Related
Hi everyone.
HTC Desire is being found in my country better than other android phones, but I have a serious problem with its bad video recording framerate (15). I tried to download a video sample, and it was really bad as I thought (no offense to the fans ).
My phone's video recording ability is important for me, so please don't give answers like: this is a phone, go get a camcorder, ...
Some people say that it will have HD 720P support in future firmware updates, but I wanna know is there a plan to improve the framerate as well?
Thanks.
As the phone records direct to the SD card I would suggest trying a faster class of card and see if that affects things at all.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
mahi58 said:
Hi everyone.
HTC Desire is being found in my country better than other android phones, but I have a serious problem with its bad video recording framerate (15). I tried to download a video sample, and it was really bad as I thought (no offense to the fans ).
My phone's video recording ability is important for me, so please don't give answers like: this is a phone, go get a camcorder, ...
Some people say that it will have HD 720P support in future firmware updates, but I wanna know is there a plan to improve the framerate as well?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the desire already has 720p recording, but keep in mind its limited by its hardware, 1 ghz isnt alot to encode HD and i know the iphone has better HD recording but i think that has somthing to do with its improved gpu, recording at lower resolution is flawless so why not do that?
Galaxy S and iPhone 4 are the first phones that are likely to have the processing power to record 720p with decent framerates. Desire just isn't as powerful, no matter how it's optimized it won't be perfect, ever.
However, even those two phones (probably) don't benefit much in terms of real video quality by just upping the recorded resolution. Trying to fit even a BAD 720p-capable sensor in a phone form factor isn't going to be a reality for a couple years or so, I'd estimate. Right now you get lots of extra pixels but the picture doesn't actually look any better since the sensor is too small to properly capture such high resolution.
It's something like the "megapixel war" that went on (and continues to some extent) between the major camera vendors. There's not more space to use a better sensor, they just make the sensor try to interpret the light better. Now it's phone vendors claiming they can do 720p when in reality the sensors they're using are probably capable of "real" 480i resolution at best.
But you can see the result... take two shots on the phone of your choice, one at 3mp or so and one at the maximum, then try blowing up the 3mp one to the 10mp one's dimensions and compare them side by side. The resized one looks a bit blurry? Now apply a good professional sharpening filter such as Neat Image. Voila, they're all but identical, just one has lots more garbage data in the form of grain where there was none in real life. The sensor is so tiny there's literally just not enough photons hitting it to do anything but interpolate most of the data, even in daytime outdoors.
I know you said you don't want me to say "just buy a camcorder", but honestly that's the only solution if you want an actual image quality difference. An honest camcorder can give you a million times the feature set and record decent audio too.
Maybe check out the Canon HF100... I think that's what it's called. I have the previous year's model and it's outstanding value. Record true 1080p @ 30fps, and it's so clear you can capture individual frames from it and it looks better than any cameraphone. Takes competent stills too, and I think the most recent model has 20x optical zoom. It's like... 25% larger than an empty toilet paper roll and a little more squarish.
So do you recommend setting to 480?
Thank you guys.
I bought a Google-HTC nexus one today D). I had to buy a used cell phone because of the android phone shortage in my country, and I had to buy it today, so I wasn't able to read any of your posts; but some interesting comments have been posted:
AndroHero
You mean there is a video recording mode for desire, which records in lower resolution, but gives better framerates?
If so, desire would have been a flawless choice for me! Why isn't this mentioned anywhere?
nawoa
Very interesting ideas, thank you.
I have noticed the difference between true 720P videos and the "claimed" ones which are being recorded by cell phones, and, frankly, the difference is obvious.
But still, if you watch the video samples from desire and some competitors (from GSMArena or somewhere), you will confirm that there's a huge difference, which is not being caused by the low resolution, but by the poor framerate in desire.
Desire's video sample is disappointing...
But if it's possible to record in lower resolution and better framerate, then desire would have been a better choice than a second hand nexus one.
Hardware not capable? 1Ghz not fast enough?
Nexus one 720p @27fps!!!
Edit:Video
nawoa said:
Galaxy S and iPhone 4 are the first phones that are likely to have the processing power to record 720p with decent framerates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IPhone uses its GPU, that's why it performs so well. Guess it's a driver issue. If the desire were to utilize the GPU, the results would be far better.
iPhone and Galaxy S share the same CPU/GPU chip, and as you say, yes it probably leverages the GPU to help encode the data more efficiently. Even if not, it's a more efficient chip which doesn't just mean it's smaller and uses less battery, but it's actually more powerful despite running at the same clock speed.
For example, I had an experience when I was upgrading my computer last year, going from a 65nm CPU to a 45nm CPU with identical architecture, cache, etc. Running at the same clock speed I get ~20% or more of a performance boost just due to the better efficiency.
I can't say how well that carries over to this situation since I'm sure there are more improvements in the transition from "snapdragon" to "hummingbird" than just the newer manufacturing process and more powerful GPU, but you can be sure the CPU gains a significant speed advantage from the lower node even before whatever other enhancements have been made.
"Hardware not capable? 1Ghz not fast enough?
Nexus one 720p @27fps!!!"
I'm not even going to look. 27 FPS isn't any kind of standard and if indeed that framerate is being achieved it's because there is extremely good lighting. Please introduce me to the world you live in where everyone and everything is always in ideal studio lighting... Aside from that I know without clicking the link that it will be terrible-looking.
"But if it's possible to record in lower resolution and better framerate, then desire would have been a better choice than a second hand nexus one."
I don't mean to belittle you but doesn't it go without saying that there is a lower-resolution video mode available when 720p is only just being unlocked in the most recent firmware? Whatever the case, N1 and Desire have identical hardware, if anything you might have a screen you like better than if you bought a Desire today.
Anyway, yes in my opinion you'd normally want to record at a lower resolution. I haven't done a thorough quality comparison but I'd guess you're not going to get much benefit from going above 320x240 for video. The truth is harsh, isn't it? Probably no harm in using the highest image size but it's not going to deliver miracles, especially considering the shutter lag and lack of any kind of image stabilization system.
But on the upside, your videos will have a smaller filesize, the framerate will stay consistent (at least if there is adequate lighting), and as I said earlier there is absolutely no real-world quality difference except that you'll get less battery usage and video noise when recording and playing back lower-resolution video.
Keep in mind, I bought a Desire and I love it. I even think the camera and video is fine. Just keep your expectations reasonable and realize that you need an actual camera to take good pictures/video. It's for Youtube, Facebook, and that kind of thing, not wedding photos.
Canon HF100 (IIRC) is a solid prosumer choice, or if you want something more compact but still versatile you might look at the Sony DSC-TX5, which is very durable and even waterproof to boot. It was just replaced with a newer (but not significantly different) version, so you can get it pretty cheap too. It offers quite good still and video quality (REAL 720p) considering it's like 15mm thick and even has some voodoo real 5x optical zoom system despite not having a moving lens on the front.
This thread's piqued my curiosity a bit, I'm going to try to do a semi-scientific study to determine what the best settings are for the camera.
I can't say exactly how you'll have to configure your new N1 since I'm using the Sense camera app, but you can probably still have an improvement by trying to modify settings in a similar way.
This is very preliminary and I don't have daylight to work with, I'll get into it more tomorrow, but so far:
Contrast is best at its default setting, 0. I'd prefer a -0.5 but no such option exists.
Saturation should be reduced to -1, this will help lessen the strength of noise and also gives somewhat more realistic color.
Sharpness should be reduced to -1, this again will help reduce noise and eliminates the majority of the sharpening artifacts. Going down to -2 helps a bit more but the loss of detail probably isn't worth it.
Brightness should be left at 0, it operates in mysterious ways and doesn't seem to be very helpful regardless of how it's set.
The ideal video capture resolution is 640x480. 320x240 doesn't appear to bring a framerate improvement so there's not really much sense unless you're limited by storage. All capture sizes besides 320x240 and 640x480 operate by simply cropping the image and offer no positive effects that I can see. 720p may add a superficial amount of detail but at the cost of an unsteady framerate and much greater encoding/decoding load (1280x720 vs 640x480, or 921,600 pixels per frame vs 307,200).
Similarly, taking widescreen stills simply crops the top and bottom and results in no quality difference to the part of the full frame that's actually recorded. You're probably best off recording in the sensor's native 4:3 aspect ratio and then cropping them to your taste on your home computer.
The ideal video capture codec is MPEG4 - H.264 offers a nice reduction in filesize but uses too low of a bitrate, resulting in worse quality during fast movement. It is also more work to encode and decode, hurting your battery life.
Obviously don't use zoom for any reason since it's just cropping and resizing with speed as the only consideration. You'll get much better results doing the same thing on your home computer.
Due to the low sensor quality, there's not a whole lot of difference between 5 and 3 megapixel shots, but there's no harm in going with 5mp. The biggest difference is the filesize. Taking a picture of the same subject, my 5mp shots ranged from 2.96mb to 2.38mb, while the 3mp ones were 1.22mb to 0.76mb.
I'd like to revise my earlier statement that the processor isn't capable of encoding 720p30 in realtime. It's now my opinion that the problem is just the camera firmware trying to make sense of the idea that you're asking it to pull usable pixel data for a 1280x720 frame, 30 times a second, from such a tiny sensor. To compensate for the lack of light information, it's forced to reduce the framerate or else the image will turn into a mess of noise. It's probably being a bit too conservative, but not by a lot. The fault lies with the sensor, not the CPU... I think.
Finally, *something* I did seemed to significantly reduce the framerate, or rather, the quality of recording high-motion video. This might be something peculiar to the rom I'm running, or it could be completely in my head, but I think I changed something when I was messing with the various settings and it had a noticeable negative effect.
It's late here now so I'll pick up in the morning but my current wild guesses are:
-Capturing full-frame is more difficult than capturing cropped widescreen, or vice-versa?
-Face detection processing adds too much latency to the recording?
-Flicker reduction should be taken off auto for best performance?
-Custom filtering settings (brightness/sharpness, etc) slow recording down?
-How the camera was focused reduced/increased the encoding difficulty?
-Sharpness settings increased/decreased the amount of frame data needing to be encoded?
-...Or I screwed something up in SetCPU? No... I don't... think so... but it's pretty late. Hmm...
I'll pick up tomorrow. Someone's probably already figured out the perfect settings but I'm pro at being redundant.
The 480p is flawless?
Come on ... It is OK-ish, but not flawless. Especially indoor, even with good lighting still mediocre.
Multimedia is one of the weakest in Android, hopefully Gingerbread will correct this.
AndroHero said:
the desire already has 720p recording, but keep in mind its limited by its hardware, 1 ghz isnt alot to encode HD and i know the iphone has better HD recording but i think that has somthing to do with its improved gpu, recording at lower resolution is flawless so why not do that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could try switching to 800 ISO in settings camera mode, then switch back to camcorder mode. I noticed a considerable fps boost even in low light conditions.
I don't mean to belittle you but doesn't it go without saying that there is a lower-resolution video mode available when 720p is only just being unlocked in the most recent firmware? Whatever the case, N1 and Desire have identical hardware, if anything you might have a screen you like better than if you bought a Desire today.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Before buying nexus one, I checked out desire's specifications in its GSMArena's page, and it said:
Video: Yes, WVGA (800x480 pixels) @ 15fps
So I thought its the only video recording mode that the phone has (I'm not experienced with modern phones). I wasn't expecting a cell phone to have different video capture modes like a digicam/camcorder.
Then, I downloaded a video sample that was being recorded in daylight, but was really disappointing, and the framerate was exactly 15.
And, in my experince, if you buy products, specially high tech products like modern phones relying on the informations that (you think) "go without saying" you're going to be serioulsly punished by your mistakes.
You can only rely on facts...
By the way, thanks for the experiments.
There is some work done in the developement section to optimize HTC camera 720p framerate. A guy obtained 29fps in good lighting (not perfect) but he's still working on it. Funny part is that he blew his desire while testing it.
Check this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynB0M9NeVCE
Regarding the current state, a good sd card can help with the occasional stuttering, or if you can live with AOSP roms, you probably will get a couple fps more. Otherwise you are confined to good lighting to have something on the good side of 20fps.
some examples from my phone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6KuPCn6_2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugjI5ygsXzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssFnQsdz0DE
That change the ISO on the still camera seems a good tip
Marcus2388 said:
You could try switching to 800 ISO in settings camera mode, then switch back to camcorder mode. I noticed a considerable fps boost even in low light conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that's really good tip!
when you increase your ISO your picture quality gets poor.
it helps to make videos faster and smooth but with no quality.
Ive just ordered my new Micro Sd card class 10 card... let it come and i'll let you know if something good happens...
malikahsan said:
when you increase your ISO your picture quality gets poor.
it helps to make videos faster and smooth but with no quality.
Ive just ordered my new Micro Sd card class 10 card... let it come and i'll let you know if something good happens...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll disagree about poor quality - it just gets a little worse, even in indoor lightning, but you get an acceptable video, compared to the "very creepy slide show" in auto-ISO mode.
Besides the average framerate, which is probably more due to the lens and partially to the software, isn't the stuttering problem caused by an aggressive datarate when writing to the sd ? If you compare cyanogen 720p recording to HTC, quality isn't really different, but the data-rate codec probably is, and that's why even with a class 2 you avoid stuttering in cyanogen (OD and Defrost too).
Sorry if I up this thread, I found a micro sd card A-Data class 6 with good price, this micro SD can fix the problem recording video a 720p?
Thanks to all
So I've done some basic research on phone components out there that could truly create an AMAZING WP7 phone, while still staying within realistic terms, and here's what I've come up with (I'm giving explanations for each aspect in parentheses):
The ultimate WP7 would be a 4.7in (Can still fit in your pocket comfortably, while giving you a perfect view of the 1080P definition of your screen) HTC Touch Pro 3 (because its predecessor truly is the best combination of practicality and entertainment) with a dual-core 1.5ghz snapdragon processor (It has a release date set for Q4 2010, but will probably be moved to Q1 2011), 1024mb RAM (It's very rare to find a phone with this spec, but it is by no means unrealistic), a fourth chassis spec for a physical gamepad along with the physical keyboard with tilt (the actual keyboard would slide down, and the game pad would appear on the left and right of the screen by separation of the landscape physical keyboard while it's not in a slide down position, with an analog stick on the left, and four action keys on the right (Definitely the most unrealistic part of this phone description )), a 12 megapixel camera (nothing new in a phone) with HD video, 64 GB of Micro SD enabled (...), and at least 6 hours of talk time along with 48 hours standby (with the dual-core of the snapdragon processor users can expect a significant reduction in battery consumption since the cores are independent of each other) all on the Windows Phone 7 UI.
It’s a mouthful, but it’s almost enough to bring tears to my eyes… lol not really, but just make the phone HTC, and significantly loosen your hardware requirements Microsoft
Do you guys have a different definition of what makes the ultimate WP7 phone?
4.7in!
Thats insain, the HD2 is considered large enough (if not slight too big) 4 would surfice
dual 1.5Ghz snap dragon? really, since smartphones are working away from multitasking due to instability issues its unlikely to make much of a difference, but will happily take the core reduction and lower power consumption! 1080p is an insainly high res as well, im sure it will look good as an advertising milestone but with such high DPI i think you'll find it hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p infact i believe you would need to have your device 6inchs from your eyes to see 1080p at standard DPI, to detect the differences when you take in to account the significantly higher DPI you would need to have the phone on the end of your nose, viewing angles would require the device to be nearer 10inchs. not that id turn it down but its not a big deal
what i want is a 45nm 1.5ghz snapdragon, ~4in display using 65k or 16m bit depth, no more than 8mp camera, (12 on such as small lens would be **** or at best no improvment) a propper graphics core with its drivers!
Ill stick with the gig of RAM but suggest an internal 64GB storage and a SD expansion, multiband support so i can make it work everywhere! 4G would be handy if networks ever upgrade, everything else can be the same as the HD2 because that is the king just now! oh, you can keep your keyboard but what would be cool is a docking station that projects a keyboard on to a table
as for the OS, well to be honest unless the Gods on here unlock WP7 ill keep my 6.5.5
blaiz123 said:
The ultimate WP7 would be a 4.7in (Can still fit in your pocket comfortably, while giving you a perfect view of the 1080P definition of your screen)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've held the Droid X in my hand and the biggest downside to that phone, I see, is the size. Its huge!
Also, 4.7 inches just to view 1080p? With many 32" TVs out there you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. With that in mind, 720p HD resolution won't make more difference than an SD video so you can be sure that 1080p won't be anything more than a selling point.
theomni said:
I've held the Droid X in my hand and the biggest downside to that phone, I see, is the size. Its huge!
Also, 4.7 inches just to view 1080p? With many 32" TVs out there you can't tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. With that in mind, 720p HD resolution won't make more difference than an SD video so you can be sure that 1080p won't be anything more than a selling point.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think the important part would be how well it records... Also, if I don't have to do any converting so it plays on a given device then all the better - even if it's not really usable on the phone. I may hook the phone up to a friends TV while visiting. So, there is potential for use, even beyond a selling point.
dazza9075 said:
4.7in!
Thats insain, the HD2 is considered large enough (if not slight too big) 4 would surfice
dual 1.5Ghz snap dragon? really, since smartphones are working away from multitasking due to instability issues its unlikely to make much of a difference, but will happily take the core reduction and lower power consumption! 1080p is an insainly high res as well, im sure it will look good as an advertising milestone but with such high DPI i think you'll find it hard to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p infact i believe you would need to have your device 6inchs from your eyes to see 1080p at standard DPI, to detect the differences when you take in to account the significantly higher DPI you would need to have the phone on the end of your nose, viewing angles would require the device to be nearer 10inchs. not that id turn it down but its not a big deal
what i want is a 45nm 1.5ghz snapdragon, ~4in display using 65k or 16m bit depth, no more than 8mp camera, (12 on such as small lens would be **** or at best no improvment) a propper graphics core with its drivers!
Ill stick with the gig of RAM but suggest an internal 64GB storage and a SD expansion, multiband support so i can make it work everywhere! 4G would be handy if networks ever upgrade, everything else can be the same as the HD2 because that is the king just now! oh, you can keep your keyboard but what would be cool is a docking station that projects a keyboard on to a table
as for the OS, well to be honest unless the Gods on here unlock WP7 ill keep my 6.5.5
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MS isn't allowing 3rd-party multi-tasking at this time, but will do it with stock parts of the OS - so even if there isn't support for other programs you'll still use it (but I'm willing to bet that there will be support at some time).
The ARM spec that the chip is based on includes the 4G component. You'll probably need a provider patch / software update, but it's in the 1.5 GHz dual core snapdragon.
The GPU is also in there, and although not as good as others I've read about, still is nothing to scoff at
For me though, the bigger the better when it comes to the screen. I'm looking for an all-in-one device that goes everywhere. If I need a better camera, I'll grab mine. A better video camera, I'll grab mine. A better portable computer, I'll grab mine. But my next phone will certainly be my GPS, Music Player, and of course, phone.
I also like the slide out keyboard, if for no other reason than no wasted screen real estate.
dazza9075 said:
what would be cool is a docking station that projects a keyboard on to a table
)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That would be a pretty sweet deal, but I think we're looking at at least 2020 for projection keyboards
blaiz123 said:
That would be a pretty sweet deal, but I think we're looking at at least 2020 for projection keyboards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, there are projection keyboards out now and they've been around since the beginning of this decade. All though I'm not sure how good this technology is now.
theomni said:
Actually, there are projection keyboards out now and they've been around since the beginning of this decade. All though I'm not sure how good this technology is now.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you serious? So you mean I can actually sit down with my computer and if I have the proper platform I could type on a projected keyboard that would disappear when I turned off the platform? Because that would be pretty amazing.
Yep, the keyboards that are outthere emit a light onto the surface and via infrared, "feels" your touch of the projected key just llike hitting an actual keyboard. Find online...
I'd like to have a 4" device with a landscape 5 row querty keyboard, a touch pro 3 but bigger then the current touch pro2 and thinner. As far as the internal go, I'd love to have high end but I'll settle with the base seeing how everythings going to be performanced based on that.
mapaz04 said:
Yep, the keyboards that are outthere emit a light onto the surface and via infrared, "feels" your touch of the projected key just llike hitting an actual keyboard. Find online...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Now that is very intresting...hmm i wonder how it feels not to have any key feedback, need to look in to that, i can see a bluetooth projector for computers and PDAs being hugely useful...asuming it works that is!
mapaz04 said:
Yep, the keyboards that are outthere emit a light onto the surface and via infrared, "feels" your touch of the projected key just llike hitting an actual keyboard. Find online...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, but I wouldn't want to buy into this technology until it evolves so that the user can also feel the touch of the keys of the projected keyboard. And I'm not talking about a simple vibration, I would actually want to feel as if I'm typing on a real keyboard. That type of technology will definitely not be available until at least 2018
Check out
the specs for the new HTC HD3, sounds perfect to me! Can't wait to get my hands on one...
registeredxdadevi said:
the specs for the new HTC HD3, sounds perfect to me! Can't wait to get my hands on one...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
anyone wanna pop the bubble?
Here
is the link
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/351797/leaked_htc_hd3_smartphone_revealed/
Not sure how true it is, but sounds good to me...
registeredxdadevi said:
is the link
http://www.pcworld.idg.com.au/article/351797/leaked_htc_hd3_smartphone_revealed/
Not sure how true it is, but sounds good to me...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Awwwwhhh, I thought it said DUAL-CORE 1.5 ghz processor, that almost made me want to buy the phone, even though it lacks a physical keyboard with tilt (Which is a MAJOR dealbreaker for me)
Besides what is up with all of these HTC HD promotions, how come there are no Touch Pro 3 announcements. HTC is being very narrowminded not promoting a phone that could actually distinguish itself from the iphone in terms of hardware (and I'm talking about more than just a bigger screen...)
I just
love the big screen, with the screen even bigger it's got my wallet! Just not sure about this new windows 7...hopefully we get to test it somehow before purchasing.
Kloc said:
I'd like to have a 4" device with a landscape 5 row querty keyboard, a touch pro 3 but bigger then the current touch pro2 and thinner. As far as the internal go, I'd love to have high end but I'll settle with the base seeing how everythings going to be performanced based on that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2nd that
specs etc...don't care...wp7 should run smoothly on any device running wp7...
i'm being cpt. obvious
I'm a writer. I write about cell phones. I've used all of the WP7 phones. The best one is the Samsung Focus. That's my opinion. It has by far the best display. the right size screen and the best form factor. It's well made despite the rap that it's plastic. The plastic on this phone and the build quality are excellent. The HD7 is heavy. The start button is awkward and the display is pitiful. The HTC Surround is bulky, housing a speaker that virtually nobody uses. The LG Optimus is a nice phone, but it's heavy and small. The screen is narrow. The HTC Mozart is very nice. It's smaller and the display is nowhere near the Focus. It has a better camera than the others. This is my take. I've had several takes on all of them. The Focus wins.
ennx said:
I'm a writer. I write about cell phones. I've used all of the WP7 phones. The best one is the Samsung Focus. That's my opinion. It has by far the best display. the right size screen and the best form factor. It's well made despite the rap that it's plastic. The plastic on this phone and the build quality are excellent. The HD7 is heavy. The start button is awkward and the display is pitiful. The HTC Surround is bulky, housing a speaker that virtually nobody uses. The LG Optimus is a nice phone, but it's heavy and small. The screen is narrow. The HTC Mozart is very nice. It's smaller and the display is nowhere near the Focus. It has a better camera than the others. This is my take. I've had several takes on all of them. The Focus wins.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really, I don't find the HD7 heavy at all. Matter of fact, I would say a couple of inches more than the HD7 would make the perfect phone!
makoute said:
Really, I don't find the HD7 heavy at all. Matter of fact, I would say a couple of inches more than the HD7 would make the perfect phone!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree, I find the heft to be reassuring, not overly heavy. But I've also had the tp2 and hd2.
I am feeling a little let down with the current release of WM7 phones.
There was a real chance for HTC in particular to do a Killer WM7 phone but instead we get a rehashed HD2 and poor build quality.
It could have been the best phone on offer buy a long shot.
These are the specification we should of been offered.
1 GHz Qualcomm 8260 Snapdragon processor
WM7 with HTC Hub
16 or 32 GB Memory
768 MB of RAM
Size: 123 x 68 x 11.8mm (4.84 x 2.67 x 0.46 inches)
Weight: 164 grams (5.78 ounces) with battery
4.3″, WVGA resolution Capacitive display
HSPA/WCDMA (900/2100 MHz) and GSM/GPRS/EDGE (850/900/1800/1900 MHz)
Bluetooth® 2.1, A2DP, FTP, OPP, and PBAP
Wi-Fi®: IEEE 802.11 b/g/n
3.5 mm stereo audio jack
Standard micro-USB (for charging and syncing)
8 megapixel color camera with auto focus and dual LED flash with 720p HD video recording
1500 mAh rechargeable lithium ion battery
Motion, proximity, and ambient light sensor
4 G compatible.
1.3 mega-pixel front facing camera
Most of these specs are straight from the HTC Desire HD.
This phone would of been spot on for me.
rrrr... what? there is very little in your specs list that would make it that much better. like 768 MB of ram. That is an improvement but not much imo. and all this is pretty much already the HD7. I havent really been following the HD7 so i dont know the exact specs but, it does look the same
kingjovius said:
rrrr... what? there is very little in your specs list that would make it that much better. like 768 MB of ram. That is an improvement but not much imo. and all this is pretty much already the HD7. I havent really been following the HD7 so i dont know the exact specs but, it does look the same
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
8 megapixel camera [Only 5 meg in HD 7]
1500 mAh rechargeable lithium ion battery. [1230 mAh HD 7]
A secondary camera of 1.3 MP is also offered for video calling. [Sorry forgot to add this one.]
Also it is Qualcomm® QSD 8650. [I will correct it]
And 4 G compatable.
Also the build of the HD 7 is not as good as HTC Desire HD.
QSD 8250 / 8650 is the same processor more or less - difference is the latter does CDMA.
People need to stop whining about the specs already.
come on guys its HTC, u know how they market their products.. just wait for a few months they will bring out a HTC whatever name it is will this and that. this is how they make money..
look at all those HTC wp7 phone, i seen 2 of them and what can i say.. the OS is awesome phone is ****.. feels like really cheap plastic.. and yes my friends hates me for saying there new phone is crap.
why does HTC need to bring out 4 wp7 phone there is no advantage if u compare it.. apart from the 8 mega camera
MS managed to get OEMs not to screw the system or drivers or anything. HTC found a way around. Screw chassis. What were they thinking? "Hey, there's small space between battery cover and chassis!" "Blah, doesn't matter, WE HAVE DRIVERS FROM MICROSOFT, IT IS MICROSOFT'S FAULT!!" or what??
// talking about HD7
If you compare the specs to some other Android devices then the specs are not that bad for first gen WP7 devices.
They are all at least 1Ghz and thats good for new smart phone buyers.
+ MicroSD Support
+ ALMOND SCREEN
The only thing I think on this list as an improvment is the bigger battery but saying that its still better than the desire in real world use. Plus it won't take much to sell a bigger battery in the store.
More ram is not needed it only improves perfomance if you fill the lower amount and that's only happens with androids rubbish managment.
Front cameras don't sell phones nobody really uses then and just use up space.
Build quality is solid never held a phone that's felt so well made.
On top the screen rocks so what its LCD you can only tell if you put them side by side and its better in the sun.
All in all its s top notch phone and I love it makes android look amature and unfinished and IOS look dull
The thing with the CPU is that it will perform better than the Desire HD in most cases anyways, since the Dalvik VM in android is pretty slow compared to the .NET CLR engine.
Also, most android apps are designed to work on the mid end devices so very few does use the full potential of a High End Android device.
I think that android is going to dominate MidEnd in the future, and WP7 and iOS compete in High end.
Sir. Haxalot said:
The thing with the CPU is that it will perform better than the Desire HD in most cases anyways, since the Dalvik VM in android is pretty slow compared to the .NET CLR engine.
Also, most android apps are designed to work on the mid end devices so very few does use the full potential of a High End Android device.
I think that android is going to dominate MidEnd in the future, and WP7 and iOS compete in High end.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might turn out that way who knows. If it does wouldn't you want your high end phone to have the best specs.
Dr.Mazika said:
+ MicroSD Support
+ ALMOND SCREEN
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wut?
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
lumpaywk said:
The only thing I think on this list as an improvment is the bigger battery but saying that its still better than the desire in real world use. Plus it won't take much to sell a bigger battery in the store.
More ram is not needed it only improves perfomance if you fill the lower amount and that's only happens with androids rubbish managment.
Front cameras don't sell phones nobody really uses then and just use up space.
Build quality is solid never held a phone that's felt so well made.
On top the screen rocks so what its LCD you can only tell if you put them side by side and its better in the sun.
All in all its s top notch phone and I love it makes android look amature and unfinished and IOS look dull
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is not what some reviews are saying about it.
Hopping you are right though
Here is one link where they mention build quality:
http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/htc-hd7-review/
If you have had one at hand is it as well built as the HD2??
I suspect that you are somehow commercially tied to O2 perhaps?
lumpaywk said:
The only thing I think on this list as an improvment is the bigger battery but saying that its still better than the desire in real world use. Plus it won't take much to sell a bigger battery in the store.
More ram is not needed it only improves perfomance if you fill the lower amount and that's only happens with androids rubbish managment.
Front cameras don't sell phones nobody really uses then and just use up space.
Build quality is solid never held a phone that's felt so well made.
On top the screen rocks so what its LCD you can only tell if you put them side by side and its better in the sun.
All in all its s top notch phone and I love it makes android look amature and unfinished and IOS look dull
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
http://www.anandtech.com/show/10411/the-oneplus-3-review/4
I like the Anandtech site. But sorry, I can't understand his harsh criticism of the display.
When I compare the colors with my LG G2 and my Galaxy Tab S2, they are a bit different (like they are on any device...), but absolutely ok and in no way extreme. And you can set the color balance yourself - the reviewer doesn't write anything about that...
Only thing is the resolution, I can see that indeed the pentile matrix isn't optimal; but I don't think that is a point which justifies such a hard criticism.
Not for some. Personally the display is the main interacting point. I kind of question OP's decision to economise there.
Snapdragon do very good midrange processors, especially the latest series which are plenty fast enough for the latest games and heavy multi tasking. They went for shop headlines instead with a (relatively) pointlessly fast processor and 6gb ram which no one really needs.
A better display, larger battery, water proofing and perhaps better camera would have made more sense IMHO. Of course it wouldn't quite have blitzed benchmarks and thus lost headline appeal. Need proof? Just read how many on here quote Antutu results of 120'000 + even if that is absolutely pointless in real life use.
Still, not taking anything away from OP, the phone seems like good value and I may get one yet at some stage but I don't like to adopt to early. Rather let others do the field testing first!
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
rcobourn said:
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I would agree. Actually made me sick.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Belimawr said:
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Oyeve said:
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree. 2k is simply not enough. 4k is not enough either, but it would be a bit better. I think we are really going to need about 4k per eye in order for it to become truly fantastic. Maybe 8k per eye. So we are talking something like 7680x4320 or even 15360x4320. I doubt that smartphones are going to be the vehicle to deliver this in future.
But for now, 4k would be nice.
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
nomailx said:
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly hope it is years before they even think about a 4K screen. Our processors can barely push 2K at this point and battery life is pretty terrible currently compared to 1080p phones such as the iPhone 7. It's not worth it for such a niche feature. I mean, the Rift and Vive are not even at that resolution because desktop PCs can barely push it.
Belimawr said:
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure that's all true, but in any event, with a phone with a 2k screen the pixel density is not high enough and it won't be at 4k either. With 2k each eye is getting an image something like 1,000 pixels across (the two VR windows don't use the full screen width, so less than half of 2560 each), which for a virtual image which is bigger than even the very biggest TV screens (100"+) this is not enough pixels and the image is visibly (very badly) pixellated.
I am sure refresh rate matters too, but we really need very high pixel density and fast refresh (and low latency and wide viewing angles) for what in the end will be "perfect" VR.
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Belimawr said:
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For gaming, I agree that the Note 8 with a 4k Screen won't be much Help. But I never really enjoyed VR for gaming, it's more like a "side fun activity". But to watch video content, a 4K Display Note with an 10nm processor would be more than enough to remove the screen door effect, and give the ability to watch awesome 180/360 content, and 3D movies on a huge VR theatre.
May I remind you that VR for gaming is failing generally right now. But for some shady reason VR for videos is not... (go figure... xD )
notefreak said:
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the Sony Xperia Yoshino!