Adinatsu, 30 Jun 2020Isnt ultra sonic fps is in s10 and 20 series and recieved criticism ? .. just asking Sorry, I am late to answer, but yes, they received many criticisms.
There are multiple reasons for that, first, this is the first ever ultrasonic fingerprint sensor on a phone.
Second, it depend heavily on the software, way more than underdisplay optical (or infrared) and capacitive.
Third, the tech is way more complicated than others.
Also, note that this was the first gen sensor, a considerably better one is available now.
So, lets break those down :
Every biometric (capacitive or optical FPS, 2D facial recognition, 3D facial recognition, Iris scanner and Palm scanner) have an actually "easy" conversion from raw to visual data.
While optical FPS already take an image (though it isn't the purest RAW image because it have to see through the display), capacitive build a map of where the fingerprint ridges touch the sensor, which make it easy to convert it into an image.
And while 2D FR is already an image, 3D, Iris and Palm scanning work the same way and have an easy conversion to image even if there is a 3D component for Face ID and its Android counterparts.
Now ultrasonic sensor return a totally different type of data, sound imaging require lots more computing, you have all the interferences, wave interactions, material density, return time etc that are on a totally different level than what happen with optical (visible and IR).
So you have lot of RAW data that need correction and interpretation, like is this the finger or the screen protection, did this bounce off of the fingerprint ridges or the display or the flesh deeper, etc etc...
So you need a really solid and powerful software to handle all this, software that regardless of the technology itself is, can make or break it.
Also most actors in the market will probably make their own variant...
And the complexity of this coupled with the low experiences in this field (optical is a really well known and mastered field for Smartphones, after all camera are really importants on Smartphones nowadays, but there is almost nothing ultrasound related in the smartphone industrie), the use which is different from what other ultrasound based tech do...
Also I wouldn't be surprised if rather than going full 3D imaging which include reading the flesh itself, they try to stupidly get rid of all that and created a software that only read the ridges...Which isn't helping at all if it is the case.
Anyway, this is really new, underdisplay FPS were also not that great when they first appeared as they were slow and unreliable.
But peoples think that because optical underdisplay FPS are now working well that ultrasonic one should also work well and don't need a trial period and "acceptable" first wave.
And the one used in all Samsung phone, being Galaxy S10, S20 and Note10 series is the same, the first gen, which have a confusingly similar name as the new one, which isn't helping, and since everyone thought the S20 would have come with the new one as it was already available, leading peoples to think the new one doesn't work better than the previous FPS...
But the "Qualcomm 3D Sonic" is totally outdated compared to the much better and different "Qualcomm 3D Sonic Max".
Combine all that, and peoples think that the ultrasonic FPS tech itself is bad, while it is merely the implementation of the first of its kind that isn't that good combined with the phone having too many limiting factors making it work less than optimally (like power saving algorithms), the change between before and after removing/adding screen protector with peoples who doesn't update their registered fingerprint, and peoples not knowing that the best method with such sensor is a tap (quick press and lift) as opposed to press down until it scan like optical one does...
And you a great tech which peoples think is bad while not even having experienced a quarter of its potential in its current implementation and with a way better one available.
Shock, 30 Jun 2020Optical is inferior in security to the capacitive ones.
But ohh no Apple got rid of the tou... moreI know, you missunderstood, I talked about ultrasonic one being the better option.
*Optical, mainly looking through a display is the worst in gathering data, a flat image can fool it, its only advantage is that it is more convenient (for many peoples, not everyone, I know) to have the FPS in the display.
*Then capacitive are better as it detect physical contact with the fingerprint ridges, having a mix between 2D and 3D detection capabilities, the one on the back are convenient for many peoples and though the one on the side is also liked by many, since the phone is thin, it can only read a thin layer of the fingerprint, making it less secure as it have less data to compare.
*Then ultrasonic one are the best as they can see in real 3D, can easily be scaled up to the whole display (the 3D Sonic Max is a good step at scaling them up) which allow to detect more surface, is more convenient, but can also read multiple finger at once which is an exponential increase of the security, with a good software you could also use it to see through the skin the veins pattern and even the distal phalanx, even better you can measure the density with ultrasound, meaning you can check the flesh, the phalanx and the blood in the veins all have the proper density of a finger, meaning it can be exponentially way way superior to optical and capacitive, plus it can be put under the display or on the back (or the side) without issues as sound is good at travelling through solids unlike light.
If you look at when Apple did that, it was when Android smartphone started to get the closest of fulldisplay as they ever been, Apple wanted to keep a secure biometric solution while offering also the closest of fulldisplay, in a sense they copied Samsung who had modest bezels and optical/face oriented biometric with the Iris scanner on their Galaxy S8 and S9.
Underdisplay fingerprint scanner were comming regardless what Apple would do, the first UD FPS phone, the "Vivo X20 Plus UD" got released in January 2018 while the Apple iPhone X got released in November 2017, less than 3 month prior, and considering underdisplay optical fingerprint scanner can't be just made in 3 month as it require quite a bit of RnD, you can quickly figure out that indeed the UD FPS were coming regardless, so Apple didn't had much to do with it, they all followed the same trend actually, just Apple did it their own way as an optical FPS would be a step down in security compare to their capacitive one, and the earlier phone with UD FPS were quite slow, not entirely reliable and the security wasn't as good as today, so Apple would certainly not adopt this tech.
Now that ultrasonic FPS allow for UD FPS with better security than capacitive one and can be done with a really good reliability, speed and user ease of use, I wouldn't be surprised if a 3D Touch ID was to be announced.
And well, for Apple it wasn't compromising security (and not by mush for OnePlus) as facial recognition when done in 3D is superior to optical and capacitive FPS, but it is also more convenient, mainly how Apple handle it with simply lifting the phone, meaning not even a single button press is needed.
The good news would be if Apple non only decided to keep the 3D facial recognition as the Face ID, but also added an ultrasonic fingerprint scanner like the Qualcomm 3D Sonic Max which is a tue monster.
Facial recognition is only on its infancy, many things can be improved still, for example, I work on a phone concept that use a new way to gather face depth, rather than a regular fixed dot pattern, it is a dot pattern that will first change its focus to really aim almost only at the face, maximizing the number of dots in the user's face, then rather than staying static, will start a scanning (all dots) like an old CTR display, this way the face will be really precisely scanned in a way that the "spets" from a 3D printed face can be detected.
Add to that an UV camera and flash/floodlight, which reveal a lot more details, and the use of the IR camera to also read the Iris (as Iris scanner and 3D facial recognition basically use the same camera anyway), and finally add the algoritm that detect living skin cell that Qualcomm and Trinamix developed, and you have a monstrously powerful facial recognition system that would require lab conditions and lot of budget to be fooled, imagine that combined with the advanced variant of ultrasonic FPS I wrote earlier, and you have a phone which would be the most secure portable device ever made.
Demongornot, 30 Jun 2020I don't see the issue with adding fingerprint scanner, security is ALWAYS a good thing, regard... moreOptical is inferior in security to the capacitive ones.
But ohh no Apple got rid of the touch id, so OnePlus had to get rid of any stand alone finger print sensor, even if that means compromising quality.
Demongornot, 30 Jun 2020I don't see the issue with adding fingerprint scanner, security is ALWAYS a good thing, regard... moreIsnt ultra sonic fps is in s10 and 20 series and recieved criticism ? .. just asking
Shock, 30 Jun 2020Ha ha.. OnePlus is copying Apple again!!
Now that's a surprise, not.
The headphone socke... moreI don't see the issue with adding fingerprint scanner, security is ALWAYS a good thing, regardless if someone else did it first.
Also out of the 15 models, only the 5t and the 6 had capacitive fingerprint scanner on the back and the earlier one on the front, but every other starting with the 6t have optical underdisplay, and hopefully OnePlus and every other brand will switch to the massively superior Ultrasonic FPS.