Only a VGA-Quality Front Facing Camera?
- Thread starter Steve B
- Start date
VGA is used for a few reasons.
1. You don't take photos with it - quality not as much of an issue.
2. Uses less battery power
3. Uses less data for streaming your video calls over the network
4. The resolution is made for the screen itself, not for using picture captures on other media / screens.
1. You don't take photos with it - quality not as much of an issue.
2. Uses less battery power
3. Uses less data for streaming your video calls over the network
4. The resolution is made for the screen itself, not for using picture captures on other media / screens.
Yeah but, if they hope to use video calling of some kind then I would think VGA would be an issue.
I think people often fall in love with the MP resolution numbers because it sounds catchy. It could have a 1.3MP camera and still look like garbage. As the other guy already mentioned, it has more to do with the resolution.
Thats just it, they do plan on using it for that. Thats the purpose. But you don't need more than the VGA resolution for the screen size on the phone. There is no reason to put a higher resolution camera for this function. The iPhone 4 uses a similar VGA resolution and it looks great.
Remember it only has to be streamed to another phone, or at most a tablet. MP really does not mean much. It does not need much data and I like the lower power usage VGA offers.
JkdJedi
Well-known member
- Aug 20, 2010
- 2,197
- 218
- 0
Plus the higher the resolution the more bandwidth required to transmit the data, the carriers are already restricting data packages.. I hate to see my first bill after video chatting with a high res camera.
It wont be pretty..
It wont be pretty..
Not necessarily. You are forgetting google talk on another computer (which is likely where a lot of people will end up using it) I can't imagine Google not implementing this feature sometime this year. Thus you would want a little higher video capture. The entire concept of phone sex will change lol! (no, I don't do that...but was amusing)
Also the carriers (i.e. Verizon) will likely have some sort of VCast Video Chat that costs $9.00 to install. Of course that would be for phone/tablet..but had to get a dig in.
There will be no charge. Tengo, Qik, & Skype are all free. Skype now offers service for Android phones. We are entering the age of the "handheld computer". Most people use their phones to video chat BY FAR. Chatting via TELEVISION seems to be leapfrogging the computer, and with a 2 mp camera, there would be NO difference in quality from a vga on a screen 36" or larger. Data streaming charges is the winner here. That will be an issue. The needs of the masses outweigh the need of the few (computer chatters). They can chat computer to computer for all I care!
bberrynewbie84
Galaxy nexus!
- Jul 27, 2010
- 448
- 11
- 0
I glad u guys schooled me on this because I was wonderng about this issue with the VGA camera
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk
RHChan84
Well-known member
- Dec 6, 2010
- 2,253
- 107
- 63
VGA camera on the front would not stop me from buying it. Even if it didn't, I would lower it to VGA just for the bandwidth and its on a phone screen so no need for something that high. I will be picking up the bionic once it comes out. I want the vigor but I want lte more then I want the vigor.
My Charge has a 1.3 mp FFC and its picture quality is WORSE than the iPhone 4's VGA unit. Same for the cameras in my iPod Touch and iPad 2.
But, I don't care that the Charge's camera is worse (or that the iPhone 4's is better), because all I use it for is the occasional video chat or random MMS picture. The resolution for a camera this small means literally nothing. The pictures are going to be poor either way. As long as its VGA or higher its perfectly adequate for its intended purpose.
Video chatting uses a lot of data anyways, why would you want to use more? 2.0MP FFC would destroy your data bill, you'd use up the entire 2GB in a short time (or whatever amount you want to pay for).
And for a source on it using more power in a bigger camera, it's common sense. Bigger=more power usage in most cases. I can get a digital camera that runs off of AA batteries and use it at a lower resolution and it would last longer, and take up less space. Obviously for pictures, bigger resolution means higher quality picture, but in the case of video chatting, you can't see that many pixels. 960x540 is the screen resolution size (on a qHD display like the Bionic), and 640x480 is the camera resolution size. You really aren't missing a lot.
And for a source on it using more power in a bigger camera, it's common sense. Bigger=more power usage in most cases. I can get a digital camera that runs off of AA batteries and use it at a lower resolution and it would last longer, and take up less space. Obviously for pictures, bigger resolution means higher quality picture, but in the case of video chatting, you can't see that many pixels. 960x540 is the screen resolution size (on a qHD display like the Bionic), and 640x480 is the camera resolution size. You really aren't missing a lot.
I just want a 2.0mp FFC so I can snap larger stills of my sexy mug.
Hah!
I wonder how many people will honestly use their FFC often enough for it to be a deal breaker?
Similar threads
- Locked
Trending Posts
-
-
-
-
Wear OS 6 out! (One UI 8.0)- Started by kbboykin
- Replies: 2
-
I'm done with Pixels!- Started by Super Spartan
- Replies: 5
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram