Display Measurement

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.

Display Measurement - Maximum Brightness

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. 

 
SpectraCal CalMAN

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.


SpectraCal CalMAN
"Natural" Greyscale colours

Display Measurement - Greyscale Accuracy

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.


SpectraCal CalMAN
sRGB Gamut

Display Measurement - Saturation Accuracy - sRGB dE2000

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.


SpectraCal CalMAN
Display P3 Gamut

Display Measurement - Saturation Accuracy - Display-P3

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.


SpectraCal CalMAN
Gretag-Macbeth

Display Measurement - Gretag–Macbeth Colour Accuracy

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.

GPU Performance Battery Life - Average To Meagre
POST A COMMENT

159 Comments

View All Comments

  • tipoo - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    I dunno if they're smurfing to not upset their partners or genuinely just don't give enough time and thought to hardware development, but Google perpetually seems stuck in the mode of "maybe next year, they'll get really serious about hardware". I'm starting to believe it'll never happen, apart from the Pixel 2 camera catching everyone by surprise.

    At 100 dollars more than the iPhone 11, this phone is a hard stretch for me, the 90Hz OLED is nice but the battery life is correspondingly worse.
    Reply
  • Notmyusualid - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    Nokia, I remember, were kinda out of step with the hardware too.

    Look where they went...
    Reply
  • RSAUser - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    Pretty good? Reply
  • s.yu - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    Nokia leased their name to a bunch of people and capital from Foxconn who now formed HMD. Reply
  • Teckk - Saturday, November 9, 2019 - link

    HMD is a Finnish company I think, not Chinese?
    They have decent mid range devices, but they just don't launch a top of the line device.
    Reply
  • s.yu - Saturday, November 9, 2019 - link

    HMD is formed in Finland, mostly by Chinese or by Finnish working for Foxconn. Reply
  • yacoub35 - Saturday, November 9, 2019 - link

    Pixel 3/3A/4: A $400 phone with an $800 price tag.
    OnePlus 7T: An $800 phone with a $600 price tag.
    Reply
  • Drumsticks - Monday, November 11, 2019 - link

    Not sure you can lump the literally $400, and very good, 3A that is often on sale in with the other two there... Reply
  • RaduR - Monday, November 11, 2019 - link

    I will never understand how come OnePlus price is double vs Xiaomi Reply
  • boozed - Friday, November 8, 2019 - link

    There are phones with "Nokia" labels on them but Nokia doesn't have anything to do with them other than collecting royalties. Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now