[HTC EVO 3D] curiousGeorge:
In terms of the screen, samoled used a pentile matrix and had a blue tint due to weak blue diode bias. (Wikipedia will tell you about amoled/samoled). Effective resolution was 392x653. Also used 300% of the power of an LCD on white pages (web sites) and such, despite Sammy's 'unequivocal' ad campaign. Colors simply appear oversaturated -- the only color that is definitively better is black -- and that's just because the screen shuts them off.

So yay for oversaturation and "infinite contrast ratio"? Hm.

Samoled+ just allows more power in ("brighter") and replaces the inaccurate Pentile nonsense with a normal LCD-like RGB strip.

The Evo 3D will have a screen that is SLCD, not normal LCD. It will have all the benefits of traditional LCD with the added benefit of a decent aspect ratio (no more letterboxing on HD content, meaning no more downsizing to fit the screen or cutting off part of the image to "stretch" it). In terms of resolution, a SAMOLED (not "plus") WVGA (really more like 653x392) screen would render a 720p video natively with proper aspect ratio (and nothing cut off) at 653x367 effective resolution with letterboxing. A qHD screen would use every pixel of its 960x540. That's 518,400 pixels devoted to showing your movie in non-tinted, correctly-saturated accuracy. The SAMOLED would give you under 240,000 effective pixels in dubious color "accuracy." The qHD display would give you ALMOST 2.2x THE DETAIL OF THE SAMOLED WVGA SCREEN without aliasing, tint issues, letterboxing, or other concerns, allowing full use of the screen's physical size, area and resolution. Of course, compared to a WVGA LCD/SAMOLED+ (note the plus, which finally puts amoled back in line with LCD subpixel resolution), you'll get real quantitative 800x480 resolution, but only 800x450 (or commonly 800x448) of which can necessarily be used to display most video without cropping off entire portions of the video (and as such letterboxing is obviously included). In comparison to these existing (s)LCD screens and the new SAMOLED+ (note the "plus"), the qHD screen would still deliver a whopping 44-45% more actual screen resolution for all 16:9 video (360p, 480p/DVD, 720p, 1080p, or any proper scaling thereof) than either WVGA LCD or SAMOLED+...and certainly without any of the dubious color representation concerns of SAMOLED. Oh, and with 3D, too, for whatever that's worth.

In regard to color accuracy/representation, also recall that all modern (and older) movies are shot for and made to play on cinema screens, and your DVDs and Blu-rays are produced to display properly only on LCD screens (like your HDTV, computer monitor, portable DVD player, etc). I find the screen of a Galaxy S, for instance, with its ridiculous (but necessary to prolong screen life) blue tint and oversaturated screen, combined with its flimsy design and junky GPS (as well as horrible default filesystem, etc), gives off a kiddy-grade fisher-price toy-like feel akin to some cheap gimmick of a level that by comparison makes even the corniest "3D" tricks seem utterly revolutionary.

No, we don't know if there will be any sickly tint issues or placebo sensationalized "CRISPER NATURALER MORE REALIFFIC" nonsense born of Samsung-generated hype for its own pet technology, but even if it's a perfectly untinted and properly saturated screen (while retaining the excellent contrast ratio), there's still no arguing that ~45% more real resolution in 16:9 videos (or 35% more in web browsing and other "full screen" activities) is the only subjective fact to go on here, coupled with the fact that cinema produces (and meticulously fine-tunes, color-adjusts, balances, and filters) its content for the brightness, contrast ratio, and color representation of good LCD displays.

45% more resolution in your movies with the guarantee that they'll look as the studio intended is damnable reason not to blatantly regurgitate the party line that "OMG AMOLED >>>>> LCD BOOO LOOK AT THE YOUTUBE VIDS" (which by the way is patent BS -- don't forget you're viewing the video itself on a single screen of existing technology!), pay attention to the facts.

Each screen has its merits. Each screen has its strengths. It is not only misinformed but bigoted, unscientific, and patently ridiculous to claim SAMOLED is "better" than SLCD. They are "different" -- or qHD SLCD, statistically speaking, is better for the reasons I described. Somebody aught to sticky a real comparison before the uninformed or placebo-delusional start to sway the opinion of others in a classic case of the "blind" (pun intended) leading the blind.