Posted by totalgsm
Just amazed as to when people are going to break the 256K colors barrier.
Even the latest SE releases like the C902 and C702 are with 256K colours.
Is it just that they feel it is not necessary?
Posted by strizlow800
16M color display is useless consumption of battery imho. The 256k displays of
are great these days.
Posted by plankgatan
yes, but have you ever seen the N82, 6220 screen for example ???
they are very dull even they have 16 millon colors !!!
(so every 16 million screen arent that good)
im happy with 256 k screens.
(256 k screen use MUCH less battery, which is quite important for a cell phone)
_________________
I
K850, 
W810 & 
T29
------------------------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/21179102@N07/
(t610, t630, k700, k750, k800, k810)
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2008-07-07 06:08 ]
Posted by strizlow800
Yeah plank, the Nokia's 16M screens aren't that good after all... The
's screens with vivid colors are great, and less battery consumption too...
Posted by WhyBe
On 2008-07-07 06:10:40, totalgsm wrote:
Just amazed as to when people are going to break the 256K colors barrier.
Even the latest SE releases like the C902 and C702 are with 256K colours.
Is it just that they feel it is not necessary?
You would be essentially wasting CPU cycles for very little difference visually. 24bit color (16 million) is 50% more data than 16bit (65K colors). 18bit is 262K colors. The difference visually between the two is probably not worth the cost in CPU cycles for most.
CPU's typically work with 16bit or 32bit chunks of data, not 18bit or 24bit (where inefficiencies can occur).
Read this thread. It goes into great detail.
[ This Message was edited by: WhyBe on 2008-07-07 10:01 ]
Posted by totalgsm
I am satisfied with the W910i and K850i display. Not sure about the N95. Does it fare better than the SE's in display , contrast etc?
I have never used a Nokia ever, i am a SE fan
Posted by Raiderski
I don't see any benefits from 16M display
BTW. do you know that many people doesn't recognize difference in number of colours between display and camera? they think if the display have 262K colors then photos will be worse than with 16M display
Posted by QVGA
I wouldn't call 16m useless. Nokia arnt morons that they love wasting resources and money on screens that dont make a difference. Even Motorola and samsung are moving towards 16 million
Posted by goldenface
As long as the battery life can support it then there's no reason not to really.
If it meant me having my battery run down more then I could live without it. The screen on the C902 is nice and sharp and the battery lasts a looooong time. I don't see what I'd miss not having 16M colours.
Posted by Tsepz_GP
I wouldn't call 16M useless either, NOKIA, MOTOROL PLUS SonyEricsson in their Japanese phones use 16M Colour screens.
My N81s screen looks a lot better than a W880 or W910 screen. The N82 is not bright in general, put a N82 next to a N81 and you will see that the latter's screen is brighter BUT theres now a patch that brightens up the N82s screen i suggest N82 users check Symbian freak modding section.
Posted by WhyBe
The only way too tell if there is a difference is to do an A/B comparison.
Posted by troublesam
Can you really tell the difference between the two? I mean, really..
Posted by Mizzle
It's quantity vs quality. It's like the megapixel race. The resolution means absolutely nothing if the sensor and software isn't good. Same here - the amount of colours means nothing if the display is not a good one and the software isn't good.
is best on displays, no discussion needed there. The best colour saturation and very very good light in most displays from SE.
Anyone disagreeing have either tried a faulty one or an old one, and I am NOT going to debate. It's a no-brainer and a fact - SE's got the best displays. Period.
Posted by QVGA
Samsung displays are almost similar, or better than SE's. I'm not talking about the big touch screen phones, but the U700, U900 or D900
Posted by Amras
On 2008-07-07 19:26:23, QVGA wrote:
Samsung displays are almost similar, or better than SE's. I'm not talking about the big touch screen phones, but the U700, U900 or D900
D900 is so last year. You see one D900 today, and will be much disappointed by the screen quality. It was very good in its era, but not felt like it used to be anymore today.
U700 is yellowish. U900 is better one.
Still.. SE's better with the offering in such Z770 (no ambient light sensor, brighter than 2.2" in C702 and K850, also very good gamma, saturation and contrast) or K660 (so far the brightest one, smaller diagonal though, better saturation, but worse gamma than Z770).
_________________
---- tempat sapi-sapi ngumpul kebo...
feel free to visit my art gallery.
Macheli @DeviantArt
It'll never be proven.
Nuff said.
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2008-07-07 22:49 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2008-07-07 22:50 ]
Posted by strizlow800
On 2008-07-07 19:26:23, QVGA wrote:
Samsung displays are almost similar, or better than SE's. I'm not talking about the big touch screen phones, but the U700, U900 or D900
Nope, I still think
's displays are better
Posted by Amras
On 2008-07-08 07:36:51, strizlow800 wrote:
On 2008-07-07 19:26:23, QVGA wrote:
Samsung displays are almost similar, or better than SE's. I'm not talking about the big touch screen phones, but the U700, U900 or D900
Nope, I still think
's displays are better
Agree. The latest SEs screens are really good. Brighter, better saturation, better viewing angle, better white-black colors (meaning better contrast), better view in direct sunlight, than Samsung's latest phones.
Posted by strizlow800
Better view in direct sunlight... YEAH, that's what I want the most about
's displays... You can use the phone on direct sunlight without having any problems...
Posted by space2
Some manufacturers use 16M screens just for marketing. It's like the megapixel race, the more doesn't mean the better. If someone buys a phone, and cannot decide between the two, the 18bit and 24bit screens might make him/her buy the "better" one.
Also if you think you need a better screen, create a gradient image in photoshop, gimp, etc, make it a vertical gradient, from white to black. If you can spot the exact lines when the color is changed, you might need a 24bit screen, otherwise definitely not. (if you make a gradient, it means you will see 256 different shades of white/black. On a 16bit screen only 64 shades can be seen, which means if the image is also 256 pixel height, every 4 rows will have the exact color, only the 5th one will be different. If you can spot this "jump" in colors, then you have good eyes
And also note that phones usually work in 16bit mode and switch to higher bit modes (18bit or 24bit) only when watching images (for performance and memory reasons).
Posted by spine6
Don't be fooled by the digits.. just like 18bit and 24bit.. more colours heavy processing.. means slow performance.. 18bit is enough for a phone..
Posted by jakontil
should have said, TFT screen 16M colors on their spec, and people will stop arguing
imho, 262k
color screen can compete with the likes of 16m of any other given brand at the moment, though i see no reason why shouldn't start producing one, and see how the quality goes pretty much the same imo
Posted by strizlow800
And then new problems appear.. Why if the platform they are curently using (A200) doesn't allow this? It will need more powerful processor to handle that much information about the display...
Posted by JAGUY85
I do concur that the use of so-called 16m screens has a lot to do with marketing especially for Nokia. For how can so-called 256k screens "outshine" their 16m screens?
Makes no sense. Unless the difference justified it it would be otherwise, but we are yet to see this.
But then...would they really go to such lengths to mislead the public? Wouldn't it be unlawful? Or maybe their 16m are just inferior for some strange reason...
Posted by Guto_ViP
I prefer 16m colors... i think more vivid (comparate with my K800 display)
I dont care about battery... have charger for this....
Posted by gavster001
not really much difference in screen beyond 262K, especially in less than 3" screen, unless of course you have a bionic eye which differentiate these colors.
IMHO, the important factor is the backlight and how these screen renders the colors (color saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc)
Posted by Amras
On 2008-07-11 16:52:39, Guto_ViP wrote:
I prefer 16m colors... i think more vivid (comparate with my K800 display)
I dont care about battery... have charger for this....
don't compare with k800. k800 is just too washed out. there's huge difference between k800 era and latest era of SE phones.
Posted by NightBlade
On 2008-07-11 22:30:14, Amras wrote:
On 2008-07-11 16:52:39, Guto_ViP wrote:
I prefer 16m colors... i think more vivid (comparate with my K800 display)
I dont care about battery... have charger for this....
don't compare with k800. k800 is just too washed out. there's huge difference between k800 era and latest era of SE phones.
True, my K810's display sucks big time when I compare it to the display of my mom's W890. The W890 has much more vivid colours and deeper blacks (as in, almost OLED-like-pitch-black). Currently, I believe that SE produces the best displays.
Posted by Guto_ViP
On 2008-07-11 21:48:47, gavster001 wrote:
not really much difference in screen beyond 262K, especially in less than 3" screen, unless of course you have a bionic eye which differentiate these colors.
IMHO, the important factor is the backlight and how these screen renders the colors (color saturation, contrast, sharpness, etc)
I think i have bionic eyes...
On 2008-07-11 22:30:14, Amras wrote:
On 2008-07-11 16:52:39, Guto_ViP wrote:
I prefer 16m colors... i think more vivid (comparate with my K800 display)
I dont care about battery... have charger for this....
don't compare with k800. k800 is just too washed out. there's huge difference between k800 era and latest era of SE phones.
Ok, but my lasted phone has one K800 (that's why of comparasion)...
Anyway, if battery is over... i put on charger for three hours (complete charge).
_________________
Nokia 5120 -> Nokia 6120 -> SE T200 -> Motorola V800 -> SE W800 (stay with my wife) - > SE K800 (stay with my mom) -> Nokia N82 Silver -> Nokia N82 Black Edition - Firmware v20.0.062.
[ This Message was edited by: Guto_ViP on 2008-07-12 00:42 ]
Posted by Bonovox
A good example of a very sharp clear bright 16 million colour screen is the Nokia 6300. Its display is one of the best i seen. Some are better than others but i have seen fantastic 16 million ones and some 262k ones that are just as good. But for battery power i would rather have a 262k one. Though comparing a K800 next to a 6300 display the K800 looks dull.
Posted by Amras
On 2008-07-12 02:51:00, Bonovox wrote:
A good example of a very sharp clear bright 16 million colour screen is the Nokia 6300. Its display is one of the best i seen. Some are better than others but i have seen fantastic 16 million ones and some 262k ones that are just as good. But for battery power i would rather have a 262k one. Though comparing a K800 next to a 6300 display the K800 looks dull.
6300 is not the best actually. Far from the best. Trust me. ^^
Maybe you should have seen K660 (or Z770, G502) first.
This is my friend's two month old 6300 (it's black 6300, so it's kinda new released) - and my ex-K660 (which was stolen!):
Original pic:
Original pic:
Still think 6300 is very sharp and bright?
The difference is quite huge in term of backlight brightness, and color balance (6300 is so purplish), not to mention the colors saturation and rendering, contrast, black-white point, and of course viewing angle. SE latest proprietary phones have superb viewing angle from any side.
p.s. I have also posted in another thread here couple of months ago comparison between S500 - K770 - 6120 Classic (which also one of the best Nokia's screens todays), which of course show the dominance of SE's latest displays (and the dullness of SE's displays in K800 era
).
_________________
---- tempat sapi-sapi ngumpul kebo...
feel free to visit my art gallery.
Macheli @DeviantArt
It'll never be proven.
Nuff said.[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2008-07-12 06:19 ]
Posted by Bonovox
I did not mean to say its the best the display but its a good one. I have played with a K660 and yes its nice and clear and bright. One thing i notice about my K800 is when i put some pictures as wallpapers they look pixelated around the edges of say some peoples faces. Odd.
Posted by jmcomms
The C902 also pixelates images as wallpapers, but that's just bad software resizing the image.
Posted by sidneylopsides
I noticed that pixelation on one of my pictures I set as a wallpaper.
If you are viewing a picture and zoom into the part you want as a wallpaper and save that it resizes better and you have a nicer image.
Posted by JAGUY85
Great comparisons. SE's screens are top notch indeed 256k or not!
Posted by jmcomms
The K660i has a particularly bright screen, but Cyber-shot models (K850i and C902) have reflective screens that work better in daylight.
It's more than just colour depth, as the LCDs themselves vary from model to model - depending on power requirements, size, target audience (does it need to be colourful, bright, readable etc?) and so on.
I guess it proves that there's no one single off-the-shelf LCD that has mastered it yet. As said elsewhere, the 16.8M screen on the N82 isn't that good, especially compared to the N95s (and they had two different screens on the N95 and N95 8GB).
Posted by Sony α
On 2008-07-15 01:42:10, jmcomms wrote:
I guess it proves that there's no one single off-the-shelf LCD that has mastered it yet.
I disagree - the BRAVIA displays on SEMCJ handsets is without a doubt, the very best I have seen ever - and definitely a Master of all trades, and a Jack of NONE.
With the RealityMAX engine, and 16.7 million colours on the 2.7 inch Screen on my SO905iCS - there is nothing that can compete.
Posted by SloopJohnB
I have an iphone but i´ve had
phones in the past and have friends which have K800, N95, W880 and etc.. Honestly, the screen on the iphone is the best i´ve seen so far and its 16M. Perhaps the quality of the iphone´s screen has a lot to do with contrast, resolution, brightness and etc, but its a 16M screen and I havent seen a 262K screen that tops it.
ps: It´s possible to make phones with 16M and good battery life, just see japanese
phones, nokia N series, iphone and etc
Posted by Amras
I think, iPhone display is not that good. The resolution is surely amazing though. But the color reproduction is not as good as latest SE's. The colors are kinda washed out in iPhone. I compared. Not to mention that black color is not as black as black should be, and of course the white color is not as white as white should be. The difference between blackpoint and whitepoint determines the contrast ratio. That's why iPhone contrast is not that good.
But one thing that iPhone screen blows people away is of course the large diagonal and the large resolution, although pixel density still is lower than QVGA 2.2" for example. But 2.2" vs 3.5"? Well.. quite huge.
On 2008-07-15 01:42:10, jmcomms wrote:
The K660i has a particularly bright screen, but Cyber-shot models (K850i and C902) have reflective screens that work better in daylight.
Agree. K660i's much better indoors while the other two are slightly worse indoors but are better outdoors.
However, the perfect example of both indoor and outdoor quality is I think, Z770i.
_________________
---- tempat sapi-sapi ngumpul kebo...
feel free to visit my art gallery.
Macheli @DeviantArt
It'll never be proven.
Nuff said.[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2008-07-15 05:38 ]