Talk:PenTile matrix family

Untitled

"PenTile" is now a trademark owned by Samsung Electronics Corporation (SEC) which bought Clairvoyante in early 2008. Nouvoyance is a separate company, under contract to Samsung, formed by the founder of Clairvoyante, to continue to support and develop the technology.

70.36.152.192 (talk) 15:58, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

this text needs re-wording

As the S cones are primarily responsible for perceiving blue colors, which do not appreciable effect the perception of luminance, reducing the number of ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Previously Used Coffins (talk • contribs) 18:44, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Bury the lead

It seems like the sole benefit of this technology — energy savings — is buried deep near the end of the article. This entry explains much of what it is, but not the why. Is it cheaper to manufacture? What trade offs are there with traditional LCD displays? How accurate is the color compared to traditional LCDs? Reads very much like a Samsung press release. --70.167.58.6 (talk) 17:36, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

SuperAMOLED Plus

I removed the reference to SuperAMOLED Plus, as it does not relate to PenTile technology per se, since this is a trade mark for conventional RGB Stripe subpixel layouts in AMOLED displays. There may be a confusion here caused by inaccurate speculation that Samsung abandoned PenTile for the RGB Stripe display. In truth, they only use the RGB Stripe layout for lower resolutions where PenTile technology is used only for higher resolutions (dpi, not format). — Preceding unsigned comment added by DisplayGeek (talk • contribs) 18:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Someone has tried editing to undo redaction of a discussion regarding SuperAMOLED Plus. This is NOT a PenTile related addition. Further, whether any individual has or has not any personal interest in a given topic is immaterial, only that the edits are factual, accurate, and balanced. Saying that SuperAMOLED Plus was developed in response to PenTile SuperAMOLED is factually inaccurate, as Samsung continues to use PenTile for higher resolutions, where it was originally designed and recommended to be used, while only using "SuperAMOLED Plus", which is after all, only traditional RGB Stripe architecture, for lower resolutions.

DisplayGeek (talk) 21:26, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

RGBW metamers

Today I removed the following sentence, "In dark colors the white subpixels are closed, often resulting in small black dottiness."

I did this because it is technically inaccurate. The PenTile color vector converter does not reduce the white subpixels preferentially in darker areas of an image. In fact, for pure B&W images, where the input RGB data would be R=G=B, the color vector converter would output R=G=B=W.

It would however, be accurate to have said that for pure saturated colors, the W subpixel has zero transmittance. For example, if the input image was R=100%, G=0%, B=0%, then the output would be: R=100%, G=0%, B=0%, W=0%.

DisplayGeek (talk) 05:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Use of color in this article

I don't know if there's a policy on this or not (there probably is...) but I'm pretty sure Wikipedia articles don't use use colored type because of readability issues some people may have. If no one objects, the RGBG should be be changed to just RGBG, unless policy states otherwise. Rip-Saw (talk) 18:28, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely one of the most idiotic things I've ever encountered in Wikipedia. User:Widefox has no idea what he's doing to people with visual impairments or display hardware limitations. I've removed the font colorization so all characters display in default color for maximum contrast.71.92.242.128 (talk) 01:53, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Advantages and Disadvantages

A few days ago, a poster added a new section to the article. Unfortunately, it has serious errors and confustion between LCD and OLED versions of PenTile. The text below is that section, verbatim:

Advantages and disadvantages

PenTile AMOLED displays for smartphones have received a mixed reception. For instance the Motorola Atrix's display had "inaccurate colours and poor viewing angles, not to mention practically unreadable text at its furthest zoom". Also in a comparision between the original Droid Razr and the cheaper RAZR V, the RAZR V's TN TFT LCD display (a low-end LCD, compared to the higher-end IPS panel LCD) was found to be much crisper than the Droid Razr's Super AMOLED Advanced PenTile despite both screens using the same resolution.[1][2]

PenTile displays have some advantages over other premium smartphone displays. One is that it is possible to achieve an HD resolution on an AMOLED screen, and most reviewers note that 720p resolution displays (such as Samsung Galaxy SIII) makes the PenTile effect less obvious than lower resolution PenTile displays (Droid Razr). The second advantage is lower power consumption; the HTC One S's use of a PenTile display makes it more energy efficient and thinner than equivalent LCD screens, giving it better battery life than the HTC One X's IPS LCD.[3][4][5][6] A PenTile AMOLED screen is also cheaper than an RGB stripe AMOLED.[7]

The first sentence refers to AMOLED, the second sentence then gives an example which is NOT AMOLED but AMLCD. To clean this up is beyond simple editing, but would require a new example, or changing the first sentence to refer to LCD instead of OLED. Then the next few sentences are simply reflecting negative reviews of various products, which add nothing to understanding of "advantages vs. disadvantages" of PenTile technology per se.

The next paragraph has several serious errors. First, PenTile technology in OLED does enable higher resolution than RGB Stripe, but the reason is that it allows higher fill factor for a given resolution, which decreases the required current density for a given resolution, which in turn increases the useful lifetime of the OLED emitter material. It does NOT reduce power in any way. This is a confusion with PenTile RGBW in LCD, which DOES reduce power.

Finally, although some bloggers have speculated, wrongly, that PenTile may be cheaper... it is in fact NOT "cheaper" in any meaningful sense, given that the cost of the display is dominated by the size, not the resolution.

DisplayGeek (talk) 19:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

RGBG error?

Quote from page as it is now: "In the RGBG case, this will occur when the color is saturated red, as the fully populated (one green per pixel) will not be available. For all other cases, text and especially full color images are fully reconstructed."

Surely this should read "…this will occur when the color is saturated red or blue, as the fully populated (one green per pixel) will not be available. …" [italics added] since the number of blue pixels is the same as the number of red, in each case half of the number of green ones.

Spel-Punc-Gram (talk) 02:09, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

External link seems to be a dead link

The external link for this article is: http://www.nouvoyance.com/ It does not mention anything about PenTile to say the least.

This seems to be a dead link.

The page reads: "We're Sorry! This Account Is Currently Unavailable. This could be for many reasons including an overdue invoice, a bandwidth overage issue, or a resource usage issue. Please check the email address on record for this account for a notification from Site5." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frankkie12345 (talk • contribs) 09:02, 21 September 2016 (UTC)

should include mention of "diamond pixel" format

example source. also i have visually confirmed this is the arrangement in my Samsung Galaxy A8 (2018). Lovebuny (talk) 06:09, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

No reduce in image quality

reducing the number of blue subpixels with respect to the red and green subpixels in a display does not reduce the image quality.

This is contradicted by other papers and also physically impossible. It should probably reworded to something like 'does not reduce the image quality as observed by the human eye at normal reading distance.' Unfortunately the source is not easily accessible so I cannot check the exact wording used there.Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 14:03, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

References