| Author |
Samsung i8510 INNOV8 *official now* |
xironghostx
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
On 2008-07-12 14:10:44, QVGA wrote:
You're now crossing into the plankgatan territory.
|
|
|
F-Lexx
Joined: May 09, 2007
Posts: 163
From: Romania
PM |
This sounds REALLY great. All the pluses of C905 with added DivX support, 3d chip, bigger screen and, to top it all, it's a smartphone. I really see no reason to buy the C905 anymore.  |
Dextrr
Joined: Dec 16, 2006
Posts: 279
From: New York
PM |
On 2008-07-12 13:50:58, NightBlade wrote:
On 2008-07-12 12:57:59, Dextrr wrote:
Nighblade:
Dude, let it be released before you comment on the "pixel density" and "bad battery". It might be a little longer and wider (due to the 2.8' screen) but it's thinner than the porky C905!!!!!!!
Well just do the math, the screen's obiously QVGA and a 2.8" diagonal would have the pixels stretched a tad too much.
As for the battery life, well, the housing is a bit too thin to contain a reasonably powerful battery (considering all the things it needs to power and all the things already in the housing). And besides, Samsung's rarely been that good with battery life.
You are wrong on so many fronts it's not even funny.
1: "the screen's obiously QVGA" --> Obviously? It doesn't say anywhere it's QVGA or VGA. Your assuming there.
2: "the housing is a bit too thin to contain a reasonably powerful battery" --> Your fat 20mm C905 has a 930 mAh while the Samsung is only 16.5mm and has a 1200 mAh. 
3:"Samsung's rarely been that good with battery life." --> Any concrete proof for that?
It's ok not to like other brands and worship blindly SE but making up misleading and false facts about a handset without any substantial proofs is kinda dumb.
PS: How do you feel about SE using Samsung's cam module in their flagship phone? |
Janbobejan
Joined: Jan 24, 2008
Posts: 35
From: Southern Africa
PM, WWW
|
Hmmm . . . I haven't visited esato for a week or so and already a new 'king' is rumored  Can it focus while video recording? And what about wimax? Wifi is sort of outdated by now. Nevertheless a nice move from Samsung.Now lets wait for Nokia's answer - be assured,it will come before this phone hits the market I love it - nice times we are living in. A pity SE is not up there anymore  Let's hope Plankgatan does not see the last sentence.
|
QVGA
Joined: May 23, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Pakistan
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-07-12 14:43:58, Dextrr wrote:
On 2008-07-12 13:50:58, NightBlade wrote:
On 2008-07-12 12:57:59, Dextrr wrote:
Nighblade:
Dude, let it be released before you comment on the "pixel density" and "bad battery". It might be a little longer and wider (due to the 2.8' screen) but it's thinner than the porky C905!!!!!!!
Well just do the math, the screen's obiously QVGA and a 2.8" diagonal would have the pixels stretched a tad too much.
As for the battery life, well, the housing is a bit too thin to contain a reasonably powerful battery (considering all the things it needs to power and all the things already in the housing). And besides, Samsung's rarely been that good with battery life.
You are wrong on so many fronts it's not even funny.
1: "the screen's obiously QVGA" --> Obviously? It doesn't say anywhere it's QVGA or VGA. Your assuming there.
2: "the housing is a bit too thin to contain a reasonably powerful battery" --> Your fat 20mm C905 has a 930 mAh while the Samsung is only 16.5mm and has a 1200 mAh.
3:"Samsung's rarely been that good with battery life." --> Any concrete proof for that?
It's ok not to like other brands and worship blindly SE but making up misleading and false facts about a handset without any substantial proofs is kinda dumb.
PS: How do you feel about SE using Samsung's cam module in their flagship phone?
he has probably fled this thread out of embarrassment
|
Muhammad-Oli
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: The NZ of L
PM |
Well its specs are impressive, but I think the C905 looks a lot better. The C905 has a beautiful clean design, while this looks a bit cluttered. What really spoils this phone is the back. They've stamped a logo on the back for just about every feature it has, and that's ugly.
Doesn't look too bad from the front though.  It certainly beats the C905 specwise.
This message was posted in the mail
2008, 2009, 2010 Best Australasian Member. |
troublesam
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Posts: 47
PM, WWW
|
OMG!!! the N96 has been cloned!!! LOL! |
marty mcfly
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM |
Is that an LED flash? |
rustam07
Joined: Mar 08, 2008
Posts: 175
PM |
On 2008-07-12 16:30:57, Muhammad-Oli wrote:
Well its specs are impressive, but I think the C905 looks a lot better. The C905 has a beautiful clean design, while this looks a bit cluttered. What really spoils this phone is the back. They've stamped a logo on the back for just about every feature it has, and that's ugly.
Doesn't look too bad from the front though. It certainly beats the C905 specwise.
Mate more than C905 has xenon flash, but Samsung i8510 only LED flash !!!!
[ This Message was edited by: rustam07 on 2008-07-12 17:21 ]
[ This Message was edited by: rustam07 on 2008-07-12 17:22 ] |
oddie k750
Joined: Jan 05, 2007
Posts: 399
PM |
According to mobilenet it's video recording is only QVGA, but at 120fps.
|
se_dude
Joined: Nov 07, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM |
I think there has been a mistake. If SE and samsung share the same cam module, how cuome the focal lengths are different?? 
As far as i know,each of the prototypes use different modules to guarantee the best piece available. |
NightBlade
Joined: Jul 29, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Nessebar, Bulgaria
PM |
On 2008-07-12 16:24:38, QVGA wrote:
he has probably fled this thread out of embarrassment
Actually, I've been watching Stargate Atlantis, TYVM.
|
DickySnapples
Joined: Dec 05, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
dont care to respond to the comments? |
Shuuro
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
Posts: 74
PM, WWW
|
@se_dude, eldar has mentioned that the samsung has used lens from their digital camera lineup and perhaps this explains different focal length.
_________________
My photo stream at
http://flickr.com/photos/shuuro/
[ This Message was edited by: Shuuro on 2008-07-12 20:57 ] |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2008-07-12 18:37:12, se_dude wrote:
I think there has been a mistake. If SE and samsung share the same cam module, how cuome the focal lengths are different??
The focal length doesn't directly decide the sensor type or size. Focal length controls how wide or narrow the image projected on the sensor will be. Shorter focal length means wide angle so if you have a very thin camphone with a very large sensor then you get photos that look like this:
(Hot Shots Walleye Vision.)
_________________
Snuck! It's ointment time! -- Mad Jack the Pirate
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2008-07-12 21:15 ]
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2008-07-12 21:18 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2008-07-12 14:27
