ZTE posts first image of Axon 30 5G with second generation under display camera

05 July 2021
The second gen under-panel camera will improve the image quality and offer higher pixel density for the part of the display it.

Sort by:

  • D
  • AnonD-909757
  • pZV
  • 06 Jul 2021

Dudenoway, 06 Jul 2021OK so I think ultrasonic is fastest. Also why was s10 note ... moreBecause it used the very first gen, all the S10, S20, Note10 and Note20, a sensor called the "3D Sonic" made by Qualcomm, they had a new sensor called the "3D Sonic Max" which did bring game changing upgrades.
Tut Samsung didn't take it because Qualcomm refused them to make it a Samsung exclusivity (and I think at this time Apple was already negotiating for having this sensor for the iPhone 12/13).
The software implementation of Samsung is quite bad.

You have to understand how critically different this tech is, while optical UD FPS literally take pictures of your finger, capacitive which is basically a high definition tactile pad get a map of the ridges (it isn't really 3D, but it basically read the contact points of the ridges meaning it can't be fooled by a simple picture), in both cases, the RAW data is already almost usable as such.
Ultrasonic on the other hand require sound imaging computations to be done, which is heavily different and more complex.
This sensor see not just the epidermis, but also the dermis (the layer just below the skin).
The sad part is the immense potential of this type of sensor, using them just to look at the fingerprint is a big waste of potential.

Using it, you can not only :
*See in 3D the fingerprint.
*See the layers under the skin where the ridges are also present and super hard to fake.
*See the veins inside the finger.
*Read the heartbeat.
*Read the density of what you are looking at.
*See the distal phalanx.

Just the density part mean that with a good algorithm and an ASIC chip, you can easily tell where the screen protector, grease/water/dirt and even glove start at and end up, same for the flesh, meaning that if it is done properly you should flawlessly reject everything that isn't the finger and read through thin gloves like surgical ones.
And by reading the flesh density and skin layers, you can make it extremely hard to fool and more precise too.
Using the veins reading part, you can go as far as put an extra layer of security and accuracy.

Samsung only made a basic "sonar camera" that compared the recorded one with a really simple algorithm, so really far from all that, and with a sensor that was already outdated as the "3D Sonic Max" was available at the time the S20 was in the work.

Also, Samsung did put some energy saving features and stuff like that which literally made the sensor do far worse than it should, combine that with users don't understanding they should re-register their fingerprints when changing their screen protectors (which aren't all compatible) as unlike optical one (which already are sensitive to that) the material density change everything, and people pressing their finger while the best method is to "tap" the display, and you endup with something that do as bad as it did.

There were many combined things from being the first model and Samsung too simple approach to it and user not using it properly that worked together against it.
Though it has been patched with time and work much better now than it the beginning.

    AnonD-909757, 06 Jul 2021Capacitive FPS are fast and accurate, also they are secure,... moreOK so I think ultrasonic is fastest. Also why was s10 note 10 and 20 series ultrasonic fps so bad. Just curious

      Peter UK, 05 Jul 2021You obviously didn't read the article... It's all... moreI did I am 99.99% sure it's not true. I guess most rational way of putting underscreen camera is putting mechanized screen (under glass) wich slides away and exposes camera under glass. That concept was offered by samsung

        • D
        • AnonD-909757
        • pZV
        • 06 Jul 2021

        Dudenoway, 06 Jul 2021Capacitive are faster than optical ud fps I think. Idk abou... moreCapacitive FPS are fast and accurate, also they are secure, optical one aren't that great.
        Even cheap phones with capacitive ones work well, optical ones only works well on super expensive devices.
        On both my OnePlus 6t and Poco F2 Pro, who have optical FPS, it read whenever it want, and sometimes it is slow, and this despite me always wiping my fingers and sometimes the display too before doing it, and having properly registered my fingers.

          • D
          • AnonD-909757
          • pZV
          • 06 Jul 2021

          Anonymous, 06 Jul 2021Why are you quoting from a 2016 scientific paper that claim... moreBecause they exist on other applications than on smartphones, duh.
          And this is BS, there are a LOT of things that are better but not used, hence why we have no continuously variable zoom, 2D face recognition rather than 3D one, 2Mp sensors and other non-senses.
          The simple fact that how Android works basically require each device to have its own OS custom-made is completely stupid and cause a huge waste of resources, thankfully computer OS doesn't work like that, and this is funny because Android is build from Linux who don't need that.

          Wrong, "light based" (which is just a camera BTW) are the worst of the 3, they are slow, unreliable in many circumstances and the least secure by a HUGE margin.
          Compare the S10 FPS with the first optical one on a smartphone, and then we'll talk.
          The one in the S21 is super fast, precise and reliable, and the one in the Meizu 18/18 Pro is the fastest, it is only the second gen of this tech and the first implementation of this tech from Meizu.
          Even Apple did not want optical FPS for a reason, and there is also a reason why they want an ultrasonic one.

          The 2016 paper is still relevant as it shows the general difference between each type, not their smartphone implementation, and while capacitive have always been at its peak performance, optical one were only bad when introduced on SMARTPHONES at first, because other applications don't try to make them look through a display.

          People are amazing, the ultrasonic FPS who only had bad reputation because of Samsung's botched implementation of it and their poor attitude refusing to upgrade twice to the better and available 3D Sonic Max make people say that ultrasonic FPS are bad, despite the tech itself being amazing.
          But underdisplay camera who are simply a stupid idea and whose improvements can only reach so much, yeah everything think it is the holy grail...
          Are you even for real?

            AnonD-909757, 06 Jul 2021Do you even realize it was mainly an issue with the S/Note ... moreCapacitive are faster than optical ud fps I think. Idk about capacitive vs ultrasonic ud fps but capacitive sensor(which my phone has rear mounted one huawei p20 lite) on my phone is lightning fast and rarely does it does not register fp. Mostly when my hands are oily or sweaty it doesnt

              • ?
              • Anonymous
              • PZa
              • 06 Jul 2021

              AnonD-909757, 06 Jul 2021Do you even realize it was mainly an issue with the S/Note ... moreWhy are you quoting from a 2016 scientific paper that claims ultrasonic fingerprint readers are better when they only entered into commercial use in 2019 in the Samsung Galaxy S10? We know they're not now because no one else uses them and light based are still faster and more accurate and reliable than their ultrasonic counterparts.

                • D
                • AnonD-909757
                • pZV
                • 06 Jul 2021

                Anonymous, 06 Jul 2021You always claim ultrasonic FPRz are better but you can... moreDo you even realize it was mainly an issue with the S/Note 10/20 (which all four had the SAME sensor) and that is mainly gone with the S21?
                Everyone constantly defends the underdisplay camera saying "but it is only the first generation", yet they also did spit on the ultrasonic FPS on its first generation...
                Yes, the Samsung implementation using the second gen Qualcomm FPS require a more or less adapted FPS, which is either a film or plastic (meaning CHEAP) or a good quality tempered glass one :
                https://www.androidcentral.com/does-samsung-galaxy-s21-fingerprint-sensor-work-screen-protectors
                You bought a 1000¤+ phone, why would you buy a cheap tempered glass anyway?

                Add to that the fact that the Meizu 18 and 18 Pro who both have ultrasonic FPS are considered to have the fastest FPS on the world :
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWV1DXKpyRI
                And whose I have never read ANY issues related to screen protector and fingerprint scanner.
                And understand that even there, this tech use maybe 15% of its potential, it is mindblowingly simply to understand that you can measure the screen protector density using the sensor and simply reject it easily, yet it isn't done yet.

                Also, most people just don't understand that they need to re-register their fingerprint AFTER they changed the screen protector, optical FPS have the same issue too.

                And even there, it is still THE MOST ACCURATE and SAFEST beating capacitive and optical.
                https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3-D-Ultrasonic-Fingerprint-Sensor-on-a-Chip-Tang-Lu/e61258e546ee0a477bd5dad7cca48ce0521b74b6/figure/10

                  • D
                  • AnonD-909757
                  • pZV
                  • 06 Jul 2021

                  Anonymous, 05 Jul 2021I guess this is the camera pixel between camera picel arran... moreIn part, but also the awful quality in general, while a camera is mainly for "artistic" purpose, the quality can be enhanced by software, mainly through AI which is a big thing in smartphones who literally have AI chips in their SoC.
                  But face recognition on the other hand require pure, unmodified quality to work well, altering it through software will result in loss of fidelity which is exactly what the face recognition look at.

                    • D
                    • AnonD-909757
                    • pZV
                    • 06 Jul 2021

                    OhNom, 05 Jul 2021"path dependence" No, it is not that, simply n... moreI know it isn't strictly speaking "path dependence", as nothing force to go to that route, but it is a highly similar issue of being locked to a single idea, this happens a lot, looks at how every phones now have a punch hole or a teardrop notch, or the invasion of 2Mp depth + macro cameras, this industry can't innovate.

                    There are other ways to get a similar result, I thought, for example, about one which would have the whole top part of the display (inside the phone) with the cameras behind it that would, inside the phone, roll 180°, so the main cameras would face you.

                    Considering that it is somewhat accepted that you only need to alter ~20% of a patent to make your own from it, there are a lot of variations to the Samsung and Google ones that are possible, for example, anything that would use the main sensor to also see in front would be probably considered as a totally different tech even if it uses the same design.
                    And for big companies, paying a patent is super easy.
                    It isn't just about ZTE, it is about every company focusing only on the same type (seeing through the display) of underdisplay camera, even those Google and Samsung patents will probably, sadly, never get made into actual products despite being better in every conceivable ways...

                      • ?
                      • Anonymous
                      • TL%
                      • 06 Jul 2021

                      AnonD-909757, 05 Jul 2021I don't mind that it become the next big thing, what I... moreYou always claim ultrasonic FPRz are better but you can't even use a normal screen protector with them. You have to use a special one and that's not very convenient to begin with.

                        • E
                        • Evlo
                        • nxc
                        • 05 Jul 2021

                        But that is reality everythere in tech
                        cars: no matte displays
                        cellphones: no matte display, only slight AR on apple phones
                        TV: no matte or AR options
                        Microwaves: no sensors, in 90s you set you want to do popcorn and that was it, no timer
                        toasters: no senosrs, in 60s you set how you want your toast to be done and that was it, no timer [beluga is a joke]
                        fridges: no more setting temp on wheels, fridge forget the settings, and now even delay on interior lighting as more and more fridges use poorly integrated hal/magnetic sensor
                        laptops - no matte touchscreens, less and less upgradability, multiple gpus, bugged docking via usb-c etc. etc.

                        It is just tech reaches it's peak - in this case pop out selfie - great quality, grate privacy, great display, cool effect and then it gets on downward slope, usually in each category there is one outlayer every ten years so you can get non bugged fridge, pop up camera phone, non mirror like tv etc. and then again ten years of same shit under different brands.

                        And it is not like tech to make non matte (diffusing) non reflective displays does not exist, clearly it does as I thin 2019 and 2009 TVs had it. Clearly slide out selfie camera was possible technology, same with everything. And it is not like it is ridiculously expensive.

                        BTW I think there is some sony phone that does have little bezels, no notch, holes etc. just camera in tiny bezel and it even has normal fingerprint reader that is 100 times faster then best under display one. I think it might even have wireless charging, decent battery capacity, dual sim and even headphone jack and latest snapdragon. Can't remember the name, but it is possible to buy it I think, but maybe it is JDM only or just a concept that never went on sale.

                          • D
                          • AnonD-909757
                          • pZV
                          • 05 Jul 2021

                          OhNom, 05 Jul 2021"path dependence" No, it is not that, simply n... moreI know it isn't strictly speaking path dependence as nothing force to go to that route, but it is a highly similar issue of being locked to a single idea.

                          There are other ways to make similar things, I thought for example about one which would have the whole top part of the display with the camera behind it that would, inside the phone, roll 180°, so the main camera would face you.

                          Considering that it is somewhat accepted that you only need to alter ~20% of a patent to make your own from it, there are a lot of variations to the Samsung and Google ones that are possible, for example, anything that would use the main sensor to also see in front would be probably considered as a totally different tech even if it uses the same design.
                          And for big companies, paying a patent is super easy.
                          It isn't just about ZTE, it is about every company focusing only on the same type (seeing through the display) of underdisplay camera, even those Google and Samsung patents will probably, sadly, never get made into actual products despite being better in every conceivable ways...

                            AnonD-909757, 05 Jul 2021Underdisplay camera is poorly compatible with 3D face recog... more"path dependence"

                            No, it is not that, simply no company wants to invest R&D in Google or Samsung patents, when ZTE and Visionox arrive a breakthrough in their technology

                              • D
                              • AnonD-909757
                              • pZV
                              • 05 Jul 2021

                              Anonymous, 05 Jul 2021Like it or not, the under-display selfie and under-display ... moreI don't mind that it become the next big thing, what I mind is that it will destroy every other alternatives.
                              This is funny you mention that because optical underdisplay FPS are the worst of the 3, and just because of Samsung's poor implementation of the first ones, the best of them, the Ultrasonic one, is used by almost no one.
                              Here it is the same thing, there are much better alternatives, but the worse one will be the only available one, after all, we live in a world where it is hard to find a phone with a display that doesn't have a hole...
                              This isn't about paranoia, even letting privacy aside, the underdisplay camera is still the worst option when you put all the pros (none that other methods can do better) and cons (everything about it) together.

                                • m
                                • meh
                                • nDU
                                • 05 Jul 2021

                                I don't think they will be able to make it completely invisible, and if it is square shaped like in the previous model the market will consider it a failure. If they make it a circle, even if visible it will be a success even if picture quality will be average.

                                  • W
                                  • W
                                  • 7tm
                                  • 05 Jul 2021

                                  Anonymous, 05 Jul 2021Like it or not, the under-display selfie and under-display ... moreWe hope. However, let's go back in time. OLED can be designed to act like a camera. But, a camera is setup differently then a display, so likely not a good camera. Somebody came up with the idea to shove tiny camera pixels between the screen pixels, but Apple doesn't use it despite early interest. It spells compromise. A way to do it, is to have a reasonably transparent camera above the pixel area, in it, or below the pixel, with the pixel reasonably transparent. Or, have a pixel that can do both functions reasonably well. We'll see.

                                    • ?
                                    • Anonymous
                                    • 7tm
                                    • 05 Jul 2021

                                    AnonD-909757, 05 Jul 2021Underdisplay camera is poorly compatible with 3D face recog... moreI guess this is the camera pixel between camera picel arrangement, which is very low fill factor, which is very bad in camera tech. Fill factor is how much of the sensor between each camera sensor pad is used to collect the light. The more the better, preferably 100%. But on a low fill factor design like that, you want to have a mighty low pass filter to redistribute neighbouring pixels light, to reduce some of the issues, producing a more sift etc image, which they then try to oversharpen to improve. The arrangements are undesirable.

                                      • ?
                                      • Anonymous
                                      • TL%
                                      • 05 Jul 2021

                                      AnonD-909757, 05 Jul 2021Underdisplay camera is poorly compatible with 3D face recog... moreLike it or not, the under-display selfie and under-display 3D camera will be in the next generation of phones. Everyone has been working hard on this which will provide an unblemished display free of unsightly notches, cutouts and punch holes. The technology will be perfected just like under-display fingerprint readers. You'll have to let go of your paranoia of under-display things.

                                        • D
                                        • AnonD-909757
                                        • pZV
                                        • 05 Jul 2021

                                        Woohoo, 05 Jul 2021-"ZTE also demoed an under display 3D scanner (based o... moreUnderdisplay camera is poorly compatible with 3D face recognition for a lot of technical reasons.
                                        The "disappearing camera" alternatives that Samsung and Google made patents about would do much better :
                                        https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-under-display-camera-phone-1188611/
                                        https://www.gsmarena.com/googles_first_foldable_could_have_a_disappearing_underdisplay_camera-news-49223.php
                                        But we are in the perfect demonstration of what is called "path dependence" where everyone is so focused around a single tech that better alternatives aren't even considered.

                                          1 of 2