I don't know what that means. Would you mind explaining?
When making a purchase the system generates a single use 'token', which can be in numeric, alphanumeric, or QR code fashion in lieu of the actual credit card info.
So after looking at the photos and videos available online, I'm still so polarized by the design:
- The front is gorgeous in all colors. The larger screens, the 2.5D glass, the proportions (especially the 4.7") it just looks money.
- The sides I'm ambivalent on as I really liked the slab sides of the 4 to 5S, but it's mostly different - not better or worse. The sunken buttons are a nice touch.
- I still can't even get ambivalent on the back. What exactly are those thick lines - aluminum accents? A different material? The protruding camera doesn't bother me much (though flush would have been sleeker), but that back design (even in hands-on videos) just leaves me cold.
I share your feelings, albeit without having seen one in the flesh.
I think Ive realised that the back wasn't attractive, but it was a trade-off. And really, we never look at the back most of the time, nor does anyone else. And for publicity like reviews, you normally only look at the front. So I can live with it.
Edit: and it's a whole lot better than the Samsung S series - now that's a seriously ugly back.
Those thick lines are insulators to isolate the antennas. They have to be there and they have to be that thick. They aren't arbitrary or chosen as design features.
We'll be learning more about their function soon, I expect. But one thing we know now is that Apple doesn't do things like those inlays for frivolous reasons. They may adjust one to be symmetrical with the other, but that's it.
Ugh some reviews have clarified that those lines are plastic I was holding out hope they were contrasting metal or even glass.
I get your point, but how did they avoid it in the previous iPhones? Anandtech's hands-on mentions they think it was for the NFC chip at the top of the phone which makes sense.
The 6 Plus is thicker, probably for battery volume. More room for OIS actuators. Logical speculation, of course.
Although I doubt the extra thickness helps in horizontal and vertical movement*, I rather the 6 to have been thicker as well then. I don't want some obnoxious 5.5" phone, but the OIS would be a huge help. I was afraid they were going to fragment features. This is probably marketing.
*one might make the argument the hardware needed for the horizontal and vertical movement, but then I argue the 5.5" phone has much more space inside, and the same electronics, but larger battery, so it wouldn't be for that.
I bet there's not enough space in the 'standard' iPhone6 to accommodate optical stabilisation. It requires space for the sensor and/or lens to compensate for movement.
I hate that i'm gonna feel like and AM going to get a lesser version of the iphone by buying the 6.
How hard could it have been to but at least 1080p screen on the 6!? Same can be said for the image stabilization tech too.
Or is it that Apple are happy to sacrifice better specs to make it 0.2mm thinner than the plus?
disappointed.
I'm disappointed that optical image stabilisation isn't in the smaller model but you can probably hold the smaller one steadier. We'll see what benefit there is in the photos when they are reviewed.
I don't think the resolution matters at all. Retina displays mean you can't see the pixels so it wouldn't matter being 1080p or 4K, you can't see the pixels. They could probably have gotten away with 720p as it would be 320PPI, about the same as the iPhone 4 Retina display.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">"The iPhone 6 Plus will play games in higher resolution than next generation consoles. Think about that for a minute."</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">- Eli Hodapp</span>
Impressive.
I was hoping the next generation consoles would be 4k, seeing as the current ones just got to 1080p.
fact is the camera takes amazing pictures and the 6 element lense is a game changer
And it's protruding. I don't like compromise. People say it wobbles. I'm not making this stuff up. I often use my phone while it's on a table. It can't wobble.
I was hoping the next generation consoles would be 4k, seeing as the current ones just got to 1080p.
4K Video: A 21st Century solution in search of a problem.
The Number One, most serious, overwhelmingly dominating problem with video delivered to the consumer is compression artifacts. Any real-time delivery suffers so much from compression that every other consideration pales in comparison.
The solution? Add pixels, making the problem even WORSE. Great.
Not true. All recent 4K cameras have a much better compression rate to compensate for more data. The real benefit of 4K is the ability to crop-stabilize, scale down to 2K for a very crisp image without aliasing (and a 4:4:4 color space).
4K Video: A 21st Century solution in search of a problem.
The Number One, most serious, overwhelmingly dominating problem with video delivered to the consumer is compression artifacts. Any real-time delivery suffers so much from compression that every other consideration pales in comparison.
The solution? Add pixels, making the problem even WORSE. Great.
I was hoping the next generation consoles would be 4k, seeing as the current ones just got to 1080p.
4K Video: A 21st Century solution in search of a problem.
The Number One, most serious, overwhelmingly dominating problem with video delivered to the consumer is compression artifacts. Any real-time delivery suffers so much from compression that every other consideration pales in comparison.
The solution? Add pixels, making the problem even WORSE. Great.
You seem to know a bit about seeing as well as hearing. Aren't you seeping into PixelDoc's domain?
Not true. All recent 4K cameras have a much better compression rate to compensate for more data.
Cool. Now if everyone can watch the production as it plays back from the camera we'll be in great shape. We'll just have several million people gather around the viewfinder to watch.
The capture device isn't the problem. Delivery is. How many Mb/s is 24-bit 4:2:2 4K? How do you wanna get that to people's TVs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dacloo
(and a 4:4:4 color space).
Separate issues. That's like arguing that better tires are a benefit of a bigger engine. Colour space isn't dependent on resolution. There's no reason one can't capture 4:4:4 at 1080.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost
You seem to know a bit about seeing as well as hearing. Aren't you seeping into PixelDoc's domain?
Nope. The pixel people can keep their screwy world. I've got enough headaches with people getting pointlessly worked up over trivial issues like 192k sampling and 9.2 surround systems to have any time left for bringing sanity to the 4K front!
The listens I make are for attaching to the sees other people make. Some of their world inevitably rubs off in the process.
4K Video: A 21st Century solution in search of a problem.
The Number One, most serious, overwhelmingly dominating problem with video delivered to the consumer is compression artifacts. Any real-time delivery suffers so much from compression that every other consideration pales in comparison.
The solution? Add pixels, making the problem even WORSE. Great.
Seeing as I was responding to a statement regarding consoles, there shouldn't be any compression artifacts. From what I understood consoles render in real time on the display. Computers with mid to high end graphics cards are already capable of it without any artifacts, and it's amazing.
So what about my post had any relevance to artifacts?
So what about my post had any relevance to artifacts?
Nothing. Please disregard. No offence or even dispute intended. My lizard brain response to disordered priorities is involuntarily triggered by the whole concept of 4K in general because I work in TV. Sorry for the jerked knee.
Nothing. Please disregard. No offence or even dispute intended. My lizard brain response to disordered priorities is involuntarily triggered by the whole concept of 4K in general because I work in TV. Sorry for the jerked knee.
Well that was a classy response. What forum am I at?
Comments
When making a purchase the system generates a single use 'token', which can be in numeric, alphanumeric, or QR code fashion in lieu of the actual credit card info.
So after looking at the photos and videos available online, I'm still so polarized by the design:
- The front is gorgeous in all colors. The larger screens, the 2.5D glass, the proportions (especially the 4.7") it just looks money.
- The sides I'm ambivalent on as I really liked the slab sides of the 4 to 5S, but it's mostly different - not better or worse. The sunken buttons are a nice touch.
- I still can't even get ambivalent on the back. What exactly are those thick lines - aluminum accents? A different material? The protruding camera doesn't bother me much (though flush would have been sleeker), but that back design (even in hands-on videos) just leaves me cold.
I share your feelings, albeit without having seen one in the flesh.
I think Ive realised that the back wasn't attractive, but it was a trade-off. And really, we never look at the back most of the time, nor does anyone else. And for publicity like reviews, you normally only look at the front. So I can live with it.
Edit: and it's a whole lot better than the Samsung S series - now that's a seriously ugly back.
Holy shit! Free music!!
No, just a U2 album. No music.
Quite.
Those thick lines are insulators to isolate the antennas. They have to be there and they have to be that thick. They aren't arbitrary or chosen as design features.
We'll be learning more about their function soon, I expect. But one thing we know now is that Apple doesn't do things like those inlays for frivolous reasons. They may adjust one to be symmetrical with the other, but that's it.
Ugh some reviews have clarified that those lines are plastic
I was holding out hope they were contrasting metal or even glass.
I get your point, but how did they avoid it in the previous iPhones? Anandtech's hands-on mentions they think it was for the NFC chip at the top of the phone which makes sense.
The 6 Plus is thicker, probably for battery volume. More room for OIS actuators. Logical speculation, of course.
Although I doubt the extra thickness helps in horizontal and vertical movement*, I rather the 6 to have been thicker as well then. I don't want some obnoxious 5.5" phone, but the OIS would be a huge help. I was afraid they were going to fragment features. This is probably marketing.
The Nokia has OIS in the Lumia 920 at at 4.5".
*one might make the argument the hardware needed for the horizontal and vertical movement, but then I argue the 5.5" phone has much more space inside, and the same electronics, but larger battery, so it wouldn't be for that.
I bet there's not enough space in the 'standard' iPhone6 to accommodate optical stabilisation. It requires space for the sensor and/or lens to compensate for movement.
I'm disappointed that optical image stabilisation isn't in the smaller model but you can probably hold the smaller one steadier. We'll see what benefit there is in the photos when they are reviewed.
I don't think the resolution matters at all. Retina displays mean you can't see the pixels so it wouldn't matter being 1080p or 4K, you can't see the pixels. They could probably have gotten away with 720p as it would be 320PPI, about the same as the iPhone 4 Retina display.
I was hoping the next generation consoles would be 4k, seeing as the current ones just got to 1080p.
Ha! No.
debbie downer.
fact is the camera takes amazing pictures and the 6 element lense is a game changer
And it's protruding. I don't like compromise. People say it wobbles. I'm not making this stuff up. I often use my phone while it's on a table. It can't wobble.
Who give the shit about the back
Sure ! Who cares about the design of the phone right ! This isn't Apple we are talking about... oh wait.
I was hoping the next generation consoles would be 4k, seeing as the current ones just got to 1080p.
4K Video: A 21st Century solution in search of a problem.
The Number One, most serious, overwhelmingly dominating problem with video delivered to the consumer is compression artifacts. Any real-time delivery suffers so much from compression that every other consideration pales in comparison.
The solution? Add pixels, making the problem even WORSE. Great.
I was hoping the next generation consoles would be 4k, seeing as the current ones just got to 1080p.
4K Video: A 21st Century solution in search of a problem.
The Number One, most serious, overwhelmingly dominating problem with video delivered to the consumer is compression artifacts. Any real-time delivery suffers so much from compression that every other consideration pales in comparison.
The solution? Add pixels, making the problem even WORSE. Great.
You seem to know a bit about seeing as well as hearing. Aren't you seeping into PixelDoc's domain?
Not true. All recent 4K cameras have a much better compression rate to compensate for more data.
Cool. Now if everyone can watch the production as it plays back from the camera we'll be in great shape. We'll just have several million people gather around the viewfinder to watch.
The capture device isn't the problem. Delivery is. How many Mb/s is 24-bit 4:2:2 4K? How do you wanna get that to people's TVs?
(and a 4:4:4 color space).
Separate issues. That's like arguing that better tires are a benefit of a bigger engine. Colour space isn't dependent on resolution. There's no reason one can't capture 4:4:4 at 1080.
You seem to know a bit about seeing as well as hearing. Aren't you seeping into PixelDoc's domain?
Nope. The pixel people can keep their screwy world. I've got enough headaches with people getting pointlessly worked up over trivial issues like 192k sampling and 9.2 surround systems to have any time left for bringing sanity to the 4K front!
The listens I make are for attaching to the sees other people make. Some of their world inevitably rubs off in the process.
Seeing as I was responding to a statement regarding consoles, there shouldn't be any compression artifacts. From what I understood consoles render in real time on the display. Computers with mid to high end graphics cards are already capable of it without any artifacts, and it's amazing.
So what about my post had any relevance to artifacts?
Nothing. Please disregard. No offence or even dispute intended. My lizard brain response to disordered priorities is involuntarily triggered by the whole concept of 4K in general because I work in TV. Sorry for the jerked knee.
Well that was a classy response. What forum am I at?
Well that was a classy response. What forum am I at?
Purely self-serving. If I never own up to being wrong, no one will take me seriously when I insist I'm right.