Garmin MIP / AMOLED Palette

Yes, agreed. 

Ofc it's something that most of us already know [*]. And I'm not sure if the "realistic photo", having been apparently run through an AI filter to make the original screenshot look like a faded old photograph, will help us to do that.

[*] any CIQ dev who has a MIP device knows this. (So I think part of the objection is the idea that OP is telling us something we already know, as if it should be breaking news, because OP is just discovering it for himself.)

If someone doesn't own a MIP device, then the app in question (which displays the 64-colour MIP palette) won't exactly help, since you need a MIP device to see the colours as they would appear on a MIP device. Unless someone takes a photo of the app's output on a real MIP device, which would actually be helpful.

EDIT: sorry, yeah, it's a real photo of a real MIP device, I'm a complete dumbass

This is exactly what Dave did.

FlowState said:

And I'm not sure if the "realistic photo", having been apparently run through an AI filter to make the original screenshot look like a faded old photograph, will help us to do that.

I don't think he did this. The scratches might be real.

flocsy🤠 said:

This is exactly what Dave did.

dpawlyk said:

I don't think he did this. The scratches might be real.

Yeah I think you're right.

I guess any perceived "gradients", "fading" or other irregularities are probably down to lighting conditions, or maybe compression / resizing artifacts 

Sorry, my mistake!

FlowState said:

Yeah, I concede your point. I was just trying (for once) to give him the benefit of the doubt. I have to admit his statement jumped out at me for the exact same reason that you cited.

It "jump out" for flocsy too. (The "strange" things I said repeat his earlier post).

dpawlyk said:

It "jump out" for flocsy too

I agree.

dpawlyk said:

(The "strange" things I said repeat his earlier post).

To be clear, I didn't mean what *you* said is strange, I said it was strange for OP to be stating the obvious for a couple of things as if it was novel info (i.e. screenshots from the sim and the real device look the same on the same display, and MIP looks different/worse than other displays). I actually wanted to make a comment to that effect originally.

I *think* you know that, but I'm not sure based on your wording.

Perhaps it would've been better if what was said in the OP was prefaced with "as we all know" or "not to state the obvious". idk

FlowState said:

To be clear, I didn't mean what *you* said is strange, I said it was strange for OP to be stating the obvious for a couple of things as if it was novel info (i.e. screenshots from the sim and the real device look the same on the same display,

This might be what you meant but what you wrote was ambiguous (especially coming after a "strong" criticism of what I wrote). What does "it" refer to? Saying "what he wrote" instead of "it" would have been better.

FlowState said:

Perhaps it would've been better if what was said in the OP was prefaced with "as we all know" or "not to state the obvious". idk

Yes, it would have. I was going to say something like this. "as expected" would have worked too. Providing the screen shot and the clip from the simulator suggests people (including himself) might expect they could be different.

================

I've seen a few cases where people are confused as to why the displays don't match what's presented in the advertisements and on the boxes. Some people think that Garmin is "dishonestly" manipulating things. They are just using screen shots displayed on better "monitors". (While there is an issue there, I don't think there's a good alternative. Taking pictures of actual screens has its own issues.) 

dpawlyk said:

This might be what you meant but what you wrote was ambiguous (especially coming after a "strong" criticism of what I wrote). What does "it" refer to? Saying "what he wrote" instead of "it" would have been better.

You're right, sorry about that.

Actually I didn't mean for what I said to be a strong criticism of what you wrote at all. I agree with what you wrote in general, but I was also trying to give him the benefit of the doubt.

I definitely meant that what *he* said was strange, as in stating the obvious as if it was news to everyone else.

Again, I was actually ready to say pretty much the same things that you and flocsy said, but for once I tried to hold my tongue.

dpawlyk said:

I've seen a few cases where people are confused as to why the displays don't match what's presented in the advertisements and on the boxes. Some people think that Garmin is "dishonestly" manipulating things. They are just using screen shots displayed on better "monitors". (While there is an issue there, I don't think there's a good alternative. Taking pictures of actual screens has its own issues.) 

This is strictly my opinion, but it is kind of dishonest to show a product "render" and present it as if it's reality. Same goes for taking a picture of a real device but superimposing a nice screenshot of the display's contents onto the display.

(But advertising and marketing are inherently dishonest anyway - imo)

Again I agree with what you are saying in general. Both approaches have issues.

As an illustration of the issues of taking real photos of products / screens, the real photo that DaveBrillhart took looked so bad to me that I didn't think it was a real photo. But that's entirely on me. He did say he took a photo of the real device, my fault for not listening.

FlowState said:

This is strictly my opinion, but it is kind of dishonest to show a product "render" and present it as if it's reality. Same goes for taking a picture of a real device but superimposing a nice screenshot of the display's contents onto the display.

I don't entirely disagree. But I don't think trying to make it accurate would be fair either (it might make things look worse than they do in reality). The MIP displays are kind of weird.

FlowState said:

As an illustration of the issues of taking real photos of products / screens, the real photo that DaveBrillhart took looked so bad to me that I didn't think it was a real photo. But that's entirely on me. He did say he took a photo of the real device, my fault for not listening.

It would have taken more work for no apparent benefit to do what you what you thought happened at first. That realization might have been enough t reconsider what you thought.