Now that's what I call a pothole - Page 2 - DiscussWorldIssues - Socio-Economic Religion and Political Uncensored Debate

**teentodiefows** · 05-01-2009, 04:09 AM

Camera phones have allot to answer for in terms of qulity of video these days. We've got ultra HD video, yet the average phone still have less than VGA resolution in video mode, and heavily compressed to boot!!

**tactWeiccaf** · 05-01-2009, 04:15 AM

Camera phones have allot to answer for in terms of qulity of video these days. We've got ultra HD video, yet the average phone still have less than VGA resolution in video mode, and heavily compressed to boot!!

Thatt's because they're phones and not video cameras. If you want HD quality buy a camcorder.

**teentodiefows** · 05-01-2009, 04:37 AM

Thatt's because they're phones and not video cameras. If you want HD quality buy a camcorder.

Yeah, but the average phone has had abysmal quality for years, and doesnt seem to have improved! Still pics are much better, but the video hasnt improved one bit.

**Tarrccrys** · 05-01-2009, 04:47 AM

Ahhhh...erosion at work.

Yeah, but the average phone has had abysmal quality for years, and doesnt seem to have improved! Still pics are much better, but the video hasnt improved one bit.

3 MP camera phones still look like crap.

**teentodiefows** · 05-01-2009, 04:51 AM

Ahhhh...erosion at work.

3 MP camera phones still look like crap.

At video, yes, and just about any web video created on a phone is crap.

**nannysuetle** · 05-01-2009, 05:42 AM

Don't get a cheap phones if you want good quality?

random phone shot
http://web.mac.com/jamesburland/Noki...ab74d1443e.jpg

**teentodiefows** · 05-01-2009, 05:49 AM

Don't get a cheap phones if you want good quality?

random phone shot
http://web.mac.com/jamesburland/Noki...ab74d1443e.jpg

As I said, still photos can look fantastic, but I cant understand why video hasnt got better? They all seem to conform to the little bandwidth available for 3G video calls.

**Uvgsgssu** · 05-01-2009, 06:21 AM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8017391.stm

That was a better vid.

**topcasinobonua** · 05-01-2009, 06:21 AM

As I said, still photos can look fantastic, but I cant understand why video hasnt got better? They all seem to conform to the little bandwidth available for 3G video calls.

I'm sure it comes down to processing power.

Cell phones neither have powerful processors nor processors suited to doing video encoding. I'm sure uncompressed, the videos would look great, but it would fill your memory way to fast. So therefor, it must be compressed down, and that's where the problems come in.

05-01-2009, 04:09 AM	#21
teentodiefows Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 558 Senior Member	Camera phones have allot to answer for in terms of qulity of video these days. We've got ultra HD video, yet the average phone still have less than VGA resolution in video mode, and heavily compressed to boot!! Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 04:15 AM	#22
tactWeiccaf Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 581 Senior Member	Camera phones have allot to answer for in terms of qulity of video these days. We've got ultra HD video, yet the average phone still have less than VGA resolution in video mode, and heavily compressed to boot!! Thatt's because they're phones and not video cameras. If you want HD quality buy a camcorder. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 04:37 AM	#23
teentodiefows Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 558 Senior Member	Thatt's because they're phones and not video cameras. If you want HD quality buy a camcorder. Yeah, but the average phone has had abysmal quality for years, and doesnt seem to have improved! Still pics are much better, but the video hasnt improved one bit. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 04:47 AM	#24
Tarrccrys Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 588 Senior Member	Ahhhh...erosion at work. Yeah, but the average phone has had abysmal quality for years, and doesnt seem to have improved! Still pics are much better, but the video hasnt improved one bit. 3 MP camera phones still look like crap. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 04:51 AM	#25
teentodiefows Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 558 Senior Member	Ahhhh...erosion at work. 3 MP camera phones still look like crap. At video, yes, and just about any web video created on a phone is crap. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 05:42 AM	#26
nannysuetle Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 480 Senior Member	Don't get a cheap phones if you want good quality? random phone shot http://web.mac.com/jamesburland/Noki...ab74d1443e.jpg Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 05:49 AM	#27
teentodiefows Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 558 Senior Member	Don't get a cheap phones if you want good quality? random phone shot http://web.mac.com/jamesburland/Noki...ab74d1443e.jpg As I said, still photos can look fantastic, but I cant understand why video hasnt got better? They all seem to conform to the little bandwidth available for 3G video calls. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 06:21 AM	#28
Uvgsgssu Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 534 Senior Member	http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/8017391.stm That was a better vid. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

05-01-2009, 06:21 AM	#29
topcasinobonua Join Date Oct 2005 Posts 502 Senior Member	As I said, still photos can look fantastic, but I cant understand why video hasnt got better? They all seem to conform to the little bandwidth available for 3G video calls. I'm sure it comes down to processing power. Cell phones neither have powerful processors nor processors suited to doing video encoding. I'm sure uncompressed, the videos would look great, but it would fill your memory way to fast. So therefor, it must be compressed down, and that's where the problems come in. Share Share this post on Digg Del.icio.us Technorati Twitter
	Quote

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)