D3/Ipod Touch 4G Screen Comparison

[Rob_127]

The Ipod touch has better pixel density but I still prefer the Amoled over the Retina screen. I hope Cowon decides to finally use Super Amoled for their next device.

[LWKING]

I could be wrong here, but i believe Super Amoled is just a gimmick to make you feel like you're getting something exclusive. Super Amoled is just an Amoled screen done properly. In previous Samsung Amoled screens they shifted the pixels around to lower the contrast. It had something to do with the placement of the green. Super Amoled is what it should have been in the first place. Since they did it the way they did, they were able to make money off of old tech while making it feel new.

The same goes for retina display. Retina sounds cool but is just another way of saying a high pixel density.
Now pixel density and brightness are an entirely different beast, but I'm pretty sure that's all it is.

Everybody does it nowadays. They take something away without you realizing it and give it back for a price. i.e. Anti-glare screens

My point is that I don't believe that a "Super AMOLED" screen is the answer you're looking for. It's pixel density

[mishaan]

The iPod touch screen is a 'Retina for poors', it lacked wide-viewing angles(TN panel), contrast and color vibrance of the IPhone4's Retina (IPS) screen.
For the next generation, superAMOLED Plus is the way to go for Cowon.

[capnmcorn]

Amoled looks beautiful but is hard to see under bright light. Super Amoled was created later and is better at this. No conspiracies, super amoled is progress. The OP said he preferred amoled over retina, so higher pixel density is not what he is looking for.

[LWKING]

Originally Posted by capnmcorn

Amoled looks beautiful but is hard to see under bright light. Super Amoled was created later and is better at this. No conspiracies, super amoled is progress. The OP said he preferred amoled over retina, so higher pixel density is not what he is looking for.

I meant a higher pixel density in future Cowon screens, not in comparison to the retina display

[LWKING]

Originally Posted by capnmcorn

Amoled looks beautiful but is hard to see under bright light. Super Amoled was created later and is better at this. No conspiracies, super amoled is progress. The OP said he preferred amoled over retina, so higher pixel density is not what he is looking for.

Just because something was created later does not necessarily mean it is better. It happens all the time without notice. Take HD for instance. 1080p has become the standard of high definition, but years ago higher res screens were actually sold for cheaper than they are now. Somebody had the bright idea of throwing an HD in front, raising the price of the 720p and 1080p to make them standard, and selling these "inferior" screens for a higher price. As a result, the prices of the higher res screens skyrocketed. Shortly afterwards you see companies starting to follow suit, rolling out as many HD screens as possible to take advantage of the rush. They sell the superior screens at a price level where the majority of people won't buy them, let alone know they exist. It's a dummy option. They don't want you to buy them, not yet. This way when they do decide to market them (After the public decides HD is no longer exclusive/cool), they can stamp a nice price tag on it and make the "HD" screens dirt cheap so everyone has them and they are no longer cool. Now you need "Super" HD. See my point? Just give it a few years I promise you it will happen. The same thing goes with earbuds, anti-glare screens, 3D, lightbulbs, etc. It's everywhere.

It is a gimmick.The "Super" AMOLED is simply used to make consumers feel like they are getting the BEST, while it simply means "better than most." The following links will better explain what I was trying to say in my previous post.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/19/g...ubpixel-level/

For the record Cowon AMOLED screens follow a RGB pixel arrangement. There are other factors involved that contribute to the overall experience though.

http://www.engadget.com/2011/10/21/t...us-not-a-plus/


Also, the reason the OP preferred the AMOLED to the retina display is because the ipod touch 4G display is inferior to the display on the iphone4 like mishaan said. Also like mishaan said, superAMOLEDplus....

Welcome to the world of Advertising

For the record this post was unnecessary, but for some reason I just always have to be right Whatever

[NonApplicable]

Why do I care that it is marketing? I've seen samsung displays and they are the simply the best. When hear the term "Super" Amoled I don't discredit the technology like I do with the Iphone's retina screen. If their classification of "super" is that it looks more amazing than any phone AMOLED screen I've seen before, by all means, prefix it with whatever you want. If thats your definition of "gimmick", then you have traded progression for cynicism.

A horse by any other name is still a horse. But if that named horse is stronger and quicker than his unnamed counterpart, guess which horse I'm picking...

[LWKING]

Whoa. Slow down there and let's roll back a bit. You're not hearing with me

I agree with you. I never said I was against it. I was just stating something that people may not be aware of. Trust me I'm going with the faster horse on this one too.

Companies create ways to tier their products to increase revenue even when it isn't necessarily obvious. The goal is to operate unnoticed. Theoretically it's a symbiotic relationship between producer and consumer. However, there are some that may view it differently... Think about it. Then there are also those who are unaware or simply don't care.

Maybe "gimmick" isn't the correct term I was looking for. The bottom line is if you're happy, then there is no issue.

[dfkt]

Originally Posted by LWKING

I could be wrong here, but i believe Super Amoled is just a gimmick to make you feel like you're getting something exclusive. Super Amoled is just an Amoled screen done properly. In previous Samsung Amoled screens they shifted the pixels around to lower the contrast. It had something to do with the placement of the green. Super Amoled is what it should have been in the first place.

Actually, older AMOLED screens (like on the S9 or J3) were better. At least from a technology standpoint, of course not going by resolution.

What you describe is what the D3 screen is doing. It's called PenTile RGBG subpixel matrix. It's a cheaper manufacturing process than a proper RGB layout, it has less real pixels than RGB, and it looks visibly worse (crosshatch on solid red color fields, fuzzy jagged letters, etc). It should give better battery life though.

Originally Posted by NonApplicable

When hear the term "Super" Amoled I don't discredit the technology like I do with the Iphone's retina screen. If their classification of "super" is that it looks more amazing than any phone AMOLED screen I've seen before, by all means, prefix it with whatever you want.

According to Samsung, "Super" in front of AMOLED has nothing to do with image quality. It means the capacitive touch digitizer is built directly into the screen, not a separate overlay. In theory, that might reduce glare, but I didn't notice it. In any case it should make the screen thinner.

Super AMOLED "Plus", as found on some devices, means they don't use a crappy low-budget PenTile RGBG subpixel matrix (like on the D3), but a proper RGB layout. The "Plus" screens should look better in reality.

[NonApplicable]

Originally Posted by dfkt

According to Samsung, "Super" in front of AMOLED has nothing to do with image quality. It means the capacitive touch digitizer is built directly into the screen, not a separate overlay. In theory, that might reduce glare, but I didn't notice it. In any case it should make the screen thinner.

Super AMOLED "Plus", as found on some devices, means they don't use a crappy low-budget PenTile RGBG subpixel matrix (like on the D3), but a proper RGB layout. The "Plus" screens should look better in reality.

In that case I would agree that "super" is marketing hoopla. They fooled me and are no doubt deceiving many others into believing that it refers to screen quality. At least the display won't disappoint :-) Tricky Samsung, very tricky.

As for the Iphone 4, I never thought the screen looked as spectacular as Apple hypes it to be. When the company states that it looks better than any similar sized before it and slap a pretentious name on it, I'm not going to justify a purchase with "well it looks purrty gud". Mean what you say, or I go away.

[NonApplicable]

I'm not clear on what you were trying to say. What I do know, is that exaggerated marketing will always exist and the responsibility will always fall on the consumer to weed out the crap. C'est la Vie!

The mind boggling success of the Dre line of beats headphones is exemplary of the stupid consumer. I know I listen to music with my eyes. /s

[LukesRamen]

I just got me a new iPod Touch 4th gen and the screen on it is really a marvel to look at.

It seems a lot of people are judging screens based on too few criteria nowadays. Sure, viewing angles and contrast are important, but everyone seems to ignore color saturation, accuracy, and whites.

Yea, the viewing angles and contrast suck, but the colors are the most accurate I've seen on a portable device (not too saturated or cold).

Not to mention the pixel density... o damn, the pixel density...