Originally Posted by afv011
That Nokia screen does not look more readable than the Note 3. Actually the Note 3 has deeper blacks, so to me its display looks better.
The Nokia screen is LCD vs. the Samsung's Super AMOLED, which would explain the deeper blacks. However that picture is deceiving, since there's a reflection that makes the Nokia screen not look as black.
Personally, I prefer LCD over AMOLED for two main reasons -- power consumption, and pixels.
AMOLED consumes power in proportion to the number of pixels that are "on" (that is, not black) and brightness, while LCD consumes power only in proportion to brightness (backlight). As long as you can stay with a mostly black theme, AMOLED isn't too bad. But open a white page (WP's email reading pane, even in the dark theme, or most websites) and power consumption skyrockets on AMOLED.
Pixels are maybe less important at the 6" 1080p density, but there's still the principle of the matter. Samsung reverted back to Super AMOLED pentile displays from the Super AMOLED Plus RGB display they used in the SGSII. Pentile displays are "1080p equivalent
", and don't actually have 1920x1080 pixels due to the pentile subpixel arrangement. That means they tend towards fuzzy text and poorer color reproduction (more prone to blue or red push since the green subpixels are smaller and spaced farther apart). Both issues are most notable on white text, where you end up with fuzzy letters with blue and red tints rather than crisp, white lettering.
Given that Nokia eventually switched from LCD to AMOLED for their previous devices (920 had LCD, 925/928/1020 have AMOLED), one would expect that there will eventually be a 1520 derivation with AMOLED as well. But so far Nokia has used proper RGB AMOLED screens, not pentile, and I would expect that to continue.
For what it's worth, Nokia gets nice black levels on their LCDs through the use of polarity filters. This has an added benefit of being more readable in bright sunlight and reducing reflections.