SGS5 and the new TouchWiz UI

[sixrom]

After several year long evaluations of nearly all the top line Android phones, I don't mind TouchWiz at all. Especially as implemented on Android versions 4.2, 4.3, it's greatly improved and very usable. It adds lots of nice features to the Camera, and other aspects of the OS.

That said, I personally prefer the pure Android experience provided by my Nexus 5 & Android 4.4.2.

 

[Bishope1999]

...still looking for people watching movies on a phablet holding it 14" from their face. It's not typical. Most set them down. People don't sit 15-20ft from TV's either. I've never touted that, you've drawn that with your own conclusions. Typically their room size and purpose determine that distance. Again, unless you live in a small apartment or a tinderbox house, most people aren't going to cram family and friends into a small space just to maximize the resolution of their TV.

But you don't disagree that at the proper sitting distance, the increase in resolution is noticeable right?

Well, I was extrapolating your viewing distance of a 5 inch smart phone to a 65 inch tv. Someone who likes to appreciate the image quality, will likely view their cell phones at a similar distance to what they view their HDTV, adjusting for the screen size. People who hold their small 5 inch phones 15-20 inches away and sit 10 feet away from their 50 inch tv, probably don't have the visual experience as their main priority.

Again, it's not to cram their family into one small place, but between the basement, Living room, and family room, you can find one room where you can put your high end TV and set up the seating arrangement with the proper viewing distance.

I'm all for advancement of technologies, including displays, but I would do so with meaningful purpose. What you're continually referencing in terms of this added "detail" or resolution on a phone or phablet is only going to be seen at strangely close viewing distances on such small devices with the benefits vastly decrease as normal viewing distances are realized.

And again, that mainly serves the people that don't care about their displays.

Keep in mind our central vision is 20/20, so we never actually resolve that much detail in a single glance. Away from the dead-center, our visual ability decreases dramatically, such that by just 20° off-center our eyes resolve only one-tenth as much detail. At the periphery, we only detect large-scale contrast and minimal color.

It's not about a single glance. If you were saying that we can't perceive 24fps, 30 fps, or 60 fps, you would be right, because we can't see that in reality, a movie actually has 24 frames in each second. To our eyes, it looks like it was actually a moving image and not that it's actually a lot of frames added up to produce that motion picture.

But in the terms of resolution, 720p, 1080p, or 1440p is below our perception and you will never confuse it as if you were looking at a window, regardless of how properly calibrated a display may be. When you understand more so the image quality of each resolution, you will see how there will be improvements in each resolution.

You sit pretty far from your 70 inch tv, so you probably can't see what a videophile takes advantage of. But if you were, you can clearly see how much more detailed a simple 1080p video is on a 4.7 inch 1080p phone and how much softer the image is on a 4.7 inch 720p phone. A lot of detail is lost in that down conversion. Same thing will happen with these 2.5k/1440p displays on the phones. Play a 1080p content and it won't make a difference, play an QHD or UHD video and the difference will be noticeable.

----------

New report from Sammobile confirms there will be two variants of the SGS5: a plastic one and a metal one.

Also confirms 16Mpx camera and AMOLED 1440P display, and possibly Snapdragon 805.

I must say the metal version doesn't sound that appealing because of the design mainly. At least the HTC One had a nice design apart from it's metal body, but I didn't like the design of the Galaxy J.

saw that


I'm loving the specs so far

I have no reason to get the metal version if it only offers a metal body. If that is it, I will stick to the regular plastic version.

 

[Bishope1999]

I'm arguing the real-world usage distances of handheld devices, not the distance needed for a human to resolve the difference between a TV at various distances. The human eye at 20/20 can discern points as small as 0.00349 at 12" and see the flicker of a candle at 35 miles in complete darkness but the reality is we don't do either on a daily basis.

But you are pulling the argument to your point of which resolution doesn't matter. We understand that not everyone cares about the picture quality and that they hold their devices far because they can't honestly see the difference between SD or HD. Tell them that the tv is HD and they automatically think that everything they see is in HD.

We don't need to mention that part of the population. We are talking about the people who do understand the different resolutions and can see the difference. You don't disagree that those people can see 1440p perfectly fine at the proper viewing distance right?

The eye doesn't ever stay still and is constantly sweeps the landscape it's viewing allowing the brain to see greater detail by piecing together the scene. Thus we don't "look for" individual pixels by nature. To here someone say "they can't see the difference" even if they have 20/20 vision is actually quite accurate.

Why would we want to look or try to find a single pixel on a TV? We look at the entire picture, which the wide angle helps us, and we look at all the parts of the screen.

This isn't about seeing individual pixels or not. Put a DVD in a 1080p tv and that tv will do a great job in upconverting the video and filling in all the pixels. Regardless if all the pixels are used up and you can't see each individual pixel, that 480i DVD will still look like crap.

Proof in this can be seen (pun intended) in every human beings natural "blind point", which is the point within our visual field that lacks light-detecting photoreceptor cells on our retina where the optic nerve passes through the optic disc. Our brains interpolate the blind spot based on information from the other eye, thus rendering it unnoticeable

But that doesn't mean we can't see the detail of 2560x1440 at the proper sitting distance.

Agree and the same often applies to phablets and phones. Even more so given the type of media we're using our phones for don't often require such resolution. I'm not editing photos for sale on my phone, I'm usually reading emails and viewing text and very likely compressed jpeg images hosted on the web but yeah, occasionally a movie that is also very likely compressed thus most all of which lesson the need for an Ultra HD display on a phone.

yeah, it's pretty crappy quality, but without an optic disc drive on a phone lol, or taking your time to rip a Blu-ray, that's about the best you can do. While digital 1080p movies look really bad, it beats out the digital SD movies which look even worse. Digital 4K video, while looking bad like digital 1080p movies, while provide a better picture quality, although it will be highly compressed.

Depends on what you put first, the time with friends in a large open and comfy surrounding or the pixels on a boob-tube. If I want a theater atmosphere we go down to the lower level whereby I have a THX System. In neither case have I ever had a group of guests pixel peeping my display or projector output.

Ok, the theater arrangement should be your top priority and that is likely the one you have at proper sitting distance by each row.

And again, it is not about trying to see each pixel, it's about the the resolution of the display and the resolution and bitrate of the content. So how large is your projector? How far do you sit from it? Is it a 1080p projector? What is your main source of viewing movies? DVD's? Compressed digital 1080p versions or do you view the much higher bitrate Blu-ray versions?

 

[pdqgp]

Someone who likes to appreciate the image quality, will likely view their cell phones at a similar distance to what they view their HDTV, adjusting for the screen size. People who hold their small 5 inch phones 15-20 inches away and sit 10 feet away from their 50 inch tv, probably don't have the visual experience as their main priority.

The latter being the vast majority of smart phone users, thus for manufacturers to chase the minority is not the best move considering the other enhancements to the device that could use the added resources thrown at it.

You sit pretty far from your 70 inch tv, so you probably can't see what a videophile takes advantage of. But if you were, you can clearly see how much more detailed a simple 1080p video is on a 4.7 inch 1080p phone and how much softer the image is on a 4.7 inch 720p phone.

I know more than you think about being a videophile and audiophile. I just don't need to be such on a phone.

 

[pdqgp]

We understand that not everyone cares about the picture quality and that they hold their devices far because they can't honestly see the difference between SD or HD. Tell them that the tv is HD and they automatically think that everything they see is in HD.

It's not about people caring about the quality, it's about the vast majority of people using a smart phone don't use it in a manner that will derive value from an Ultra HD display. My staff and I ask every one of my patients, at 9 offices a series of lifestyle questions including measuring how far they use their devices, view their monitors, etc. It's by far the minority that actually regularly view a smartphone within 14". I've been doing this long before cell phones too.

You don't disagree that those people can see 1440p perfectly fine at the proper viewing distance right?

You're driving to that question more times than I can count when you already know that it's not relevant to how these devices are regularly used.. I know my 650hp car can go to 100 quicker than most but it's only really relevant when I take it to the track not in every day use going to the office .

This isn't about seeing individual pixels or not.

Then why are you arguing to view said devices as proximity that allow that?

But that doesn't mean we can't see the detail of 2560x1440 at the proper sitting distance.

proper distance for use as a phone or as a videophile? Again, my belabored point is these devices go largely unused as videophile whipping posts. No different than trying to use a boosted Vette as a daily driver when temps are below 50*.

 

[Bishope1999]

The latter being the vast majority of smart phone users, thus for manufacturers to chase the minority is not the best move considering the other enhancements to the device that could use the added resources thrown at it.

But Samsung has enough money to do both

I know more than you think about being a videophile and audiophile. I just don't need to be such on a phone.

No I'm far from a videophile and I'm certainly not an audiophile

It's not about people caring about the quality, it's about the vast majority of people using a smart phone don't use it in a manner that will derive value from an Ultra HD display. My staff and I ask every one of my patients, at 9 offices a series of lifestyle questions including measuring how far they use their devices, view their monitors, etc. It's by far the minority that actually regularly view a smartphone within 14". I've been doing this long before cell phones too.

Do you fail to see how those people probably don't care about picture quality? You are talking about a group of people that don't care about the picture quality.

Do you know how many people don't understand why we would waste $700 on a phone? A lot of people think a smartphone is a smartphone, why waste so much money on it? Other just buy it because it's the latest thing in the market, yet ask them any questions about the smartphone and they will barely know. It's really on these internet forums where people have more knowledge, but in the real word, most people will be about clueless to it as to the high resolution

You're driving to that question more times than I can count when you already know that it's not relevant to how these devices are regularly used.. I know my 650hp car can go to 100 quicker than most but it's only really relevant when I take it to the track not in every day use going to the office .

But you oddly keep avoiding answering that question, it's pretty to understand that the entire world doesn't hold a 5 inch phone 15-20 inches away from their face.

Do you agree that a person can see 2.5k and 4K resolutions at the proper sitting distance in comparison to screen size? Yes or No.

Then why are you arguing to view said devices as proximity that allow that?

because we are talking about the resolution of the display and the source, not the pixels. But we are talking about that because you mentioned the viewing distance of cell phones and don't view it properly to see the difference.

proper distance for use as a phone or as a videophile? Again, my belabored point is these devices go largely unused as videophile whipping posts. No different than trying to use a boosted Vette as a daily driver when temps are below 50*.

Simple, Do you agree that a person can see 2.5k and 4K resolutions at the proper sitting distance in comparison to screen size? Yes or No.


Out of curiousity: How large is your projector? How far do you sit from it? Is it a 1080p projector? What is your main source of viewing movies? DVD's? Compressed digital 1080p versions or do you view the much higher bitrate Blu-ray versions?

 

[pdqgp]

Do you fail to see how those people probably don't care about picture quality? You are talking about a group of people that don't care about the picture quality.

I'm not talking just about people who don't use their phone as videophile nuts, I'm speaking about 6000+ people per year across my entire practice that don't fall into the category you're trying to speak about. Higher resolution that requires close proximity to extrapolate value isn't of value if that's not how people use it that way.

but in the real word, most people will be about clueless to it as to the high resolution

Exactly my point. Thus its' really just change for change sake in world whereby most people are clueless. That doesn't make much sense now does it? To your point earlier, why people spent money on 1080P 37" TV"s only to sit farther than 6' away from them is pointless. They may as well have saved money and bought a 720p set.

Do you agree that a person can see 2.5k and 4K resolutions at the proper sitting distance in comparison to screen size? Yes or No.

How does that matter in relation to the increase resolution above 1080P on a the upcoming Galaxy S5 when we both agree the majority of users of said phone won't recognize true value in it? Open ended but rhetorical question.

we are talking about that because you mentioned the viewing distance of cell phones and don't view it properly to see the difference.

The proper usage distance, NOT the proper distance to view the resolution increase. Two completely different things. If the vast majority don't use the phone at distances to see a major value said resolution increase is it a change worth doing?

Let's stay as close to on-topic as we can shall we.

 

[Bishope1999]

I'm not talking just about people who don't use their phone as videophile nuts, I'm speaking about 6000+ people per year across my entire practice that don't fall into the category you're trying to speak about. Higher resolution that requires close proximity to extrapolate value isn't of value if that's not how people use it that way.

Wow I said that we weren't talking about those people because they are not "videophile nuts" as you put it or the people that pass through your office. It's a question about the people who do enjoy this and sit properly.

Do you agree or disagree that "videophile nuts" can see the increased resolution at the proper sitting distance? Yes or no.

Exactly my point. Thus its' really just change for change sake in world whereby most people are clueless. That doesn't make much sense now does it? To your point earlier, why people spent money on 1080P 37" TV"s only to sit farther than 6' away from them is pointless. They may as well have saved money and bought a 720p set.

So your point is that manufactures only should make low end phones because the majority of the people are clueless?

The average customer is perfectly fine buying a 720p tv because they don't know, they buy the 1080p sets because it's advertised or it's the only one they can find. on the other hand, a person that cares about the picture quality, will not settle for a 37 inch 720p tv.

How does that matter in relation to the increase resolution above 1080P on a the upcoming Galaxy S5 when we both agree the majority of users of said phone won't recognize true value in it? Open ended but rhetorical question.

Wow again with the majority of the people when we've made it clear that I'm specifically asking you about the people who understand the picture quality. Do you agree or disagree that "videophile nuts" can see the increased resolution at the proper sitting distance? Yes or no.

The proper usage distance, NOT the proper distance to view the resolution increase. Two completely different things. If the vast majority don't use the phone at distances to see a major value said resolution increase is it a change worth doing?

Let's stay as close to on-topic as we can shall we.

When did I ever ask "if the vast majority of people that view their screen at an improper sitting distance, will they be able to see the difference of the increased resolution to 2550x1440?" That would be a ridiculous question. You were discussing about the average sitting distance for the population. I've been asking you to say yes or no to a simple question. Do you agree or disagree that "videophile nuts" can see the increased resolution at the proper sitting distance? Yes or no.

I really hope I was really clear as to the question I was asking you

And since the vast majority of people don't use 4G LTE to their full advantage, is it really worth having? Should we forget about the people that do take advantage of the high 4G LTE speeds and just focus on the majority that barely even use 4G speeds? Same way that we should not focus on the people that do enjoy the increased resolution. Also, care to share about your theater set up?

 

[pdqgp]

Wow I said that we weren't talking about those people because they are not "videophile nuts" as you put it or the people that pass through your office. It's a question about the people who do enjoy this and sit properly.

The problem you're having is that I'm not talking about people who do enjoy being videophiles on handheld devices. To do so is meaningless as they are the minority and not reason for manufacturers to invest in high resolution displays. That's like investing in studded snow tires for Vettes. Sure it can be done but why?

So your point is that manufactures only should make low end phones because the majority of the people are clueless?

My point for everyone is to not make change for the sake of a pixel race. Show some meaningful use or measurable demand and recognizable value by the majority. Not just a change because someone could if they tried, see a difference. If that's the case, make my phone smell like strawberries so I talk on it, I can smell fresh strawberries. That would garner meaningful use to me and a small segment of others.

The average customer is perfectly fine buying a 720p tv because they don't know, they buy the 1080p sets because it's advertised or it's the only one they can find. on the other hand, a person that cares about the picture quality, will not settle for a 37 inch 720p tv.

and soon people won't find simple 1080p phones but rather will be buying high resolution displays only to much the same as the TV Market, never use them in the fashion that will allow them to realize benefits of the resolution increase.

Wow again with the majority of the people when we've made it clear that I'm specifically asking you about the people who understand the picture quality.

You still fail to realize that the group you wish to talk about is of little relevance to the topic at hand...the realization and meaningful use behind a high resolution device that's only 5" and typically held 16-20" from the users eyes. Hence why I'm not discussing them. It's not a matter if people could or do see a difference, it's a matter of whether they care.

I leave you better areas of focus that handheld makers should focus on way before the pixel race that holds far less meaningful relevance:

If I were consulted by Sammy, I'd advise them that on the next gen phone, let the 1080p resolution stand and focus on color accuracy. The biggest reason I still use my iPad for my photography is that when showing a portfolio to a client, it still yields the most accurate gamut of the devices I've tested and measured with proper calibration tools.

I would also tell them to work on the above along with a goal of improving Screen Reflectance. Most every device, including the iPad fail miserably in this dept. The impact of which strikes hard against sharpness and colors alike.

I'd also like to see them work harder at display efficiency. To see my screen consistently lead the way on the battery usage charge kills me. Let's work to bring that down 5+ percentage points at least.

Oh....and I'd tell them to put the damn power button on the top of the phone. I carry mind from the sides and freaking hate the current dumb a$$ location it's in.

 

[Bishope1999]

The problem you're having is that I'm not talking about people who do enjoy being videophiles on handheld devices. To do so is meaningless as they are the minority and not reason for manufacturers to invest in high resolution displays.

I'm asking you as a Ophthalmologist. Do you think that the videophiles, REGARDLESS of how small do you think that group is. Do you think they can see the difference of the increased resolution to 2560x1440 at the proper sitting distance?

 

[pdqgp]

I'm asking you as a Ophthalmologist. Do you think that the videophiles, REGARDLESS of how small do you think that group is. Do you think they can see the difference of the increased resolution to 2560x1440 at the proper sitting distance?

...and I'm asking you as a consumer how is it relevant to the discussion whether one can see the difference of the increased resolution to 2560x1440 on a 5" display at the usage distance required to do so when that distance is NOT what most people hold their phones at? Hint: It's NOT relevant because people don't regularly hold their phones up that close during daily use.

Your questions is out of place here and thus as an Ophthalmologist who is an audio and videophile, I'm suggesting your question is best be posted as a discussion over at http://www.avsforum.com/

 

[Bishope1999]

...and I'm asking you as a consumer how is it relevant to the discussion whether one can see the difference of the increased resolution to 2560x1440 on a 5" display at the usage distance required to do so if that distance is NOT what most people hold their phones at? Hint: It's not relevant because people don't regularly hold their phones up that close during daily use.

Your questions is out of place here and thus as an Ophthalmologist who is an audio and videophile, I'm suggesting your question is best be posted as a discussion over at http://www.avsforum.com/

Yes I go to AVS

But as you said you are an Ophthalmologist I was asking you for your opinion if a videophile would see the increased resolution of 2560x1440 at the proper viewing distance. But since you can't answer that question, it either leads me to believe that you don't know, or that you do know but don't want to admit there is any benefit for a 2560x1440 resolution. So I guess we'll leave it like that then. Unless you want to reply with a yes or a no lol.

 

[pdqgp]

But since you can't answer that question, it either leads me to believe that you don't know, or that you do know but don't want to admit there is any benefit for a 2560x1440 resolution.

I know the answer in more detail that I would care to post. What I've noted is that there's no benefit related to a 5" device at the distance it's generally used and I've left it open to you to share where there is a benefit at normal usage distances.

 

[Bishope1999]

I know the answer in more detail that I would care to post. What I've noted is that there's no benefit related to a 5" device at the distance it's generally used and I've left it open to you to share where there is a benefit at normal usage distances.

Yes or no would have been easier to type.

I've clearly explained that proper viewing distance is important. Improper viewing distance will sacrifice picture quality. There I answered it again. Yet you don't answer the simple question if, in your opinion as a Ophthalmologist, will a videophile watching a 5 inch phone with a 2560x1440 display at the proper viewing distance, can they see the increased resolution or not.

The question can't get any simpler than that.

 

[pdqgp]

at the proper viewing distance, can they see the increased resolution or not.

It's actually not a "simple" question when it comes right down to it.

Define proper viewing distance for a 5" device please
Proper viewing distance for what purpose?
- Using a phone as they would in daily life (normal) 16-20"
- Using a phone at 12" from their face to say they can have the full resolution experience?

If viewing a 5" 2.5k device at 12", is that the optimum distance for sharpness and overall visual acuity?
How might that be different than viewing a 65" TV at it's optimum distance?
- What impacts on the image will be seen at their periphery?
- What implications does pushing the envelop for extreme near distance viewing of such a device have on ones vision?
- What impacts will the 400~500nm blue light just for starters
- How does said 400-500nm impact a child vs an adult? What makes them different?
- What might that main concern be?

I can go on.....but why....just remember that as an ophthalmologist I would not recommend holding today's handheld devices 12" from your face on a regular basis. Your Macula will not appreciate it.

In the end, once you've answered the above, ask yourself if just because we can should we make phones that need to be held so close to realize the visual differences between HD, and 2.5k Generally speaking if more people saw an eye doctor on a regular basis they would begin to see the light. Pun intended.

PS....back up from your 6-9' distance from your 65" TV. That or let your ophthalmologist know now so you can begin to be made aware of why. Read up on AMD....not the processor either. I've been doing this a very long time and I'm seeing younger more extreme cases of damage than ever before. I have strong sense you'll begin hearing about this in less than 5 more years.

 

[Bishope1999]

It's actually not a "simple" question when it comes right down to it.

Define proper viewing distance for a 5" device please
Proper viewing distance for what purpose?
- Using a phone as they would in daily life (normal) 16-20"
- Using a phone at 12" from their face to say they can have the full resolution experience?

If viewing a 5" 2.5k device at 12", is that the optimum distance for sharpness and overall visual acuity for the average person? What impacts on the image will be seen at their periphery?
- What implications does pushing the envelop for extreme near distance viewing of such a device have on ones vision?
- What impacts will the 400~500nm blue light just for starters
- How does said 400-500nm impact a child vs an adult?

I can go on.....but why....but why....just remember that as an ophthalmologist I would not recommend holding today's handheld devices 12" from your face on a regular basis. Your Macula will not appreciate it.

In the end, once you've answered the above, ask yourself if just because we can should we make phones that need to be held so close to realize the visual differences between HD, and 2.5k Generally speaking if more people saw an eye doctor on a regular basis they would begin to see the light. Pun intended.

PS....back up from your 6-9' distance from your 65" TV. That or let your ophthalmologist know now so you can begin to be made aware of why. Read up on AMD....not the processor either. I've been doing this a very long time and I'm seeing younger more extreme cases of damage than ever before. I have strong sense you'll begin hearing about this in less than 5 more years.
__________________.

Proper viewing distance as you would average out any proper viewing distance for any size display. 12 inches would be fine, I usually have my S4 about 10 inches away for the average things. A 5.25 inch 2.5k display should be fine.

Thank you for finally answering the question that in your opinion, a videophile can see the increased resolution of 2560x1440.

As for the impact of the blue light wavelengths, I couldn't tell you and I'm not overly concerned. Similar way to people listening to music through those earphones. If you are overly concerned, then hold the phone further from your face as you do. Otherwise, I don't have an issue with it and I welcome the increased resolution

Thanks for the advice. Although adjusting the screen brightness and various calibration, it's not that extreme. But I will take your advice as well Thanks

 

[pdqgp]

As for the impact of the blue light wavelengths, I couldn't tell you and I'm not overly concerned.

You should be seriously concerned. Especially given your age.

Similar way to people listening to music through those earphones.

It's completely different. There's no cure for AMD / blindness. No amount of damage to the Macula can be fixed. At least with hearing there are a number of medical procedures. Also, with sound, you can control the volume. Normal hearing loss with age is at the high end of the spectrum. AMD hits dead center and works it's way out.

Otherwise, I don't have an issue with it and I welcome the increased resolution

Remember that statement at when you are in your 60's and keep in mind you're likely to live 25+ years beyond that. Ask yourself if could do so without vision. No joke.

 

[Bishope1999]

You should be seriously concerned. Especially given your age.

Thanks, I will look into it. But again, we are talking about similar distance to different size displays. With a 21 inch computer monitor, I would find it impossible to work on it at over 4 feet away. Sitting 13 feet away from my 65 inch tv will minimize the increased resolution it has, and honestly, it's not like sitting close to those old CRT tv's. 6 feet is a good distance. Same for my Galaxy S4, holding it 15-20 inches away from me is too far, that screen is too small. Now imagine that most people don't hold their tablets 30-35 inches away from their face.[/quote]

It's completely different. There's no cure for AMD / blindness. No amount of damage to the Macula can be fixed. At least with hearing there are a number of medical procedures. Also, with sound, you can control the volume. Normal hearing loss with age is at the high end of the spectrum. AMD hits dead center and works it's way out.

Again, I don't see it as it causing that much damage to me. That close to a CRT I couldn't do, but these I can.

Remember that statement at when you are in your 60's and keep in mind you're likely to live 25+ years beyond that. Ask yourself if could do so without vision. No joke.

Not taken lightly, but as I've said, I don't have a problem with current display and at the distance I'm viewing them. But thanks.

 

[pdqgp]

it's not like sitting close to those old CRT tv's. 6 feet is a good distance. Same for my Galaxy S4, holding it 15-20 inches away from me is too far.

older CRT's are actually less harmful. Plasma is about the same. Newer LCD, LED and OLED's are the worse offenders.

Again, I don't see it as it causing that much damage to me. That close to a CRT I couldn't do, but these I can.

Blue light doesn't impact you as in "brightness" or irritation. Think of it like the carbon monoxide of light. You don't feel it. What most people feel and you're likely describing as less impactful to you is the refresh rate. Newer flat panels are all faster than older CRT's were.

Not taken lightly, but as I've said, I don't have a problem with current display and at the distance I'm viewing them. But thanks.

CFL's and newer indoor lighting is also a factor that's going to end up being show as compounding he matter too. Currently the industry is fighting the news / facts getting out but that won't last long. You'll be hearing more about "gaming glasses" and Bluetech products. Get some. You'll thank me someday and you'll see they actually enhance what you're seeing on the devices you're viewing.

 

[Bishope1999]

older CRT's are actually less harmful. Plasma is about the same. Newer LCD, LED and OLED's are the worse offenders.


Blue light doesn't impact you as in "brightness" or irritation. Think of it like the carbon monoxide of light. You don't feel it. What most people feel and you're likely describing as less impactful to you is the refresh rate. Newer flat panels are all faster than older CRT's were.



CFL's and newer indoor lighting is also a factor that's going to end up being show as compounding he matter too. Currently the industry is fighting the news / facts getting out but that won't last long. You'll be hearing more about "gaming glasses" and Bluetech products. Get some. You'll thank me someday and you'll see they actually enhance what you're seeing on the devices you're viewing.

thanks, I'll take that good advice and look into it.

Those gaming glasses you talk about may be the only thing that helps. You have to realize how many people have the iPad and the ipad mini with the "retina display" which has a resolution of 2048x1536, you know they can barely hold it over 2 feet away from them, especially if they are laying it down and reading it up close. A tablet like the Nexus 10 with a resolution of 2560x1600. People probably sit a little over 2 feet away from their 21-27 inch computer monitors of either FHD or WQHD resolutions. These are devices that people will probably not hold as far as you may commonly see for cell phones.

Which is why in respect to that, my viewing distance for my cell phone or for the future S5, won't be that dramatically different. Plus, I'm not looking at my screen for hours and hours. My usual daily screen usage of my S4 is a little over 2 hours. Yes, I don't watch movies on my phone, the screen is too small for that. You tube videos are about what I would watch at most.

To enjoy the full HD capabilites of a 70 HDTV, you would sit 9 feet away to 12 feet away maximum. So it can be expected that for such a small screen as a 5 inch phone, some people may not want to hold it 15 to 20 inches way. Those glasses may be the only solution. But seeing them online with that yellow tint, it looks like it may really alter the actual colors of the display. I would have to try them out and not go solely by the the yellow appearance those lenses have.

 

[pdqgp]

Those glasses may be the only solution. But seeing them online with that yellow tint, it looks like it may really alter the actual colors of the display. I would have to try them out and not go solely by the the yellow appearance those lenses have.

They don't alter colors noticeably at all. That said, I wouldn't edit photos with them. It's a natural pigment embedded in the lens. Word is they are working to remove visible color cast though. They will enhance contrast/sharpness by eliminating the blue fringe common on most devices. Cool stuff. I use them as shooting glass for that exact reason. Just make sure when you buy them, they are BlueTech Branded lenses, not some cheap yellow tinted knock off.

 

[Bishope1999]

They don't alter colors noticeably at all. That said, I wouldn't edit photos with them. It's a natural pigment embedded in the lens. Word is they are working to remove visible color cast though. They will enhance contrast/sharpness by eliminating the blue fringe common on most devices. Cool stuff. I use them as shooting glass for that exact reason. Just make sure when you buy them, they are BlueTech Branded lenses, not some cheap yellow tinted knock off.

Thanks. I'll wait until they develop they clear glasses though

 

[b166er]

I thought b166er was serious, when I replied. Obviously he was just trolling.

Nope, I'm dead serious. I like my GS4 well enough and all, but if there is two things Samsung has a lot of room to improve on, it's camera and battery.

I don't need to google it, I've been using the S4 since it came out. Great phone, but the camera doesn't even come close to an iPhone, and forget about the Lumia's. It's an ok camera, but they advertise it like it's the best, and it's not even in the top 5 out there right now. Samsung is more or less the poster boy for Android, I expect better quality for the prices they ask.

 

[Dr McKay]

Nope, I'm dead serious. I like my GS4 well enough and all, but if there is two things Samsung has a lot of room to improve on, it's camera and battery.

I don't need to google it, I've been using the S4 since it came out. Great phone, but the camera doesn't even come close to an iPhone, and forget about the Lumia's. It's an ok camera, but they advertise it like it's the best, and it's not even in the top 5 out there right now. Samsung is more or less the poster boy for Android, I expect better quality for the prices they ask.

How are you measuring "top 5". Usage? Because that is not an indicator. GS3, GS4 have fantastic cameras. Battery life on iPhones has always been terrible to average.

 

[JaySoul]

How are you measuring "top 5". Usage? Because that is not an indicator. GS3, GS4 have fantastic cameras. Battery life on iPhones has always been terrible to average.

I've had my S4 for just under 2 months.

Outdoors, the camera is stunning. Indoors or in low-light, it is shocking.

The Nexus 5 was better. It's weird.