Depending on the creativity of the videographer and the limitations imposed by the restrictions they can be useful or useless gimmicks.
Duration restrictions are quite severe, so it is not clear that these are actually usable for capturing interesting things. This is difficult to assess without actually trying and learning to use these tools.
Often times setup for such video captures is so time consuming and expensive, that it is impossible to create repeatable exercises to master such restricted tools...
The ultra high FPS stuff is always a gimmick, I am much more pleased with the results of a good 240 fps than the impressive but short-lived 960. 7680 is something else though. I can see it being useful filming explosions, but in that case, it's even harder to get the right shot, especially if you're using consumable materials, and the phone might not survive every time.
As a tinkerer (diy guy) and an engineer having a camera that can capture 125 micro seconds is really something useful, even with the limit as long as "getting it to capture the right time span" is not an issue. But for creative use i hardly see the use, but i might not be creative enough
The high speed features are not necessarily gimmicks for study purposes - for example, the analysis of displays benefits well from a true native 1000fps (and higher) high speed camera. High speed videos of display refresh cycles at http://www.blurbusters.com/scanout is one good example of high speed video becoming accessible to DIY researchers and student scientists who otherwise could not afford a high speed camera.
Just like removing the headphone jack (and not replacing it with another port) is stupid, removing the volume buttons is stupid. Something that before you could previously control just by using touch, now requires you to look at the phone. I really wonder when we will outgrow this trend of removing physical controls in phones, cars and everything in between.
That's just one of the use cases. Turning the volume up or down for the ringer or any app streaming/casting to another device is another. And yes, you can always do it from software but it requires enough additional steps to make it annoying *every time* with no workaround.
Or when you are using the phone... you know, as a phone.
I know no one does that anymore. But in that off chance that people want to actually talk to each other, being able to change the volume without moving the phone away from your ear/mouth is helpful.
1100e for a device which comes with all the hassles of having to sideload a lot of the apps? Am I being cheap, cause that sounds crazy to me. Especially when you think that, for that price, you can definitely get a great phone with a great camera.
I am sorry, but 1099€ is a little bit of a joke. The slow motion camera is just a cheap interpolation, and it doesn't have google services. In my world I would grab a note 10, at least the warranty service, in my case, was excellent... and I have security patches and a full version of android, plus the stylus.
I actually enjoy slow motion video quite a bit. I use it when shooting guns. I am honestly pretty jealous of this extremely high frame rate video. I never thought I would be jealous about another phone this year after purchasing the OnePlus 7 Pro.
I hope you paid attention, it shoots 1920fps at what they claim to be 720P (but that also requires verification since Huawei lies about everything), then interpolates each captured frame into 4.
It's 1080p960 or 720p1920. That's more than just a simple interpolation, otherwise it would be able to take 1080p video and then interpolate as it is saving the file from memory and the data goes through the ISP.
"do clever interpolation to appear as if it is a higher frame rate" Ian, you're calling falsities "clever", and used too slow a water stream for the test. The correct way is to use a sprinkler, go very close to the sprinkler, and point the camera on something in the same plane of focus, for example grass, as the sprinkler. It would clearly show how ugly the interpolation is. Huawei's 480fps interpolated to 960fps was already shown to be very ugly under the sprinkler test, interpolating 1 into 4 frames is even uglier and more dishonest. Sony only advertised 960fps when they properly read out every frame. Not Huawei, not these people, they can't stop themselves from lying. Usually we'd have Andrei doing smartphone tests, but has all that Huawei pampering clouded your judgement?
If you're suggesting that the full review will be Andrei's, that's not my point, my point is that whoever, at Anandtech, tested the device in this limited scope, should have done better. The title is called "Kirin 990 and 7680 FPS Slow Motion Tests" after all, there's no point in releasing these non-indicative results if Andrei's going to do it all over again, properly.
You're picking and choosing what to criticise, aren't you? The title starts with "A day with".
A DAY.
If you're going to quickly go over most aspects of a device in a day, you have to use what's around. If you can fully set up tests and review a slow motion camera in a day, along with all the other stuff here, set up your own site and compete. You're being unrealistic and hypercritical whilst also being wilfully dishonest to achieve your ends.
When you're done being all upset that you're getting this kind of response from people, do consider if this keeps happening the problem isn't everyone else.
You're talking about taking "a day" literally? As in he's had this device for exactly 24hrs? Then obviously you need to take the rest of the title literally don't you, "Kirin 990 and 7680 FPS Slow Motion Tests"
And what do we have regarding the conclusion of an article under this title? "The big question on everyone’s lips is whether Huawei can survive without the Play Store, and then in turn, without Google’s main apps like Gmail, YouTube, or Maps." In fact half of the whole conclusion is regarding "whether Huawei can survive without the Play Store" blah blah blah. What's that got to do with "Kirin 990 and 7680 FPS Slow Motion Tests"? Nothing! It means that the title cannot be taken literally! Your sophistry hinges on the assumption that the first half of the title means what it says, yet the conclusion already proves the second part false, it means you need a half-true-half-false title in which the true part is what you want it to be, I think that's called "being unrealistic and hypercritical whilst also being wilfully dishonest to achieve your ends", lol.
Also, my fundamental point stands that he's condoning Huawei's lies by calling it clever, which is an extension from his last article in which he took on the tone of Huawei's mouthpiece, and it also stands, no matter how much time he actually had or could have had with the device, that the results are non-indicative aside from proving Huawei's 1-to-4 frame interpolation, in addition to the fact that Andrei's doing the full review sometime later, that, according to you, must include a proper, indicative test of the slo-mo anyway since he's not on a deadline or on a very loose one per usual Anandtech, it's a futile exercise, and so, what should I call this article then...yes, Huawei clickbait.
"Fool"? I call myself an idiot in my name. Don't you DARE try to imply I'm anything less than an idiot. Prat. Also, if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, please consider capitalisation, etc. Glass house, stones, etc. Get your own act together before insulting.
So half the conclusion is on the most important question surrounding this phone and you're criticising this? And you're insisting on bitching about the title not being completely literal as your main point? So, using a load of electronic trickery to produce massive frame rates is not clever? Okay, YOU do it. If it's not clever, it's clearly within the reach of the average which should be well within your grasp as you're calling other people fools. So you must think you're clever.
I'm sensing some Dunning-Kruger going on here.
So, if the whole thing is a futile exercise, please do tell.... why are you bothering reading it all and excreting your opinion all over the rest of us? Do tell. I'm sure your time is far better spent doing all these amazing things you should be doing rather than attempting to shit all over everyone else's work.
Huawei clickbait? I'd say Anandtech would be more predisposed towards Qualcomm clickbait given they take money and so on from them.
And yes, the results prove that the interpolation works.... as well as a couple of ways it's difficult to use and some settings it works well in and some it doesn't. Y'know... the overview implied by the bloody title. Why do reviews sites look at motherboards and bench them when the results are usually within a few percent of a competing board? Or why do they test two SSDs of two differing brands which use identical controllers and NAND? Because companies lie, cheat and steal and checking the stuff does what it claims to do is the first step towards informing the consumer.
Now, please do consider your arrogance and attitude is not helping your case. You could make a good one people will read. But... you chose to go down the "insult everyone else until they agree with me" route. No one will EVER agree with you or take you seriously if you feel you have to insult them to get your point across.
I commend you for your self-awareness of your idiocy. There's not much worth arguing about considering hardly anything stands in your idiotic rant.
"on the most important question surrounding this phone" Says you, many on the site agree that it's political BS. Go back to the Richard interview and count how many people agree with me.
"And you're insisting on bitching about the title not being completely literal as your main point? " Rather that's your main point, how "A DAY", in all caps, excuses the sloppy job. I won't waste my time reiliterating my main point what I've stressed in abundance.
"a load of electronic trickery to produce massive frame rates" No, it's deceitful. 1920fps readout interpolated x4 != 7680fps readout, far from equal. I don't even dare do 4x interpolations on Twixtor because of how poorly the results turn out, and this is at an even lower processing precision on a low power platform real-time. I don't do it because I have a bottom line, not Huawei. As far as I‘m aware all slo-mo have been advertised as their actual readout speed until Huawei came along and turned a native 480fps device into "960fps" through a firmware update just because Sony could do real 960fps. You're free to prove me wrong with an earlier example though.
"I'm sensing some Dunning-Kruger going on here." Sense harder, and you'll sense where it actually happens.
"if the whole thing is a futile exercise" This whole article is a futile exercise, given that there will be a more comprehensive one by Andrei which, again, according to you does not make the sloppy mistakes in this one because of a loose timeline. However there's no way for me to know until I've read it through, is there. You really are such an idiot that you ask 7N oxygen-free idiotic questions.
"Anandtech would be more predisposed towards Qualcomm clickbait " Sorry but the Qualcomm articles adhere to Anandtech's quality standard and are strongly critical in many instances, OTOH Ian in this article (and the Richard one) takes on an inappropriately welcoming tone towards blatant dishonesty and corporate jargon. And FYI he got free trips to China from Huawei, possibly other freebies.
"as well as a couple of ways it's difficult to use and some settings it works well in and some it doesn't" Not nearly as clear as it should be, Youtubers could do better than this.
"Why do reviews sites look at motherboards and bench them when the results are usually within a few percent of a competing board..." You're inadvertantly agreeing with me, idiot.
"Now, please do consider your arrogance and attitude is not helping your case." Though you did a good job about your idiocy back there, there's still call for some self-refection.
"No one will EVER agree with you or take you seriously if you feel you have to insult them to get your point across." Look again where the insult started, and with some Dunning-Kruger, ironically.
Dear Ian, Those sample videos clearly show that they are using optical flow image processing to interpolate frames. Even though this is a quick look article, I think that extended slow-mo section should be edited to add a clarification that this is not native 7680fps, which is simply clickbait being peddled by Huawei. There are apps on the mobile stores that can do this kind of interpolation, we only care about the hardware refresh rate.
I'm more impressed with the 76'206 AI-Benchmark score of this phone thanks to the new NPU more than twice more performant than the 980 one. Now how this can be compared to desktop GPU scores? Any link?
Thanks Ian! Question: how is the reception and call quality of the phone? While I use my smartphones for all kinds of other things, my smartphone is also my main phone, and I had some otherwise good smartphones fail at being good at that - making phone calls. Any impressions?
I am really upset with the direction the smartphone reviews are going! They have so many advanced tools and benchmarks to test the display, processor etc, but they outright skip the most important aspect of a phone to many people - Telephony. There is nothing in the reviews about call quality, ear piece volume levels/ clarity, network reception quality inside buildings/ poor network coverage areas, microphone quality (how good the person sounds to the caller on the other side), etc.. Just nothing!
"This does one of two things. Firstly, it affects how we change the volume, as there is no volume button control. In order to adjust the volume, the user double taps on the edge of the display, and the volume pop-up allows the user to swipe up and down, using a thumb on the edge of the display, to adjust the volume"
Meaning that: 1) There is no rim, so placing the phone display down will scratch the glass with a grain of sand etc 2) a case cannot protect the sides of the phone as that would disable volume adjustment function. 3) You cannot adjust volume by feel in your pocket/phone holder without taking it out and turning on the screen first.
I noted the volume issue at GSMA, I said that if the rumors are true (which they turned out to be), then the volume implementation would be a total gimmick. NEX3 has a highly similar screen yet their volume is pressure based, which is compatible with a case.
The resolution in the high-fps video is not 720p either, it looks like 160p. Looks like they "interpolate" not just frames but pixels in the frame. All while advertising high fps and high res. Fraudsters.
Wow I was thinking 360p, 160p is.........I think they read out more than that, but it could be a little harder to test, you'd need something flying by at high speed on basically the same plane as an MTF chart. Or have the MTF chart flying at high speed, which is even harder. Or have the phone fly by the MTF chart at high speed while keeping a constant plane of focus, which sounds equally as hard as the flying MTF chart.
...However, one could shoot the same scene with the slo-mo 720p, and with a regular 60fps 720p, and see if there's a notable degradation in resolution. If the degradation approaches what the video looks like downscaled to 360p then upscaled back, then it suggests fraud.
Regarding the "Position 2: Clock Tower" picture. The auther says "however the Mate 30 Pro is a bit more hazier with less detail". I agree it's more hazy, but it definitely has more detail than P30 Pro.
Ugs REALLY? I can do math myself... I know that 32 seconds on 30fps equal 960 frames in those 0.125sec which would be around 7680 frames in one Second... But the Question is HOW? You remember the Sony sensor which first made 960fps possible? They said it's impossible to render frames so fast, so they included onboard RAM on the sensor itself and transfer the data later. The first Huawei phone which did 960fps simply recorded 240fps and used motion interpolation to upscale it to 960fps. How can we be certain they didn't do anything similar here? What kind of hardware tricks did they use to process 960 pictures in 0.125 seconds? Is the bus from Camera to cpu fast enough for that much data? If so how comes we're limited to 0.125s why not use 0.25sec and 4gb of RAM?
We’ve updated our terms. By continuing to use the site and/or by logging into your account, you agree to the Site’s updated Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
47 Comments
Back to Article
zepi - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
These high FPS modes are in the end just tools.Depending on the creativity of the videographer and the limitations imposed by the restrictions they can be useful or useless gimmicks.
Duration restrictions are quite severe, so it is not clear that these are actually usable for capturing interesting things. This is difficult to assess without actually trying and learning to use these tools.
Often times setup for such video captures is so time consuming and expensive, that it is impossible to create repeatable exercises to master such restricted tools...
Still, it is nice to see such features.
StevenD - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
The ultra high FPS stuff is always a gimmick, I am much more pleased with the results of a good 240 fps than the impressive but short-lived 960.7680 is something else though. I can see it being useful filming explosions, but in that case, it's even harder to get the right shot, especially if you're using consumable materials, and the phone might not survive every time.
olde94 - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
As a tinkerer (diy guy) and an engineer having a camera that can capture 125 micro seconds is really something useful, even with the limit as long as "getting it to capture the right time span" is not an issue. But for creative use i hardly see the use, but i might not be creative enoughmdrejhon - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
The high speed features are not necessarily gimmicks for study purposes - for example, the analysis of displays benefits well from a true native 1000fps (and higher) high speed camera. High speed videos of display refresh cycles at http://www.blurbusters.com/scanout is one good example of high speed video becoming accessible to DIY researchers and student scientists who otherwise could not afford a high speed camera.alexvoda - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Just like removing the headphone jack (and not replacing it with another port) is stupid, removing the volume buttons is stupid.Something that before you could previously control just by using touch, now requires you to look at the phone.
I really wonder when we will outgrow this trend of removing physical controls in phones, cars and everything in between.
zepi - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Volume control is handled by the BT-headphones.close - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
That's just one of the use cases. Turning the volume up or down for the ringer or any app streaming/casting to another device is another. And yes, you can always do it from software but it requires enough additional steps to make it annoying *every time* with no workaround.soliloquist - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Or when you are using the phone... you know, as a phone.I know no one does that anymore. But in that off chance that people want to actually talk to each other, being able to change the volume without moving the phone away from your ear/mouth is helpful.
not_anton - Sunday, September 29, 2019 - link
(AirPods user) Yea, sure...BedfordTim - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Especially when you have the phone in a case to protect the wrap around screen.StevenD - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
1100e for a device which comes with all the hassles of having to sideload a lot of the apps?Am I being cheap, cause that sounds crazy to me. Especially when you think that, for that price, you can definitely get a great phone with a great camera.
BedfordTim - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
You could just use a third party store like Yalp.reggjoo1 - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Or, you can install gsf, without root, in ten minutes. Excellent article on 9to5 google.ChorizoNinja - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
I am sorry, but 1099€ is a little bit of a joke. The slow motion camera is just a cheap interpolation, and it doesn't have google services. In my world I would grab a note 10, at least the warranty service, in my case, was excellent... and I have security patches and a full version of android, plus the stylus.iSeptimus - Wednesday, September 25, 2019 - link
Yup, it is ridiculous. Most people's time is worth more.oRAirwolf - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I actually enjoy slow motion video quite a bit. I use it when shooting guns. I am honestly pretty jealous of this extremely high frame rate video. I never thought I would be jealous about another phone this year after purchasing the OnePlus 7 Pro.s.yu - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
I hope you paid attention, it shoots 1920fps at what they claim to be 720P (but that also requires verification since Huawei lies about everything), then interpolates each captured frame into 4.lukedriftwood - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I should point out that slowmo frame rates higher than 960fps (1920fps and 7680fps) are motion interpolated from 960fps native capture.Ian Cutress - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
It's 1080p960 or 720p1920. That's more than just a simple interpolation, otherwise it would be able to take 1080p video and then interpolate as it is saving the file from memory and the data goes through the ISP.s.yu - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
"do clever interpolation to appear as if it is a higher frame rate"Ian, you're calling falsities "clever", and used too slow a water stream for the test. The correct way is to use a sprinkler, go very close to the sprinkler, and point the camera on something in the same plane of focus, for example grass, as the sprinkler. It would clearly show how ugly the interpolation is. Huawei's 480fps interpolated to 960fps was already shown to be very ugly under the sprinkler test, interpolating 1 into 4 frames is even uglier and more dishonest. Sony only advertised 960fps when they properly read out every frame. Not Huawei, not these people, they can't stop themselves from lying.
Usually we'd have Andrei doing smartphone tests, but has all that Huawei pampering clouded your judgement?
Ian Cutress - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
Did you fail to read the very last line of this hands on?s.yu - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
If you're suggesting that the full review will be Andrei's, that's not my point, my point is that whoever, at Anandtech, tested the device in this limited scope, should have done better. The title is called "Kirin 990 and 7680 FPS Slow Motion Tests" after all, there's no point in releasing these non-indicative results if Andrei's going to do it all over again, properly.philehidiot - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
You're picking and choosing what to criticise, aren't you? The title starts with "A day with".A DAY.
If you're going to quickly go over most aspects of a device in a day, you have to use what's around. If you can fully set up tests and review a slow motion camera in a day, along with all the other stuff here, set up your own site and compete. You're being unrealistic and hypercritical whilst also being wilfully dishonest to achieve your ends.
When you're done being all upset that you're getting this kind of response from people, do consider if this keeps happening the problem isn't everyone else.
s.yu - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
lol, Here's a fool looking for humiliation.You're talking about taking "a day" literally? As in he's had this device for exactly 24hrs? Then obviously you need to take the rest of the title literally don't you, "Kirin 990 and 7680 FPS Slow Motion Tests"
And what do we have regarding the conclusion of an article under this title? "The big question on everyone’s lips is whether Huawei can survive without the Play Store, and then in turn, without Google’s main apps like Gmail, YouTube, or Maps." In fact half of the whole conclusion is regarding "whether Huawei can survive without the Play Store" blah blah blah. What's that got to do with "Kirin 990 and 7680 FPS Slow Motion Tests"? Nothing! It means that the title cannot be taken literally! Your sophistry hinges on the assumption that the first half of the title means what it says, yet the conclusion already proves the second part false, it means you need a half-true-half-false title in which the true part is what you want it to be, I think that's called "being unrealistic and hypercritical whilst also being wilfully dishonest to achieve your ends", lol.
s.yu - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
Also, my fundamental point stands that he's condoning Huawei's lies by calling it clever, which is an extension from his last article in which he took on the tone of Huawei's mouthpiece, and it also stands, no matter how much time he actually had or could have had with the device, that the results are non-indicative aside from proving Huawei's 1-to-4 frame interpolation, in addition to the fact that Andrei's doing the full review sometime later, that, according to you, must include a proper, indicative test of the slo-mo anyway since he's not on a deadline or on a very loose one per usual Anandtech, it's a futile exercise, and so, what should I call this article then...yes, Huawei clickbait.philehidiot - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
"Fool"? I call myself an idiot in my name. Don't you DARE try to imply I'm anything less than an idiot. Prat. Also, if you're going to insult someone's intelligence, please consider capitalisation, etc. Glass house, stones, etc. Get your own act together before insulting.So half the conclusion is on the most important question surrounding this phone and you're criticising this? And you're insisting on bitching about the title not being completely literal as your main point? So, using a load of electronic trickery to produce massive frame rates is not clever? Okay, YOU do it. If it's not clever, it's clearly within the reach of the average which should be well within your grasp as you're calling other people fools. So you must think you're clever.
I'm sensing some Dunning-Kruger going on here.
So, if the whole thing is a futile exercise, please do tell.... why are you bothering reading it all and excreting your opinion all over the rest of us? Do tell. I'm sure your time is far better spent doing all these amazing things you should be doing rather than attempting to shit all over everyone else's work.
Huawei clickbait? I'd say Anandtech would be more predisposed towards Qualcomm clickbait given they take money and so on from them.
And yes, the results prove that the interpolation works.... as well as a couple of ways it's difficult to use and some settings it works well in and some it doesn't. Y'know... the overview implied by the bloody title. Why do reviews sites look at motherboards and bench them when the results are usually within a few percent of a competing board? Or why do they test two SSDs of two differing brands which use identical controllers and NAND? Because companies lie, cheat and steal and checking the stuff does what it claims to do is the first step towards informing the consumer.
Now, please do consider your arrogance and attitude is not helping your case. You could make a good one people will read. But... you chose to go down the "insult everyone else until they agree with me" route. No one will EVER agree with you or take you seriously if you feel you have to insult them to get your point across.
Twat. ;)
s.yu - Sunday, September 29, 2019 - link
I commend you for your self-awareness of your idiocy.There's not much worth arguing about considering hardly anything stands in your idiotic rant.
"on the most important question surrounding this phone"
Says you, many on the site agree that it's political BS. Go back to the Richard interview and count how many people agree with me.
"And you're insisting on bitching about the title not being completely literal as your main point? "
Rather that's your main point, how "A DAY", in all caps, excuses the sloppy job. I won't waste my time reiliterating my main point what I've stressed in abundance.
"a load of electronic trickery to produce massive frame rates"
No, it's deceitful. 1920fps readout interpolated x4 != 7680fps readout, far from equal. I don't even dare do 4x interpolations on Twixtor because of how poorly the results turn out, and this is at an even lower processing precision on a low power platform real-time. I don't do it because I have a bottom line, not Huawei. As far as I‘m aware all slo-mo have been advertised as their actual readout speed until Huawei came along and turned a native 480fps device into "960fps" through a firmware update just because Sony could do real 960fps. You're free to prove me wrong with an earlier example though.
"I'm sensing some Dunning-Kruger going on here."
Sense harder, and you'll sense where it actually happens.
"if the whole thing is a futile exercise"
This whole article is a futile exercise, given that there will be a more comprehensive one by Andrei which, again, according to you does not make the sloppy mistakes in this one because of a loose timeline. However there's no way for me to know until I've read it through, is there. You really are such an idiot that you ask 7N oxygen-free idiotic questions.
"Anandtech would be more predisposed towards Qualcomm clickbait "
Sorry but the Qualcomm articles adhere to Anandtech's quality standard and are strongly critical in many instances, OTOH Ian in this article (and the Richard one) takes on an inappropriately welcoming tone towards blatant dishonesty and corporate jargon. And FYI he got free trips to China from Huawei, possibly other freebies.
"as well as a couple of ways it's difficult to use and some settings it works well in and some it doesn't"
Not nearly as clear as it should be, Youtubers could do better than this.
"Why do reviews sites look at motherboards and bench them when the results are usually within a few percent of a competing board..."
You're inadvertantly agreeing with me, idiot.
"Now, please do consider your arrogance and attitude is not helping your case."
Though you did a good job about your idiocy back there, there's still call for some self-refection.
"No one will EVER agree with you or take you seriously if you feel you have to insult them to get your point across."
Look again where the insult started, and with some Dunning-Kruger, ironically.
"Twat. ;)"
I'll take that as your motto.
pinchies - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
Dear Ian,Those sample videos clearly show that they are using optical flow image processing to interpolate frames. Even though this is a quick look article, I think that extended slow-mo section should be edited to add a clarification that this is not native 7680fps, which is simply clickbait being peddled by Huawei. There are apps on the mobile stores that can do this kind of interpolation, we only care about the hardware refresh rate.
s.yu - Friday, September 27, 2019 - link
Spot on.Haldi - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
QFT!pberger - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
I'm more impressed with the 76'206 AI-Benchmark score of this phone thanks to the new NPU more than twice more performant than the 980 one.Now how this can be compared to desktop GPU scores? Any link?
designerfx - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
", the bottom left is a 40MP f/1.6 camera with OIS, and the bottom left is an 8MP f/2.4 telephoto camera and lens, also with OIS."might want to specify which bottom left, apparently - or fix your typo
eastcoast_pete - Monday, September 23, 2019 - link
Thanks Ian! Question: how is the reception and call quality of the phone? While I use my smartphones for all kinds of other things, my smartphone is also my main phone, and I had some otherwise good smartphones fail at being good at that - making phone calls. Any impressions?saru44 - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
I am really upset with the direction the smartphone reviews are going! They have so many advanced tools and benchmarks to test the display, processor etc, but they outright skip the most important aspect of a phone to many people - Telephony. There is nothing in the reviews about call quality, ear piece volume levels/ clarity, network reception quality inside buildings/ poor network coverage areas, microphone quality (how good the person sounds to the caller on the other side), etc.. Just nothing!peevee - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
"This does one of two things. Firstly, it affects how we change the volume, as there is no volume button control. In order to adjust the volume, the user double taps on the edge of the display, and the volume pop-up allows the user to swipe up and down, using a thumb on the edge of the display, to adjust the volume"Meaning that:
1) There is no rim, so placing the phone display down will scratch the glass with a grain of sand etc
2) a case cannot protect the sides of the phone as that would disable volume adjustment function.
3) You cannot adjust volume by feel in your pocket/phone holder without taking it out and turning on the screen first.
Stupid designs are stupid.
s.yu - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
I noted the volume issue at GSMA, I said that if the rumors are true (which they turned out to be), then the volume implementation would be a total gimmick. NEX3 has a highly similar screen yet their volume is pressure based, which is compatible with a case.peevee - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
"At 256x however, the video is also 32 seconds, meaning that the sensor can only record 0.125 seconds of video."Useless. Typical reaction time is over 0.3s. Way more when a person is tired. Nobody can catch the event lasting 0.125s.
Somebody needs to start prosecution for false advertisement.
peevee - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
The resolution in the high-fps video is not 720p either, it looks like 160p. Looks like they "interpolate" not just frames but pixels in the frame. All while advertising high fps and high res. Fraudsters.s.yu - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
Wow I was thinking 360p, 160p is.........I think they read out more than that, but it could be a little harder to test, you'd need something flying by at high speed on basically the same plane as an MTF chart.Or have the MTF chart flying at high speed, which is even harder.
Or have the phone fly by the MTF chart at high speed while keeping a constant plane of focus, which sounds equally as hard as the flying MTF chart.
s.yu - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
...However, one could shoot the same scene with the slo-mo 720p, and with a regular 60fps 720p, and see if there's a notable degradation in resolution. If the degradation approaches what the video looks like downscaled to 360p then upscaled back, then it suggests fraud.s.yu - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
Andrei should definitely look into this.Haldi - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Seems like it has AI which helps you start recording at the perfect time, similar to Samsung.One thing I really miss one my XZ2 sometimes.
peevee - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
" and other app stores, that contain the most popular applications (Facebook, Instagram, Whatsapp"And youtube or google maps are not as popular? BS. An Android phone without them is as good as useless.
SanX - Tuesday, September 24, 2019 - link
Add for comparison ASUS ROG II 12GB RAM 1TB storage, 6000 mAh battery, other processor phones like UMIDIGI latest phone with Mediatek Heliomaryammiahan - Thursday, September 26, 2019 - link
Thanks for this Post I think huawei mate 30 pro going to be a big hit and its camera features are most demanding features in smartphone.Cod3rror - Saturday, September 28, 2019 - link
Regarding the "Position 2: Clock Tower" picture. The auther says "however the Mate 30 Pro is a bit more hazier with less detail". I agree it's more hazy, but it definitely has more detail than P30 Pro.I am very impressed by Mate 30 Pro's details.
Haldi - Wednesday, October 9, 2019 - link
Ugs REALLY? I can do math myself...I know that 32 seconds on 30fps equal 960 frames in those 0.125sec which would be around 7680 frames in one Second...
But the Question is HOW?
You remember the Sony sensor which first made 960fps possible? They said it's impossible to render frames so fast, so they included onboard RAM on the sensor itself and transfer the data later.
The first Huawei phone which did 960fps simply recorded 240fps and used motion interpolation to upscale it to 960fps.
How can we be certain they didn't do anything similar here?
What kind of hardware tricks did they use to process 960 pictures in 0.125 seconds? Is the bus from Camera to cpu fast enough for that much data?
If so how comes we're limited to 0.125s why not use 0.25sec and 4gb of RAM?