Introductory:
Hello all, cell phones produce radiation just in case you did not know. These radiation levels are measured in a value called SAR(Specific Absorbtion Rate) and it literally is the measurement of just the bottom line of what the human body absorbs, rather than just the amount that it radiating(ha, get it?) around the device. Radiation is bad in the human body where it is directly related to certain issues, including directly reducing bone density in the body. I am posting this as an accurate informational thread where you can draw your own conclusions based off of facts.
SAR Levels:
SAR, which stands for Specific Absorbtion Rate, levels fluctuate depending on numerous factors, in which we must go over in order to accurately understand. The key thing to understand is that the further the device is from your body, the levels begin to diminish by the milimeter(mm).
For a phone to receive an FCC certification, the device cannot have a SAR level of more than 1.6 watts per kilogram in the US, and 2.0 in Europe.
Galaxy Note Series Tests by Samsung:
Let's take a look at the Note series in order to keep this sequential and easier to remember from a timeline fashion of perspective. The Galaxy Note 1 was released first(obviously) and is the model number SGH-I717 for reference. Taken from Samsung's website directly, here are the Note 1 results, including the way that they perform their own measurements:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
You can see in this writing the methods that are used for testing, and that the body specific SAR tests have the device at 1.0 centimeters(CM), equivalent to 10 millimeters(mm) away. Keep this in mind and we'll touch up on this later.
And here are the Note 2 specific values:
And here are the Note 3 specific values:
So as you can see the comparisons above, the Note 3 effectively produces 153% more Head SAR than the Note 2, and 196% more Head SAR than the Note 1!
I would calculate the Body SAR differences but we have a big problem with Samsung's specific tests...they test these values with the device 1.0 CM(or 10mm) away from the body. This Body SAR calculation is useless to you if your phone presses against your body at 0 mm away!
Let's think...why would Samsung measure in this fashion at 1.0 CM away? Well the Note 3 produces 1.28 Body SAR at 1.0 cm away, so the big question is what would it produce at 0 mm away/ AKA in your pants pocket? Maybe it would exceed the FCC limitation of 1.6?
CNET Testing:
Now let's take a look at a recent test performed by CNET on 1/16/14 to see what they have found in differences in the Note series in particular:
The above is literally all of the information they posted where it is tough to tell how the test was performed and/or what body part it was performed against. By comparing the numbers, it seems as though they tested the head only since it matches the Head SAR values by Samsung.
But there is only but one main discrepency...the Note 3 reads 0.63 SAR value by Samsung, while CNET tested it at 0.9 SAR. Which one holds true?
Device Model Top Charts:
As you can see in the following results, our devices do not hold the highest SAR values compared to the worst out there *ehem* Motorola!
And here are the lowest SAR values amonst all devices. Keep in mind how the Note 2 is 4th lowest.
Theorycrafting:
I researched more into studies being performed per the distance of an object from humans and have found some interesting results.
Here is a model of the human head for reference, spefical model for SAR testing:
And here is are one test's results from testing the SAR levels after altering different distances:
This is just me tipping the iceberg to not go on and on.
Shifting gears toward current events, check out 2/14/14's event of the Army buying 7,000 Note 2's for its troops HERE
The reason why I feel that this is relevant is that they definitely would not want to have their troops being exposed to radiation levels higher than other devices. What makes more sense though is that they tested it for quite some time before it was rolled out, but who knows?
General Radiation Reduction Techniques:
-Consider a cell phone radiation reduction case, Google Pong research to get started since I'm probably not allowed to post links
-Consider buying a device with low SAR levels
-Keep the device out of your pocket or anywhere where it is directly against your skin. Even a hip holster might help keep it a few cm away, or carry it in a purse/backpack.
-Use speakerphone as often as possible to keep the device far from your head.
-Devices use the most radiation when beggining and ending calls. Pull the phone away from your head, even if just a few centimeters, when beginning and ending calls.
-Devices also use high radiation when "hunting for a signal". This occurs when your device has no signal, and needs to omit more power consistently to find one. So keep it away at these times.
-Bluetooth uses less radiation, but overall can be more damage from keeping it on your head for long periods of time. LOSE THE BLUETOOTH!
-Text instead of calling whenever it is applicable/feasible
-Don't sleep with the device near your head....think about it, 6+ hours of it so close to your head...
-Last things I wanted to mention are beefing up on certain things you eat.
a.) Eat seaweed, it's very powerful against radiation
b.) Look for natural supplements that particularly repair already damaged cells in your body from radiation. They are alpha lipoic acid and vitamins C and E...BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T GET THESE FROM NATURAL DIET
Conclusion:
Considering all of the above along with knowing that we are the guinea pigs for long term cell phone radiation, I strongly feel that it's best to consider SAR levels when purchasing a device. The SAR levels are obviously increasing with each new model being released and should be monitored closely.
It seems to show as being a factor toward brain tumors and bone density loss in only 1 of 2 legs in people(where they always kept their cell phone in the same pocket). I did not go much into detail here about these particular researches/tests, but I would recommend to now start looking into the tests performed for "decade-long cell phone radiation exposures". Imagine us after 50 years of exposure, and please feel free to comment here.
Your voice and opinions matter in this world, and you should speak up since you have a right to your own opinions, and I will respect it no matter what. While I don't really know the true effects of the radiation, my opinion is that I'm open minded so I'll keep the cell away from my body to be safe. I will post this across multiple forums that it belongs in and moderators, please let me know if I happen to post this in a forbidden section. Don't censor truth, and let the thread live.
Thank you for your time reading all of this and I hope it helps. If so, please rate the thread 5 stars and hit Thanks solely to promote the spreading of the word.
Thanks for this write-up. I use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible. One of my classmates happens to have written a paper on this topic so the fear has already been instilled in me.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
reserved
bigmiketn said:
Thanks for this write-up. I use a headset or speakerphone whenever possible. One of my classmates happens to have written a paper on this topic so the fear has already been instilled in me.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're welcome, I'm honored to be one to bring it your attention for your well being!
Oh and I just added a poll if you'd guys like to vote.
Thread cleaned of off topic banter that strays from the development plight. Move along if you have nothing to contribute.
This is a great thread. I really love that you have brought this to attention cause I will place my phone far from my body and not use it unless I have an emergency not related to my Facebook posts.
Sent from my SM-N900V using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
I have been doing more research into this. And I'll be honest, it worked me more and more. My kids sleep with cell phone by there head, I charge mine and my wife's next to mine. I have started to make sure we all put our phones in airplane mode while we sleep. I don't know if there's fear mongering going on, but I'm fearful. The internet usually has conflicted articles, but on this subject it seems to be way, way one-sided toward cell damage and such. I love my cell phone and its many uses a whole lot and hate to know (think) it may be harming my family and me. Sorry about the long rant.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
From what I've read, the cellular antennas for the Note 3 are at the bottom of the phone. See linked image from anandtech: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7376/Screen Shot 2013-09-30 at 3.39.26 PM_575px.png - from article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/7
I've always held most of my phones, while talking, from the bottom corners and resting the earpiece against my ear. Now with this phone I try to hold it from the top, near my head, and let the bottom part curve outward - about 3-4cm from my mouth.
So if anything with the Note 3 we're radiating our lips? And those of us who hold our phone from the bottom - our fingers.
Just having our cellphones 20mm (2cm) further from our bodies halves the SAR radiation. Then is it safe to assume that using this phone is better than most because the cellular antenna is located at the bottom of the phone which sits (at least for me 3-4cm from my face). So I'm getting 4x less radiation than the listed .9 rating?
That said, I rarely use this phone for calling, so during WiFi usage (which is when I'm using it mostly) my hands are at the bottom - maybe 2-3cm from the WiFi radio - and I'm not sure if WiFi is as harmful or not vs cellular?
BigMcGuire said:
From what I've read, the cellular antennas for the Note 3 are at the bottom of the phone. See linked image from anandtech: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7376/Screen Shot 2013-09-30 at 3.39.26 PM_575px.png - from article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/7
I've always held most of my phones, while talking, from the bottom corners and resting the earpiece against my ear. Now with this phone I try to hold it from the top, near my head, and let the bottom part curve outward - about 3-4cm from my mouth.
So if anything with the Note 3 we're radiating our lips? And those of us who hold our phone from the bottom - our fingers.
Just having our cellphones 20mm (2cm) further from our bodies halves the SAR radiation. Then is it safe to assume that using this phone is better than most because the cellular antenna is located at the bottom of the phone which sits (at least for me 3-4cm from my face). So I'm getting 4x less radiation than the listed .9 rating?
That said, I rarely use this phone for calling, so during WiFi usage (which is when I'm using it mostly) my hands are at the bottom - maybe 2-3cm from the WiFi radio - and I'm not sure if WiFi is as harmful or not vs cellular?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Great information, thanks for sharing this. When Samsung performs their tests, they test Head and Body SAR at "normal operating position" which I would assume is the device hugging your cheek. It's really tough to gauge the amount of radiation deduction from keeping it further from your head, but is logical to assume that it is much, much less radiation by keeping it a few CM away from your face...and I would say that this is good practice to not have to worry and relax if you do indeed do that.
WiFi is a whole other debatable topic, where the debate is that it is hurting children especially since their skulls are thinner while it is developing.
Moderator clearly didn't agree with my comment earlier, so decided to censor it. No curse words, was on topic... I think this is nonsense, the subject of this propaganda post in general. If you think your cell phone is going to kill you, maybe it was your time.
makeshiftharmony said:
I have been doing more research into this. And I'll be honest, it worked me more and more. My kids sleep with cell phone by there head, I charge mine and my wife's next to mine. I have started to make sure we all put our phones in airplane mode while we sleep. I don't know if there's fear mongering going on, but I'm fearful. The internet usually has conflicted articles, but on this subject it seems to be way, way one-sided toward cell damage and such. I love my cell phone and its many uses a whole lot and hate to know (think) it may be harming my family and me. Sorry about the long rant.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
BigMcGuire said:
From what I've read, the cellular antennas for the Note 3 are at the bottom of the phone. See linked image from anandtech: http://images.anandtech.com/doci/7376/Screen Shot 2013-09-30 at 3.39.26 PM_575px.png - from article: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7376/samsung-galaxy-note-3-review/7
I've always held most of my phones, while talking, from the bottom corners and resting the earpiece against my ear. Now with this phone I try to hold it from the top, near my head, and let the bottom part curve outward - about 3-4cm from my mouth.
So if anything with the Note 3 we're radiating our lips? And those of us who hold our phone from the bottom - our fingers.
Just having our cellphones 20mm (2cm) further from our bodies halves the SAR radiation. Then is it safe to assume that using this phone is better than most because the cellular antenna is located at the bottom of the phone which sits (at least for me 3-4cm from my face). So I'm getting 4x less radiation than the listed .9 rating?
That said, I rarely use this phone for calling, so during WiFi usage (which is when I'm using it mostly) my hands are at the bottom - maybe 2-3cm from the WiFi radio - and I'm not sure if WiFi is as harmful or not vs cellular?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Good advice here, I'd rather be safe than sorry if possible. This whole post has made me think differently on how I use my phone. Thanks for the info.
Related
Hi,
I want to buy an Atrix but have concerns about SAR rates. I may buy the Atrix or the 4g one but I have a question about it.
Under UMTS I 2100 frequency, is there a difference between SAR values of Atrix and the 4g Atrix?
Also, may I find a chart like the one attached?
Thanks in advance...
I don't know about that... It seems like the SAR value are not so popular anymore - people and manufacturers don't really seem to care about them anymore.
In any case, here's one point... You get irradiated even without using a mobile phone, because wireless networks are basically everywhere around us... One extra bit of a radiation punch in your body (from your phone) isn't really gonna hurt. But that's just me...
I honestly feel that the SAR are completely irrelevant. I'll put it this way, the sun is orders of magnitude more dangerous than your cell phone. quick physics explanations, electromagnetic waves as most know range from radio to gamma waves. These waves are not continuous like most believe instead comprised of individual photons. The power rating for radio is essentially the energy of the photons times the number of photons. So quick example say some source of radio waves produces 4 photons a sec each with one joule. The power output would be 4watts in that case. Lets also say a source of visible light produces one photon per second that has 4 joules of power. This would also be rated at 4 watts.
So think of it this way lets say you get hit with 100 foam dodge balls. it might hard but the force is distributed so it's not that bad. Now lets say you get hit with a bullet which has the same force as the 100 dodge balls. But how which one will you die from the bullet or 100 foam dodge balls.
This is analogous to the radio ways produced by your phone. it is essentially impossible for radio waves to cause damage to your body. Visible light form the sun is orders of magnitude stronger than anything your cell phone or a radio tower could produce
jonnyboyC13 said:
I honestly feel that the SAR are completely irrelevant. I'll put it this way, the sun is orders of magnitude more dangerous than your cell phone. quick physics explanations, electromagnetic waves as most know range from radio to gamma waves. These waves are not continuous like most believe instead comprised of individual photons. The power rating for radio is essentially the energy of the photons times the number of photons. So quick example say some source of radio waves produces 4 photons a sec each with one joule. The power output would be 4watts in that case. Lets also say a source of visible light produces one photon per second that has 4 joules of power. This would also be rated at 4 watts.
So think of it this way lets say you get hit with 100 foam dodge balls. it might hard but the force is distributed so it's not that bad. Now lets say you get hit with a bullet which has the same force as the 100 dodge balls. But how which one will you die from the bullet or 100 foam dodge balls.
This is analogous to the radio ways produced by your phone. it is essentially impossible for radio waves to cause damage to your body. Visible light form the sun is orders of magnitude stronger than anything your cell phone or a radio tower could produce
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It makes sense, but... why is there so much fuss regarding this? I mean, if it is that simple... why do scientists still argue on this? Either for the media, either they're not actually scientists, either... well, it's not that simple... right?
Seriously, if you are not using your phone in low reception location. There is nothing to worry about.
Formhault said:
It makes sense, but... why is there so much fuss regarding this? I mean, if it is that simple... why do scientists still argue on this? Either for the media, either they're not actually scientists, either... well, it's not that simple... right
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My opinion? Fear-mongering, ignorance of science, and the media's constant hunger to feed its 24/7 news cycle. Combine that with a tendency to distort, overstate, or understate the facts (gotta sensationalize in order to draw in the idiot viewers), and you end up with mass confusion and unwarranted panic over the issues, particularly issues where science is involved.
windozeanti said:
Seriously, if you are not using your phone in low reception location. There is nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
When the signal is low, the phone is going to do anything just to sip some network, even kill you with radiation, lol.
Sent from my Neutrino-loaded ATRIX
Introductory:
Hello all, cell phones produce radiation just in case you did not know. These radiation levels are measured in a value called SAR(Specific Absorbtion Rate) and it literally is the measurement of just the bottom line of what the human body absorbs, rather than just the amount that it radiating(ha, get it?) around the device. Radiation is bad in the human body where it is directly related to certain issues, including directly reducing bone density in the body. I am posting this as an accurate informational thread where you can draw your own conclusions based off of facts.
SAR Levels:
SAR, which stands for Specific Absorbtion Rate, levels fluctuate depending on numerous factors, in which we must go over in order to accurately understand. The key thing to understand is that the further the device is from your body, the levels begin to diminish by the milimeter(mm).
For a phone to receive an FCC certification, the device cannot have a SAR level of more than 1.6 watts per kilogram in the US, and 2.0 in Europe.
Galaxy Note Series Tests by Samsung:
Let's take a look at the Note series in order to keep this sequential and easier to remember from a timeline fashion of perspective. The Galaxy Note 1 was released first(obviously) and is the model number SGH-I717 for reference. Taken from Samsung's website directly, here are the Note 1 results, including the way that they perform their own measurements:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
You can see in this writing the methods that are used for testing, and that the body specific SAR tests have the device at 1.0 centimeters(CM), equivalent to 10 millimeters(mm) away. Keep this in mind and we'll touch up on this later.
And here are the Note 2 specific values:
And here are the Note 3 specific values:
So as you can see the comparisons above, the Note 3 effectively produces 153% more Head SAR than the Note 2, and 196% more Head SAR than the Note 1!
I would calculate the Body SAR differences but we have a big problem with Samsung's specific tests...they test these values with the device 1.0 CM(or 10mm) away from the body. This Body SAR calculation is useless to you if your phone presses against your body at 0 mm away!
Let's think...why would Samsung measure in this fashion at 1.0 CM away? Well the Note 3 produces 1.28 Body SAR at 1.0 cm away, so the big question is what would it produce at 0 mm away/ AKA in your pants pocket? Maybe it would exceed the FCC limitation of 1.6?
CNET Testing:
Now let's take a look at a recent test performed by CNET on 1/16/14 to see what they have found in differences in the Note series in particular:
The above is literally all of the information they posted where it is tough to tell how the test was performed and/or what body part it was performed against. By comparing the numbers, it seems as though they tested the head only since it matches the Head SAR values by Samsung.
But there is only but one main discrepency...the Note 3 reads 0.63 SAR value by Samsung, while CNET tested it at 0.9 SAR. Which one holds true?
Device Model Top Charts:
As you can see in the following results, our devices do not hold the highest SAR values compared to the worst out there *ehem* Motorola!
And here are the lowest SAR values amonst all devices. Keep in mind how the Note 2 is 4th lowest.
Theorycrafting:
I researched more into studies being performed per the distance of an object from humans and have found some interesting results.
Here is a model of the human head for reference, spefical model for SAR testing:
And here is are one test's results from testing the SAR levels after altering different distances:
This is just me tipping the iceberg to not go on and on.
Shifting gears toward current events, check out 2/14/14's event of the Army buying 7,000 Note 2's for its troops HERE
The reason why I feel that this is relevant is that they definitely would not want to have their troops being exposed to radiation levels higher than other devices. What makes more sense though is that they tested it for quite some time before it was rolled out, but who knows?
General Radiation Reduction Techniques:
-Consider a cell phone radiation reduction case, Google Pong research to get started since I'm probably not allowed to post links
-Consider buying a device with low SAR levels
-Keep the device out of your pocket or anywhere where it is directly against your skin. Even a hip holster might help keep it a few cm away, or carry it in a purse/backpack.
-Use speakerphone as often as possible to keep the device far from your head.
-Devices use the most radiation when beggining and ending calls. Pull the phone away from your head, even if just a few centimeters, when beginning and ending calls.
-Devices also use high radiation when "hunting for a signal". This occurs when your device has no signal, and needs to omit more power consistently to find one. So keep it away at these times.
-Bluetooth uses less radiation, but overall can be more damage from keeping it on your head for long periods of time. LOSE THE BLUETOOTH!
-Text instead of calling whenever it is applicable/feasible
-Don't sleep with the device near your head....think about it, 6+ hours of it so close to your head...
-Last things I wanted to mention are beefing up on certain things you eat.
a.) Eat seaweed, it's very powerful against radiation
b.) Look for natural supplements that particularly repair already damaged cells in your body from radiation. They are alpha lipoic acid and vitamins C and E...BUT ONLY IF YOU DON'T GET THESE FROM NATURAL DIET
Conclusion:
Considering all of the above along with knowing that we are the guinea pigs for long term cell phone radiation, I strongly feel that it's best to consider SAR levels when purchasing a device. The SAR levels are obviously increasing with each new model being released and should be monitored closely.
It seems to show as being a factor toward brain tumors and bone density loss in only 1 of 2 legs in people(where they always kept their cell phone in the same pocket). I did not go much into detail here about these particular researches/tests, but I would recommend to now start looking into the tests performed for "decade-long cell phone radiation exposures". Imagine us after 50 years of exposure, and please feel free to comment here.
Your voice and opinions matter in this world, and you should speak up since you have a right to your own opinions, and I will respect it no matter what. While I don't really know the true effects of the radiation, my opinion is that I'm open minded so I'll keep the cell away from my body to be safe. I will post this across multiple forums that it belongs in and moderators, please let me know if I happen to post this in a forbidden section. Don't censor truth, and let the thread live.
Thank you for your time reading all of this and I hope it helps. If so, please rate the thread 5 stars and hit Thanks solely to promote the spreading of the word.
Wow! That's a lot of info. F*** it! We are all gonna die from some sort of cancer. It is what it is. Well at least I will have my Note 3 to communicate with everyone and let them know how I am gonna die.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
JonSCSL said:
Wow! That's a lot of info. F*** it! We all are gonna die from some sort of cancer. It is what it is. Well at least I will have my Note 3 to communicate with everyone and let them know how I am gonna die.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I proudly support and encourage this attitude.
It's a phone, I use the heck out of it for talking (bluetooth, though), and won't change that one jot.
Sent from my SM-N900P using Xparent BlueTapatalk 2
I co-sign with that attitude, no one will live for ever so why not enjoy the time you have!
I just want to point out that the information you're presenting is referring to non-ionizing radiation. Technically speaking, the visible light given off by the LED is electromagnetic "radiation" as well. As innocuous as light seems, it can be harmful in certain situations: UV light can cause skin damage, blue light may contribute to vision problem like macular degeneration, use of cell phones at night (such as lying in bed) can disrupt circadian rhythms which has a whole host of secondary health effects.
My point is, the radiation you're talking about is electrons moving. It's not the kind of radiation that comes from an X-ray, or a linear acceleration, or a dirty bomb, or the fallout from nuclear detonations, etc. Those kinds of radiation, ionizing radiation, pose serious health risks.
I'm not saying there are no negative health effects from the EM radiation cell phones produce, but no one should confuse the potential for harm with the well-established harmful effects of ionizing radiation. I'm of the personal opinion that the amount of EM put off by a cell phone poses much less harm to our bodies than a modern lifestyle: sedentary, poor nutrition, toxic chemicals in the environment, air pollution, etc. etc.
Truth be told, if the FCC would let us get away with it, I would have no problem cranking up the power of the antenna in order to get better signal.
People worry way too much about stuff. Use your phone like a phone. By the time your radiation exposure is high enough to be of concern, you will have been dead for a long time. Please dont encourage people to use speaker phone as often as possible, its already bad enough that we have to hear one side of the conversation of people who feel they have to yell into the phone right by their face.
BTW. Samsung doesnt test at 1cm, the FCC does.It's a standardized test that is part of the approval process. And, its very unlikely that the Army chose the Note 2 due to radiation levels....
I for one thank you for providing this information. FCC, FDA and the Government alike are all trying to kill us so I will defiantly heed your warning and will think twice about taking a call. I do not want any type of cancer and I would like to see my children and my grandchildren. I know one day I will die but we should not be paying Samsung or any OEM to kill us slowly like we pay the Government, Pharmaceuticals, and our jobs that we give our life to so that day will come sooner. You idiots sound like r-tards. Use your freaking brain, wake the f* up people!
I know this may sound ridiculous at first but hear me out.
So most phones if not all have vibration motors. Also, most if not all phones have speakers that don't do exactly too well with low frequencies (bass). The thing with low frequencies is that they can actually be produced without much issue, you can literally grab a plastic ruler you have nearby and produce low freq "music" by just holding one end of it on the table and making the rest vibrate and by moving the ruler to change frequencies. Now I know for a fact that phones, at least my Moto X Style utilize vibration motor for producing something similar to actual sound, for example when you launch the camera through gestures you'll get a rising feedback which happens by inreasing the frequency by increasing the speed of vibrations. Another thing with low frequencies is how they can actually be effectively felt, if not heard. You don't really need to hear the bass to feel it (however cheesy it sounds), which has lead to creation of those flat subwoofer pads (forgot the name of the product) you can place behind your back which will simulate you hearing bass by making your body vibrate. Also, we've had a speaker that turns your table into an actual speaker by making it resonate.
So the idea I had is - would it be possible to actually hook up the vibration motor in our phones to a music app so that the low frequencies are translated to the motor revolutions which would either reproduce the bass if you hold the phone in hands or on your body, or if put it on a surface that would resonate along with the phone? I imagine that since there were possibilities of controlling the vibration patterns, as well as there are apps like light flow that can take control of certain parts of the phone and hook it up to something else (LEDs in light flow's case) this sort of stuff shouldn't be impossible, provided you have root access.
It's just a concept but what does xda think of this?
Oliie23 said:
I know this may sound ridiculous at first but hear me out.
So most phones if not all have vibration motors. Also, most if not all phones have speakers that don't do exactly too well with low frequencies (bass). The thing with low frequencies is that they can actually be produced without much issue, you can literally grab a plastic ruler you have nearby and produce low freq "music" by just holding one end of it on the table and making the rest vibrate and by moving the ruler to change frequencies. Now I know for a fact that phones, at least my Moto X Style utilize vibration motor for producing something similar to actual sound, for example when you launch the camera through gestures you'll get a rising feedback which happens by inreasing the frequency by increasing the speed of vibrations. Another thing with low frequencies is how they can actually be effectively felt, if not heard. You don't really need to hear the bass to feel it (however cheesy it sounds), which has lead to creation of those flat subwoofer pads (forgot the name of the product) you can place behind your back which will simulate you hearing bass by making your body vibrate. Also, we've had a speaker that turns your table into an actual speaker by making it resonate.
So the idea I had is - would it be possible to actually hook up the vibration motor in our phones to a music app so that the low frequencies are translated to the motor revolutions which would either reproduce the bass if you hold the phone in hands or on your body, or if put it on a surface that would resonate along with the phone? I imagine that since there were possibilities of controlling the vibration patterns, as well as there are apps like light flow that can take control of certain parts of the phone and hook it up to something else (LEDs in light flow's case) this sort of stuff shouldn't be impossible, provided you have root access.
It's just a concept but what does xda think of this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ollie- It's a novel idea, and theoretically it may work, but sight unseen, I would imagine most 'phones have a transducer, not a motor for the vibration. Either way, the battery drain for an extended time would be phenomenal, you could probably listen to half an album before the transducer and it's driver circuitry burned out. You're sort of half right with your assumptions re-low frequency and human perceptions, I have installed many high-powered subwoofer systems into nightclubs and other venues so I know a little about this subject. I am also a television engineer so know the theory too. Most of the systems I have installed were of the Bose Cannon variety designed for large-scale venues.
The problem is one of basic physics, to generate bass sounds and get them to an audience, (for argument's sake let's say any frequency below 150hz) requires the movement of air. To resonate at a low frequency takes a lot of energy, which is why we use thick copper cables in our subwoofer systems to reduce the resistance of the system. Monster cables for domestic installations are a waste of money incidentally-but that's another subject for a different forum. This is the reason you have tiny speakers which can only reproduce sounds in excess of 1000hz in our 'phones, what you are suggesting is therefore a novel idea and worth further consideration, remove the need to move air and punch the sounds directly into human perception via physical contact.
I think rather than a pad which sits on your back, maybe some sort of neckband with transducers each side underneath the ears maybe with a bluetooth connection and it's own power supply may do the trick. It's worthy of better brains and knowledge of human anatomy than I have to make some investigations. A company such as Logitech or Shure would be better placed to do the research.
Tony.
vidtek said:
Ollie- It's a novel idea, and theoretically it may work, but sight unseen, I would imagine most 'phones have a transducer, not a motor for the vibration. Either way, the battery drain for an extended time would be phenomenal, you could probably listen to half an album before the transducer and it's driver circuitry burned out. You're sort of half right with your assumptions re-low frequency and human perceptions, I have installed many high-powered subwoofer systems into nightclubs and other venues so I know a little about this subject. I am also a television engineer so know the theory too. Most of the systems I have installed were of the Bose Cannon variety designed for large-scale venues.
The problem is one of basic physics, to generate bass sounds and get them to an audience, (for argument's sake let's say any frequency below 150hz) requires the movement of air. To resonate at a low frequency takes a lot of energy, which is why we use thick copper cables in our subwoofer systems to reduce the resistance of the system. Monster cables for domestic installations are a waste of money incidentally-but that's another subject for a different forum. This is the reason you have tiny speakers which can only reproduce sounds in excess of 1000hz in our 'phones, what you are suggesting is therefore a novel idea and worth further consideration, remove the need to move air and punch the sounds directly into human perception via physical contact.
I think rather than a pad which sits on your back, maybe some sort of neckband with transducers each side underneath the ears maybe with a bluetooth connection and it's own power supply may do the trick. It's worthy of better brains and knowledge of human anatomy than I have to make some investigations. A company such as Logitech or Shure would be better placed to do the research.
Tony.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly, I was thinking to just give it a shot and take a look at how it would work out for just a single-person use. Like I said, I know for a fact that Moto tried something similar by using different vibration patterns for gesture actions which quite honestly seem to work the way I imagine this little subwoofer idea would. If only I could code, I'd definitely try this.
Also, I think it wouldn't really burn out, at least so long as you wouldn't really abuse it. The vibration unit in our phones is actually made in a way that it can withstand the phone ringing for quite long, so I imagine that only really the battery drain would be excessive. But then again, you could just connect your phone to a charger and that would remedy this problem.
Can we achieve this by using an app??
Arunj4144 said:
Can we achieve this by using an app??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unlikely, most Android devices have 2 levels of software, the base firmware which handles calls to hardware components and is tied down by whichever 'phone company built the 'phone, this has all the drivers in it.
The second level is the operation system or Android level and this is where developers have their input.
Don't even think about the Apple evil empire ecosystem.
Tony.
Sony Xperia XZ2 & XZ3 flagship phones have this feature standard.
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
A href="https://blogs.sonymobile.com/2018/10/26/say-yes-to-dvs-make-the-most-of-sonys-dynamic-vibration-system-in-your-xperia/"
Oliie23 said:
I know this may sound ridiculous at first but hear me out.
So most phones if not all have vibration motors. Also, most if not all phones have speakers that don't do exactly too well with low frequencies (bass). The thing with low frequencies is that they can actually be produced without much issue, you can literally grab a plastic ruler you have nearby and produce low freq "music" by just holding one end of it on the table and making the rest vibrate and by moving the ruler to change frequencies. Now I know for a fact that phones, at least my Moto X Style utilize vibration motor for producing something similar to actual sound, for example when you launch the camera through gestures you'll get a rising feedback which happens by inreasing the frequency by increasing the speed of vibrations. Another thing with low frequencies is how they can actually be effectively felt, if not heard. You don't really need to hear the bass to feel it (however cheesy it sounds), which has lead to creation of those flat subwoofer pads (forgot the name of the product) you can place behind your back which will simulate you hearing bass by making your body vibrate. Also, we've had a speaker that turns your table into an actual speaker by making it resonate.
So the idea I had is - would it be possible to actually hook up the vibration motor in our phones to a music app so that the low frequencies are translated to the motor revolutions which would either reproduce the bass if you hold the phone in hands or on your body, or if put it on a surface that would resonate along with the phone? I imagine that since there were possibilities of controlling the vibration patterns, as well as there are apps like light flow that can take control of certain parts of the phone and hook it up to something else (LEDs in light flow's case) this sort of stuff shouldn't be impossible, provided you have root access.
It's just a concept but what does xda think of this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey its an official thing in sony phones now and i want it too for my phone is there anyone who can port it from sony phones to other android phones? it must be easier now coz now you wont have to build it from scratch.
The app name is sound to vibration not perfect but it will be something like what you have asked for
Check this out, I'm not saying its a cure all but it helps
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Under what settings?
leyvatron said:
Under what settings?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Accessibility
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
mrwinkle13 said:
Accessibility
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You can manually adjust it. [emoji1] Nice find.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
leyvatron said:
You can manually adjust it. [emoji1] Nice find.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Glad you like
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
mrwinkle13 said:
Check this out, I'm not saying its a cure all but it helps
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. But where do we put it to get close to 6500k ±500. I say ± 500 because some like a slightly cooler screen and some prefer it warmer, and warmer is actually more natural and accurate. I've played around with it a few minutes and the 9000K is just too cool. Comfort view on medium without using this is closest I've gotten to a desired (actually more desirable, but still not ideal) color temp. Every body chime in where they're putting the circle cursor that they gives close to 6500k or thereabouts.
For those who don't know what comfort view is
Sent from my LG-H918 using Tapatalk
OK. Still playing with it but I think I have it close. With comfort view OFF, the screen was way too cool still. I was running medium comfort view already. I turned off comfort view and still couldn't find a happy place. So I turned it back on. I think some people will like it on medium if you like it a little cooler, and out it on high if you want it a little warmer and try it where I put my green circle at. YMMV though because who knows if LG sourced the same supplier, much less type of screen since this screen calibrated to crap for a very very flagship price. Let me know and see what you guys come up with.
Still hurts my eyes. I'm so used to my note4 still
Hmm.. Am I the only one who likes comfort view off? I'm coming from the note 7v and I still like it off. Why again do people want less blue? I find my screen whites to be really white with comfort view off. Why is that a bad thing? Lol
@rbiter said:
OK. Still playing with it but I think I have it close. With comfort view OFF, the screen was way too cool still. I was running medium comfort view already. I turned off comfort view and still couldn't find a happy place. So I turned it back on. I think some people will like it on medium if you like it a little cooler, and out it on high if you want it a little warmer and try it where I put my green circle at. YMMV though because who knows if LG sourced the same supplier, much less type of screen since this screen calibrated to crap for a very very flagship price. Let me know and see what you guys come up with.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Used your pic as a guide and got it to a point I'm comfortable with
koppee1 said:
Hmm.. Am I the only one who likes comfort view off? I'm coming from the note 7v and I still like it off. Why again do people want less blue? I find my screen whites to be really white with comfort view off. Why is that a bad thing? Lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because your colors and gamma are fubar'ed really bad. You want some semblance of color accuracy for the pictures you take. They look horrible and i mean absolutely horrid looking at the pics taken on the phone. You have to transfer them to a more accurate display to see what you have. There are other more important reasons, but they are rare. And there are less important reasons that I don't care to mention. And as is, the kelvin being so high will probably mess with your sleep patterns. Before and during. And then you have the problem of you and others seeing the same images but you might look like a fool when discussing the color of something. And then there is the fact, you should expect a somewhat decently calibrated display, especially from a company that specializes in displays. Samsung, lg and sharp should have calibrated displays ootb. They should also off some kind of CMS or at least presets to cater to people like you who don't expect a quality display and shrug it off as nothing and desirable. You are in the minority by far. Even apple who has nothing to with manufacturing displays pays a slight premium to have their displays calibrated before the phone is sold. At the very least we should be getting displays in the 6-7000k range which is ±500K from 6504K and a gamma of ±.2-.3 from 2.2. also, it would be nice to get a LCD than can display blacks lower than .02 luminance with lower brightness and less than .030 with higher or max brightness but that last part is more wishful thinking and reality dictates that around .04±.005 is more reasonable to expect. I wonder if some manufacturers goes out on a limb and makes a FALD display. It's feasible but would probably add too much thickness to a phone even if 1cm thick phones were the norm.
As an aside, I wish more phones were about 1cm thickness to accommodate bigger batteries, designs with passive cooling in mind like some recent Samsung flagships, better drop handling and quality control because everything is so crammed sometimes engineering doesn't take into consideration how everything will act in the real world in consumer hands. Thicker phones would give engineers more wiggle room to make better phones with bigger batteries and probably more innovation would come out instead of being held back or dropped altogether. I think many consumers have any idea the implications and far reaching depths of the tango phone. It is stuff like that that will make navigating easier among other things. And when holograms are in everybody's house tango phones will surely be a contributing factor into the foundation of the quality of those holograms. For now some of the data will probably be repurposed for VR.
@rbiter said:
Because your colors and gamma are fubar'ed really bad. You want some semblance of color accuracy for the pictures you take. They look horrible and i mean absolutely horrid looking at the pics taken on the phone. You have to transfer them to a more accurate display to see what you have. There are other more important reasons, but they are rare. And there are less important reasons that I don't care to mention. And as is, the kelvin being so high will probably mess with your sleep patterns. Before and during. And then you have the problem of you and others seeing the same images but you might look like a fool when discussing the color of something. And then there is the fact, you should expect a somewhat decently calibrated display, especially from a company that specializes in displays. Samsung, lg and sharp should have calibrated displays ootb. They should also off some kind of CMS or at least presets to cater to people like you who don't expect a quality display and shrug it off as nothing and desirable. You are in the minority by far. Even apple who has nothing to with manufacturing displays pays a slight premium to have their displays calibrated before the phone is sold. At the very least we should be getting displays in the 6-7000k range which is �±500K from 6504K and a gamma of �±.2-.3 from 2.2. also, it would be nice to get a LCD than can display blacks lower than .02 luminance with lower brightness and less than .030 with higher or max brightness but that last part is more wishful thinking and reality dictates that around .04�±.005 is more reasonable to expect. I wonder if some manufacturers goes out on a limb and makes a FALD display. It's feasible but would probably add too much thickness to a phone even if 1cm thick phones were the norm.
As an aside, I wish more phones were about 1cm thickness to accommodate bigger batteries, designs with passive cooling in mind like some recent Samsung flagships, better drop handling and quality control because everything is so crammed sometimes engineering doesn't take into consideration how everything will act in the real world in consumer hands. Thicker phones would give engineers more wiggle room to make better phones with bigger batteries and probably more innovation would come out instead of being held back or dropped altogether. I think many consumers have any idea the implications and far reaching depths of the tango phone. It is stuff like that that will make navigating easier among other things. And when holograms are in everybody's house tango phones will surely be a contributing factor into the foundation of the quality of those holograms. For now some of the data will probably be repurposed for VR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thing to bear in mind...
Just about no one IRL owns a color accurate display. Further just because they do in no way means their OS properly utilizes it. Windows of all flavors has for years has been renowned for this. Web browsers also almost all fail at color management too.
People live to squawk about accurate colors, tbh despite their best efforts, only photogs really ever pull it off whereas lay consumers almost never do.
Who on XDA owns a colorimeter? I rest my case.
Skripka said:
Thing to bear in mind...
Just about no one IRL owns a color accurate display. Further just because they do in no way means their OS properly utilizes it. Windows of all flavors has for years has been renowned for this. Web browsers also almost all fail at color management too.
People live to squawk about accurate colors, tbh despite their best efforts, only photogs really ever pull it off whereas lay consumers almost never do.
Who on XDA owns a colorimeter? I rest my case.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lol. Wrong. Samsung TVs are known for their color accuracy ootb. I calibrated my laptop display. Haven't bothered calibrating my Samsung JS9500 with tools and just used a disk because it only needed minor adjustment.
Photographers aren't the only one. Studios that make movies use calibrated displays. Professional calibrators use calibrated, and some even bring smaller monitors to show their customers what it will look like since the average consumer doesn't know how much it will affect what they're used to and the calibrator wants the customer to know what they're getting and not have to deal with angry customers who have no clue. And as I mentioned, I left some leniency on the color temp 6504K ±500 should suffice. The pics I've taken on my v20 look like garbage until I made the adjustments. Wouldn't you expect some reasonable color accuracy from your phone display? Especially phones that cost $600+? I definitely expect it from the v20 being an $800 phone. For those that night the pixel, pixel xl and 256GB iphone should expect no less than very very minor deviations. And colorimiters and spectrometers aren't too expensive for decent brands and can get a lot of noise as tv ages or hook up their friends. Light meters otoh can get expensive quick. The cheap ones aren't worth using on an amoled or FALD display. A cheap one would work with most smartphone displays just fine unless you're measuring below .02 I believe.
Is too much too ask for a closely calibrsted display? I mean geez. Smartphone OEM's are already talking about HDR and HDR+ on these small displays. Why jump ahead if you can't get the basics good enough? And it's also amusing some Samsung fanboys were bragging their displays could go over 1000nits. It is very possible that mightve had something to do with the phones combusting. That is a very high draw on the battery and the power circuits and power management. 1000nits would kill your OLED lifespan much more quickly, the longevity of your SEALED battery shortened and could easily bulge the battery sooner than later drawing that much current for a display smaller than 6".
Anyways, I think consumers should expect no less than a 6504K display ±500 and a gamma of 2.2 or close to it. On flagship phones at least. The display used on the v20 should be in less than $400 phone. The blacks even suck. Contrast is decent though but I'm guessing that is because of the 9000K temperature where whites look whiter but in reality they are bluer.
@rbiter said:
Lol. Wrong. Samsung TVs are known for their color accuracy ootb. I calibrated my laptop display. Haven't bothered calibrating my Samsung JS9500 with tools and just used a disk because it only needed minor adjustment.
Photographers aren't the only one. Studios that make movies use calibrated displays. Professional calibrators use calibrated, and some even bring smaller monitors to show their customers what it will look like since the average consumer doesn't know how much it will affect what they're used to and the calibrator wants the customer to know what they're getting and not have to deal with angry customers who have no clue. And as I mentioned, I left some leniency on the color temp 6504K ±500 should suffice. The pics I've taken on my v20 look like garbage until I made the adjustments. Wouldn't you expect some reasonable color accuracy from your phone display? Especially phones that cost $600+? I definitely expect it from the v20 being an $800 phone. For those that night the pixel, pixel xl and 256GB iphone should expect no less than very very minor deviations. And colorimiters and spectrometers aren't too expensive for decent brands and can get a lot of noise as tv ages or hook up their friends. Light meters otoh can get expensive quick. The cheap ones aren't worth using on an amoled or FALD display. A cheap one would work with most smartphone displays just fine unless you're measuring below .02 I believe.
Is too much too ask for a closely calibrsted display? I mean geez. Smartphone OEM's are already talking about HDR and HDR+ on these small displays. Why jump ahead if you can't get the basics good enough? And it's also amusing some Samsung fanboys were bragging their displays could go over 1000nits. It is very possible that mightve had something to do with the phones combusting. That is a very high draw on the battery and the power circuits and power management. 1000nits would kill your OLED lifespan much more quickly, the longevity of your SEALED battery shortened and could easily bulge the battery sooner than later drawing that much current for a display smaller than 6".
Anyways, I think consumers should expect no less than a 6504K display ±500 and a gamma of 2.2 or close to it. On flagship phones at least. The display used on the v20 should be in less than $400 phone. The blacks even suck. Contrast is decent though but I'm guessing that is because of the 9000K temperature where whites look whiter but in reality they are bluer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
D65 is not the be all end all of accuracy. Stop harping like it is. It is one and only one aspect. You can have a panel with good D65 that still does not reproduce accurate colors. And even on an accurate panels, color output varies across it.
You want to talk accuracy you need to be addressing issues like sRGB versus ARGB, and also presently the LCD panel makers are hoping to force the rec.2020 colorspace (which has a huge range of greens), in order to con you the consumer into replacing your otherwise good monitor. You also need to be addressing not just the panels output but also the colorspace of the content-which is why OS matters-because Windows as stated fails supremely at managing color spaces. Hell most content isn't even managed right to sRGB that has been around for 20+ years as an ISO standard....For a brief while the panel makers were pushing ARGB and "vivid" colors....now with UHD broadcast content they want to force a universe where even sRGB hasn't caught on into rec.2020
Thanks for admitting you don't have a colorimeter. As much as you harp on color accuracy, you only talk the talk and only talk the talk about D65. You have no idea what your colors actually are or if they are accurate be they on your TV or your computer monitor or your phone. Sorry. Thems the harsh facts. Photogs are really the only ones who know about this stuff and walk the walk, all other consumers harp on it--but really they're all talk and no cattle IRL.
Well aware of other standards. But is asking for D65 and CMS too much. No. This screen is wack and as mentioned should expect better from a display manufacturer and a flagship phone. Well aware of the other standards tr here trying to push and many OEMs haven't even got the current ones right. If we have passive attitude like yours do you think it will ever be fixed? And yes, photographers are probably the most prominent activists of color accuracy so I'm quite sure they want us to see it on a reasonably somewhat accurate display. We are in the 21st century far from black and white and many years of innovation and improving. I don't think it is much to ask for this especially when they're outsourcing the labor to save pennies.
@rbiter said:
Well aware of other standards. But is asking for D65 and CMS too much. No. This screen is wack and as mentioned should expect better from a display manufacturer and a flagship phone. Well aware of the other standards tr here trying to push and many OEMs haven't even got the current ones right. If we have passive attitude like yours do you think it will ever be fixed? And yes, photographers are probably the most prominent activists of color accuracy so I'm quite sure they want us to see it on a reasonably somewhat accurate display. We are in the 21st century far from black and white and many years of innovation and improving. I don't think it is much to ask for this especially when they're outsourcing the labor to save pennies.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Capitalism is fundamentally a race to the bottom dollar and highest margin. Making an outstanding product gets in the way. Given how long it has taken for even top shelf professional ridiculously expensive LCD displays to get as good as CRTs like FW900 were 20 years ago...you'll probably be waiting a while.
Come to think of it, does Android as a platform even support CMS? And does Google bake it into the source they send OEMs? And then do any apps actually use it? I'd guess no, no, and no... But but I haven't checked.
Well that was all very informative. Thank you.
All that said, can any of you extremely intelligent experts tell us simple minded ones how that helps to calibrate V20 screen colors?
Skripka said:
Capitalism is fundamentally a race to the bottom dollar and highest margin. Making an outstanding product gets in the way. Given how long it has taken for even top shelf professional ridiculously expensive LCD displays to get as good as CRTs like FW900 were 20 years ago...you'll probably be waiting a while.
Come to think of it, does Android as a platform even support CMS? And does Google bake it into the source they send OEMs? And then do any apps actually use it? I'd guess no, no, and no... But but I haven't checked.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm pretty sure android doesn't support CMS baked in. The screens get calibrated at factory to my knowledge. Or not calibrated. Samsung might support CMS somewhere deep in the firmware but as mentioned before they're usually calibrated pretty well ootb and have 3-4 options for modes. One of the modes even caters to people that like cooler screens. Just wishing that LG had implemented something like this in the V20 and not have to use the half baked workaround to get decent color accuracy. Took some pictures of the sunset yesterday with incoming rain clouds and was much happier with what I am using now than previously. And from what I've read, it costs approximately $1-3 USD to calibrate smartphone displays if your phone is manufactured and/or assembled in China. Cuts into profit yes, but I think at least flagships, especially the top tiered camera ones should get it. What's the use of a good camera if the pictures look like crap on the display. Makes editing it to make it more appealing or artistic harder or less desirable, on the smartphone at least in this social media age. I just want my nephew pictures and scenery pictures to look good when I look at them right away. I dont think that is too much to ask for, profits be damned.
---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------
BroJack said:
Well that was all very informative. Thank you.
All that said, can any of you extremely intelligent experts tell us simple minded ones how that helps to calibrate V20 screen colors?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a thread to help those who want a warmer or more accurate screen. I made a thread about using comfort view to help. The op found a setting in accessibility where you can manually change color profiles or manually change how colors are presented. My picture above was just a starting point for those who decide to use this where I found my screen to be more desireable, easy on the eyes and much closer to color accuracy. Might have to use the xrite on this screen and see if it helps. I am not a pro and between the software and having to use a guide each time is difficult. Just use that green circle, if that is the right color (lol), to get a base line of what you want your screen to look like. You can get a little more punch, cooler, warmer or just off the charts inaccurate colors.
@rbiter said:
I'm pretty sure android doesn't support CMS baked in. The screens get calibrated at factory to my knowledge. Or not calibrated. Samsung might support CMS somewhere deep in the firmware but as mentioned before they're usually calibrated pretty well ootb and have 3-4 options for modes. One of the modes even caters to people that like cooler screens. Just wishing that LG had implemented something like this in the V20 and not have to use the half baked workaround to get decent color accuracy. Took some pictures of the sunset yesterday with incoming rain clouds and was much happier with what I am using now than previously. And from what I've read, it costs approximately $1-3 USD to calibrate smartphone displays if your phone is manufactured and/or assembled in China. Cuts into profit yes, but I think at least flagships, especially the top tiered camera ones should get it. What's the use of a good camera if the pictures look like crap on the display. Makes editing it to make it more appealing or artistic harder or less desirable, on the smartphone at least in this social media age. I just want my nephew pictures and scenery pictures to look good when I look at them right away. I dont think that is too much to ask for, profits be damned.
---------- Post added at 10:51 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:39 AM ----------
Just a thread to help those who want a warmer or more accurate screen. I made a thread about using comfort view to help. The op found a setting in accessibility where you can manually change color profiles or manually change how colors are presented. My picture above was just a starting point for those who decide to use this where I found my screen to be more desireable, easy on the eyes and much closer to color accuracy. Might have to use the xrite on this screen and see if it helps. I am not a pro and between the software and having to use a guide each time is difficult. Just use that green circle, if that is the right color (lol), to get a base line of what you want your screen to look like. You can get a little more punch, cooler, warmer or just off the charts inaccurate colors.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From some cursory reading....with the much maligned G5 LG actually targeted rec.2020 (alias DCI-P3) colorspace.
So far I haven't found any reference to what colorspace the v20's panel was intended to fit. Nor if anyone has tried measuring the screen in anything other than sRGB.Given that they were actually able to ship a rec2020 panel in the previous flagship....their very hot D65 value for v20 is more strange. I mention it as the rec2020 space is MUCH more deep in the blue/green department. Just a hairbrained theory, I don't own a colorimeter to check-but mnaybe the hot screen on v20 comes from calibrating more for rec.2020 as opposed to sRGB/ARGB.
OFF-TOPIC DISCUSSIONS ARE WELCOME AT A POINT!
I think it's really amazing! A foldable phone that's a Pixel
What do you think?
Specifications:
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
notnoelchannel said:
I think it's really amazing! A foldable phone that's a Pixel
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm stoked for it. Everything about it that was announced was expected due to the leaks... form factor, price, specs, etc. Dates were expected, although I'm not too happy with the Sony Xperia-esque delivery date (a bit of an exaggeration, but whatever). Will be worth it in the end though.
Hoping that Android 14 Beta will make it's way over to it sooner rather than later.
I think it's miles behind Samsung on the software front unfortunately. But the pixel fold has 2 big advantages, the form factor is much better than Samsung (too narrow) and it's going to be much easier to root/build custom ROMs. Peeves me off even after you unroot Samsung 1/2 your functions are still broken
andy242 said:
I think it's miles behind Samsung on the software front unfortunately. But the pixel fold has 2 big advantages, the form factor is much better than Samsung (too narrow) and it's going to be much easier to root/build custom ROMs. Peeves me off even after you unroot Samsung 1/2 your functions are still broken
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For example camera is going to be broken after root on the galaxy fold..
notnoelchannel said:
I think it's really amazing! A foldable phone that's a Pixel
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It would be an interesting device if it sold for ~$800. I don't know what they are charging an extra $1,000 for.
notnoelchannel said:
For example camera is going to be broken after root on the galaxy fold..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not anymore but Samsung pass Samsung health and Samsung pay will never work again even after unroot
TheMystic said:
It would be an interesting device if it sold for ~$800. I don't know what they are charging an extra $1,000 for.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good question. I think it's the accessories for the device?
It will have the same issues as all fold displays; material failure at the crease. It's simply beyond the physical capabilities of any transparent plastics/adhesives to repeatedly bend at that high a radius. You can take that to the bank.
What to expect...
High because of limited production and breakage, during and after production.
Limited storage because Gookill doesn't want you to have expandable storage; like MS they want to force you into the cloud.
If it's reality be as great as its hype... but it's not.
blackhawk said:
It will have the same issues as all fold displays; material failure at the crease. It's simply beyond the physical capabilities of any transparent plastics/adhesives to repeatedly bend at that high a radius. You can take that to the bank.
High because of limited production and breakage, during and after production.
Limited storage because Gookill doesn't want you to have expandable storage; like MS they want to force you into the cloud.
If it's reality be as great as its hype... but it's not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Tbh the inner screen failure has been quite low on Sammy devices, the issues have been with the inner screen protector. I do agree with you on the production yield though
No Ideas coz it will Not Release in India. But If Released It would be the Most Non Selled Device in India. Here only 2 Type of People One Type Goes to Chinese Phones as they were cheaper other type people only buys Samsung or Apple Because most of them are considering these brands are the best in market without checking others... This is Also the Reason for Google to stopped selling their flagships in India.
notnoelchannel said:
That's a good question. I think it's the accessories for the device?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I know, they don't even give a charger in the box.
There are a lot of reasons to price it there.
Product positioning: All rumors point to this becoming their flagship device. A part of what makes a flagship, a flagship, is exclusivity through pricing. It wouldn't be exclusive if everyone had it.
It's also more palatable to consumers to lower pricing that is too high versus raising prices that were below what the market would bear.
There is some speculation that they'd rather not move too many of these until the durability factor is quantified. That reduces the exposure to warranty claims in case there should be a significant percentage of failures in the wild.
Money, and lots of it, gives you a different perspective. While corporate goals have reportedly turned to making hardware profitable, it is not their cash cow. If you look at their earnings, you can see very clearly that hardware isn't keeping the lights on. Their not idiots: The purpose of being in the hardware game is controlling the narrative; the real machine is their ad business.
They would like hardware to recoup its cost, make a little money. If it goes their way, maybe even become a significant source of future profits. But for today they're swimming in money and investing billions in hardware that will help shape the android ecosystem is really investing billions in their ad business. The Pixel Fold doesn't need to sell in numbers because Google is not really in the hardware business. They have that luxury.
krabman said:
There are a lot of reasons to price it there.
Product positioning: All rumors point to this becoming their flagship device. A part of what makes a flagship, a flagship, is exclusivity through pricing. It wouldn't be exclusive if everyone had it.
It's also more palatable to consumers to lower pricing that is too high versus raising prices that were below what the market would bear.
There is some speculation that they'd rather not move too many of these until the durability factor is quantified. That reduces the exposure to warranty claims in case there should be a significant percentage of failures in the wild.
Money, and lots of it, gives you a different perspective. While corporate goals have reportedly turned to making hardware profitable, it is not their cash cow. If you look at their earnings, you can see very clearly that hardware isn't keeping the lights on. Their not idiots: The purpose of being in the hardware game is controlling the narrative; the real machine is their ad business.
They would like hardware to recoup its cost, make a little money. If it goes their way, maybe even become a significant source of future profits. But for today they're swimming in money and investing billions in hardware that will help shape the android ecosystem is really investing billions in their ad business. The Pixel Fold doesn't need to sell in numbers because Google is not really in the hardware business. They have that luxury.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well put. Meantime to failure of the inner protective screen and/or display, 6 months.
andy242 said:
Tbh the inner screen failure has been quite low on Sammy devices, the issues have been with the inner screen protector. I do agree with you on the production yield though
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't even touch on the AMOLED display that's constantly bending at a very tight radius. Unlike ribbon cables in conventional hinges. With its hundreds of matrix pathways as well OLEDs . Much more stress than in a simple static curved display. Add to all that the torsional stresses of being on a hinge.
It's got fail written all over it.
Warranty doesn't reimburse inconvenient... the only hardware down time this N10+ suffered in almost 4 years (how many Folds have survived heavy usage with this kind of repair track record?) was half a day to have its battery replace. Worse Samsung failed to adequately design firmware/software that can take full advantage of all the real estate that's available.
Samsung has had many years to get the whole package from a beta project to a flagship level* of reliability and performance. It remains a more refined beta offering. It's a cool looking headache.
*meanwhile their other flagships are suffering as well. Too many lamps burning and not enough kerosene.
I'd like to see the citations for your data; I'm not aware of any source, public or private, that shows MTBF for the Pixel Fold screen. Or for that matter, any data you possess or can link to showing the MTBF for any foldable device coming from a reputable source would be useful to all of us. I would be grateful if you could share this information.
Just to give you an idea of the testing involved in the development of these phones the screens were tested to last at least 200,000 or more openings (open and close counts as 1) depending on the device. That's over 5 years even if you use your phone every ten minutes, for 16 hours, every single day.
krabman said:
I'd like to see the citations for your data; I'm not aware of any source, public or private, that shows MTBF for the Pixel Fold screen. Or for that matter, any data you possess or can link to showing the MTBF for any foldable device coming from a reputable source would be useful to all of us. I would be grateful if you could share this information.
Just to give you an idea of the testing involved in the development of these phones the screens were tested to last at least 200,000 or more openings (open and close counts as 1) depending on the device. That's over 5 years even if you use your phone every ten minutes, for 16 hours, every single day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Link is above; it didn't go so well for them. Maybe you'll get lucky. Are you feeling lucky?
Use some common sense. Do you know of any folding plastic with this acute of a radius bend and thickness that can survive 200k folds? Worse it's a laminate.
Even teflon is hard pressed to do that... and it's not transparent.
I've gone through 3 folders, none of them failed. I'm typing on one that's a year old right now, but much like the link you've posted, that's just one man's personal experience and in no way qualifies as data regarding MTBF for any particular device or part.
Do you have any actual MTBF data from a credible source that you can link?
krabman said:
I've gone through 3 folders, none of them failed. I'm typing on one that's a year old right now, but much like the link you've posted, that's just one man's personal experience and in no way qualifies as data regarding MTBF for any particular device or part.
Do you have any actual MTBF data from a credible source that you can link?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a pretty good run especially for the earlier ones. The better get while gettings good philosophy has worked so far for you.
I still have the Note 10+ I purchased in October of 2019. It looks and runs like new. Only repair was one replacement battery. It has over 8k hours on it with zero detectable display defects/degradation.
MTBF? It's not mil spec... 200k cycles; sounds like it last 5 years easy. Yes, well... just like the Samsung VP's claim that most customers hold the Note in their right hand to justify putting the spen on the wrong side. Sammy's gotten pretty sleazy in the last 4 years. Zero confidence.
Trust me, the first Z fold was a little scary. By the time I traded it the hinge was a weakening, there were signs of screen delamination, etc. That was somewhat less than a year.
The only longevity question mark I have here is that the phone hasn't been in consumer hands. They talk about having iterated the hardware dozens of time over the (protracted) development period but that's no substitute for 1000s of hands finding ways to make something break.
For me, it's simple: Sometimes it goes bad when you want to play with the new shiny; I like new shiny and it usually it works out so I'll take my chances.
krabman said:
There are a lot of reasons to price it there.
Product positioning: All rumors point to this becoming their flagship device. A part of what makes a flagship, a flagship, is exclusivity through pricing. It wouldn't be exclusive if everyone had it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no rumour pointing to this becoming their flagship device. It is just a different form factor. The flagship device from Samsung is their S Ultra, not the Fold which is already in its 4th generation. The Pixel 7 Pro is still the better device than the Pixel fold.
As with exclusivity through pricing, it makes sense to buy one only if the product is indeed superior. If not, it is just a waste of money.
krabman said:
There is some speculation that they'd rather not move too many of these until the durability factor is quantified. That reduces the exposure to warranty claims in case there should be a significant percentage of failures in the wild.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a strategy even Samsung used. But they were the pioneers, testing waters and creating a new product. Google using it almost 5 years later shows that the hardware is still not up to the mark for mass use.
MOST IMPORTANT QUESTION:
Your reasons explain the pricing from the company's perspective. Why is the customer paying so much for an inferior product? To help Google to improve their products?
It is well known that Samsung's software is best optimised for the fold experience today. It has a much better build and in its 4th generation. It is the better product and easily the better choice to make, if the customer has 'value' and 'reliability' considerations.
krabman said:
Just to give you an idea of the testing involved in the development of these phones the screens were tested to last at least 200,000 or more openings (open and close counts as 1) depending on the device. That's over 5 years even if you use your phone every ten minutes, for 16 hours, every single day.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Real life use is way different from factory testing in controlled environments. These numbers are just like the fuel efficiency that the car makers claim.
blackhawk said:
just like the Samsung VP's claim that most customers hold the Note in their right hand to justify putting the spen on the wrong side.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is a very absurd argument. Most users are right handed, so would find it naturally more convenient if the S-Pen was housed on the right side of the device, because they would use the right hand to operate the pen.
I use my left hand more than the right hand when it comes to using the phone (I'm a right hander). Even for me, the S-Pen on the right side would be easily more convenient.
krabman said:
For me, it's simple: Sometimes it goes bad when you want to play with the new shiny; I like new shiny and it usually it works out so I'll take my chances.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I too like new and shiny, and willing to take some chances. But then it really has to be the best or superior product. The price should justify my spending it, and not why the company benefits from it.
Actually there are not only MANY rumors pointing to this becoming Googs flagship device; there is also talk of dropping the A model effective next year because of that. We'll see how it all plays out.
As to why I explained the pricing from the company's perspective... The question was asked why they were charging what they were charging. Whether you or I or anyone else should pay it is another question altogether.
The rest of that is largely subjective. I have had several Samsung folders, I do not see that as better than the software shown so far on the Pixel but the jury is still out, I have to use it before I can make a call. So do you for that matter.
Agree about the benefits of being in the 4th and soon 5th iteration. But then I had the Z fold when it was in its first generation too; heard the same arguments made then about it being a high school garage project which no sane person should buy. Except of course a lot of us enjoyed the crap out of that thing, shop project and all, and were never going back to a rectangle again.
True about the folding tests as compared to real life usage but then that's factual data that is repeatable, quantifiable, and has actual bearing on the subject at hand. A story about some random guy who had a problem isn't exactly a proof of anything other than there was some random guy that had a problem.
My suggestion, MrMystic: Move on; no sense in staying around here. Life is short, too short to hang on a forum for a device you don't want or like bellyaching over what you've already decided you don't want.
Personally I loved the folding action itself of the Z Folds, hate the rest of the phone. I didn't use the cover screen for anything but reading notifications and IMO they're all fatally flawed from the start due to the form factor alone. I moved on to the X Fold for that reason and despite its' wonky software liked it better. The PIxel Fold is going to finally bring the form factor folding phones have needed all along and I'll take it every day of the week over Samsung. If Google had not released this phone I would have bought another folder again, I'm completely sold on them, but it would not be Samsung.