| Author |
I found myself that K800i screen and camera is definitely better. |
mcrosser
Joined: Oct 11, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Peru
PM |
the pics are fine, but we can't see them because his account on where he uploaded them has exceeded the bandwith for the day 
AVAILABLE - advertise here!!  | |
|
Horonaim
Joined: Feb 07, 2007
Posts: 329
From: PH
PM |
Had the same problem with the pics too, I just refreshed the page and it fixed it. Atleast it did for me...
Stick and stones can break my bones but words will never hurt me.  |
xan K
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Republica Dominicana
PM |
no pics viewable... I guess I'll have to wait till tomorrow.
|
Amras
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Bandung, Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
Sorry guys. Bandwidth exceeded. You can see them again this midnight. ^^
[addsig] |
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
2.0'' is way too small anyways, and the difference is very very minute. 2.4'' is perfect for HTML browsing, pics and videos.
And since you deliberately chose a screen thats a little inferior to K800 simply because its large, why not compare apples to apples? 2.0'' screen of D900 against 2.0'' screen of K800 where K800 gets its ass whooped! |
Amras
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Bandung, Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-04-11 09:05:50, QVGA wrote:
2.0'' is way too small anyways, and the difference is very very minute. 2.4'' is perfect for HTML browsing, pics and videos.
And since you deliberately chose a screen thats a little inferior to K800 simply because its large, why not compare apples to apples? 2.0'' screen of D900 against 2.0'' screen of K800 where K800 gets its ass whooped!
2.4" is too pixelated for me. Not everyone use a screen for HTML browsing. What about using it for displaying detailed images?
You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I never said that N73 screen is inferior just because it's large. I'm not only speaking about pixel density or physical diagonal of the screens, but also many terms such as:
1. color shading (how good the same 256k colors screens behave in term of color gradation)
2. red tone (which red color is better)
3. blue tone (which blue color is better)
4. green tone (which one is better in show green colors)
5. magenta, cyan, yellow tone
6. white point (which one has more "white feeling" in their white)
7. black point (which one has more "black feeling" in their black)
8. viewing angle (which one is better to view from left-right-bottom-top side)
9. behaviour in outdoor environments (which one is more visible outdoor)
10. behaviour under direct sunlight (which one is more visible under sunlight)
11. pixel density (which one shows more details)
12. brightness (which one is brighter)
13. saturation (which one has more "out" feeling of their color reproduction)
14. contrast (which one has more contrast)
15. color balance (which one is more correctly showing colors.. e.g.: blue shown as blue, not cyan; red shown as red, not orangeish red; green is shown as green, not yellowish green etc)
About K800i Vs D900.
K800i has better white (D900 is greyish), blue, yellow, and red colors than D900. D900 is only slightly brighter and has slightly better shading. Have compared them side by side with many images. And speaking about using the displays in outdoor environment, it's nearly impossible in D900. However, it's not D900 - K800i comparison. It's K800i - N73 comparison.
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 09:12 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 09:19 ] |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
Useless comparison. Like the saying goes, SIZE DOES MATTER.
N73 screen is 40% bigger (physical area) than K800. You can say viewing stuff on your 32inch LCD TV is better than your friend's 42inch LCD TV (but on match night, I bet that all your mates will flock to your friend's place to watch the match  )
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-04-11 09:30:46, Amras wrote:
On 2007-04-11 09:05:50, QVGA wrote:
2.0'' is way too small anyways, and the difference is very very minute. 2.4'' is perfect for HTML browsing, pics and videos.
And since you deliberately chose a screen thats a little inferior to K800 simply because its large, why not compare apples to apples? 2.0'' screen of D900 against 2.0'' screen of K800 where K800 gets its ass whooped!
2.4" is too pixelated for me. Not everyone use a screen for HTML browsing. What about using it for displaying detailed images?
You obviously didn't read what I wrote. I never said that N73 screen is inferior just because it's large. I'm not only speaking about pixel density or physical diagonal of the screens, but also many terms such as:
1. color shading (how good the same 256k colors screens behave in term of color gradation)
2. red tone (which red color is better)
3. blue tone (which blue color is better)
4. green tone (which one is better in show green colors)
5. magenta, cyan, yellow tone
6. white point (which one has more "white feeling" in their white)
7. black point (which one has more "black feeling" in their black)
8. viewing angle (which one is better to view from left-right-bottom-top side)
9. behaviour in outdoor environments (which one is more visible outdoor)
10. behaviour under direct sunlight (which one is more visible under sunlight)
11. pixel density (which one shows more details)
12. brightness (which one is brighter)
13. saturation (which one has more "out" feeling of their color reproduction)
14. contrast (which one has more contrast)
15. color balance (which one is more correctly showing colors.. e.g.: blue shown as blue, not cyan; red shown as red, not orangeish red; green is shown as green, not yellowish green etc)
About K800i Vs D900.
K800i has better white (D900 is greyish), blue, yellow, and red colors than D900. D900 is only slightly brighter and has slightly better shading. Have compared them side by side with many images. And speaking about using the displays in outdoor environment, it's nearly impossible in D900. However, it's not D900 - K800i comparison. It's K800i - N73 comparison.
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 09:12 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 09:19 ]
nobody is going to notice points 1-8 and 15. Its a mobile screen, not a HD TV |
Amras
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Bandung, Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-04-11 11:08:47, mib1800 wrote:
Useless comparison. Like the saying goes, SIZE DOES MATTER.
N73 screen is 40% bigger (physical area) than K800. You can say viewing stuff on your 32inch LCD TV is better than your friend's 42inch LCD TV (but on match night, I bet that all your mates will flock to your friend's place to watch the match )
LOL. LCD TV is something to watch from far distance. Of course it doesn't really matter if the pixel is bigger in the 42inch LCD coz you won't recognize the pixel size at all from such a distance. But you look at your phone LCD from nearly 40cm or nearer. You can see what-so-called unsharp images in 2.4" QVGA N73 from such a near distance. Of course it only happens if you had had experienced with 2.0" QVGA for some times.
Anyway, despite the physical size is somewhat relative, still, K800i has a brighter screen and higher contrast and also better saturation and shading. All said.
Some people don't buy phones to buy LCD quality, but I do. And I believe there are still many of us who also do. 
nobody is going to notice points 1-8 and 15. Its a mobile screen, not a HD TV
As I said above, some people do spend their money to buy also a quality mobile screen. Some people even don't bother of not having a HD TV. ;D
And just because you don't noticed those points, it doesn't mean nobody is going to notice them. AFAIK, I have found that there are people that usually ask something like "why W810i screen is worse than my girlfriends, the pics look more washed out, the Walkman theme has less saturated yellow tone" It means he noticed that the yellow tone of his cellphone is worse. Or people commenting "i think the pic of the green leave is better in X than Y" etc. It means he noticed that the green tone of the X is worse. Other example, I once found somebody asking "is W800i screen is better than K750i screen?" All people there said they were the same, they were both 176x220 pixel with 256k colors. But actually they weren't the same cause the gamma level and color toning is quite different in both of the series. Other example; when a person asked "why my K700i LCD is purplish?" It also mean something that was color toning related, isn't it? And many more example you can find in the internet.
It means that there are also people who can tell the difference, not only in brightness/contrast/saturation/sharpness term, but also in terms of color balance and toning. Let's appreciate those kind of people.
Some big websites only review phone screen in the term of brightness/contrast/saturation, but did most people know that there are also many bright screen phones that doesn't provide color reproduction as good as others? For example. Find a Motorola V3x. It's so damn bright and hi-contrast. But the red color tone is really off. It's annoying in some point because everytime you set as wallpaper an image that contains lots of red colors, you wouldn't be so much pleased because it wouldn't show the quality of the same image shown on LCD or desktop monitor.
So why don't we make such a comparison? Say wise, it may be useless for you, but it also may be useful to some others.
_________________
The proud owner of James Bond edition K800i and Motorola V3x.
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 14:14 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 14:23 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 14:24 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 14:25 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 14:27 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Amras on 2007-04-11 14:40 ] |
mib1800
Joined: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
won't recognize the pixel size at all from such a distance.
At 2inch LCD viewing a normal photo you can hardly make out the face of a person. So what's the point of more pixels if you cannot SEE image properly? With 2.4inch you may just have a chance to see the face. You can list out whatever points for K800 but all of them will be demolished by just one - practical human use. |
BobaFett
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Kamino (wish it would be Lund)
PM, WWW
|
imo all fones with or over 3.2 mp cams should have 16 m displays. just view a pic on k800 and the same with a high res 16 m colour display, u ll see what i am talking about
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-04-11 16:03:09, mib1800 wrote:
won't recognize the pixel size at all from such a distance.
At 2inch LCD viewing a normal photo you can hardly make out the face of a person. So what's the point of more pixels if you cannot SEE image properly? With 2.4inch you may just have a chance to see the face. You can list out whatever points for K800 but all of them will be demolished by just one - practical human use.
Thats what i am trying to tell him, 2.0'' is way too small no matter how good it is. Viewing pics and videos on my N71 is so easy. |
BobaFett
Joined: Jan 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Kamino (wish it would be Lund)
PM, WWW
|
n71 screen quliaty is the same as n73, right?
|
Amras
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Bandung, Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
Sure. 16M colors is better, as long as the brightness/contrast/gamma/etc parameters are as good as the 16M color support.
Cause I had Panasonic VS3 and MX6. The screen was amazing but the gamma level is too high that resulted the colors were washed out. I don't really thing such displays can show better image than a great quality 256k color-screen because it lacks of black point and shadow.
Still.. the same good quality of two screens, the 16M color-one will exceed the 256k color one. N93i is the concrete example of very high quality.
On 2007-04-11 16:03:09, mib1800 wrote:
won't recognize the pixel size at all from such a distance.
At 2inch LCD viewing a normal photo you can hardly make out the face of a person. So what's the point of more pixels if you cannot SEE image properly? With 2.4inch you may just have a chance to see the face. You can list out whatever points for K800 but all of them will be demolished by just one - practical human use.
The problem is you haven't dealed with both physical matters.
As my personal opinion, it's the best to have QVGA in 2.1". Cause yes, 2.0" sometimes feel too small. But yet, the 2.4" physical screen sometimes feel too pixelated. You can see sometimes the face become pixelated there. Seriously.
[addsig] |
Amras
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Bandung, Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-04-11 17:21:17, BobaFett wrote:
n71 screen quliaty is the same as n73, right?
No. N73 screen is brighter a bit. N71 maximum brigthness is only at 90% of N73, slightly dimmer.
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-04-11 06:19
