HTC One M8 (pretty much) Full Spec List

[Ry]

At this point in the progression of Imaging and Video on smartphones, the need for "UltraPixels" is so niche and situational that it's hardly a selling point. I cannot for the life of me figure out why HTC went from the HTC One X which took decent low light image and fantastically detailed image in normal to great lighting to this UltraPixel camera system, which spits out images that pale in comparison to other smartphones using higher resolution cameras. In the day and age where people can order prints from Walgreens, Wal-Mart, or CVS right from their smartphone. In a day where Smartphones are taking video that allows you to crop images on par with 8MP cameras from the video. It just doesn't make any sense.

I'll have to disagree with this part here. The selling point of the UltraPixels seems to be for low-light photos. I don't think this need is niche. Most, if not all, want their smartphone camera to take better photos in low-light. While HTC's approach may not have been the best, I feel that it is an attempt at addressing something that is far from niche.

 

[Habiib]

TL;DR ALERT



1. Megapixels means that you can crop into an image, and the camera captures more details. Increasing Megapixels is only useless when the sensor characteristics do not change to match. The S4's Sensor was better than the S3's. It took in more light. It was faster. The CPU is stronger. Samsung used a custom ISP from Fujitsu in the S4/Note 3 camera systems. It is not as if they simply took the S3's camera and bumped it up to 8MP without any other modifications.

2. Ultrapixels: Practically Useless in Good-Moderate lighting (output from flagships with smaller pixels, like the iPhones, GS4/5, Note 3, G2, etc. are proof of this). A lot of the benefits of the UltraPixels are completely destroyed by the image resolution since you are getting a brighter image, but the detail is left wanting - VERY wanting. If those were 8MP cameras, they would have solved the issue HTC was trying to Solve, which was offering detailed images with less noise and more light in darker environments. All they did with the One was offer a brighter image, but there is still a fair bit of noise and they gave up a TON of image detail with the resolution. The Pixel sizes are great. The image resolution was a massive fail. With those other phones you can take a darker picture, adjust it in an Image Editing program, even resize it to mask noise and print it. In many cases, the output will be superior to what you get out of the One due to the greater detail in the images. Additionally, their processing algorithms are quite aggressive, and they have a history of compressing images more aggressively than other OEMs do (which is why Samsung phones tended to throw out noticeably larger photos than HTC phones of same camera resolution - upwards of 1MB larger... in size, even).

3. 4K Video: One Frame of a 4K video is ~8MP. They are more detailed than the full images out of HTC's camera and the Note 3 does 4K quite well. Why should I deal with camera settings and trying to get the picture exactly right at that moment, when I can simply shoot 4 seconds of 4K video and Crop a more detailed image out of the video that I'd get snapping with the One's camera. This works 95% of the time, unless you're unlucky and the specific frame you want is a blur (which is only a huge factor for something like Sports, but for that you'd likely shoot 60 FPS 1080p (Smooth HD) anyways).

4K is the future. We like to be future proof. Also, 4K video processed (downsized in editing) to 1080p blows away any 1080p native video from a smartphone. It isn't even a contest.

4. Depth of Field Adjustments: Samsung has already displayed this on their Single ISOCELL Camera System, which is more innovative than HTC's UltraPixel system (which is nothing more than a Low Resolution Sensor with Low Image Resolution AFAICT). HTC does have OIS which matters more to some people than others, but is still an advantage over Samsung in their camera system.

5. There is some 3D stuff they say they can do with the second camera. Not sure how useful that would be on a day to day basis (real-world usage & benefit).

At this point in the progression of Imaging and Video on smartphones, the need for "UltraPixels" is so niche and situational that it's hardly a selling point. I cannot for the life of me figure out why HTC went from the HTC One X which took decent low light image and fantastically detailed image in normal to great lighting to this UltraPixel camera system, which spits out images that pale in comparison to other smartphones using higher resolution cameras. In the day and age where people can order prints from Walgreens, Wal-Mart, or CVS right from their smartphone. In a day where Smartphones are taking video that allows you to crop images on par with 8MP cameras from the video. It just doesn't make any sense.

I also have issues with HTC using 16:9 aspect ratio in their camera, since not all images look great in that ratio and if you need 4:3 it means the image resolution suffers further.

That being said, people who want higher resolution cameras are not who HTC is targeting with these phones. They've stated that they think most people view images on the phone and on smaller screens, and at those resolutions their image output looks "fine," which is actually true. The images look fine until you put it up on a 22" monitor and start cropping parts out of them, or printing them, in which case they aren't even competitive with most other flagships on the market these days. Those images look like they come from a Mid-Range phone at 1:1 size.

Your assertion on 4K video sounds incorrect. The main drawback of 4K video on a smartphone, is the relatively low bitrate that must be used to compensate for the CPU/GPU and memory bandwidth limits. Yes the video will be at a 4K resolution, but with a lower bitrate (compared to most 1080P recorded content that originated from more recent smartphones) the video quality will be inferior.

With that said, how is it possible for a 4K video (with a lower bitrate) downscaled to 1080P to be better in quality than a native 1080P video (with a higher bitrate)?

Posted via Android Central App

 

[iN8ter]

People watch movies on their phones? I have yet to see anyone walk around blasting music out of their phones and you are speaking of it as a device to watch movies on?

I don't really talk about camera features, for one, I need use mine unless as a mirror. And two, half of those features are rarely used, especially in today's age of selfie and food pics

Maybe in your own, limited, social circle.

And why should that matter. If someone needs 4K recording or Drama Shot they will get the Galaxy over the One because that's the phone that does what THEY need, not what you think is important.

That's how many of us bought our phones, based on our own personal needs.

If the One M8 offers everything you need, then by all means get it and love it for its insane prowess at taking selfies.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Current versions of TouchWiz are "slower" than current versions of Sense. That's a side-by-side comparison that I've done myself. The One has never lagged for me. Not once. I can't say the same thing for any TouchWiz device that I've ever used, including the brand new Pro series of tablets.

There's also the Gallery loading issue, which yes, there's a fix for it, but 1) most "normal" people won't bother to look for a fix, they'll just think it's broke 2) I shouldn't have to fix something by disabling features of it to get it to work right.

^^^ There are videos of those two things readily available on YouTube, which is why I chose to focus on those. They are not opinion, and have been documented/proven many many times.

All that being said, I'm not writing off the S5 or any other device yet, either.

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Maybe in your own, limited, social circle.

And why should that matter. If someone needs 4K recording or Drama Shot they will get the Galaxy over the One because that's the phone that does what THEY need, not what you think is important.

That's how many of us bought our phones, based on our own personal needs.

If the One M8 offers everything you need, then by all means get it and love it for its insane prowess at taking selfies.

The same can be said about the features that you think are used by most people. Just saying.

I don't crop and zoom camera phone pictures ever. I don't buy a phone based on whether or not I might be able to crop and zoom a picture I take with it. I want my phone to have a camera with as close to zero shutter lag as possible, really fast focus, and dependable/reliable output. I've never been let down by the output of the One with regards to my expectations and use for the photos. When I know I'll be in a situation where I want real high-quality pictures I'll use a real camera. And yes, most of the time that's also with me or nearby enough to get it.

EDIT: Your point about 4K is spot on, though, and is something the M8 will lack if the sensor is the same 4mp. They're probably banking on the fact that not many have 4K tvs or monitors to view it one, but it will be something they lack while every other competitor has it.

 

[iN8ter]

Your assertion on 4K video sounds incorrect. The main drawback of 4K video on a smartphone, is the relatively low bitrate that must be used to compensate for the CPU/GPU and memory bandwidth limits. Yes the video will be at a 4K resolution, but with a lower bitrate (compared to most 1080P recorded content that originated from more recent smartphones) the video quality will be inferior.

None of this is correct. Literally, none of it.

With that said, how is it possible for a 4K video (with a lower bitrate) downscaled to 1080P to be better in quality than a native 1080P video (with a higher bitrate)?

Posted via Android Central App

The same reason you can reduce noise and artifacts in an image when you downscale it to a lower resolution. There is much more detail in the 4K video (8MP vs 2MP frames) so when you downscale it in post-processing it looks MUCH better than the 1080p. If the 4K looks better than the 1080p at full frame size, why would it NOT look better than the 1080p when downscaled to 1080p. There are some photography blogs which have covered the Note 3's 4K recording and how much of an advantage it is for people who want to use it for 1080p output even if they never plan to play it at native 4K resolution...

 

[Habiib]

TL;DR ALERT

4. Depth of Field Adjustments: Samsung has already displayed this on their Single ISOCELL Camera System, which is more innovative than HTC's UltraPixel system (which is nothing more than a Low Resolution Sensor with Low Image Resolution AFAICT). HTC does have OIS which matters more to some people than others, but is still an advantage over Samsung in their camera system.

To add to your mention of 4K video, to not utilize OIS while recording 4K video, is counterproductive in my opinion. When you being to zoom in on the video source, the amount of vibration will be even more noticeable.

If you've seen how the effects of vibration become more pronounced when moving from a 7x pair of binoculars to a 10x, then you have an idea of what I'm taking about.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Soundtrack to Chaos]

Maybe in your own, limited, social circle.

And why should that matter. If someone needs 4K recording or Drama Shot they will get the Galaxy over the One because that's the phone that does what THEY need, not what you think is important.

That's how many of us bought our phones, based on our own personal needs.

If the One M8 offers everything you need, then by all means get it and love it for its insane prowess at taking selfies.

You aren't the mainstream consumer

 

[Habiib]

None of this is correct. Literally, none of it.


The same reason you can reduce noise and artifacts in an image when you downscale it to a lower resolution. There is much more detail in the 4K video (8MP vs 2MP frames) so when you downscale it in post-processing it looks MUCH better than the 1080p. If the 4K looks better than the 1080p at full frame size, why would it NOT look better than the 1080p when downscaled to 1080p. There are some photography blogs which have covered the Note 3's 4K recording and how much of an advantage it is for people who want to use it for 1080p output even if they never plan to play it at native 4K resolution...

Ok then, tell me which of my statements are incorrect and why.

1. Can smartphones record 4K resolution at a relatively higher (edit: MAXIMUM) bitrate compared to 1080P recording capabilities given that both actions are using identical hardware specs for video processing?

2. Will the quality of a video recorded using a 2000kbs bitrate be higher than a video recorded using an 800kbs bitrate?

Which will look better; a 1080p video @800kbs or a 1080p video @2000kbs?

If the higher bitrate video will look better, given identical resolution, then where did I error at in my statement(s)?

So are you saying "looks better" are you indicating that resolution is what determines the visual quality and are totally ignoring the bitrate equation?

Posted via Android Central App

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

Your assertion on 4K video sounds incorrect. The main drawback of 4K video on a smartphone, is the relatively low bitrate that must be used to compensate for the CPU/GPU and memory bandwidth limits. Yes the video will be at a 4K resolution, but with a lower bitrate (compared to most 1080P recorded content that originated from more recent smartphones) the video quality will be inferior.

Posted via Android Central App

None of this is correct. Literally, none of it.

He's actually quite right about the bitrate. Whether or not that's more or less of a factor than the overall resolution is what we should be (and you guys already seem to be) discussing.

I haven't done side by side, but just thinking about it logically it makes sense that a 4K clip downscaled to 1080p would look better. The extra resolution would probably make up for anything lost during compression.

Assuming a quality encoder is used to do the work.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[Habiib]

He's actually quite right about the bitrate. Whether or not that's more or less of a factor than the overall resolution is what we should be (and you guys already seem to be) discussing.

I haven't done side by side, but just thinking about it logically it makes sense that a 4K clip downscaled to 1080p would look better. The extra resolution would probably make up for anything lost during compression.

Assuming a quality encoder is used to do the work.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Ah.. I forgot about what happens during encoding.

I think the only point I was getting at (as you've stated) is that a 1080p video (downscaled from a low bitrate 4K source) would not blow away a native 1080p video (recorded at a higher bitrate), when both are being rendered on a 1080p display.

I'm taking a guess at all of this, but I'd like to see if this actually is true.

Posted via Android Central App

 

[iN8ter]

He's actually quite right about the bitrate. Whether or not that's more or less of a factor than the overall resolution is what we should be (and you guys already seem to be) discussing.

I haven't done side by side, but just thinking about it logically it makes sense that a 4K clip downscaled to 1080p would look better. The extra resolution would probably make up for anything lost during compression.

Assuming a quality encoder is used to do the work.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I have a Note 3 and can see the bitrate of the 4k Video is about/over twice that of the native 1080p video the phone records. Unless he just wrote that statement wrong, it isn't true. The bitrate of the downscaled 1080p is not bad compared to the native 1080p. If it is, then the person doing it needs to learn how to use Premier, Final Cut Pro, or whatever they're using to accomplish it. Even Windows Movie Maker allows you to avoid a rookie mistake like that, so I'm not sure what the point is, exactly.

Secondly, the downscaled 4k video does blow away the native 1080p video recorded from the same phone, because the video quality is just that much better. It basically masks the noise and artifacts that you get in the 1080p video, and results in a picture that is much superior. In fact, even at full size on a 4K screen the 4K looks better, so it is not surprising that it surpasses the 1080p when downscaled...

There are photography blogs that have looked at the Note 3's 4K as well, and they've come to the same conclusions. Just the fact that you can take the 4k and then downscale it to much better 1080p makes it worth having that capability on the phone, assuming you do video with the device..

 

[iN8ter]

Ok then, tell me which of my statements are incorrect and why.

1. Can smartphones record 4K resolution at a relatively higher (edit: MAXIMUM) bitrate compared to 1080P recording capabilities given that both actions are using identical hardware specs for video processing?

2. Will the quality of a video recorded using a 2000kbs bitrate be higher than a video recorded using an 800kbs bitrate?

Which will look better; a 1080p video @800kbs or a 1080p video @2000kbs?

If the higher bitrate video will look better, given identical resolution, then where did I error at in my statement(s)?

So are you saying "looks better" are you indicating that resolution is what determines the visual quality and are totally ignoring the bitrate equation?

Posted via Android Central App

I'm not even sure what your point is.

The bitrate of the 1080p from the 4K is at least as good as the 1080p the phone produces itself if you use anything resembling a decent video editing app. If the bitrate is too low, then you clearly get other unsightly issues in the video which are quite "in your face" and apparent which should give you a hint that you should increase the bitrate (which an encoder can do) for the downscaled video and "try again."

The difference is that the pictures are much better because you're taking 8MP frames and downscaling them to 2MP. That means artifacts in the native 1080p are basically gone from the downscaled 4K video, and the video is MUCH sharper even at same resolution because of the downscaling on the frames. This is no different than downscaling images from a camera to mask noise and artifacts. Video is nothing more than a series of images (i.e. frames) - we all know this. Bitrate is only a means to getting those frames to play at their intended rate while maintaining good image quality in each frame. This is all possible, and downscaling the 4K does allow you to do this and surpass the quality of the native 1080p video.

The bitrate is at least as good. The frame rate is still a solid 30 FPS. That's the whole point of it. You get similar bitrate and solid framerate, but the image quality in the video is much sharper.

The biggest issue with 4K is the space it uses. You will not be working with those on low end equipment (Weak CPU/GPU/RAM). You need at least a high-mid-range PC (and hopefully a discrete graphics card) to work with it decently. The native Video Editor from Samsung doesn't even allow you to import the 4K, because it would destroy device performance due to the file sizes and the amount of RAM needed to work with it.

 

[iN8ter]

You aren't the mainstream consumer

That can be said to anyone who demands specific features from their devices that you don't like, simply because they don't exist on your choice device.

 

[iN8ter]

To add to your mention of 4K video, to not utilize OIS while recording 4K video, is counterproductive in my opinion. When you being to zoom in on the video source, the amount of vibration will be even more noticeable.

If you've seen how the effects of vibration become more pronounced when moving from a 7x pair of binoculars to a 10x, then you have an idea of what I'm taking about.

Posted via Android Central App

4K doesn't need as much Zoom as 1080p would, because you can simply crop in a video editor and zoom that way while still ending up with a more detailed picture than if you had zoomed on an HTC One device in 1080p and OIS.

So no, it's not counterproductive if you know what you're doing.

Again, Video is pictures. 30 pictures per second in the 4K footage. The same advantages a decent 8MP camera has over a decent 4MP camer, the 4K video has over the 1080p video.

Crop and Stabilize in software. Done.

There is still shake in cameras with OIS. It is not as great as many people make it out to be, which is why I don't really factor it into my purchasing decisions at the moment.

OIS also is worthless if your smartphone is on a tripod

 

[Relgoshan]

Ok then, tell me which of my statements are incorrect and why.
1. Can smartphones record 4K resolution at a relatively higher (edit: MAXIMUM) bitrate compared to 1080P recording capabilities given that both actions are using identical hardware specs for video processing?
2. Will the quality of a video recorded using a 2000kbs bitrate be higher than a video recorded using an 800kbs bitrate?
Which will look better; a 1080p video @800kbs or a 1080p video @2000kbs?
If the higher bitrate video will look better, given identical resolution, then where did I error at in my statement(s)?
So are you saying "looks better" are you indicating that resolution is what determines the visual quality and are totally ignoring the bitrate equation?
Posted via Android Central App

Yes habib you may be crazy. Please bear with me here.

1) The devices with 4k recording use a high capacity sensor with a fast link bound to dedicated chip rated for that task. Whether or not to bind such a high capacity sensor to the *same* highly capable chip is the true question here.
2) Several factors at work and NOT just chip speed. Quality is determined by compression profile, presence or lack of b frames, and hard limits set by the manufacturer due to INTERNAL MEMORY WRITE SPEED. 4k phones should score super high marks on internal write speeds, or the risk of stuttering will be high. HTC had issues with the same Snapdragon that is in my Echo, the chip records 720p and plays 1080p just fine for me up to a max 30mbps frame peak on the SD card. But HTC phones with the same chip were misconfigured and could not do this. Same chip bad setup.
3)In some cases higher rez can be compressed at a similar bit rate and still retain more quality, this is due to phenomena of block compression and motion prediction. For the same reasons as h.265 spec benefits video with new larger and smaller motion sample blocks, h.264 beats its predecessors in low bit rate (high profile) and in super high rez high bit rate (better prediction trees and compression blocks). H.265 will be eminently suited to 4k as appropriate hardware encoders spread in the market.

Your greater disconnect is the *only* thing that matters is the quality of the picture on your screen. 4k is easier to zoom and crop in post production and some details are easier to define as macroblocks because the extra pixels *improve loss tolerance in compression*. So you are wrong because you tried applying reasonable assumptions to the wrong variables.

Although rescaled 4k can look really bad with a poor sampling algorithm. Anyone who's recoded videos for their home theater knows that most DVDS will look better upscaled to 1080p and reencoded on a PC before being played on a 1080p television. This is because most flat panels have really bad hardware scaling artifacts. You want something like lanczos scaling.

 

[Relgoshan]

4K doesn't need as much Zoom as 1080p would, because you can simply crop in a video editor and zoom that way while still ending up with a more detailed picture than if you had zoomed on an HTC One device in 1080p and OIS.
So no, it's not counterproductive if you know what you're doing.

Again, Video is pictures. 30 pictures per second in the 4K footage. The same advantages a decent 8MP camera has over a decent 4MP camer, the 4K video has over the 1080p video.
Crop and Stabilize in software. Done.

There is still shake in cameras with OIS. It is not as great as many people make it out to be, which is why I don't really factor it into my purchasing decisions at the moment.
OIS also is worthless if your smartphone is on a tripod

The first bit is true.

Most devices with 4k will do 60fps 1080p. I think a couple phones record up to 120fps now at 720p or so. Down scaling reduces the noise in the higher fps footage, which is why rez keeps going down. It's not just bit rate it is sensor noise due to less photon data per frame. So long as the 4k sensor is a bit larger than 1080p sensor and uses the most modern tech it should look great, and good quality down scaling enables some amazingly sharp looking slow mo playback from outdoor sports.

OIS falls into several different methods with one of the most reliable being a cropped oversample that uses image motion estimation combined with device gyro data. We shall see what their new gen sensor can actually do. With larger pixels that each receive more photons per frame, HTC should be able to deliver sharp low-noise stills. Also higher min/max light intensity gap in a single frame, better HDR compensation, and very clear indoor video. Or their software will be garbage and HTC will shoot another good idea in the foot.

 

[Soundtrack to Chaos]

That can be said to anyone who demands specific features from their devices that you don't like, simply because they don't exist on your choice device.

Let me just ask you a simple question, you don't even have to answer it, because the sales data already has, and the views can easily prove my point

Which is more attractive in a commercial http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mLd9hjl3Kds

Or

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k8MN_kkhsCQ

So which do you think is more attractive and stand out feature to the average mainstream consumer who just walks into the store, purchases a device and has no clue that Android Central, phone dog, pocket now, etc exist?

 

[Habiib]

4K doesn't need as much Zoom as 1080p would, because you can simply crop in a video editor and zoom that way while still ending up with a more detailed picture than if you had zoomed on an HTC One device in 1080p and OIS.

So no, it's not counterproductive if you know what you're doing.

Again, Video is pictures. 30 pictures per second in the 4K footage. The same advantages a decent 8MP camera has over a decent 4MP camer, the 4K video has over the 1080p video.

Crop and Stabilize in software. Done.

There is still shake in cameras with OIS. It is not as great as many people make it out to be, which is why I don't really factor it into my purchasing decisions at the moment.

OIS also is worthless if your smartphone is on a tripod

That is soooooooo true...hahahaha!!! Well I enjoyed our dialog and I've learned a lot from it.

 

[Habiib]

I'm not even sure what your point is.

The bitrate of the 1080p from the 4K is at least as good as the 1080p the phone produces itself if you use anything resembling a decent video editing app. If the bitrate is too low, then you clearly get other unsightly issues in the video which are quite "in your face" and apparent which should give you a hint that you should increase the bitrate (which an encoder can do) for the downscaled video and "try again."

The difference is that the pictures are much better because you're taking 8MP frames and downscaling them to 2MP. That means artifacts in the native 1080p are basically gone from the downscaled 4K video, and the video is MUCH sharper even at same resolution because of the downscaling on the frames. This is no different than downscaling images from a camera to mask noise and artifacts. Video is nothing more than a series of images (i.e. frames) - we all know this. Bitrate is only a means to getting those frames to play at their intended rate while maintaining good image quality in each frame. This is all possible, and downscaling the 4K does allow you to do this and surpass the quality of the native 1080p video.

The bitrate is at least as good. The frame rate is still a solid 30 FPS. That's the whole point of it. You get similar bitrate and solid framerate, but the image quality in the video is much sharper.

The biggest issue with 4K is the space it uses. You will not be working with those on low end equipment (Weak CPU/GPU/RAM). You need at least a high-mid-range PC (and hopefully a discrete graphics card) to work with it decently. The native Video Editor from Samsung doesn't even allow you to import the 4K, because it would destroy device performance due to the file sizes and the amount of RAM needed to work with it.

Sorry I didn't clarify. All of my hypothetical examples are within the scope of what a smartphone's hardware is capable of doing, so you pretty much addressed what I was trying to analyze.