Related
I backed this Kickstarter for enough to get the bundle with a protector for both the front and back of my Nexus 4 and the front of my Nexus 7. Looks promising to me, anyone else know anything about this?
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1081571316/rhino-shield-the-impact-resistant-screen-protector
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
that video is making a lot of claims about what their screen protector can do...lol at the hammer part of the video, it looks like he was placing it on the screen. the drop test proved nothing too as they tried drop it flat instead of on an edge not to mention we dont know how many times the phone did break for them to get that shot. In real life situations most of the time when a phone drops it will hit an edge and this is also where the glass is most vulnerable. Screen protectors dont add any protection against drops, you need a case for that.
Wasnt there many screen protectors like this at CES? why not just get one those than risking losing your money on a kickstarter that never gets funded.
Seems like a great product,
21.52 USD for a Front and Back
That's heck of a deal
naruses said:
Seems like a great product,
21.52 USD for a Front and Back
That's heck of a deal
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can get a front and back from bestskinsever.com for $7.
http://www.bestskinsever.com/google-nexus-4-skin
I use these on all my devices and they are great!
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
Reminds me of the Amzer Shatterproof.
When they mentioned ASTM standards the engineer in me was like..woah.
http://youtu.be/pnqBqPfxnY4
Here's their video dropping bricks on their iphone. I cringe when watching it. At least they show damage to the screen. Makes it more believable.
I have one. It's $40 but I paid $15 with coupon, with a lifetime warranty. So whenever it starts peeling I just pay shipping to get a replacement.
EDIT: Here's their hammer test.
http://youtu.be/Hsxl1bRTldo
Why kickstart something where someone else already makes it?
neotekz said:
that video is making a lot of claims about what their screen protector can do...lol at the hammer part of the video, it looks like he was placing it on the screen. the drop test proved nothing too as they tried drop it flat instead of on an edge not to mention we dont know how many times the phone did break for them to get that shot. In real life situations most of the time when a phone drops it will hit an edge and this is also where the glass is most vulnerable. Screen protectors dont add any protection against drops, you need a case for that.
Wasnt there many screen protectors like this at CES? why not just get one those than risking losing your money on a kickstarter that never gets funded.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure you watched the entire video?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
juicyjones said:
Are you sure you watched the entire video?
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nope, i was just saying their drop test is misleading, but just went back and check out the rest of it. I assume you are referring to the "scientific" ball bearing drop. How is a steel ball dropping on a phone anything like a real life drop. Even their scientific test is misleading they should of put a cheap competitor screen protector instead of naked glass to prove that their screen protector is so much better.
I dont doubt that putting a layer of plastic over a screen makes it stronger against an impact at the center of the glass panel but this is not where a phone hits when it falls. Edges are weakest on glass screens, edges are where phones first hit when they are drop on a flat surface since screen protectors do not protect edges they do not protect against drops...If you dont believe me just search drop test on youtube and you will see that the vast majority if them break from the corner or edge.
neotekz said:
nope, i was just saying their drop test is misleading, but just went back and check out the rest of it. I assume you are referring to the "scientific" ball bearing drop. How is a steel ball dropping on a phone anything like a real life drop. Even their scientific test is misleading they should of put a cheap competitor screen protector instead of naked glass to prove that their screen protector is so much better.
I dont doubt that putting a layer of plastic over a screen makes it stronger against an impact at the center of the glass panel but this is not where a phone hits when it falls. Edges are weakest on glass screens, edges are where phones first hit when they are drop on a flat surface since screen protectors do not protect edges they do not protect against drops...If you dont believe me just search drop test on youtube and you will see that the vast majority if them break from the corner or edge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You should take your threadcrapping general anger at screen protectors out on some other thread. Nobody here is some poor fool who needs you to clarify the physics of phone breakage. It's clear what they're selling, the question is whether it's better than tempered glass or something else. Some of us work in places where the environment itself is a hazard and who can use this sort of thing because an otterbox defender type case may not be enough.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
juicyjones said:
You should take your threadcrapping general anger at screen protectors out on some other thread. Nobody here is some poor fool who needs you to clarify the physics of phone breakage. It's clear what they're selling, the question is whether it's better than tempered glass or something else. Some of us work in places where the environment itself is a hazard and who can use this sort of thing because an otterbox defender type case may not be enough.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i dont have anything against screen protector just them claiming their screen protector protects against drops...If the question is if it is better against other protectors they should of tested it against other protectors.
Just backed this. Wish it receives 100% funding before the end date.
azsl1326 said:
You can get a front and back from bestskinsever.com for $7.
http://www.bestskinsever.com/google-nexus-4-skin
I use these on all my devices and they are great!
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If you had read their campaign, you wouldn't post this Rhino is not a regular screen proctector.
PcFish said:
Reminds me of the Amzer Shatterproof.
Why kickstart something where someone else already makes it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not?
PcFish said:
Why kickstart something where someone else already makes it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You realize that by that if the tech community thought that way practically nothing we use today would exist including smart phones and even computers or any kind of clothing or automobile or nearly anything after the fifth century?
Sent from my Paranoid Android Nexus 4.
PcFish said:
Reminds me of the Amzer Shatterproof.
When they mentioned ASTM standards the engineer in me was like..woah.
http://youtu.be/pnqBqPfxnY4
Here's their video dropping bricks on their iphone. I cringe when watching it. At least they show damage to the screen. Makes it more believable.
I have one. It's $40 but I paid $15 with coupon, with a lifetime warranty. So whenever it starts peeling I just pay shipping to get a replacement.
EDIT: Here's their hammer test.
http://youtu.be/Hsxl1bRTldo
Why kickstart something where someone else already makes it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually I might have thought about Amzer...until I read the comments on their brick youtube video.
Backed this for the front + back covers... really hope they succeed.
Also ordered a Best Skins Ever for the time being...
I backed them for the combo pledge as well.
neotekz said:
i dont have anything against screen protector just them claiming their screen protector protects against drops...If the question is if it is better against other protectors they should of tested it against other protectors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
neotekz said:
nope, i was just saying their drop test is misleading, but just went back and check out the rest of it. I assume you are referring to the "scientific" ball bearing drop. How is a steel ball dropping on a phone anything like a real life drop. Even their scientific test is misleading they should of put a cheap competitor screen protector instead of naked glass to prove that their screen protector is so much better.
I dont doubt that putting a layer of plastic over a screen makes it stronger against an impact at the center of the glass panel but this is not where a phone hits when it falls. Edges are weakest on glass screens, edges are where phones first hit when they are drop on a flat surface since screen protectors do not protect edges they do not protect against drops...If you dont believe me just search drop test on youtube and you will see that the vast majority if them break from the corner or edge.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No where did they claim that its a magical solution that will protect against all types of drops.
Here is their official reply about it.
Evolutive Labs says:
Hi,
Thanks for the interest
It all really depends on the orientation of the drops, if the first point of contact is protect by Rhino Shield i.e. land it on the face, then the screen would be fine. In another scenario, i.e. facedown but tilt, if the tilt angle is less than 30% (horizon is 0 degree), there is very high chance of survival rate. above this angle, the frame and casing plays more important role.
There will be FAQ upload soon.
Many thanks
Eric
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Backed
Just pledged 16 Pounds for front and back proctectors of my yet unarrived nexus 4. Hope they get to their goal
Looks interesting, ill probably back it.
I emailed them asking how much of the nexus 4 screen the rhino actually covers, I assume its like any dry SP that won't cover all of the screen but I just want confirmation before I pledge.
juicyjones said:
You should take your threadcrapping general anger at screen protectors out on some other thread. Nobody here is some poor fool who needs you to clarify the physics of phone breakage. It's clear what they're selling, the question is whether it's better than tempered glass or something else. Some of us work in places where the environment itself is a hazard and who can use this sort of thing because an otterbox defender type case may not be enough.
Sent from my Nexus 4 using xda app-developers app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You need to relax and get your own anger checked. Neo is 100% right. This project is full of bs. As I stated in reddit thread
" This seems very sketchy as some one who worked in a research lab for 3 years the way they portray their data is not convincing in the video. 1.) Main reason.. After they banged on the glass with the magical screen protector they simply removed it.. Instead of then banging on the screen without a screen protector to show us that the screen can in fact break. They did this on all the occasions. Even the ball drop on the screen shows one screen breaking into a million pieces while the undamaged screen simply has its protector removed instead of a follow up test with another ball drop.
2.) Gorilla glass becomes more and more brittle as the hardness increases. Its main function is to prevent scratching. Thus a direct force can probably break the glass. I dont see how a screen protector can dissipate the energy from a force and leave the screen undamaged.
I call bull on this Rhino shield product. I'm no expert in the realm of screen protectors but no way can a thin layer of plastic with different layers protect your screen from shattering. Best it can do is prevent the debris from flying everywhere."
Unless these guys present their data better I'm calling bs on this chunk of plastic.
I got a reply for my question about how much of the screen the Rhino covers, here is their reply.
Hi Marco,
Thanks so much for the support!!!
first drop protection,
the drop protection all really depends on the orientation of the drops, if the first point of contact is protect by Rhino Shield i.e. land it on the face, then the screen would be fine. In another scenario, i.e. facedown but tilt, if the tilt angle is less than 30% (horizon is 0 degree), there is very high chance of survival rate. above this angle, the frame and casing plays more important role.
The fitting for nexus 4 would only cover the flat surface at the moment, we are trying very hard to try to get the curve covered as well.
We are waiting for a new batch of prototype being produced and also the tool being made (nexus 4 require different tool from all others phone because of the curvature).
Many Thanks
I like to clean my Note but don't know if the ingredient in it will eventually damage the quality of the glass or screen.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lys...=X&ei=ZhprVMePBuSQigLHroCAAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#
LeoNote4 said:
I like to clean my Note but don't know if the ingredient in it will eventually damage the quality of the glass or screen.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lys...=X&ei=ZhprVMePBuSQigLHroCAAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wouldn't worry bout it, but why don't you simply use a glass cleaner or those wipes for reading glasses
Coz they don't have antibac. Mobile phones carry e.coli or fecal matter. Just using the handrails, pushing elevator doors, shaking hands, holding cream mugs at Starbucks, it's our poor phones that had to collect all that virus
I have a film type screen protector and a new UAG case on mine.
To wipe off screen I just use a microfibre cloth and some rubbing alcohol which is 70% isopropyl alcohol and 30% water.
Works great , no reside, no damage and its cheap. I use it on my glasses too.
Will kill bacteria just as well as the alcohol handwash gel you can buy which is basically the same 70% alcohol..
Hope that helps.
LeoNote4 said:
Coz they don't have antibac. Mobile phones carry e.coli or fecal matter. Just using the handrails, pushing elevator doors, shaking hands, holding cream mugs at Starbucks, it's our poor phones that had to collect all that virus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Alcohol is the prime ingredient in screen cleaners and is also a great anti-bacterial agent.
If you are worried about stuff it can't kill... wear gloves or a Haz-Mat suit.
You should absolutely under no account EVER clean ANY display screens with normal household cleaners. Harsh chemicals like ammonia, bleach, or for that matter even alcohol can severely damage the coatings on electronics displays, causing them to become foggy, cloudy, and scratched. I'm not all that familiar with the active ingredient in Lysol (benzalkonium chloride), but I personally wouldn't let it anywhere near my phone. There are countless cleaning sprays and wipes on the market that are formulated specifically for electronics displays, and I wouldn't use anything to clean any of mine unless it stated explicitly that it is made for displays. Even most eyeglass lens cleaners contain alcohol, so be very careful to read the ingredients and intended use! This goes not just for phones, but for computer monitors, televisions, laptops, basically any and all electronic displays.
If you're really worried about bacteria and want a disinfectant, there do exist several options that ARE made for displays, such as this:
http://www.monsterproducts.com/Monster_CleanTouch_for_iPad_iPhone_and_iPod?pin=5930
A little googling will turn up many more as well.
This guy....
Bacteria and fecal matter. Lol. Must be hard being OCD/germ phobic.
I'm all for being hygienic, but I don't see this as a real issue. I've never gotten sick from touching my own phone.
Back on topic, the screens do have a coating. So harsh chemicals could remove that making it less oleophobic.
And in rare circumstances you CAN cloud some screens, but that is mainly on plastic not glass.
LeoNote4 said:
I like to clean my Note but don't know if the ingredient in it will eventually damage the quality of the glass or screen.
https://www.google.com/search?q=lys...=X&ei=ZhprVMePBuSQigLHroCAAg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately, cant say for sure but I routinely use cavi-wipes and chlorox wipes on my phones (I am not just OCD, but work in a hospital...)
I do usually have a screen protector on my phone (cheapo tempered glass on the note right now)
I use these same wipes and have done it for years with no issue on the original gorilla glass that I had on the Sprint Galaxy Epic. I don't use them frequently but more as needed. Had the same phone for three years and the only screen damage I had was from dropping the phone without a case; the glass had some minor scratches.
OT; all the criticism of OLED screens burning out, failed pixels or burn-in never happened that I could tell. Aside from sunlight visibility and the scratches that only seemed visible when oil or debris got in them, the screen was pristine the day I traded it for the Note 4. I expect more from this screen in the next two years.
I've read that screen protectors defeat some of the advantages of OLED with increased density of view. Some of OLED's advantages are wrought by bringing images nearer to the surface than LCD screens, if I understood that well enough. Hence, for me, the case with raised bezel lip should provide adequate drop protection unless throwing phone to prove its ruggedness with case and screen protector or dropping it from a moving vehicle. I don't recommend trying either. Thankfully, I've only needed drop protection for trying to carry too many loose items at once or being butter fingers and try to catch a dropped phone only to increase its velocity or drag it on pavement trying to scoop it on a bounce. It happens occasionally; I've been fortunate but will keep it in a case.
For a Lysol wipe's disinfectant properties to work the surface has to be kept wet with the wipe's moisture for I think 60 seconds (may be longer). The instructions will be on the packaging. If you just wipe the phone there are no disinfectant properties using the Lysol wipe.
You have to be extremely careful with some of these cleaning wipes. I use to work on medical equipment and some of the devices that came back to the repair center had there housings weakened by various disinfecting agents.
For example many of these cleaning products have dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride which in small doses is fine but in larger concentrations it's not good.
I would find something labeled for electronic devices that is safe for plastics and metal. Don't assume that these products are safe for everything. Worst case call the company and ask.
http://www.saniscreenwipes.com/
http://www.amazon.com/Wireless-Wipes-Cell-Phone-Peppermint/dp/B003CJWIG0
http://www.amazon.com/Advantus-Right-PhoneKleen-Cleaning-REARR1303/dp/B000FNCYW4 (Noticed how this one has dimethyl benzyl ammonium chloride)
LeoNote4 said:
Coz they don't have antibac. Mobile phones carry e.coli or fecal matter. Just using the handrails, pushing elevator doors, shaking hands, holding cream mugs at Starbucks, it's our poor phones that had to collect all that virus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your immune system will take care of all that. And it's just as well, because it needs the exercise to stay fit! You won't get sick from touching your phone, if that were possible, we'd all be dead by now.
iR¡[email protected]!* from Galaxy Note 4 via Tapatalk
I think it fared just as well as we thought it would. It's pretty durable and scratch resistant but not shatterproof, that's for sure.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GU8S_BjByKU
Looks like we're still dealing with GG4 here.
Thanks. I've been waiting for this
Fair play to the iPhone, that is one hardy piece of kit. As for the S7, given the amount of glass it has externally, it did about as well as I would have expected. Personally, I'd prefer the back to be aluminium rather than glass, but there is no doubt it wouldn't have looked as nice. I'm going to have a silicon cover on mine, so would hope the only likely drops will result in no issues at all. Then again, I can count the amount of times I have dropped phones on less than one hand in the last five years.
That's disappointing. The S6 edge did a bit better back in the day?
xxaarraa said:
That's disappointing. The S6 edge did a bit better back in the day?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To be fair, you can't take one test like that and compare it directly to another device in a similar test and say one is conclusively better, or at least not from a single test anyway. There are numerous factors which could make a massive difference. Simple fortune on how the device lands for example could be the difference between a cracked screen and a few scratches. Look at the iPhone 6s+ screen in that test for example, it didn't break at all despite all those tests. Yet I remember seeing another drop test on exactly the same device which resulted in a cracked screen on the second drop from head height. There are simply too many factors involved.
That said, the flat glass on the back of the S6 does strike me as being more resilient, purely due to the shape and the fact it would be more difficult to make contact with the ground on a drop. The metal surround would invariably make contact first.
The 6S is indestructible lol. In any case, the Edge fared far better than I thought it would.
GG4 on the back glass and GG5 on the front https://youtu.be/D_bB5fnN7Jk
I really wish Samsung would do what Motorolo did a few years ago and let you build the phone to your liking. Ok I want an aluminum back, 8 cores, 8gb or Ram, etc and it cost this much....
I have never been a fan of the glass backs. I throw mine in a case right away for protection so could care less about it being pretty... I want it to be durable... I mean I did just shell out a lot of money for it and I want it to LAST!!!
Talking about that video above, I have always found it amazing that anyone would keep their phone in their back pocket. Absolute stupidity.
There wouldn't be wireless charging if no glass back? Or maybe Samsung Pay? Aluminum back would be a conductor. The s7 edge is rather bigger than the s6/edge so there's more surface area for damage and any point of strike will have a higher chance of cracking. The phone did really good I'd say....
Seems like all the "Reviews" are nothing more then install video's of people saying oh its so amazing. But if you dig deeper you will find issues that a proper review would of find easy. So lets review it.
Little about my self. I am and Engineer in the fiber optics industry. I wonk on the absolute faster detectors available. We use UV optical adhesives every day. So needless to say i know a thing or two on this topic.
The concept is great and when done right the best way to attach a screen protector. But this comes at a cost. Cheap out on anything and it will show. So lets look at this.
-Full cover. errrr not really Notch cut for the camera and sensors. Odd because optical adhesive you can go full over and have zero impact on those.
-9H Hardness. "Shakes head" No..Its not. They need to stop claiming this every company. Its not 9H.
-Beveled edges. This is a must. Ask anyone who has one that is not beveled how easy they chip.
-UV curing light is a good design and has plenty of LED's to cure the adhesive. "5w max" Honestly im not seeing those being close to 1w LED's. If people want i'll take apart the light but no heat sinking as far as i can tell. So im guessing 3v 60ma .5w each total max output 3w. And honestly 3w is fine. Its very thin and easy to cure.
Fixture is great and works very well. No complaints on that. Just watch a few videos and read the instructions and you will do fine. The Fixture is well thought out so hats off to engineers who did that.
The ugly. This is where things get bad. This is where you can see the corners that were cut and boy did they cut them.
-Dust removal sticker. Don't use them. Cheap sticker and will leave residue on the screen. Save your self some time and just put them in the trash.
-Cleaning cloth. Not optical quality. Again put it in the trash it will just put stuff on the display. Cheap fabric not a quality optical cleaning cloth.
-Alcohol wipe...Well the directions say that but the wipes included are Ethanol...Please tell me these are not medical grade. If so then they have some additives. Well again trash it and use some 95% or higher Isopropyl alcohol. Make sure no color or sent has been added. You want as pure as you can get.
-Absorption pads. Now i would love to say trash them. But you need them. Make sure you give them a good rub down to remove all the lose fibers on them. And give the long fibers that hang off after a little trim. You do not want one to get under the screen or at the edge.
-Dimples on the underside of the protector. You don't need these. They do nothing but put 4 contact points to your phones display. The adhesive will flow an even coat.
-The worlds cheapest UV adhesive...Guys its bad...Real bad. Give you an idea. In bulk the quality optical adhesive is expensive. Well you get what you pay for or in Whitestone's case you don't get what you do not pay for. I searched and i found the supplier for there adhesive. How cheap is it? Well its $1 per 30ml. Stuff we use is $30 per oz. or 29.9ml. Yup that explains everything. This is why they can give you so much and still keep that price point. But for this you want less but higher quality. Combine that with tubes that are not 100% air tight and you are begging for problems. Also keep in mine UV Adhesive's have a shelf life and exposure to oxygen age them faster.
Lots of people complain about the delamination. This is from bad UV adhesive. Keep in mind you have a bare glass surface you are attaching to a glass surface with an oleophobic coating. This coating does after the adhesion of the adhesive. So you really need the proper quality adhesive. The adhesive they use never fully cures. If you check out my video in the Deamination topic you can see even after curing then putting 200w of UV on it for an addition 20sec with a proper industrial UV curing station it never fully cures. Multiple kits i have tested they all do this. But its $1 per 30ml so what do you expect.
You will see pictures of the optical property's of the adhesive. It is my opinion that it is not optical grade. Also you will see a picture of the delamination.
Overall this is a 4-10. Held back by the extremely low quality UV adhesive. The most important part is the cheapest. This is why they cut the notch in the protector. Because it would affect the caners where a proper optical adhesive would have zero affect. I'm disappointed. This was hyped so much but no one really looked at it. It's a great concept held back by cut corners. The proper adhesive this would be a 8-10. This method with the proper optical grade adhesive could do a true full cover screen protector then it would be a 10/10. But i do not recommend this. Price is to high for the corners that were cut. The adhesive issue really needs to be addressed because i would take a few other protectors over this.
Message to Whitestone.
I tested Adhesives from 3 kits. Results were all the same. All the kits were ordered at different times as 2 were from Amazon and one was direct from you. I have identified this adhesive not long ago and this is typical for it. However if you want to play we only use the highest quality materials card then you can go ahead and send me a tube of it. It can be in the manufacturers tube or the tubes that come in the kits. I do not want another kit im only interested in testing this adhesive and i will give you one chance to test some prior and send it to me. I will then report my finding's on here and make a note of it here. If you would like to work together on finding a cost effective quality optical adhesive i have contacts with not only the distributes for these but also with the companies that make the highest quality optical grade UV adhesives in the industry. I do not want nothing in return i will work with you for free to fix this product so that future phones can benefit from it and i have the option to easily order a quality kit. I want a 100% coverage protector and working together this can be done. There is potential here and it is with the system developed for the install and that is what makes the product stand out. My work has a building in SoCal. I go out there a few times a year and i am more then willing to come visit your office why i am out there and we can talk.
Now i know i will get the "Mines perfect best ever" post. But those post mean nothing. You have not tested the adhesive. I have. You just have not had any issues with it yet and you may never have them. But i went ahead and i tested this. Same results every time and i know what adhesive they use now.
So, would you say this thing is a pass?
Thanks for the detailed review and focusing on everything, not JUST the adhesive.
I still got mine applied to my phone, and well.. it is there. The time it starts wearing off the edges, maybe I will apply the second spare one just because I already bought it. But yeah, a full, really full screen coverage one with perfect optical properties would be awesome to have!
felloffthetruck said:
So, would you say this thing is a pass?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I won't advise anyone to buy or not to buy this. Thats for you to decide. I'll answer any questions you have thought. I will say that I will not use this for reasons I posted. I won't buy another one until changes are made at the minimum in there selection of adheasive.
Could you point me in the direction of a good adhesive that you would recommend? (That I can buy online)
irieblue said:
Could you point me in the direction of a good adhesive that you would recommend? (That I can buy online)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Will post that when I finish testing the samples I have.
bignazpwns said:
-Full cover. errrr not really Notch cut for the camera and sensors. Odd because optical adhesive you can go full over and have zero impact on those.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Me a bit nitpicking here, but...
Weird, the part of optical physics that I learned back ... long ago.. taught quite clearly that if there are any surfaces with different optical properties on each side, it will have an impact. And I'm pretty sure the adhesives do not match (optically) exactly with either glass it touches (let alone both). Whether those effects will be significant enough to be visible in the photos depends on the whole optical path (and sensor's properties), though.
Since none of the surfaces have proper coatings aimed for optical performance (more for anti fingerprint etc.), and especially the protector glass (the internal material, not the coatings) not designed for optics, I'd expect ever so slightly more lens flaring and similar effects. (If there would be a flash LED for the front camera, it could get really messy, but Note 9 seems to use the whole display for front side "flashing", which reduces the spot brightness near the camera lens compared to a LED flash.)
The adhesive filling the space between the phone's glass and protector's glass does make the effect much lesser than with a protector that sits a tiny bit above with a tiny air gap. So in that sense, with these liquid adhesive type protectors, I'd expect the effects to be indeed mostly ignorable. But not zero, per se.
For the other sensors than camera, the effect can be considered zero, since they are measuring mostly (more or less) spatial averages to begin with. A bit of fuzziness doesn't change their results. Hmm. though I don't know how the iris-camera works.
All that said, I'd still say to choose a protector that covers the lens area(s). A single scratch on the phone's glass over the lens can make a worse effect than a protector does.
Also, (me partially countering the point of having an effect): I have currently a really bad example of a protector myself; a normal cheap protector with a typical dot grid on bottom surface, a normal (non-smooth) adhesive even on the area of the front camera lens, not a perfect fit by shape, etc. That is, I can see the non-smooth stuff between the glass layers (when display is black, and on the sensor spots). Yet, the photos come out ok, so things can obviously be pretty darn crappy and still be ok for the front camera needs. Though, I haven't zoomed in or done comparative tests in more challenging lighting situations. (I will do better tests once other protectors arrive; I need to keep this one on for now, for its main task of protecting.)
Nice review, but the whitestone still beats having nothing on the phone. I did the ghetto "whitestone" on my Note 8 using a generic glass protector and LOCA glue bought on Amazon. Served its purpose and protected my phone when I dropped it on a gravel surface. Phone looked brand new when I replaced the glass with a whitestone version because the ghetto glue method was too time consuming to ensure no bubbles. I have installed 4 more whitestone glass screens on mine and others phone with no issues and would not hesitate to recommend it. The issues you bring up have merit, but do not deter the protective elements of the tempered glass screen. I would like a better glue solution as well. But until then, my whitestone paired with a quality case will have to do. So far it does just fine.
Bullitt3309 said:
Nice review, but the whitestone still beats having nothing on the phone. I did the ghetto "whitestone" on my Note 8 using a generic glass protector and LOCA glue bought on Amazon. Served its purpose and protected my phone when I dropped it on a gravel surface. Phone looked brand new when I replaced the glass with a whitestone version because the ghetto glue method was too time consuming to ensure no bubbles. I have installed 4 more whitestone glass screens on mine and others phone with no issues and would not hesitate to recommend it. The issues you bring up have merit, but do not deter the protective elements of the tempered glass screen. I would like a better glue solution as well. But until then, my whitestone paired with a quality case will have to do. So far it does just fine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can't get the same protection from a $12 protector. So how does it beat those in terms of protection? It offers no more protection then any other on the market. Infact the Zag elite offers more protection for the same price. The thicker gel adheasive offers significantly more impact protection. Much harder to put on and remove air bubbles but in terms of protection this is vastly superior. Where zag went wrong is not telling people how soft the adhesive is so they push down on it as hard as they can to get a bubble out and it cracks. And then they had to gimp it with some unnecessary bezzles that cover a bit of the display
Bottom line is the Dome is $20 over priced. The adhesive is trash and the olophobic coating is the worst I have ever seen. No excuses for this on something that sells it's self as premium. It's not. It's the same quality as the $12 Alibaba's and personally I would get one of those. Warranty is nothing since you could still get one on Alibaba shippped for the price you will pay for the warranty replacement. And it uses the same trash adheasive.
When you buy "Loca" it's trash from bad batches that they sell on places like Amazon or Alibaba or to places like Whitestone at a heavy discount because it's defective. So you are already useing a defective product from the start. These are facts. I tested these and posted those info. It's trash they pay $1 per 30ml of those stuff. And they call it Loca because it's not an optical adheasive. It makes it sound fancy because they can't call it a UV optical adheasive. Because it's not optical. But it's "optical cured" so Loca.
Facts are facts. I proven this adheasive is trash and defective from multiple kits. I'll test any of it. Got any left I'll test that Whitestone can send me some I'll test that because I know it's trash and it's from batches that were not mixed right. Multiple people have committed on this issues that's why I started testing this and looking into it because what they had in the prictures we seen before. Hell I can tell you exactly what is wrong with it. However working with a supplier when we had that issue I signed a NDA as part of them telling us every detail about it. Because we needed to know why it did that, when it started, how to test for it, how it will be fixed etc.
Like I said. If you use it and like it that's great. No problems with it that's even better. Get a case drop it face down. On a hard surface so it only hits the case then protector is unsupported and you will have delamination. I did this as part of the big testing video I'm doing for this. 2 drops it started.
Also I'm willing to work with them. All my test data as well as some samples I'll send to them or take to then when I'm in California. I love there install method and it will be a home run when the corners that we're cut are fixed. They pay $1 per 30ml of adheasive I can get them a bulk order that ends up being $1.75 per 30ml if they buy bulk lots. That's optical grade I'll send them the contract info and the sales rep I know for there. Use that and it's fixed. I tested that adheasive on this also and it works just like it should. I really want them to improve it.
As of right now now on my desk I have 35 different uv optical adheasives and more on the way. One manufacturer is even making a custom adheasive to test for this application. This all started as a simple test it and see what's wrong with it but due to all the people asking it's gotten much bigger. I hope Whitestone reaches out to me and I can get them the test information I have so they can improve the product.
Hi, I have been following your findings and it is an interesting matter for me at least.
Anyway, I wanted to write an update about my using the Gear VR with the default Whitedome / adhesive installation.
Previously I mentioned I got the "bubbles / webbing" permanently at the very bottom part of the protector, on a central area right above the USB connector (about 10mm wide, 1mm tal), after having the Whitedome applied and using the GearVR on the next day. Now it has been a couple of weeks maybe, and the bubbles part is still there (size unchanged apparently).
What I want to add is, something a bit unexpected (for me) happened: I used the Gear VR again yesterday (several days after the Whitedome installation) for around one hour, and and after taking the phone off, there were MORE bubbles / webbing in a different area, almost horizontally oval in shape, around 1.5cm wide by 0.8cm high. It was positioned about 2cm ABOVE the early thin stripe of bubbles, completely separate from it (not a continuation). I was pissed off because THIS was on top of the screen and obstructiong the image, really annoying. As it was late I decided to just go to sleep and deal with it when I had some free time. But to my surprise it was COMPLETELY GONE this morning. The previous thin mark at the bottom remains. But I can see no trace whatsoever of the "new" affected region..
gamekill said:
Hi, I have been following your findings and it is an interesting matter for me at least.
Anyway, I wanted to write an update about my using the Gear VR with the default Whitedome / adhesive installation.
Previously I mentioned I got the "bubbles / webbing" permanently at the very bottom part of the protector, on a central area right above the USB connector (about 10mm wide, 1mm tal), after having the Whitedome applied and using the GearVR on the next day. Now it has been a couple of weeks maybe, and the bubbles part is still there (size unchanged apparently).
What I want to add is, something a bit unexpected (for me) happened: I used the Gear VR again yesterday (several days after the Whitedome installation) for around one hour, and and after taking the phone off, there were MORE bubbles / webbing in a different area, almost horizontally oval in shape, around 1.5cm wide by 0.8cm high. It was positioned about 2cm ABOVE the early thin stripe of bubbles, completely separate from it (not a continuation). I was pissed off because THIS was on top of the screen and obstructiong the image, really annoying. As it was late I decided to just go to sleep and deal with it when I had some free time. But to my surprise it was COMPLETELY GONE this morning. The previous thin mark at the bottom remains. But I can see no trace
whatsoever of the "new" affected region..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's delamination from defective uv adheasive. As in my video you can see it cures about 50% and then still leaves some wet uncureable adheasive behind and is in some cases acting as an indexing gel. The delamination is still there you will need a microscope to see but masked by that adheasive that's wet acting as an indexing gel.
I got a gear VR on the way. It's on loan from a user to test it with another adheasive. I'll test this and see how it holds up. Run the phone hot and do multiple install and removals then do a few battery drains why it's in the vr. Glad this is a work phone and not my personal phone.
I actually find the oleophobic coating of the whitestone to be very good.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
harlenm said:
I actually find the oleophobic coating of the whitestone to be very good.
Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah same here.
sefrcoko said:
Yeah same here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then it's more product inconsistency. Friend said his is holding up ok. I know mine had scraches in it after a few hours. And one of them out of the box had a burn in the coating as well as a deep scrach deeper then the olophobic.
Any product recommendation or where we can get the good loca glue?
I personally would be interested in a tube of high quality adhesive if anyone is able to source some. Perhaps the OP would be able to point us to a supplier?
bignazpwns said:
Then it's more product inconsistency. Friend said his is holding up ok. I know mine had scraches in it after a few hours. And one of them out of the box had a burn in the coating as well as a deep scrach deeper then the olophobic.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ouch that looks rough. Never had those issues on multiple protectors but inconsistency does happen of course with all products. If they don't provide adequate service or replacement though, well then that's a different issue
sefrcoko said:
Ouch that looks rough. Never had those issues on multiple protectors but inconsistency does happen of course with all products. If they don't provide adequate service or replacement though, well then that's a different issue
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I posted this before. I will say Whitestone sent out a replacement kit for it for free and we're very easy to deal with and gave me very fast responses. So the service is great even though people say it's bad my experience was great. I reached out to them on Facebook and not via website so maybe Facebook is the way to go. And I noted all that when I made that post.
I would do the same for the adhesive but I know they can send out 1,000 kits they will all have this issue because the Adheasive used is from defective batches that had issues with the mixing process. I mean it works...but you will never get a full cure and will have issues under the right conditions and those are relatively common. But some people may never experience this.
But all of them so far have had pretty bad olophobic coating's. One is like it had none at all. One had the coating burned "pic in the previous post" and 2 just meh. Nothing great. But that's fine because I use the leftover ceramic coating I used for my car on my screens since it's better and thicker so I usually get over a year and 1/2 before I see any decrease in preformance. But this Stull is around $400 for a small bottle for a car and after not much is left. But Walmart sells a few kits. One is a great kit and only $12. If people wanna know what kit I'll let you know. Around here only one a almao had this kit in stock. "gerogia" the rest had other brands.
I'm one of the 'lucky' ones who has had no problems whatsoever. Going on three months and still getting compliments on how nice my screen looks. It's like I don't have a screen protector on at all.
I'm completely dissapointed from Whitestone.
I have been using it for weeks and yesterday, (all of a sudden) the tempered glass started to have a small line in the left edge of the phone and it seems like it is kinda lifted.
Unfortunately, the company wont help me, because I didnt bought it from their authorised stores
https://ibb.co/9s7jcV7
Hello fellows, many people have seen the video of JRE on youtube where he destroyed his ROG 5 very easily by bending and cracking it with only 4 fingers used.
Now i want to talk about this issue here, because i plan to buy this beast. Has anyone problems with the stability of the frame? Or is this issue by far not as problematic as JRE makes it out to be?
Einheit-101 said:
Hello fellows, many people have seen the video of JRE on youtube where he destroyed his ROG 5 very easily by bending and cracking it with only 4 fingers used.
Now i want to talk about this issue here, because i plan to buy this beast. Has anyone problems with the stability of the frame? Or is this issue by far not as problematic as JRE makes it out to be?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
JRE applies pressure with the 2 thumbs in the center of the phone and the remaining fingers on the sides of the phone.
In real life it is only by bad luck that you can repeat the conditions of that test, if you sit on top of the phone the contact area is much greater than the point exercised by the JRE.
It is a test for the show where there are clearly mobile phones with better construction design than the ROG 5, but this one is also very robust.
have the least esteem for the phone and everything should be fine.
I haven't had mine long, but I have dropped it three times (it's very big and doesn't fit in my pocket well, so when I crouch/bend over it falls out of my pocket):
- 2 feet from pocket to soil while gardening
- 2 feet from pocket to hard tile while cleaning
- from the top of my desk to the carpeted floor
There has been no damage to the phone from these drops. I'm waiting on a bumper case to arrive, which should help prevent problems from future falls. I'd like to attach the phone to my pocket somehow so if it falls out, it doesn't drop far.
I will say that the disadvantage of a phone this large is that it falls out of my pocket more often.
The reality is this is the most durable design among the gaming phones imo. There are
- no moving parts (cameras, triggers, vents) that would jam or get stuck or burn motors
- no openings for vents that would let dirt or pocket fluff or sand or whatever inside the phone
Also the bend test isn't a realistic use case, it's more of a spectacle. A realistic test would be sitting on it on the sofa or crouching with it in your back pocket. That I would be more interested in.