>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> New SE phones lack of 16M colour screen
Bookmark topic
The difference is quite visible on gradients, even on small screens. And the biggest battery killer is the backlight, doesn't matter 16M or 262K.
[ This Message was edited by: Eric's Son on 2007-06-15 06:38 ]
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 07:35:03
Edit :
Quote
True,
the only reason i can come up with are economic..
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 07:50:06
Edit :
Quote
There might be many other reasons as to why SE decides on using 256k. Of course more colour is better, but this is something I really feel I can live without personally.
One of the reason I could think of is that maybe their 256k LCD production line is very mature and provides a very good yield (meaning efficiency) and therefore cheap for standard handsets.
The colours are distinguishable when you look at smooth gradients, but honestly, would you even notice if your Ferrarri picture is just 0.1 of a shade different? You can't even tell the difference until you compare it with what the original colour is suppose to be, and even then it might not be the same as pictures on screen will differ due to different contrast or hue settings anyway. So why the fuss?
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 08:01:26
Edit :
Quote
IMO its no prob for me since my eyes cant see big difference between 256k and 16m on small screen, im quite sure 16m really will affect b attery performance since, because LCDs chip need more power to boost the 16m graphic performance, especially while it running 3d games.
n95 is 16m right? but what i see is the screen does not better than w900. I think 16m colour screen will only work min 272x480 4" screen, like SonyPSP screen.
Personally, i prefer 'few differences in screen' than 'big differences in money'
, i dont want to lose $30 for such a not worthed thing, plus affect the battery performance, no way.
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 08:11:25
Edit :
Quote
thecell,
I better correct your statement before someone flames you.
Firstly, I understand that is a matter of your own opinion, and for you, your judgment for a nice screen is not really to do with the colours.
What I think is the reason as to why you said the W900's screen seems nicer to you could be to do with the Saturation of the colour or the Contrast, as high contrast normally gives an artificially vivid and pleasant picture sometimes, but that just means it's vivid and nice looking, it might not be natural.
What those people who are pro more colour on screen might argue with you is that the number of colours are there for reproducing images with accuracy rather than it being good looking. For them, natural accurate reproduction is more important over realism.
One obvious example. Have you all noticed how newer movies and tv shows, not to mention computer games have been using the "bloom" effect? Like take the movie 300 for example or Smallville. The bloom effect makes the image looks nicer, but that does not mean it has more details. It's all after effects, same with vivid colours with high contrast.
Hope I didn't go to long or off topic, I think it's pretty on with comparing the different deception of what is a 'good' screen.
Same can be said with a lot of things, it's rather subjective. Music, some people like bass, other likes clarity, so on and so forth.
[ This Message was edited by: dxreaper on 2007-06-15 08:13 ]
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 09:11:42
Edit :
Quote
both sides r right...SE has the technology to make a 16m screen but they dnt? and nokia does nd i take my hat off to nokia for that...but i wud rather hve the w910 over the n95 or any other nokia...its an awesome phone well all of SE phone r awesome...u complain about SE not hveing a 16m screen well were is nokia motion sensor thing? or trust worthy phones? or gud design that dnt luk like blocks?
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 09:16:13
Edit :
Quote
SE must be doing something right, or everyone who's complaining about SE's screen resolution wouldn't be here, they'd be happy playing with their Nokia's right now.
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 09:34:31
Edit :
Quote
On 2007-06-15 05:04:36, Dogmann wrote:
@Razec
Have you seen and used any 16m colour screens? because i know own 2 and i can tell you quite simply they are better and i don't really care how or why as that is of no importance to me. All i know is that it means i get a better viewing experience for Web, Films & Video and every other thing i look at. Also it is rubbish about them killing battery life as the E61 has the best battery life of virtually any smart phone.
i did, and it was always honestly(typically because in my location most people have nokia phones i.e. 6131 and 6300) but everytime i have a look at those i can't really tell the difference between the two(16M nokia and 262K SE/Samsung) except on the brightness 16M provides. E61 have avery good battery because of the higher 1500 MaH battery. but if we used an N95's battery 950MaH i guess it won't stay as long as SE phones could(it could only last less than N95 standbytime could since it has larger 2.8 inches screen whilst n95 has 2.6 that size difference makes sense already
). meanwhile E90's battery doesn't even last longer than E61 does even though it has the same battery type as E61 @ 1500MaH(thanks to it's mammoth LCD resolution and size
). with that case i won't consider 16M colors to be
not so battery thirsty compared to 262K
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 09:57:27
Edit :
Quote
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 10:02:10
Edit :
Quote
there is a difference in 256K and 16million, just get that into your heads. because SE didnt offer 16m doesnt mean 16m has no signifance
--
Posted: 2007-06-15 13:36:03
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
