U11 vs S8 camera comparison video

[Habiib]

Lol... Y'all are funny

Habib if the person believes Samsung is best at all those other categories let him... He has his mind made up

I'll behave..lol. I'm just having fun anyway

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

Lol... Y'all are funny

Habib if the person believes Samsung is best at all those other categories let him... He has his mind made up

- Samsung isn't outclassed in audio, battery life or software. You are wrong.

- Samsung performance is fine. As usual, lag is exaggerated by Samsung haters. Samsung's UI is the best looking stock launcher on any Android phone. Their duplicate applications and bloat, as you call them, are usually superior to the stock Android apps.

- No, Samsungs have had the best cameras at the time they released for years. Nokia had one device that was the best about 5 years ago. Apple cameras have been behind Samsung for years.

- Samsungs are the best packages for the past several years. No phones have the combination of excellent build quality + design + battery life + features + camera + audio quality + display + reliability that Samsung has. Everyone else falls short.

- A 1080p video is literally 1/4 the size (resolution) of a 4K video. Ever watch old cell phone videos at lower resolutions? They don't even fit your smartphone screen without a lot of stretching the image. That same thing will happen to 1080p videos and 4K videos, but 4K videos will look better for longer because they're far larger than 1080p videos. If you're still confused on the concept, look at an image in the old computer monitor standard display resolution of 800x600. It doesn't come anywhere close to filling a background today. It simply makes no sense to record in 1080p when 4K UHD is available. That is like recording at 480p when you could record at 720p. I posted the bit rates because you brought them up. Pretty simple.

- 8K isn't years away. Prices will drop relatively fast like with 4K.
Dell UltraSharp 32 8K Monitor: UP3218K | Dell United States

- Isn't it interesting that you think every review site/major Youtuber is paid off by Samsung? That's tin foil hat status.

 

[jimbo]

The HTC U11 Takes The Top Spot In AnTuTu’s May Rankings

...currently the best performing smartphone ever.

HTC U11 was Antutu’s best performing smartphone of May 2017 - GSMArena.com news

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

Lol... Y'all are funny

Habib if the person believes Samsung is best at all those other categories let him... He has his mind made up

I never said they are the best in all categories. I am saying they are the best when all categories are considered.

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

The HTC U11 Takes The Top Spot In AnTuTu’s May Rankings

...currently the best performing smartphone ever.

HTC U11 was Antutu’s best performing smartphone of May 2017 - GSMArena.com news

Benchmarks aren't meaningful when comparing flagships. By the way, was this article paid for by Samsung too, Habib?

 

[MDMcAtee]

- Samsung isn't outclassed in audio, battery life or software. You are wrong.

- Samsung performance is fine. As usual, lag is exaggerated by Samsung haters. Samsung's UI is the best looking stock launcher on any Android phone. Their duplicate applications and bloat, as you call them, are usually superior to the stock Android apps.

- No, Samsungs have had the best cameras at the time they released for years. Nokia had one device that was the best about 5 years ago. Apple cameras have been behind Samsung for years.

- Samsungs are the best packages for the past several years. No phones have the combination of excellent build quality + design + battery life + features + camera + audio quality + display + reliability that Samsung has. Everyone else falls short.

- A 1080p video is literally 1/4 the size (resolution) of a 4K video. Ever watch old cell phone videos at lower resolutions? They don't even fit your smartphone screen without a lot of stretching the image. That same thing will happen to 1080p videos and 4K videos, but 4K videos will look better for longer because they're far larger than 1080p videos. If you're still confused on the concept, look at an image in the old computer monitor standard display resolution of 800x600. It doesn't come anywhere close to filling a background today. It simply makes no sense to record in 1080p when 4K UHD is available. That is like recording at 480p when you could record at 720p. I posted the bit rates because you brought them up. Pretty simple.

- 8K isn't years away. Prices will drop relatively fast like with 4K.
Dell UltraSharp 32 8K Monitor: UP3218K | Dell United States

- Isn't it interesting that you think every review site/major Youtuber is paid off by Samsung? That's tin foil hat status.

No offense but 8k is years away. You have to have the content in 8k to be able to watch it, and how much of it is being done in 4k let alone 8k right now? Is it coming sure, eventually but it will be years before we actually see it where it is cheap enough to be implemented where we can afford to buy it.

Now in practical terms, what good will a 8k screen be on a 5.7" size screen? Absolutely none.. Same for any other size screen until the content is available. They are at the limits right now upscaling 720p to 4k for quality shown, there is only so much that can be done. Sure it can be done with letterboxing half of the screen but who is going to want that?

8k is a long way off for mainstream consumption.

Mac

 

[woainexus]

No offense but 8k is years away. You have to have the content in 8k to be able to watch it, and how much of it is being done in 4k let alone 8k right now? Is it coming sure, eventually but it will be years before we actually see it where it is cheap enough to be implemented where we can afford to buy it.

UHD 4K TVs became much more affordable last year in 2016. An average 4K TV has been about the same price of a FHD TV when it became common at around $1000 for a 55". Of course, you can find it much cheaper and more expensive depending on quality. But the point is 4K TVs now are more than affordable for most people.

My family have already upgraded both of our TVs to 4K and me and my wife's iMacs are both the 5K model from 2015 and both of our phones are 2K, the same with our tablets. So all of our "screens" are way above FHD. The same with many of our friends.

As for content, we consume plenty of 4K content from Netflix and some on YouTube.

But even if you haven't fully upgraded to 4K yet, most likely you will in the next year or two. So it only makes sense to be future proof and start recording in 4K. To claim 4K is some "distant future tech" is just being in denial.

 

[Habiib]

UHD 4K TVs became much more affordable last year in 2016. An average 4K TV has been about the same price of a FHD TV when it became common at around $1000 for a 55". Of course, you can find it much cheaper and more expensive depending on quality. But the point is 4K TVs now are more than affordable for most people.

My family have already upgraded both of our TVs to 4K and me and my wife's iMacs are both the 5K model from 2015 and both of our phones are 2K, the same with our tablets. So all of our "screens" are way above FHD. The same with many of our friends.

As for content, we consume plenty of 4K content from Netflix and some on YouTube.

But even if you haven't fully upgraded to 4K yet, most likely you will in the next year or two. So it only makes sense to be future proof and start recording in 4K. To claim 4K is some "distant future tech" is just being in denial.

That's the key. 4K Didn't become more affordable until the content caught up. More importantly, 4K streaming was the saving grace, especially for the average consumer who cares more about resolution thanks video quality. 8K will suffer the same setback when it comes to pricing, until content catches up.

 

[woainexus]

That's the key. 4K Didn't become more affordable until the content caught up. More importantly, 4K streaming was the saving grace, especially for the average consumer who cares more about resolution thanks video quality. 8K will suffer the same setback when it comes to pricing, until content catches up.

4K became affordable last year. While in 2017, there may be more 4K content via Netflix, Amazon and UHD Blu-ray, but I would hardly call that having "caught up". 4K TV became more affordable mostly because the manufacturing process became more affordable. Because 4K TV became more affordable, more retail stores (including online) started carrying them and bumped FHD TV. So naturally when consumers buy new TVs, they will see more 4K TVs instead of FHD ones and will more likely to choose those.

But the whole point of this argument was one should record in 4K in 2017 to be more future proof and therefore FHD recording is irrelevant.

 

[Habiib]

-fluff fluff fluff fluff fluff..something something

.....Samsung's UI is the best looking stock launcher on any Android phone.

Read that back to yourself, but slowly... very slowly.

- Samsungs are the best packages for the past several years. No phones have the combination of excellent build quality + subjective design + battery life + features (are you taking about absolute feature count) + camera + audio quality + display + reliability that Samsung has. Everyone else falls short.

No matter how much evidence I give to show how wrong you are, especially when it comes to measurable attributes, you'll stick to your mantra regardless. Nothing wrong with that, party on.

- ..... Ever watch old cell phone videos at lower resolutions? They don't even fit your smartphone screen without a lot of stretching the image. That same thing will happen to 1080p videos and 4K videos, but 4K videos will look better for longer because they're far larger than 1080p videos. If you're still confused on the concept, look at an image in the old computer monitor standard display resolution of 800x600. It doesn't come anywhere close to filling a background today. .... I posted the bit rates because you brought them up. Pretty simple.

Aspect ratios dude... aspect ratios and how they apply when upscaling and rendering on a display at its native resolution. I brought bitrates up because I know what I'm talking about and I know they play a big role in video quality. You're still fixated on absolute resolution. This goes back to my native Blu-ray vs streamed 4K analogy.

It simply makes no sense to record in 1080p when 4K UHD is available.

Actually it does. It saves on battery life, storage space, and requires less image processing, comparatively speaking.

- 8K isn't years away...Prices will not drop fast like they did for 4K.

Dude..... the content, affordable pricing, sufficient availability in the consumer market for 8K is years away. The 4K price drop didn't occur until more content became readily available (pushed by streaming 4K videos). So I'm at a loss as to why you gave a link to that expensive monitor?

- Isn't it interesting that you think EVERY REVIEW SITE/MAJOR YOUTUBER is paid off by Samsung? That's tin foil hat status.

Ah ok, so you were just joking this entire time. Since no one has made that claim (and I'm hoping you quote the 1st post) you're just yanking everyone's chain.

 

[Habiib]

4K became affordable last year. While in 2017, there may be more 4K content via Netflix, Amazon and UHD Blu-ray, but I would hardly call that having "caught up"....But the whole point of this argument was one should record in 4K in 2017 to be more future proof and THEREFORE FHD RECORDING IS IRRELEVANT.

Ummmm that is being caught up. Prior to, there were very few ways to get 4K content outside of media hubs of some sort. Streaming and physical 4K media + players are now more prevalent today. The only part that hasn't caught up is the content library size. Also, if FHD recording is irrelevant, then the option should not exist anymore going forward in 2017, correct? or am I reading what you wrote incorrectly?

 

[woainexus]

Actually it does. It saves on battery life, storage space, and requires less image processing, comparatively speaking.

By your logic we might as well be recording in SD because that would save even more battery life, storage space and require even less processing.

Ummmm that is being caught up. Prior to, there were very few ways to get 4K content outside of media hubs of some sort. Streaming and physical 4K media + players are now more prevalent today. The only part that hasn't caught up is the content library size.

You and I have very different defintion of what being "caught up" means. 4K content while definitely more available today than before (duh), it's still not as common as FHD content. Until UHD content is at least as common as UHD content (if not more so) then it's not "caught up" IMO. I'm not talking about volume either because if that's the case, I believe SD content may still be a lot more common if you consider all the VHS, laser disc and other media that has ever been produced. I'm talking about the fact that you can access UHD content as easily as you can with FHD content today. In other words, UHD is "caught up" when it becomes THE standard as FHD is currently.

Also, if FHD recording is irrelevant, then the option should not exist anymore going forward in 2017, correct? or am I reading what you wrote incorrectly?

Just because you have the OPTION to it doesn't mean it's relevant.

In all our of phones we can also take photos at much lower resolution. On my 6P, the lowest setting is 0.9 megapixels but how relevant is that? How many people would actually argue taking photos at 0.9 megapixels is "better" than taking it at 12.2 megapixels?

The conclusion is you can either join the future (and soon the present) or stay in the past.

 

[Mathrania]

Just my opinion : S8 display compared to HTC U11 and Google Pixel XL... Well... I find Samsung display over saturated and kind of fake while the other two are more natural...

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

No offense but 8k is years away. You have to have the content in 8k to be able to watch it, and how much of it is being done in 4k let alone 8k right now? Is it coming sure, eventually but it will be years before we actually see it where it is cheap enough to be implemented where we can afford to buy it.

Now in practical terms, what good will a 8k screen be on a 5.7" size screen? Absolutely none.. Same for any other size screen until the content is available. They are at the limits right now upscaling 720p to 4k for quality shown, there is only so much that can be done. Sure it can be done with letterboxing half of the screen but who is going to want that?

8k is a long way off for mainstream consumption.

Mac

When I record videos, I record them to watch them on TVs and computer monitors, not smartphones. 8K computer monitors are already out and in a few years they will be attainable for a lot of people due to price drops. Regardless, recording a 1080p video to watch on a 4K TV makes no sense.

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

Read that back to yourself, but slowly... very slowly.


No matter how much evidence I give to show how wrong you are, especially when it comes to measurable attributes, you'll stick to your mantra regardless. Nothing wrong with that, party on.


Aspect ratios dude... aspect ratios and how they apply when upscaling and rendering on a display at its native resolution. I brought bitrates up because I know what I'm talking about and I know they play a big role in video quality. You're still fixated on absolute resolution. This goes back to my native Blu-ray vs streamed 4K analogy.



Actually it does. It saves on battery life, storage space, and requires less image processing, comparatively speaking.


Dude..... the content, affordable pricing, sufficient availability in the consumer market for 8K is years away. The 4K price drop didn't occur until more content became readily available (pushed by streaming 4K videos). So I'm at a loss as to why you gave a link to that expensive monitor?


Ah ok, so you were just joking this entire time. Since no one has made that claim (and I'm hoping you quote the 1st post) you're just yanking everyone's chain.

- Samsungs launcher is the best looking launcher from an OEM. That does matter.

- You haven't given me any evidence that disproves what I've said about Samsungs being the best overall package. You have attacked Samsung without comparing them to any other phone -- that is because if you compare them to other phones, you would come to the same conclusion I have. LG phones are unreliable with cold display temperatures and a bad UI. Pixel phones lack features, have outdated designs, and are just so-so in many areas. HTC phones lack features and the only somewhat competitive phone they have is the U11. Sony has outdated designs and lacks features. Motorola stopped really trying. So on and so forth. Samsung phones are reliable. Samsung audio is fine.

- Your Blu-ray vs streamed 4K analogy fails. A Galaxy S8/S8+ recording in 4K has 4 times the resolution of a U11 recording in 1080p AND almost 2.5 times the bitrate. You keep insisting that 1080p records at a higher bitrate than 4K and it doesn't. A 4K video can play natively on a 4K display. A 1080p video cannot.

- Of course a 1080p recording will take less battery, less space, and require less image processing than 4K. You're recording a lower quality video. Record in 720p for even more savings.

- 4K prices didn't come down due to content. They came down for a number of other reasons. 4K content just increased because more people were adopting 4K TVs.

- You have essentially said that every reviewer gets paid off by Samsung. Every time I bring up a review, you have some bs reason why they're biased. You said this on page one of this thread...
"However, I'm starting to see this trend where the U11 doesn't seem to do*as well*vs its competition in camera comparisons on tech sites and with tech reviewers with more notoriety. I won't $peculate a$ to why that's the ca$e"

 

[Habiib]

Some more stuff....

By your logic we might as well be recording in SD because that would save even more battery life, storage space and require even less processing.

Not my logic dude. It is a fact that performing said activities in a way that requires less processing will yield benefits. As I've noted further down, modern DSLRs have the exact some configuration options at the users' disposal. So unless manufacturers have found my "logic" to be appealing and decided to toss the options in there for times of famine, what I've described is legitimate.

You and I have very different defintion of what being "caught up" means. 4K content while definitely more available today than before (duh), it's still not as common as FHD content. Until UHD content is at least as common as UHD content (if not more so) then it's not "caught up" IMO. I'm not talking about volume either because if that's the case, I believe SD content may still be a lot more common if you consider all the VHS, laser disc and other media that has ever been produced. I'm talking about the fact that you can access UHD content as easily as you can with FHD content today. In other words, UHD is "caught up" when it becomes THE standard as FHD is currently.

Yes we differ majorly. The availability of 4K/UHD media consumption devices and displays, vs the availability of 4K content is where I'm going with my comment about catching up and how the affordability of 4K/UHD has gone in favor of the consumer as more available content has allowed for a higher adoption rate.

Just because you have the OPTION to it doesn't mean it's relevant.

Wait wait...to put this in perspective of the conclusion made by the person for FHD video recording viability, this translates to: Just because you have the irrelevant option to it doesn't mean it's relevant. Yeah that makes sense.

In all our of phones we can also take photos at much lower resolution. On my 6P, the lowest setting is 0.9 megapixels but how relevant is that? How many people would actually argue taking photos at 0.9 megapixels is "better" than taking it at 12.2 megapixels?

If you're trying to make a correlation between this example of yours and my example of recording @fhd vs UHD and its benefits, at least try and get the ratios and activity correct. Your comparing video recording with photo capturing (logic fail #1 ). The gap from 0.9 MP to 12.2 MP is far greater in scale than going from FHD to UHD (logic fail #2 ). DSLRs have the same option to shoot at a lower MP count, which provides (on the photo capturing side) some of the identical benefits I gave.

The conclusion is you can either join the future (and soon the present) or stay in the past.

Huh? You don't join the future, because it's something that doesn't exist yet. What you meant to say is to either follow the trend or go off in another direction

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

Just for fun, I checked what the video recording bitrates are with my Galaxy Note 5 by looking at my previously recorded videos.

1080p @ 30fps = ~14-17 Mbps
1080p @ 60fps = ~28-30 Mbps
4K @ 30fps = ~48 Mbps

The 4K videos look FAR better than the 1080p videos (obviously) on my 3000x2000 resolution Microsoft Surfacebook screen. There is no reason to record in 1080p unless you want uglier videos that are less futureproofed.

 

[woainexus]

Blah blah blah

Hey man, I had enough fun so I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

At the end of the day, you go ahead and record videos on an obsolete format. In 5 years, you will either regret your decision and realize you're wrong when your FHD videos look like crap or you may be stubborn enough to keep refusing to adopt the newest technology / format. Whatever the case, I know I will be much more future proof than you are.

 

[EnemiesInTheEnd]

Hey man, I had enough fun so I'm going to stop wasting my time with you.

At the end of the day, you go ahead and record videos on an obsolete format. In 5 years, you will either regret your decision and realize you're wrong when your FHD videos look like crap or you may be stubborn enough to keep refusing to adopt the newest technology / format. Whatever the case, I know I will be much more future proof than you are.

1080p smartphone videos already look like crap compared to 4K smartphone videos. I think he can't tell the difference because he only views them on his smartphone screen.

 

[Habiib]

.........

Samsungs launcher is the best looking launcher from an OEM. That does matter.

Subjective. If you want to make it an objective statement, what criteria shall be used for making the determination?

- You haven't given me any evidence that disproves what I've said about Samsungs being the best overall package.

False. I did and you ignore or deflect and come back with a baseless reply.

You have attacked Samsung without comparing them to any other phone -- that is because if you compare them to other phones, you would come to the same conclusion I have. LG phones are unreliable with cold display temperatures and a bad UI. Pixel phones lack features, have outdated designs, and are just so-so in many areas. HTC phones lack features and the only somewhat competitive phone they have is the U11 (...ummmm isn't this post about the U11??lol). Sony has outdated designs and lacks features. Motorola stopped really trying. So on and so forth. Samsung phones are reliable. Samsung audio is fine.

Notice how you pointed out the exact same things (Samsung leads display tech) I did (minus the subjective areas)? So having an abundance of features is all it takes? If Samsung is the best in 1 objective area, but is good in the rest, explain how that makes it the total package? For a quick shortlist, the U11 has an excellent display, excellent battery life, excellent software performance, the best rear camera, the best audio **internal and external audio. All of those are measurable.

You keep insisting that 1080p records at a higher bitrate than 4K and it doesn't. A 4K video can play natively on a 4K display. [,B]A 1080p video cannot[/b].

No I insisted firstly that bitrates and framerates play the part more than just resolution alone. I said Blu-ray in its native format has a higher bitrate than streamed 4K. Also I'm looking at 1080p video on my 4K TV right now sooooo.... How is that possible since you said it can't happen?

- You have essentially said that every reviewer gets paid off by Samsung. Every time I bring up a review, you have some bs reason why they're biased. You said this on page one of this thread...
"However, I'm starting to see this trend where the U11 doesn't seem to do*as well*vs its competition in camera comparisons on tech sites and with tech reviewers with more notoriety. I won't $peculate a$ to why that's the ca$e"

Dude...I told you not to quote that and you did it anyway (as I knew you would). Show me "every reviewer" in that statement. My reasons as to why a reviewer has no more credibility within the scope of my original post, are easily supported by evidence (read trends) and not just a theory. Also notice how I said "its competition", so that doesn't make this exclusive to just it being a Samsung party. I choose my words carefully.