do lcd displays update pixel by pixel price

A significant point is that the phosphors on a CRT screen have their "persistence" designed to support a particular fairly narrow range of refresh rates. The phosphors could be made to have really long persistence (seconds), so there would be no serious flicker down to even maybe a 5 second refresh interval, but then, since the phosphors can only be "turned on" and not "turned off", you wouldn"t be able to see motion much faster than that. (Some early CRT terminals used long-persistence phosphors, with the characters "drawn" on the screen instead of scanned. This didn"t provide very fast "refresh", but it only had to be as good as a 10 CPS Teletype.)

LCDs have the property that they can be turned on or off, at some relatively high rate, and once set one way or the other they have a relatively long persistence, on the order of a second or so. For this reason they can support a wide range of refresh rates.

LCDs are "scanned" via an X-Y matrix of wires, with a pixel at each point where two wires cross. Only one pixel can be manipulated at a time. The voltage on a pixel must be maintained long enough to "charge" the pixel, so that it will hold the charge until refreshed, and all pixels must be visited on each refresh cycle.

They are quite expensive, probably due to the extra memory inside the panel. Another limitation is they can only support 1 bit per pixel, making them black/white (or 8 colors).

Basically, each pixel internally stores 1 bit of information, allowing it to hold its state indefinitely just by being powered, not needing to be refreshed with data. To make the pixels not "burn out" by exposing them to DC (as explained by hobbs), a global "flip" signal clocks the whole panel at ~1Hz rate, reversing the pixels" polarity (this does not affect the content of the display).

You might wonder why we can"t get a grayscale out of this, when all it takes is adding "just more memory". The problem is that each pixel would need its own DAC converter to create analog voltage proportional to the "darkness" of its data. The DAC component is way too complex (costly) to implement into each pixel. In my recent experiment with a "normal" TFT screen, the DAC consumed roughly the same amount of power as refreshing the rest of the panel.

As already mentioned by others, the pixels inside the display array are not usually accessible at random, because the extra logic would be expensive and normally isn"t needed. These "static" displays solve this addressing by allowing user to update 1-N rows at a time, but not individual pixels. This is still quite efficient for updating the display, it"s a a tradeoff between complexity (cost) and reducing unnecessary updates (wasting power).

The aforementioned display (1.28"" small) is interfaced with a 1MHz SPI. One byte of command + row address + data is sent for each line. Larger displays of the same kind seem to be limited to a maximum FPS ~20Hz (due to the available 1MHz bandwidth). I haven"t seen anything larger than 5"" manufactured with this technology, yet.

Dell offers a Premium Panel Exchange that ensures zero bright pixel defects on Dell Consumer, Professional, UltraSharp, and Gaming including Alienware monitors.

Defective pixels do not necessarily impair the performance of the monitor. However,they can be distracting, especially if the pixels are in positions where viewing quality is reduced.

Unyielding commitment to quality and customer satisfaction has driven Dell to offer a Premium Panel Exchange as part of the standard limited hardware warranty. Even if one bright pixel is found, a free monitor exchange is supported during the limited hardware warranty period.

Pixels are no stranger to top-end phone prices. Though all this time, it"s seemed that Google hadn"t yet released a true spiritual flagship that they were happy with—at least not until now with the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro. This year, it"s clear that Google"s new phones are the ones that the company takes pride in, but for all we know, that might just be all talk. So what better way to demonstrate the Pixel"s resurgence than to test out their effort and commitment to the display?

About this review: The Google Pixel 6 and the Google Pixel 6 Pro used for this review were personally bought from the Google Store. Google Ireland did provide my colleague Adam Conway with a Pixel 6 Pro, but the unit was not utilized for this review. Google had no involvement in the contents of this review.

This time around, Google changed up its release formula, opting for just one general size—big—for its two main phones. The handsets are now differentiated by their feature set, with the more premium of the two Pixel 6"s adopting the "Pro" moniker. In terms of pricing, Google surprised us with numbers that undercut its previous phones, as well as much of the competition"s, for both Pixels" respective tiers within the smartphone market. Questionably, corners had to have been cut somewhere. With display components usually making up the largest share in a phone"s bill of materials, that"s usually where you"ll first find shortcomings.

The Pixel 6 Pro comes equipped with a sharp 6.71-inch OLED, and it has the best display hardware that Google has put on a phone till date. It uses a high-end configuration from Samsung Display, although it"s a whole step down when compared to its latest generation of OLED. This is one of those shortcomings. But considering that phones with newer display tech are generally more expensive than the Pixel 6 Pro, I"d say that its price justifies the hardware. Regardless, the panel is more than capable of delivering stunning visuals, and the 120 Hz high refresh rate makes interacting with the phone super smooth. There"s also a curve on the sides of the display that phone makers love to tack on in an attempt to make their phone look more premium, but I"m not a fan of it.

The regular Pixel 6 uses a lower-resolution 6.40-inch Samsung panel. Although both phones are using updated OLEDs, the hardware on the Pixel 6 is actually a downgrade in some ways compared to last year"s Pixel 5. For the first time since the Pixel 2, Google is using an inferior rigid OLED display stack in their main phone lineup to cut costs. Compared to modern flexible OLEDs (like on the 6 Pro and on most flagship phones), the typical rigid display stack has lower screen contrast, fluctuant viewing angles, and appears more sunken into the display. On the upside, the Pixel 6 does get brighter, and it does appear sharper than the Pixel 5 despite having a lower pixel density (more on this later).

Rigid OLEDs are an older construction that is now usually only used in budget phones. The main difference is that a rigid OLED includes a thicker glass encapsulation and substrate, while flexible OLEDs utilize a thin-film encapsulation and a bendable plastic substrate. The elastic nature of flexible OLEDs not only makes them more durable and moldable than rigid OLEDs, but it also allows for some optical advantages. Thinner encapsulation allows the physical pixels to appear closer to the cover glass, giving flexible OLEDs a more laminated look. Also, on rigid stacks, the refraction of the light transmitted through the glass layers causes unwanted rainbow viewing angles that you simply don"t see on flexible OLEDs. Lastly, not all "infinite contrast ratios" are made equal: newer flexible OLED display stacks contain darker internal materials, imposing deeper blacks than those of rigid OLEDs.

On the Pixel 6 Pro, higher-efficiency hybrid oxide transistors support the backplane, which greatly enhances an OLED"s driving stability. This is the catalyst in enabling a true variable refresh rate, saving power as it allows pixels to hold their charge for much longer between refreshes. Since they have a low rate of discharge, oxide driving TFTs can pulse at lower currents compared to an LTPS TFT to achieve the same steady-state luminance, which further saves battery and improves calibration precision. Anecdotally, every phone that I"ve used with an LTPO panel has had near-flawless panel uniformity and very little gray tinting in low light, and I believe much of that can be also be attributed to the improved stability of the hybrid oxide backplane.

Seldom mentioned is the difference in the subpixels between PenTile OLEDs. Larger subpixels improve power efficiency and lengthen their longevity, which reduces burn-in. Higher-density screens require packing in smaller subpixels, thus there are advantages to accomodating a lower physical screen resolution. Note that this is completely different than sampling a screen at a lower render resolution, which does almost nothing for the battery outside of full-resolution gaming since the physical subpixels are still the same size.

Instead of decreasing the screen resolution, another option is to increase the panel"s fill factor, which is defined as the ratio of the subpixels" emissive area to the total display area. For lower-resolution OLEDs, this has the added benefit of improving pixel definition, which reduces apparent color fringing around well-defined edges in the screen. Starting with the Samsung Galaxy S21, Samsung Display began to produce 1080p panels with higher fill factors, increasing the relative size of the subpixel area by about 20%. To my eyes, this had completely eliminated color fringing on these panels, and they now look closer to their non-PenTile counterparts. For those that use their phone for VR, a higher fill factor also reduces the screen door effect.

Fortunately, the Pixel 6"s 1080p screen has a high fill factor, and I observe no color fringing with it. Its screen appears sharper than 1080p PenTile screens of the past, including the higher-density panel of the Pixel 5, so those that are coming from 1440p displays need not worry too much. The OLED on the 6 Pro, however, has a lower fill ratio, so efficiency gains can be had with a better display design. Though as it stands, Apple is currently the only company that optimizes for both resolution and fill factor, with iPhone OLEDs having the largest subpixels out of any phone.

To obtain quantitative color data from smartphones, display test patterns are staged and measured using an X-Rite i1Display Pro metered by an X-Rite i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer in its high-resolution 3.3nm mode. The test patterns and device settings used are corrected for various display characteristics and potential software implementations that may alter desired measurements. Measurements are performed with arbitrary display adjustments disabled unless mentioned otherwise.

The primary test patterns are constant powerpatterns (sometimes calledequal energypatterns), correlating to an average pixel level of about 42%, to measure the transfer function and grayscale precision. It’s important to measure emissive displays not only with constant average pixel level but also with constant power patterns since their output is dependent on the average display luminance. Additionally, a constant average pixel level does not inherently mean constant power; the test patterns I use are of both. A higher average pixel level closer to 50% is used to capture the midpoint performance between both the lower pixel levels and the higher pixel levels since many apps and webpages contain white backgrounds that are higher in pixel level.

The color difference metric used is ΔETP (ITU-R BT.2124), which is an overall better measure for color differences than ΔE00 that is used in earlier reviews and is still currently being used in many other sites’ display reviews. Those that are still using ΔE00 for color error reporting are encouraged to update to ΔEITP.

ΔEITP normally considers luminance error in its computation, since luminance is a necessary component to completely describe color. However, since the human visual system interprets chromaticity and luminance separately, I hold our test patterns at a constant luminance and do not include the luminance (I/intensity) error in our ΔEITP values. Furthermore, it is helpful to separate the two errors when assessing a display’s performance because, just like with our visual system, they pertain to different issues with the display. This way, we can more thoroughly analyze and understand the performance of a display.

By default, Adaptive mode is selected out of the box. Both Adaptiveand Boostedmodes increase color saturation just slightly, with the main difference being that Adaptive mode also uses higher contrast. Compared to the vivid profile of many other smartphones, the Adaptive mode is not as vibrant, and some people may even struggle to see the difference between Adaptive and Natural. All three profiles target a D65 white point, which might appear warm/yellow to those that aren"t accustomed to color-calibrated displays.

A small gripe I have with Adaptive and Boostedis that the color saturation increase isn"t uniform: greens are boosted the most, followed by reds, while blues have little-to-no boost (limited by the OLED"s full native gamut). There"s also nothing really "adaptive" about the profile compared to the other two, so the naming of the profile is a bit of a misnomer.

If picture fidelity is a priority, the Natural mode is the Pixel"s color-accurate profile. The profile targets the full sRGB color space (gamut, white point, and tone response) while Android"s color management system handles wide-gamut P3 content in apps that support it. Internally, Google is now also targeting Display P3 as the phone"s default composition data space, which is a small step in maturing their color management system.

For those that are not satisfied with the white balance of their Pixel, Google, unfortunately, does not provide any option to tune that aspect of the display (outside of Night Light). Google formerly had a feature called Ambient EQ on the Pixel 4 which automatically matched the white balance of the screen to the user"s ambient lighting, but the company scrapped it in its future phones for reasons unknown.

In terms of screen brightness, both the Pixel 6 and the Pixel 6 Pro perform nearly identical to each other, and they both get bright enough to use the phone under sunlight. With auto-brightness enabled, both phones get up to about 750–770 nits for fullscreen white, boosting up to 1000–1100 nits for content with lower average light levels ("APL"). Sadly the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro can only maintain their high brightness mode for five minutes at a time out of every thirty minutes, so using the phone extensively outside may not be ideal. After five minutes, the phone display will ramp down to about 470 nits, which is both phones" maximum manual brightness when auto-brightness is disabled.

For the Pixel 6 Pro, these peak brightness values are standard and to be expected considering its price. But for the cost of the regular Pixel 6, these figures showcase excellent value, and phones that do get brighter generally cost a bit more than even the 6 Pro.

Apart from peak brightness, display tone mapping also plays a big role in improving a screen"s legibility under sunlight. This will be covered more later on, but in short, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro does boost shadow tones to help out with outdoor viewing.

When set to their dimmest brightness setting, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro can get down to about 1.8–1.9 nits, which is typical of most, but not all OLED phones (namely OnePlus). At this brightness, the default Adaptive profile on both phones crushes near-black colors due to the profile"s steeper contrast curves. Natural mode exhibits lighter shadows, and on the Pixel 6 Pro the profile retains distinct shadow details with very little black clipping in low light. The Pixel 6, on the other hand, struggles a bit more with near-black colors, especially in its 90 Hz state.

The auto-brightness system on the Pixels has been the worst that I"ve used in any recent phone. One common argument is that it learns your brightness preference over time, but the underlying framework is fundamentally flawed in a way that fancy machine learning can"t fix. The result of the system is jittery transitions and a lack of resolution in the low end.

Before the Pixel 6, Google only reserved 255 distinct brightness values to control the display brightness. Even if all brightness values were to be efficiently spaced out, the resolution simply wasn"t enough to create perfectly smooth transitions. Now with the Pixel 6, Google increased the internal number of brightness values up to 2043 between 2 nits and 500 nits. That seems like it should be sufficient, but there are two important details: the mapping of those brightness values, and how the Pixel transitions through those brightness values.

Although the Pixel 6 has 2043 brightness values, those values are mapped linearly to its display brightness. This means that the spacing of brightness between those values is not perceptually uniform, since the human perception of brightness scales somewhat logarithmically, rather than linearly, in response to screen luminance nits. In Android 9 Pie, Google altered the Pixel"s brightness slider so that it would scale logarithmically instead of linearly for the reason that I just mentioned. However, this only changed how the position on the brightness slider mapped to the system brightness value, which is still internally linear.

Even with the higher brightness resolution of the Pixel 6, jitters can be seen between the brightness values below about 30% system brightness. For this inherent reason, the Pixel"s transition in display luminance can appear jumpy when the auto-brightness moves around in low light. The jitteriness is exacerbated by the speed and the behavior of the Pixel"s auto-brightness transitions, which steps linearly through display luminance at a constant pace that reaches max brightness from minimum brightness in one second—or about 500 nits per second. This makes any auto-brightness transition virtually instantaneous for small-to-medium adjustments.

Quickly touching on display power: When focusing on fullscreen display nits per watt, the Pixel 6 Pro consumes substantially more power than the Pixel 6 at high brightness. This is somewhat expected since the Pro has a slightly larger display and a higher resolution (read: smaller emissive pixel area), though I did not expect the difference to be this dramatic. Adding in the Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra as another data point, it consumes less power than both Pixels despite having a larger screen, which showcases the impeccable efficiency gains of Samsung"s next-gen OLED emitters. The discrepancy in variable refresh rate was not tested.

A general rule of thumb in calibrating a display is to target a gamma power of 2.4 for dark rooms, or 2.2 for everywhere else. Smartphones are used in all sorts of viewing conditions, so they typically fall in the latter category. Hence, most phones target a gamma power of 2.2 for their standard calibrated display modes. This is what the Pixel had always done, but it"s a little different this year on the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro.

In the default Adaptive mode, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro have increased contrast compared to the other profiles. The tone response is approximately a 2.4 gamma power on the Pixel 6, while on the Pixel 6 Pro it"s more like gamma 2.3. At lower brightness levels, the Adaptive mode has too much contrast in my opinion, and a number of near-black colors can appear completely clipped, especially on the cheaper phone.

For the Natural and Boosted profiles, the Pixel 6 and the Pixel 6 Pro now conform to the piecewise sRGB tone response curve rather than gamma 2.2. The curve differs in that it has a linear mapping near black which makes dark tones appear lighter compared to gamma 2.2.  Due to the increased complexity of the function, most people just calibrate to gamma 2.2 for simplicity, and it"s what monitor calibrators and artists have been doing for many years. The actual use of the precise sRGB curve is a controversial topic for this reason; even though it"s the "official" standard, it creates disparity among the vast majority who have already been working with gamma 2.2, which many argue to be the "correct" industry standard.

What makes this interesting is that I"m not sure Google even intended for this behavior. Samsung also ships phones with the sRGB tone curve, though only on their Exynos variants—the Snapdragon models still use gamma 2.2. The Exynos display pipeline inside the Pixels" Tensor SoC is likely responsible for decoding RGB triplets with the sRGB transfer function.

In regards to accuracy, both phones do a good job tracking the sRGB tone curve in their Natural and Boosted mode. But at lower brightness, the Pixel 6 fails to keep up with the performance of the Pixel 6 Pro as the cheaper panel struggles to lift darker tones in its 90 Hz clock rate. In general usage, the sRGB tone curve looks close enough to the standard 2.2 gamma curve to where most people won"t notice a difference for most imagery. However, a lift in shadows is definitely observable in the darker regions of content and in dark-themed interfaces. Some may prefer this look over gamma 2.2, while others may think it looks washed out. Personally, I prefer this tonal appearance on smartphones for the enhanced legibility in low light and in bright conditions.

When high brightness mode triggers under a sunny day, the displays will bump up the shadows, with the Pro phone being capable of being tuned a bit brighter. This helps improve the visibility of image details in brighter conditions without compromising the image quality.

At their dimmest setting, the Pixel 6 Pro paints a much more tonally balanced screen. In its Natural mode, the Pixel 6 Pro is one of the best-performing low brightness OLEDs on any phone. I claimed the same thing for last year"s Pixel 5, which had impeccable shadow tone control. Compared to it, the Pixel 6 Pro performs similarly, though this year"s display is just slightly worse near black. While the Pixel 5 was able to render its first bit step out of black (1/255) at all brightness levels, the Pixel 6 Pro can only do so at high brightness. It does globally render the very next step, however, and in my book, that"s still fantastic. The Pixel 5"s shadows were also a bit lighter overall in low light, but in my opinion it made things look a little too flat, and I now prefer the look of the 6 Pro.

Within the same conditions, the non-Pro Pixel does not compete. The cheaper display renders steep shadows that clip a little more near black, and in Adaptive mode, the Pixel 6 becomes a mottled mess at minimum brightness. For this reason, I cannot recommend the profile on Pixel 6.

Nominally, both displays strike very similar white points that measure decently accurate to D65/6504 K. Both my units erred slightly on the magenta side, though I have no qualms with this as I"ll explain later.

Under the surface, the two phones actually perform vastly different when it comes to color precision. The Pixel 6 Pro maintains the color of its white throughout its grayscale and throughout its brightness range, with the exception of high-brightness mode where the tint in darker colors will likely be masked by sunlight. The Pixel 6, on the other hand, progressively tints towards magenta the lower the color tone intensity. A mild flicker was also visible when the Smooth Display auto-switched between 90 Hz and 60 Hz, but on my sample, the effect isn"t too noticeable. Lastly, on my unit, the non-uniform grayscale distribution is painfully obvious at lower brightness.

Two colors from different displays that measure the same exact chromaticity don"t necessarily appear identical in color. The fact of the matter is that current methods of color measurement don"t provide a definitive assessment for color matching. As it turns out, the difference in spectral distributions between OLEDs and LCDs creates a disagreement in the appearance of their white points. More precisely, the color of white on OLEDs will typically appear yellowish-green compared to an LCD display that measures identically. This is known as metameric failure, and it"s been widely acknowledged to occur with wide-gamut displays such as OLEDs. The standard illuminants (e.g. D65) have been defined with spectral distributions that match closer to that of an LCD, so the technology is now used as a reference. For this reason, an offset towards magenta is needed for the white point of OLEDs to perceptually match the two display technologies.

Now, I"m not saying that metameric failure is the reason why the Pixel 6 (Pro) displays measure towards magenta, but there"s a point to be made about looking at just colorimetric measurements alone. For reference, this is how the white point of the Pixel 6 Pro measures when it"s perceptually color-matched to my calibrated LCD monitor. The difference is massive. There have been many attempts in methodologically transferring over the perceptual appearance, but none have been comprehensive enough to cover every emerging display type—matching by eye is quite literally the best way to do this at the moment. Nevertheless, accurate measurements to any standard allow for predictability if adjustments are to be made, which is a critical attribute for any electrical component.

The formula for good color accuracy is quite simple: accurate tone mapping plus an accurate white point. The previous sections of this review can almost entirely deduce the rest of the displays" color mixing performance. Pretty charts and quantitative verification are always nice though, so here they are.

Natural mode on both phones demonstrates fine-tuned color accuracy, with average color errors ΔETP less than 3.0, and maximum color errors ΔETPless than 10.0. These values are sufficient enough for a reference display, though it"s important to note that these color measurements were taken at 75% tone intensity; the poor color precision on the cheaper Pixel 6 display means that it"s expected to perform worse at lower tone intensities, while the Pro display remains accurate independent of tone intensity. Besides that, there is some mild skewing with more-complex color mixtures, such as with purple and orange, due to the different tone response curve that Google is using. No doubt that if it stuck with gamma 2.2, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro would measure even more accurately, though the difference would mostly be academic.

In high-brightness mode, the displays will slightly crank up the color saturation to overcome the saturation loss from viewing glare. This together with the contrast lightness boost should help the display look more accurate under sunlight.

Although HDR content still isn"t all too common, many newer titles on streaming platforms have now been releasing masters in Dolby Vision and HDR10. To help with adoption, a number of smartphones provide the capability to record in one of the existing HDR formats. Out of the existing phones, Apple"s iPhones have been the ones to propel the demand for platform adoption of the HDR formats with their Dolby Vision-/HLG-enabled recording. In my assessment, however, I only cover the HDR10 format, which is currently the most ubiquitous format for professional content creators.

Excellent tone control, precision, and color accuracy carries over to HDR10 on the Pixel 6 Pro. The ST.2084 standard HDR tone response curve is faithfully reproduced along with incredibly consistent color temperature all throughout its grayscale. This assures that the white balance and contrast of every scene can replicate the creator"s visual intent, at least up to 650 nits. Most HDR content that is currently being delivered through streaming platforms is mastered or optimized for a maximum headroom of 1,000 nits for highlights. The Pixel 6 Pro is able to get up to 800 nits fullscreen brightness, but a lack of metadata-aware tone mapping brings the usable in-content peak down to about 650 nits. While the 350-nit deficit may seem substantial, not many scenes in practice are graded much brighter.

As for the regular Pixel 6, it"s still capable of delivering brilliant visuals, just without as much polish. Scenes can vary in white balance on the cheaper OLED due to lower-brightness tinting, and image contrast is generally a little steeper. Shadow definition is also not as polished as on the Pro display.

The gotcha is that all the above assume a viewing environment of 5 lux, which is the status quo for HDR10. This is considerably dim for casual watching, and most people in actuality will watch things in a brighter setting. Furthermore, standard HDR10 replication is calibrated for maximum system brightness, so if you intend to watch a show in HDR10 inside a brighter room, the experience won"t be optimal since the display brightness can"t be set any higher. HDR10 is also implemented this way in most TVs, not just on the Pixel 6 or on Android, but newer TVs also offer adaptive adjustments to the HDR tone mapping to compensate for brighter environments. The Pixel 6"s 650-nit effective peak along with its lack of adaptive tone mapping means that it can"t deliver the same strong HDR performance outside of a dimly lit room.

For its highest-end handset, Google delivers some of the best color reproduction and image consistency that you can find on any consumer display. With the Pixel 6 Pro, you can be certain that you"re seeing all the picture details at any brightness level, be it dim or bright. On the contrary, the color tuning may be the reason why some people won"t like it. Even in its most vibrant color mode, the display still behaves on the more color-accurate side, so those that prefer a high-saturation appearance may be left wanting more. Additionally, the Pixel 6 Pro doesn"t carry the brightest or the most efficient OLED tech, but its current capabilities are perfectly adequate and well worth its price tag. It"s understandable that people would want the absolute best panel available from the best phone that Google offers, but the Pixel 6 Pro is just not priced in that manner.

Speaking of price, the cheaper phone, unsurprisingly, uses a cheaper display. And by cheaper, I do mean cheap. From crude viewing angles to irregular screen uniformity and grayscale tinting, the OLED on the Pixel 6 is very much a budget-level phone experience—one that you would expect from their Pixel A-series. For what"s supposed to be one of Google"s two strongest offerings, the choice of OLED on the Pixel 6 makes it feel like an unpolished product, and in my opinion, it completely cheapens the brand. We don"t find this level of compromise on the display of any other flagship "non-Pro" variants from the competition.

Despite the rest of the handset feeling quite premium, the screen is just too important of a component to skimp out on. Many people have criticized Apple for adopting OLED so late inside their base models, but in its defense, using the Pixel 6 made it understandable why Apple had decided not to just include any cheap rigid OLED in their phones. They simply lack the refinement that is expected from a premium handset. For its price point, I don"t think it could be helped; by undercutting the competition by $100–$200 USD, the Pixel 6 inevitably had to make some sort of glaring sacrifice. So, rather than just being a well-priced premium phone, what this showed me was that the Pixel 6 is truly more of a mid-range device, in a tier that is more similar to Apple"s "R"-series or Samsung"s "FE" variant.

Within the Pixel software, some accommodations could have been made to enhance the user experience. For starters, improvements to the auto-brightness are sorely needed, as its transitions turn out to be jarring more often than not. I would also appreciate the return of AmbientEQ, which was the automatic white balance feature in the Pixel 4. Manual adjustments to the screen white balance would also be helpful, which could be used to tune the screen color temperature to your taste, or even to compensate for the metameric failure.

Overall, I"m torn on whether I like the direction that Google has taken for the displays of its two main phones. Of course, everyone would want them both to be a bit better—a slightly brighter display for the 6 Pro and a more refined OLED for the regular 6—but Google"s pricing has made it difficult to ask for more. At least for the Pro phone, I genuinely believe that you"re getting your money"s worth. But for the upper mid-ranged Pixel 6, I feel that it"s priced in a guttered region where it"s not priced high enough to afford a display that sets it apart from those on budget phones. If Google priced the Pixel 6 about $100 higher, but with a polished flexible OLED to boot, I believe that Google"s base model could be much more successful.

This past Sunday, Google let us know that it was “actively investigating” reports of screen burn in on the Pixel 2 XL. Now, less than a week later, we are learning some of what the results of that investigation are. Here’s the short version: Google stands by the screen on the Pixel 2 XL, but it is nevertheless going to issue some software updates to expand its color gamut and protect it against screen burn-in. It will also offer a two-year warranty on Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL phones.

Our investigation so far has given us confidence that our displays are as great as we hoped they would be, though we’re also taking steps to address the concerns we"ve heard.

Google, however, says that its tests show that the Pixel 2 XL is not any worse than other phones when it comes to burn-in. Burn-in affect every display panel over time, and Google believes that it’s not going to be any worse on this phone than other phones. Nevertheless, the company is going to be issuing some software updates to mitigate any concerns:

Extensive testing of the Pixel 2 XL display show that its decay characteristics are comparable to OLED panels used in other premium smartphones. The differential aging should not affect the user experience of the phone, as it’s not visible under normal use of your Pixel 2 XL. We understand, however, that it can be concerning to see evidence of aging when using a specialized display test app, so we"ve taken steps to reduce differential aging through software.

We’re currently testing a software update that further enhances protections against this issue by adding a new fade-out of the navigation bar buttons at the bottom of the Pixel screen after a short period of inactivity. In addition, we"re working with more apps to use a light navigation bar to match their app"s color scheme. The update will also reduce the maximum brightness of the Pixel 2 XL by a virtually imperceptible 50 cd/m2 (nits), thereby significantly reducing load on the screen with an almost undetectable change in the observed brightness.

There are other concerns with the Pixel 2 XL screen beyond the potential for image retention and burn-in. Namely, Google chose to go with a relatively narrow color gamut by default, so the colors look more muted than Android users are used to. That decision was part of a larger change in Android, with the latest Oreo update being better at handling color spaces. Queiroz spends quite a bit of time explaining Android Oreo’s new color management feature, which is admittedly a step forward compared to previous versions of Android.

Still, Queiroz addressed those who are unhappy with the sRGB color gamut Google chose by saying another software update is coming. “Through a software update to Pixel 2 and Pixel 2 XL,” he writes, “we will soon be adding a new “saturated” color mode.” He then adds:

The saturated mode puts the display into an unmanaged configuration, similar to how the Pixel 1 operates. The colors will be more saturated and vibrant, but less accurate (similar to most other smartphones which display more vibrant colors): we give consumers the option to choose the color saturation.

A post in the support forums is a low-key way to address what has become a controversy big enough to give some people doubts about Google’s ability to produce flagship-quality hardware. But Queiroz’s post goes into quite a bit of detail on Google’s thinking and plans to allay users’ concerns. And since Google has concluded that there’s more smoke than fire, it makes sense that it’s simply addressing the issue here instead of in a larger forum. (Also, apologies for making a fire reference with regard to phone defects, Samsung.)

But to be clear, user concerns with the Pixel 2 XL screen don’t stop at the potential for burn-in nor at Google’s color choices. Some simply think the panel, which is manufactured by LG, is not as good as Samsung’s panels. For example, some screens have exhibited “grit” when scrolling and pretty much all of them have a blue shift when you look at the display at an oblique angle.

Those concerns were not enough to make us dislike the Pixel 2 XL overall in our review. However, the possibility that the screen might be getting permanently damaged so quickly via screen burn-in was enough of a concern that we temporarily pulled our review score for the larger phone. We’ll need a minute before we decide whether and when to give the Pixel 2 XL a score, but hope we can take Google at its word that burn-in is no longer a serious concern.

Google’s fast turnaround on explaining how it sees these screen issues and its promises to release software updates are heartening. It’s a difficult balance the company is trying to strike: standing by the quality of the screen that so many distrust while also offering updates that mitigate those concerns.

Whether that balance will successfully convince people who distrust the screen is another question — one that is best answered once the software updates are released.

In the grand scheme of things, four days to investigate these issues and also to decide on these software updates isn’t very long at all. Unfortunately for Google, those four or so days came right after the Pixel 2 XL went on sale and just as it began shipping, only a week before Apple’s new flagship iPhone X.

Google"s Pixel 7 and 7 Pro both support face unlock, unlike last year"s Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro. If you own a Pixel 7 and haven"t set it up yet, you can do so by launching the Settings menu and tapping Security. Tap Face and fingerprint unlock and enter your PIN. From there, choose the Face Unlock option to register your face to your phone.

We"ve all been there. It"s 6 a.m., your alarm starts blaring and you barely have the energy to reach for your phone. Google makes this a little easier on the Pixel lineup by enabling you to pause or dismiss an alarm by simply saying, "Snooze" or "Stop" without requiring the "Hey, Google" trigger phrase. You can do the same for phone calls by saying "Answer" or "Decline" without having to grab your device.

Both of these features are accessible from the Pixel"s phone app. Hold For Me works on the Pixel 3 and later, while Direct My Call is available on the Pixel 3A and later. Open the Phoneapp and tap the three dots in the top right corner to get started. Choose Settings and you should see Hold for Me and Direct My Call under the Assistive section.

Certain Pixel devices can boost their refresh rates to enable faster scrolling and smoother animations, which makes the software generally feel more responsive. The Pixel 7 can bump its refresh rate up to 90Hz like the Pixel 6, while the Pixel 7 Pro can go up to 120Hz just like the Pixel 6 Pro. But since this feature increases battery usage, there are times when you might want to turn it off.

It’s our trade-in program that can help you get the latest Pixel phone from Google. If your trade-in device is eligible for credit, you can offset the purchase price of a new one. You can get all this done online at the Google Store, making it convenient for you to complete your transaction all in one place.How does it work?

We’ve made it easy to trade in an eligible device online. During your purchase of a new Pixel phone, select “Start trade-in” on the “trade-in” screen. Just answer a few questions regarding the brand, model, and condition of your device. We’ll provide an estimated trade-in value. If you accept the trade-in estimate online and complete your purchase, we’ll arrange for you to send your old device to our trade-in partner. You will receive your new phone before returning the old one, which gives you time to set the new one up.

Once our trade-in partner receives your old device, we’ll inspect it and verify its condition matches what you told us at the time of purchase. If everything checks out, we’ll credit your original purchase method. If the condition of your device doesn’t match what you described, a new estimated trade-in value will be credited back to you unless during your purchase you chose to receive your old phone back without credit if its condition doesn’t match what you described.How will the value of my old phone be credited to me?

Refund is based on (and paid after) the phone received matches the description you provided at time of estimate (manufacturer, model, whether it turns on, whether it has screen damage, etc). The refund will be issued to the form of payment you used for the order. If the trade-in refund exceeds the cost of your new Pixel phone: The excess amount will be provided as Store Credit. Phones sent for trade-in must be received within 30 days of receiving your new phone, provided the purchased device has not been returned during that time.

Do not send your device if it has a damaged or swollen battery. If the inspection results show swelling or other physical damage to the battery, the device will not be eligible for credit and cannot be returned due to safety issues and local regulatory requirements.How much will I get for my trade-in?

You can trade in Google Pixel phone devices and third-party phone devices. Many third-party phone devices are eligible for a trade-in credit.How long does the trade-in process take?

You can only trade in one device per Pixel purchase. If you would like to trade in multiple devices, you can do so by purchasing multiple phones in separate orders.How do I pack my device for trade-in, and how quickly should I send in my trade-in kit?

If you select Google Store Financing as a payment option, the trade-in value will be refunded to your financing balance. Note that if you have also financed the phone you are trading in, you will continue to be responsible for those payments, even after trading in your phone. If you select Verizon device payment, we’ll deduct the value from the full retail price of your new phone.Does Google offer recycling?

If you haven’t yet shipped your device, you can cancel your trade-in by simply keeping your device. If you’ve already shipped your device, the trade-in can’t be canceled.Do I have to include accessories like chargers and cables?

The Service Contract Provider is Federal Warranty Service Corporation in all states except in California where the Provider is Sureway, Inc.; in Florida where the Provider is United Service Protection, Inc., and in Oklahoma where the Provider is Assurant Service Protection, Inc. Please see sample Terms and Conditions for full details on Obligors, benefits, limitations and exclusions. For the Preferred Care upfront plan, your device protection includes 1 year of mechanical breakdown coverage (after the one-year manufacturer warranty expires) and up to 2 accidental damage claims per coverage term or 2 in a rolling 12-month period or based on device. For the Preferred Care Monthly Coverage plan, your devices include 4 years of mechanical breakdown coverage (after the one-year manufacturer warranty expires) and up to 2 accidental damage claims in a rolling 12-month period beginning with the date of the first repair or replacement.

Mobile display technology is firmly split into two camps, the AMOLED and LCD crowds. There are also phones sporting OLED technology, which is closely associated with the AMOLED panel type. AMOLED and LCD are based on quite different underlying technologies, leading manufacturers to tout a number of different benefits depending on which display type they’ve opted for. Smartphone manufacturers are increasingly opting for AMOLED displays, with LCD mostly reserved for less expensive phones.

It’s hidden in the name, but the key component in these display types is a Light Emitting Diode (LED). Electronics hobbyists will no doubt have played around with these little lights before. In a display panel, these are shrunk down dramatically and arranged in red, green, and blue clusters to create an individual pixel that can reproduce white light and various colors, including red, green, and blue.

The arrangement of these sub-pixels alters the performance of the displays slightly. Pentile vs striped pixel layouts, for example, results in superior image sharpness, but lower pixel life spans due to the smaller pixel sizes.

Finally, the AM part in AMOLED stands in for Active Matrix, rather than a passive matrix technology. This tells us how each little OLED is controlled. In a passive matrix, a complex grid system is used to control individual pixels, where integrated circuits control a charge sent down each column or row. But this is rather slow and can be imprecise. Active Matrix systems attach a thin film transistor (TFT) and capacitor to each LED. This way, when a row and column are activated to access a pixel, the capacitor at the correct pixel can retain its charge in between refresh cycles, allowing for faster and more precise control.

The major benefits from OLED type displays come from the high level of control that can be exerted over each pixel. Pixels can be switched completely off, allowing for deep blacks and a high contrast ratio. Great if you want a display capable of playing back HDR content. Being able to dim and turn off individual pixels also saves on power ever so slightly. The lack of other layers on top of the LEDs means that the maximum amount of light reaches the display surface, resulting in brighter images with better viewing angles.

The use of LEDs and minimal substrates means that these displays can be very thin. Furthermore, the lack of a rigid backlight and innovations in flexible plastic substrates enables flexible OLED-based displays. Complex LCD displays cannot be built in this way because of the backlight requirement. Flexy displays were originally very promising for wearables. Today, premium-tier smartphones make use of flexible OLED displays. Although, there are some concerns over how many times a display can flex and bend before breaking.

LCD stands for Liquid Crystal Display and reproduces colors quite differently from AMOLED. Rather than using individual light-emitting components, LCD displays rely on a backlight as the sole light source. Although multiple backlights can be used across a display for local dimming and to help save on power consumption, this is more of a requirement in larger TVs.

Scientifically speaking, there’s no individual white light wavelength. White light is a mixture of all other visible colors in the spectrum. Therefore, LCD backlights have to create a pseudo white light as efficiently as possible, which can then be filtered into different colors in the liquid crystal element. Most LCDs rely on a blue LED backlight which is filtered through a yellow phosphor coating, producing a pseudo white light.

The really complicated part comes next, as light is then polarized and passed through a crystal element. The crystal can be twisted to varying degrees depending on the voltage applied to it, which adjusts the angle of the polarized light. The light then passes through a second polarized filter that is offset by 90 degrees compared with the first, which will attenuate the light based on its angle. Finally, a red, green, or blue color filter is applied to this light, and these sub-pixels are grouped into pixels to adjust colors across the display.

All combined, this allows an LCD display to control the amount of RGB light reaching the surface by culling a backlight, rather than producing colored light in each pixel. Just like AMOLED, LCD displays can either be active or passive matrix devices, but most smartphones are active these days.

This wide variation in the way that light is produced has quite a profound difference to the user experience. Color gamut is often the most talked-about difference between the two display types, with AMOLED providing a greater range of color options than LCD, resulting in more vibrant-looking images.

OLED displays have been known for additional green and blue saturation, as these tend to be the most powerful colors in the sub-pixel arrangement, and very little green is required for white light. Some observers find that this extra saturation produces results that they find slightly unnatural looking. Although color accuracy has improved substantially in the past few years and tends to offer better accuracy for wider color gamuts like DCI-P3 and BT-2020. Despite not possessing quite such a broad gamut, LCD displays typically offer 100% sRGB gamut used by most content and can cover a wide gamut and most of the DCI-P3 color space too.

As we mentioned before, the lack of a backlight and filtering layers weighs in favor of OLED over LCD. LCD displays often suffer from light bleed and a lower contrast ratio as the backlight doesn’t switch off even when pixels are supposed to be black, while OLED can simply switch off its pixels. LCD’s filtering layer also inherently blocks some light and the additional depth means that viewing angles are also reduced compared to OLED.

One downside of AMOLED is that different LEDs have different life spans, meaning that the individual RBG light components eventually degrade at slightly different rates. As well as the dreaded but relatively rare burn-in phenomenon, OLED display color balance can drift very slightly over time, while LED’s single backlight means that color balance remains more consistent across the display. OLED pixels also often turn off and on slower, meaning that the highest refresh rate displays are often LCD. Particularly in the monitor market where refresh rates exceed 120Hz. That said, plenty of OLED smartphones offer 90, 120, and even 144Hz support.

There are some pros and cons to both technologies and some reasonable user preferences between the different color and contrast profiles. Although the prevalence of multiple display modes available in modern smartphones makes this somewhat less of an issue these days. However, the falling production costs and additional benefits of OLED displays have made them a more popular choice than ever across a wide range of price segments. OLED dominates the high-end smartphone and TV spaces owing to its wider color gamut, superior contrast ratio, while still supporting decent refresh rates. Not to mention its flexible characteristics for brand new mobile form factors.

Major display manufacturers, such as LG Display and Samsung Display, are betting big on OLED technology for the future, making major investments into additional production facilities. Particularly when it comes to its use in flexible display technology. The AMOLED panel market is expected to be worth close to $30 billion in 2022, more than double its value in 2017 when this article was first published.

That said, developments in Quantum Dot and mini LED displays are closing the already small performance gap between LCD and OLED, so certainly don’t count LCD out of the race just yet.

The Pixel 5 isn"t quite worth its high price, especially since its software support window ends soon (October 2023). Amazon currently sells the Pixel 4A 5G for the same price as the Pixel 6A, and while it"s a good phone, it should be cheaper. You"re better off sticking with the Pixel 6A. As for older Pixels, they"re not worth picking up. They"re just too old (and the Pixel 4 suffers from poor battery performance). Many of those devices will stop getting software updates soon if they haven"t already. Buy one of the newer models.

The revamped case for the Pixel 7 series feels more durable than ever before, and you can match them with your Pixel"s color. The thermoplastic elastomer feels nice to touch, and there are raised edges on the front to protect the screen. The Pixel 7"s case is made with more than 30 percent recycled plastics, and the polycarbonate shell uses 77 percent recycled plastics. There are metal buttons for power and volume and they"re 100 percent recycled aluminum. The cases for the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6A are similar but slightly different.

This is hands-down the best case if you frequently attach your Pixel to the handlebar of a bike or electric scooter. Peak Design"s mounting system lets you magnetically affix the phone to its Universal Bike Mount ($50) and it stays put—after nearly a year of testing, I"ve yet to have a phone fall off my ride using this mounting system. It doesn"t interrupt the Pixel"s wireless charging either. The company has several other magnetic accessories you can use, like a car mount. The case itself is nice; I just wish the edges were raised a bit more for better screen protection.

This is one of the best clear cases you"ll find, especially at this price, for the Pixel. The buttons are clicky, the Pixel"s color comes through clearly, and the rear doesn"t feel too sticky, which can be a problem with some clear cases.Caseology Tempered Glass Screen ProtectorPhotograph: Caseology

Pixel phones don"t have a great track record with screen durability—they scratch easily. We tested this protector originally for the Pixel 5A, but it"s not available anymore. Caseology does sell it now for the Pixel 7, Pixel 6, and Pixel 6A. Installation is easy, and it includes a squeegee to get rid of air bubbles. You get two screen protectors for the price, including a microfiber cloth, a wipe, and dust removal stickers.

This is another easy-to-apply tempered glass screen protector. The Pixel 7 and Pixel 6 version comes with two protectors, but Spigen only includes one for the Pixel 6A. Boo. You get a whole cleaning kit to wipe down your phone, an alignment tool that helps you get the application right, and a squeegee to get rid of the air bubbles.

You get only one screen protector here and it"s very expensive. That"s because Zagg claims that the protector is five times as strong as traditional screen protectors. I haven"t seen too many scuffs on my Pixel 6A yet, but take this with a grain of salt. It"s easy to apply with the included application tool, but Zagg doesn"t include a squeegee at this price so you"ll have to use your fingers to push the air bubbles out. It comes with a dust sticker, a wet wipe, and a microfiber cloth.Google Pixel Stand (Gen 2)Photograph: Google

Of the Pixels we recommend in this guide, wireless charging is available only on the Pixel 6, Pixel 6 Pro, Pixel 7, and Pixel 7 Pro. Google"s very own Pixel Stand is one of the best wireless chargers around because it"s simple. The base doesn"t slide around, the phone stays put, and it enables some fun features, like turning the screen into a digital photo frame and quick access to Google Assistant. It"s made of 39 percent recycled materials, with mostly eco-friendly packaging too. Our Best Wireless Chargers guide has more options. It"s also available at Best Buy.

This charging adapter is all you need to recharge your Pixel, whichever model you have. The newest high-end Pixel phones don"t come with chargers in the box, so if you don"t have any spare USB-C chargers, it"s worth picking one up. This one"s prongs don"t fold up, but it"s still really compact.

These cases are pricey, but they have raised lips and offer decent protection around the edges. The buttons are clicky, and you get a few designs to choose from for the rear, including walnut, leather, bamboo, silver pearl, and aramid fiber. (I love the walnut.) What makes this case special is that it supports MagSafe—yes, Apple"s magnetic system for accessories. I"ve used the Mous Limitless 5.0 successfully with a few MagSafe accessories, like a Belkin wireless charger, to recharge the Pixel 7 Pro. You can also go with Mous" IntraLock case to use the company"s own magnetic accessory system to hook your phone up to its bike or car mount with more security.Photograph: Spigen

It"s slim, has a nice texture, retains clicky buttons, and has accurate cutouts for the ports and speakers. What"s not to love? Well, it"s a bit dull, but I still think this case is one of the more attractive cases in Spigen"s lineup. The edges aren"t raised drastically, so don"t expect much screen protection.

Want a kickstand to prop your Pixel up? This Spigen case has one built in and it does the trick, though unfortunately, you can keep your device up only in landscape mode—not great for hands-free TikTok. It has a thick bumper offering nice protection around the edges, though there"s not much of a lip sticking out, so you"ll still want to pair it with a screen protector.

Of all the Pixel cases I"ve tried, this feels the best. It has a wonderful texture that"s pleasant to touch, and the case keeps a slim profile. The buttons remain clicky, and the ports are well-exposed. It"s affordable, but the front edges aren"t raised. There"s a good chance the screen will hit the ground when you drop it.Photograph: Moment

The Pixels have great cameras, but you can take them further by using third-party lenses like these from Moment. Slap on a fish-eye lens for a fun, distorted photo effect. Use a 58-mm telephoto to get even closer to your subject. Whatever lens you pick, you"ll need a Moment case for the system to work. Unfortunately, the Pixel 7, Pixel 7 Pro, and Pixel 6A cases aren"t compatible with the lenses. Still, I like "em because they have magnets embedded inside—they"ll work with Moment"s various MagSafe mounts, like one for tripods, video lights, and mics.

It takes some effort to install this case on the Pixel, but once you do, it"s arguably the most protection you"ll find. There"s an inner two-piece polycarbonate shell that snaps over and under the Pixel, and then a thick synthetic rubber slipcover goes over for extreme durability. The buttons are surprisingly clicky, though the whole phone will be thicker, wider, and heavier. It"s made of more than 50 percent recycled plastic, and there"s a holster you can pop it in to carry your Pixel with pride on your belt. (The holster can double as a kickstand.)

There are some key features exclusive to Pixels that you won"t find on any other Android phone. Some of these are only available on select Pixels—the ones powered by Google"s Tensor chips are more capable since it"s the company"s own silicon. Here"s a quick breakdown:

Under your Pixel 5 phone’s screen, at the top center, you can see a white dot. This white dot is your proximity sensor. When your proximity sensor is on, the dot shows through the display. The dot can blink or stay solid.

Your proximity sensor keeps your phone’s screen off while you hold your phone near your face during a call, when your screen is locked, and when used by certain apps. Keeping the screen off helps save battery and avoid accidental taps on the screen.

All Pixel phones have proximity sensors. Because the Pixel 5’s display goes almost to the edge, you can see the Pixel 5’s sensor under the screen. Check our Pixel 5 phone diagram.

The shift to high pixel density displays, which started with smartphones and tablets, has spread to the world of PC display monitors. 4K displays for PCs hit the shelves in 2014, and an understanding of pixel density has become important for selecting products, along with screen size and resolution. Our theme this time is the shift to high pixel density displays, including trends in the latest technology.

Looking at the market trends in LCD monitors for PCs, in the latter half of the 2000s, the transition from square to wide screens took off all at once, and currently, the trend has been towards larger screens and higher resolutions.

As of 2014, the best selling LCD is the 23" model supporting 1920 x 1080 pixel (full HD) display, but 4K displays that boast of four times that resolution are on rapid rise, and there is a new trend of converting to high resolution (increasing pixel density) without enlarging the screen size

Note: This is a translation from Japanese of the ITmedia article "ITmedia LCD Monitor Course III: Confused about HiDPI and Retina display? Understanding pixel density, an essential element in choosing displays in the age of 4K" published on December 11, 2014. Copyright 2014 ITmedia Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Over the next several years, it is predicted that 4K will replace full HD as the mainstream resolution. 4K, of course, represents 4,000 and refers to a horizontal pixel count of around that number. There are currently two standards for 4K resolution, namely "DCI 4K" and "UHD 4K.

DCI 4K is twice the 2048 x 1080 pixel resolution of projectors (4096 x 2160/approx. 17:9) and is the 4K resolution of the film industry. UHD 4K (also called UHDTV 4K), on the other hand, is the 4K resolution of the television industry defined by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU). It has twice the horizontal resolution of 1920 x 1080 pixel full HD (3840 x 2160/16:9).

4K displays for current PCs are primarily UHD 4K resolution like 4K televisions. However, there are a few products out there that have adopted the DCI 4K standard, such as the ColorEdge CG318-4K color management monitor for video production to be released by EIZO in the spring of 2015.

4K is a high resolution with twice the vertical and horizontal pixel count of full HD and refers to resolutions featuring a horizontal pixel count of around 4 million. The photograph is of EIZO"s ColorEdge CG318-4K. It supports 4096 x 2160 pixel/approx. 17:9 display, which surpasses the 3840 x 2160 pixel/16:9 (UHD 4K) display often used in 4K displays for PCs. Note the difference in horizontal resolution.

The only interface for 4K displays currently on the market that is capable of 4K 60 Hz display is DisplayPort 1.2, which has a 21.6 Gbps bandwidth. That’s because 4K 60 Hz transmission requires a bandwidth of 16 Gbps (3840 x 2160 pixel, 32-bit