Engadget posted a short hands-on review on the new Nokia N9. They claim that the display uses Nokia's Clear Black Display (CBD) technology - although Nokia's own press release never mentioned that. CBD adds a special filter on top of the display which blocks light reflection - and helps the AMOLED perform better outdoors.

In any case, Engadget say that the AMOLED display "is truly a sight to behold, with stunning viewing angles, a curved Gorilla Glass front, and some pretty excellent (for AMOLED) performance out in the sunlight... It's easily one of this new phone's great strengths".

Update: There are reports that Nemoptic declared bankruptcy, and the web site is now down. That's a shame, they seemed to have very interesting technology. Hopefully someone will pick it up and continue development...
 

Nemoptic has developed the world's first display that combines a color OLED with a monochrome Bistable Nematic LCD (Binem). The idea is that you can choose whether you want to have an OLED displays, or a e-paper like display, depending on the application and lighting condition (this somewhat reminds us of Pixel-Qi displays).

A Binem display, which is patented by Nemoptic offers the optical performance of a normal Nematic display but is still retains the image even without any power (i.e. it is bistable, like e-paper). Nemoptic displays are suitable for e-readers and other applications. Nemoptic claims that their displays offer a very high reflectance, a good contrast and good colors. They can also be made on flexible substrates - which means that the OLED/Binem display can probably be made flexible, too.

A few days ago Nokia has announced their ClearBlack-Display (or CBD) which is an AMOLED display that performs better outdoors. Today we learned that CBD means a polarized filter that sits on top of the display, and blocks light. This helps it perform better outdoors. So CBD is not the same as a Super-AMOLED display (which is an AMOLED with a touch-panel built-in).

In the photo above, you can see the Nokia's E7 (left) vs a Galaxy S with a Super-AMOLED.

Engadget has tested Nokia's new CBD display (in a prototype E7) against the iPhone's S-LCD. Both do not perform very good in intense, direct sunlight, but the CBD has a very slight edge as it offers better visibility in extreme viewing angles.

Nokia has launched three new smartphones today, two of which (The E7 and the C6-01) use Nokia's new Clear Black Display (CBD) technology which is said to perform better outdoors than a normal AMOLED. Nokia says that the display is a polarized AMOLED. This might actually be just Nokia's name for a Samsung made Super-AMOLED display, we do not know yet.

Nokia E7

Engadget really likes the display: "The screen is simply gorgeous -- ClearBlack may be a gimmicky trademark, but CBD's black levels are no joke. We're definitely talking Super AMOLED degrees of awesome...".

Update: There are actually three new phones, the C6-01, C7 and E7.

Nokia has just announced three new Smartphones - the E7, C6 and the C7. All use AMOLED touch displays. The E7 has a 4" display, the C7 a 3.5" one and the C6 a 3.2" one. The E7 and C6 displays use Nokia's new ClearBlack Display technology (CBD) - which is said to deliver better outdoor visibility.

The phones will be released towards the end of 2010, in Europe. The E7 will cost €495, the C6 will cost €260 and the C7 will cost €335.

Engadget has posted an interesting post about the HTC Desire SLCD and AMOLED displays. While the AMOLED is more vibrant and bright, the S-LCD shows a sharper image (this is due to the AMOLED's PenTile pixel matrix that uses two subpixels per pixel instead of three). They also claim that the SLCD offers a better contrast - even though the AMOLED's blacks are much blacker. This is again due to the PenTile arrangement.

In the sunlight visibility test, the AMOLED actually comes on top, but both are hardly readable. HTC's glossy glass is to blame for this, really. In terms of power efficiency, Engadget say that the AMOLED comes on top - after 5 hours of showing movies, the LCD-Desire ran out of power while the AMOLED one had 30% power left (HTC and Samsung say otherwise, by the way). Here's a video comparing both phones:

The nice guys over at APUS have kindly sent me an OLED watch for review. This is their Alpha Dark Force, which uses a blue PMOLED (they have other watches that use red or white PMOLEDs). APUS are selling the phones on-line in their web shop. The watches are also available in Amazon.com. The Alpha Dark Force, shown above costs $129.

First impressions

When you first take it out of the box, you notice something strange - the display is off. Then you realize that that's how it's supposed to be - the watch does not display anything until you press a button. Then it shows you the time for a few seconds, and turns off again. APUS say that this is to preserve the battery, which will drain in a couple of days if the display will be always on. More on this later.

Engadget is the latest blog to test the iPhone's new "Retina" IPS-LCD display against Samsung's Super-AMOLED (Galaxy S phone). The iPhone display is much brighter, and actually has a slightly better viewing angle. When viewed outside, they actually prefer the Super-AMOLED, although the displays are quite similar in that area. Obviously the iPhone's 4 resolution is way better. The Super-AMOLED is said to have stronger color saturation and sharper definition, even though it looks pixelated compared to the iPhone's display. Basically what they say is that both displays are good, and it all comes down to personal preference.

Check out the full post, it includes a lot of photos and a couple of videos.

TechBlog has done an interesting test, putting a Super-AMOLED vs a 'regular' AMOLED and an LCD in direct sunlight. They used 3 phones for the comparison: Samsung Galaxy S (4" 480x800 super-AMOLED ), HTC Desire (3.7" 480x800 AMOLED) and a Sony Ericsson Xperia X10 (4" 480x854 TFT LCD).

It seems that the best display is still the LCD, but the Super-AMOLED (which is a lot better than the regular AMOLED) comes close - and most of the times the difference is negligible.