Posted by umerhayat
Hi.please any one will explain the difference in TFT,TFD and UBC displays and also tell me which one is superior and which one in inferior.thanks
Posted by QVGA
all i know is that TFD are less bright than TFT and consume a lot less power. never heard of UBC and cant find it even on wiki.
Posted by andrewkeith5
TFT: Thin Film Transistor: LCD panel. A type of LCD flat panel display screen in which each pixel is controlled by one to four transistors. The TFT technology provides the best resolution and quality of all the flat panel techniques, but it is also the most expensive.
TFD: Thin Film Diode: Darker picture and less quality than TFT, but consumes less power overall. Not available in larger resolutions due to huge cost in volved.
UBC: well, the only possible results I had for that from a google dictionary search were: Used Beverage Containers; University of British Columbia; and the Uniform Building Code. I have never heard of any UBC screen technology.
Overall, as far as I am aware, TFT provides the best balance between quality, price, and power consumption from the ones you've listed, although LCD is better than TFT.
Posted by shyam335
UFB is Ultra Fine and Bright,which was introduced by samsung few years ago.Main advantage being,the power consumption was much lower comparable TFT's..
Posted by QVGA
On 2007-06-03 13:41:58, andrewkeith5 wrote:
technology.
LCD is better than TFT.
isnt TFT a type of LCD?
Posted by aatuif
and what about 'QVGA'...
Posted by dancingfate
On 2007-06-03 13:41:58, andrewkeith5 wrote:
TFT: Thin Film Transistor: LCD panel. A type of LCD flat panel display screen in which each pixel is controlled by one to four transistors. The TFT technology provides the best resolution and quality of all the flat panel techniques, but it is also the most expensive.
TFD: Thin Film Diode: Darker picture and less quality than TFT, but consumes less power overall. Not available in larger resolutions due to huge cost in volved.
UBC: well, the only possible results I had for that from a google dictionary search were: Used Beverage Containers; University of British Columbia; and the Uniform Building Code. I have never heard of any UBC screen technology.
Overall, as far as I am aware, TFT provides the best balance between quality, price, and power consumption from the ones you've listed, although LCD is better than TFT.
But why when I compared (used to be) my K600 and W800 I found that the screen of K600 is better and brighter than W800? W800's screen is a little bit yellowish I think.
PS: I compared in the same brightness level.
Posted by QVGA
On 2007-06-03 14:35:00, aatuif wrote:
and what about 'QVGA'...
thats the resolution. 320x240
Posted by Seanyb2
TFD being lower quality why has SE put those type of displays in K550i & W660i. Surely these phones are on the same quality level as K750i & W600i in the past so why put in lower quality display. I just find it odd. I know it increases battery life but i would rather have better display. Anyway just a thought.
This message was posted from a 6233
Posted by umerhayat
Hi again . I also have this question that if tft is better and bright than tfd , why se used tfd in w610 and k550.i mean they are not lower end phone.they are new mid range phone.i am confused
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by Seanyb2
I just asked the same question as yourself if you check. Though i got one model number wrong.
This message was posted from a 6233
Posted by masseur
my understanding is that up to 65k colours tfd and tft are equal in all respects except tfd is cheaper to manufacture. higher that 65k colours then TFT is both brighter and cheaper to manufacture
I recall that the Z600 was first SE to have TFD and its csreen was the best at the time, even better than T610/T630 (having had all three myself)
Posted by michka
UBC is Ultra Bright Colours. And I have a feeling that it is somewhat similar to Stereo Widening, but for pictures.
Posted by umerhayat
@seanyb2.yes man.but that wrong model number was going to start another discussion.so i corrected it.
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by TomMy_lee
Why don't u guys put some previews here? Then we can see the difference clearly
Posted by andrewkeith5
On 2007-06-03 14:31:11, QVGA wrote:
On 2007-06-03 13:41:58, andrewkeith5 wrote:
technology.
LCD is better than TFT.
isnt TFT a type of LCD?
AFAIK that is just a common misconception. With TFT, each pixel is controlled by between 1 and 4 transistors (hence Thin-Film-Transistor). However, with LCD there are 2 polarising panels, with a thin film of liquid crystal sandwiched inbetween. When voltage is applied to certain areas (pixels) of the polarising panels, the crystal is darkened. A light source then transmits light through the panel, and the darkened crystal partially/mainly blocks the light to produce the colours. Hence why you rarely see LCD on mobile phones. (as far as I know, anyway. Thats my interpretation of what I've read)
I agree with the comparison shots too. It would be good to see the actual differences on small screens considering its usually only larger panels that are compared.
_________________
Siemend C45 > Siemens MT50 > Motorola A835 > Motorola A925 > SE P800 > Nokia 6600 > SE T68i > SE T610i > Ericsson T68 > Nokia 6820 > Nokia 3310 > Sanyo S750 > Nokia 6680 > SE M600i(Broken heap of crap touchscreen) (> SE P1i)
[ This Message was edited by: andrewkeith5 on 2007-06-04 10:00 ]
Posted by JuanPablo
Actually TFD screen is as better as TFT. Here some extracts from Mobile review:
1. Review of W610
For the mid-range phone, the company is not planning on going into QVGA-displays just now, which are the attributes of senior models like Sony Ericsson W850i. Even though a 176x220 pixels screen here is not particularly a relic, the handset doesn’t get any benefits from it (for example Nokia 6233 falling considerably shot of the W610i functionality-wise, shows off a much superior display, which equals the odds). Having a diagonal of 1.9 inches (31x40 mm) it shows up to 262 K colors (TFT). The first thing that catches your eyes at the first glance is how big the font size is – bulgy menu items captions is what makes the W610i look different compared to the more advanced models. Reading texts with this handset is a breeze, and the credit here goes to the display itself and its fonts. The screen can accommodate up to 6 text and 3 service lines. Unlike some other offerings, the W610i’s display doesn’t enjoy a protective layer that would guard it from sunlight, however in the sun picture remains visible, even though the colors appear washed out. Maybe they have applied a new finishing technology that makes for better visual experience.
They even said it was TFT
2. Review of K550
Having a diagonal of 1.9 inches (31x40 mm) the K550i’s display shows up to 262 K colors (TFT). The first thing that catches your eyes at the first glance is how big the font size is – bulgy menu items captions is what makes the K550i look different compared to the more advanced models. Reading texts with this handset is a breeze, and the credit here goes to the display itself and its fonts. The screen can accommodate up to 6 text and 3 service lines. Unlike some other offerings, the K550i’s display doesn’t enjoy a protective layer that would guard it from sunlight, however in the sun picture remains visible, even though the colors appear washed out. Maybe they have applied a new finishing technology that makes for better visual experience.
3. GSM Arena review of K550
The Sony Ericsson K550 display is made using the TFD (thin film diode) technology. It offers TFT-like image quality but consumes far less power as low as the now obsolete STN displays which were used in the first days of the color mobile displays.
So, there's no difference between TFT and TFD. They're even confused with each other. Just check the gsm arena page for K610:
http://www.gsmarena.com/sony_ericsson_k610-1431.php
It says it has a TFT, and in fact it has a TFD
To sum up, don't make a huge deal about it
Posted by umerhayat
I think samsung makes the best displays.because when ever when i see a samsung hand set display.colours are very sharp and its very delight ful to use a samsung display.while the SE display are just average
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by QVGA
actually nokia makes the best displays. N80 and E60's displays are nothing short of extraordinary
Posted by umerhayat
Yes man.totally agree.but samsung display seems more vivid,so leaves a better impression.although they do it on expense of excess battery usage.where as nokia displays use less battery.so battery life with a lit display is longer for nokia.what you say?
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by QVGA
no, actually 16million screen consumes a lot of battery. samsung's displays while great are sometimes too "cartoonish" in my opinion. Try turning digital vibrance on in your monitor and thats what i think of samsung displays.
Posted by umerhayat
Yes man.i think nokia needs more power ful battery to support the 16m colours displays.i see the nokia 5300.display is very good.but text fonts are tiny.same is the case with e50 ??
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by QVGA
hmm...yeah i would call them small but they are perfectly legible because of the screen res.
Posted by umerhayat
I do not know other people consider it much or not.but i give great importance to the display of a hand set.when i had p900 and p910.their display are so big but not sharp and bright at all.always look so much dimm.is it same case with m600 and w950??
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by QVGA
M600 and W950 have excellent displays
Posted by umerhayat
You mean are they as sharp,vivid,bright and crisp as are the display of non touch screen hand sets of SE.as for example w810 and w850 ??? Or they dull as compared to non touch screen handset displays
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by QVGA
On 2007-06-04 21:30:25, umerhayat wrote:
You mean are they as sharp,vivid,bright and crisp as are the display of non touch screen hand sets of SE.as for example w810 and w850 ??? Or they dull as compared to non touch screen handset displays
This message was posted from a W810i
they are definitly better than W810 due to increased resolution and neck to neck with W850
Posted by umerhayat
You man.but you telling me on papers and in real time day to day life
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by QVGA
On 2007-06-04 21:45:11, umerhayat wrote:
You man.but you telling me on papers and in real time day to day life
This message was posted from a W810i
iss baat ki samajh naheen aye...
Posted by umerhayat
Sorry man,some part of the post just vanished,i meant are you talking just specification wise or you have compared the displays of these handsets in real life your self
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by QVGA
On 2007-06-04 21:52:59, umerhayat wrote:
Sorry man,some part of the post just vanished,i meant are you talking just specification wise or you have compared the displays of these handsets in real life your self
This message was posted from a W810i
i've compared them
Posted by Seanyb2
With Nokia you can change font size in messages and phone book you can on mine anyway and with large font reading texts is so easy.
This message was posted from a 6233
Posted by michka
On 2007-06-04 10:58:51, andrewkeith5 wrote:
On 2007-06-03 14:31:11, QVGA wrote:
On 2007-06-03 13:41:58, andrewkeith5 wrote:
technology.
LCD is better than TFT.
isnt TFT a type of LCD?
AFAIK that is just a common misconception. With TFT, each pixel is controlled by between 1 and 4 transistors (hence Thin-Film-Transistor). However, with LCD there are 2 polarising panels, with a thin film of liquid crystal sandwiched inbetween. When voltage is applied to certain areas (pixels) of the polarising panels, the crystal is darkened. A light source then transmits light through the panel, and the darkened crystal partially/mainly blocks the light to produce the colours. Hence why you rarely see LCD on mobile phones. (as far as I know, anyway. Thats my interpretation of what I've read)
I agree with the comparison shots too. It would be good to see the actual differences on small screens considering its usually only larger panels that are compared.
_________________
Siemend C45 > Siemens MT50 > Motorola A835 > Motorola A925 > SE P800 > Nokia 6600 > SE T68i > SE T610i > Ericsson T68 > Nokia 6820 > Nokia 3310 > Sanyo S750 > Nokia 6680 > SE M600i(Broken heap of crap touchscreen) (> SE P1i)
[ This Message was edited by: andrewkeith5 on 2007-06-04 10:00 ]
You are right that an LCD panel consists of a thin layer of organic molecules that have the property of twisting the polarization plane direction of light. By an angle dependent of an electric field applied to it. When the molecules are placed between two polarizing glasses with their plane of polarization at right angle, the backlight will pass through with an intensity depending on the amount of angle twisting by the molecules.
Where you are wrong is when saying that a TFT is not an LCD. A TFT IS an LCD. TFT describes how the active medium is submitted to the electric field, and the LCD is the active medium itself.