| Author |
Why is no one offering more than 256K colors |
totalgsm
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: totalgsm.org
PM, WWW
|
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?
|
|
|
strizlow800
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Macedonia, Skopje
PM |
16M color display is useless consumption of battery imho. The 256k displays of  are great these days.
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
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 ] |
strizlow800
Joined: Aug 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Macedonia, Skopje
PM |
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...
|
WhyBe
Joined: Apr 02, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Ohio, USA
PM |
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 ] |
totalgsm
Joined: Jan 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: totalgsm.org
PM, WWW
|
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 
|
Raiderski
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Poland, Hell, Mountains
PM, WWW
|
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 
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
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
|
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
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.
|
Tsepz_GP
Joined: Dec 27, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Johannesburg, South Africa
PM |
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.
Phone: iPhone 15 Pro Max Black Ti 512GB
Tablet: iPad Pro 11” 2020 Space Gray 256GB
Watch: Series 3 Nike Edition Space Gray
Droid: Huawei Mate 40 Pro 256GB |
WhyBe
Joined: Apr 02, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Ohio, USA
PM |
The only way too tell if there is a difference is to do an A/B comparison. |
troublesam
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Posts: 47
PM, WWW
|
Can you really tell the difference between the two? I mean, really.. |
Mizzle
Joined: Oct 06, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
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.
 |
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
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
|
Amras
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Bandung, Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
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: 2008-07-07 06:10
Sony Ericsson software/hardware support! 
