The Google Pixel 4 XL Review: Stuck In The Past In 2019by Andrei Frumusanu on November 8, 2019 11:30 AM EST
- Posted in
- Pixel 4
- Pixel 4 XL
The display of the Pixel 4 is one of the phone’s main features thanks to the 90Hz refresh rate. As mentioned in the introduction, the displays on the Pixel 4 series this year is again dual-sourced between LG and Samsung. The regular Pixel 4 receives an LG panel, while the 4 XL that we’re testing and reviewing today, uses a Samsung display.
Android Q promised to have implemented a new iteration of Google’s colour management system, and for the first time, the Photos app is actually able to properly display wide gamut pictures. Unfortunately, it’s still a very limited system in apps as they cannot display differing gamut pictures side-by-side, so for example the thumbnail view is shown only in sRGB. Most importantly, Chrome by default still doesn’t support wide-gamut content as you have to force it in the engine settings, and this implementation doesn’t use the OS’s CMS handling.
We move on to the display calibration and fundamental display measurements of the Pixel 4 XL screen. As always, we thank X-Rite and SpecraCal, as our measurements are performed with an X-Rite i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer, with the exception of black levels which are measured with an i1Display Pro colorimeter. Data is collected and examined using SpectraCal's CalMAN software.
Starting off with the brightness, the Pixel 4 XL is relatively conservative as it peaks out at 438 nits in all scenarios. It’s again very odd here as Google can’t seem to make up its mind on whether it wants to offer an auto-brightness boost or not. Last year, the Pixel 3 only had it available in its Adaptive mode, whilst this year the Pixel 4 doesn’t offer it all, even though the display drivers actually has the high-brightness mode implemented.
In terms of greyscale calibration and accuracy, on my unit things differed greatly based on brightness. At maximum brightness, the Pixel 4 XL was seemingly quite accurate with good colour balance and gamma reproduction. At our standard 200cd/m² measurement point however, things are quite worse. First off, all there’s a more notable colour shift towards greens on the unit which isn’t great. Following that, there’s also creeping issues with the gamma calibration as it’s non-linear and deviates a lot more from the 2.2 target. What this results in is some shades, especially at the higher levels, appear darker than they should be.
I’ve also noted and captured some sort of bug in the display behaviour; when I was measuring at minimum brightness, I encountered some really bad results. I’ve seen this mentioned by some other reviewers and the issue went away when I toggled the screen refresh rate. The odd thing though, is that I wasn’t able to immediately reproduce it afterwards and results on the new measurements were quite ok. The colour shift the phone took was extremely noticeable at the time the bug took place.
"Natural" Greyscale colours
In terms of dE2000, the biggest culprit to the average 2.29 result for me is the green tint of whites as well as the slightly off gamma.
In the sRGB gamut, the Pixel 4 XL does well with a dE2000 of 1.71. The biggest issue again is a shift in the tones towards green, but also seemingly very slight oversaturation of all the tones.
Display P3 Gamut
The Display P3 gamut performs a lot better. Here while the green tint is still present, the saturation levels are better and thus the Pixel 4 XL ends up with an excellent dE2000 of 1.17.
Finally, in the GMB test, the Pixel 4 XL ends up quite average with a score of 2.34 as it’s showcasing tones that are too dark, a green tint in the whites, with some hue errors for a few tones.
Display Conclusion – Good, but not A+
Overall, the Pixel 4 XL’s display characteristics beyond it’s 90Hz refresh rate are quite average. Whilst Google has been able to improve the calibration compared to what we measured on the regular Pixel 3 last year and the 2 XL the year before that, it’s still quite a bit behind what some other vendors are able to achieve. The display’s lower brightness is also a bit of an issue in direct sunlight as it lacks any kind of boost behaviour. Finally, the remaining characteristics such as viewing angles and sharpness are excellent, but that’s just generally a common characteristic of panels with these specifications.
The results today aren’t really a surprise to me given Google’s track record with the displays on the Pixel series, however it does stand in contrast to what the company was proclaiming at launch: “A+ rating Best Smartphone Display Awards” really doesn’t mean anything at all if, first of all, it’s a sponsored award, and secondly, if the measurements aren’t representative of a random production unit. Make of it what you will.
Post Your CommentPlease log in or sign up to comment.
View All Comments
MooseNSquirrel - Sunday, November 17, 2019 - linkJust when you think comments cant get any dumber, one gets proven wrong.
MScrip - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link-- "I dunno if they're smurfing to not upset their partners..."
Their partners sell 300 million units a quarter or 1.2 billion units a year.
Meanwhile... Google is lucky to sell 12 million Pixels the entire year.
So I'm not really sure the partners are worried about the Pixel... :)
surt - Sunday, November 10, 2019 - linkBut the question is, would Google eat into partner sales if they made a good phone?
MScrip - Sunday, November 10, 2019 - linkEven if Google somehow quadrupled their sales... that's still a pitiful 48 million units per year.
Samsung can sell that many in TWO MONTHS. And that is *just* Samsung.
We haven't even mentioned Huawei, Xiaomi, Oppo, and the countless other vendors who contribute to the 1.2 BILLION units sold per year.
So I don't think Google can do anything to "eat into" partner sales. There's simply too many of them.
Pixel 5 could be the greatest Android phone ever made... but it's not gonna put a dent in partner sales.
austonia - Monday, November 11, 2019 - linkPixel4-XL-128GB here. better compared to the iPhone Pro\XL, which is more expensive for models above 64GB, but then have more storage and extra camera.
the Google hardware seems pretty serious to me. first non-Apple with real face unlock (Soli-accelerated), squeeze for assistant, 90hz amoled at 1440p, Pixel Neural Core, 6GB RAM, etc. but of course the main draw is software and integration... it just works, and more sensibly than iPhone, IMO.
Spencer1 - Sunday, November 17, 2019 - linkI wish people would stop spouting this nonsense. Are we pretending the Huawei Mate 20 Pro with its full array of dot projected 3D facial scanning didn’t exist?
727200 - Friday, November 8, 2019 - linkOuch. I really don't understand Google's approach with regards to the Pixel line, especially the 4. I can swallow the fact that it's not the most bleeding edge processor in lieu of decent software. But they really sold themselves short with the 4. Soli is half baked, so is the 90hz panel regulation, and then you double down by excluding a fingerprint reader? Oh, and ZERO headphone adapter? All for a flagship price?? It screams "me too" while implementing terrible differentiation (aside from the camera). I'll pass.
ElBerryKM13 - Friday, November 8, 2019 - linkApple releases devices with 64gb "Oh so innovative, what a company" Google pixes releases 64gb "device is stuck in the past"
Andrei Frumusanu - Friday, November 8, 2019 - linkhttps://www.anandtech.com/show/14892/the-apple-iph...
"Unfortunately, the storage tiers this year also remain the same, at 64GB, 256GB and 512GB. I do find it extremely conservative of Apple to continue the 64GB base model given that the majority of the competition has switched over to 128GB as a minimum."
bji - Friday, November 8, 2019 - linkWhy bother with evidence? Haters are gonna delude themselves into hating no matter the facts.