[HTC EVO 3D] curiousGeorge:
Nope, but it's embarrassing you have the gall to use the expression "in fact" to again rehash the opinionated party line. First of all, resolution IS an important measure of accuracy by very definition, unless you mean something like "subjective color quality" (by convention, screen calibrations are actually defined according to LCD-based conventions), and in that case the jury's certainly out -- if there can be a "jury" at all in the qualitative case. Saturation is always adjustable and highly qualitative. Qualitative quotes spewing the party line like "color temperature" and nonsense of the like don't cut it (much like the embarrassing trend in the early 2000's to label certain audio compression schemes as "warmer" or "less bodied" than others even if they're all scientifically indiscernible from the original signal!). The SGS (original) has a third party app that does something similar with the "calibration," but it could never quite pull off a perfectly accurate balance. Whenever you raise one of the thresholds, it affected the color representation of the others subtly, and the result was always somehow skewed toward a specific subset of hues.

Other quotes from naive reviewers saying the screen "doesn't appear pixelated" certainly don't take away from the simple fact that the resolution and aspect ratio of a qHD screen lead to a significantly more detailed viewing experience. It's rare for a screen to "appear pixelated" on casual view, but the increased detail and pixel density (not to mention lack of silly letterboxing and having the videos actually take up the whole screen without sacrifice) is more than noticeable -- and the higher the resolution, the easier on your eyes, even if it's not conscious. The eye tends to perceive discrepancies such as jaggies, pixelation, and aliasing all the way down to the absolute threshold of human vision and attempts to correct for them (and the attendant "blur" or lack of clarity) by constantly refocusing the eye. This leads to eye strain.

Regardless, you prove my point that sensationalist (no pun intended) tech blogs stress the qualitative, not the factual. These blogs are composed of a bunch of guys who get together and tell you what they "feel" about a certain device, replete with brand loyalty bias and unrepresentative 'tests', which is why it is precisely the source of the rubbish "SAMOLED >>> LCD" claims in the first place.

Also, each device can implement the same screen 'technology' differently. The HD2 has a better screen than the G2 in terms of color accuracy (and certainly more than the Galaxy S 1's blue tint, pixelation/blur/colorwarping) and even outdoor visibility. And it wasn't even a SUPER lcd. The Sensation probably has a different screen than the Evo 3D despite shared "technology" in a similar sense. It isn't contoured like the Sensation, doesn't have a 3D layer, and the few "hands on" views qualitatively asses the screen as being quite "vivid" indeed. Even so, does that make it "better" in any way whatsoever?

Quantitatively, given what we have to go on so far, it wins. Qualitatively, the jury is out -- but given SAMOLED's track record, it's not safe to knock the color accuracy of LCD just yet -- oversaturation be hung for its deceitful popular sentiment. Again, the same conclusion is drawn; namely, that of inconclusiveness with statistical bias toward the only factual victor: the S-LCD technology itself. Implementation of course will play a crucial role in both cases, and the Evo 3D has yet to be reviewed enough (in an unbiased scientific fashion) to declare it the sure winner in the "color accuracy" department like it already is in resolution, pixel density, aspect ratio, and 3D capability.

Also, "run-on" doesn't mean quite what you think it does. It might also behoove you to look into the placebo effect and popular sentiment bias before reiterating the same things.