Welcome to Esato.com


Pages:
123  Next


New SE phones lack of 16M colour screen


Click to view updated thread with images




Posted by sesukaku
Why SE hasn't been releasing any 16M colours phone? even in their flagship? i know they have improve alot on other aspects, but why get rid of this one?


Posted by Dogmann
@sesukaku

I noticed that also although some will no doubt say it kills the battery and isn't necessary although i would like to know why no new processor chips and graphics in the W960 just the same as the P1 which is really getting old now and the W960 doesn't get HSDPA either which i find even more odd as some of the others do. So close but no cigar from me I'm afraid.

Marc

_________________
Nokia N95, 2gb Sandisk, Shure EC2g
Nokia E61 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6

[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-06-15 01:36 ]

Posted by Bhavv
I dont think the difference between 256k and 16m is that great to the human eye, especially on a small screen. My k800i screen looks perfect to me, any improvement over that is fine for me.

Posted by roogenial
There is not big diference betwen 16Million colors or 262K for de Human Eye.

Posted by RevoWution
Does sesakuku have to go around making new threads about every little downside to SE's new phones? lol...

Posted by razec
according to some researches i've done, a human eye could discern up to 6 millions of colours only, so any color depth higher than that could never been discernable. AFAIK color depths typically increases brightness thats the reason why nokia's 16m displays are very vibrant, although K800's display has proven it's excellent vibrance even in 262K colors. (see mobile-review's S40 vs A100 test)

yes i agree that 16M colors drinks battery juice faster than 262K. don't we wonder why SAMSUNG one of the leading manufacturers of LCD display(aside from sony, LG and sharp) has only limited it
the phones display to 262K? though they can prove that it's already perfect for such viewing pleasure. nokia was the only on why tries to overthrow them but imho they can't

Posted by Dogmann
@bhav and roogenial


Oh please be serious at least claim it is more intensive on battery life or it's pixelated something at least half believable. If it is no better why would any one bother producing them, i suppose by the same token HD TV is a waste as well we should all have 262k colour big TVs then.

Do you just post without actually thinking what you are saying and just how absurd a remark you are making, as long as it justifies any missing spec from SE . An explanation as to why it is no good, or not needed, really just how dumb do you think some of us actually are.


@Razec

Have you seen and used any 16m colour screens? because i know own 2 and i can tell you quite simply they are better and i don't really care how or why as that is of no importance to me. All i know is that it means i get a better viewing experience for Web, Films & Video and every other thing i look at. Also it is rubbish about them killing battery life as the E61 has the best battery life of virtually any smart phone.


Marc

_________________
Nokia N95, 2gb Sandisk, Shure EC2g
Nokia E61 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6

[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-06-15 04:10 ]

Posted by dr.walrus
ffs.

The quality difference is very small. As in seriously damn small. That you actually care is pretty sad.

Posted by mib1800
well, i think it does not make that much different because the K850 screen size is so darn small.



[ This Message was edited by: mib1800 on 2007-06-15 04:56 ]

Posted by jakontil
May b they will eventually, though at the moment, no se has got as big as e61i in term of screen

It's their limitation, but simply quality talks over quantity

Posted by Dogmann
@dr.walrus

Listen i didn't go out of my way to find a 16m colour screen i was more than happy with my N93 screen. I also used to think it can't make much difference as BoBa was always going on about it. But since having one i have found it does make a difference, is all that i am saying even if it's only a little better the fact is it's better why not get the best if you can while settle for less. If any one is sad it's you trying to deny the obvious for what reason i have no idea other than SE doesn't have them so it must not be needed or is rubbish perverse logic or what.

Marc


_________________
Nokia N95, 2gb Sandisk, Shure EC2g
Nokia E61 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6

[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-06-15 05:06 ]

Posted by kristianm

On 2007-06-15 04:01:07, roogenial wrote:
There is not big diference betwen 16Million colors or 262K for de Human Eye.


Actually I do notice the difference quite easily, especially when it comes to the black-gray gradients.

Posted by JuanPablo
Two reasons:

1. 16M colors make the battery life shorter.

2. The human eye cannot see the difference between 256k and 16M.



Posted by dxreaper

On 2007-06-15 06:30:30, kristianm wrote:

Actually I do notice the difference quite easily, especially when it comes to the black-gray gradients.


Yes, but how often do you get to see something on a small phone like that that will require to show enough gradient shades to be obvious? 320x240 in a 2.2 inch space is not much.

Maybe if it were a large 1920x1200 screen and you were editing a black & white picture of a sun set with no clouds, then sure, it'll be obvious. Until then I don't think so.

Posted by RevoWution

On 2007-06-15 06:42:10, dxreaper wrote:

On 2007-06-15 06:30:30, kristianm wrote:

Actually I do notice the difference quite easily, especially when it comes to the black-gray gradients.


Yes, but how often do you get to see something on a small phone like that that will require to show enough gradient shades to be obvious? 320x240 in a 2.2 inch space is not much.

Maybe if it were a large 1920x1200 screen and you were editing a black & white picture of a sun set with no clouds, then sure, it'll be obvious. Until then I don't think so.


Spot on, my friend

262k colours is all I need

Posted by kreacher
Yes the human eye can tell the difference when you see banding on 24bit color gradients and yes its a BIG disappointment for me too

Posted by skylineR35
there's difference and human eye could differentiate them.
the problem is it's insignificant then if compared on QVGA screen.

i mean SE is just think its not worth it.
for the sake of little upgrade of the screen, battery lifetime will be severely reduced. just the matter of worth it or not from SE i think.

Posted by Dextrr
Funny how every SE "fanatic" are defending the lack of a 16Mil screen. I'm 101% sure deep down inside they wish the new K,W and P series phone had it. I like Nokia's thinking, give the consumer the best in tech, even if thats at premium prices. I would love to have a bigger and 16mil screen in all the new SE phones!

Posted by Supa_Fly

On 2007-06-15 06:31:14, JuanPablo wrote:
Two reasons:

1. 16M colors make the battery life shorter.

2. The human eye cannot see the difference between 256k and 16M.




2> Utter CRAP! Why are there specific COLOR WHEELS and calibration applications for LCD's & CRTs?!! Why do graphic design houses/firms & in-house graphic teams for top mags like Vogue/GQ have their publishing graphics teams USING calibration hardware/software combo's?!!! WHy do HD movie producers have their teams use such combo's on their FinalCutPro studio screens!?! Lastly why does LaCie make such STANDARD for visual quality screens for CRT's/LCD's for MANY MANY years?!

There is a HUGE spectrum that a healthy human eye can see. Alongside the same colors with minimal range its nearly impossible for the human eye to detect. However give a broad range of colours and its like night & day for the human eye to detect.

Proof? Ferrari doesn't always use the same RED paint in all their models, older berlinetta front engine classics always have a deeper shade of red than moderns like the 360 Modena's. Red also is the most EXPENSIVE paint to have on a car and boosts your insurance JUST because of the color on same car model! You wanna proove me wrong? Get some 9 year old kid with a buck-knife/key to scratch your expensive red-paint Honda TL or RX-8 , 350z. You'll see.

What effects perception of 16mil colors vs 256K is the QUALITY of the LCD! Samsung produces more than anyone else does, and SE just didn't want to give a major competitor so much money.

Posted by Dextrr
Hmmmm - Interesting tidbits Prom1!

Posted by Eric's Son
The difference is quite visible on gradients, even on small screens. And the biggest battery killer is the backlight, doesn't matter 16M or 262K.

[ This Message was edited by: Eric's Son on 2007-06-15 06:38 ]

Posted by shyam335
True,
the only reason i can come up with are economic..

Posted by dxreaper
There might be many other reasons as to why SE decides on using 256k. Of course more colour is better, but this is something I really feel I can live without personally.

One of the reason I could think of is that maybe their 256k LCD production line is very mature and provides a very good yield (meaning efficiency) and therefore cheap for standard handsets.

The colours are distinguishable when you look at smooth gradients, but honestly, would you even notice if your Ferrarri picture is just 0.1 of a shade different? You can't even tell the difference until you compare it with what the original colour is suppose to be, and even then it might not be the same as pictures on screen will differ due to different contrast or hue settings anyway. So why the fuss?

Posted by thecell
IMO its no prob for me since my eyes cant see big difference between 256k and 16m on small screen, im quite sure 16m really will affect b attery performance since, because LCDs chip need more power to boost the 16m graphic performance, especially while it running 3d games.

n95 is 16m right? but what i see is the screen does not better than w900. I think 16m colour screen will only work min 272x480 4" screen, like SonyPSP screen.


Personally, i prefer 'few differences in screen' than 'big differences in money' , i dont want to lose $30 for such a not worthed thing, plus affect the battery performance, no way.

Posted by dxreaper
thecell,

I better correct your statement before someone flames you.

Firstly, I understand that is a matter of your own opinion, and for you, your judgment for a nice screen is not really to do with the colours.

What I think is the reason as to why you said the W900's screen seems nicer to you could be to do with the Saturation of the colour or the Contrast, as high contrast normally gives an artificially vivid and pleasant picture sometimes, but that just means it's vivid and nice looking, it might not be natural.

What those people who are pro more colour on screen might argue with you is that the number of colours are there for reproducing images with accuracy rather than it being good looking. For them, natural accurate reproduction is more important over realism.

One obvious example. Have you all noticed how newer movies and tv shows, not to mention computer games have been using the "bloom" effect? Like take the movie 300 for example or Smallville. The bloom effect makes the image looks nicer, but that does not mean it has more details. It's all after effects, same with vivid colours with high contrast.

Hope I didn't go to long or off topic, I think it's pretty on with comparing the different deception of what is a 'good' screen.

Same can be said with a lot of things, it's rather subjective. Music, some people like bass, other likes clarity, so on and so forth.

[ This Message was edited by: dxreaper on 2007-06-15 08:13 ]

Posted by kyle_274
both sides r right...SE has the technology to make a 16m screen but they dnt? and nokia does nd i take my hat off to nokia for that...but i wud rather hve the w910 over the n95 or any other nokia...its an awesome phone well all of SE phone r awesome...u complain about SE not hveing a 16m screen well were is nokia motion sensor thing? or trust worthy phones? or gud design that dnt luk like blocks?


Posted by SE_Mark
SE must be doing something right, or everyone who's complaining about SE's screen resolution wouldn't be here, they'd be happy playing with their Nokia's right now.

Posted by razec

On 2007-06-15 05:04:36, Dogmann wrote:

@Razec

Have you seen and used any 16m colour screens? because i know own 2 and i can tell you quite simply they are better and i don't really care how or why as that is of no importance to me. All i know is that it means i get a better viewing experience for Web, Films & Video and every other thing i look at. Also it is rubbish about them killing battery life as the E61 has the best battery life of virtually any smart phone.



i did, and it was always honestly(typically because in my location most people have nokia phones i.e. 6131 and 6300) but everytime i have a look at those i can't really tell the difference between the two(16M nokia and 262K SE/Samsung) except on the brightness 16M provides. E61 have avery good battery because of the higher 1500 MaH battery. but if we used an N95's battery 950MaH i guess it won't stay as long as SE phones could(it could only last less than N95 standbytime could since it has larger 2.8 inches screen whilst n95 has 2.6 that size difference makes sense already ). meanwhile E90's battery doesn't even last longer than E61 does even though it has the same battery type as E61 @ 1500MaH(thanks to it's mammoth LCD resolution and size ). with that case i won't consider 16M colors to be not so battery thirsty compared to 262K

Posted by himlims_nl


Posted by QVGA
there is a difference in 256K and 16million, just get that into your heads. because SE didnt offer 16m doesnt mean 16m has no signifance

Posted by mikeb
Its not that hard to understand why not,

1) a 16M LCD costs more than a 256k LCD.
2) 16M will of course look better than 256k, but for most applications (not including mobile TV) you use the phone for, 256k is more than enough

Mobile TV has not yet taken off and will not take off big time for at least another year or two.

So no 16M LCD until SE launch their Bravia range, specifically geared towards Mobile TV (like Cybershot for camera & Walkman for music).

But they probably will not be in the shops until next year (just a guess by me, but as the next traditional announcement time for SE is Sep, then any new phones will not arrive until just before Xmas or more likely in 2008).

Just my 2 cents,

/Mike B.

Posted by Aware
'no se has got as big as e61i in term of screen'

Sorry P990 is 2.8", identical to E61/i, N92(first S60 to have 2.8")....

....and there IS a difference between 256k and 16m colours, anyone who doesn't think so, go look at 2005 model, PANASONIC VS6.....
- a £99 phone! It even(dare I say it) shows up the Nokia 16m screens for what they are, let alone every other manufacturer stuck on 256k!

Chop, chop, SE!





Posted by miguel82
The diference is almost nothing, so I dont care if it got 256k or 16M as long they both be perfectly visible at sun light. That is the most important thing in a screen to me, and one of the reasons why i get rid of my p990


Posted by goldenface
I think the biggest problem on Mobile screens is visibility in sunlight.

256k screens are no big disadvantage IMO. I never heard anyone complain about the K800i screen colours.

16 million colours screens will appear on SE phones soon but I don't think they are essential right now. It certainly won't put me off buying a phone.



Posted by miguel82
On visibility in sunlight subject i think nokia is doing a excellent job. All nokias i tested were great and my p990 was simply the worst phone i had in this subject (I think i can only compare it to a t68i visibility in sunlight! very very terible... lol) !! I had a w800 and a w810 too... they were ok but still worse than nokia screens on sunlight



Posted by Dogmann
Hi all

Just because you can't see any need for them doesn't mean we all should all do without out them does it. As for them being more expensive i am sure they are but my devices don't appear to cost me extra because of the screen it is the whole device i pay for.

I unfortunately have to spend a day in Hospital receiving treatment quite often and afterwards while recovering the feeling in my legs am stuck in bed for a few hours and the TV in hospital is rubbish. So being able to watch a movie like Kill Bill 2 with it's intense colours and fast movement i like the best quality i can get and why should i settle for less even the the Mighty Boosh episodes or the Simpson's also gain from this improved quality not to mention Porn.

Sorry but some of you just talk utter rubbish that has absolutely no basis in reality and until SE introduce it is just seen as a deficiency so deny it's needed or any good really pathetic IMO i just wish some of you children would hurry up and grow up.

Marc

_________________
Nokia N95, 2gb Sandisk, Shure EC2g
Nokia E61 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6

[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-06-15 14:21 ]

Posted by himlims_nl
i don't need 16M display
- it's more energy consuming (which reduces standby time)
- usualy more fragile (not always) but i've seen more broken 16M displays.
- they cost more, so the mobile's become more expensive.

Posted by QVGA

On 2007-06-15 15:27:04, himlims_nl wrote:
i don't need 16M display
- it's more energy consuming (which reduces standby time)
- usualy more fragile (not always) but i've seen more broken 16M displays.
- they cost more, so the mobile's become more expensive.


The price of E60 contradicts your third point. It can be found for as little as 250$. E60 also contradicts your first point aswell, and so does E61 and E62.

Posted by himlims_nl
it's a simpel fact a 16M display is more expensive compared to a 256K

Posted by 701
I TOTALLY agree there is no point in making 16M screens as I used both the M600i and an HTC 8310 with 16 M screen and i saw NO difference watsoever and i am tech savvy. Most of the people aren't and they can't see the difference between a 64k and 256k , so what's the point?!

Posted by mib1800
no different in UI view but try to see a video or photo and you will see different.

Posted by 701
Well, I did and still really no difference. Plus that I have a Panasonic VS3 which also has a 16M screen...

Posted by sidneylopsides
I have to say a 16m colour screen doesn't sell a phone for me, I'ev had a few and there's no noticable difference with those and a 262k.
If you look hard there is a a slight improvement in banding but that's it, vibrancy and contrast are more down to how well the screen is built and used than to how many colours it can show.

Posted by sesukaku
personally i think it is something that SE should address. That's why i put it as a thread. I would have thought they have gone 16 million colors back then when they were about to release K800. To my dissapointment it wasnt. It is a natural thing that the successor would, right? if it doesn't, it will just make the dissapointment bigger, that's what i think. have you guys seen nokia 6300's screen? damm.. i couldnt believe that's the screen, it is unbelievable sharp and bright and rich in colors (on top of that, it looks very unreal to me and seemed to be overcoloured, but if you compare it to K800, K800's screen looks dull)

Posted by shaliron
Here's the reasoning:
- 16 million colour screens are more expensive. Simple as that. SE wants to save money. Who doesn't?

But that can't be the only reason:
- They waste much more power, for a somewhat negligible increase in quality. Remember these are 2"-2.4" screens, not large HDTVs.
- And if they wanted to equal the battery life of 262k displays vs 16mil displays, then they'd need larger batteries, adding to the bulk. Really, what would the public really want? Smaller phones rather than an incremental step up in picture quality.
- The difference isn't as great as say 256<4096<65K screens.

Look at past examples of under-achieving phones in regards to battery life from Nokia:
-N95
-6300
-6131

Posted by razec
before SE could decide to put 16M screens on their phone they should bear those factors in their mind:

>>first, Battery - the essential thing on all phones, they should discover a new type of battery to success the Lithium-Polymer type which will bring us longer life span and lesser discharge rate and of course smaller the size, but at this moment this is just a dream yet

>>>second is the size - if they used a higher capacity battery it will increase the size, thus will make it more bulky just like E61 to achieve good battery life(imagine if W910 and K850 would have 16M screen and larger capacity battery, then how thick will it be?

Posted by Dogmann
@701

Well all I a can say is if your HTC is screen is no better than your M600 screen it must be one bad screen then as the M600 screen is in no way brilliant which is why they have upgraded it on the P1. In sunlight it is just magical it completely disappears great trick just not for using it though.

Also you really need to all get over this great theory you all have that it just eats battery life also because it may be a little more energy hungry but not anywhere near what you all seem to think.

Marc

_________________
Nokia N95, 2gb Sandisk, Shure EC2g
Nokia E61 2gb Sandisk, Fring, Tom Tom 6


[ This Message was edited by: Dogmann on 2007-06-16 03:26 ]

Posted by Dextrr

How can one call the N95, 6300 and such "under achievers"? Just because the N95 needs to be charged daily? I admire Nokia for being leaders and innovators, this is something I can't say about SE of late.

I own a p990i along with an N73. Everyone calls the p990 a failure and all. Even I get frustrated at time but will not call it an "under achiever". I would kill to have an N95 but can't really get one ATM.

Back on topic now:

I think 16M screen would make the SE line up more desirable and, may I say, highend (to me at least) like Nokia's "N" serie.




Posted by dxreaper
Yes, to you at least. You are a minority.

But in case it is not obvious enough, SE has pretty much given up the highly technological market and is focusing more on the mass market side where people don't care if their phone really has 16 mil or 256k, they just go for looks and whatever offer they can get from it.

Which is why I have mentioned it a few times earlier how not everyone would notice the difference during every day usage, and not everyone will download videos/movies on their phone for viewing.

With regards to Mobile TV, the compression on those are bad enough that even on a 16mil screen it'll look bad.

Posted by antichrist

On 2007-06-15 06:31:14, JuanPablo wrote:
Two reasons:

1. 16M colors make the battery life shorter.

2. The human eye cannot see the difference between 256k and 16M.




1.not necessary shorter. in fact the display shows the same number of pixels, but different colors.it should be any significant difference

2.oh yes it does. maybe your eyes cannot see the difference but the human eye CAN make the difference!


Pages:
123  Next
Click to view updated thread with images


© Esato.com - From the Esato mobile phone discussion forum