The best feature of smart phones ever that has kept people engaged to the phone of the contemporary period is the display, tailoring it to make everything else much more appealing, sharp, bright and interactive. Of course, another feature that has been most under the eye is that of the size of the screen.
Apple has applied the Retina Display technology since iPhone 4, under the umbrella of IPS LCDs. On the other hand, Samsung, a company that recently lost a lawsuit against Apple for an (accidental?) patient, uses a more modern OLED technology, with its own advantages. Turning into this question: How has Apple and Samsung maintained their name and improved their standards?
Let’s start off, then! Let’s say that you do upgrade your iOS. Would that make a difference? Except with brightness and viewing angle, results show that the difference matters because the iPhone 5 has an increased screen area amongst other display enhancements.
Remember that screen reflection that is sometimes annoying? Whether it’s your own reflection or a bright light behind you, they can be very distracting. iPhone 4 has 52% brighter reflections than its successor. This improvement over the iPhone 5 is Apple’s unique feature, when compared to other smart phones. Also, the new Apple phone has 57% higher contrast rating for ambient, falling light. In English, that means you can read better even if you were in the presence of bright light —the colours and the contrast won’t be “washed out”. With low reflection, you can enjoy better quality pictures. Compared to Samsung Galaxy SIII, iPhone 5 and the latest iPad have higher contrast rating for high ambient light – in fact, that goes out in comparison to any consumer electronic. Most of Samsung’s failure can be detected by its low screen brightness, poorer contrast rating and screen visibility in bright ambient light.
The colour accuracy and quality is better even than an HDTV, just a little short over the new iPad, along with colour gamut – that’s the range of colours producible by a screen, the standard being sRGB / Rec. 709 – and factory calibration. The colour gamut has rightly been controlled as a larger colour gamut cannot reveal colours that are not present in the original content, exaggerating and distorting colours. Most smart phones have around 60% of the standard colour gamut whereas iPhone 4 stands just 4% more than that.
Apple’s latest products have touched this standard, with nearly equal levels of quality, overcoming an engineering difficulty. Samsung’s Galaxy S III, on the other hand, has a larger than the standard colour gamut, giving over-saturated colours with graphics a comic and gaudy effect, with colours out of tune and hue. With images filled with vibrant colours, the view becomes a visual pain. When compared side-by-side to the accurately calibrated iPhone 5 and new iPad, the Galaxy S III looked gaudy. You can look at these color gamut and Intensity Scale figures for details and explanations.
Talk about upgradation! With roughly the same battery capacity, however, the new iPhone does have a shorter running time.
Long story short: iPhone has improved its display, opting to go for HD 1136x640p screen and 326 p/inch. It’s the best in town, yet, though consumers were expecting more.
Samsung, however, hasn’t had the ground, yet, to make a mark against LCD with its OLED. We could see history repeating itself with LCD against CRT screens since the OLED has started to make its inception in various other consumer electronics. The OLED has half the brightness than that of LCDs, which makes Samsung a de facto loser in the brightness competition. The OLED technology, in its primitive stage, receives limited power and ages prematurely. Samsung has a large colour gamut; much larger than standards, in fact, leading to distorted and exaggerated colours. The green, for instance, is hued more than blue and read. This goes out for Apple and Samsung – colour hues significantly depend on individual tastes and the leverage of giving away a video equalizer.
Samsung’s Galaxy S III uses a PenTile OLED, with half of the number of red and blue sub-pixels compared to standards, unlike iPhone. The human eye, however, can’t detect the high pixels so Samsung’s technology works fine with usual pixel graphics like multimedia but for vector graphics, this becomes pixelated, providing visible artifacts and unnecessary moire. However, the OLED does stand a chance against aging and costs lower than an LCD. It should be noted that the human eye does appreciate quality because of a colour gamut. OLED does have a future, as research suggests. Samsung ought to be focusing on improving this competitor against Apple, which does seem promising. The only compromise that should be reached is the annoying power consumption factor. Adding a larger battery might not suffice since it adds to the unnecessary weight of the mobile phone.
Apple has led methodical refinements and factory calibration responsible for producing aesthetically pleasing views. There is, however, plenty of room for improvements and that is a hope for competitors. Apple should launch a smart TV based on its research, since the current Apple screen stands better than a HDTV and picture quality will be different, when viewed using an Apple product for video-in. It should be hoped that White Point Color Temperature does not turn blue — it’s the only calibration flaw, giving selected images a bit of a cold bluish caste.
As a suggestion to manufacturers, the time is right to take a lead and over the flaws of the iPad. is still plenty of room for improvement.
You can find a comparison table for different categories in Screen Reflections, Brightness and Contrast, Colors and Intensities, Viewing Angles, Display Power Consumption, Running Time on Battery, allowing you to arrive at variousconclusions.