Join Today
Enjoy an ad free experience by logging in. Not a member yet? Register.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 31
  1. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    408
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    Quote Originally Posted by rwishi
    This is also why apple choose to put a 256k screen so that it's colour os better than other phones. The 256 is also better because it does not have enough colours(!) to shine so bright. Actually, mobile phones which do use a 16 mil screen and has a bad screen backlight looks better than another phone with the same screen but good backlighting!
    What you say is not true.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Posts
    581
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    Main difference between 256k and 16mil colors is higher GPU/CPU(2D) usage and higher cost of production.
    I want transreflective AMOLED capacitive multitouch 16mil screens on all mobile phones. But hey, who listens to me...

  3. #23
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    hay what r u talking about..........
    tell me how can we compare these colors in detail not in full.
    bt to some extent

  4. #24
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    3
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    hay guys........if u r saying that 16m can display all the pictures that can 256k shows.........
    than may be u are wrong........
    because if u heard about new Samsung S3310 if not than go for the following link

    http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3...&idPhone2=2812

    and i want to tell u that only after bigger than 50k pics are not allowable to open in Samsung.....and all the pics are show-able on Motorola phone

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    1,365
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    Quote Originally Posted by harshit21
    hay guys........if u r saying that 16m can display all the pictures that can 256k shows.........
    than may be u are wrong........
    because if u heard about new Samsung S3310 if not than go for the following link

    http://www.gsmarena.com/compare.php3...&idPhone2=2812

    and i want to tell u that only after bigger than 50k pics are not allowable to open in Samsung.....and all the pics are show-able on Motorola phone
    It's not that.
    The 256k screen will be able to show the same colour as the 16m but the difference will be the colour tone.

  6. #26
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    408
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    Quote Originally Posted by harshit21
    hay guys........if u r saying that 16m can display all the pictures that can 256k shows.........
    than may be u are wrong........
    What are you talking about? Ofcourse screen with 16777216 (16M) colours can display all the same pictures as screen with 262144 (256k) colours can. Actually more colours screen has the better. 16M colours is much better than 256k.

    Screen with 16M colours has 24 bits per pixel which define the colour of pixel. Screen with 256k colours has only 18 bits per pixel.

    Any full colour picture sure does look much better on screen with 16M colours than on screen with only 256k colours. That's 100% sure. Full colour picture normally is 24bit (or 32bit with 8bit alpha channel). Eg. all photos are stored in 24bit. Most of the pictures these days are 24bit (or 32bit if also 8bit alpha channel information is stored). Alpha channel is used for the transparency.

    Now if you show 24 bit full colour picture on 24bit screen with 16M colours, then no colour conversion or colour reduction is needed. So picture quality is not reduced. But if you show that same picture on 18bit screen with only 256k colours, then picture's colours are converted and reduced to fit the screen. That reduces pictuire quality and makes picture look much worse.

    So screen with 16M colours is MUCH better than screen with 256k colours.

  7. #27
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    659
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    here's my take on the photos on the first page

    the ones with 16M looks dimmer, why?
    i think its because of the color tone, the shade part, where the 16M color can really define

    while the ones with only 256K is brighter, why?
    coz it has lesser tones, and it eliminates some shady colors (those that cannot be covered by the 256 limit) thereby making it look more brighter, and as some would conclude more nicer.

    human eyes has limitations in interpreting colors, specifically between subtle difference in shades. We tend to give more emphasis on brightness and dullness
    if you reduce the brightness, everything becomes greyier in our eyes. We see more grey color at night.

    so the question of 256k being better than 16M?
    well, it will actually be properly answered depending on what display you put the two on, more background light, and you get more colors from 16M, lesser bckgrnd light, 256K stands out more.

  8. #28
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    439
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    1

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    you cant really have a transreflective OLED, because led is not a light valve like LCD that you can bounce sunlight off a background back through the light valve.
    2 completly different worlds.

    Oled is a light emitting device (diode), wheras LCD is light valves with a led (or ccrt) light being diffused behind THROUGH them.

    with OLED the user sees the light from tiny LIGHTS :-) the reason it has such high specs , is because the light can be OFF completly, so therin having a wildly high contrast ratio, which does not nessiarily define its ability to be seen any better than anything else IN the light, because once you have light the contrast point start at the initial light and works its way up. AKA the light hitting the device. so it has "contrast" because it can go full black, if your in a coal mine :-) each of the tiny lights can be at any level the driver processing would be capable of, just like the LCD . the colors should be able to go extreemly saturated , although are limited in total actual spectrum.

    comparing OLED to LCD in pictures will be highly deceiving, because the camera is pointed at LIGHTS :-) and you know what that means. although they do look wondefull in real life too (not saying they dont). just be sure of what your getting , by seeing it in real life, or even using it in real life situation (outdoors for example).

    because OLED is little tiny led emitter items , and OLED is in the first stages of its development and the process which they are made, the OLED item has a VERY SHORT lifetime before it reaches half output , it will still keep plugging away, but will dim sooner than other things. so if you intend to have something that will last long ON times, you might get burned untill they make OLED pannels that Will.

    point some inhuman Meter machine at these "lights" and what it percieves to be an output of great quanities of light, might not reflect in any way the humans ability to view the pannel, so if your meter is going to be looking at the thing, your all set with them specs, if your human, they leave you out of the loop :-).

    the only reason i mention that STUFF, is dont be fooled by some of the specs stuff, they often leave out some of the more important technical aspects.

    same thing with some of the COLOR claims, there is processing the color and running the LCD with more colors , some 10 or 14 bit displays or something, and there is PRE-Processing the signal going to the Crappy LCD that give a PERCEPTION of more colors, that the screens processor isnt even capable of.
    you see this kinda stuff more often, as the LCD displays take over, where CRT displays wooped thier pants off in color processing.
    they adjust the contrast, the color and blend pixels to provide a percieved colors, and so some MACHINE TEST will reflect that it was capable of displaying it, when it cant all at one time.

    if you want to SEE how much color "BITS" something really has, there is a few REAL tests you can do. have multiple color gradients, and when you see huge JUMPS between the colors, you know that its all BS. showing pictures without massive colors at many brightness levels, and without showing a FULL gradient sweep, doesnt show much of anything about its ability to show color difference between 2 very similar colors. you can always see the flaws, with a nice full gradient, which shows up quite often (themes, computer grafics, backgrounds), but is often ignored for the huge bands of missing actual colors.

    we all know that if you have a picture with a lot of changing lumenece levels , will look just fine on a nasty low 16bit display on a monitor, but when you fire up a smooth color gradient, or a colorfull picture with smooth color gradients ( say a fruit bowl vrses a cityscape) you can see what you were ALWAYS missing in the pics you just cant tell were missing it.

    weanie CRT lover , tired of BS specs about Ugly LCD screens. I own a Lot of them anyways, just tired of the manipulation of the specs, and thought i would point out some of it. these are my interpratations, in my own words.

  9. Thanks matthewkuhl thanked for this post
  10. #29
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    198
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    ROFL

  11. #30
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    408
    Thanks (Given)
    0
    Thanks (Received)
    0

    Default Re: why 256k colors is better than 16m

    Quote Originally Posted by 130130y
    here's my take on the photos on the first page

    the ones with 16M looks dimmer, why?
    i think its because of the color tone, the shade part, where the 16M color can really define

    while the ones with only 256K is brighter, why?
    coz it has lesser tones, and it eliminates some shady colors (those that cannot be covered by the 256 limit) thereby making it look more brighter, and as some would conclude more nicer.
    Bullshit. Number of colours on screen has NOTHING to do with screen brightness. Difference of brightness in those photos is caused by difference in the screen type and backlight. Also you should remember that OLED screen pixels emit their own light so OLED screen does not need backlight, TFT screen needs backlight.

    Eg. I did own both Nokia N95 and Nokia 5800 XPressMusic (I sold my N95 couple of weeks ago). Both N95 and 5800 XM do have screen with 16M colours, but 5800 XM's screen is MUCH brighter than' N95's screen. When I looked at those two phones side by side, then difference in screen brightness was big, similar to difference in those photos on the first page.

    Just try this on your desktop computer:

    1) set your screen mode to eg. 1280x1024 24 bit (24 bit screen has 16M colours)
    2) set your screen mode to eg. 1280x1024 16 bit (16bit screen has 65k colours)

    Now compare those two screen modes. Do you see any difference in the screen brightness? No you do not. Exactly same applies to mobile phones. Number of colours on screen has NOTHING to do with screen brightness.


 
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •