very old pixelly display screens brands

Screen burn-in, image burn-in, ghost image, or shadow image, is a permanent discoloration of areas on an electronic display such as a cathode ray tube (CRT) in an old computer monitor or television set. It is caused by cumulative non-uniform use of the screen.

One way to combat screen burn-in was the use of screensavers, which would move an image around to ensure that no one area of the screen remained illuminated for too long.

With phosphor-based electronic displays (for example CRT-type computer monitors, oscilloscope screens or plasma displays), non-uniform use of specific areas, such as prolonged display of non-moving images (text or graphics), repetitive contents in gaming graphics, or certain broadcasts with tickers and flags, can create a permanent ghost-like image of these objects or otherwise degrade image quality. This is because the phosphor compounds which emit light to produce images lose their luminance with use. This wear results in uneven light output over time, and in severe cases can create a ghost image of previous content. Even if ghost images are not recognizable, the effects of screen burn are an immediate and continual degradation of image quality.

The length of time required for noticeable screen burn to develop varies due to many factors, ranging from the quality of the phosphors employed, to the degree of non-uniformity of sub-pixel use. It can take as little as a few weeks for noticeable ghosting to set in, especially if the screen displays a certain image (example: a menu bar at the top or bottom of the screen) constantly and displays it continually over time. In the rare case when horizontal or vertical deflection circuits fail, all output energy is concentrated to a vertical or horizontal line on the display which causes almost instant screen burn.

Phosphor burn-in is particularly prevalent with monochromatic CRT screens, such as the amber or green monochrome monitors common on older computer systems and dumb terminal stations. This is partly because those screens displayed mostly non-moving images, and at one intensity: fully on. Yellow screens are more susceptible than either green or white screens because the yellow phosphor is less efficient and thus requires a higher beam current. Color screens, by contrast, use three separate phosphors (red, green, and blue), mixed in varying intensities to achieve specific colors, and in typical usage patterns such as "traditional" TV viewing (non-gaming, non-converged TV usage, non-Internet browsing, broadcasts without tickers or flags, no prolonged or permanent letterboxing) are used for operations where colors and on-screen object placement approach uniformity.

Modern CRT displays are less susceptible than older CRTs prior to the 1960s because they have a layer of aluminum behind the phosphor which offers some protection. The aluminum layer was provided to reflect more light from the phosphor towards the viewer. As a bonus, the aluminum layer also prevented ion burn of the phosphor and the ion trap, common to older monochrome televisions, was no longer required.

A nearly two-year-old LCD television showing extreme burn-in of CNN"s circa 2008 digital on-screen graphic; this television is in a McDonald"s restaurant where CNN is permanently turned on and displayed throughout the business day.

Both plasma-type and LCD-type displays exhibit a similar phenomenon called transient image persistence, which is similar to screen burn but is not permanent. In the case of plasma-type displays, transient image persistence is caused by charge build-up in the pixel cells (not cumulative luminance degradation as with burn-in), which can be seen sometimes when a bright image that was set against a dark background is replaced by a dark background only; this image retention is usually released once a typical-brightness image is displayed and does not inhibit the display"s typical viewing image quality.

Mobile phone screen burn is a common issue that occurs on some smartphone devices, particularly those with AMOLED or OLED displays. Screen burn happens when a static image or part of an image is displayed on the screen for an extended period of time, causing that part of the image to become "burned" into the screen. This can result in a faint ghost image that is visible on the screen, even when the display is showing a different image.

Screensavers derive their name from their original purpose, which was an active method of attempting to stave off screen burn. By ensuring that no pixel or group of pixels was left displaying a static image for extended periods of time, phosphor luminosity was preserved. Modern screensavers can turn off the screen when not in use.

In many cases, the use of a screensaver is impractical. Most plasma-type display manufacturers include methods for reducing the rate of burn-in by moving the image slightly,Android Wear watches with OLED displays can request that Android Wear enable "burn protection techniques" that periodically shift the contents of the screen by a few pixels.

Other examples: Apple"s iPhone X and Samsung"s Galaxy series both mitigate or delay the onset of burn-in by shifting the pixels every minute or so for the battery, Wi-Fi, location, and service bars. Also, parallax scrolling may be enabled for the home screen to give icons a 3D-like effect, a setting Apple refers to as "perspective zoom". AG Neovo patented Anti-burn-in technology is also using pixel shifting to activate the pixels to move by the designed time interval to prevent burn in effect on LCD monitors.

Some screensavers move around, such as those on DVD players or those on some television sets that move around paused video after a long period of inactivity.

Depending on the type of screen, it is sometimes possible to remedy screen burn-in through the use of remedial software and remedial devices. In the case of OLED screens on Android phones, burn-in reduction apps can display an inverted image of the navigation and status bars (which are constantly displayed and therefore the most likely elements to be burned in) to burn in opposite pattern, resulting in a screen whose sub-pixels have more even luminosity and therefore less visible burn-in artifacts.

Retina Display is a brand name used by Apple for its series of IPS LCD and OLED displays that have a higher pixel density than traditional Apple displays.trademark with regard to computers and mobile devices with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and Canadian Intellectual Property Office.

The Retina display debuted in 2010 with the iPhone 4 and the iPod Touch (4th Generation), and later the iPad (3rd generation) where each screen pixel of the iPhone 3GS, iPod touch (3rd generation), iPad 2 was replaced by four smaller pixels, and the user interface scaled up to fill in the extra pixels. Apple calls this mode HiDPI mode. In simpler words, it is one logical pixel = four physical pixels. The scale factor is tripled for devices with even higher pixel densities, such as the iPhone 6 Plus and iPhone X.

The Retina display has since expanded to most Apple product lines, such as Apple Watch, iPhone, iPod Touch, iPad, iPad Mini, iPad Air, iPad Pro, MacBook, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iMac, and Pro Display XDR, some of which have never had a comparable non-Retina display.marketing terms to differentiate between its LCD and OLED displays having various resolutions, contrast levels, color reproduction, or refresh rates. It is known as Liquid Retina display for the iPhone XR, iPad Air 4th Generation, iPad Mini 6th Generation, iPad Pro 3rd Generation and later versions,Retina 4.5K display for the iMac.

Apple"s Retina displays are not an absolute standard for display sharpness, but vary depending on the size of the display on the device, and at what distance the user would typically be viewing the screen. Where on smaller devices with smaller displays users would view the screen at a closer distance to their eyes, the displays have more PPI (Pixels Per Inch), while on larger devices with larger displays where the user views the screen further away, the screen uses a lower PPI value. Later device versions have had additional improvements, whether an increase in the screen size (the iPhone 12 Pro Max), contrast ratio (the 12.9” iPad Pro 5th Generation, and iMac with Retina 4.5K display), and/or, more recently, PPI count (OLED iPhones); as a result, Apple uses the names “Retina HD display", "Retina 4K/5K display", “Retina 4.5K display", "Super Retina HD display", “Super Retina XDR display”, and "Liquid Retina display" for each successive version.

When introducing the iPhone 4, Steve Jobs said the number of pixels needed for a Retina display is about 300 PPI for a device held 10 to 12 inches from the eye.skinny triangle with a height equal to the viewing distance and a top angle of one degree will have a base on the device"s screen that covers 57 pixels. Any display"s viewing quality (from phone displays to huge projectors) can be described with this size-independent universal parameter. Note that the PPD parameter is not an intrinsic parameter of the display itself, unlike absolute pixel resolution (e.g. 1920×1080 pixels) or relative pixel density (e.g. 401 PPI), but is dependent on the distance between the display and the eye of the person (or lens of the device) viewing the display; moving the eye closer to the display reduces the PPD, and moving away from it increases the PPD in proportion to the distance.

In practice, thus far Apple has converted a device"s display to Retina by doubling the number of pixels in each direction, quadrupling the total resolution. This increase creates a sharper interface at the same physical dimensions. The sole exception to this has been the iPhone 6 Plus, 6S Plus, 7 Plus, and 8 Plus, which renders its display at triple the number of pixels in each direction, before down-sampling to a 1080p resolution.

The displays are manufactured worldwide by different suppliers. Currently, the iPad"s display comes from Samsung,LG DisplayJapan Display Inc.twisted nematic (TN) liquid-crystal displays (LCDs) to in-plane switching (IPS) LCDs starting with the iPhone 4 models in June 2010.

Apple markets the following devices as having a Retina display, Retina HD display, Liquid Retina display, Liquid Retina XDR display, Super Retina HD display, Super Retina XDR display or Retina 4K/5K/6K display:

Reviews of Apple devices with Retina displays have generally been positive on technical grounds, with comments describing it as a considerable improvement on earlier screens and praising Apple for driving third-party application support for high-resolution displays more effectively than on Windows.T220 and T221 had been sold in the past, they had seen little take-up due to their cost of around $8400.

That much resolution is stunning. To see it on a mainstream device like the iPad—rather than a $13,000 exotic monitor—is truly amazing, and something I"ve been waiting more than a decade to see. It will set a bar for future resolution that every other manufacturer of devices and PCs will have to jump.

Writer John Gruber suggested that the arrival of Retina displays on computers would trigger a need to redesign interfaces and designs for the new displays:

Raymond Soneira, president of DisplayMate Technologies, has challenged Apple"s claim. He says that the physiology of the human retina is such that there must be at least 477 pixels per inch in a pixelated display for the pixels to become imperceptible to the human eye at a distance of 12 inches (305 mm).Phil Plait notes, however, that, "if you have [better than 20/20] eyesight, then at one foot away the iPhone 4S"s pixels are resolved. The picture will look pixelated. If you have average eyesight [20/20 vision], the picture will look just fine... So in my opinion, what Jobs said was fine. Soneira, while technically correct, was being picky."

Apple fan website CultOfMac hosts an article by John Brownlee"Apple"s Retina Displays are only about 33% of the way there."visual acuity in the population saying "most research suggests that normal vision is actually much better than 20/20" when in truth the majority have worse than 20/20 vision,WHO considers average vision as 20/40.presbyopia

The first smartphone following the iPhone 4 to ship with a display of a comparable pixel density was the Nokia E6, running Symbian Anna, with a resolution of 640 × 480 at a screen size of 62.5mm. This was an isolated case for the platform however, as all other Symbian-based devices had larger displays with lower resolutions. Some older Symbian smartphones, including the Nokia N80 and N90, featured a 2.1 inch display at 259 ppi, which was one of the sharpest at the time. The first Android smartphones with the same display - Meizu M9 was launched a few months later in beginning of 2011. In October of the same year Galaxy Nexus was announced, which had a display with a better resolution. By 2013 the 300+ ppimark was found on midrange phones such as the Moto G.Samsung Galaxy S4 and HTC One (M8) had 1080p (FHD) screens around 5-inches for a 400+ PPI which surpassed the Retina density on the iPhone 5. The second major redesign of the iPhone, the iPhone 6, has a 1334 × 750 resolution on a 4.7-inch screen, while rivals such as the Samsung Galaxy S6 have a QHD display of 2560 × 1440 resolution, close to four times the number of pixels found in the iPhone 6, giving the S6 a 577 PPI that is almost twice that of the iPhone 6"s 326 PPI.

The larger iPhone 6 Plus features a "Retina HD display", which is a 5.5-inch 1080p screen with 401 PPI. Aside from resolution, all generations of iPhone Retina displays receive high ratings for other aspects such as brightness and color accuracy, compared to those of contemporary smartphones, while some Android devices such as the LG G3 have sacrificed screen quality and battery life for high resolution. Ars Technica suggested the "superfluousness of so many flagship phone features—the move from 720p to 1080p to 1440p and beyond...things are all nice to have, but you’d be hard-pressed to argue that any of them are essential".

Why we like it: The Dell P3421W has a sturdy adjustable stand, lots of ports (including a USB-C port that can handle power, display, and data over a single cable), and a three-year warranty. And it has a built-in KVM switch that allows you to easily swap your keyboard, mouse, and video between two computers. The 1440p display has a 60 Hz refresh rate, which is great for typical office work, web browsing, and casual gaming.

Flaws but not dealbreakers: If you use your display in direct sunlight, this monitor might not be bright enough for you. It can also provide 65 W of power over USB-C, but some laptops require more. If you have a laptop with an Nvidia GeForce RTX GPU or an Intel Core i7 processor, you might need to keep the laptop plugged in to a separate charger or use a Thunderbolt dock that can provide the extra power.

Most ultrawide monitors are also curved. This design helps minimize viewing-angle problems—when you’re sitting centered, things on the far edges of the screen won’t look as washed out as they would on a flat display of a similar width. But this also makes ultrawide monitors inaccurate for precision tasks requiring straight lines, such as drawing, photo editing, or similar design work.

Have you ever left your TV or monitor on for days, stuck on the same image? You return to your screen, only to find an image burned into the display. No matter what you do, it won"t go away. It is a permanent image burn.

Why do monitors and TVs get image burn? Why can"t manufacturers prevent LCDs and plasma screens from a burnt image imprint? Moreover, what can you do to fix an image burn?

Before flat-screens and crystal displays, most TVs and monitors featured CRT (Cathode Ray Tube) technology. In CRTs, individual pixels comprise a red, blue, and green phosphor component. Depending on the intensity of each phosphor component, the pixel appears to the human eye as a unique color.

Plasma displays use plasma, a gaseous substance containing free-flowing ions. When the plasma is not in use, the particles in the plasma are uncharged and display nothing. With the introduction of an electric current, the ions become charged and begin colliding, releasing photons of light.

This is a very simplified version of how a plasma screen works. However, the main thing to understand is that plasma screens use phosphor material (like CRTs) to turn those photons into images.

LCD and LED do not work in the same way as CRTs, either. LCD and LED screens use backlit liquid crystals to display colors. Although manufacturers market screens using LED and LCD, an LED screen is still a type of LCD. The white backlight filters through the liquid crystals, which extract particular colors per pixel.

LCD and LED displays don"t suffer from the same type of image burn as CRTs and plasma screens. They"re not completely clear, though. LCD and LED screens suffer from image persistence. Read on to find out more about image persistence.

Before you can fix screen burn-in, take a second to understand why these images burn in the first place. LCDs and LEDs don"t suffer from burn-in as seriously as plasma screens. But static images can leave an imprint on both display types if left alone for too long. So, why does image burn happen?

Plasma screens also suffer from phosphor deterioration. Plasma burning occurs when pixels on the screen are damaged through long exposure. The phosphor loses its intensity and only shows the light it was fed repeatedly. In this case, the still image, which causes the burn.

LCD and LED screens can also experience image burn, though the image burn process can take longer to develop into a permanent issue. In addition, LCD and LED screens suffer from another issue, known as image retention (also known as image persistence or an LCD shadow).

Image retention is a temporary issue that you are more likely to notice before it becomes a permanent issue. However, proper image burn can still affect LCD, LED, and OLED screens.

The other thing to consider is that LED and OLED image burn-in, when it happens, is irreversible. That"s because of how LED and OLED screens work. Individual pixels within an LED display decay when they emit light.

Under normal use, an LED, OLED, or QLED screen won"t suffer image burn. However, if you leave your screen on a single channel for hours every day, then burn-in can become an issue, as it would with almost any screen.

Issues arise when a screen shows a single news channel 24 hours a day, every day, causing channel logos to burn-in, along with the outline of the scrolling news ticker and so on. News channels are a well-known source of television burn-in, no matter the screen type.

Image burn-in fixes exist for LCD and plasma screens. How effective an image burn-in fix is depends on the screen damage. Depending on the length and severity of the image burn, some displays may have permanent damage.

My personal rule of thumb is to turn off the display if I plan on being away for more than 15 minutes. That way, it is difficult to get caught out, plus you save yourself money on electricity costs and monitor or TV wear and tear.

Another prevention method is to reduce screen contrast as much as you can. Unfortunately, most screens aren"t calibrated correctly, often pushing the contrast and brightness settings too high.

Pixel-shift constantly slightly adjusts the image on your screen, which varies the pixel usage to counteract image burn. You might have to enable a pixel or screen shift option in your screen settings. Pixel-shift is a handy feature for LED and OLED screens that cannot recover from image burn and should help counteract an LCD shadow.

Other modern screens feature built-in screen refresh functions that the manufacturer will advise using to remove image retention and image burn issues.

While the Deluxe version uses advanced algorithms to repair burned screens and prolong plasma and LCD longevity, the official site is no longer up and running, and there is no way to download the full version officially.

If you have television burn-in, you can attach a laptop to your TV using an HDMI cable, extend your desktop to the television, and share the white screensaver. Hopefully, that will shift your television burn-in.

You may be currently suffering from lower productivity, too much additional gear, limited workspace with a single-screen laptop while on the go. Study shows that with the utilization of multiple-screens can boost productivity.

We take care of shipping for every Mobile Pixels product. Now we are offering free shipping to the U.S. on all orders and to Canada on orders over $100.

Its completely normal. Its how OLED screens work. Its physically impossible to repair it.One pixel is on some very deep gray color, whilst the pixel next to it is black. Black means the screen will turn off, while the gray pixel will have the light physically turn on in the panel. Seems like you h...

A lot of people are saying it"s very normal for a OLED display but it doesn"t happen on the other OP7 Pro. My friend has the same OP7 Pro and it"s perfectly normal in his. Even iPhone XS Max has no issues, it has an OLED display too, right? I"m pretty sure it doesn"t happen to everyone out here given the response to this post.

And I"ve read a lot about it and gave Screen Balance app on the Play Store a shot and guess what, no more black crush. It totally fixes the issue with Fluorescent warm and strength at 60%. I"m pretty sure it"s not a hardware fault but can OnePlus not fix it. It"s been more than two months and I was hoping it will be fixed in the updates, but no it"s still here. I really hate using a third party app to control the colors of the display.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Contrast, grayscale, and color accuracy are tested throughout the display’s brightness range. The brightness increments are spaced evenly between the maximum and minimum display brightness in PQ-space. Charts and graphs are also plotted in PQ-space (if applicable) for proper representation of the actual perception of brightness.

ΔETP values are roughly 3× the magnitude of ΔE00 values for the same color difference. A measured color error ΔETP of 1.0 denotes the smallest value for a just-noticeable-difference for the measured color, and the metric assumes the most critically adapted state for the observer so as not to under-predict color errors. A color error ΔETP less than 3.0 is an acceptable level of accuracy for a reference display (suggested from ITU-R BT.2124 Annex 4.2), and a ΔETP value greater than 8.0 can be noticeable at a glance, which I’ve concluded empirically.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Pixel 7 and 7 Pro feel like fully realized, more refined versions of the phones Google launched last year. The Pixel 6 and 6 Pro marked a new chapter for Google’s mobile devices, with a bold new design and a brand new processor. They were ambitious, often great devices with a few rough edges. Google hasn’t completely smoothed them over in this iteration, but it has created a pair of phones that feel like worthy competitors to the iPhones and Samsung Galaxies of the world. They’re what the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro should have been: a year late, but better late than never.

Not much has changed about the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro’s screens. The 6.3-inch OLED on the Pixel 7 is a smidge smaller than the 6.4-inch Pixel 6 (with no change in resolution), but it’s still capped at a 90Hz top refresh rate. The Pro model continues to offer a huge 6.7-inch 120Hz display with slightly smoother scrolling and animations. Google says they’re both 25 percent brighter in direct sunlight — I have a hard time seeing the difference between the Pixel 6 Pro and Pixel 7 Pro at peak brightness, but in any case, both the 7 and 7 Pro are comfortable to use outdoors in bright conditions.

Big screens make for big devices, and even with the Pixel 7’s slight downsizing, both it and the Pixel 7 Pro look and feel like big phones. They use the same design language introduced with the Pixel 6 series, including that attention-grabbing horizontal camera bar. I’m still not fond of it, but this year’s treatment is a bit more refined. The Pixel 6 and 6 Pro went for a more playful look, with bolder colors contrasting heavily against a black camera bar.

The Pixel 7 and 7 Pro include two methods for biometric unlocking: fingerprint and face. Face unlock is a new addition this year, likely to address complaints that the Pixel 6 series’ under-display fingerprint scanner was too slow. Google has also done some work on the fingerprint scanner — company spokesperson Alex Moriconi tells The Verge that the sensor has a “30% latency improvement” over the one on the Pixel 6 series, and it does feel a beat faster to me.

These two calls represent a very small sample size, so this is something we’ll be keeping an eye on during long-term testing. Google has promised a Tensor-powered “clear calling” feature coming to the Pixel 7 phones (as well as Pixel 6) in the future that will make it easier to hear calls even in loud environments. In the meantime, I can’t say the Pixel 7 Pro has been my favorite phone to use as a phone.

Other improvements work fine, but they’re small updates and kind of underwhelming. The phone will automatically transcribe audio files sent as messages, which is helpful. But it’s also the kind of thing I figured the phone could already do, and anyway, my friends all send me old-fashioned text messages, so it’s not something that makes my life easier. Likewise, At a Glance, a handy little Assistant-powered status indicator on the lock screen and always-on display, now shows more context-based information, like the weather forecast in the morning — helpful but not life-changing.

Google has made some interesting improvements to both cameras’ zoom capabilities. The main camera now offers a sensor crop mode that uses the 12 megapixels at the center of its high-res main sensor to provide a full resolution, 2x zoom image without having to rely on digital zoom up-sampling. It’s very similar to the 2x crop mode Apple just included in the iPhone 14. Previous Pixel cameras have included a 2x zoom shortcut in the camera app, but Moriconi tells me that this was digital zoom, not a crop. The results are noticeably better, and I love to see it — I really like the 2x focal length for portrait mode.

The Pixel 7 Pro does this same crop trick with its high-res telephoto camera, essentially doubling the 5x zoom to 10x. This works well enough, though the results aren’t as good as the Samsung S22 Ultra’s dedicated 10x optical zoom. In decent lighting, the Pixel 7 Pro’s 10x images look passable, especially for sharing at social media sizes, but at larger sizes, details are obviously a little fuzzy. At a certain point, cropping in is just going to magnify the flaws of the tiny lens the sensor is attached to, and it looks like the 7 Pro has reached that threshold.

Sharpening old, blurry photos is an appealing proposition, and it sort of works, sometimes. I had the best results getting a usable image out of something obviously low-res taken with an old phone or camera, but other results were either too subtle to be noticeable or too processed-looking to be useful. Chalk this one up as a mixed bag and definitely not something to upgrade to a Pixel 7 just to get.

Overall, I think Google’s camera system is indeed keeping up with the very steep competition. There are some ways in which I prefer the iPhone 14’s photos — I prefer its warm color processing — and I still prefer Samsung’s portrait mode photos over the Pixel’s. But as a complete package, the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro have among the best cameras you can find on a smartphone right now.

I have no problem recommending the Pixel 7 and 7 Pro to those brave enough to look outside of the Apple / Samsung duopoly. They’re slightly better versions of the very good phones Google released last year. Their $599 and $899 price tags are competitive with comparable flagships that tend to start at $799 and reach well above $1,000 for the Pro / Ultra, etc. version of other devices. The Pixel 7 is a heck of a deal for someone who wants a flagship Android phone without paying flagship prices. With its extra bit of polish and that telephoto lens, the 7 Pro is a good option for someone who wants the best of what Android offers — without all the excess of the Galaxy S22 Ultra.

Every smart device now requires you to agree to a series of terms and conditions before you can use it — contracts that no one actually reads. It’s impossible for us to read and analyze every single one of these agreements. But we started counting exactly how many times you have to hit “agree” to use devices when we review them since these are agreements most people don’t read and definitely can’t negotiate.

The good news is that technology has progressed to the point where you can have your cake and eat it, too. The trick is that you first need to establish how large your screens need to be. I covered this in a previous article, but the basic rule of thumb is to measure the distance between your screen and the seat furthest away from the screen, divide this by a number between 3 and 6, and this will provide you with the preferred horizontal measurement of your screen. This is the recommended method for most people to be able to still be able to resolve enough detail with their eyes before the lines between objects becomes blurred.

Of course, when planning for your screen, you want to plan for the lowest common denominator, so if you want to ensure that those with poor eyesight can still see detail well, you will want to divide using a lower number (e.g., 3 or 4). This should ensure a large enough image for those viewers. However, in addition to a larger screen, you may need to also increase your image resolution. The higher the resolution, the closer your audience can sit to the screen and retain detail. This is an important consideration because resolution does not just scale with the size of your screen; at some point there is a maximum image size at which the projector"s native resolution breaks down and individual pixels can be seen. This is one of the critical factors in determining pixel pitch for LED video walls: how close is the closest viewer? Pixel pitch is the distance between pixels on each panel—the lower the pitch, the higher the cost. Bear in mind, there is almost always a trade-off to be found, regardless of display technology.

But this also brings up one more factor for consideration and that is what I call the "Wow!" factor. This is simply when a house of worship wants to ensure that the images on the screens are more than just supplementary; that they can stand on their own. For situations where the screens must play a more important role, or perhaps play a secondary role such as a movie night event, I will always recommend a brighter projector, a larger image size, and perhaps a step up in resolution. This guarantees that every seat in the house will be able to read text clearly and the imagery will be bright, clear, and vibrant.

If you don"t need that highest level of color accuracy, there are many projectors on the market that will produce very pleasing and colorful images with a single-chip, and this can save you a fair amount of money.

Finally, there is the oft-mentioned concept of future-proofing your system by choosing a higher resolution than you need right now. Honestly, while there is some wisdom in this practice, I would recommend that 1080p is plenty for the foreseeable future for most micro and small churches or other worship facilities. Larger venues could benefit from higher resolutions for the reasons listed already, but my contention is that most people will not be able to tell simply by looking at your screens whether you are using 4K or 1080p—and if they cannot tell, then why spend more money than you need to? We need to be careful that we are good stewards and not letting pride get in the way of that mission.

Chris, I think it"s important to recognize that hypothesis is not something we should be basing decisions on. I have 20/10 vision and I would say that we are fairly close to reaching max eye resolving power with 8K. Maybe 12K on the high side, but past that, you would have to have extremely good vision to tell the difference. And let"s not forget that there is the issue of the technology used to capture or create the content that is being displayed on such a display. And then there"s the whole equation of how far away from the display is the viewer, how large is the display, etc. but frankly, I think 12K is about as high as we should be looking to go given that a large percentage of the public have sight issues, be it near- or far-sightedness, which means max resolution that is based on perfect vision really doesn"t matter. 4K next to 1080p looks pretty amazing to me. ;)

If your phone has a fingerprint sensor, either on the display or on the back of your device, you can use your fingerprint to unlock your phone, authorize purchases, and unlock certain apps.

The fingerprint sensor is towards the bottom of your phone’s display. Put your finger on the fingerprint icon and wait for the fingerprint sensor to light up and vibrate.

Press & hold your finger firmly on the screen. Start by placing the center of your finger over the sensor. Follow the instructions to adjust your finger position to capture the edges and tips of your fingerprint.

Place your finger on your phone"s fingerprint sensor, either on the display or on the back of your device, until your phone unlocks. On some phones, first press the power button to wake the screen.

Tip: On Pixel 6 and later phones, firmly press and hold your fingerprint on the sensor until your phone unlocks. Learn how to troubleshoot fingerprint issues.

If you"re having trouble scanning your fingerprint in bright, outdoor sunlight, cover the fingerprint sensor while you firmly press and hold your fingerprint on the sensor.

What constitutes a great phone display? Is it the high resolution and pixel density? Well, that, and great screen quality test numbers, that"s why the Sony Xperia 1 IV specs with the 1644p 4K panel top our list. What about the high brightness and contrast that offer good outdoor visibility in the sun outdoors? That"s certainly important, but most of today"s flagships have HDR-certified panels that breach the 1000-nit barrier upwards to fit the standard, and their OLED tech ensures practically infinite contrast ratio, so it"s hard to pick on that merit alone.

Ditto for credible color gamut presentation, as per-unit display calibration is no longer a prerogative of Apple"s iPhones, while said HDR display flagships now cover both the standard RGB, and the wide P3 color gamut. Is it the actual white balance and DeltaE numbers then? It"s getting warmer, but throw in dynamically-adjusted refresh rate based on the content displayed, and you"ve narrowed it down to only a few choices when it comes to the best phone displays that we round up below.

Not only does Sony make the only phones with 4K display resolution, but it also calibrates them to a near perfect level. The flagship Sony Xperia 1 IV carries a 6.5" 4K display with the whopping 643 PPI pixel density, and our display benchmarks returned class-beating brightness, white balance and wide gamut color representation credibility levels, some of the best we"ve measured. Add the high dynamic refresh rate, and the Sony Xperia 1 IV has probably the best panel on a phone so far.

The CIE 1931 xy color gamut chart represents the set (area) of colors that a display can reproduce, with the sRGB colorspace (the highlighted triangle) serving as reference. The chart also provides a visual representation of a display"s color accuracy. The small squares across the boundaries of the triangle are the reference points for the various colors, while the small dots are the actual measurements. Ideally, each dot should be positioned on top of its respective square. The "x: CIE31" and "y: CIE31" values in the table below the chart indicate the position of each measurement on the chart. "Y" shows the luminance (in nits) of each measured color, while "Target Y" is the de