMOLED” display. The AM stands for Active Matrix, but that prefix is unnecessary because all current LCD and OLED Smartphones, Tablets, Laptops, and HDTVs use an Active Matrix. All subsequent generations of Samsung OLEDs are called “Super AMOLED” in the same way that you’ll often see “Super LCD” advertised as well. Not all manufacturers use the “Super” terminology so it’s best just to ignore it as advertising puffery. “HD AMOLED” means that the pixel resolution of the display is High Definition 1280 x 720 pixels or higher. But here is where it gets complicated and confusing – if you see “Plus” that means that the display has the traditional 3 Red, Green and Blue sub-pixel arrangement that is found in almost all display technologies. If you don’t see “Plus” on Samsung devices that means that the display has only 2 sub-pixels per pixel (a Minus) – half of the pixels have Green and Red sub-pixels and the other half have Green and Blue sub-pixels, so Red and Blue are always shared by two adjacent pixels. This technology is called “PenTile.” PenTile screens have only half the total number of Red and Blue sub-pixels as the traditional 3 sub-pixel displays, so they aren’t as sharp as traditional displays with the same pixel resolution and their highly advertised screen PPIs are not comparable. This is especially noticeable with colored text and graphics. PenTile uses Sub-pixel Rendering and Anti-Aliasing that partially compensates for this shortfall. PenTile displays have some advantages: they are easier to manufacture and therefore cost less, and for OLEDs the Red, Green and Blue sub-pixels are sized differently and that improves Blue aging somewhat (see below). For now, OLED displays over 250 PPI use PenTile technology. It’s expected that the next generation of OLEDs will be called “HD Super AMOLED Plus” and they will have the standard 3 sub-pixels per pixel.
The Shoot-Out
To compare the performance of the Galaxy S series of OLEDs we ran our in-depth series of Display Technology Shoot-Out tests on the Galaxy S I, Galaxy S II, and Galaxy S III. We take display quality very seriously and provide in-depth objective analysis side-by-side comparisons based on detailed laboratory measurements and extensive viewing tests with both test patterns and test images. For additional background, context, and comparisons see our in-depth new iPad Display Shoot-Out and the previous generation Smartphone
Results Highlights
In this Results section we provide Highlights of the comprehensive lab measurements and extensive side-by-side visual comparisons using test photos, test images and test patterns that are presented in later sections. The next section below provides OLED Power Saving and Aging Advice. The Comparison Table in the following section summarizes the lab measurements in the following categories: Screen Reflections, Brightness and Contrast, Colors and Intensities, Viewing Angles, Display Power Consumption, Running Time on Battery.
New Issues for a New Technology: OLED is a very different new display technology and so both manufacturers and consumers will have to learn about its particular performance requirements and idiosyncrasies. The new issues for OLEDS are just as challenging and significant as when we shifted from CRTs to LCDs. An excellent source of information about OLEDS is www.oled-info.com. As the discussion below shows, manufacturers still have a lot to learn…
OLED Engineering versus Galaxy Marketing: This is actually a combined Shoot-Out – we are looking at an OLED display implemented within Samsung Galaxy Marketing goals and requirements. One of the most important is to make the Smartphone as thin and light as possible. Unfortunately, the battery is a major contributor to both thickness and weight so it bears the brunt of this limitation. OLED displays still require more power on the average than comparable LCDs. And unfortunately, the Galaxy S I,II,III battery runtimes (below) are shorter than most other Smartphones that we have tested. As a result, Power Management is the single biggest issue confronting OLED displays. The power constraints on all of the Galaxy S Smartphones have significantly impacted many display performance issues, particularly on the Galaxy S III. This is undoubtedly a strategic marketing decision, but it would be nice if the Galaxy S III were also available in a slightly thicker and heavier version with a bigger battery. In particular, that would help its OLED display really shine if there were fewer imposed power constraints that affect its calibration and performance…
OLED Progress Report: Based on our Lab tests and measurements below there has been a rapid and significant improvement in OLED performance within the Galaxy S I,II,III series, particularly the power efficiency, which is extremely important. The OLED displays themselves are excellent, but their overall performance has been compromised by the calibration and implementation choices that have been made for the Galaxy S series, which are discussed in detail throughout this article.
OLED Aging: All display technologies age to varying degrees. The current generation of Blue OLEDs age much faster than the Red and Green OLEDs. The current 50 percent aging Brightness for Blue is specified by the manufacturers at 20,000 hours while Red and Green are both over 200,000 hours. People generally don’t hold onto their Smartphones for very long: for example, 2 years at 4 hours per day is about 3,000 hours. That would actually be enough time for the Blue aging to become visually noticeable, but there is also some built-in automatic aging compensation that adjusts the drive levels to help counteract the aging effects. In the past users have documented OLED aging with screen shots, but there have been continuing improvements, so it’s hard to say how large the visual aging effects are for the current generation of OLEDs. We include some advice on reducing aging effects and improving the power efficiency of OLEDs below.
Comparison with the Best LCDs: The premium IPS LCDs used in many top performing Smartphones and Tablets (including the iPhone 4s and iPads) are the benchmark competition for these OLED displays. IPS LCDs remain significantly brighter and still have a higher overall power efficiency, but typically have a smaller Color Gamut, a higher Black Level, a larger Brightness decrease with Viewing Angle, and some Motion Blur. OLEDs are still more expensive than LCDs, although that will change over the next several years. While LCDs are not very power efficient, they are still more power efficient than OLEDs for producing bright images (although the public perception is the reverse – that’s why OLED displays are dimmer and why you don’t see any large OLED Tablets). There has been quite a significant improvement within the Galaxy S I,II,III series and this will undoubtedly continue until OLEDs eventually become more efficient than LCDs. For comparison with LCDs see our in-depth new iPad Display Shoot-Out.
Screen Brightness: The Maximum and Peak Brightness for the Galaxy S III are significantly lower than the S II and S I, and they are in turn lower than most LCDs. Fortunately, the Screen Reflectance of the Galaxy S series is among the lowest we have ever measured and that helps overcome much of the Brightness shortfall. A more troubling issue with current OLEDs is the variation in Brightness that occurs with image content, called the Average Picture Level, APL. Bright images with high APL have their screen Brightness reduced by up to 30 percent, which introduces undesirable Brightness variations with content. Another side effect is that the Brightness of images can change significantly in shifting between Portrait and Landscape modes. On the Google Galaxy Nexus, a close cousin of the Galaxy S III, the effect is so large for high APL that the Brightness (Luminance) of Green is greater than White, which is very wrong.
Color of White for OLEDs: Providing an accurate White is very important for getting accurate colors in images, particularly photos and videos. The Standard White for digital photography and essentially all consumer content is called D6500, which is the color of Daylight and corresponds to a Color Temperature of 6,500 degrees Kelvin. Whites with a higher Color Temperature appear too blue and lower too yellow. White for the Galaxy S series ranges from 10,200 Kelvin for the S I down to 7,900 Kelvin for the S III, among the bluest Whites we have ever measured. This gives all images something of a cold bluish cast. But what is positively shocking about increasing the Blue content of all images is that Blue OLEDs have only about one tenth the power efficiency of Red and Green OLEDs (see below), so the additional Blue produces a significant waste of precious power that has very little effect on the total screen Brightness. Perhaps even more shocking is that the Blue OLEDs age at a much faster rate than the Red and Green OLEDs, so the higher Color Temperature accelerates the aging process – a very bad idea. Using the Standard D6500 White would improve color accuracy, improve battery run time, and reduce aging…
Color Saturation and Accuracy: OLEDs have a large native Color Gamut, much bigger than LCDs, but bigger isn’t always better. In order to accurately reproduce the colors in photos, videos and other images the display needs to match the Standard sRGB / Rec.709 Color Gamut that is used to generate most consumer content. The Color Gamut of the Galaxy S I,II,III is 138 percent of the Standard, which produces oversaturated colors that can appear comic book like and gaudy in some instances. Photos appear with way too much color. It’s similar to turning the Color Control way up on your HDTV. Unfortunately, none of the Galaxy S Smartphones have a similar Color Saturation control that would allow users to correct this or adjust it to their satisfaction, so you’re stuck unless there is a software update that corrects this. An accurate factory color calibration would fix it – but the exaggerated images sometimes make these Smartphones standout in a crowd, so it undoubtedly helps boost retail store sales. But eventually when you want to see accurate renderings of your photos and images, you’re out of luck. Note that Apple is emphasizing very high color accuracy in their latest displays – hopefully Samsung will follow the lead…
Irregular Color Gamut and Power Implications: Not only is the Galaxy S I,II,III Color Gamut set way too large, but it is also very irregular – Green is much more saturated compared with either Red or Blue, as shown in Figure 2. This imbalance has a tendency to give images a Green accent and color cast. But correcting the Gamut so that it matches the Standard has power efficiency implications because Green is significantly more power efficient than either Red or Blue, and they must be added as calibration color mixtures for the Color Gamut adjustments, so the power consumption for a calibrated OLED display will be higher. See below.
Viewing Angle Performance: In principle, OLEDs shouldn’t have any variation in Brightness or Color with Viewing Angle. But they do – they are still better than LCDs but show significantly larger Brightness and Color Shifts than might be expected. The Color Shifts are actually about double that for IPS LCDs, but are still satisfactory. This is due primarily to the anti-reflection layer, although the touch screen and cover glass also affect Viewing Angle performance. The root cause is the greater optical path absorption at larger Viewing Angles. It’s still satisfactory, but larger than expected. However, at very large Viewing Angles (greater than 45 degrees) the screens on the Galaxy S I,II,III take on a distinctly strong blue color shift and cast.
OLED Power Efficiency: While LCDs are not very power efficient, they are still currently more power efficient than OLEDs for producing bright high Average Picture Level APL images. For dark low APL images OLEDs are very efficient and LCDs very inefficient. So OLED Power Efficiency and Power Management strategies become very important for bright images because they are using lots of battery power (and generating heat). By far the most significant issue is that Green OLEDs are 12 times more power efficient than Blue OLEDs and 1.8 times more efficient than Red OLEDs at producing visible light (Luminance) for a given amount of display power (Watts). In fact, Blue OLEDs consume more power than Green OLEDs but generate only 9 percent of Green OLED Brightness (Luminance). This tremendous imbalance means that images with lots of Green content are much more power efficient. It also means that color mixtures all come with an power penalty. In fact, color calibration of an OLED display so that it matches the sRGB / Rec.709 Standard would require complex color mixtures that will have noticeably higher power demands, which may make OLED calibration challenging in the near future for mobile displays until the OLED efficiencies (or battery power) increase significantly.
Galaxy S I, Galaxy S II, and Galaxy S III Power Efficiency Comparisons: From our Luminance, Power, and screen Area measurements we can compare the relative display power efficiencies of the three Galaxy S generations. In going from the S I to the S II there was a 29 percent improvement in display power efficiency, and in going from the S II to the S III there was a 43 percent improvement in display power efficiency. From S I to S III there was a total of 59 percent improvement in display power efficiency – that’s in just 2 years – very impressive!
OLED Galaxy S III and iPhone LCD Power Efficiency Comparisons: Typical full screen text applications (on a white background) have an Average Picture Level APL of 90 percent or more, so we expect LCDs to do better. On the other hand, typical full screen video and photographic images have an APL of 20 percent or less, so we expect OLEDs to do better there. From our Luminance, Power, and screen Area measurements we can determine exactly who is better, when, and by how much. Comparing the Galaxy S III and the iPhone 4, images with less than 28 percent APL are more power efficient on the Galaxy S III, and greater than 28 percent are more efficient on the iPhone 4 – so the Galaxy S III is somewhat more efficient for videos and significantly less efficient for text applications. But the iPhone 4 uses an LCD with Low Temperature Poly Silicon that is significantly more efficient than typical LCDs with amorphous Silicon, such as the iPhone 3GS – where the crossover is a lot higher at 69 percent APL, so it’s a split decision there depending on the application mix…
Aggressive Power Management: The smaller battery and bigger power needs of the larger OLED screens requires aggressive display power management. The Galaxy S I has the least Power Management and the Galaxy S III has the most. First of all, the Maximum and Peak Brightness for the Galaxy S III are set significantly lower than the S II and S I, and they are in turn lower than most LCDs. Fortunately, the Screen Reflectance of the Galaxy S series is among the lowest we have ever measured and that helps overcome much of the Brightness shortfall. Also to save power, images with a high Average Picture Level APL are automatically dimmed by up to 30 percent. An Automatic Brightness control based on the Ambient Light level is also important for display power management, but it is implemented poorly (see below). These issues combined with the Power Efficiency effects discussed above could all be better implemented with a Display Power Management Slider – set it low and the display receives aggressive power management – set it high and the display delivers optimum performance.
Significantly Improved Battery Running Times: The large improvement in OLED power efficiency and the much more aggressive Power Management has produced a 75 percent increase in Battery Running Time for the Galaxy S I to II to III, from a poor 3.2 hours to a very good 5.6 hours. For comparison, note that the iPhone 4 has a running time of 7.8 hours with a screen Brightness of 541 cd/m2 while the Galaxy S III has a running time of 5.6 hours with a screen Brightness of 224 cd/m2. The running times are based on a full brightness all white screen with no running applications. As the Average Picture Level APL decreases the Battery Running Times for OLEDs will increase.
Screen Reflectance: Ambient light reflecting off the screen washes out the image, its contrast and colors. Increasing the screen brightness is one way to overcome this problem but it uses precious battery power (and speeds up the OLED aging process). A much better method is to lower the screen Reflectance. Because of the way the LCD optics works they already have some built-in anti-reflection – not so for OLEDs, so they have a much more difficult Reflectance problem. Fortunately, Samsung has risen to the challenge because the Galaxy S OLED displays all have Reflectance of 5 percent or less – among the lowest we have ever measured. The Nokia Lumina 900 is the only other Smartphone to come in under 5 percent Reflectance. This is quite impressive – it’s done by using advanced optics, a Quarter Wave Plate under the cover glass suppresses the reflections. This is super important for OLEDs because of the brightness, power, and aging issues discussed above. Samsung has done an excellent job here. However, the Lab measurements indicate that the Reflectance is getting slightly worse from I to II to III, rather than better…
Automatic Brightness: It is particularly important for Smartphones to accurately and automatically adjust their screen brightness according to the current highly variable Ambient Lighting conditions. This maintains screen visibility while minimizing the battery power needed to do so. Because OLEDs have significant power management issues this is especially important for them. Unfortunately, the Galaxy S Smartphones all perform poorly here (as do almost all Android devices – Apple does slightly better but still poorly). The Galaxy S I,II,III results are similar to the results in our Automatic Brightness Shoot-Out. An innovative application for the OLED’s large native Color Gamut and high Color Saturation is to (only) fully use it when there is High Ambient Light, which will help compensate for the washed out image colors and will even allow lower screen Brightness to be used under those conditions – but before that happens Automatic Brightness and Color Calibration will need to be properly implemented.
Polarized Sunglasses: Most LCDs and some OLED displays can have screen viewing interference problems with polarized sunglasses – the image can become invisible Black at some screen orientations and angles. The Galaxy S I, Galaxy S II, and Galaxy Nexus have Quarter Wave Plate optics that result in a screen extinction at a 45 degree orientation, so their screens can be read in both Landscape and Portrait orientations, which is good. However, the Galaxy S III screen shows multi-colored circular rings with polarized sunglasses, which are quite pronounced at large Viewing Angles, so the Galaxy S III is not good with polarized sunglasses.
Google Galaxy Nexus: The Google Galaxy Nexus is also made by Samsung and has an OLED display that is very similar to the Galaxy S III. However, its Brightness is set much higher than the S III, but it then has a much higher variation in Brightness with the APL of image content as discussed above – it is more than a 2:1 variation, which is way too large. In fact, the effect on the Galaxy Nexus is so large that for high APL the Brightness (Luminance) of Green is greater than White, which is very wrong. Hopefully, Google will correct that with an Android software update…
OLED Power Saving and Aging Advice
There is a lot that individual users can do to reduce the power consumption of OLEDs and also reduce potential aging effects:
The obvious recommendation for all display technologies is to appropriately adjust the screen Brightness for the current level of Ambient Light – that should be done by the Automatic Brightness control, but as indicated above it is poorly implemented and close to useless on virtually all Smartphones including the Galaxy S series. Hopefully that will be corrected in future versions of Android. When adjusting screen Brightness also take into account that applications like reading require higher visual acuity and need more Brightness than when looking at photo and video content.
Unlike LCDs, display power on OLEDs depends entirely on the image content – brighter images use more power. In particular, wallpapers and screen backgrounds can have a considerable impact on OLED power consumption.
Because of differential aging, setting your wallpaper to all Black is most likely a bad idea because the fixed arrangement of Home Screen icons may eventually affect screen uniformity, so ghost images of the icons might become noticeable.
For all text based reading applications it is a really good idea to set the standard Black text on a White background to Reverse Video, White text on a Black background. Not only does that use a lot less power but it improves screen viewability in bright Ambient Lighting. Start by setting Google’s search page to a Black background. Do the same for Email and other Apps and websites wherever possible.
Setting your wallpaper to a bright beach scene will use a lot more power than a subdued indoor photo. A more subtle but more important issue is that color has a major impact on display power consumption because the Green OLEDs provide 10 times more Brightness per watt than Blue OLEDs. In fact, Blue OLEDs consume more power than Green OLEDs but deliver only about one tenth of the Brightness. So give preference to images and wallpapers with Greens and try to avoid images with lots of Blue.
Conclusion: Great OLED Displays… But Compromised by Galaxy Marketing Constraints…
All of the Galaxy S OLEDs performed very well in our Lab Tests and Measurements. The results indicate that there has been a rapid and significant 2:1 improvement in OLED performance, particularly the power efficiency within the Galaxy S I,II,III series in just 2 years, which is very impressive. LCDs like the iPhone 4 are still considerably more power efficient than the latest OLEDs for bright image content with white backgrounds, which includes most text based and web applications. On the other hand, OLEDs are much more power efficient for full screen videos and photos, which generally have low Average Picture Levels.
The OLED displays themselves are excellent, but their overall performance has been compromised by the implementation choices that have been made in marketing the Galaxy S series. In particular, the power constraints have significantly compromised many display performance issues, particularly in the Galaxy S III, in order to deliver a very thin and light phone with very good battery running times. This is undoubtedly a strategic marketing decision, but it would be nice if the Galaxy S III were also available in a slightly thicker and heavier version with a bigger battery. That would help its OLED display really shine, particularly if there were fewer imposed power constraints that affect its display performance. In addition, OLED displays all currently suffer from a lack of accurate Color Calibration, something that LCDs have gotten very good at, particularly the new iPad, which is almost accurate enough to be used as a professional studio reference monitor, so its photos, videos, and image content appear beautiful and accurate. Hopefully, the same will happen for OLED displays in the near future…
Even with these compromises and performance issues the latest Galaxy S III has an impressive OLED display. If and when Samsung and Google implement the suggestions that we have made it will turn into an outstanding display. That and future models indicate a very promising and exciting future for OLEDs…
Lots of Room for Improvement by Samsung and all of the other OLED Smartphone and Tablet Manufacturers:
While Samsung has zeroed in on OLED power efficiency and done an excellent job of it, there are still plenty of other very important display issues that need to be addressed by all of the OLED Smartphone and Tablet manufacturers. Here are just a few: 1. Variable Display Power Management: The Power Efficiency effects discussed above could all be better implemented with a Display Power Management Slider – set it low and the display receives aggressive power management – set it high and the display delivers optimum performance. 2. Accurate Color Calibration: The OLED Color Gamut is not only substantially larger than the sRGB/ Rec.709 Standard, but it is also very irregular – Green is much more saturated compared with either Red or Blue, as shown in Figure 2. This imbalance has a tendency to give images a Green accent and color cast. The display also needs a Standard D6500 White Point – using D6500 would improve color accuracy, improve Battery Running Time, and reduce Blue aging. Note that Apple is emphasizing very high color accuracy in their latest displays – hopefully Samsung and other manufacturers will follow the lead. 3. Screen Reflectance: Samsung has done an excellent job here, but the Lab measurements indicate that the Reflectance is getting slightly worse from Galaxy S I to II to III – it definitely needs to get better. The typically large screen reflections can make the screen much harder to read even in moderate ambient light levels, requiring ever higher brightness settings that waste precious battery power. Manufacturers need to significantly reduce the mirror reflections with anti-reflection coatings and haze surface finishes. This article shows how Smartphone and Tablet screens degrade as the Ambient Light increases from 0 to 40,000 lux. 4. Ambient Light Sensor: The forward facing Ambient Light Sensor on virtually all Smartphones and Tablets measures the brightness of your face instead of the surrounding Ambient Light, which is what is needed to accurately set the screen’s Automatic Brightness. 5. Automatic Brightness: The Automatic Brightness controls on all Smartphones and Tablets that we have measured are positively awful and close to functionally useless. As a result they often get turned off, which reduces battery run time and increases eye strain. This article explains how to do it properly. 6. Display User Interface: The User Interface for most Smartphone and Tablet displays consists of a Brightness slider and an Automatic Brightness checkbox. People have very different visual preferences that should be accommodated with a display Pizzazz control that is similar to the functionality provided by the audio Equalizers found on most Smartphones and Tablets.
...............
SOURCE: DISPLAYMATE
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For more information, here is the link:

tritran18518 said:
I take no credit to post this information. They all belong to displaymate.com website
For more information, here is the link:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for sharing. So green beats black? Or is it black > green > blue
Sent from my HTC VLE_U using xda premium

ickedmel said:
Thanks for sharing. So green beats black? Or is it black > green > blue
Sent from my HTC VLE_U using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Green >Red> Blue. Amoled screen will save most of power when it display black, but at the same time, if you set black walpaper for your phone, it will reduces your screen's age.
P/S: Now i know why Iphones have very good battery life.

Written by an Apple fanboy by the look of it. Still, decent article.

djsubtronic said:
Written by an Apple fanboy by the look of it. Still, decent article.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. Good article still. Always like new information I didn't know before.
Thanks for sharing the article, Tritran.

Galaxy S II had a 4.3" display, not 4.5", otherwise not a bad article.
EDIT: the picture of an SII in the article isn't the standard Galaxy S II but one of the other variants, perhaps that's why.

The One S has much better OLED display because HTC actually properly calibrated it for about 6500k white point and the color gamut is much more accurate. Only issue is auto brightness, but that is easily fixed with custom auto brightness values.
Sent from my Inspire 4G using xda app-developers app

Excellent.
Thanks a lot :good:
What would be exactly the codes (they are not hexadecimal, I think) for green, blue and red colours in the phone?
Would be wise to use some green screen filter?
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.kovit.p.filteryourscreen

Awesome info!

very interesting!
thx for sharing!

Try an app called "screen adjuster" and set the blue to plus 3 or however you like. I think it looks pretty good
Sent from my HTC One S using xda app-developers app

I call tl;dr, so I'll shorten it a little bit (although I haven't read it, I'll use my knowledge of it)
AMOLED screens almost always have better battery life than standard TFT LCD screens. This is because the majority of them use Samsung's PenTile technology, which uses two colours per pixel instead of three. Like our phone, it has RG BG RG BG layout. This means that the resolution that the manufacturer claims the phone has is not always accurate
However, AMOLED+ screens have RGB RGB layout, meaning the phone has a true resolution. The downside of this is worse battery life.
AMOLED screens will ALWAYS have better contrast than TFT LCD screens. This is because when a pixel is meant to be black, it turns itself off, meaning it gives out zero light. Also, because each pixel has local dimming, it often gives out much more light than TFT LCD screens.
AMOLED screens also give better saturation of colours compared to TFT LCD screens. The best example of this is green. Get a plain green screen on a One X and a plain green screen on a One S, put the phones next to each-other and you will see the One S has a far richer green. Repeat it with all colours and the differences will be far less exaggerated, but the AMOLED screen will still be richer.
So, what's the downside? Screen burn. LCD screens are rather resistant to screen burn, while LED screens are as vulnerable as CRT screens (for people who don't know what CRT screens are, remember the televisions that had massive boxes on the back?). So, objects that are almost always on your screen, like the notification bar and the header bar, will usually get burned onto the screen.
Second downside, the phone will usually cost more than it would with a TFT LCD screen. This is because they cosy more to manufacture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Still tl;dr but not as long.
Sent from my HTC One S using xda premium

CNET: Full HD Super AMOLED more accurate than Super LCD 3

http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-6452_7-57587774/screens-test-htc-one-vs-samsung-galaxy-s4/
They compare the LCD technology and the AMOLED technology from the HTC One and the Samsung Galaxy S4 respectively. They determined that color accuracy, image detail, contrast and blacks to be superior in the Galaxy flagship, while giving brightness and outdoor legibility in direct light to its competitor. The iPhone 5 is considered best in class for handheld mobile LCD technology when it comes to color reproduction, due to better screen calibration on a smaller panel.
This comparison finding is further supported by the reputable business "DisplayMate" conducting comparison tests on the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S4 only to determine that they're on par.

megagodx said:
http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-6452_7-57587774/screens-test-htc-one-vs-samsung-galaxy-s4/
They compare the LCD technology and the AMOLED technology from the HTC One and the Samsung Galaxy S4 respectively. They determined that color accuracy, image detail, contrast and blacks to be superior in the Galaxy flagship, while giving brightness and outdoor legibility in direct light to its competitor. The iPhone 5 is considered best in class for handheld mobile LCD technology when it comes to color reproduction, due to better screen calibration on a smaller panel.
This comparison finding is further supported by the reputable business "DisplayMate" conducting comparison tests on the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S4 only to determine that they're on par.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"When you deselect the Adapt Display check box you can select from Dynamic, Standard, Professional Photo, or Movie. We measured them all, and Movie delivered the most accurate color. Its saturation error in particular is much lower than that of the other modes. Movie mode's advantage over the others isn't as strong as it was on the Note 2, however."
Movie is the best mode? Movie mode looks washed out, poor and boring close to Dynamic or Adapt Display.
I don't give a damn about synthetic color accuracy. That only makes sense if you are a professional that works with imaging and you NEED color accuracy. I don't care about that, since I don't work with that. I'm just a regular user that wants to enjoy my cell phone and I want rich, vivid images with images exploding with exaggerated color, because that's what makes me feel like having a great screen, and that´s what people tell me when they see my screen and say "wow, look at those colors".
I always thought that Galaxy S screens look much better then iPhone screens, and one of the reasons for that is the natural color boosting AMOLED screens do. Sure, they are not "accurate", but they look great. Accurate = boring. Vivid colors = awesome.

Yea. I switched to Movie Mode on my N2 and it looked horrible and faded.
Sent from my SPH-L900 using xda app-developers app

I much prefer saturated/richer colors, but I did wonder about color accuracy since reading other blogs/reviews/posts people have said the S4 is much less accurate than the HTC One/iPhone with regards to accuracy. I guess this sort of counterpoints those claims.

I am glad that we can chose what we want so... that's really good.
There is mode for everyone and it's great to be able to chose and have more options.

The point is. We all know OLED is not as color accurate as LCD. OLED boosts rich vivid colors that, although unaccurate, look awesome. Not to mention the perfect dark pitch and virtually infinite contrast ratio (unlike color accuracy, elevated contrast ratio is equally impressive both in theory and in practice).
Buying a OLED phone and trying to make it look like an LCD phone makes no sense to me. If I want a LCD-looking screen with LCD color accuracy, I´ll just buy an LCD phone.

^ Are you buying a phone based on the screen?
Point is that Amoled can be great on it's own but also can be good where LCDs are better and improve from generation to generation.

Suchomimus said:
I much prefer saturated/richer colors, but I did wonder about color accuracy since reading other blogs/reviews/posts people have said the S4 is much less accurate than the HTC One/iPhone with regards to accuracy. I guess this sort of counterpoints those claims.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Blogs, pundits of tech sites and such aren't usually knowledgeable when it comes to all factors of determining a good display. I find that they more often than not base their knowledge off of general propaganda. Or they don't have the right type of technology to conduct an invasive and accurate test for gauging the quality of a display in comparison to another.
All the information supplemented in the OP comes from sources that work in the business as screen calibrate technicians; DisplayMate (http://displaymate.com/Galaxy_S4_ShootOut_1.htm) is among the most reputable you'll ever find when it comes to screen assessment, as they do calibration for a living and have the technology to properly asses. I'd rather take their word than some editorial pundit from PocketNow or Gizmodo.

I think they all have their pro's and con's, I suggest you choose what looks good with your eye's and not base on test results or peoples opinions.

richardbroder said:
The point is. We all know OLED is not as color accurate as LCD.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OLEDs are perfectly capable to display absolute accurate colours and go beyond any other display technology in terms of output.
The problem is Samsung's presets accuracy and lack of education.
Sadly because the US variant of the S2 and S3 lacked the hardware for the display modes, that AMOLED got this asinine reputation.

http://www.phonearena.com/news/UL-certifies-the-4.99-FHD-display-on-the-Samsung-Galaxy-S4_id43874
According to UL, the screen on the Samsung Galaxy S4 offers one of the best color reproductions in the mobile industry with the broadest color gamut of up to 97% for the Adobe RGB color space. The screen is said to have one of the best contrast ratios and can be better seen under bright sunlight than the display on many of the phone's rivals.

*Emix* said:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/UL-certifies-the-4.99-FHD-display-on-the-Samsung-Galaxy-S4_id43874
According to UL, the screen on the Samsung Galaxy S4 offers one of the best color reproductions in the mobile industry with the broadest color gamut of up to 97% for the Adobe RGB color space. The screen is said to have one of the best contrast ratios and can be better seen under bright sunlight than the display on many of the phone's rivals.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was thinking about linking that, too. AMOLED truly does seem like it's going to be the future for top-end displays. They really just have to improve energy efficiency with the panel, so it can push higher degrees of brightness, that should dethrone any practical advantageous aspect to an LCD. The panel from S III to S4 was a major leap forward in enhancement. Makes me eagerly curious to see what the Note III and moreover, the S5 will shape this technology into next.

I use Movie mode and find it the best for me beacause im not a big fan of saturated colors.

They just need to sort motion blur and burn in before they can get back to the top.
That article is all well and good, but doesn't take into account that side by side with a HTC One, the S4 screen is underwhelming in real world.
I have gone with Samsung since S2 as I loved that device to bits, but the screen on the S4 blew me away for all the wrong reasons, hence why I bought the HTC One.
Had to chime in as I love samsung phones, but feel they dropped the ball with this one. The S4 screen for me is not even as nice as the S3. I don't know why, maybe by trying to mimic LCD, they lost what was good about AMOLED in the first place. The "pop".

DisplayMate Galaxy S7/S7 Edge OLED Display analysis (best display on any mobile ever)

DisplayMate just dropped their S7/S7 Edge screen analysis. Basically these devices have the best screens on any mobile phone on the market, yet again. Quotes.
DisplayMate said:
The Galaxy S7 has a Maximum Brightness that is 24% higher than the Galaxy S6, which is a significant and visually noticeable improvement, particularly in high ambient light. The Contrast and Contrast Rating in High Ambient Light have also significantly improved. We’ll cover these in detail below.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DisplayMate said:
The Color Gamut of the Basic screen mode is very accurate, with a nearly perfect 101 percent of the Standard sRGB / Rec.709 Color Gamut. Even better, the measured Absolute Color Accuracy for the Galaxy S7 Basic screen mode is an impressive 1.5 JNCD, tied with the Galaxy Note 5 and Galaxy S6 for the most color accurate displays that we have ever measured for a smartphone or tablet, which is visually indistinguishable from perfect, and is very likely considerably better than your living room TV.
Use the Basic screen mode for the best color and image accuracy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
DisplayMate said:
The Galaxy S7 matches or breaks new records in Smartphone display performance for:
Highest Absolute Color Accuracy (1.5 JNCD), Highest Peak Brightness (855 nits), Highest Contrast Rating in Ambient Light (186), Highest Screen Resolution (2560x1440), Highest (infinite) Contrast Ratio, and Smallest Brightness Variation with Viewing Angle (28 percent). In addition, almost every display lab test and measurement shows some improvements compared to the Galaxy S6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Galaxy S7 is able to emit around 855 nits of light, up from 784 nits on the Galaxy S6 and well above the iPhone 6S which is widely reported to peak at around 550 nits in general use.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In Basic Mode (sRGB) the phone also hits 6480k, in Photo Mode (Adobe RGB) it hits 6512k, both of these for all intents and purposes are pretty much as close to the ideal 6500k as it gets. White balance is essentially perfect.
DisplayMate | Galaxy S7/S7 Edge OLED Display Technology Shoot-Out
Basically, Samsung AMOLED is currently the best display tech out there. Besting LCD in every category, from colour accuracy, white balance, brightness, viewing angles, daylight viewing, ambient light contrast, black levels et all.

Great. way to go samsung.

V20 is using new camera sensor, same as OP3

I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.

Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not know why all oems are going with 4:3 ratio it looks ****ty when showing a photo or taking a photo on the phone which is 16:9 also most monitors and TVs are 16:9 , it's just everyone following apple as usual. If the headphone jack goes I think I will meltdown )))

My PC Monitor is 4:3 (NEC 24" CRT) and my Canon takes 4:3 pictures, which works good together and when printing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 sizes on my Epson. But for phones, it makes more sense to have a 16:9 image sensor, as that is the same aspect ratio as the phone's display and when viewed on an HDTV. I was glad that the Note 4 DE I got 2 years ago used a 16:9 sensor, but it looks like the Note 7 went back to 4:3 (not sure why). I was hoping the V20 was also going to use 16:9 for its sensor.

FAUguy said:
My PC Monitor is 4:3 (NEC 24" CRT) and my Canon takes 4:3 pictures, which works good together and when printing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 sizes on my Epson. But for phones, it makes more sense to have a 16:9 image sensor, as that is the same aspect ratio as the phone's display and when viewed on an HDTV. I was glad that the Note 4 DE I got 2 years ago used a 16:9 sensor, but it looks like the Note 7 went back to 4:3 (not sure why). I was hoping the V20 was also going to use 16:9 for its sensor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly the only reason is to follow a trend. 16:9 is so much better even if it is just so it fills the screen.

ipmanwck said:
I do not know why all oems are going with 4:3 ratio it looks ****ty when showing a photo or taking a photo on the phone which is 16:9 also most monitors and TVs are 16:9 , it's just everyone following apple as usual. If the headphone jack goes I think I will meltdown )))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's because the lenses are spherical, so you have a circle to work with. Since we can't yet produce cost-effective circular sensors, we need rectangles to fill it and since a 4:3 rectangle fills a circle much better, using a 16:9 sensor is basically just cutting usable space, or making your pixels smaller (which would give us poor low-light photos). BTW the most area-efficient sensors would be 1:1, but that is not a standard aspect ratio, so we use the closest one (4:3). I hope you can all understand my photography-nerd rambling.

BolintsMiki said:
It's because the lenses are spherical, so you have a circle to work with. Since we can't yet produce cost-effective circular sensors, we need rectangles to fill it and since a 4:3 rectangle fills a circle much better, using a 16:9 sensor is basically just cutting usable space, or making your pixels smaller (which would give us poor low-light photos). BTW the most area-efficient sensors would be 1:1, but that is not a standard aspect ratio, so we use the closest one (4:3). I hope you can all understand my photography-nerd rambling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was very informative actually! Thank you. I like learning stuff...
Sent from my awesome T-Mobile LG V10!

Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have faith. The sensor alone is only half of the equation. Processing is just as important if not more important. Just look at. The lowlight capabilities of this phone. Same sensor yet it takes better pics than the one plus 3. The HTC 10 has the same sensor as the Nexus 6p and the 6p is a lot better still because of processing. Lg has great processing. No one ever talked about the g5 or g4 or v10s sensors because lg really excellent at their outstanding processing. While I agree I prefer 16:9 over 4:3 it just seems that's where it's going. Most if not all smartphone cameras are 4:3 now. There's probly a reason. Maybe to fit the controls and toggles on the screen at the same time. Maybe for eis since it crops the image or perhaps helps with the jello effect with ois. I had the g5 before returning it because of the build quality and the camera was outstanding. Krystal key from Android authority did a comparison and the g5 was her favorite camera. I'm sure we will even get one or two updates soon to improve the camera even. Plus you have. The more robust manual controls on a smartphone to date. I myself can't wait to use focus peeking like DSLRs have!!

Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I purchased a LG G4 for $325 back in November 2015 and I just got the V20. Did some camera comparisons between the G4 and V20 and here's my unprofessional findings:
The V20 videos, although a little better in quality, they are not what I expected from a 2016 flagship devices. Sounds great, but not much of an improvement over the G4.
The V20 pictures, are VERY disappointing. Initially set on the 12MP 16:9, I changed it to the 16MP 4:3, I found pictures to be more watercolour and less sharp than the G4. This is especially true when looking at grass blades and bricks.
Tried this in both auto and manual mode, and still the G4 came ahead. Loss of detail is very disappointing, especially when I've paid more than double the G4 ($770) for this phone.
Sadly, I'm going to return this back to T-Mobile and wait a little until the S8 comes out (hopefully without the home button and backwards capacitive keys). Maybe by that time the Pixel XL 128GB will drop in price and I'll consider that. Even though the phone experience is snappy and fast, and I kind of like the second top screen, along with the finger print reader, it's the camera that makes or breaks the phone for me. And in this case, it is very disappointing to have the G4 beat it.

ipmanwck said:
16:9 is so much better even if it is just so it fills the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.

rudbwoy said:
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know man. Stupid companies copy Apple all the time it's annoying. I know why it's being done but they should really fill the screen like then do in video capture. Was considering v20 but the g4 was such an amazing photo phone nothing beat it and has beat it for a while. Video capture is still better on Samsung though because sound on the g4 is poo and stabilisation is not great.

Very interesting...I was just about to make a post about this, but I'm glad that I found this thread.
The V20 does a lot worse in low light than my Note 4. I am pretty disappointed with it not meeting my expectations. To date, My S7 and Note 4 take the best pictures and that's sad in a way that it out classes the V20 camera. :/

imx298 was a big mistake for a flagship with this price
imx378 could be a good choice...

iunlock said:
Very interesting...I was just about to make a post about this, but I'm glad that I found this thread.
The V20 does a lot worse in low light than my Note 4. I am pretty disappointed with it not meeting my expectations. To date, My S7 and Note 4 take the best pictures and that's sad in a way that it out classes the V20 camera. :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The s7 is so so good in low light. Was just taking photos inside in the dark of the kids dresses up in masks etc with only torch light and the photos were really good. My g4 cannot get much in that light but will be interesting to see what the v20 can do.

That's disappointing, I find the Pixel XL pretty uninteresting except of course for the amazing camera and I was thinking about exchanging it for a V20...
Additionaly the OP3T might get a IMX398 http://www.gsmarena.com/oneplus_3t_said_to_feature_a_sony_imx398_sensor-news-21328.php so I guess I'll have to wait for that OP3T now

Or the new Huawei Mate?

rudbwoy said:
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it was the other way around.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for just about anything other than a movie on a very big screen.

Skripka said:
Actually it was the other way around.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for just about anything other than a movie on a very big screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait...what?
calculateaspectratio
At my work, most if not all, the monitors are 1920x1080. Even the projectors in the conference rooms, (I've had the facilities people take out the 4:3 projector screens so we can use the wall), I've set to 1920x1080. At home, all I have are 16:9 TVs.
When I take pics and videos, and create family slide shows and such, all are 16:9....so I can play them back on my 16:9 TVs and devices.
16:9 is terrible? I don't know about that.

rudbwoy said:
Wait...what?
calculateaspectratio
At my work, most if not all, the monitors are 1920x1080. Even the projectors in the conference rooms, (I've had the facilities people take out the 4:3 projector screens so we can use the wall), I've set to 1920x1080. At home, all I have are 16:9 TVs.
When I take pics and videos, and create family slide shows and such, all are 16:9....so I can play them back on my 16:9 TVs and devices.
16:9 is terrible? I don't know about that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vertically short monitors but fat are bad for anything other than theater movie watching. Movie watching isa minority of most computer LCD use. Most users would benefit from 4:3 or 5:4 in normal use. Less scrolling, and easier reading. Less wasted space of just filler going unused. It isn't isn't until you're dealing with UHD 30" class that 16:9 really works with 2 side by side windows.
LCD makers switched to basically only 16:9 to save on margins and manufacturing expense...not because it was better. Was also a carrot to get consumers to replace otherwise functioning gear.

What are you talking about? 4:3 yields no benefit in a society where wide screen has taken over monitors, tvs and projectors. Unless you're living in the 90s there is No advantage to having that aspect ratio in 2016.
It's 2016, good luck finding a new TV or even monitors in a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's a dead aspect ratio so there is zero point in making cameras with this aspect ratio.
We can argue about how 4:3 is better but the fact is in society 16:9 is everywhere there is no reason to use 4:3 when everything runs 16:9. There is no benefit to it.
Sent from my LG-H901 using XDA-Developers mobile app

evo4g63t said:
What are you talking about? 4:3 yields no benefit in a society where wide screen has taken over monitors, tvs and projectors. Unless you're living in the 90s there is No advantage to having that aspect ratio in 2016.
It's 2016, good luck finding a new TV or even monitors in a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's a dead aspect ratio so there is zero point in making cameras with this aspect ratio.
We can argue about how 4:3 is better but the fact is in society 16:9 is everywhere there is no reason to use 4:3 when everything runs 16:9. There is no benefit to it.
Sent from my LG-H901 using XDA-Developers mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A) He just listed reasons for why this is happening.
B) Saying there is no benefit to 4:3 means you don't know anything about photography.

Why didn't Huawei use an AMOLED screen vs IPS?

It's kind of a head scratcher. I compared it with my 3T and is pretty noticeable as on the 3t the colors are better. Was it to keep cost down?

Screen on time is much better than amoled when viewing mostly white content such as web pages.
Amoled tends to over saturate colours, lcd is more subdued but also more natural looking.
Rgb matrix gives better sharpness than the pentile matrix typically used in amoled screens.
Possible issues securing sufficient quantities if amoled panels.
Mate 9 screen is also brighter.
My last three daily drivers were the Note 7, Oneplus 3 and s7. There's definite advantages to amoled but there's advantages to lcd as well. Personally I have no complaints, Huawei have used a very high quality ips panel, so I'd be surprised if cost was the main motivator.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

Exactly. People tend to hear AMOLED and think it's clear cut. It's not. Each tech has its own pros and cons.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using XDA Labs

I forgot to mention screen burn in - a problem that lcd panels don't face and which they still can't solve for amoled.
The screen on the Mate 9 is gorgeous, I've caught myself just staring at it a few times. Not once have I felt like it is a downgrade from the s7, and the s7 is a better panel than what the Oneplus has.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

hackdrag0n said:
Screen on time is much better than amoled when viewing mostly white content such as web pages.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tell that to LG. Their phones are LCD yet have terrible battery life. Yet my Pixel XL and Samsung phones have had much better battery life despite using AMOLED... so this is not necessarily true.
hackdrag0n said:
Amoled tends to over saturate colours, lcd is more subdued but also more natural looking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Again, color calibration/saturation has NOTHING to do with screen tech. The manufacturer sets the color calibration/target. The Mate 9 IS OVER SATURATED. Not as much as most AMOLED phones, but it is not calibrated to sRGB by ANY means. AMOLED phones have typically over saturated because AMOLED has had much higher color coverage capability, and it was a strong selling point. I dislike over saturated colors, but love AMOLED when it is set to a reasonable target (sRGB or Adobe RGB). Contrast is extremely important for image quality, ESPECIALLY in dark viewing conditions. Fast pixel response time is hugely important for a smartphone to maintain a "clean" looking display when scrolling. The Mate 9 LCD is one of the worst I've seen. It has bad ghosting and/or overshoot artifacting which makes the problem even worse.
hackdrag0n said:
Rgb matrix gives better sharpness than the pentile matrix typically used in amoled screens.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is true. Maybe Samsung will bring back RGB for the S8. They used to have RGB AMOLED in older phones at one point, you know?
hackdrag0n said:
Mate 9 screen is also brighter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not true. Samsung panels have high brightness modes under sunlight and other bright light sources. I can trigger this mode whenever I want using root and a kernel. My Pixel XL is brighter than my Mate 9.
Governa said:
Exactly. People tend to hear AMOLED and think it's clear cut. It's not. Each tech has its own pros and cons.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using XDA Labs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is clear cut. AMOLED is superior. It's why I spent nearly $6,000 for TWO TV's in my house that are AMOLED. The quality is mind blowing on a large screen, and once you realize its benefits there, you will never want an LCD again... even on your smartphone. At least that's the case with me. It's also why Apple is going for AMOLED with the iPhone 8... because they know it's better.

No, it's your opinion that amoled is superior. It's not a hard fact.
I'm also not sure how your pixel can be brighter when review sites have it listed at under 400 nits and the Mate 9 is listed at over 600.
Actually, I'll rephrase that: if contrast ratio is the most important factor to you then yes amoled is a must. Other than that I still maintain that there are still areas where lcd has advantages.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

There are a lot of misconceptions about display technology.
As mentioned they each have advantages and disadvantages.
LCD has a very flat power consumption due to the fact that it's essentially white LEDs shining through color filters whereas AMOLED consist of individual pixels that combine to create color meaning that each LED will vary in consumption according to what is displayed meaning white requires all of them to shine at maximum to create white which is why AMOLED uses more power in that situation and no power when displaying pure black. LG has somewhat solved that on their TVs because they use 4 sub pixels: RGBW. They therefore create white separately and can save power that way.
AMOLED is only oversaturated because it is naturally a wide gamut display. When uncalibrated it will look oversaturated because all content is pretty much sRGB which is a limited color space. Many manufacturers including Huawei don't bother calibrating their displays for accuracy.
Huawei most likely used LCD for the regular Mate 9 because no decent 6" AMOLED was available which explains why the Pro variant has a 5.5" display.
LCD has poor latencies which is also why the regular 9 doesn't support Daydream. OLED displays naturally has low latencies which is why all Daydream compatible phones are AMOLED.
AMOLED is more prone to burn-in and is also prone to display degradation due to each sub pixel aging at varying rates.
LCD displays have higher peak brightness and is therefore more easy to see in sunlight. On the other hand, AMOLED have individually controlled brightness meaning pure blacks can be attained (turning off pixels completely) whereas LCD have edge lit displays with poor control resulting in light bleeding and above-zero blacks resulting in grey-ish blacks because there will always be some light shining through. So the contrast is much greater and only limited by peak brightness on the AMOLED display.
AMOLED doesn't have RGB but RG-BG sub pixels resulting in some odd problems including potentially green tint and reduced display quality and sharpness. Pentile sucks but the yields are better I guess and it does have some advantages such as decreased power consumption.
Finally, an often overlooked issue: many modern LCD displays use voltage controlled display brightness regulation where all AMOLED displays use PWM. Why is this important? PWM can cause eye strain and headaches. Especially due to the low frequency of 240 Hz that many AMOLED displays use. Your eyes won't necessarily notice the flickering but they can be irritated by it anyway.
PS. Typed this on my phone... Should have switched to laptop. What a pain to do this write-up.

↑ now THAT is a great post. Kudos.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using XDA Labs

hackdrag0n said:
No, it's your opinion that amoled is superior. It's not a hard fact.
I'm also not sure how your pixel can be brighter when review sites have it listed at under 400 nits and the Mate 9 is listed at over 600.
Actually, I'll rephrase that: if contrast ratio is the most important factor to you then yes amoled is a must. Other than that I still maintain that there are still areas where lcd has advantages.
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look at the world of TV's. As is sits, LG's OLED TV's are the pinnacle of displays. They are the absolute best. No question, no contest, every quality review site agrees, as do the owners (myself included). I said the Pixel is brighter because I have enabled the Samsung panel brightness boost mode via root and a custom kernel - it acts just like the sunlight brightness boost on the S7/S7E, except I can enable it whenever I want. It is just as bright, if not brighter, than the Mate 9. The only advantage LCD has today is higher peak brightness, and that is only true in TV's since they have much larger backlights. Cellphones, AMOLED is actually much better in terms of outdoor viewing as tested by GSM Arena, due to a combination of peak brightness and lower reflectivity. Other than the potential for burn-in/image retention, there is zero benefit to an LCD in a cell phone.
Trixanity said:
LG has somewhat solved that on their TVs because they use 4 sub pixels: RGBW. They therefore create white separately and can save power that way.
Huawei most likely used LCD for the regular Mate 9 because no decent 6" AMOLED was available which explains why the Pro variant has a 5.5" display.
AMOLED is more prone to burn-in and is also prone to display degradation due to each sub pixel aging at varying rates.
AMOLED doesn't have RGB but RG-BG sub pixels resulting in some odd problems including potentially green tint and reduced display quality and sharpness. Pentile sucks but the yields are better I guess and it does have some advantages such as decreased power consumption.
Finally, an often overlooked issue: many modern LCD displays use voltage controlled display brightness regulation where all AMOLED displays use PWM. Why is this important? PWM can cause eye strain and headaches. Especially due to the low frequency of 240 Hz that many AMOLED displays use. Your eyes won't necessarily notice the flickering but they can be irritated by it anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Someone who actually knows something about AMOLED too on XDA! It's like finding a unicorn... just a few things to add...
LG does add a 4th white subpixel in their TV's, but it's moreso to increase peak brightness and not really save power. When display white, there are actually 3 subpixels turned on (I believe it's red, blue, and white) so it's not making much difference there... but it is certainly brighter because ALL the subpixels are WHITE subpixels (red, blue, and green have color filters), so having a white subpixel without a color filter eliminates brightness loss on those subpixels.
It blows my mind that Huawei couldn't get a decent ~6" AMOLED panel. Motorola did it for the Nexus 6. And hell, Samsung made them a custom 6.6" AMOLED display for the Honor Note 8! Oh well... maybe Samsung wanted less competition against the S8.
I will say that AMOLED phone panels have had a nasty tendency to burn-in. I can't say how the 2016 panels perform in normal usage (store burn-in is not a fair baseline), but it seems to improve every year. Neither of my 2016 LG OLED TV's show any burn-in, and 1 of them has been used as a PC monitor its entire time. I have taken a few steps to mitigate it (I hide icons behind browser windows, have the task bar set to auto-hide, and turn the brightness down slightly), but nothing major and it is perfectly fine. Image retention and uneven wear on the display is often confused with burn-in. For instance, the nav bar on my Pixel XL is clearly visible if I go fullscreen on a gray background (the most obvious color for burn/IR tests), but that is mostly because the black pixels there just never get used... so they're actually brighter, ever so slightly, than the rest of the screen. By running a manual compensation cycle when I'm not using the phone (such as white noise, or inverted colors), it mostly fixes the issue. That is an acceptable trade-off to me, especially considering the fact that the nav bar is always there. My TV's run black-screen compensation cycles automatically every 8 hours or so (after shutdown), so this is the nature of the beast.
True about the RG-BG pentile garbage. But that's Samsung's doing since they have terrible yields with full RGB. They did make at least 1 phone years ago that had true RGB AMOLED, and they marketed that specific feature too, literally telling customers how much sharper RGB is compared to pentile! - funny how they went away from it. Probably why their OLED TV division failed as well, since RGB AMOLED is clearly impossible to produce good yields right now, especially at larger sizes. I am hoping that the S8 brings back RGB AMOLED in the mobile world... rumors say it will.
AMOLED phone panels certainly do use PWM, but LG OLED TV's do not use PWM.

Nitemare3219 said:
Look at the world of TV's. As is sits, LG's OLED TV's are the pinnacle of displays. They are the absolute best. No question, no contest, every quality review site agrees, as do the owners (myself included). I said the Pixel is brighter because I have enabled the Samsung panel brightness boost mode via root and a custom kernel - it acts just like the sunlight brightness boost on the S7/S7E, except I can enable it whenever I want. It is just as bright, if not brighter, than the Mate 9. The only advantage LCD has today is higher peak brightness, and that is only true in TV's since they have much larger backlights. Cellphones, AMOLED is actually much better in terms of outdoor viewing as tested by GSM Arena, due to a combination of peak brightness and lower reflectivity. Other than the potential for burn-in/image retention, there is zero benefit to an LCD in a cell phone.
Someone who actually knows something about AMOLED too on XDA! It's like finding a unicorn... just a few things to add...
LG does add a 4th white subpixel in their TV's, but it's moreso to increase peak brightness and not really save power. When display white, there are actually 3 subpixels turned on (I believe it's red, blue, and white) so it's not making much difference there... but it is certainly brighter because ALL the subpixels are WHITE subpixels (red, blue, and green have color filters), so having a white subpixel without a color filter eliminates brightness loss on those subpixels.
It blows my mind that Huawei couldn't get a decent ~6" AMOLED panel. Motorola did it for the Nexus 6. And hell, Samsung made them a custom 6.6" AMOLED display for the Honor Note 8! Oh well... maybe Samsung wanted less competition against the S8.
I will say that AMOLED phone panels have had a nasty tendency to burn-in. I can't say how the 2016 panels perform in normal usage (store burn-in is not a fair baseline), but it seems to improve every year. Neither of my 2016 LG OLED TV's show any burn-in, and 1 of them has been used as a PC monitor its entire time. I have taken a few steps to mitigate it (I hide icons behind browser windows, have the task bar set to auto-hide, and turn the brightness down slightly), but nothing major and it is perfectly fine. Image retention and uneven wear on the display is often confused with burn-in. For instance, the nav bar on my Pixel XL is clearly visible if I go fullscreen on a gray background (the most obvious color for burn/IR tests), but that is mostly because the black pixels there just never get used... so they're actually brighter, ever so slightly, than the rest of the screen. By running a manual compensation cycle when I'm not using the phone (such as white noise, or inverted colors), it mostly fixes the issue. That is an acceptable trade-off to me, especially considering the fact that the nav bar is always there. My TV's run black-screen compensation cycles automatically every 8 hours or so (after shutdown), so this is the nature of the beast.
True about the RG-BG pentile garbage. But that's Samsung's doing since they have terrible yields with full RGB. They did make at least 1 phone years ago that had true RGB AMOLED, and they marketed that specific feature too, literally telling customers how much sharper RGB is compared to pentile! - funny how they went away from it. Probably why their OLED TV division failed as well, since RGB AMOLED is clearly impossible to produce good yields right now, especially at larger sizes. I am hoping that the S8 brings back RGB AMOLED in the mobile world... rumors say it will.
AMOLED phone panels certainly do use PWM, but LG OLED TV's do not use PWM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is the first time I've been called a unicorn. I like it.
Thanks for the correction on the LG OLED TVs. I was under the impression they used the W-pixel to both produce higher brightness and reduce the added power consumption from going full tilt on each of the other pixels. I did not know they used filters like that actually. I thought they used similar tech to Samsung but apparently not But that also explains why their yields are so different.
About Pentile: that phone was the Samsung Galaxy S2 (coincidentally my first Android phone) - released in 2011. I guess the yields weren't good enough and at the same time they wanted to increase screen density. Maybe it made the yields plummet and then pushing towards HD and full HD made it unfeasible. The S2 had a 800x480 resolution by the way.
I'm hoping the S8 can do away with both Pentile and PWM. Then I'd probably buy it instantly but that's wishful thinking.
PWM is apparently used to avoid hue shifts which I suspect might be because of the Pentile arrangement but I'm not sure. I've not seen measurements on the S2 but I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was actually not using PWM.
It might also explain why LG doesn't use it on their TVs; that they simply don't have that problem with hue shifts because their panels are so different. I wish LG would get back in the OLED display game for smaller screens including phones, tablets, laptops and monitors. It would be so awesome with some competition.
By the way, interesting note on the peak brightness. Can the brightness boost be maintained indefinitely or does it dim after a while? I know LG had a booster on their recent LCDs (of all things) and it dimmed shortly after. One thing I should note that the Mate 9 reaches up to 700 nits and that's not limited to auto brightness like Samsung's is meaning that you can manually boost it to that at all times. The Pixel XL only manages 400 in the same scenario but if you can boost the peak brightness through a mod and keep it there (perhaps even without auto brightness?) then that's impressive especially if goes over 700. I do believe 700 nits is about as bright as you'll get on a smartphone LCD. The only reason we even need it is because of sunlight. 700 nits would be blinding to my eyes in any other scenario
If only they could invent a display that could switch between being emissive and reflective with few drawbacks - that would solve a lot of problems.
Edit: forgot to address the Huawei panel. Whether Huawei could get a 6" panel for the phone or not is uncertain. I'm just guessing; I have no sources to back that up but it seems to be the case that they couldn't find a panel that suited their needs. They probably also had a good deal with JDI since they've used their panels for some years and AMOLED was only just about to become the expected standard. We've long seen LCD being used by most manufacturers - it's only in the recent year or two that it has spread to other brands than Samsung. I mean Apple, LG, HTC, Sony and Huawei have all been using LCD either exclusively or primarily. That's about to change in the coming years.
I'm thinking the AMOLED panels they could get weren't up to the standard they were looking for. The LCD panel they used was pretty damn good although poorly calibrated. Although now that I think of it the reason the Pro is is 5.5" might be more to do with the requirement for a curved display which limits their options quite a bit. Also, keep in mind a custom display is expensive so producing a phone on the scale of a Mate 9 would probably limit them to off-the-shelf components to avoid gutting their profit margins. I'm sure they could have gotten any display they wanted if they were willing to pay the price.
With that being said: there are probably many reasons not to go AMOLED for the regular Mate 9 and all we can do is guess what their reasons are.

Trixanity said:
About Pentile: that phone was the Samsung Galaxy S2 (coincidentally my first Android phone) - released in 2011. I guess the yields weren't good enough and at the same time they wanted to increase screen density. Maybe it made the yields plummet and then pushing towards HD and full HD made it unfeasible. The S2 had a 800x480 resolution by the way.
I'm hoping the S8 can do away with both PenTile and PWM. Then I'd probably buy it instantly but that's wishful thinking.
PWM is apparently used to avoid hue shifts which I suspect might be because of the Pentile arrangement but I'm not sure. I've not seen measurements on the S2 but I've heard anecdotal evidence that it was actually not using PWM.
It might also explain why LG doesn't use it on their TVs; that they simply don't have that problem with hue shifts because their panels are so different.
By the way, interesting note on the peak brightness. Can the brightness boost be maintained indefinitely or does it dim after a while? I know LG had a booster on their recent LCDs (of all things) and it dimmed shortly after. One thing I should note that the Mate 9 reaches up to 700 nits and that's not limited to auto brightness like Samsung's is meaning that you can manually boost it to that at all times. The Pixel XL only manages 400 in the same scenario but if you can boost the peak brightness through a mod and keep it there (perhaps even without auto brightness?) then that's impressive especially if goes over 700. I do believe 700 nits is about as bright as you'll get on a smartphone LCD. The only reason we even need it is because of sunlight. 700 nits would be blinding to my eyes in any other scenario
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The S2... man, long time ago. They probably only managed RGB because of the low resolution and/or realized then just how bad the yields were.
I've never noticed PWM, so it's no issue for me. I believe the color hue shifts when viewing at an angle is actually because the display is pentile. LG's OLED TV's have mind blowing viewing angles - it is essentially perfect no matter where you view from in terms of color, AND the brightness does not decrease either like on an LCD - forgot to mention that too! LCD panels get much dimmer if you view off-axis... OLED do not.
As far as I know, the Pixel can maintain the brightness boost indefinitely. I have used it for upwards of 20 minutes or so before. I can manually enable it via widget, or have it set to function automatically as well. I'm not sure I want to test long periods of time though... there could be a downside to it over time (perhaps why Samsung does not allow it to be user enabled). I know LG's phones in the past have quickly turned down their peak brightness due to heat issues. I wonder if the Mate 9 could suffer from the same problem eventually? Probably not seeing as how Apple manages to have displays that bright as well without issue. I think LG's mobile division is just really, really lacking right now. Hopefully they bring OLED to their phones again soon (they've used P-OLED a few times, and I experienced it in their Watch Urbane LTE 2nd edition smartwatch, and that was fantastic).

Nitemare3219 said:
The S2... man, long time ago. They probably only managed RGB because of the low resolution and/or realized then just how bad the yields were.
I've never noticed PWM, so it's no issue for me. I believe the color hue shifts when viewing at an angle is actually because the display is pentile. LG's OLED TV's have mind blowing viewing angles - it is essentially perfect no matter where you view from in terms of color, AND the brightness does not decrease either like on an LCD - forgot to mention that too! LCD panels get much dimmer if you view off-axis... OLED do not.
As far as I know, the Pixel can maintain the brightness boost indefinitely. I have used it for upwards of 20 minutes or so before. I can manually enable it via widget, or have it set to function automatically as well. I'm not sure I want to test long periods of time though... there could be a downside to it over time (perhaps why Samsung does not allow it to be user enabled). I know LG's phones in the past have quickly turned down their peak brightness due to heat issues. I wonder if the Mate 9 could suffer from the same problem eventually? Probably not seeing as how Apple manages to have displays that bright as well without issue. I think LG's mobile division is just really, really lacking right now. Hopefully they bring OLED to their phones again soon (they've used P-OLED a few times, and I experienced it in their Watch Urbane LTE 2nd edition smartwatch, and that was fantastic).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a heads up, I've added an edit to my previous post.
I wish I could afford an OLED TV One would be foolish not to pick up an LG OLED TV over any LCD display out there today (barring the price that is).
I don't think maintaining peak brightness is an issue unless you're standing out in direct sunlight all day with your phone. I mean you wouldn't switch to manual brightness and crank it up when you're inside. Most probably use auto brightness anyway and that means it won't be anywhere near the maximum unless you're outside. I'm sure it might reduce the lifespan of the LEDs or maybe increase the likelihood of a defect.
I was actually quite intrigued by LG's G Flex series (aka banana phone) which had a P-OLED display. It might be a bit gimmicky especially the 'self-healing' back cover but it looked different but it was plagued by poor sales and the second iteration was let down by the Snapdragon 810.
The G6 will have their new 18:9 (2:1 really) 5.7" LCD display. It will have 2880 x 1440 resolution. So not this time.

While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag. They can also suffer from burn in. Oled/amoled may be the technology of the future if they sort the niggling issues. Right now lcd still has merits. Quantum dot might bring lcd to the fore again though, time will tell
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk

hackdrag0n said:
While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag. They can also suffer from burn in. Oled/amoled may be the technology of the future if they sort the niggling issues. Right now lcd still has merits. Quantum dot might bring lcd to the fore again though, time will tell
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I doubt the input lag stems from the panel technology. Input lag is usually related to processing lag in the display controller and other IC. However they can achieve 1 ms response time and theoretically 100000 Hz refresh rate, so it has the potential to be the best gaming display technology ever.
As previously mentioned: what many consider burn-in is merely image retention which is very much reversible and it does continue to get better in that regard.

Trixanity said:
I doubt the input lag stems from the panel technology. Input lag is usually related to processing lag in the display controller and other IC. However they can achieve 1 ms response time and theoretically 100000 Hz refresh rate, so it has the potential to be the best gaming display technology ever.
As previously mentioned: what many consider burn-in is merely image retention which is very much reversible and it does continue to get better in that regard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well "burn-in" is actually the leds "burning" so there is no way to recover them.

Lodix said:
Well "burn-in" is actually the leds "burning" so there is no way to recover them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't really refute what I said. That's merely an explanation for what burn-in is. What I said is that many think image retention is burn-in when they're two different things (or more accurately you could say that the symptoms are the same but the prognosis is different especially if given the right medication - so to speak). Image retention is reversible as I said.

Trixanity said:
That doesn't really refute what I said. That's merely an explanation for what burn-in is. What I said is that many think image retention is burn-in when they're two different things (or more accurately you could say that the symptoms are the same but the prognosis is different especially if given the right medication - so to speak). Image retention is reversible as I said.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the problem with oled panels is the burn-in, not the retention. Maybe this year they have manged to solve it someway since Apple is implementing it in their iPhones and people are very nitpicking with their devices.
PD: I am all over AMOLED panels, it is one of the reason why I got the 9 Pro.

I don't mind a quality 1080 panel. Huawei makes me rethink my love of AMOLED displays.
I personally don't see a major difference unless it's the newest Samsung flagship. Not a major change from my 6p or Nexus 6 but these weren't cream of the crop AMOLED displays.
I truly thought this would be the mate that got the qhd AMOLED especially after the honor note 8 that released not long before this one. Extremely happy with the LCD panel.
Last 2 LCD phones I used was LeEco s1 and lg v10. The s1 had a great LCD panel that look AMOLED. Lg v10 just looked washed out most of the time.

hackdrag0n said:
While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag. They can also suffer from burn in. Oled/amoled may be the technology of the future if they sort the niggling issues. Right now lcd still has merits. Quantum dot might bring lcd to the fore again though, time will tell
Sent from my MHA-L29 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're wrong. In 2015, yes they were ****. I had an EG9600 and it had about 50ms of input lag. I have 2 2016 TV's now, a C6 and a B6. The B6 just got an update and it does 28ms of input lag at 4:2:2, but close to 70ms at 4:4:4. The C6 does 34ms of input lag at either setting (4:2:2, or 4:4:4). The lag is NOT noticeable at all, and part of this is because the pixels respond instantly to new frames (<.1ms) whereas IPS and VA can take MANY milliseconds to update the pixels - some panels take dozens of milliseconds for a full transition for some colors. OLED is the fastest refresh for a panel today. My C6 has hundreds of hours of PC use ONLY, and has ZERO burn in... NONE.
Lodix said:
But the problem with oled panels is the burn-in, not the retention. Maybe this year they have manged to solve it someway since Apple is implementing it in their iPhones and people are very nitpicking with their devices.
PD: I am all over AMOLED panels, it is one of the reason why I got the 9 Pro.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The problem is a lot of people mistake burn-in for image retention because they don't come back and check again later after viewing different content on the display for awhile. I will say that burn-in can be an issue for phones though, depending on how you use them/set them up. My friend's S5 has the keyboard ghosted/burned into the display. He must text a LOT or something. Blew my mind when I saw that.

hackdrag0n said:
While beautiful, oled tv's are **** for gaming due to the horrendous input lag.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not in Gaming/PC Mode on the most recent models. On the 2017 OLED the input lag is 21ms in virtually all situations.
Trixanity said:
I wish I could afford an OLED TV One would be foolish not to pick up an LG OLED TV over any LCD display out there today (barring the price that is).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For pricing, you just have to wait until Black Friday for deals on the current year's models. That's the best time to buy a TV that will last you many years. Picked up the LG 65" C7P for $1900 last Fall. I wouldn't consider Samsung's QLED TV's over LG's RGBW OLED. However, there is the advantage of luminance. QLED have a higher luminance. Also keep in mind that although RGBW is not Pentile and doesn't suffer from inferior sub-resolution, you do lose color volume to an extent when using the higher levels of luminance (You'll be depending on the additional white sub-pixel). I'd say this is a fairly tertiary concern but could be important if you use the OLED in a bright living room. If using a dark room, there's absolutely no contest. Personally, I have the C7P in a living room and still completely satisfied. There's a reason why it's a champ on every review site. Oh and for reference, all the LG 2017 OLED have essentially the same panel irregardless of price.
Trixanity said:
About Pentile: that phone was the Samsung Galaxy S2 (coincidentally my first Android phone) - released in 2011. I guess the yields weren't good enough and at the same time they wanted to increase screen density. Maybe it made the yields plummet and then pushing towards HD and full HD made it unfeasible. The S2 had a 800x480 resolution by the way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Samsung Galaxy Note II (2012) also had a Full RGB AMOLED Display (720P HD). That was the last time for phones. However, Samsung also still does Full RGB AMOLED for the larger 9.7" models in their premium lines of tablets (Galaxy Tab S2, Tab S3). Those have the same 4:3 resolution as the iPad (2048x1536). The 10.5" Galaxy Tab S has a 2560x1600 Full RGB AMOLED Display as well. I certainly hope Samsung turns away from Pentile sometime in the future, but I don't think they'll do so anytime soon for smartphones. However, there is some hope.