Home  ›  Phones  ›  Motorola  ›

Motorola RAZR maxx Ve

 

Info Photos News Forum Reviews  53  

all discussions

show all 22 replies

Downgrade from the V710 on the Display

wnrussell

Apr 23, 2007, 5:49 PM
The 65,536 (16-bit)display is a deal killer.

What a shame to downgrade from a V710 display to have this phone. The usual websites were wrong again on the display being 262k:

http://www.phonearena.com/htmls/Motorola-maxx-Ve-pho ... »
http://www.mobiledia.com/phones/motorola/razr-maxx-v ... »
http://www.mobile88.com/mobilegallery/specification. ... »
...
The Rever

Apr 23, 2007, 6:06 PM
Isn't it possible that this web site has it wrong instead? Maybe?

But with the size of both displays (wow), it would indeed be a disappointment if it is only 65K.
...
RavenStar

May 4, 2007, 6:30 PM
It is only a 65K - I called Motorola today to double check ☹️
...
wnrussell

May 9, 2007, 6:33 PM
RavenStar said:
It is only a 65K - I called Motorola today to double check ☹️

It is a beautiful display. Read this thread "Does it matter?" by Rich Brome Apr 23, 2007, 8:43 PM

The Maxx packs in as many pixels as the Motorola Q.
...
gunny

Apr 23, 2007, 6:09 PM
weak sauce!!!!!!!!
...
CardinalRule

Apr 23, 2007, 7:30 PM
I got the phone yesterday and the inside screen is much sharper than the outside screen. I am not qualified to tell you exactly what the resolution is, but if I'm going on what resolutions people have mentioned the outside is 65K...definitely not the inside though.
...
wnrussell

Apr 23, 2007, 7:48 PM
CardinalRule said:
I got the phone yesterday and the inside screen is much sharper than the outside screen. I am not qualified to tell you exactly what the resolution is, but if I'm going on what resolutions people have mentioned the outside is 65K...definitely not the inside though.

Verizon could both be wrong and you could be right:

Testman - Video/Camera

2.0MP camera with autofocus and flash
2.2" 240x320 internal TFT display with up to 65K colors
1.7" 120x160 external TFT display with up to 65K colors
Camera Resolution: 1600x1200, 1280x960, 640x480, 320x240
Color Effects: Antique, Black & White, Negative and Normal
Fun Frames for Photos
...
Cesar2828

Apr 26, 2007, 6:02 PM
2.2" 240x320 internal TFT display with up to 65k colors

its 262k colors
...
bigack

Apr 23, 2007, 7:35 PM
still looks great to me!!! that would never kill a deal for me????
...
Rich Brome

Apr 23, 2007, 7:43 PM
Seriously? I look at phones for a living, and I have a hard time telling whether a display is 65K or 262K. Only with certain images (with a shallow gradient) can I tell. I don't think it makes big difference at all.

Much more important is the resolution. This one is QVGA, which automatically makes it a huge step up from the V3m and V710.

Other factors also play a larger role, IMO. If it's STN, that's automatically pretty crappy. But simply newer-generation TFTs are much better than older TFT displays.
...
wnrussell

Apr 23, 2007, 7:58 PM
Rich Brome said:
This one is QVGA, which automatically makes it a huge step up from the V3m and V710.

That makes sense. Most users would just go by the data in the comparison chart, Type: LCD (Color TFT/TFD)

If QVGA is a big difference, the comparison could be improved by showing that.
...
Rich Brome

Apr 23, 2007, 8:07 PM
...Most users would just go by the data in the comparison chart, Type: LCD (Color TFT/TFD)

If QVGA is a big difference, the comparison could be improved by showing that.

It does. QVGA means 240 x 320 pixels, which is shown.

There isn't a name for other resolutions like 176 x 220, so it's shown as "240 x 320" to be consistent so you can compare resolutions side-by-side.

In fact, resolution is how it decides which phone is "better" in the comparison highlighting. So if you compare the V710, V3m, and Ve, the Ve is highlighted in bold under "Display" because it's QVGA:

https://www.phonescoop.com/phones/compare.php?id%5B% ... »

🙂
...
wnrussell

Apr 23, 2007, 8:33 PM
Rich Brome said:
...Most users would just go by the data in the comparison chart, Type: LCD (Color TFT/TFD)

If QVGA is a big difference, the comparison could be improved by showing that.

It does. QVGA means 240 x 320 pixels, which is shown.

There isn't a name for other resolutions like 176 x 220, so it's shown as "240 x 320" to be consistent so you can compare resolutions side-by-side.

So then essentially, you are saying that the Maxx Ve packs in as many pixels as the Q, correct?

LCD (Color TFT/TFD)
Colors: 65,536 (16-bit)
320 x 240 pixels
...
Rich Brome

Apr 23, 2007, 8:53 PM
Yes.

The screen is physically smaller, (2.2" vs. 2.4") so there are more pixels per inch on the Ve.

That means the Ve's display will actually look sharper than the Q's, even though both can display the exact same amount of detail and information.
...
digger837

May 8, 2007, 8:14 PM
I have a 710 my wife has a 815 and the max is crystal clear in comparison.
...
prokanda

May 13, 2007, 1:06 AM
that's because the 710 and 815 (identical displays.. even though they both have 262k colors) both only display.. what.. 176x220? while resolution (I've only used qvga since my vm4050.. had the mm5600, chocolate and xv6700 since) plays a huge roll in clarity, if the color depth isn't there, you can tell. I'm a huge gadget freak and I like to make tons of ringers and wallpapers for my phones. I've had phones in the past with 65k colors and they simply aren't as clear. Compare a razr to a chocolate or the inside screen of an enV (vx9900) and there's a vast improvement... but not only because of the bump in resolution. My xv6700 has a qvga display (granted, it's larger) as does my Chocolate... and even though the chocolates screen is much smalle...
(continues)
...
TheMrBillShow

May 7, 2007, 2:11 PM
THANK YOU RICH...

You guys are discussing the diference between 16-bit and 18-bit color depth per pixel... IT IS ALMOST MEANINGLESS...!!! 16-bit depth is plenty on small format displays... resolution (the actual number of pixels) is what counts...

~ TMBS ~
...
ArmySF

Apr 23, 2007, 8:19 PM
If its made out of cheap light plastic with no weight to it, then thats bogus.

Who else has held one that can describe the build quality.
...
Rich Brome

Apr 23, 2007, 8:54 PM
I have. I thought it felt more solid than the V3, actually.
...
213ninja

Apr 23, 2007, 9:09 PM
umm, according to moto it's magnesium, aluminum, and glass.....not plastic.
...
ArmySF

Apr 23, 2007, 10:06 PM
OK thanks guys
...
ChocoTaco369

May 7, 2007, 6:35 PM
I held it at the Verizon store on Saturday. Lots more stable than my E815, and my E815 is 2 years old and still operating flawlessly *knock on wood*. If the E815, with all its play and plastic-like feel, can go 2 years easily, I imagine this phone will hold up just fine.
...
prokanda

May 13, 2007, 1:10 AM
I love ChocoTacos..... oh... and yeah, it does feel rather rock-solid...
...

You must log in to reply.

Please log in to report a message to the moderator.


all discussions

Subscribe to Phone Scoop News with RSS Follow @phonescoop on Twitter Phone Scoop on Facebook Subscribe to Phone Scoop on YouTube Follow on Instagram

 

All content Copyright 2001-2020 Phone Factor, LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Content on this site may not be copied or republished without formal permission.