Huawei Mate 70 RS Ultimate
- A
- Achined
- LcQ
- 06 Dec 2024
As long as they do not have Google service right out of the box and no 5G for the price, Huawei will stay a niche product forever.
Hardware wise it is absolutely out of this world.
I've had the 40pro+, miles ahead compared to other smartphones
- k
- kresten
- Iby
- 01 Dec 2024
dananhs, 26 Nov 2024They probably want face unlock to be the main unlock type (... moreTo reiterate, the face lock on a Mate 30 Pro is already so good that I have never used my fingerprint: you just pick up the phone.
- ?
- Anonymous
- th1
- 01 Dec 2024
Ayaz, 28 Nov 2024Missing 8k Video recoding 8k is POS on a barely 7" phone screen. Even sony dropped their 4k screen for 1080p flagship because it's pointless & waste of resources.
- David 040882
- spY
- 28 Nov 2024
joe nodden, 28 Nov 2024"How is 8K going to be used in the future? Because 8K ... moreOk so let's first talk at the present.
"People who upload stuff to YouTube, other services, or their NAS, don't need to worry about storage."
They also don't need to worry about 8K videos, especially on a smartphone. If someone wants to post videos on YouTube, for example, then to get the best quality they can they would certainly not film with a smartphone, and if they would, they would in 4K, as 8K is simply not convenient. Hell, even YouTube sees limited use of 8K, hence most videos being in 1080p or 4K. Uploading in 8K offers little tangible benefit to creators when most viewers don't have the screens or bandwith to appreciate it.
"And everything from the early 2000s was either in 480p or 720p. We still view such videos today but find its quality poor. 4K may not be viewed as "poor" quality at any point in the future, but there will come a point where it's preferable to watch content in a higher quality. It may be 40 years from now, but these videos stick around. Stop being stuck in the present."
Comparing the jump from 480p/720p to 1080p to the 4K to 8K jump overlooks the diminishing returns of resolution increases. The perceptual difference between 4K and 8K on common screen sizes (even 80-90" TVs) is minimal for the human eye unless viewed very closely. This is why the adoption of 8K has been very slow, unlike 1080p's or 4K's. Plus, 4K is already considered a golden standard. Professional filmmakers and broadcasters agree that 4K delivers a near-perfect balance of resolution, file size, accessibility, and manageability. Unlike 480p or 720p, 4K won't be seen as poor possibly ever, since the human eye's ability to discern resolution improvements diminishes rapidly beyond this point.
"In low light scenarios, obviously. In the middle of the day outside, that's not an issue. If a phone can shoot in 8K you can shoot at 8K during the day and 4K during the night. If a phone can't shoot in 8K you're stuck with a lower quality in situations where it's beneficial."
Ok, so I suppose physics wasn't your strong subject at school. Smartphone camera sensors are physically very small, and they will stay so for as long as smartphones will exist. Packing in the pixel density required for 8K reduces the size of individual pixels, which directly impacts their ability to capture light and results in higher noise levels. This isn't just a low light issue - dynamic range, color depth, and overall image quality stuffer as well. You can go and check the countless reviews which clearly show that 8K video quality from smartphones isn't nearly as high quality. So focusing on resolution at the expense of sensor quality results in diminished performance overall, regardless of the lighting conditions.
"The quality difference between 8K and 4K smartphone footage on phones that properly support it is undeniable."
On smartphone or laptop screens, the resolution advantage of 8K over 4K is negligible. The difference only becomes apparent on very large displays viewed at close range, a scenario far removed from typical smartphone usage. And again, smartphone lenses, even the high end, are simply not capable of resolving the level of detail 8K theoretically provides. Without larger, more advanced optics, the 8K recording gains are primarily numerical rather than perceptual.
"Different manufacturers have different methods for handling stabilization. Some disable stabilization at higher resolutions altogether. Cameras don't always move when filming though, and, again, stationary shots are crippled by a phone not being able to shoot in 8K."
Seriously? 😂 8K requires a significant amount of computational and sensor resources. And the most straightforward way to achieve stabilization in 8K on a smartphone is by cropping the sensor further , negating the resolution advantage. Disabling stabilization for 8K cand and will render videos shaky and less usable, even in stationary shots where minor movements still occur. Nearly nobody walks around with a tripod for their smartphone to shoot 8K videos, because a large (and most) percentage of smartphone video content is captured in dynamic conditions (walking, travel, events, vlogging). Optimizing for stationary use ignores the majority of real world filming scenarios.
"...8K had the potential to be used in the future.'
While 8K support might expand, the industry hasn't even fully embraced it for televisions. Most users consume content on 4K screens or smaller, and even these displays aren't fully and consistently utilized to their full potential, largely because of streaming compression. And hence, most broadcasters and streaming platforms remain focused on 4K largely because of bandwidth and cost considerations. So adoption of 8K will keep being slow and confined to specific niches. Future potential doesn't justify prioritizing 8K over other more practical improvements such as better low light performance , better dynamic range, and AI-based computational photography, which has just taken off. Those have a greater impact on real world use. Chasing extreme resolutions and pushing 8K on smartphones prioritizes marketing over meaningful innovation; that's very logical. Users will look at 8K and think, "Oh, a big number! It must be good then." Same thing goes with the high res 200MP cameras. They don't necessarily bring better overall detail than 50 or 64MP sensors.
Now, regarding THE FUTURE, sure, advancements will be made, bringing 8K a step closer to being convenient for the regular person. But you can't beat physics, and smartphones will hardly, if ever, have the required sensors/sensor sizes to record 8K videos without major drawbacks. And in the end, neither you nor me can know what the future will bring, so focus on the present, cause that's what matters. Anyone with an IQ above 80 would clearly see my points here. So while I also don't think that it's right for such an expensive smartphone to miss out on premium features that even sub-$1000 phones have, 8K is surely the one feature than nobody will give a rat's ass about, except for you, apparently. I'd much rather have excellent 4K video quality and advancements made to try to perfect 4K videos, rather than 8K. Bigger/more is not always better. Period.
- joe nodden
- YhI
- 28 Nov 2024
David 040882, 28 Nov 2024How is 8K going to be used in the future? Because 8K is ins... more"How is 8K going to be used in the future? Because 8K is insanely overkill for a smartphone, and it will hardly ever become convenient."
It's not inconvenient to anyone who actually uses their videos instead of letting them sit in their storage doing nothing. People who upload stuff to YouTube, other services, or their NAS, don't need to worry about storage.
And everything from the early 2000s was either in 480p or 720p. We still view such videos today but find its quality poor. 4K may not be viewed as "poor" quality at any point in the future, but there will come a point where it's preferable to watch content in a higher quality. It may be 40 years from now, but these videos stick around. Stop being stuck in the present. This phone is $1800 and it's inexcusable for it to not have top of the line specifications.
"You need a high resolution sensor to film 8K, and cramming so many pixels into such a small smartphone sensor reduces the size of each pixel, which leads to poorer light sensitivity and image quality."
In low light scenarios, obviously. In the middle of the day outside, that's not an issue. If a phone can shoot in 8K you can shoot at 8K during the day and 4K during the night. If a phone can't shoot in 8K you're stuck with a lower quality in situations where it's beneficial. Phones a fraction this price can shoot in 8K.
"Not only that, but the lenses on smartphone cameras are also pretty small and can hardly resolve the fine details required for 8K quality."
The quality difference between 8K and 4K smartphone footage on phones that actually properly support it is undeniable. By your logic, phones shouldn't even have 4K because the difference when jumping from 1440p to 4K on a phone is a smaller difference than jumping from 1440p to 4K on a DSLR (for the same reason.)
"Stabilization in 8K also requires more sensor crop, and that logically reduces the field of view and resolution."
Different manufacturers have different methods for handling stabilization. Some disable stabilization at higher resolutions altogether. Cameras don't always move when filming though, and, again, stationary shots are crippled by a phone not being able to shoot in 8K. When non-$1800 phones can shoot in 8K or 4K if you're that against 8K.
"And then, even if all of these were to be solved, there's very few devices, let alone smartphones that support native 8K playback."
> *Reads that 8K has the potential to be used in the future*
> "B-but, right now there isn't that many devices that benefit from it!"
"I know professional filmmakers which say"
I know countless works by professional filmmakers that use the complete wrong color balance. Countless works by professionals that have various flaws because the person behind the camera thinks their opinion on how the shot should look is right.
Those professional filmmakers you see have never had their works displayed on a 70 foot display if they think 8K is overkill. The wedding videographer or Fiverr videographer you know isn't a "professional filmmaker."
Can't believe you have a camera as a pfp when you're literally arguing that it's okay for manufacturers to cripple the cameras in the most expensive non-foldable on the market. But by all means, drop your money on the phone. Go right ahead. Nobody's stopping you. Me personally, I'll keep calling out manufacturers for pulling these scummy decisions instead of defending them.
- David 040882
- spY
- 28 Nov 2024
joe nodden, 28 Nov 2024I've listed the problems. You think nobody uses 8K... moreHow is 8K going to be used in the future? Because 8K is insanely overkill for a smartphone, and it will hardly ever become convenient. The small smartphone sensors are simply not fit to film 8K videos. You need a high resolution sensor to film 8K, and cramming so many pixels into such a small smartphone sensor reduces the size of each pixel, which leads to poorer light sensitivity and image quality. Not only that, but the lenses on smartphone cameras are also pretty small and can hardly resolve the fine details required for 8K quality. Then there's the file size, with 8K videos producing several GBs per minute. Stabilization in 8K also requires more sensor crop, and that logically reduces the field of view and resolution. And then, even if all of these were to be solved, there's very few devices, let alone smartphones that support native 8K playback. So 8K is PURELY a marketing feature on smartphones. I know professional filmmakers which say 8K videos are overkill and they have professional cinema cameras worth tens of thousands of dollars. Then, if even most pro filmmakers don't use 8K, why would a random person need 8K on their smartphone? There's no reason
- ?
- Anonymous
- JH2
- 28 Nov 2024
joe nodden, 28 Nov 2024I've listed the problems.
You think nobody uses 8K... moreThen tell me why you are going to record 8k videos and why you need more than 2.6ghz clock speed.
I am waiting. Because until now you are only saying it will be important in the future but you didn't name one use case.
And please don't talk about windows phones. They were released in a time with almost no serious competition to Google.
- A
- Ayaz
- 6p{
- 28 Nov 2024
Missing 8k Video recoding
- joe nodden
- YhI
- 28 Nov 2024
Anonymous, 27 Nov 2024nobody uses 8K, 6nm 2.6ghz main core is powerful enough for... moreI've listed the problems.
You think nobody uses 8K, you fail to see how it's going to be used in the future. You think a 6nm chip with clock speeds only up to 2.6ghz is enough, failing to take into account anybody else's use case scenarios. You think because other companies are removing stuff that makes it okay. You think Gapps are replaceable, when Windows phones, and the $7.6 billion investment lost on them, showed us they aren't.
This is an $1800 phone. This isn't $400. Just because you like to throw away money with no care in the world doesn't make these flaws acceptable at this price point.
- joe nodden
- YhI
- 28 Nov 2024
David 040882, 27 Nov 2024Good for you, but as a whole, I think under display sensors... moreIf it depends on whether it's a flagship or not I think I've got a more objective comparison considering they're two phones from the same line.
- ?
- Anonymous
- vx4
- 28 Nov 2024
joe nodden, 27 Nov 2024No 8K footage, a slow Kirin SoC most likely, a massive hole... moreI agree with the rest but 8k recording is POS, 8k tv's are still expensive asf & ain't gonna be mainstream in the forseeable future unless you dedicate an entire living room for a 70" or 80" + tv's to actually notice it.
- ?
- Anonymous
- 86i
- 27 Nov 2024
Limerain, 27 Nov 2024Does anyone know what camera sensors this phone has?I think it is the Sony LYT-900. There is also a 1.5 MP "red maple" camera in the middle of all the rest of the cameras, it is supposed to allow the phone to capture very realistic colors on extreme ends of the visible light spectrum.
- David 040882
- spY
- 27 Nov 2024
joe nodden, 27 Nov 2024Nah, I had a side-mounted fingerprint sensor on the power b... moreGood for you, but as a whole, I think under display sensors are more reliable. I've just had way too many issues with phones with side-mounted fingerprint scanners. I guess it also depends on the model of the phone, whether it is a low budget offering, a mid ranger, or a flagship.
- ?
- Anonymous
- JH2
- 27 Nov 2024
dananhs, 26 Nov 2024They probably want face unlock to be the main unlock type (... moreExactly. Another reason for the side-mounted fingerprint sensor might be the new basalt-tempered display glass.
- ?
- Anonymous
- JH2
- 27 Nov 2024
joe nodden, 27 Nov 2024No 8K footage, a slow Kirin SoC most likely, a massive hole... morenobody uses 8K, 6nm 2.6ghz main core is powerful enough for many games, other brands have no sd card slot and 3.5mm jack either, google apps can be replaced by other apps which are even better than google's monopolistic ecosystem.
so what is your problem with this phone?
- joe nodden
- YhI
- 27 Nov 2024
David 040882, 27 Nov 2024Nah, I have to disagree with that. Across all the phones I&... moreNah, I had a side-mounted fingerprint sensor on the power button on my Redmi K40. I had zero issues with that. It was super fast.
Now, on my Redmi K60, the under-display sensor is insanely unreliable. It may be because of the screen protector, but that's a problem that shouldn't exist. Half the time I end up using my pattern to unlock my phone instead of the sensor. I've tried re-entering my fingerprint multiple times but no it's just that bad.
- joe nodden
- YhI
- 27 Nov 2024
No 8K footage, a slow Kirin SoC most likely, a massive hole in the display, no Gapps, no 3.5mm jack, no card slot (not even Huawei's dumb proprietary cards,) $1600? Where are they even getting that price from? This isn't a foldable.
I don't like this phone.
- David 040882
- srr
- 27 Nov 2024
dananhs, 26 Nov 2024They probably want face unlock to be the main unlock type (... moreNah, I have to disagree with that. Across all the phones I've had, probably 90% of them had a side-mounted fingerprint reader. And I can tell you, regardless of the brand, if your finger is a little dirty, it's going to become pretty unreliable, whereas a under display sensor has given me the most reliable overall experience when it comes to fingerprint unlocking. So I'd much rather, and most people would much rather have an under display sensor. Not only that, but I've had plenty of times with side mounted scanners when I would slide my phone into my pocket, and my thumb would touch the power button, unlocking the phone, and while I would walk around, the phone's screen (which is open) would continuously hit on my thigh, opening random apps and even dialing in emergency numbers. And I've known many other people which have had similar issues.
- K
- Kv
- uvB
- 27 Nov 2024
John , 26 Nov 2024Since 2018 i was using Huawei brand I feel very good but no... moreMe too, 💯💯