News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > Sony Ericsson / Sony > Symbian phones > P900 VS XDA 2 Video Camcorder Comparision! Bookmark topic

Vermania:

Yep, both were on the highest settings.
Yeh, I have to agree that P900 has better exterior design, but I care much more about the functionality. plus, I never liked the Symbian OS.
Also, I like the fact that I can add a GPS SD card to this phone and make it into a handheld GPS!

Hey, let's not talk about politics here ok?

[ This Message was edited by: mikaljan on 2003-11-16 12:10 ]
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 13:08:05
Edit : Quote


Hi Guys,

not to start a flaming war here, but did any of you guys read www.mobile-review.com ? I mean, the attached file was from that particular review and it was the very FIRST review of the P900 in the entire world, dated back on 1 Oct 2003, which definitely means they are probably using a pre-released model! It seems like the person posting this either didn't bother to do some research prior to starting this thread or he definitely is biased.

C'mon guys, check out mobileburn's reveiw, and they had a much better quality video capture sample as compared to the mobile review's one.

http://www.mobileburn.com/review.jsp?Page=16&Id=520

Yes, no doubt even though the ones at mobile burn's website is encoded at lower resolution (176 x 144) than the XDA II, but did any of you realises that the P900's baby MP4, a 21 sec clip, is less than 350k in size and plays smoothly throughout w/o much blur effect whenever the camera is turned left of right? Better still, check out the Trees MP4, where the camera man starts turning around, no blur at all!

Now check out the XDA II's MP4, recorded at higher resolution than the P900, is a 24 sec clip but at a whopping 850k size, but that's not the worse, cos did any of you realises the 'blurry' effect everytime the camera was moved left or right? Even when moved very slowly, the 'blurry' effect is still very prominent.

Is this all the XDA II can show how 'GOOD' Intel Xscale running at 400Mhz is capable of as compared to the P900's ARM 156Mhz? For those who doesn't know, a PC with 400Mhz processor, if coupled with an ATI graphics card, can playback Video-CD 2.0 movies (MPEG 2 standard) in full screen mode with crystal clear quality! So how come Xscale, also running 400Mhz (that's more than 2x the processing power of P900 fyi) and also comes with ATI integrated graphics (either Imageon 100 or 3200, both designed for 2D including h/w MPEG4 decoding), cannot record and playback smoothly even on a small screen at 240 x 320?

I am sure SE would have given us the ability to record in full screen mode if the h/w is capable of it, but it simply couldn't cos of h/w limitations. At least to me, SE is being honest about this and not the XDA II.

I had earlier posted my comments in the long thread that battled between the XDA II and the P900, but seems like everyone had ignored my point of views about the 'WinTel' solution, ie, Windows apps are VB based and by far the largest filesize apps one can find, as compared to P800/P900's C++ apps which are always small in size. Thus Miscrosoft forces maufacturers to 'comply' with their standards of using larger amts of RAMS for Windows CE. Whereas Intel is well known in the PC world for using 'raw speed' as their marketing strategy to lure potential unweary customers into believing 'speed' is everything in terms of technology, even though AMD had time and time again proven it otherwise. Thus for most people, the marketing strategy of WinTel is a win win situation to lure these potential unweary customers.

Cheers
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 14:02:04
Edit : Quote


I'm sure when XDA 2 records at the same resolution as P900, it could produce a much smoother video Moreover, 128MB limitation of P900 is a big drawback! Symbian OS sucks ass and can't even handle more than 128MB. Bluetooth connectivity on P900 is not reliable, and fail to respond at times.

However, the exterior design of P900 is undoubtly the best, SE just got crappy software engineers. Just look at PC Suite, it installs and runs 8 processes in the taskmanager just to connect with P900. What does that tell you?


[ This Message was edited by: mikaljan on 2003-11-16 13:47 ]
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 14:26:52
Edit : Quote


Hi,

you still don't get what I mean do you? If the so called 400Mhz Intel Xscale processor with ATI graphics chip combined cannot record at 176 x 144 with good playback quality, then I guess we can throw the XDA II into the dustbin My main gripe is with such 'High Specs' one wold have expected the XDA II can do recording smoothly even up to maybe 480 x 480 resoltion, but it cannot even do it properly at 240 x 320. So what is this 'high specs' for? Sucking battery life much faster I presume?

C'mon, my main point of view is still based on your very first post, whereby that particular P900's recorded video clip is not supposed to be even attached and compared to that of the XDA II, cos the real ones are at mobile burn's review, as they are using released model. Do u have any idea how many potential buyers are reading the posts here? Don't you realised that your very first post would have already been a deciding factor for many unweary people out there, cos that particular P900 clip is completely unacceptable to anyone in the real world! You should have done your research properly before posting it IMHO.

A simple search with google using (p900 review video clip) would have given you mobile burn's website on the first 3 results.

Yes, I do agree with you that 128MB of the P800/P900 SUCKS! Worse is that Sony has been controlling the prices of memory sticks all the while which makes it expensive as compared to SD or MMC. Damn Sony for this!
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 14:55:45
Edit : Quote


i quite like the symbian OS and think the p900 is the overall best suited package for me! 128Mb size DUO's are more than enough for me what do you want to do with say 512 Mb?

i know more is better but in things like memory we always want more but i would be happy for more but i would have no use for more!
i can get one movie then about 1hr's worth of Oggs and still have enough mem for my apps and stuff so i am happy XDA looks ugly and nneds more processing power to do stuff that the p900 does a lot more efficently!


P900 for ever! XDA is evil!

--
Posted: 2003-11-16 15:04:52
Edit : Quote


IMHO, Symbian may not be the one to blame for the 128MB limitation, cos take a look at Nokia's series 60 phones (which is based on earlier generation of Symbian OS), they are all capable of utilising up to 512MB of SD. Thus I will only blame Sony cos it looks more like a h/w limitation to me, and my guess is, Sony may well be able to produce normal DUOs at much higher capacity than 128MB, but it may be due to high production costs, or that the transfer rate of DUOs are not high enough for their digital cameras, notebooks and other electronics stuff, that make them redesign the DUOs into the Pro DUOs. The P800/P900 section of Sony is only a small department as compared to their other depts, thus they just happilly drop the idea of making larger normal DUOs for fear of confusing customers of these bigger and larger depts.

Cheers
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 15:07:52
Edit : Quote


Notice that XDA II uses Xscale processor? it has dynamic clock frequency and will automatically adjust the processor speed according to the usage, thus energy efficient. Just want to point that out, and should just give that a thought.

I personally owns a P800, and I hate the Symbian OS. With XDA II I could get a 802.11b Wi-Fi card for WLAN. Plus, Opera browser is a piece of shiet.

But wouldn't a P900 with Windows OS and SDIO expansion be a killer phone? And what does that tell you? Think about it!

[ This Message was edited by: mikaljan on 2003-11-16 14:20 ]
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 15:08:41
Edit : Quote


The XDA clip was much better because it was indors and the guy wasnt moving much. he just sat on sth. but p900 clip was definetly crappy but it was outdors and the guy was moving. so i think that the quality more less depends on conditions in which ur recording.

martin
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 15:15:12
Edit : Quote


Hi,

Video processing is one of the most CPU intensive task. And if Xscale is really designed for dynamic scaling, then I guess Intel and MS had completely failed in their designs, or worse, the question of Xscale 400Mhz may be in question. Cos a 200Mhz Xscale running at full speed may already be capable of recording 240 x320 smoothly. Thus to me, this is yet another marketing gimmicks that Intel is using, just like in the PC world.

Cheers
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 15:17:12
Edit : Quote


adnhk1:

No offense, but I think you're making too much assumptions in your argument. I wonder what kinda of result a P900 could give if it could records at 240x320 Any P900, or P800 owners know that the video and the pictures taken with it's camera are filled with noise.
--
Posted: 2003-11-16 15:27:27
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index