An improvement, still behind the curve


In the current state of smartphone technology, which sets the old phablet of 2014 as the new baseline size for most Android handsets, Pixel 3 remains one of the latest options for a modern high-end smartphone in 2018 – and one of the latter without a notch. The same happened with Pixel 2 last year. However, this device was regularly poorly received for its outdated appearance, decorated with thicker frames than most smartphones in 2017, especially when compared to the iPhone X, Galaxy S8 / Galaxy. Note 8, or even your older brother, the Pixel 2 XL. This year, Pixel 3 adopts a more beautiful format while Google pushes its Pixel line to gain respect as a major competitor and largely starts with how we interact with it – the exhibit.

So how did Google do it this time?


  • Perfect color accuracy in typical internal illumination
  • Low uniform angular displacements
  • Very wide native variety
  • Closer screen lamination and less reflection and brightness of the screen
  • UHDA HDR Certification


  • Brightness and low-peak control
  • High cut-off threshold for black
  • Solid color grain slightly visible with less brightness
  • Display with lower power consumption

pixel display analysis 3

Performance Overview

This time, Google looks for the panel for its LG Pixel 3 smaller display, while the Samsung Display produces it for the XL variant – a flip-flop from last year. At a glance, the front design looks a lot like a reduced version of the Pixel 2 XL minus the curved edges in 3D, which makes me happy. The front is now flat and elegant, adopting a modern 18: 9 screen format, significantly reduced the top, bottom and side panels, and even some new rounded corners. The body of Pixel 3 is almost the same size as Pixel 2, while it fits into a 5.5-inch display, which has about the same screen width as Pixel 2, but an additional half-inch of screen space. This extra screen size, however, can make Pixel 3 more difficult to use with one hand than Pixel 2, especially when reaching the status bar.

The Pixel 3 screen has a pixel density almost identical to that of Pixel 2, at 443 pixels per inch compared to 441 in Pixel 2. At that pixel density, the screen will be perfectly sharp beyond 27.9 cm for users with 20 / 20 vision, which is good, since the viewing distance of the smartphone is a little over 12 inches (30.5 centimeters). The structure of the image, or the achromatic image, will remain perfectly defined up to about 20 cm for users with 20/20 vision. However, the color fringes may be apparent when the phone is closer than 11 inches, and this is because the screen uses an array of PenTile Diamond pixels. Those with greater visual acuity, which is quite common, can be more sensitive to the fringes of color. Most things considered, the Pixel 3 screen is in an acceptable screen density, just on the brink of excellent sharpness.

The manufacturing quality of the monitor in our Pixel 3 unit is excellent at typical brightness levels. On the first inspection, I also noticed that the screen has noticeably less glare and glare, and the screen is now laminated closer to the top glass than on the Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL, the latter of which had an abnormally hollow display. glass. The closer lamination helps the screen become much more "swollen", as if the contents of the screen were plastered or an adhesive placed on the front glass slab. The issue of the solid-colored grains that plagued the LGD panels in the Pixel 2 XL has dramatically improved, however, it is still slightly noticeable when looking for it with a lower brightness. The color change of the screen, when viewed at an angle, has also been greatly improved. The color shift is much more subtle and uniform, especially when compared to most Pixel 2 XL units from last year – I took five replacements to get a great Pixel 2 XL drive with very little color change. The screen does not exhibit a rain of color changes at different angles, such as Samsung panels, just a smooth shift towards cyan, no greens or abrupt magentas here and there. When measuring color changes, Pixel 3 tested for minor color changes than Pixel 2, but slightly higher brightness changes. The opposite occurred when we tested our unicorn Pixel 2 XL: less change in brightness, but a slightly larger color change for Pixel 3. Note that our Pixel 2 XL unit may be an anomaly – most of the Pixel 2 XL units I tested greater color shift. The uniformity of display in our unit is also excellent, but small imperfections begin to become visible with very weak brightness. However, I realized that users claim abnormally poor display uniformity, color granulation and / or bad viewing angles, so there still seems to be a kind of "screen lottery" for an optimal display.

For Pixel 3 color profiles, Google collapsed and started using a color stretch profile for Pixel 3, instead of a precise default profile, as it did with Pixel 2. Pixel 3's adaptive profile expands colors for the native range of the panel, which is a very wide range. The colors are heavily saturated and the contrast of the image on the screen is increased significantly. The Natural color profile is the precise color profile and we measure its calibration to produce colors that are indistinguishable from perfect in typical office lighting. However, the display gamma is a bit too high on Pixel 3, but not as high as on the Pixel 2 XL. This means that as long as the colors are accurate, the screen image will have more contrast than the default. The Boosted color profile is similar to the Natural color profile but with a slight increase in color saturation. It remains very accurate, and can become the most accurate profile of external illumination, as the colors of a display go out in bright light.

In outdoor lighting, however, the Pixel 3 is not very competitive. Even with the standards of 2017, Google Pixel 3 is not very clear. We measured the display to reach a peak of 476 nits of brightness for the medium case (50% APL), while most vary around 435 nits in white background applications. Although the phone can still be used in direct sunlight, it is not so convenient to use brighter screens, such as the new iPhone or Galaxy devices, which can emit about 700 nits for white background content, which appears 25% brighter than Pixel 3.

View Analysis Methodology

To obtain quantitative color data from the monitor, we place device-specific input test patterns on the handset and measure the resulting emission of the monitor using an i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer. The test patterns and device configurations we use are corrected for various characteristics and possible software implementations that can change our desired measurements. Many review reviews of other sites are not accounted for properly, and therefore your data may be inaccurate.

We measured the total grayscale of the canvas and reported the white perceptual color error along with the correlated color temperature. From the readings, we also derive the display range using a least squares adjustment at the theoretical gamma values ​​of each step. This gamma value is more meaningful and true to the experience than those reporting gamma reading display calibration software such as CalMan, which calculates the mean of the theoretical range of each step.

The colors we target for our test patterns are influenced by DisplayMate's absolute color precision graphics. Colored targets are evenly spaced throughout the CIE 1976 chromaticity scale, making them excellent targets for assessing the full color reproduction capabilities of a screen.

Gray scale and color accuracy readings are obtained in 20% increments over the perceptual (non-linear) brightness range of the screen and the average for a single read that is accurate for the overall appearance of the display. Another individual reading is taken at our 200 cd / m² benchmark, which is a good white level for typical office conditions and internal lighting.

We mainly use color difference measurement CIEDE2000 (shortened to ΔE) as a measure of chromatic accuracy. ΔE is the industry standard color difference metric proposed by the International Commission on Illumination (CIE), which best describes the uniform differences between colors. Other color difference metrics also exist, such as the color difference Δu'v ' on the CIE 1976 chromaticity scale, but these metrics were considered inferior in perceptual uniformity when evaluating visual perception, since the threshold for visual perception between measured colors and target colors can vary greatly between color difference metrics. For example, a color difference Δu'v ' of 0.010 is not visually noticeable to blue, but the same measured color difference to yellow is noticeable at a glance. Notice that ΔE is not perfect in itself, but has become the most empirically accurate color difference metric that currently exists.

ΔE typically considers luminance error in its computation, since luminance is a necessary component to completely describe the color. However, since the human visual system interprets chromaticity and luminance separately, we maintain our test patterns at a constant luminance and compensate for the luminance error of our ΔE values. In addition, it is useful to separate the two errors when evaluating the performance of a video because, like our visual system, it refers to different problems with the monitor. In this way, we can analyze and understand your performance better.

When the measured color difference ΔE is above 3.0, the color difference can be visually noticed at a glance. When the measured color difference ΔE is between 1.0 and 2.3, the color difference can only be noticed under diagnostic conditions (for example, when the measured color and the target color appear side by side on the monitor being measured), otherwise the color difference is not visually noticeable and appears accurate. A measured color difference ΔE of 1.0 or less is said to be completely imperceptible, and the measured color seems indistinguishable from the target color even when adjacent thereto.

The monitor's power consumption is measured by the slope of the linear regression between handset battery consumption and screen brightness. Battery consumption is observed and the average is three minutes to 20% brightness and tested several times, minimizing external sources of battery consumption.

Brightness of the screen

Our display brightness comparison charts compare the maximum screen brightness of the Pixel 3 in relation to other views we have measured. The labels on the horizontal axis at the bottom of the graph represent the multipliers of the difference in perceived brightness relative to the display of Pixel 3, which is set to "1 ×". The magnitude of monitor brightness, measured in candles per square meter, or nits, are staggered according to Steven's Power Law, using the exponent of the mode for the perceived brightness of a point source, scaled proportionally to the brightness of the Pixel 3 display. This is done because the human eye has a logarithmic response to the perceived brightness. Other graphs that display brightness values ​​on a linear scale do not adequately represent the difference in the perceived brightness of the views.

Pixel 3 works similarly to most of its predecessors. The screen rotates around 450 nits for the content of most applications and can output up to 572 nits with a low APL of 1%. The brightness of the screen does not seem to be a priority for Google, as they continue last in brightness to main displays every year. There is no sign of a high brightness mode on the Pixel 3 sysfs, which can be found on devices with Samsung DDICs, while Pixel 3 is using LGD technology. However, the latest LGD OLED on the LG V40 supports high brightness mode, and if the display of the Pixel 3 is using the same display technology, it should theoretically also be able to perform the high brightness mode.

For Android Pie, Google has implemented a new logarithmic brightness slider. This is an enhancement to the Pre-Pie, in which the Android's slider slider has adjusted the brightness of the display in a linear fashion. Humans perceive the subjective intensity of brightness on a logarithmic scale, not on a linear scale; therefore, the old brightness slider does not adjust the brightness of the screen in a perceptibly smooth way. Attempting to adjust the brightness slider at night may result in a very dark setting, but move the slider one inch to the right and the screen is now burning your eyes. Ideally, the brightness slider should be intuitive. The midpoint on the brightness slider should be half the brightness of the maximum brightness. However, I thought this is not entirely the case, so I tested Google's new brightness mapping.

My first discovery was that Google only changed how the brightness slider selects the byte value that controls the brightness of the screen, and I published a Reddit comment about it several months ago. The byte value mapping actually remained linear, while the new brightness slider is selecting byte values ​​logarithmically.

This is bad.

While Google showed some understanding of the human sensation for a moment, they showed at the same time that it did not. Humans are much more sensitive to changes in lesser brightness, and they've recognized this in their blog post. This means that there must be many more byte values ​​mapped to the dimmer brightness. However, the value mapping for brightness of the brightness byte is still linear. The problem with this is that because Google has decided that there are only 256 possible values ​​that can map to a certain screen brightness, the lower byte values ​​for the dark glows have "stutters" or "visible" jumps in the brightness between each pitch, so by adjusting the screen brightness between these values, it does not seem smooth. This also applies to the new Adaptive Brightness by automatically switching to those brightness.

For a concrete analysis, we find that the brightness emitted in the brightness setting 1 is 2.4 nits, while in the next brightness setting 2, the display generates 3.0 nits. This is an increase of 25% in magnitude. For reference, a change of approximately 10% in magnitude of brightness is needed to notice a difference in brightness of the image for the sudden change from one patch to another (less still for scotopic vision, below 3.0 nits). Therefore, there should be no more than 10% change in magnitude when adjusting the screen brightness so that the transition from one setting to another appears smooth and not "agitated". These noticeable jumps in brightness persist up to about 40 nits of brightness. covers about 30% of the panel's perceptual brightness range! This explains why adjusting the brightness slider at the lower end is stuttery.

In addition, the logarithmic function used by Google in the brightness slider appears incorrect. The midpoint on the slider looks less than half the maximum brightness. When testing the mapping, I found that the brightness magnitude for the midpoint was mapped to about one-sixth of the brightness peak. Using Steven's Power Act and its exponent for a point source, this seems to be a room as bright as the peak emission. In other tests, the magnitude required for the screen to appear with half the brightness is mapped around the 75% point on the brightness slider. Regarding Steven's energy law, we find that, in fact, Google is using an exponent of modality of 0.25 instead of 0.5 for the slider of brightness. Because of this, the screen may become dimmer because the brightness increases very slowly when adjusting the brightness slider.

Color Profiles

An appliance can come with a variety of different display profiles that can change the characteristics of the colors on the screen. Google Pixel 3 maintains the predecessor's Natural and Boosted mode and replaces the old Saturated profile with a similar adaptive profile.

The Natural profile is the precise color profile that targets the sRGB color space as the default working color space for all unlabeled media. The profile supports the automatic color management of Android 8.0, so the profile can display wide color content. However, almost no application supports it. Pixel 3 now defaults to the new adaptive profile. The color profile does not adhere to any pattern, but more closely reaches a color space with red chromaticity P3, with a green chromaticity between Adobe RGB and P3 and with blue chromaticity. The profile looks almost identical to the saturated color profile in the Pixel 2 XL, by coincidence, but also originated an LGD panel. One problem I noticed, though, is that the color profile is different between Pixel 3 and Pixel 3 XL. Pixel 3 has a native range larger than the Pixel 3 XL and as the adaptive color profile expands the colors on the screen to the native range, they appear differently. Thus, there is a lack of cohesion between the two monitors directly from the standard color profile, visible on the home screen in the in-store display units.

The Boosted profile is the Natural profile with a slight linear increase in saturation. The profile also supports automatic color management.


The gamma of a display determines the overall contrast and brightness of the colors on the screen. The industry standard range to be used on most monitors follows a power function of 2.20. Higher range gamma powers will result in higher image contrast and darker color blends for which the film industry is progressing, but smartphones are seen in many different lighting conditions where higher gamma powers are not appropriate . Our gamma chart below is a log-log representation of the lightness of a color as seen in the Pixel 3 display versus its associated input color: Larger than the Standard 2.20 line means that the color tone appears brighter and lower than the Standard line 2.20 means the tone of the color seems darker. The axes are staggered logarithmically, since the human eye has a logarithmic response to the perceived brightness.

Similar to the LG display of the Pixel 2 XL, Pixel 3's image contrast is remarkably high with darker color blends, but not as intense as the Pixel 2 XL (γ = 2.46). The standard Adaptive color profile has a very high range of 2.43, which is intense for a mobile display used by many consumers. For the Natural and Boosted profiles, the higher range is more noticeable for the sRGB color space, since the colors were originally displayed with a display range between 1.8 and 2.2. With the advent of wide colors, many content aimed at wider color spaces began to dominate the 2.4 range, with cinema now dominating around 2.6 outside the HDR.

Although a display range of 2.2 is still the goal for the required tonal accuracy of color, OLED panel gauges have historically had difficulty achieving this goal due to the OLED property's brightness variation with APL content. Usually, the higher image APL decreases the relative brightness of the colors on the panel. To properly achieve a consistent display range, the DDIC and display technology must be able to control the voltages on the TFT backplane to be standardized regardless of the emission. Samsung Display achieved this with its new display technology found in the Galaxy S9, Galaxy Note9 and Google Pixel 3 XL, which are all perfectly calibrated for full color and tonal precision due to this innovation. This is just another aspect that the LG Display is currently behind.

Last year, both the Pixel 2 and the Pixel 2 XL received harsh criticism for their abnormal black clipping, with the LGD Pixel 2 XL being the worst offender. We found that the Pixel 2 XL had a black trimming limit of 8.6% at 10 nits while the Samsung Pixel 2 had a black trimming limit of 4.3%. This year, the Pixel 3 screen has a black trimming limit of 6.0%, which represents a small improvement over last year's LGD panel, but is still very high. So far, only the iPhone X and iPhone Xs have been tested to have an absolutely black zero cut in their 8-bit to 10-nit intensity range, with OnePlus 6 having a near-perfect threshold of 0.4%. Samsung devices have been notorious for the cut, and the last we tested for clipping was the Galaxy Note 8, which reduced color intensities below 2.7%.

An interesting finding is that when using full field test patterns, the resulting display range is always very close to 2.20, regardless of screen brightness, while the resulting display range varied by measuring using a constant APL. This leads me to believe that perhaps the Google gauges for Pixel 3 have not been calibrated in a constant APL, which is flawed.

Color Temperature

The color temperature of a white light source describes how "hot" or "cool" the light appears. The sRGB color space targets a white spot with a color temperature D65 (6504K), which is considered as the average daylight in Europe. Targeting a white spot with a D65 color temperature is essential in color accuracy. Note, however, that a white dot near 6504K may not necessarily look accurate; there are countless color combinations that can have a correlated color temperature of 6504K that does not even appear white. Therefore, the color temperature should not be used as a metric for white point color accuracy. Instead, it is a tool to evaluate how the white point of a display appears and how it shifts in its brightness and grayscale range. Regardless of the target color temperature of a monitor, ideally the color of the white should remain consistent at any intensity, which would appear as a straight line in our chart below. By looking at the color temperature plot with the minimum brightness, we can get an idea of ​​how the panel handles low drive levels before possibly cutting blacks.

The correlated color temperatures for all color profiles are, most of the time, straight with some small twists. All profiles become slightly colder, approaching darker colors. However, when displaying really dark colors, the panel calibration starts to fail. With about 50% intensity at minimum brightness, which correlates to approximately 0.50 nits, the colors begin to warm significantly before our light meter can not measure the emission below 25% intensity.

Color Accuracy

Our color accuracy plots provide readers with an approximate assessment of the color performance and calibration trends of a screen. Below is shown the basis for the color accuracy targets plotted on the CIE 1976 chromaticity scale with the circles representing the target colors.

SRGB Color Precision Reference Graphs

The destination color circles have a radius of 0.004, which is the distance of a noticeable color difference between two colors in the graphic. Units of fair color differences are represented as red dots between the target color and the measured color, and a point or more generally denotes a noticeable color difference. If there are no red dots between a measured color and its target color, the measured color can be safely assumed to appear accurate. If there are one or more red dots between the measured color and its target color, the measured color may still appear accurate depending on the color difference ΔE, which is a better indicator of visual perception than the Euclidean distances in the graph.

In its precise color mode, the Color calibration in the Natural profile is extremely accurate in all scenarios, with a very accurate overall ΔE of 1.2. In some cases, specifically in typical offices and internal lighting, the colors are completely indistinguishable from perfect (even in diagnostic conditions) with ΔE of 0.8. Very well, Google.

In Boosted mode, the screen colors are still more accurate, with a noticeable difference in reds, medium blues and tall greens. Has a general average need ΔE of 1.9. Strangely, high-blues are more accurate in this profile, as they slightly outweigh their saturation in the Natural profile. However, high reds are more supersaturated than any other color in this profile, with a nuisance ΔE of 6.4.

After a full year of implementing Android color management, there was still zero movement for it. Because of this, we will disregard the color accuracy of P3, because they currently have no place in Android until Google does something about it.

Energy consumption

From Pixel 2 to Pixel 3, the display area increases by about 13%. A larger screen requires more energy to emit the same luminous intensity, all other things considered equal. However, the Pixel 3 now uses an LGD display, while the Pixel 2 uses a Samsung monitor, and in addition to the iterative technological advances, there are likely to be many differences in its underlying proprietary technology that can affect power consumption.

We measured the Pixel 3 screen to consume a maximum of 1.46 watts in its total emission, while Pixel 2, which has a similar peak brightness, consumes 1.14 watts. Normalized to luminance and screen area, at 100% APL, Pixel 3 can produce 2.14 candelas per watt, while Pixel 2 can produce 2.44 candelas per watt, causing Pixel 3 to display 14% less efficient than the Pixel 2 screen at 100% APL.

OLED screens become more energy efficient, the lower the APL of content on the screen. With 50% APL, Pixel 3 produces 4.60 candelas per watt, representing a 115% increase in efficiency compared to its 100% APL output. However, Pixel 2 with 50% APL produces 5.67 candelas per watt, which is 132% more efficient. This makes the display of Pixel 3 23% less efficient that the screen of the Pixel 2 with 50% APL.

Overview of the exhibit

Specification Google Pixel 3 Grades
Display Type AMOLED, Pixel Diamond PenTile
Manufacturer LG Display There are no bootloop jokes here
Display size 4.9 inches by 2.5 inches

5.5 inch diagonal

12.1 square inches

Width similar to Pixel 2
Video Resolution 2160 × 1080 pixels The actual number of pixels is somewhat smaller due to the rounded corners
Display ratio 18: 9 Yes, this is also 2: 1. No, it should not be written this way
Pixel Density 443 pixels per inch Low subpixel density due to PenTile Pixel Diamond
Subpixels Density 313 red subpixels per inch

443 green subpixels per inch

313 blue subpixels per inch

PenTile's Diamond Pixel monitors have fewer red and blue subpixels compared to green subpixels
Distance to Pixel Acuity <11.0 inches for color image

<7.8 inches for achromatic image

Distances for resolved pixels with 20/20 vision. The typical smartphone viewing distance is approximately 12 inches
Peak brightness 420 candelas per square meter at 100% APL

476 candelas per square meter at 50% APL

572 candelas per square meter at 1% APL

candelas per square meter = nits
Maximum Display Power 1.46 watts Display power for 100% APL brightness
View power efficiency 2.14 candelas per watt to 100% APL

4.60 candelas per watt to 50% APL

Normalizes the brightness and the area of ​​the screen.
Angular displacement -30% for brightness shift

ΔE = 6.6 for color change

ΔE = 10.3 total shift

Measured at a slope of 30 degrees
Black Threshold 6.0% Minimum color intensity to be cut in black, measured at 10 cd / m²
Specification Adaptive Natural Driven Grades
gamma 2.43

Visibly high


A little too loud


A little too loud

Ideally between 2.20-2.30
Average Color Difference ΔE = 5.0

for sRGB

It is not color managed; saturated by design

ΔE = 1.2

for sRGB

It seems very accurate

ΔE = 1.9

for sRGB

It seems more accurate

ΔE values ​​below 2.3 appear accurate

ΔE values ​​below 1.0 look perfect

White point color difference 6847K

ΔE = 5.0

Cold design


ΔE = 2.9


ΔE = 3.0

The default is 6504K
Maximum color difference ΔE = 8.5

in 100% blue-cyan

for sRGB

ΔE = 2.0

to 50% yellow

for sRGB

Maximum error seems accurate

ΔE = 6.5

to 100% red-yellow

for sRGB

Erro máximo ΔE abaixo de 5.0 é bom

Nova classificação de carta de exibição XDA

Para ajudar os nossos leitores a ter uma melhor compreensão da qualidade de uma exibição depois de ler toda essa baboseira técnica, adicionamos uma nota final com base em como a exibição funciona quantitativa e subjetivamente, já que alguns aspectos de uma exibição são difíceis de serem exibidos. medida e / ou são preferenciais.

O grau da letra será parcialmente relativo ao desempenho de outras telas modernas. Para ter um quadro de referência, em nossa revisão anterior de monitores OnePlus 6, teríamos dado ao display um grau de letra B +: O display é mais brilhante e lida com o recorte preto muito bem; Ele mantém uma boa precisão de cor em seus perfis de exibição calibrados, mas ainda possui uma gama de exibição alta. As duas vantagens que tem sobre o Pixel 3, enquanto ainda tem alguns outros aspectos que fizeram o Pixel 3 bom e ruim, é o que o coloca à frente e dá a classificação B + ao invés do Pixel 3&#39;s B. No geral, encontramos o OnePlus 6 exibir qualidades para ser em geral um pouco melhor, sem julgar alguns dos aspectos preferenciais (tamanho de exibição, o entalhe).

Nós daria o Galaxy Note 9 uma classificação A: Muito bom brilho com modo de alto brilho, controle de gama grande, aplicativo de fotos tem algum gerenciamento de cores. Mas, ainda tem recorte preto, e achamos que a precisão das cores nos perfis calibrados não é tão impressionante. O iPhone X e o iPhone Xs recebem classificações A +: ele tem uma faixa de brilho manual estelar sem utilizar o modo de alto brilho, zero recorte preto na faixa de intensidade de 8 bits, controle PWM inteligente, a melhor precisão de cores que medimos controle e excelente gerenciamento de cores com um sistema operacional que utiliza cores amplas. Essas diferenças muito perceptíveis e que afetam a experiência permitem que ele ultrapasse a Nota 9 com base nas qualidades da tela e como seu software a manipula, embora haja outros aspectos que possam fazer as pessoas apreciarem melhor a tela do Note 9, como perfil saturado padrão ou sua exibição notchless.

Uma palavra sobre a decisão de perfil adaptável do Google

Pessoalmente, defendo veementemente a decisão do Google de adotar um perfil amplo de alongamento de cores. I believe it’s a tasteless and a purely marketing-driven decision that hurts the Android ecosystem, as well as its designers and developers.

To fuel this point, Android’s own automatic color management, implemented in Android 8.0, is not supported in this color profile, which is already severely lacking support. Even Google’s own Photos app does not support viewing images with embedded color profiles in any other color space. Google is undoubtedly most proud of their imaging prowess, and the Pixel line would benefit tremendously by capturing images in wide color (which their camera sensors support) and by being able to properly view wide color images, both of which Apple has streamlined in their hardware and their OS since the iPhone 7.

Because of Android’s incompetence in color management, there are millions of photos posted by iOS users that no Android display can faithfully reproduce due to its lack of software support, and that is mostly on Google to blame for not asserting a serious push for it. It has led the Android community to associate accurate colors with “dull” and “muted”  when the problem is that their designers have been left restrained with the smallest color pallet available. Rarely are iPhone displays described as “dull” or “muted,” but rather “vivid” and “punchy,” yet they provide some of the most accurate and professional working displays available on the market—they don’t need to artificially oversaturate all the colors on their screens to achieve this.

iOS app designers are encouraged to use wide color, while most Android designers are not even aware of it. All iOS app designers design on the same accurate color profile, while Android designers pick and test on all sorts of different color profiles, resulting in very little color cohesion from user to user. An app designer may be picking colors that he or she believes are tasteful on his or her color-stretched display, but the colors may turn out to seem overly less saturated than they’d like on an accurate display. The opposite is also true: When picking saturated colors on an accurate display, the colors may seem too saturated on color-stretched displays. This is just one reason why color management is essential to a cohesive and uniform design language. It’s something so critical that Google is currently disregarding when they’re trying to create their own design language — one without wide color, restrained to a color pallet established over twenty years ago.

Want more posts like this delivered to your inbox? Enter your email to be subscribed to our newsletter.


Source link