So, if you value this feature, go get 3G[S], it's worth buying.
It’s sideways and dosn’t take up the whole window so it’s not a great example, IMO.
PS: You better qualify your astonishing comment with “for a phone” lest ye be labeled a liar and Kool-Aid drinking fanboy by certain posters here that have a problem with reading comprehension.
Really I am because I've gone to a number of hotels with very elaborate arrangements for hooking up computer hardware and audio visual hardware. One was a very new Hotel outside of Atlanta and like wise another in Las Vegas.
What was notable about the Hotel in Las Vegas was that the hardwired internet connection was extremely fast. I was actually shocked by how fast my MBP could download files. Obviously the daily fee isn't all that nice, but what do you expect from a hotel. I was able to easily justify the fee by downloading Linux distros a few movies and stuff from iTunes.
This particular hotel didn't have me looking at the TV much so honestly I can't say if it had ports on it. If you are watching TV in Las Vegas you need to reconsider why you are there.
Now I don't spend a lot of time in Hotels, we are talking about two above probably over the last four years so maybe I'm lucky. Honestly though it isn't luck either as you have to search for the hotel with features that are acceptable to you. It is like when I go on vacation in the Caribbean, if you make it a point to look for a hotel with no phones and no TV you can find them.
Dave
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper
What hotel chain allows any sort of connection to their TV's?
Because I haven't found any in the US, if it's low end, the TV is the cheapest POS possible with no connections.
If it's high end, they have no ports and the only one is for the dedicated pay per view system via a locked cable or something else not easily used.
Hotels know customers like to hook things up like game machines etc to the hotels TV's and just disconnect/leave cables unplugged, requiring a expensive tech service call to get the TV back on the system.
So I've found nearly no hotel chain that supports customers hooking things up, rather the hotel system provides games, movies etc.
But if you care to inform me, I'd be glad to know.
All the ones I've stayed in lately have them. The Holiday Inn Express TVs tend to have composite RCA jacks on the front of the TV. The Courtyard Marriots often have this as well. The Marriott Suites, on the occasions I have to stay in those, have HDMI and VGA inputs to their HDTVs.
The biggest problem isn't the lack of the inputs, it's the variety. I don't want to carry both a composite AND a component cable, and they don't even have an iPod-to-HDMI cable.
I guess that's one of the advantages of the old TVs going belly up. Most of the new ones that the decent hotel chains are using have composite, component and HDMI. The only issue is whether they lock the tv down so you cant access the back of it. I doubt that they can do that anymore since the manufacturers don't make sets specifically for Hotels, (like the cheapo sets for Motel 6 back in the old days).
Yeah, hotels used to use coax only TVs. Now that hotels are being remodeled with LCD TVs, the newer TVs almost invariably come with the normal array of inputs. For some reason, there must not be a cost savings like there used to be for omission of not needed ports.
It’s sideways and dosn’t take up the whole window so it’s not a great example, IMO.
Personally, I don't need any special shooting scene arrangement to estimate camera quality. Sorry, I care not enough about readers of my posts, as usual. OK, I agree, I ought to be rather ashamed of myself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: You better qualify your astonishing comment with “for a phone” lest ye be labeled a liar and Kool-Aid drinking fanboy by certain posters here that have a problem with reading comprehension.
I care not enough about any name-callers, as well. It always happens somehow, that they become quickly ashamed of themselves. It's a mystery, but it works.
Personally, I don't need any special shooting scene arrangement to estimate camera quality. Sorry, I care not enough about readers of my posts, as usual. OK, I agree, I ought to be rather ashamed of myself.
I DLed the original file. It?s much better than the YouTube version. The quality bottleneck appears to be the CMOS and to a lesser extent the lens), as one wold expect.
The iPhone recorded at 3.7Mbps for a 9.4MB file while the YouTube file is only 399kbps for a 1MB file. That is a major difference.
I DLed the original file. It?s much better than the YouTube version.
...
The iPhone recorded at 3.7Mbps for a 9.4MB file while the YouTube file is only 399kbps for a 1MB file. That is a major difference.
Sure. Let me allude to that with old unix-system password pattern: passwords are never decrypted, they only can be encrypted. It's not movie camera, it's a phone. Make video with a phone from another vendor having 3MPx camera, upload it, compare. You'll see for yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
The quality bottleneck appears to be the CMOS and to a lesser extent the lens), as one wold expect.
Why're you whining? What phone makes better video?
Sure. Let me allude to that with old unix-system password pattern: passwords are never decrypted, they only can be encrypted. It's not movie camera, it's a phone. Make video with a phone from another vendor having 3MPx camera, upload it, compare. You'll see for yourself.
Why're you whining? What phone makes better video?
I’ve objectively pointed out the limitations of YouTube by pointing out bitrate differences and where the bottleneck resides in the current system. What part of my post stated that it’s not good enough, that Apple should have made it better, or anything else that encompasses whining? Whining would imply that I’m not happy with the results, while it should be clear that I’m merely pointing out the technical highs and lows. My comment ‘as one would expect” should elicit a comment wondering what phone I think is better.
Wow, I have the original iPhone and I don't think any of my games take that long to start up. By the look of those videos, it looks like the 2G beat out the 3G in the games starting up.
Thank you. Everyone on AI rushed to watch. I just can't wait for page to finish loading. I watch it as soon as people satisfy their curiosities.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I?ve objectively pointed out the limitations of YouTube by pointing out bitrate differences
But they are known! And they are approximately the same for any uploaded videos of close types and qualities. Just don't factor YouTube influence in, when doing comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
and where the bottleneck resides in the current system. What part of my post stated that it?s not good enough, that Apple should have made it better, or anything else that encompasses whining? Whining would imply that I?m not happy with the results, while it should be clear that I?m merely pointing out the technical highs and lows. My comment ?as one would expect? should elicit a comment wondering what phone I think is better.
I think, it's premature to judge the system that uncompromising. We know few about iPhone's CMOS. And, most probably, the project "to make iPhone camera even better" should be split in several "tasks". Not every task would have been accomplished by having fixed CMOS.
Briefly, what exactly should we improve in iPhone video?
But they are known! And they are approximately the same for any uploaded videos of close types and qualities. Just don't factor YouTube influence in, when doing comparison.
I had no idea. I certainly wouldn’t have thought 400kbps for YouTube when they also have HQ video, which at the bitrate I’d think it would fall under, regardless of bitrate.
Quote:
I think, it's premature to judge the system that uncompromising. We know few about iPhone's CMOS. And, most probably, the project "to make iPhone camera even better" should be split in several "tasks". Not every task would have been accomplished by having fixed CMOS.
Which is why I think that will be the case. We know that system can handle a lot more data by looking at the recording bitrate so the bottleneck lays lays elsewhere. Since I’ve recorded better video with a 2mpx dedicated video camera I am speculating it’s the CMOS, but you don’t have to agree with my assessment.
Quote:
Briefly, what exactly should we improve in iPhone video?
At this point, nothing, it is what it is and Apple will make minor improvements with SW updates like they have done previously. Future iDevices will get faster chips that can handle more bandwidth, per the modus modus operandi of computing.
Which is why I think that will be the case. We know that system can handle a lot more data by looking at the recording bitrate so the bottleneck lays lays elsewhere. Since I’ve recorded better video with a 2mpx dedicated video camera I am speculating it’s the CMOS, but you don’t have to agree with my assessment.
Ok, let's put another way what I said before. What does it mean "a video taken by 2MPx specialized camera is better"? What exactly do you call "better"? Sharpness? Colors? Artifacts? Ability to work under certain lightning conditions? Specialized device may have far more capable objective, than iPhone's one, you know. And it's whole ROM is allocated to store only image processing algorithms.
ok, let's put another way what i said before. What does it mean "a video taken by 2mpx specialized camera is better"? What exactly do you call "better"? Sharpness? Colors? Artifacts? Ability to work under certain lightning conditions? Specialized device may have far more capable objective, than iphone's one, you know. And it's whole rom is allocated to store only image processing algorithms.
i really don’t know how to describe better except to say it’s not less than or equal to. That doesn’t imply that a camera is crap or if it”s excellent. It’s a relative term based on comparisons. Any one of those items you list can be represented as better or worse than other image.
I'm pretty disappointed that the 3GS is not utilising its HD capability. Even though the iPhone screen can't do justice to 720, it doesn't mean you can't just use it to record HD and then watch it on a bigger screen.
I would have loved to not have to carry around my Zi6 as well as my iPhone.
i really don?t know how to describe better except to say it?s not less than or equal to. That doesn?t imply that a camera is crap or if it?s excellent. It?s a relative term based on comparisons. Any one of those items you list can be represented as better or worse than other image.
Umm...
It might have been just feeling attached to old trusty gadget, I guess. Sometimes it appears to be almost a pet, you know.
I think, this may be quite interesting, too. Though the tests are for sure less rigorous, than iLounge's ones and may seem suspicious (where the hell did they find 3G[S] on 17th?)
It might have been just feeling attached to old trusty gadget, I guess. Sometimes it appears to be almost a pet, you know.
I think, this may be quite interesting, too. Though the tests are for sure less rigorous, than iLounge's ones and may seem suspicious (where the hell did they find 3G[S] on 17th?)
gotta go...
Would have been helpful if they had done their browser tests over WiFi, since there's always going to be variation between cell carriers (yes, I know, AT&T sucks, but it would be perfectly possible to set up that same test and have the iPhone win handily, were you to pick a spot where Spring is weak and AT&T strong).
Would have been helpful if they had done their browser tests over WiFi, since there's always going to be variation between cell carriers (yes, I know, AT&T sucks, but it would be perfectly possible to set up that same test and have the iPhone win handily, were you to pick a spot where Spring is weak and AT&T strong).
OTOH, what's up with the Pre's boot time?
AnandTech has two new articles today that should be informative?
Though, it's not as bad as failing to notice an adam's apple and big feet. Well at least that's one tough ass sim slot. Oh wait, those two sentences shouldn't be put next to each other.
A bit of respect for transfolk please. They have a difficult enough time as it is.
I was actually very surprised that Apple did not go the 720P HD route with their video features, until I realized #1 AT&T would never have allowed sharing of HD video on its network, and #2 720p playback is worthless without bumping screen resolution as well.
I think you're seeing the first evidence of an iPod Touch HD due out in September. What a surprise. Once again, that Zune idea was nice while it lasted.
Playing 720p would be nice if you can connect it to an HDTV anywhere, otherwise there's no reason to have it at the moment. But that would be some nice screen if you can fit 720p in a phone screen. I don't know if anyone is actually downloading HD or full SD video over the cellular link, it seems most people sync it up at the computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
I'm not sure why everybody gets hung up on the video camera anyways. In a nut shell all it does is generates lots of data and wears your flash. Going to 720p would just wear the flash faster. Did anyone expect the video hardware to replace a dedicated video camera?
In some ways, yes. Sometimes the phone in your pocket is the only video camera that you have with you. I have several HD camcorders, but I only carry them around with a specific expectation to record.
I don't know about this wearing out of flash, I know it happens, but isn't it supposed to be able to handle a hundred thousand rewrites?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmc6000
I actually haven't stayed at a place that *doesn't* allow that in quite a while. I mean, if they are CRTs then , yeah, they don't let you but if that are LCDs you should definitely be able to plug it in - just depends on the hotels upgrade cycle I guess.
I didn't pay attention to the jacks on my last hotel's TV, but it was a CRT. I was either too busy, tired or annoyed to watch videos to notice. It wasn't necessarily a cheapie hotel either, MGM Grand in Vegas.
Comments
Video on YouTube
So, if you value this feature, go get 3G[S], it's worth buying.
Astonishing video quality.
Video on YouTube
So, if you value this feature, go get 3G[S], it's worth buying.
It’s sideways and dosn’t take up the whole window so it’s not a great example, IMO.
PS: You better qualify your astonishing comment with “for a phone” lest ye be labeled a liar and Kool-Aid drinking fanboy by certain posters here that have a problem with reading comprehension.
What was notable about the Hotel in Las Vegas was that the hardwired internet connection was extremely fast. I was actually shocked by how fast my MBP could download files. Obviously the daily fee isn't all that nice, but what do you expect from a hotel. I was able to easily justify the fee by downloading Linux distros a few movies and stuff from iTunes.
This particular hotel didn't have me looking at the TV much so honestly I can't say if it had ports on it. If you are watching TV in Las Vegas you need to reconsider why you are there.
Now I don't spend a lot of time in Hotels, we are talking about two above probably over the last four years so maybe I'm lucky. Honestly though it isn't luck either as you have to search for the hotel with features that are acceptable to you. It is like when I go on vacation in the Caribbean, if you make it a point to look for a hotel with no phones and no TV you can find them.
Dave
What hotel chain allows any sort of connection to their TV's?
Because I haven't found any in the US, if it's low end, the TV is the cheapest POS possible with no connections.
If it's high end, they have no ports and the only one is for the dedicated pay per view system via a locked cable or something else not easily used.
Hotels know customers like to hook things up like game machines etc to the hotels TV's and just disconnect/leave cables unplugged, requiring a expensive tech service call to get the TV back on the system.
So I've found nearly no hotel chain that supports customers hooking things up, rather the hotel system provides games, movies etc.
But if you care to inform me, I'd be glad to know.
All the ones I've stayed in lately have them. The Holiday Inn Express TVs tend to have composite RCA jacks on the front of the TV. The Courtyard Marriots often have this as well. The Marriott Suites, on the occasions I have to stay in those, have HDMI and VGA inputs to their HDTVs.
The biggest problem isn't the lack of the inputs, it's the variety. I don't want to carry both a composite AND a component cable, and they don't even have an iPod-to-HDMI cable.
I guess that's one of the advantages of the old TVs going belly up. Most of the new ones that the decent hotel chains are using have composite, component and HDMI. The only issue is whether they lock the tv down so you cant access the back of it. I doubt that they can do that anymore since the manufacturers don't make sets specifically for Hotels, (like the cheapo sets for Motel 6 back in the old days).
It’s sideways and dosn’t take up the whole window so it’s not a great example, IMO.
Personally, I don't need any special shooting scene arrangement to estimate camera quality. Sorry, I care not enough about readers of my posts, as usual. OK, I agree, I ought to be rather ashamed of myself.
PS: You better qualify your astonishing comment with “for a phone” lest ye be labeled a liar and Kool-Aid drinking fanboy by certain posters here that have a problem with reading comprehension.
I care not enough about any name-callers, as well. It always happens somehow, that they become quickly ashamed of themselves. It's a mystery, but it works.
Personally, I don't need any special shooting scene arrangement to estimate camera quality. Sorry, I care not enough about readers of my posts, as usual. OK, I agree, I ought to be rather ashamed of myself.
I DLed the original file. It?s much better than the YouTube version. The quality bottleneck appears to be the CMOS and to a lesser extent the lens), as one wold expect.
The iPhone recorded at 3.7Mbps for a 9.4MB file while the YouTube file is only 399kbps for a 1MB file. That is a major difference.
I DLed the original file. It?s much better than the YouTube version.
...
The iPhone recorded at 3.7Mbps for a 9.4MB file while the YouTube file is only 399kbps for a 1MB file. That is a major difference.
Sure. Let me allude to that with old unix-system password pattern: passwords are never decrypted, they only can be encrypted. It's not movie camera, it's a phone. Make video with a phone from another vendor having 3MPx camera, upload it, compare. You'll see for yourself.
The quality bottleneck appears to be the CMOS and to a lesser extent the lens), as one wold expect.
Why're you whining? What phone makes better video?
Sure. Let me allude to that with old unix-system password pattern: passwords are never decrypted, they only can be encrypted. It's not movie camera, it's a phone. Make video with a phone from another vendor having 3MPx camera, upload it, compare. You'll see for yourself.
Why're you whining? What phone makes better video?
I’ve objectively pointed out the limitations of YouTube by pointing out bitrate differences and where the bottleneck resides in the current system. What part of my post stated that it’s not good enough, that Apple should have made it better, or anything else that encompasses whining? Whining would imply that I’m not happy with the results, while it should be clear that I’m merely pointing out the technical highs and lows. My comment ‘as one would expect” should elicit a comment wondering what phone I think is better.
Here are some side-by-side real world comparative speed tests...
Wow, I have the original iPhone and I don't think any of my games take that long to start up. By the look of those videos, it looks like the 2G beat out the 3G in the games starting up.
I?ve objectively pointed out the limitations of YouTube by pointing out bitrate differences
But they are known! And they are approximately the same for any uploaded videos of close types and qualities. Just don't factor YouTube influence in, when doing comparison.
and where the bottleneck resides in the current system. What part of my post stated that it?s not good enough, that Apple should have made it better, or anything else that encompasses whining? Whining would imply that I?m not happy with the results, while it should be clear that I?m merely pointing out the technical highs and lows. My comment ?as one would expect? should elicit a comment wondering what phone I think is better.
I think, it's premature to judge the system that uncompromising. We know few about iPhone's CMOS. And, most probably, the project "to make iPhone camera even better" should be split in several "tasks". Not every task would have been accomplished by having fixed CMOS.
Briefly, what exactly should we improve in iPhone video?
But they are known! And they are approximately the same for any uploaded videos of close types and qualities. Just don't factor YouTube influence in, when doing comparison.
I had no idea. I certainly wouldn’t have thought 400kbps for YouTube when they also have HQ video, which at the bitrate I’d think it would fall under, regardless of bitrate.
I think, it's premature to judge the system that uncompromising. We know few about iPhone's CMOS. And, most probably, the project "to make iPhone camera even better" should be split in several "tasks". Not every task would have been accomplished by having fixed CMOS.
Which is why I think that will be the case. We know that system can handle a lot more data by looking at the recording bitrate so the bottleneck lays lays elsewhere. Since I’ve recorded better video with a 2mpx dedicated video camera I am speculating it’s the CMOS, but you don’t have to agree with my assessment.
Briefly, what exactly should we improve in iPhone video?
At this point, nothing, it is what it is and Apple will make minor improvements with SW updates like they have done previously. Future iDevices will get faster chips that can handle more bandwidth, per the modus modus operandi of computing.
Which is why I think that will be the case. We know that system can handle a lot more data by looking at the recording bitrate so the bottleneck lays lays elsewhere. Since I’ve recorded better video with a 2mpx dedicated video camera I am speculating it’s the CMOS, but you don’t have to agree with my assessment.
Ok, let's put another way what I said before. What does it mean "a video taken by 2MPx specialized camera is better"? What exactly do you call "better"? Sharpness? Colors? Artifacts? Ability to work under certain lightning conditions? Specialized device may have far more capable objective, than iPhone's one, you know. And it's whole ROM is allocated to store only image processing algorithms.
ok, let's put another way what i said before. What does it mean "a video taken by 2mpx specialized camera is better"? What exactly do you call "better"? Sharpness? Colors? Artifacts? Ability to work under certain lightning conditions? Specialized device may have far more capable objective, than iphone's one, you know. And it's whole rom is allocated to store only image processing algorithms.
i really don’t know how to describe better except to say it’s not less than or equal to. That doesn’t imply that a camera is crap or if it”s excellent. It’s a relative term based on comparisons. Any one of those items you list can be represented as better or worse than other image.
I would have loved to not have to carry around my Zi6 as well as my iPhone.
i really don?t know how to describe better except to say it?s not less than or equal to. That doesn?t imply that a camera is crap or if it?s excellent. It?s a relative term based on comparisons. Any one of those items you list can be represented as better or worse than other image.
Umm...
It might have been just feeling attached to old trusty gadget, I guess. Sometimes it appears to be almost a pet, you know.
I think, this may be quite interesting, too. Though the tests are for sure less rigorous, than iLounge's ones and may seem suspicious (where the hell did they find 3G[S] on 17th?)
gotta go...
Umm...
It might have been just feeling attached to old trusty gadget, I guess. Sometimes it appears to be almost a pet, you know.
I think, this may be quite interesting, too. Though the tests are for sure less rigorous, than iLounge's ones and may seem suspicious (where the hell did they find 3G[S] on 17th?)
gotta go...
Would have been helpful if they had done their browser tests over WiFi, since there's always going to be variation between cell carriers (yes, I know, AT&T sucks, but it would be perfectly possible to set up that same test and have the iPhone win handily, were you to pick a spot where Spring is weak and AT&T strong).
OTOH, what's up with the Pre's boot time?
Would have been helpful if they had done their browser tests over WiFi, since there's always going to be variation between cell carriers (yes, I know, AT&T sucks, but it would be perfectly possible to set up that same test and have the iPhone win handily, were you to pick a spot where Spring is weak and AT&T strong).
OTOH, what's up with the Pre's boot time?
AnandTech has two new articles today that should be informative?
Oops, you're correct.
Though, it's not as bad as failing to notice an adam's apple and big feet. Well at least that's one tough ass sim slot. Oh wait, those two sentences shouldn't be put next to each other.
A bit of respect for transfolk please. They have a difficult enough time as it is.
I was actually very surprised that Apple did not go the 720P HD route with their video features, until I realized #1 AT&T would never have allowed sharing of HD video on its network, and #2 720p playback is worthless without bumping screen resolution as well.
I think you're seeing the first evidence of an iPod Touch HD due out in September. What a surprise. Once again, that Zune idea was nice while it lasted.
Playing 720p would be nice if you can connect it to an HDTV anywhere, otherwise there's no reason to have it at the moment. But that would be some nice screen if you can fit 720p in a phone screen. I don't know if anyone is actually downloading HD or full SD video over the cellular link, it seems most people sync it up at the computer.
I'm not sure why everybody gets hung up on the video camera anyways. In a nut shell all it does is generates lots of data and wears your flash. Going to 720p would just wear the flash faster. Did anyone expect the video hardware to replace a dedicated video camera?
In some ways, yes. Sometimes the phone in your pocket is the only video camera that you have with you. I have several HD camcorders, but I only carry them around with a specific expectation to record.
I don't know about this wearing out of flash, I know it happens, but isn't it supposed to be able to handle a hundred thousand rewrites?
I actually haven't stayed at a place that *doesn't* allow that in quite a while. I mean, if they are CRTs then , yeah, they don't let you but if that are LCDs you should definitely be able to plug it in - just depends on the hotels upgrade cycle I guess.
I didn't pay attention to the jacks on my last hotel's TV, but it was a CRT. I was either too busy, tired or annoyed to watch videos to notice. It wasn't necessarily a cheapie hotel either, MGM Grand in Vegas.