Análisis de la pantalla de los Google Pixel 6 y Pixel 6 Pro: tecnología OLED de valor cuestionable

Los Pixel no son ajenos a los precios de los teléfonos de gama alta. Sin embargo, durante todo este tiempo, parecía que Google aún no había lanzado un verdadero buque insignia espiritual con el que estuvieran contentos, al menos no hasta ahora con elPixel 6 y el Pixel 6 Pro. Este año, está claro que los nuevos teléfonos de Google son los que enorgullecen a la empresa, pero por lo que sabemos, eso podría ser solo palabrería. Entonces, ¿qué mejor manera de demostrar el resurgimiento del Pixel que poner a prueba su esfuerzo y compromiso con la pantalla?

Acerca de esta reseña:Los Google Pixel 6 y Google Pixel 6 Pro que se utilizaron para esta reseña se compraron personalmente en Google Store. Google Ireland le proporcionó a mi colega Adam Conway un Pixel 6 Pro, pero la unidad no se utilizó para esta reseña. Google no tuvo ninguna participación en el contenido de esta reseña.

Google Pixel 6

Gran brillo de pantalla por su precio.
Buena precisión de color en modonatural

Control de tono de sombra inferior con bajo brillo
Los colores más oscuros desarrollan un tinte
Terrible sistema de brillo automático
Cambios de color en ángulos agudos
Susceptible a fallas en la uniformidad de la pantalla.

Google Pixel 6 Pro

Excelente consistencia de imagen
Brillo máximo respetable
Gran control del tono de sombra
Gran precisión de color en modoNatural
Excelente precisión en escala de grises

Terrible sistema de brillo automático

Tabla de contenido

Introducción
Metodología
Perfiles de color
Brillo de la pantalla
Mapeo de contraste y tonos
Precisión del balance de blancos y la escala de grises
Precisión del color
Reproducción HDR
Observaciones finales
Mostrar tabla de datos

Hardware

Esta vez, Google cambió su fórmula de lanzamiento, optando por un solo tamaño general (grande)para sus dos teléfonos principales. Los teléfonos ahora se diferencian por su conjunto de características, y el Pixel 6, el más premium, adopta el apodo "Pro". En términos de precios, Google nos sorprendió con cifras que superan a sus teléfonos anteriores, así como a gran parte de la competencia, para los respectivos niveles de ambos Pixel dentro del mercado de teléfonos inteligentes. Es cuestionable que se hayan recortado gastosen alguna parte.Dado que los componentes de la pantalla generalmente constituyen la mayor parte de la lista de materiales de un teléfono, es allí donde generalmente se encuentran las primeras deficiencias.

El Pixel 6 Pro viene equipado con una pantalla OLED de 6,71 pulgadas y tiene el mejor hardware de pantalla que Google ha puesto en un teléfono hasta la fecha. Utiliza una configuración de gama alta de Samsung Display, aunque es un paso atrás en comparación con su última generación de OLED. Esta es una de esas deficiencias. Pero teniendo en cuenta que los teléfonos con tecnología de pantalla más nueva son generalmente más caros que el Pixel 6 Pro, diría que su precio justifica el hardware. De todos modos, el panel es más que capaz de ofrecer imágenes impresionantes, y la alta frecuencia de actualización de 120 Hz hace que la interacción con el teléfono sea súper fluida. También hay una curva en los lados de la pantalla que a los fabricantes de teléfonos les encanta agregar en un intento de hacer que su teléfono parezca más premium, pero no soy fanático de eso.

La pantalla OLED flexible del Pixel 6 Pro parece más oscura que la pantalla OLED rígida del Pixel 6

OLED rígido: una degradación del modelo base

El Pixel 6 normal utiliza un panel Samsung de 6,40 pulgadas con una resolución más baja. Aunque ambos teléfonos utilizan OLED actualizados, el hardware del Pixel 6 es en realidad una degradación en algunos aspectos en comparación con el Pixel 5 del año pasado. Por primera vez desde el Pixel 2, Google está utilizando una pila de pantalla OLED rígida inferior en su línea principal de teléfonos para reducir costos. En comparación con los OLED flexibles modernos (como en el 6 Pro y en la mayoría de los teléfonos insignia), la pila de pantalla rígida típica tiene un contraste de pantalla más bajo, ángulos de visión fluctuantes y parece más hundida en la pantalla. Por el lado positivo, el Pixel 6 se vuelve más brillante y parece más nítido que el Pixel 5 a pesar de tener una densidad de píxeles más baja (más sobre esto más adelante).

Por primera vez desde el Pixel 2, Google utiliza una pila de pantalla OLED rígida de calidad inferior

Los OLED rígidos son una construcción más antigua que ahora se suele utilizar solo en teléfonos económicos. La principal diferencia es que un OLED rígido incluye una encapsulación y un sustrato de vidrio más grueso, mientras que los OLED flexibles utilizan una encapsulación de película delgada y un sustrato de plástico flexible. La naturaleza elástica de los OLED flexibles no solo los hace más duraderos y moldeables que los OLED rígidos, sino que también permite algunas ventajas ópticas. La encapsulación más delgada permite que los píxeles físicos aparezcan más cerca del vidrio de cubierta, lo que le da a los OLED flexibles un aspecto más laminado. Además, en las pilas rígidas, la refracción de la luz transmitida a través de las capas de vidrio provoca ángulos de visión de arco iris no deseados que simplemente no se ven en los OLED flexibles. Por último, no todas las "relaciones de contraste infinito" son iguales: las pilas de pantallas OLED flexibles más nuevas contienen materiales internos más oscuros, lo que impone negros más profundos que los de los OLED rígidos.

Pixel 6 (izquierda); Pixel 6 Pro (derecha). La pantalla del Pixel 6 experimenta refracciones en un ángulo

En el Pixel 6 Pro, los transistores de óxido híbrido de mayor eficiencia respaldan la placa base, lo que mejora enormemente la estabilidad de conducción de un OLED. Este es el catalizador que permite una verdadera frecuencia de actualización variable, lo que ahorra energía, ya que permite que los píxeles mantengan su carga durante mucho más tiempo entre actualizaciones. Dado que tienen una baja tasa de descarga, los TFT con conducción de óxido pueden pulsar a corrientes más bajas en comparación con un TFT LTPS para lograr la misma luminancia de estado estable, lo que ahorra aún más batería y mejora la precisión de calibración. Como anécdota, todos los teléfonos que he usado con un panel LTPO han tenido una uniformidad del panel casi perfecta y muy poco tinte gris en condiciones de poca luz, y creo que gran parte de eso también se puede atribuir a la estabilidad mejorada de la placa base de óxido híbrido.

Subpíxeles del PenTile del iPhone 12 Pro Max de Apple

Tamaño de subpíxeles de PenTile

Rara vez se menciona la diferencia en los subpíxeles entre los OLED PenTile. Los subpíxeles más grandes mejoran la eficiencia energética y alargan su vida útil, lo que reduce el efecto burn-in. Las pantallas de mayor densidad requieren la inclusión de subpíxeles más pequeños, por lo que existen ventajas en adaptarse a una resolución de pantalla física más baja. Tenga en cuenta que esto es completamente diferente a muestrear una pantalla con una resolución de renderizado más baja, lo que no hace casi nada por la batería fuera de los juegos de resolución completa, ya que los subpíxeles físicos siguen siendo del mismo tamaño.

Instead of decreasing the screen resolution, another option is to increase the panel'sfill factor, which is defined as the ratio of the subpixels' emissive area to the total display area. For lower-resolution OLEDs, this has the added benefit of improving pixel definition, which reduces apparent color fringing around well-defined edges in the screen. Starting with theSamsung Galaxy S21, Samsung Display began to produce 1080p panels with higher fill factors, increasing the relative size of the subpixel area by about 20%. To my eyes, this had completely eliminated color fringing on these panels, and they now look closer to their non-PenTile counterparts. For those that use their phone for VR, a higher fill factor also reduces the screen door effect.

Fortunately, the Pixel 6's 1080p screen has a high fill factor, and I observe no color fringing with it. Its screen appears sharper than 1080p PenTile screens of the past, including the higher-density panel of the Pixel 5, so those that are coming from 1440p displays need not worry too much. The OLED on the 6 Pro, however, has a lower fill ratio, so efficiency gains can be had with a better display design. Though as it stands, Apple is currently the only company that optimizes for both resolution and fill factor, with iPhone OLEDs having the largest subpixels out of any phone.

Methodology for gathering data

To obtain quantitative color data from smartphones, display test patterns are staged and measured using anX-Rite i1Display Prometered by an X-Rite i1Pro 2 spectrophotometer in its high-resolution 3.3nm mode. The test patterns and device settings used are corrected for various display characteristics and potential software implementations that may alter desired measurements. Measurements are performed with arbitrary display adjustments disabled unless mentioned otherwise.

The primary test patterns are constant power patterns (sometimes called equal energypatterns), correlating to an average pixel level of about 42%, to measure the transfer function and grayscale precision. It’s important to measure emissive displays not only with constant average pixel level but also with constant power patterns since their output is dependent on the average display luminance. Additionally, a constant average pixel level does not inherently mean constant power; the test patterns I use are of both. A higher average pixel level closer to 50% is used to capture the midpoint performance between both the lower pixel levels and the higher pixel levels since many apps and webpages contain white backgrounds that are higher in pixel level.

The color difference metric used is ΔE_TP (ITU-R BT.2124), which is anoverall better measure for color differences than ΔE₀₀that is used in earlier reviews and is still currently being used in many other sites’ display reviews. Those that are still using ΔE₀₀for color error reporting are encouraged to update to ΔE_ITP.

ΔE_ITPnormally considers luminance error in its computation, since luminance is a necessary component to completely describe color. However, since the human visual system interprets chromaticity and luminance separately, I hold our test patterns at a constant luminance and do not include the luminance (I/intensity) error in our ΔE_ITP values. Furthermore, it is helpful to separate the two errors when assessing a display’s performance because, just like with our visual system, they pertain to different issues with the display. This way, we can more thoroughly analyze and understand the performance of a display.

Our color targets are based on the ITP color space, which is more perceptually uniform than the CIE 1976 UCS with much-improved hue linearity. Our targets are spaced out roughly even throughout the ITP color space at a reference 100 cd/m²white level, with colors at 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% saturation. Colors are measured at 73% stimulus, which corresponds to about 50% magnitude in luminance assuming a gamma power of 2.20.

Contrast, grayscale, and color accuracy are tested throughout the display’s brightness range. The brightness increments are spaced evenly between the maximum and minimum display brightness in PQ-space. Charts and graphs are also plotted in PQ-space (if applicable) for proper representation of the actual perception of brightness.

ΔE_TP values are roughly 3× the magnitude of ΔE₀₀ values for the same color difference. A measured color error ΔE_TPof 1.0 denotes the smallest value for a just-noticeable-difference for the measured color, and the metric assumes the most critically adapted state for the observer so as not to under-predict color errors. A color error ΔE_TP less than 3.0 is an acceptable level of accuracy for a reference display (suggested from ITU-R BT.2124 Annex 4.2), and a ΔE_TPvalue greater than 8.0 can be noticeable at a glance, which I’ve concluded empirically.

HDR test patterns are tested against ITU-R BT.2100 using the Perceptual Quantizer (ST 2084). HDR sRGB and P3 patterns are spaced out evenly with sRGB/P3 primaries, an HDR reference white level of 203 cd/m² (ITU-R BT.2408), and a PQ signal level of 58% for all the color patterns. All HDR patterns are tested at 20% APL with constant power test patterns.

Color Profiles

[caption align="aligncenter" width="321"]

Pixel 6 Pro Color Gamut[/caption]

Pixels offers three different color profiles to choose from, all of which change the characteristics of the colors and images on the screen.

By default,Adaptivemode is selected out of the box. BothAdaptiveandBoostedmodes increase color saturation just slightly, with the main difference being thatAdaptivemode also uses higher contrast. Compared to the vivid profile of many other smartphones, theAdaptivemode is not as vibrant, and some people may even struggle to see the difference betweenAdaptiveandNatural. All three profiles target a D65 white point, which might appear warm/yellow to those that aren't accustomed to color-calibrated displays.

A small gripe I have withAdaptiveandBoostedis that the color saturation increase isn't uniform: greens are boosted the most, followed by reds, while blues have little-to-no boost (limited by the OLED's full native gamut). There's also nothing really "adaptive" about the profile compared to the other two, so the naming of the profile is a bit of a misnomer.

If picture fidelity is a priority, theNaturalmode is the Pixel's color-accurate profile. The profile targets the full sRGB color space (gamut, white point, and tone response) while Android's color management system handles wide-gamut P3 content in apps that support it. Internally, Google is now also targeting Display P3 as the phone's default composition data space, which is a small step in maturing their color management system.

For those that are not satisfied with the white balance of their Pixel, Google, unfortunately, does not provide any option to tune that aspect of the display (outside of Night Light). Google formerly had a feature calledAmbient EQon the Pixel 4 which automatically matched the white balance of the screen to the user's ambient lighting, but the company scrapped it in its future phones for reasons unknown.

Screen Brightness

In terms of screen brightness, both the Pixel 6 and the Pixel 6 Pro perform nearly identical to each other, and they both get bright enough to use the phone under sunlight. With auto-brightness enabled, both phones get up to about 750–770 nits for fullscreen white, boosting up to 1000–1100 nits for content with lower average light levels ("APL"). Sadly the Pixel 6 and 6 Pro can only maintain their high brightness mode for five minutes at a time out of every thirty minutes, so using the phone extensively outside may not be ideal. After five minutes, the phone display will ramp down to about 470 nits, which is both phones' maximum manual brightness when auto-brightness is disabled.

For the cost of the regular Pixel 6, these figures showcase excellent value

For the Pixel 6 Pro, these peak brightness values are standard and to be expected considering its price. But for the cost of the regular Pixel 6, these figures showcase excellent value, and phones thatdoget brighter generally cost a bit more than even the 6 Pro.

Apart from peak brightness, display tone mapping also plays a big role in improving a screen's legibility under sunlight. This will be covered more later on, but in short, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro does boost shadow tones to help out with outdoor viewing.

When set to their dimmest brightness setting, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro can get down to about 1.8–1.9 nits, which is typical of most, but not all OLED phones (namely OnePlus). At this brightness, the defaultAdaptiveprofile on both phones crushes near-black colors due to the profile's steeper contrast curves.Naturalmode exhibits lighter shadows, and on the Pixel 6 Pro the profile retains distinct shadow details with very little black clipping in low light. The Pixel 6, on the other hand, struggles a bit more with near-black colors, especially in its 90 Hz state.

Auto-brightness

The auto-brightness system on the Pixels has been the worst that I've used in any recent phone. One common argument is that it learns your brightness preference over time, but the underlying framework is fundamentally flawed in a way that fancy machine learning can't fix. The result of the system is jittery transitions and a lack of resolution in the low end.

Mapeo de brillo de píxeles. Transiciones inestables para valores de brillo bajos

Before the Pixel 6, Google only reserved 255 distinct brightness values to control the display brightness. Even if all brightness values were to be efficiently spaced out, the resolution simply wasn't enough to create perfectly smooth transitions. Now with the Pixel 6, Google increased the internal number of brightness values up to 2043 between 2 nits and 500 nits. That seems like it should be sufficient, but there are two important details: themappingof those brightness values, andhowthe Pixel transitions through those brightness values.

Although the Pixel 6 has 2043 brightness values, those values are mappedlinearlyto its display brightness. This means that the spacing of brightness between those values is not perceptually uniform, since the human perception of brightness scales somewhat logarithmically, rather than linearly, in response to screen luminance nits. In Android 9 Pie, Googlealtered the Pixel's brightness sliderso that it would scale logarithmically instead of linearly for the reason that I just mentioned. However, this only changed how the position on the brightness slider mapped to the system brightness value, which is still internally linear.

Even with the higher brightness resolution of the Pixel 6, jitters can be seen between the brightness values below about 30% system brightness. For this inherent reason, the Pixel's transition in display luminance can appear jumpy when the auto-brightness moves around in low light. The jitteriness is exacerbated by thespeedand thebehaviorof the Pixel's auto-brightness transitions, which stepslinearlythrough display luminance at a constant pace that reaches max brightness from minimum brightness in one second—or about 500 nits per second. This makes any auto-brightness transition virtually instantaneous for small-to-medium adjustments.

Power consumption

Potencia de pantalla de Pixel 6, Pixel 6 Pro, S21 Ultra.

Quickly touching on display power: When focusing on fullscreen display nits per watt, the Pixel 6 Pro consumes substantially more power than the Pixel 6 at high brightness. This is somewhat expected since the Pro has a slightly larger display and a higher resolution (read: smaller emissive pixel area), though I did not expect the difference to be this dramatic. Adding in the Samsung Galaxy S21 Ultra as another data point, it consumes less power than both Pixels despite having a larger screen, which showcases the impeccable efficiency gains of Samsung's next-gen OLED emitters. The discrepancy in variable refresh rate was not tested.

Contrast & Tone Mapping

A general rule of thumb in calibrating a display is to target a gamma power of 2.4 for dark rooms, or 2.2 for everywhere else. Smartphones are used in all sorts of viewing conditions, so they typically fall in the latter category. Hence, most phones target a gamma power of 2.2 for their standard calibrated display modes. This is what the Pixel had always done, but it's a little different this year on the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro.

[caption align="aligncenter" width="402"]

Pixel 6 Pro Tone Response (Natural, 100 nits)[/caption]

New tone responses: Gamma 2.2 vs Piecewise sRGB

In the default Adaptivemode, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro have increased contrast compared to the other profiles. The tone response is approximately a 2.4 gamma power on the Pixel 6, while on the Pixel 6 Pro it's more like gamma 2.3. At lower brightness levels, the Adaptivemode has too much contrast in my opinion, and a number of near-black colors can appear completely clipped, especially on the cheaper phone.

For theNaturalandBoostedprofiles, the Pixel 6 and the Pixel 6 Pro now conform to the piecewisesRGB tone response curverather than gamma 2.2. Thecurve differsin that it has a linear mapping near black which makes dark tones appear lighter compared to gamma 2.2. Due to the increased complexity of the function, most people just calibrate to gamma 2.2 for simplicity, and it's what monitor calibrators and artists have been doing for many years. The actual use of the precise sRGB curve is a controversial topic for this reason; even though it's the"official"standard, it creates disparity among the vast majority who have already been working with gamma 2.2, which many argue to be the "correct" industry standard.

What makes this interesting is that I'm not sure Google even intended for this behavior. Samsung also ships phones with the sRGB tone curve, though only on theirExynosvariants—the Snapdragon models still use gamma 2.2. The Exynos display pipeline inside the Pixels' Tensor SoC is likely responsible for decoding RGB triplets with the sRGB transfer function.

In regards to accuracy, both phones do a good job tracking the sRGB tone curve in theirNaturalandBoostedmode. But at lower brightness, the Pixel 6 fails to keep up with the performance of the Pixel 6 Pro as the cheaper panel struggles to lift darker tones in its 90 Hz clock rate. In general usage, the sRGB tone curve looks close enough to the standard 2.2 gamma curve to where most people won't notice a difference for most imagery. However, a lift in shadows is definitely observable in the darker regions of content and in dark-themed interfaces. Some may prefer this look over gamma 2.2, while others may think it looks washed out. Personally, I prefer this tonal appearance on smartphones for the enhanced legibility in low light and in bright conditions.

When high brightness mode triggers under a sunny day, the displays will bump up the shadows, with the Pro phone being capable of being tuned a bit brighter. This helps improve the visibility of image details in brighter conditions without compromising the image quality.

Shadow tone control

At their dimmest setting, the Pixel 6 Pro paints a much more tonally balanced screen. In its Naturalmode, the Pixel 6 Pro is one of the best-performing low brightness OLEDs on any phone. I claimed the same thing for last year's Pixel 5, which had impeccable shadow tone control. Compared to it, the Pixel 6 Pro performs similarly, though this year's display is just slightly worse near black. While the Pixel 5 was able to render its first bit step out of black (1/255) at all brightness levels, the Pixel 6 Pro can only do so at high brightness. It does globally render the very next step, however, and in my book, that's still fantastic. The Pixel 5's shadows were also a bit lighter overall in low light, but in my opinion it made things look a littletooflat, and I now prefer the look of the 6 Pro.

The Pixel 6 Pro is one of the best-performing low brightness OLEDs on any phone

Within the same conditions, the non-Pro Pixel does not compete. The cheaper display renders steep shadows that clip a little more near black, and inAdaptivemode, the Pixel 6 becomes a mottled mess at minimum brightness. For this reason, I cannot recommend the profile on Pixel 6.

White Balance & Grayscale Precision

[caption align="aligncenter" width="385"]

Pixel 6 Pro Grayscale (100 nits)[/caption]

Nominally, both displays strike very similar white points that measure decently accurate to D65/6504 K. Both my units erred slightly on the magenta side, though I have no qualms with this as I'll explain later.

Under the surface, the two phones actually perform vastly different when it comes to color precision. The Pixel 6 Pro maintains the color of its white throughout its grayscale and throughout its brightness range, with the exception of high-brightness mode where the tint in darker colors will likely be masked by sunlight. The Pixel 6, on the other hand, progressively tints towards magenta the lower the color tone intensity. A mild flicker was also visible when the Smooth Display auto-switched between 90 Hz and 60 Hz, but on my sample, the effect isn't too noticeable. Lastly, on my unit, the non-uniform grayscale distribution is painfully obvious at lower brightness.

"Metameric failure"

Two colors from different displays that measure the same exact chromaticity don't necessarily appear identical in color. The fact of the matter is that current methods of color measurement don't provide a definitive assessment for color matching. As it turns out, the difference in spectral distributions between OLEDs and LCDs creates a disagreement in the appearance of their white points. More precisely, the color of white on OLEDs will typically appear yellowish-green compared to an LCD display that measures identically. This is known asmetameric failure, and it's been widely acknowledged to occur with wide-gamut displays such as OLEDs. The standard illuminants (e.g. D65) have been defined with spectral distributions that match closer to that of an LCD, so the technology is now used as a reference. For this reason,an offset towards magenta is needed for the white point of OLEDsto perceptually match the two display technologies.

Now, I'm not saying that metameric failure is the reasonwhythe Pixel 6 (Pro) displays measure towards magenta, but there's a point to be made about looking at just colorimetric measurements alone. For reference, this is how the white point of the Pixel 6 Pro measures when it's perceptually color-matched to my calibrated LCD monitor. The difference ismassive. There have been many attempts in methodologically transferring over the perceptual appearance, but none have been comprehensive enough to cover every emerging display type—matchingby eyeis quite literally the best way to do this at the moment. Nevertheless, accurate measurements to any standard allow for predictability if adjustments are to be made, which is a critical attribute for any electrical component.

Color Accuracy

The formula for good color accuracy is quite simple: accurate tone mapping plus an accurate white point. The previous sections of this review can almost entirely deduce the rest of the displays' color mixing performance. Pretty charts and quantitative verification are always nice though, so here they are.

[caption align="aligncenter" width="359"]

Pixel 6 Pro sRGB Color Accuracy (Natural, 100 nits)[/caption]

Naturalmode on both phones demonstrates fine-tuned color accuracy, with average color errors ΔE_TPless than 3.0, and maximum color errors ΔE_TPless than 10.0. These values are sufficient enough for a reference display, though it's important to note that these color measurements were taken at 75% tone intensity; the poor color precision on the cheaper Pixel 6 display means that it's expected to perform worse at lower tone intensities, while the Pro display remains accurate independent of tone intensity. Besides that, there is some mild skewing with more-complex color mixtures, such as with purple and orange, due to the different tone response curve that Google is using. No doubt that if it stuck with gamma 2.2, the Pixel 6 and Pixel 6 Pro would measure even more accurately, though the difference would mostly be academic.

In high-brightness mode, the displays will slightly crank up the color saturation to overcome the saturation loss from viewing glare. This together with the contrast lightness boost should help the display look more accurate under sunlight.

HDR10 Playback

Although HDR content still isn't all too common, many newer titles on streaming platforms have now been releasing masters in Dolby Vision and HDR10. To help with adoption, a number of smartphones provide the capability to record in one of the existing HDR formats. Out of the existing phones, Apple's iPhones have been the ones to propel the demand for platform adoption of the HDR formats with their Dolby Vision-/HLG-enabled recording. In my assessment, however, I only cover the HDR10 format, which is currently the most ubiquitous format for professional content creators.

Excellent tone control, precision, and color accuracy carries over to HDR10 on the Pixel 6 Pro. The ST.2084 standard HDR tone response curve is faithfully reproduced along with incredibly consistent color temperature all throughout its grayscale. This assures that the white balance and contrast of every scene can replicate the creator's visual intent, at least up to 650 nits. Most HDR content that is currently being delivered through streaming platforms is mastered or optimized for a maximum headroom of 1,000 nits for highlights. The Pixel 6 Pro is able to get up to 800 nits fullscreen brightness, but a lack of metadata-aware tone mapping brings the usable in-content peak down to about 650 nits. While the 350-nit deficit may seem substantial, not many scenes in practice are graded much brighter.

As for the regular Pixel 6, it's still capable of delivering brilliant visuals, just without as much polish. Scenes can vary in white balance on the cheaper OLED due to lower-brightness tinting, and image contrast is generally a little steeper. Shadow definition is also not as polished as on the Pro display.

The gotchais that all the above assume a viewing environment of 5 lux, which is the status quo for HDR10. This is considerably dim for casual watching, and most people in actuality will watch things in a brighter setting. Furthermore, standard HDR10 replication is calibrated for maximum system brightness, so if you intend to watch a show in HDR10 inside a brighter room, the experience won't be optimal since the display brightness can't be set any higher. HDR10 is also implemented this way in most TVs, not just on the Pixel 6 or on Android, but newer TVs also offer adaptive adjustments to the HDR tone mapping to compensate for brighter environments. The Pixel 6's 650-nit effective peak along with its lack of adaptive tone mapping means that it can't deliver the same strong HDR performance outside of a dimly lit room.

Final Remarks

Two different phones, therefore two different conclusions.

For its highest-end handset, Google delivers some of the best color reproduction and image consistency that you can find on any consumer display. With the Pixel 6 Pro, you can be certain that you're seeing all the picture details at any brightness level, be it dim or bright. On the contrary, the color tuning may be the reason why some people won't like it. Even in its most vibrant color mode, the display still behaves on the more color-accurate side, so those that prefer a high-saturation appearance may be left wanting more. Additionally, the Pixel 6 Pro doesn't carry the brightest or the most efficient OLED tech, but its current capabilities are perfectly adequate and well worth its price tag. It's understandable that people would want the absolute best panel available from the best phone that Google offers, but the Pixel 6 Pro is just not priced in that manner.

With the Pixel 6 Pro, you can be certain that you're seeing all the picture details at any brightness level

Speaking of price, the cheaper phone, unsurprisingly, uses a cheaper display. And by cheaper, I do meancheap. From crude viewing angles to irregular screen uniformity and grayscale tinting, the OLED on the Pixel 6 is very much a budget-level phone experience—one that you would expect from their Pixel A-series. For what's supposed to be one of Google's two strongest offerings, the choice of OLED on the Pixel 6 makes it feel like an unpolished product, and in my opinion, it completely cheapens the brand. We don't find this level of compromise on the display of any other flagship "non-Pro" variants from the competition.

Despite the rest of the handset feeling quite premium, the screen is just too important of a component to skimp out on. Many people have criticized Apple for adopting OLED so late inside their base models, but in its defense, using the Pixel 6 made it understandable why Apple had decided not to just include any cheap rigid OLED in their phones. They simply lack the refinement that is expected from a premium handset. For its price point, I don't think it could be helped; by undercutting the competition by $100–$200 USD, the Pixel 6 inevitably had to make some sort of glaring sacrifice. So, rather than just being a well-priced premium phone, what this showed me was that the Pixel 6 is truly more of a mid-range device, in a tier that is more similar to Apple's "R"-series or Samsung's "FE" variant.

For what's supposed to be one of Google's two strongest offerings, the choice of OLED on the Pixel 6 makes it feel like an unpolished product

Within the Pixel software, some accommodations could have been made to enhance the user experience. For starters, improvements to the auto-brightness are sorely needed, as its transitions turn out to be jarring more often than not. I would also appreciate the return of AmbientEQ, which was the automatic white balance feature in the Pixel 4. Manual adjustments to the screen white balance would also be helpful, which could be used to tune the screen color temperature to your taste, or even to compensate for themetameric failure.

Google Pixel 6 Forums|Google Pixel 6 Pro Forums

Overall, I'm torn on whether I like the direction that Google has taken for the displays of its two main phones. Of course, everyone would want them both to be a bit better—a slightly brighter display for the 6 Pro and a more refined OLED for the regular 6—but Google's pricing has made it difficult to ask for more. At least for the Pro phone, I genuinely believe that you're getting your money's worth. But for the upper mid-ranged Pixel 6, I feel that it's priced in a guttered region where it's not priced high enough to afford a display that sets it apart from those on budget phones. If Google priced the Pixel 6 about $100 higher, but with a polished flexible OLED to boot, I believe that Google's base model could be much more successful.

Google Pixel 6

El Pixel 6 viene con el nuevo chip Tensor de Google, un diseño moderno y cámaras insignia.

Google's standard Pixel model comes with a 90 Hz 1080p rigid OLED

Affiliate Links

Amazon: View at Amazon
Store: View at Store

Google Pixel 6 Pro

El Pixel 6 Pro es el hermano mayor que viene con el nuevo chip Tensor de Google, un diseño moderno y una cámara telefoto adicional.

Google's best phone, equipped with a high-resolution 120 Hz LTPO flexible OLED

Affiliate Links

Amazon: View at Amazon
Store: View at Store

Specification	Google Pixel 6	Google Pixel 6 Pro
Technology	Rigid OLED PenTile Diamond Pixel s6e3fc3 8-bit	Flexible OLED PenTile Diamond Pixel s6e3hc3 8-bit
Manufacturer	Samsung Display Co.	Samsung Display Co.
Size	5.8 inches by 2.6 inches 6.40-inch diagonal 15.4 square inches	6.1 inches by 2.8 inches 6.71-inch diagonal 17.0 square inches
Resolution	2400×1080 20:9 pixel aspect ratio	3120×1440 19.5:9 pixel aspect ratio
Pixel Density	291 red subpixels per inch 411 subpíxeles verdes por pulgada 291 subpíxeles azules por pulgada	362 subpíxeles rojos por pulgada 512 subpíxeles verdes por pulgada 362 subpíxeles azules por pulgada
Brillo	Mínimo: 1,8 nits Pico 100% APL: 746 nits Pico 50% APL: 909 nits Pico HDR 20% APL: 770 nits	Mínimo: 1,9 nits Pico 100% APL: 766 nits Pico 50% APL: 901 nits Pico HDR 20% APL: 801 nits
El balance de blancosestándar es 6504 K	6400K ΔETP=_4,4	6510K ΔETP₌2,6
El estándar de respuesta de tonoes una gamma directa de 2,20	Natural: sRGB por partes Gama 2,04–2,34 Adaptado: Gama 2,34–2,56	Natural: sRGB por partes Gamma 1,94-2,00 Adaptado: Gama 2,22–2,32
Diferencia de color Los valoresΔE_TPsuperiores a 10 son aparentes Los valores ΔE_TPinferiores a 3,0 parecen precisos Los valores ΔE_TPinferiores a 1,0 son indistinguibles de los perfectos	Natural: sRGB: Promedio ΔE_TP= 3,0 Máximo Δ_ETP=9,2 P3: Promedio ΔE_TP= 3,0 Máximo Δ_ETP=9,2	Natural: sRGB: Promedio ΔE_TP= 2,7 Máximo Δ_ETP=7,8 P3: Promedio ΔE_TP= 2,9 Máximo Δ_ETP=8,4
Umbral de recorte negroNiveles de señal que se recortarán en negro	Natural: <2/255 a 100 nits <1/255 a 20 nits <4/255 con brillo mínimo Adaptado: <3/255 a 100 nits <1/255 a 20 nits <13/255 con brillo mínimo	Natural: <1/255 a 100 nits <2/255 a 20 nits <2/255 con brillo mínimo Adaptado: <1/255 a 100 nits <5/255 a 20 nits <2/255 con brillo mínimo