Check out this hands-on with Oppo’s new under-display camera

05 August 2021
The camera is practically invisible from all angles in all display scenarios.

Sort by:

  • A
  • ASL
  • Fmx
  • 24 Aug 2021

x4pro will be masterpiece march 2022

    • D
    • AnonD-909757
    • pZV
    • 09 Aug 2021

    PepperPot, 07 Aug 20217 months since ZTE released their 1st UDC phone, but this i... moreYeah, but released or not, this tech take a LONG time to come.
    Some techs are worth searching for decades or even more, like fusion reactors, because of their immense benefits.
    But many others that can perfectly be replaced by something better aren't worth the efforts.
    The pop up camera and notches probably took a really low amount of time to be R&D as they are extremely simple, the Punch hole probably required more time as you need to reroute all the wires for the pixels on top of the hole.
    Underdisplay fingerprint scanner took quite a long time to be actually done, then more time to be perfected, and now it is in a situation where it can't improve much anymore, at least the hardware side.
    Ultrasonic FPS are still in their "improvement" stage, but their potential is colossal, from being able with good software to read and identify material density and therefor automatically sort out screen protectors, dust, grease, water, gloves, etc.
    Not only saving stuffs like screen protectors and often reoccurring like skin's oil/grease, but also human flesh for anti-fooling.
    Since it scan under the epidermic layer, fooling it would require a dermis layer reproduction, and crazy stuff like scanning dermal papillae and sweat glands could be done to significantly improve the security.
    Add to that the ability to scan for veins, check the liquid density to be blood, read heartbeat, scan the distal phalanx, and the scalable capability (unlike cameras) that allow for big area/full display meaning multiple fingers, has the potential to make this single tech, the most secure biometric scanner that any consumer could own.
    Only matched by advanced 3D face recognition that would add UV light and sensors along a dynamic (high resolution/scanning) Structured Light scanner, an IR camera and a dual/stereoscopic RGB camera.
    Those are worth investing!
    But the UDC only has issues, many of which cannot be fixed, the rest can only be compensated.
    And more important, there are other techs who do the same thing with basically no cons and with much better results.
    Had pop up took a year or more of R&D and got a bad initial result, it would have quickly been deemed not worth it, and I would have totally agreed, but it was a really simple thing to make, literally anyone with good enough tools could make one at home, and the first implementation was already excellent.

    The issue isn't that THIS tech is also researched, the issue is that ONLY this tech is R&D and people are so obsessed about it because of the hype they want ONLY this tech to exist, which, with all its downsides, shouldn't even be considered anywhere near a universal solution, bezel are the only solution as yet that can be considered universal, disappearing camera coming close behind.


    Let's be clear, UDC refers to having the camera behind the display and looking THROUGH it DIRECTLY, disappearing camera are NOT UDC, otherwise by definition pop up would also be UDC...
    Regardless the method, looking through pixels will never be anywhere as good as other methods, such as disappearing cameras.
    The same way, as I explained, pop up was quick and easy to nail first try, disappearing camera are also super simple, they would take only few weeks from the drawing board to prototyping and would be easy to make a good version to be commercialized for a low cost.

    This is where it is an issue, this moving sub-panel/disappearing camera solution is CHEAP and EASY to make in SHORT TIME, it is easy to understand why, the mechanism is super simplistic, just a sub display sliding, it isn't exposed to the elements, don't need any external protection, the distance difference between the main display and the sub display/prism is so small that it won't be visible.
    While the "see through pixels" UDC is to come on a lot of devices from a lot of price range...
    This is pure insanity here!

    Don't underestimate the smartphone market:
    *Removing the actively used 3.5mm Jack that didn't cause any issues.
    *Ditching the IR blaster (except for Xiaomi) that was really handy in many situations.
    *Focus on optical FPS over the much superior capacitive and ultrasonic ones.
    *Widespread of horror quality 2Mp Macro and totally useless 2Mp depth camera (useless because using any other camera, like the Ultra-Wide, would yield much better results) despite good 12Mp sensors being extremely cheap.
    *Recurrent lack of optical stabilization on middle to high range devices, despite it being on some cheap phones and the sensors + lenses for those being cheap too.
    *Constant lack of Telephoto despite it not being much more expensive than other lenses types.
    *Macro being used through the Ultra-Wide through close auto-focusing capabilities despite Macro being the exact opposite of Ultra-Wide and being closer to a Telephoto that have a close and shallow focus area, which in a less aggressive way is how Portrait works, but yet despite the possibility to make a triple mode Telephoto, they prefer putting the Macro on Ultra-Wide and using a 2Mp depth sensor for faking (and often failing) Brokeh effect.
    *Plague of sub-12Mp sensors even on flagships for Telephoto and middle-range for Ultra-Wide, again, despite 12Mp sensors super low price.
    *No continuously variable focal length (true zoom).
    *Displays with holes and dents in them, which, anyone outside the smartphone world, would tell you it is an awful idea.
    *Lack of NFC and some other useful features on some phones despite being international/global variants.
    *Lack of Micro SD card slot, despite all the convenience it provides.
    *Curved edges display that apart for a visual appeal to SOME have only downsides.
    *Camera bump while the phone could be made slightly thicker to have more battery capacity and/or more features, on EVERY phone, meaning nothing for thicker phone lovers or those who prefer battery.
    *Induction based wireless charging rather than contact based, which would have allowed for virtually 0 losses compared to regular USB cables and much faster charging while not generating much heat phone side and almost none charging pad side.
    *Expensive phones with the latest high-end Snapdragon limited to 480fps slow motion, and almost all phones capped at 960fps since a while, while Huawei already had in 2019 with the Mate 30 Pro at 720p a 7680fps slow-mo mode, that haters can say whatever they want, have a HUGE difference with 960fps and is more than fluid enough :
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-z2zzdT_DbM
    And only a handful of phones having ever had 1920fps :
    https://www.gsmarena.com/results.php3?sFreeText=1920fps

    Etc, etc.
    So, do you REALLY think they'll stop at that to make a trending and highly hyped feature that will allow them to justify a big price increase a mandatory one, even if it has a low quality?

      AnonD-909757, 06 Aug 20217 months? The Oppo Find X2 was supposed to be released wit... more7 months since ZTE released their 1st UDC phone, but this is not about Oppo. I posted here because it was the most recent UDC article at the time. This phone is just a concept.

      Everything is on the table. Let the best UDC method from any manufacturer win because the other manufacturers are going to adopt it anyway. Also, you cite patents as if that means they are ready for consumer use. Maybe Sam and google are testing sub shifting panels as we speak.

      In the foreseeable future this method will only be available on three phones. The most known of those three is a 2k Foldable. The Mix will probably be $1200-$1500. This is not trickling down to the average consumer anytime soon.

      There is no way this becomes the norm for the next 5-6 years if the image quality is not good. You can hold me to that.

        • F
        • Finophile
        • 7sX
        • 07 Aug 2021

        Peak weaseled words
        "...and now we get to see a hands-on video of a prototype. "
        FMD

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

          PepperPot, 06 Aug 2021We are only 7 months in and we have not seen anything from ... more7 months?
          The Oppo Find X2 was supposed to be released with underdisplay camera, and it wasn't the first one, and the first prototypes showed to the public were even older, this tech have been constantly pushed back again and again, obviously because it can't yield a good result.

          And once this tech will be there, no one in the community will be able to get rid of it, people don't realize how bad the forecast here...
          The pop up and phones without front facing camera, also designs like the Mi Mix Alpha were all better at maximizing the screen than the UDC will ever be.
          And they do are locked to the "see through a partially transparent display" ways when there are alternatives such as this :
          https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-under-display-camera-phone-1188611/
          And this :
          https://www.gsmarena.com/googles_first_foldable_could_have_a_disappearing_underdisplay_camera-news-49223.php
          Which are superior in every conceivable ways.

          My point is, I don't want this tech AT ALL and I won't stand there watching all phones getting infected by this as a disease, removing every other options from the market, and do nothing about it.

            AnonD-909757, 06 Aug 20214/4 The concept itself of trying to see through something ... moreWe are only 7 months in and we have not seen anything from the main players. If it’s still just “passable” 2-3 years from now the consumers will voice their dissatisfaction with their opinions, money and selfies.

            The goal has always been to maximize the screen while keeping the phone relatively compact. IMO, no one, from the manufacturer to the consumer has a unwavering commitment to any particular method of hiding the camera. Whether you’re minimizing pixels, diminishing pixels or practicing witchcraft. Everything is on the table. This could very well be a pit stop like pop ups, but if manufacturers are investing into it, they are going to pass those expenses onto the consumer to recoup costs before they move on. This is expected. Especially for droid manufacturers that have to compete by continuously pushing technology.

            My point is you're just going to have to let this run its course.

              • A
              • Andrew
              • M5h
              • 06 Aug 2021

              Anonymous, 05 Aug 2021udc, notch, punch hole = garbage Bring back the pop-up c... moreNothing good in pop up cameras i'm using Oneplus 7 Pro for near two years and this phone is heavy due to all this additional mechanisms

                • A
                • Andrew
                • M5h
                • 06 Aug 2021

                You can't change laws of nature and photography, this will result worse front camera performance due to worse light transmition and light is everything in photography

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

                  PepperPot, 06 Aug 2021So this is basically a similar position the 3.5 mm jack fol... more4/4
                  The concept itself of trying to see through something is absolutely terrible, the resulting quality is passable and will become decent or even good with software, biometric will be somewhere between terrible and passable.
                  The downsides will still make the overall tech terrible, though.
                  I am sure that it cost a lot, not just to make (as it will quickly cost much less), but all the R&D that have been poured into it since years, and while for competitive advantages they do sell the phones not regarding those expenses to cover, and I am pretty sure the Axon 10 and 20 are sold at a loss anyway.
                  But when the tech will start to be mainstream, they will recoup this cost, and it will hurt a lot, mainly when it will be too late for users to realize that there aren't any other options available, and even when the production cost will get down and the R&D will be covered, this extra cost will stay, as it is often the case with big companies.
                  Though, talking about it can actually have an unpredictable effect...
                  And while stuff will get better in terms of quality, some drawbacks will stay, mainly privacy which the curtain is slowly raising upon all the unethical uses and all the hidden ways it is slowly being stolen without user consent and knowledge, but also what the consequences will be, and UDC might play a role on that.
                  (By the way, I remember someone asking me if there is a link between pop up having revealed that we are being spied by the selfie camera, and their almost supernatural level of negativity from users despite having more than proven all the negative claims about it to be wrong...
                  I won't go into that level of conspiracy theory myself, and I think it has more to do with human's stupidity, but I just write it here, so anyone can be free to think what they want about it...)
                  And when much better alternatives that has virtually no cons and performs much better while being cheap and easy to manufactures will be showcased but never produced (as quite a lot of products had it happened, RIP Mi Mix Alpha), people will realize how big of a mistake it was to over-hype and make over trending this tech.
                  Also, being not a fan of selfies myself, I rarely look at selfies comparisons or the selfie test part on phone reviews, so I don't really compare it to other phone's selfie camera anyway, just in general, though it isn't for the better against this tech as I will rather compare it against the much better main cameras and the quality I know they have.

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

                    PepperPot, 06 Aug 2021So this is basically a similar position the 3.5 mm jack fol... more3/4
                    Now with all the info about how many cases the Jack is still important even if Bluetooth was near perfect, and the x86 story saying how much standard are kept, thinks, why would any company ditch an actively used one?
                    Then look at Apple revenue, and how much of it is actually AirPods, and you start to understand...
                    The worst and ironic part is that they wouldn't have ditched the Jack if it wasn't for it still being used actively, they only ditched it because they knew it was so popular they would have to force their AirPods into consumers, and the only way to do it was to remove it, and indeed it was a brave choice, not for the users, but in an economical standpoint, as they were taking a lot of risks, if it failed, they might have lost a lot of consumers, but Apple's fan being Apple's fan, they stayed and happily bought the AirPods...

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

                      PepperPot, 06 Aug 2021So this is basically a similar position the 3.5 mm jack fol... more2/4
                      Anecdote, do you know what 32bits computers are referred as x86 and not x32?
                      The first CPU made for consumer computers had all their own instructions, meaning the binary code a program use to tell a computer "add those two numbers together" were not the same, meaning you needed to make a CPU specific software...
                      And Intel after making the 4004 (a 4 bit CPU), the first real commercialized CPU, made more models, like the 4040, then they went to 8 bits and repeated with the 8008, followed by the 8080, then the 8085.
                      But then, rather than making new and new CPU with different and totally incompatible instruction set, they made the next one, the 16 bits 8086 CPU with following up in mind, and since the next CPU were the 80186, 80286, 80386 etc, they started to call those who have the same instruction set 80x86, which was then shortened into x86.
                      Meaning that, despite serious changes since then (mainly since AMD added the AMD64 to the architecture), the latest Intel (and other x86 including those made by AMD) CPU you have today, are based on the 8086, all in the name of back compatibility.
                      And the truth is, we would have much better performances if they simply had changed at a certain point for a more modern architecture.
                      In fact, they tried, they made the Itanium, or IA-64 that had for goal to replace the x86, and it was supposed to have better performances when working on its own instruction set than a comparable program in x86, but making a new compiler is not an easy task and Intel couldn't deliver.
                      And while the CPU itself might have been maybe more powerful thanks to the newer architecture, the end result was not that great because they couldn't that fast reach the decade worth of experience and improvement the x86 compiler go.
                      They made new versions and tried to make it better, but it never archived sufficient performances to be a good enough alternative...
                      Funnily, it reminds me a lot about how things might turn out about UDC.
                      And Spectre and Meltdown were both from oversight made in the early days that kept to this day because of how we want to keep compatibility with older standards.
                      Anyway, see how far we go to keep standards in computer world?
                      Here is a video about Itanium :
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oxrybkd7Mo

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

                        PepperPot, 06 Aug 2021So this is basically a similar position the 3.5 mm jack fol... moreBuckle up, because there is a lot to be said here...
                        Here we go :

                        1/4
                        The problem with the 3.5mm Jack isn't about if it offers better quality or not than Bluetooth, the problem is that not only there are valid reasons for every user to prefer either, but also there are reasons why some users might have issues to be stuck with only one of them.

                        For example, there are environments where you can't allow Bluetooth because of sensitive equipment, or someone might be in a situation where he can't be bothered or even don't have time to deal with recharging the Bluetooth Earphones, which, once dried out, unlike a USB recharging wireless headset, can't be recharged while in use, if you don't want or can't use Bluetooth, you are forced to choose between either Dongles (which are often terribly bad and aren't even cross brand compatible) or charging your phone, I went 4 days to the hospital, and I am glad I had just recently got my Poco F2 Pro which allowed me to do both.
                        Talking of which, I already have an excellent headset that I have right now on my head, a Corsair Void Pro, which is both USB and Jack (a Jack that plug into the USB soundcard), and I would hate to not be able to use it just because a standard have been removed without any valid reasons.
                        Imagine those having a 500€/$ wired headset being forced to use the dongle and not being able to charge at the same time...
                        On top of that, there are other things than ear/head+phones/set that use the Jack, from cheap card readers to camera and some analog equipments which are much costlier in wireless variant and not always the best option, and for something as sensitive as card reading, you really don't want to use the awful security of Bluetooth.

                        I personally don't want anything IN my ear, I'd always take a headphone/headset over any ear plug/phone, I recently had to call my internet provider and for some reasons the sound was extremely low on their end, it was quick and easy to just plug my Corsair into my F2 Pro and have a pleasantly much better sound volume but also quality.

                        And even with the much better quality that modern Bluetooth offer, there is still a noticeable lag, which for listening to music isn't an issue, but become annoying for movies, and can be a dealbreaker for games.
                        There are pairing and disconnecting issues too.
                        But most importantly, it is a fundamental rule in computer tech (which Smartphone are part of), to NEVER ditch a standard except if it really has fallen out of use, and even there, there is a long enough time given for everyone to change, look at Adobe Flash and how long it stayed...
                        That's why your phone still has Wi-Fi A and Bluetooth 1.0 compatibility, or why we didn't ditch 3G to entirely goes 4G, because exactly like there would be discrepancies in covering, the same apply here.
                        And more importantly, the 3.5mm Jack is actively used and not obsolete in any ways, this is a never seen before occurrence.

                          AnonD-909757, 05 Aug 2021When I talk about RAW quality, I mean the hardware quality ... moreSo this is basically a similar position the 3.5 mm jack folks present. Bring back the headphone jack because bluetooth quality is shitty. That simply isn't true.

                          Without comparing it to regular phones, do you think the selfie you see from this concept is terrible, passable, decent, good or great? I know great is off the table. Your honest opinion.

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

                            OhNom, 05 Aug 2021I agree, but these points do not make much sense to them ... moreThe thing is, they all want to bring back 3D face recognition using UDC, in fact, for a while it was one of the major point about UDC tech.
                            And this useful tech which could render phone thief impossible is receiving its final blow because of how awful UDC will be after the punch hole almost killed it already.
                            Don't forget that the urge to copy the others, even when it makes absolutely no senses at all, often outweighs logic.
                            Which is why, after the trend of moving both proximity and ambient light sensors under the display because of punch holes which don't allow for them in bezels started, we saw anomalies like the Meizu 16 who despite a beautifully slim bezel that was still thick enough for a selfie camera, the phone is equipped with the costlier and less effective underdisplay ambient light and proximity sensors over just putting them on the bezel.

                            And I literally explained why it makes a big difference, psychology is not to be taken out off the equation.
                            And yes, but there are also many people who regularly do Darwin award worthy things, many still ignore the threat of the lack of privacy and control over private data, some still laugh at it not understanding how serious it is because they think they know, while they only think it is about not being seen on the toilets by CIA or some cliché like that.
                            Actually, no, they need to be turned off to have a GOOD QUALITY picture, but spying doesn't need any of this, in fact most security footage that did accurately identify people are of awful quality, most non-cloud security camera are this way.
                            In fact, someone did exactly that using optical underdisplay FPS, which give awful quality, but the camera is meant to look at objects only few millimeters away :
                            https://www.androidauthority.com/xiaomi-fingerprint-sensor-camera-1146605/

                            And the point is actually to not become paranoid, it shouldn't be for the user to make sure corporate don't spy, it should be for corporates to not do it in the first place.
                            We live in a world where the economic system force the worst behavior in order to seek profits, and when looking at Nestle who literally killed millions of people willingly just to make profits with their artificial maternal milk, being spied upon is clearly not an issue for them to do, and despite it being often done in an illegal way going much further than their user agreement should allow, the government rather use those data than condemn it, in fact, the governments are themselves big culprit of this.
                            And since the COVID started, things have been going faster than ever and will only get worse.
                            People don't realize it, but we are getting scarily close to the non-return point for our own freedom right now.

                            It is Xiaomi, you are probably referring to the Mi Mix 4 article :
                            https://www.gsmarena.com/xiaomi_confirms_mi_mix_4_will_launch_on_august_10-news-50372.php
                            The issue of UDC isn't about making the display completely dark when the camera isn't in use, in fact this isn't at all an issue, the issue is both how the pixel arrangement are the culprit for causing the area of lesser display quality and degrading the camera quality, in short, you have to choose between camera or display or a balance of compromise in between.
                            And yes, it doesn't look like there are any visible display advert effect, but the same was true for the Axon 10 before it went to sell, and if you ask me, the Oppo video from this article :
                            https://www.gsmarena.com/check_out_this_hands_on_video_of_oppo_new_underdisplay_camera-news-50396.php
                            Is weirdly showing it, with a 720p video in the time when many upload 4k videos, the video is blurry/out of focus, and at 1:10 when they start showing it they "conveniently" did scroll quickly and sometime even scrolled on white pages where the part where the camera is doesn't have anything moving displayed.
                            This is impressively clear compared to the Axon 10, not gonna lie, but the way they show it doesn't make me confident at all in the true quality, as it seems to be highly planned.
                            After all, as long as it performs as they have shown in the exact same conditions, there isn't any issues to be had for them legally...
                            At 1:47 they show the pixel arrangement, and it is the same density as the rest of the display, just the pixels being smaller.
                            But even unlit, the camera still have to see through them and their wires.

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

                              Anonymous, 05 Aug 2021God, imagine crying over some random phone tech that will b... moreGod, imagine mocking someone without even mentioning it or answering to him because you lack the balls of doing so, and despite actual evidences off what he said being given all that to then cry in few years when the hype will be gone and people will realize that this tech is actually only good on paper like 3D TV was except that there will not be any alternatives available.

                                • ?
                                • Anonymous
                                • YTZ
                                • 05 Aug 2021

                                God, imagine crying over some random phone tech that will be on widespread use for years

                                  AnonD-909757, 05 Aug 2021When I talk about RAW quality, I mean the hardware quality ... moreI agree, but these points do not make much sense to them

                                  "In this sense, UDC will NEVER have good quality without software, and it stands for biometric."

                                  Yes, although Google's design would allow it, but all brands have eliminated it, Google deleted it, Huawei also, Samsung, LG, so I don't think it will be a problem

                                  "And UDC still has a big privacy issue anyway, both because not seeing any cameras creates a false sense of privacy that is worse than having no privacy, and because people think the pixels NEED to turn off for the camera to see, while that is not the case at all. "

                                  There is no difference from the current, the camera will be in the same place as now only below the screen, I have not yet met someone who is covering the camera of their mobile, so I do not understand why to become paranoid now, and technically the pixels need to be turned off because the amount of light from the screen shouldn't allow you to take photos, but after they launch the XDA and reviews they will force it or something to see if it's true

                                  After that you are right, I would also like to see more implemented options, I think Xiaomi unfortunately I do not remember, it seals the camera so that the part under the screen is not transparent, so the camera is sealed and the screen can be seen perfectly, when turn off the screen you can see the drilled hole

                                    IpsDisplay, 05 Aug 20212 years is realistic, im using in display fingerprint reade... moreYes, but consider the footprint an exception, there are several things that have been in the high-end range for several years and have not reached the entire mid-range, although one or the other will have some

                                    -IP68
                                    -QHD
                                    -780G the best mid-range processor was the first to beat 845
                                    -UFS 3.0 (Although not so long ago)
                                    -Dual pixel PDAF
                                    -OIS
                                    -USB type C 3.1
                                    -Proper telephoto

                                    But it doesn't matter, the good thing is that we will get it sooner or later

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

                                      PepperPot, 05 Aug 2021I don't think we've ever had anything close to ra... moreWhen I talk about RAW quality, I mean the hardware quality before any software processing, not what the user gets.
                                      Regardless how much you improve UDC, the "see through special pixels" type of UDC will NEVER have a good one, software might bring to close to normal camera quality, as AI is extremely powerful :
                                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vx7H7GrE5KA

                                      In this regard, UDC will NEVER have a good quality without software, and it means biometric, which require RAW quality, as software make too much normalization changes to identify user's specific details, will never be as good or accurate in any ways.

                                      And UDC still has a huge privacy issue anyway, both because not seeing any camera create a false sense of privacy which is worse than no privacy, and because people think pixels NEED to turn off for the camera to see, while it isn't the case at all.

                                      What I can't stand is that there is much better than UDC, that from a user point of view will be exactly the same but with everything improved.
                                      For example, alternatives such as "disappearing camera" like Samsung's solution where a sub display get between a normal punch hole and the normal display fix all issues of UDC for less cost and no additional cons :
                                      https://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-under-display-camera-phone-1188611/
                                      Or Google solution which use a rotating prism to switch between a camera and the display :
                                      https://www.gsmarena.com/googles_first_foldable_could_have_a_disappearing_underdisplay_camera-news-49223.php

                                        • ?
                                        • Anonymous
                                        • MVm
                                        • 05 Aug 2021

                                        udc, notch, punch hole = garbage

                                        Bring back the pop-up camera, the best solution

                                          1 of 3