Samsung Galaxy S 4 Review - Part 1
by Brian Klug on April 24, 2013 12:01 AM ESTDisplay
We wrote about how we suspected that SGS4 would go to a 5-inch 1080p SAMOLED display just after CES. Turns out that was spot on, as the SGS4 includes a 5-inch 1080p Full HD SAMOLED panel, the latest in Samsung's AMOLED roadmap. Samsung's naming stays true, and there's no Plus tacked on at the end, so we get another non-RGB stripe subpixel geometry with SGS4. The last few Samsung AMOLED variants we've seen have had different subpixel grids, and the one on the SGS4 is possibly the most interesting to date. There's still a bias toward more green subpixels than blue or red, this isn't an RGB stripe at all, but instead of the previous RG,BG layout we see this offset pattern with green on one line, then blue and red on another line. Interestingly enough the blue subpixel appears to be a square, and red and green appear to be circles, with the difference in area possibly offsetting the luminous efficiency of each material. Whatever the reason (Samsung has never been official or forthcoming any of these subpixel patterns each time they've changed them) it's present on the SGS4.
At this size however I have to admit that I find the pursuit of the subpixel geometry more of an educational one than something which affects users. While I could occasionally see it on the SGS3, I definitely do not see it on SGS4. The subpixels are now small enough that whatever the pattern, it all looks like a homogenous light-emitting surface, which was the goal after all. I could bring up the visual acuity discussion again but just trust me that it's small enough to not be visible even with actually perfect (not legally perfect, which is different) vision.
So resolution is great and up to par with all the other LCD-bearing flagships this year, lack of RGB stripe notwithstanding. There's that remaining question about brightness, contrast, outdoor visibility, and of course calibration and the saturation issue that has persisted with AMOLED from generation to generation.
On the brightness front, the SGS4 includes dynamic contrast functions that cannot be disabled and change as a function of what is being displayed. There's an "auto adjust screen tone" checkbox under display but don't let that fool you, that doesn't disable dynamic contrast, just white point. Under screen mode are the mDNIe toggles we've seen on countless other previous Samsung Android phones with AMOLED panels, only here we notice something interesting. There have always been four toggles as long as this option has existed, only what's different is now, one of them is named "Professional photo." Reviews of other regional variants of the SGS4 have included the same button but marked "Adobe RGB." Oddly enough it seems that the North American versions at least have this renamed for some reason, but undoubtedly the function is the same. Many speculated that this is now a toggle for some full CMS (Color Management System) which "fixes" the inherent color space issues with AMOLED and oversaturation that occurs when looking at sRGB content on such devices. Unfortunately, I can confirm that my initial suspicions that this is just a continuation of the mDNIe (lite) settings from previous generation is in fact correct. I reverse engineered what I could of these settings from both kernel messages while changing the toggles, and looking at the kernel sources. Turns out that 'Professional photo' mode is actually the 'Natural' mode renamed from previous versions.
So the question was whether the color space or white point actually does change with this mode enabled. I ran the SGS4 through our display tests in each of the modes and think the full color space plot tells the story. The sanest of them all really ends up being the strangely-named 'Movie' mode. Professional photo gives the big gamut with a white point closer to 'Movie,' which is to say around 7000K, but it doesn't fundamentally change the still-present oversaturation or color management issue that exists in Android with these wide gamut displays. Most users admittedly don't care however and just see "bright" colors. Theres' an Auto mode as well which the device ships with that basically has a matrix of mDNIe settings for targeted applications (for example the Gallery, Browser, Video playback) and so forth get settings, which you can see in the kernel.
| CalMAN Display Comparison | ||||||||||||
| Metric | iPhone 5 | iPhone 4S | HTC One X | SGS3 | Samsung Galaxy Note 2 | Google Nexus 4 | HTC Droid DNA | HTC One | SGS4 | |||
| Grayscale 200nits Avg dE2000 | 3.564 | 6.162 | 6.609 | 4.578 | 5.867 | 7.686 | 6.738 | 5.391 | 7.511 | |||
| CCT Avg (K) | 6925 | 7171 | 5944 | 6809 | 7109 | 8506 | 8108 | 8118 | 7020 | |||
| Saturation Sweep Avg dE2000 | 3.591 | 8.787 | 5.066 | 5.460 | 7.986 | 8.517 | 5.856 | 3.365 | 7.823 | |||
| GMB ColorChecker Avg dE2000 | 4.747 | 6.328 | 6.963 | 7.322 | 8.185 | 7.531 | 6.687 | 4.656 | 7.440 | |||
In the "Movie" mode things are better controlled than the Note 2 on the GMB color checker card test, which is the most important one for me. White point is also no longer the crazy 8000K that we saw before, 7000K is commendable for Samsung at this point. Keep in mind that maximum brightness changes in each mode as well as we effectively clamp things, I measured a maximum of 319 nits in Dynamic mode, 311 nits in Movie mode, and 255 nits in Standard, for example.
Running the display at maximum brightness for too long will also get you into an overheating or thermal protection mode as well, which we've seen on countless other AMOLED variants. Most of the time I suspect users will run on Auto brightness however which keeps brightness down to a much lower level to save battery and prevent that from becoming a problem.
Because "Movie" was the closest to sRGB of all the modes, I selected it for the actual results that I'll present in the table. Admittedly this mode does tighten things up a bit, but it still isn't perfect and I'd still like to see Samsung do something to reign this in at some point.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
335 Comments
View All Comments
Solandri - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Structural engineer here. The reasons Roffles12 cited are valid, objective engineering reasons to use plastic over metal. When you're designing an item and selecting what material it's made of, a myriad of factors come into play including: elastic modulus (flexibility), toughness (ability to withstand piercing), hysteresis (energy absorbed during bending vs. energy bounced back), yield strength (how much stress it can take before it breaks), fatigue (tendency for cracks to grow), fracture strength (tendency for cracks to propagate), corrosion resistance, heat and electrical conductivity, thermal expansion, weight, density, and yes cost.For a phone with an expected 2-3 year lifespan (plastic tends to get brittle after many years), plastic is actually superior to metal in many of these characteristics. A similar thing happened in the 1940s and 1950s with cars. As they got faster, more people were dying in accidents. Automakers responded by building the cars stronger and stronger, and more people died. Finally they took a step back and did some crash testing, and found that making the exterior stronger was actually the *worst* thing they could do to protect the people inside. It transmitted all the impact forces directly to the occupants. Now they build cars with crumple zones which bend and yield to absorb the energy of an impact, while a stiff passenger compartment protects the occupants. Similarly, if designed right, a phone with a flexible plastic exterior but a strong interior construction can survive impacts better than one with a stiff metal exterior.
Unfortunately, for most of the uneducated masses, their analysis is much simpler: metal = good, plastic = cheap. Which is really too bad since it will lead to them making a lot of non-optimal purchase decisions. About the only plastic which has escaped this stereotype is carbon fiber, which is just strengthening fibers embedded in a plastic substrate. Probably because the stuff is expensive, and most people automatically assume expensive = good.
UpSpin - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
I normally don't sit in my smartphone and throw it with 100 km/h against a wall. And I don't know a car made out of plastic, the cars I drive are made out of steel and aluminum and last more than 10 years.I don't understand what you want to tell us at all with your car story, because it's not related to smartphones at all.
You also forget that the front of the smartphone consists of glass! which breaks easily. So if your body is highly flexible and very soft, it won't break, but your glass will have to absorb the whole energy and break. And as you can see in the S4 photos, there is barely a bezel thus no 'crush zone'.
You also don't buy a rugged device which must withstand permanent drops. (I haven't dropped my 3 years old smartphone even once).
I agree with you that plastic has its advantages compared to metal but so does metal compared to plastic. Plastic is more flexible which is negligible because the glass isn't flexible. Plastic breaks easily, wheras metal deforms, whatever you prefer.
And as you said, plastic is a broad term. You can find cheap and expensive variants (Kevlar, carbon fiber), with different properties (soft, hard, ...) and different finishes (matt, glossy).
But the plastic (or let's say polycarbonate) Samsung uses is shiny, glossy, cheap.
nerd1 - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Phones get dropped on hard surfaces a lot during its lifetime. Metal gets dent, while polycarbonate ( which is NOT cheap material) absorbs the shock and keeps its shape. If you are gonna baby your phone you may be fine with metal exterior but I do not.gnx - Friday, April 26, 2013 - link
Actually it's not the plastic per se but the additional gloss that makes is bad. The plastic that Samsung uses in their phones is quite high grade, very flexible, very durable. The problem is the shiny gloss they put on top of it. I think in an interview Samsung said they add the glossy finish cause it prevents scratches and provides a halo effect. Both personally dislike both, since the instead of scratches it attracts finger prints, and the halo effect is just distracting. I wouldn't mind plastic at all, even prefer if, plastic if they'd leave it matte.Osamede - Friday, April 26, 2013 - link
"...You also forget that the front of the smartphone consists of glass! which breaks easily. So if your body is highly flexible and very soft, it won't break, but your glass will have to absorb the whole energy and break...."- This is not accurate. The idea is that the body absorbs energy and transmits less of it. The more solid and less flexible the body, the more the body will transmit the energy further forwarding it to the glass.
"Plastic is more flexible which is negligible because the glass isn't flexible. Plastic breaks easily, wheras metal deforms, whatever you prefer..."
- this is a gross generalization. Metals come in a huge range of properties. Some metals are also brittle (what you refer to as "breaks easily". Even the same metal can be more or less brittle depending on if it is cast or extruded or treated in various ways.
We cant just go around equating looks to durabiity. I can show you plastic body Nokias I have in my drawer that lasted years and could last another half decade if I take it out and use it today. Plastic body with a metal frame under or even just plastic body/frame can be highly effective and long lasting in protecting what's inside, even if it scratches.
We need to stop generalizing like this. It's beyond shallow. This is engineering - there are many ways to skin a cat and acheive a specific type of durability, at various tradeoffs and price points.
If you like the phone - fine, buy it. If you dont, then hey buy what you like. Free choic.
A_Smith - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Features and other specs wise this phone is on top, but I'm not happy with its design. Samsung has kept rolling their newer model with almost similar designs for years now. Aren't they planning to modify their smartphone designs?Jaegs - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Anandtech doesn't do review scores so we have to use "Klug Pages"HTC One is 17
Galaxy S4 is 9
ShieTar - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
I am somewhat surprised that the articles does not discuss the apparently protruding camera optics in more detail. I have a Huawei Mediapad with a similar protruding lens fixation, and it is rather annoying because it wobbles around if you lay it down on a table. For me that is actually a relevant point, even for a phone. About 7 hours a day, the phone is lying on my table while I work, and if a text or Mail comes in, I don't actually pick it up, but rather just operate it on the table.Is this possible with the Samsung, or is the protruding optics a problem?
I also wish that someone would make a great smartphone without cameras, which I never used in my life, but I'm getting the distinct feeling that I am the only person alive with that problem.
richy184 - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
Yep, HTC One for me. GS4 is just too cheap and tacky looking (software and hardware) with too many gimmicky features ill never ever use.krumme - Thursday, April 25, 2013 - link
I am surprised Brian had an micro sd card :) - naughty