until then..., 06 Oct 2020...Samsung will reach Nokia's market share, lol.
I truly hope someone will make a phone... moreSamsung has increased its sales in q3 compared to Huawei.
nothing you say makes any sens your just guessing.
AnonD-940827, 07 Oct 2020Reliability = register and does its purpose. Some places are so secure that if the fps wasn... moreWell, capacitive is way better than optical in normal use, that's a no brainer, but pushing both at their maximum still make them far behind what Ultrasonic FPS can achieve right now if they were properly implemented, let alone diving into the more complex sound imaging and analysis possibilities that could only be matched by 3D facial recognition using ToF + Structured light + UV + living cell (Qualcomm + Trinamix) detection + eye scanning for real time biometric identification.
AnonD-909757, 07 Oct 2020Yup, they use it wrong AND still manage to get it quite fast, it goes even faster using the ta... moreReliability = register and does its purpose.
Some places are so secure that if the fps wasn't used precisely, you get locked out. Never happened to me on button, but it happens on screen fps. No matter brand. I work in a phone store, so I get to play with the phones.
AnonD-940827, 07 Oct 2020Those uploaders are using it wrong. They press, instead of touch. S7 beats all newer galaxies ... moreYup, they use it wrong AND still manage to get it quite fast, it goes even faster using the tap method, not many peoples know that ultrasonic prefer tap over press.
And well, it depend what you call "reliability", if you talk about how many times it can unlock, yeah, sure, but if we talk about security level, which is the whole point of a fingerprint, the ultrasonic one, even used at 10% of its capacities (no flesh density checking, no veins pattern, etc) still beat both capacitive and optical combined.
My OnePlus 6t need a good 1 or 2 seconds to unlock through the FPS, even after re-registering my fingerprints.
And aren't those older devices less secure anyway ? It is well known that FPS tech did improve, mainly the optical one which was quite bad at its beginning, even there, there are many things making something slower or faster, and I prefer an almost impossible to force FPS that is slightly slower but would require a full laboratory and a deep scanning of my finger in order to be fooled over a faster one that anyone could force unlock with a glass of water, an adhesive tape and an internet tutorial.
Also, thanks to the tap method and the easy scalability, ultrasonic FPS could bring easily fulldisplay FPS and "continuous" fingerprint reading, increasingly dramatically the security level, imagine typing a pin or drawing a pattern to unlock while your fingerprint is read in real 3D, your flesh density is checked to be real flesh, your veins pattern is checked, your heartbeats is verified, the presence of blood and distal phalanx bone density is confirmed, you can't do any better finger based security than this.
AnonD-909757, 07 Oct 2020But is it from peoples who use it WRONG, or PROPERLY : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woTSMD... moreThose uploaders are using it wrong. They press, instead of touch. S7 beats all newer galaxies with screen fps, in speed and reliability. Op6 beats all op models with screen fps. Huawei is exactly the same. It's a scanner, not a button. But if it was possible, I would show you in person.
AnonD-940827, 07 Oct 2020It's still not as fast as the physical button. No matter what brand.! Yes it's bette... moreBut is it from peoples who use it WRONG, or PROPERLY :
No, the physical isn't faster.
Also there is only ONE ultrasonic FPS model in use, don't base the entire technology on a single model that is often improperly used and poorly implemented by Samsung, it should be THE fingerprint scanner tech that most phone have.
Don't blame the Qualcomm tech for Samsung mistakes.
The Ultrasonic FPS tech is THE best in EVERY aspects.
AnonD-909757, 07 Oct 2020You mean NOW that every issues is fixed and it is the best fingerprint scanner out there, or b... moreIt's still not as fast as the physical button. No matter what brand.! Yes it's better than at first, but still far behind the physical fps.
And it's still no excuse for the delay on new technologies that should have been. The fps was delayed 3 models. The new camera will be delayed 2-3 models too, simply because Samsung can't do what they could before. Deliver unique features.!
AnonD-940827, 07 Oct 2020So? Still not as fast and reliable as the physical button. Just look at the S10e vs the rest o... moreYou mean NOW that every issues is fixed and it is the best fingerprint scanner out there, or based on OLD tests/review when it was still having issues ?
Anonymous, 06 Oct 2020uhhhhh, you do know samsung's fp reader is ultrasonic, right? not the crappy optical ones?So? Still not as fast and reliable as the physical button. Just look at the S10e vs the rest of the s10 models.
JDK, 06 Oct 2020That's cause they refuse to use 3d sonic max on note20 ultra. Saving it until s21.I think we shouldn't expect the 3D Sonic Max for any other Samsung phones.
Basically, Samsung wanted to use the Max which was already available and ready for the S20, but they also demanded to have the exclusivity over it, and considering how Samsung gave bad reputation on the 3D Sonic with a poor initial implementation, Qualcomm refused, but they wouldn't have refused for that reason alone, if no one else is about to buy it it would be a too big of a risk, and considering that Qualcomm basically don't advertise the Max at all, this mean they probably already secured a sell with someone else.
And back when the SD865 and 3D Sonic Max were announced, Qualcomm were approached by Apple for putting it on their iPhone 2020/Next flagship :
And Qualcomm also made a deal to incorporate their 3D Sonic (Max?) into flexible displays :
So, chances are, Samsung weren't happy that Qualcomm refused them the exclusivity, maybe because they already had another customer, so rather than putting, as everyone expected the 3D Sonic Max in the S20, and latter in the Note20, they kept the older model on purpose, which is a really d**k move for customers who could have get a way better sensor.
I wouldn't expect Samsung to use the Max for their next phone neither as long as no other phone get released with it first.
Anonymous, 06 Oct 2020this is a straight up lie.
the sole manufacturing cost of that tech is adding close to 50€ to... moreSo you mean that no brand use over-inflated margin nor do cover the cost of things like IP rating and R&D ?
I don't know what world you live in, but please send me an invitation, it sound amazing !
Even at 50$ we were to remove, the cost of this phone doesn't make senses.
wongwatt, 06 Oct 2020The incredibly slow, poor performing and widely hated Qualcomm ultrasonic reader that is infer... moreWrong and wrong.
It WAS slow (in SOME circumstances) and poor performing (in some situations), but since it have been patched and it now work AT LEAST as fast than any other FPS, and it is more secure than both optical and capacitive, and this is still the first generation called "3D Sonic", the newer one called "3D Sonic Max" that actually could make it into the iPhone 12 is way better and surpass in every conceivable ways any other FPS ever used on a smartphone.
And this is only with the limited use of its potential that Samsung do from it, they only read the fingerprint, but this sensor could do way more, from checking density, reading veins patterns, reading heartbeats, it could ensure that it is looking through real flesh like (density wise), with real blood (density wise), with the matching vein pattern (good luck taking that out of a glass or something), checking the fingerprint rifts are really in 3D and not stepped like a 3D printer produce, checking if there is a bone (distal phalanx), checking materials to exclude gloves and screen protectors, and potentially other things.
No optical or capacitive FPS could ever dream about doing this.
Samsung only use it as a regular FPS, because like most they can't innovate nor they can look at the bigger picture, also unlike optical who require computer vision and capacitive who already get a nice pseudo volumetric 2D map, with ultrasonic you need sound visualisation, which is WAY harder than those two, but the results can be way better.
Also, many peoples use it the wrong way, while optical and capacitive FPS require you to press down, ultrasonic require you to tap the display.
Also capacitive one could be easily replaced by ultrasonic one (unlike optical ones who also take space) and can be used on the back or the side, also optical FPS can be used as a crappy camera to spy on users (collecting data or spying doesn't require artistic quality).
All phones except few ones should have ultrasonic FPS, but the smartphone industry is just filled with totally incoherent things that make no senses.
wongwatt, 06 Oct 2020The incredibly slow, poor performing and widely hated Qualcomm ultrasonic reader that is infer... moreThat's cause they refuse to use 3d sonic max on note20 ultra. Saving it until s21.
AnonD-909757, 06 Oct 2020Because it is a "lie".
The ZTE Axon 20 5G who is the first (and only yet) phone wit... morethis is a straight up lie.
the sole manufacturing cost of that tech is adding close to 50€ to the base panel price. So the problem is in improving the picture quality.
How do you argue the price of this to be 100, yet alone 200€?
Sure research is expensive, but not the tech itself
...Samsung will reach Nokia's market share, lol.
I truly hope someone will make a phone with under display camera and 100% screen. Maybe Nokia, maybe Motorola, and their flagship will sell 3 times as S21.
michaemia, 06 Oct 2020To be honest this is BS. The under display camera is so available but why are companies not im... moreBecause it is a "lie".
The ZTE Axon 20 5G who is the first (and only yet) phone with underdisplay camera, it is way earlier than other phones with this contraption, and quite low price.
The thing is, this tech is SUPER expensive, it probably add 100$, 200$ or more to the phone, so how is this phone so affordable ?
Well, the exact same reason why early access games are cheap.
Except that here, the customer won't get better hardware.
The tech is not mature and not ready for mass production, what you pay for here is a phone which is sold at a net loss for both ad/visibility purpose and for gathering user feedback to fix issues, I am sure you'll see a lot of updates related to camera, many will change quite a bit how the pictures are rendered, some may even be downgrades and have lower quality, in fact I wouldn't even be surprised if we find out there are multiple update batches matching with different implementation of the tech.
So yeah, buying this phone is literally being a tester.
The underdisplay camera tech, like smartphones camera in general who rely on computational photography, have two distinct parts, the hardware and the software.
The hardware isn't even that hard, it is just different arrangement of pixels, unlike what peoples think, transparent LCD and Oled exist since a while, but they aren't that transparent when you get up close because the individual pixels start to get in the way, a little like looking through a wire fence, from far you don't see the fence itself that much it just lower the luminosity, but from up close the wires are big masking elements, exemple :
Note that I link this image for illustration purpose only, not for political purposes (hard to find exemples of fences).
Underdisplay camera is exactly that :
It is just a fence but rather than wires you have pixels.
So the software part is really important to fix the issues, regardless what arrangement you use, you'll always have visible pixels, so the software try to reconstruct the image, in fact I think that, along with all the tiny variations of pixel arrangement they tried, the most cost and time consuming aspect of the underdisplay development is the software.
So what you pay for with such early phones is just for having an unfinished prototype that could use a big hardware upgrade and an unfinished software that will improve but won't reach anywhere near regular front camera quality.
That's why other don't, after all, ZTE isn't that special, they aren't the one who made the biggest innovations usually, so isn't that strange that they beat every other brand so much with this tech ?
Even without this tech the selling price of this phone is quite low, but with a tech everyone try to have since years and still don't have satisfactory results, thinking you get a final and perfectly working product at this price is not realistic.
Anonymous, 06 Oct 2020There is Sony for you. iPhone should be the last resort.That's true, I totally forgot Sony. I love their Xperia 1 ii although I didn't try it out yet, it still looks like the perfect phone.
The only thing I want it a better camera with higher resolution. I think they will bring that in the Mark 3 version which should release next year.
Anonymous, 06 Oct 2020uhhhhh, you do know samsung's fp reader is ultrasonic, right? not the crappy optical ones?The incredibly slow, poor performing and widely hated Qualcomm ultrasonic reader that is inferior in every way to current generation optical readers?
Yes, only Samsung use it and it's awful.