Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

You can't compare like that. You have to take into account the human eyes and the "ppi" of that. There is only so much the human eye can differentiate.

One thing we can agree upon:
RGB > PenTile
AMOLED > LCD
16M > 16K

The absolute threshold of the human eye is 300 ppi. In real life it is lower though because you hold the screen at a distance, less than perfect vision, sun glare etc.

The N9 has 3.9 inch screen 480 by 854 pixel pentile
ppi is 251.2

Sub pixel ppi is 355,2 (pentile)
equivalent RGB is 435,1 ppi

Obviously RGB is better, but both sub pixel resolutions are way beyond what can be detected by the eye. The true ppi is still only 251.2 for RGB because it needs a triplet to reconstruct each pixel. The pentile has only 2/3 of the sub pixels, and R and B sub pixels have lower resolution than the RGB. Still, due to sub pixel rendering, the same true 251.2 ppi is also valid for the pentile. The only exception is fully saturated red because then the sub pixel ppi will become less than 251.2 even, approximately 1/3 less.

I don't see pentile as a problem at all for the N9. The problem occurs when the sub pixel resolution gets lower than 300 ppi, because then you start to see each sub pixel. That thresh hold is much lower for pentile than for RGB.

The 808 has 360 by 640 RGB 8 inch.
ppi = 184, ppi_pentile=260, ppi_rgb=318
With a ppi of 184 is starts to get pixelated, but you still cannot differentiate each individual sub pixel. All in all, it's not perfect, but adequate. But a pentile on the 808 would appear much more pixellated because you could then start to differentiate each sub pixel.

The L900 has a true ppi of 217 and a sub pixel ppi of 376 (RGB). It appears more pixellated than the N9 because the true ppi is lower and under 300 while the sub pixel ppi is higher than 300 on both.

The SGS3 has a perfect screen with 306 true ppi, even when pentile. It is impossible for the human eye to differentiate each pixel. RGB wouldn't help a bit.

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

okay, i don't know what you're smoking. no offence, it's just what i say. Honestly, a ppi of 251 means it actually has a lower true resolution. you are actually speaking straight-up lies, if you're not just trolling to upset me, then please read this.

Cool, now that we're all on the same page, can you see my original points?

That it's unacceptable that the N900 has a better screen
n9:n900
251ppi:267ppi, not even factoring in that N900 has 6 sub-pixels for every 4 sub-pixels on N9
AMOLED:LCD, clearly true blacks and nigh almost an infinite contrast ratio makes this a no-brainer
Pentile:RGB, once again, rgb takes it out easily, with 33% more sub-pixels (substantially higher resolution), and better colour reproduction (see here)
capacative:resistive, personally I prefer resistive, but it's pointless when discussing the screen's imaging capabilities.
24bit:16bit, personally i feel pointless but yeah.

2 N9 v 2 N900

So, it took Nokia however long to develop a phone, that nobody can dispute is at least meritocratically equal. Then if you factor that the N900 won the two biggest factors (actual quantity and quality of pixels) it's quite apparent that the average man shouldn't be pleased with this.

And that's all i'm saying.

Once again, if you can't tell the difference between whole wheat and whole grain, could you judge a bread baking contest?

Yet somehow, people can confess they have no idea/poor eyesight then proceed to cast judgement like they know what's what.


http://st.gsmarena.com/pics/11/10/no...marena_032.jpg

Just look at that..

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

As you can only see out of your own eyes whichever screen is better depends on who is looking, I prefer the N9 screen and no one can tell me I'm wrong becasue it is what i prefer when looking out of my eyes.
The question was not is the N900 screen technically better than the N9

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

omg specc vs lumiaman? Am i late?

http://abcnews.go.com/images/Health/...10407_main.jpg

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

If everything was black and another color besides white, like grey then it would be fine. whites on this screen look horrible lol, you can clearly see one side is pink and the other side is green. i love the contrast and colors but the pixelation is eh. coming from a S-LCD i would still rather have this screen though considering the blacks seriously looked like a dark grey. that bugged me so much.

The N9 has a good screen, it could be better, but a lot of things could be better. If you don't like it then sell it. pentile does have its advantages as well is disadvantages. has better battery-life than RGB, brighter than RGB. its all personal preference. My preference is RGB, but i am still happy with this screen.

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

At least I had a red line in my post. What exactly are you talking about?

I clearly stated that RGB > pentile. AMOLED > LCD. But, the point is, it is no use making academic screens that our eyes simply cannot appreciate. More is always better, I agree in principle, but you reach a point where the better part is purely academic. When you have to use a magnifying glass to "show" that RGB is better than pentile, you have clearly wandered far out and away from any real world aspects regarding screens.

The screen of the SGSIII is a perfect screen. A good design with the right amount of dpi, pentile for longer lasting, less power. Engineering at it's best. The "Retina" of the iPhone 4s is just a bad excuse for not using amoled.

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

I like the N900 screen and its still able to beat the quality of most budget phones below 300€~ in 2012 :)

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

N9 has Clear Black Display which should make it awesome outdoors. It also has Gorilla Glass.

I've still never seen an N9 but N900 maybe has better definition indoors?

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

the n9's screen depth is 16bpp, not 24.

Re: N900 screen v N9 screen
 

considering the n9 has glass screen and the n900 is plastic i would say the one with better clarity is the n9 lol