Sony Ericsson / Sony : General : New firmware K750i decreases the bit-rate of recorded videos?
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> New firmware K750i decreases the bit-rate of recorded videos?
Bookmark topic
Quote:
On 2005-06-22 09:55:41, ripkord wrote:
who really cares? I mean how many of you use the video recording facility anyway? and if you do then dont upgrade the firmware!!!?
whats the big fuss about?
The best post of this entire thread!!!!!!
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 16:47:06
Edit :
Quote
video isnt that good to begin with.. n now.. its even worse!
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 16:54:48
Edit :
Quote
I guess from now on whenever a new firmware is released, we should also ask "what has been screwed?" in addition to the "What has been improved?" question!
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 17:15:39
Edit :
Quote
#sapporobaby
what stupid nonsense reply is that.
you may not care, but others do.
I didnt use video before on the K700 because quality was poor.
On k750 quality became acceptable, though naturally not to be compared with a real videocam.
Still it became good enough to make small fun videoclips, and S//E even supplied and advertise the VideoDJ function which is rather fun, and actually change the displaysize of the video to 200% which the quality could cope with before they lowered the bitrate.
Now the videos and the VideoDJ are completely useless because the quality is simply to poor, especially when played at the 200% displaysize set by videoDJ.
Surely you are entitled to atleast be able to use the advertised functions (Videocam/VideoDJ) to a minimum degree.
Stating that you can just deside not to upgrade the firmware is riddicoulous, as naturally you would allways want to do that to fix other bugs that are present, without having to compromize on other features that are natural and advertised. Its like saying "well we fixed the sms bug so now you can write sms, but at the same time disabled the camera". SMS or Camerafunction ? take your choise and live with it.
Furthermore the fact that you now have two selectable qualitysettings under the videocam settings that are now identically poor, just adds to the idiocracy of it all.
Firmwares are made to correct errors and enchance/improve functions, not the opposite.
Now, Im not banging S//E for this now, because Im quite sure this is an undeliberate error, but I do expect them to fix it again, or I can assure you I will be banging them for it
[ This Message was edited by: numb on 2005-06-22 16:28 ]
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 17:18:27
Edit :
Quote
i have the original firmware...thanks for this link guys...i will wait for the future update and hope sony willcorrect the settings ..i dont wanna screw up my phone...so far no prob encountered ...so dont wanna messup....
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 18:27:53
Edit :
Quote
Quote:
On 2005-06-22 17:18:27, numb wrote:
#sapporobaby
what stupid nonsense reply is that.
you may not care, but others do.
I didnt use video before on the K700 because quality was poor.
On k750 quality became acceptable, though naturally not to be compared with a real videocam.
Still it became good enough to make small fun videoclips, and S//E even supplied and advertise the VideoDJ function which is rather fun, and actually change the displaysize of the video to 200% which the quality could cope with before they lowered the bitrate.
Now the videos and the VideoDJ are completely useless because the quality is simply to poor, especially when played at the 200% displaysize set by videoDJ.
Surely you are entitled to atleast be able to use the advertised functions (Videocam/VideoDJ) to a minimum degree.
Stating that you can just deside not to upgrade the firmware is riddicoulous, as naturally you would allways want to do that to fix other bugs that are present, without having to compromize on other features that are natural and advertised. Its like saying "well we fixed the sms bug so now you can write sms, but at the same time disabled the camera". SMS or Camerafunction ? take your choise and live with it.
Furthermore the fact that you now have two selectable qualitysettings under the videocam settings that are now identically poor, just adds to the idiocracy of it all.
Firmwares are made to correct errors and enchance/improve functions, not the opposite.
Now, Im not banging S//E for this now, because Im quite sure this is an undeliberate error, but I do expect them to fix it again, or I can assure you I will be banging them for it
[ This Message was edited by: numb on 2005-06-22 16:28 ]
Let me ask you this. Do you really think that SE does not know about these issues? Do you think that they did not do this as a possible trade off for something else. At the end of the day it is a phone, not a camera. Great that it can take pictures and videos, but at the end of the day, I realize that the basic function of this device it to make a telephone call. To sit and harp on and on and on about how the video fps is less than before does not make it any less a phone. Finally, in the end SE usually delivers the goods. So to beat a dead horse over something that you can not fix is in my opinion, just whining. Has anyone contacted SE to verify this or does this topic live in the land of speculation and conjecture? People, get a grip. Can SE and get the facts.
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 19:28:58
Edit :
Quote
theres many ppl talkin crap in this thread that im really startin to get pissed off !!!
obviously they made a mistake with the camera bitrate !!! the possibility that the bitrate was changed to improve something else on the phone is 100% non-existent in this universe !!!! the camera bitrate is totally independent and this is simply a mistake !!!
as for the usability of the camera on the phone it certainly does matter to me !!!
the other day i was walkin and saw somethin really funny on the street. i immediately took out my phone and recorded it to show to my friends. and it looked quite good; i got the job done at least. if i had my s700 or k700 with me, i would have never tried that, cause the camera simply sucked. and it did happen on many occasions that i wanted to record somethin but i just couldnt and wouldnt cause of the crap camera on older SE phones..
but NOW we have a phone with acceptable video recording, and crippling it for No reason makes me furious !!! and this happened after i read it on this forum. if i realised that the bitrate had been changed while tryin to record somethin, im sure i would have done somethin crazy....
my point is that just because every1 doesnt use the camera doesnt mean we shouldnt care about it, cause we use it, and i wont allow any1 to tell me otherwise just cause they buy gadgets and dont know how to use them.
cause thats what the k750 is. its not a phone. neither camera. neither mp3 player. its a Gadget!!!!
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 19:46:43
Edit :
Quote
For all the people saying they don't care about the camera, or video recording, or anything other than using it as a telephone ..... Why on Earth did you get a k750 then!?!?
As it's these features that the phone has literally been built around.
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 20:24:54
Edit :
Quote
my point is that just because every1 doesnt use the camera doesnt mean we shouldnt care about it, cause we use it, and i wont allow any1 to tell me otherwise just cause they buy gadgets and dont know how to use them.
cause thats what the k750 is. its not a phone. neither camera. neither mp3 player. its a Gadget!!!!
Good point Taz, but wouldn't it still be better to try to go to the source rather than continue to speculate, guess, wonder, and when all else fails, make something up? When it comes to matters such as this, a quick call to SE or a SE service partner would make more sense than drowning on and on about something that only SE can answer.
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 20:26:44
Edit :
Quote
I agree, to take a backward step with regard to video quality isn't a good move. I personally have a suspicion that something has also been done with regard to static pictures. It's difficult to prove, but the file size of pictures of mine taken before the firmwared upgrade are considerably smaller.
I've just done a very unscientific test, by trying to copy a picture taken before the firmware upgrade. Now whilst I haven't been able to match the light etc., it seems pretty close (just a picture of the PC on my desk)
Picture taken before the upgrade - 601kb
Same picture taken after the upgrade - 267kb
Now it may be simply a case of the phone handling the compression better etc., but it seems like a massive difference, surely quality has to suffer??
So, what's the plan then, mass emails to SE customer services??
Lee
[ This Message was edited by: leerichards on 2005-06-22 19:58 ]
--
Posted: 2005-06-22 20:49:49
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
