Phone, Tablet and Gizmo Thread #0x02

Abhijeet · Post by **Abhijeet** » 31 May 2013 02:53

How do you fit a 41 MP sensor into the physical area that a phone has? Won't the individual pixels be too small to be useful?

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 May 2013 03:01

Abhijeet wrote:How do you fit a 41 MP sensor into the physical area that a phone has? Won't the individual pixels be too small to be useful?

The sensor on the 808PureView is actually larger than even the sensors found in P&S cameras.
Comparative pics here: http://mynokiablog.com/2012/09/19/purev ... age-phone/

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 May 2013 03:08

Raja Bose wrote:Get the 720 over 620. Based on my mom's OOB experience with the Surface and Metro UI, I can safely say that it is more intuitive for people who are not used to a windows/mouse/keyboard interface and hence don't have preconceived expectations. Same goes for WindowsPhone - my mom could figure out how to use my Lumina 928 by herself much more easily than my dad who had much more trouble with it.

Thanks. Will try to convince her that 18k is not too much for a phone. The Lumia phones don't seem to be much cheaper in the US unfortunately especially considering the free home delivery and free 16GB memory card etc. that FlipKart offers.

The Micromax and Karbonn phones seem too good to be true with Android 4.2, 5 inch screens and 8MP cameras at <15k. They must be skimping on something. I don't wish to find out what.

Mort Walker · Post by **Mort Walker** » 31 May 2013 03:14

nachiket wrote:
Abhijeet wrote:How do you fit a 41 MP sensor into the physical area that a phone has? Won't the individual pixels be too small to be useful?
The sensor on the 808PureView is actually larger than even the sensors found in P&S cameras.
Comparative pics here: http://mynokiablog.com/2012/09/19/purev ... age-phone/

You have to use a medium format or a very large sensor area for that photosite density to be effective. The noise will smear the details you try to get out of it due to diffraction.
Here's a good overview of diffraction: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... graphy.htm

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 31 May 2013 04:07

Mort Walker wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:Now instead of your usual hand waving BS why dont you explain where exactly is a P&S camera's mechanism soup-e-rear to a top end smartphone's camera assembly today?
I already explained it if you bothered to read. It's called focal length and lens diameter - something you just can't get on any phone and why it's better to carry at least a P&S.

Sorry not so fast. Let me ask you again in plain English - in your knowledgeable opinion how does the focal length and lens diameter of a P&S compare with that of a top end smartphone camera? Just blindly repeating something you picked up from Wikipedia is not the answer I am looking for.

Mort Walker wrote: The 41MP sensor is marketing for the masses. If 41MP was of any use on a small surface area, it would have found it's way in professional use somewhere by now.

That's what happens when you play too much with turds.

The 41 MP sensor with a CCD larger than P&S is used for lossless digital zoom and the final image is downsampled to 8MP - if you were bothered with actually reading how that works instead of blindly hating and spouting BS you would understand how that works. Its not some stupid marketing gimmick like Sammy's 16MP smartphone camera where they simply crammed 16MP into a CCD smaller than a P&S without any innovation (except the cramming) claiming it magically takes better pictures. People such as yourself look at that, see its a turd and naturally conclude that anybody using > 8MP in a smartphone camera assembly is doing marketing gimmicks and making turds. Ask BhairavP about his experience with the PureView 808's camera i.e. if you want to get rid of your delusions.

Mort Walker wrote: You are right, I have not used the Puerile View on the Nokia 808, but I have used a variety of SLR and DSLRs and P&Ss with a wide variety of lenses over the last 30+ years.

So let me get this straight....

1) You have not used the state of the art in smartphone camera technology.
2) You have no clue about how things have progressed in camera HW and SW in the last 5-6 years.
3) You have no idea how images taken by (1) compare with a P&S.

...and yet here you are confidently claiming to know what works and what sux?

Dude, do yourself a favour (I might have said this once before) and go read up on this stuff instead of blindly hating stuff based on your pre-conceived notions.

Mort Walker wrote: Right now my favorite is the 5DMkIII with 40mm pancake as my P&S which I prefer over the Canon G15 and Sony RX100.

So this is what you have been claiming as a P&S all this while:

Seriously, kis duniya mein rehto ho ji??

Mort Walker wrote: If you even used a P&S, the other thing it offers is better ergonomics of the controls so you can quickly take your shot without fiddling with the device, remember you said it's about the UX?

You are right, ergonomics is a big part of UX in this case. Let's see....I have a 2-stage HW camera button on my smartphone positioned so that I can use my index finger to click it and a HW zoom button and I can hold it steady without fatigue....so what is the specific ergonomic advantage you are talking about here?

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 31 May 2013 05:22

Sorry to interject, but anybody going to DAC in Austin?

BhairavP · Post by **BhairavP** » 31 May 2013 08:37

Mort saar, I use the 808 and am very very happy with it. I have a DSLR kit as well, a K-x + 28-75 and 70-200/2.8 zooms, with an f/1.2 and f/1.4 prime, and the 808 is surprisingly competent for day to day use.
And no, I wouldn't call the 5D Mark III a point-and-shoot. BIL shoots with it, and it is an awesome camera, but fairly heavy and unwieldy.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 31 May 2013 08:41

matrimc wrote:Sorry to interject, but anybody going to DAC in Austin?

A family friend is a regular attendee. He makes one of the really well known EDA tools in use.

Vayutuvan · Post by **Vayutuvan** » 31 May 2013 09:58

RB, if my guess is right then we two have three degrees of separation via two different paths.
A question that should go into Math thread but I will ask here - do you have recommendation on a lucid intro book on Category Theory (and Topos theory)?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 31 May 2013 10:16

^^^I did not study Category theory, morphisms and all that crazy $hit but my office mate in grad school did his pee-chaddi in it. Will ask and let you know.

BhairavP · Post by **BhairavP** » 31 May 2013 11:10

^Marten-san, thanks... I saw those prices on eBay right now as well. Friend wanted one, cheers for the heads-up.

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 31 May 2013 23:42

Marten wrote: Nachiket, I got a 822 for ~$210. You should be able to find a new one for $225-250. Why not try that? It has rounded edges (less chances of breakage), and gorilla glass 2. And it's cheaper.

Marten saar, which website was it? I remember you posting about it. The unlocked Verizon versions seem cheaper. I think you got one of those. In the specs they mention that it supports quad band GSM, so voice won't be an issue in India, but for data they only mention WCDMA, not HSPA+ or HSDPA. Will that be a problem?

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Jun 2013 01:10

Sensor alone doesn't really count. Better glass is always of prime importance. How do the lenses on smartphones compare to the $400 S110?

Also, if you're not going to print any photos it doesn't really matter if its 8 or 80 megapickles.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 01 Jun 2013 01:26

The lens used in for example GB Lumias and HTC One are pretty good when compared with ~$300 P&S products. Some like the Lumia 925 go one step further in terms of lens assembly and fabrication but it remains to be seen what effect it has in real world use once the phone releases.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Jun 2013 03:21

There are several factors. The point is not whether phones are better than P&S, the point is if they are good enough. Phones make a few tradeoffs by default.

1. Lenses have fewer groups. This is to make the camera thinner. P&S has more groups and heavier lenses. They can afford to be heavier because a more powerful motor moves the lens for focusing / zoom etc. There is not much constraint on the thickness as well. All this affects light transmission efficiency. Good camera lens assemblies transfer about 90% light from one end to another. Cheap ones transfer about 60%. Good materials add to weight and cost: that's why canon L series (glass) costs an arm and a leg when compared to non-L (plastic)

2. The second is entry pupil. Everyone knows the ratio of focal length to aperture dia determines how bright the image is (brighter image = faster shutter speed and better signal to noise ratio at the sensor). But several diameters and focal lengths can give the same f-stop. In P&S you can get good f-stops at higher focal lengths (you can increase lens dia to get in more light). Second factor is that bigger lenses can achieve higher brightness in a bigger area so you can shove in bigger sensor. That's why full frame cameras have such heavy lenses.

3. This lossless digital zoom business is a bit of handwaving. all they are doing is cropping when you zoom. Assuming you take a square pic, 41 megapixel is about 64000 pixels across. Sqrt of 5 is about 2.2. So you can get 3x "zoom" by cropping 5 megapixel image out from a 41 megapixel image. The problem remains that each of the pixels in 5 megapixel image would be tiny if they wanted to fit it into a reasonable size sensor. The tradeoff though is an interesting one. Instead of shooting normally using increased pixel area, they want to shoot with many tiny pixels, suffer more noise and then downsample. For digital zoom, they want to discard pixels do no downsampling. Other cameras make the opposite choice. Interesting, nevertheless.

As photographers say, the best camera is what you have with you. That way cell phones win out. OTOH, a cell phone with 200$ components in total (includes screen, battery, processor, antenna and modem) while being constrained for space for its camera module somehow being better than a 200$ p&s where most of the cost is from optics and sensors with lesser constraints on space -- I find it a bit hard to believe. The question though is if they are good enough.

I carry a P&S and a dSLR. for bad light shooting there is no comparison with a DSLR. Anyone who claims otherwise hasn't seen a DSLR. OTOH when I hike, I carry water, food, clothes and a DSLR just adds to the weight. In sunlight the P&S is "good enough". So cell phones might become "good enough "

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 01 Jun 2013 04:37

Anujan wrote:3. This lossless digital zoom business is a bit of handwaving. all they are doing is cropping when you zoom. Assuming you take a square pic, 41 megapixel is about 64000 pixels across. Sqrt of 5 is about 2.2. So you can get 3x "zoom" by cropping 5 megapixel image out from a 41 megapixel image. The problem remains that each of the pixels in 5 megapixel image would be tiny if they wanted to fit it into a reasonable size sensor. The tradeoff though is an interesting one. Instead of shooting normally using increased pixel area, they want to shoot with many tiny pixels, suffer more noise and then downsample. For digital zoom, they want to discard pixels do no downsampling. Other cameras make the opposite choice. Interesting, nevertheless.

Except its not simply cropping a 41mpix image into a 5mpix one in the PureView 808. How the PureView DSP and algos combine multiple pixels into a single one during the down sampling is the secret sauce behind why the 808's zoom works so well. The lossless refers to loss in detail rather than loss in bits and how well it works was quite surprising. In fact it turned the very notion on its head that for good zoom you need a motorized optical assembly. In fact, GB had many years ago brought out a smartphone with a traditional optical zoom - motorized lens assembly and all - needless to say customers got repelled by it!

Anujan wrote: As photographers say, the best camera is what you have with you. That way cell phones win out. OTOH, a cell phone with 200$ components in total (includes screen, battery, processor, antenna and modem) while being constrained for space for its camera module somehow being better than a 200$ p&s where most of the cost is from optics and sensors with lesser constraints on space -- I find it a bit hard to believe. The question though is if they are good enough.

Actually the criteria to be evaluated against is not only is it good enough but can users tell the difference (i.e. do they know there is a compromise)- basically the UX question. Plus the funny thing is that in the last 5-6 years a lot more innovation has happened on the optics, silicon level and software level from mobile device manufacturers for compact cameras than at most P&S manufacturers except perhaps Sony. Probably one of the reasons is the smartphone manufacturers felt the pain more due to their more restrictive design budget in their devices vs P&S cameras. Its almost like a repeat of traditional GPS manufacturers vs the smartphone crowd.

From a BOM perspective there may or may not be significant difference becoz the high cost components (except the AP) are mostly common to both plus the smartphone manufacturers are better able to leverage volumes to scale which changes the BOM calculation.

Anujan · Post by **Anujan** » 01 Jun 2013 04:57

"Except its not simply cropping a 41mpix image into a 5mpix one in the PureView 808. How the PureView DSP and algos combine multiple pixels into a single one during the down sampling is the secret sauce behind why the 808's zoom works so well. The lossless refers to loss in detail rather than loss in bits and how well it works was quite surprising. "

I don't understand this. Let us assume that you have no optical zoom. Seems to be the case in pureview 808. Let us assume that you are shooting at max "lossless" digital zoom. The sensor is 41mpx -- about 64,000 pixels a side (let us assume the picture is square). You want a 3x zoom at 5 megapixels. Since there is no optical zoom, you shoot the same scene at 64,000 pixels a side. Since you want 3x zoom an object captured at ~2100 pixels a side should fill the entire frame. Let us assume (for sake of simplicity) this object is in the top left hand corner. You want this object in the top left hand corner to fill the entire frame. 2100 pixels a side is ~4.5 megapixels. You have just 4.5 megapixels and I want 4.5 megapixels then how do I down sample? I cant. So I want to go out on a limb and claim "at max zoom, pureview does simple cropping". Anything else is not mathematically feasible.

OTOH, if you shoot at 41mpx and combine a 3×3 grid of pixels into one, you can down sample *the entire scene* into 5 mpx without zoom. That I can understand. Obviously at intermediate zoom levels you crop first and then would be downsampling smaller and smaller grids. Say 2x2. Till you hit 3x zoom where you crop a 5mpx image and downsample "1x1" -- or no downsampling at all. The disadvantage is that you get lesser resolution. Advantage is that averaging acts like a lowpass filter and you reduce noise. A related question is, let us assume you make a sensor of the same size but 5mpx. Then each pixel area would be higher (approx 3x3 of the previous sensor). With the advantage that more photons hit it and it is less susceptible to noise and wiring the pixels become easier without obstructing as much light as the higher resolution sensor. Remember that you have to run 41 million wires and somehow find gaps between them to place the pixels! Wiring wouldnt be a problem if pureview sensor is back illuminated. That doesn't seem to be the case. Now is a 41 mpx sensor better or a 5mpx sensor of the same area but with optical zoom better? I would guess it would be the latter -- at least in low light shooting. But GB probably wanted to do away with motorized assembly for optical zoom.

Prasad · Post by **Prasad** » 01 Jun 2013 07:22

All that hi funda logic aside how do cellphone lenses stand up to abuse over a period? Dedicated cameras usually dont get as much abuse on their lenses.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Jun 2013 07:37

nachiket wrote:
Raja Bose wrote:Get the 720 over 620. Based on my mom's OOB experience with the Surface and Metro UI, I can safely say that it is more intuitive for people who are not used to a windows/mouse/keyboard interface and hence don't have preconceived expectations. Same goes for WindowsPhone - my mom could figure out how to use my Lumina 928 by herself much more easily than my dad who had much more trouble with it.
Thanks. Will try to convince her that 18k is not too much for a phone. The Lumia phones don't seem to be much cheaper in the US unfortunately especially considering the free home delivery and free 16GB memory card etc. that FlipKart offers.

The Micromax and Karbonn phones seem too good to be true with Android 4.2, 5 inch screens and 8MP cameras at <15k. They must be skimping on something. I don't wish to find out what.

18 K is too much for a phone if it is too much for her.

I bought my mother a 620 two months ago , and she has been very happy with it since then. Don't get the 520 if you are thinking of it....its far cheaper and the screen is not comparable.

620 has an excellent balance of features that just work in a smartphone. Good processing power, good RAM, sufficient internal space.

In the 2 months of using the 620, it has been good. Only hung 1-2 times. Camera is excellent. Screen works well.

So yeah, TWIW from a person who has actually gifted his mom a 620 IRL.

member_20292 · Post by **member_20292** » 01 Jun 2013 07:41

Karbon Micromax

These guys put cheaper components in the phones. THey are contract manufacturers in China, and they make one batch of phones, sell them out, and then they will probably never make that run again.

Unlike Samsung with its Samsung Galaxy S1...

THeir screens suck bad. Testing has been done to a far lesser extent than on Samsung. So, the screens are not as hardy.

SO yeah, all round cutting corners, leading to cheap prices and great and rising marketshare in India

rohitvats · Post by **rohitvats** » 01 Jun 2013 10:02

nachiket wrote:Folks, my mom wants to get a low end smartphunwa in India not costing more than Rs. 15k. I suggested the Lumia 620, since the low end Android phones usually have old OS versions with bugs and their HW cannot run Android without lag. Low end GB phunwas with WP8 don't seem to have that problem. Has anyone here used the Lumia 620? Is it worth shelling out more for the 720? And is the UI intuitive and easy to understand?

Between 520/620/720, the difference is only in terms of screen size and the camera.Hardware is same.

520 is a wonderful phone and comes as INR 10.5K...between 520 and 620, I'd choose 520. However, please do compare the specs online at Nokia India website. There are some minor difference which I don't remember off the cuff.

720 is a real beautiful phone and till 925 came out, was the best looking phone IMO in the LUMIA range. Nice big screen and a good camera.

kmkraoind · Post by **kmkraoind** » 01 Jun 2013 12:44

nachiket wrote:Folks, my mom wants to get a low end smartphunwa in India not costing more than Rs. 15k. I suggested the Lumia 620, since the low end Android phones usually have old OS versions with bugs and their HW cannot run Android without lag. Low end GB phunwas with WP8 don't seem to have that problem. Has anyone here used the Lumia 620? Is it worth shelling out more for the 720? And is the UI intuitive and easy to understand?

My suggestion would be Alcatel Scribe OT8000d, its nice Andriod phone with scratch-resistant glass (gorilla glass equivalent), great battery life and Dual-Sim Andriod phone. Only drawback is it uses micro-SIM. Comes for 10-12K depending upon online store.

negi · Post by **negi** » 01 Jun 2013 12:55

Nachiket personally I prefer Windows phones to Androids former are such a breath of fresh air and if you are buying a phone for your parents why would one worry about the Android ecosystem ? They are not going to play games or download apps. Nokia has a better build quality and if the battery life of 620 is good then it's a very good buy.

pradeepe · Post by **pradeepe** » 01 Jun 2013 13:21

Personal exp: I am really liking WP over previous Android ones(had Samsung ones). I have a 720 and between the 520/620/720/820, the 720 seems very good value for money. Battery lifes really good with its 2000mAh unit. The UI & UX is top notch. Picture quality is very nice. Earlier phone camera pictures were last resort or for capturing notes and things like that. I now find myself pulling out my phone quite often to take pictures.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 01 Jun 2013 13:32

Anujan wrote: I don't understand this. Let us assume that you have no optical zoom. Seems to be the case in pureview 808. Let us assume that you are shooting at max "lossless" digital zoom. The sensor is 41mpx -- about 64,000 pixels a side (let us assume the picture is square). You want a 3x zoom at 5 megapixels. Since there is no optical zoom, you shoot the same scene at 64,000 pixels a side. Since you want 3x zoom an object captured at ~2100 pixels a side should fill the entire frame. Let us assume (for sake of simplicity) this object is in the top left hand corner. You want this object in the top left hand corner to fill the entire frame. 2100 pixels a side is ~4.5 megapixels. You have just 4.5 megapixels and I want 4.5 megapixels then how do I down sample? I cant. So I want to go out on a limb and claim "at max zoom, pureview does simple cropping". Anything else is not mathematically feasible.

That is just cropping an already zoomed in image - that's not what I meant.

Anujan wrote: OTOH, if you shoot at 41mpx and combine a 3×3 grid of pixels into one, you can down sample *the entire scene* into 5 mpx without zoom. That I can understand. Obviously at intermediate zoom levels you crop first and then would be downsampling smaller and smaller grids. Say 2x2. Till you hit 3x zoom where you crop a 5mpx image and downsample "1x1" -- or no downsampling at all. The disadvantage is that you get lesser resolution. Advantage is that averaging acts like a lowpass filter and you reduce noise.

That is correct and describes the basic technique used by the 808 PureView's DSP to do lossless zoom without a movable lens assembly. There are however some enhancements which are applied to make the results significantly better. One is that the all the pixels in the 3x3 grid don't have equal weights - the weights vary based on the scene being shot and its colour characteristics. Another thing is the camera sensor is not a traditional array (btw its not a square, iirc the aspect ratio is 14:9 or something) rather for each active imaging pixel it contains sensor elements around it to get additional data for scene analysis which is then applied to do the down sampling. So its almost like one pixel is broken down into sub-pixels with specialized sensing capabilities. This is done thru a fab process Toshiba developed in collaboration with GB.

Anujan wrote: A related question is, let us assume you make a sensor of the same size but 5mpx. Then each pixel area would be higher (approx 3x3 of the previous sensor). With the advantage that more photons hit it and it is less susceptible to noise and wiring the pixels become easier without obstructing as much light as the higher resolution sensor. Remember that you have to run 41 million wires and somehow find gaps between them to place the pixels! Wiring wouldnt be a problem if pureview sensor is back illuminated. That doesn't seem to be the case. Now is a 41 mpx sensor better or a 5mpx sensor of the same area but with optical zoom better? I would guess it would be the latter -- at least in low light shooting. But GB probably wanted to do away with motorized assembly for optical zoom.

The PureView camera sensors found in the Lumia 92x use this technique where each pixel is large (so does the HTC One) - this ensures significantly better low light performance but you cannot do the type of zoom enabled by the 808's PureView camera. The trick is how do you combine the two? That's what GB is allegedly working on.

Regarding front illumination vs back illumination. Doing back illumination ofcourse allows much more light to hit the sensor but just doing that will not automatically yield significantly better results in low light. Example, the iPhone. To really make a difference there you need to do some neat wizardry in the DSP for example what Sony's Exmor does - P&S cameras like the Sony DSC-TX1 have the best low light performance I have ever seen in a compact camera. Sony has since improved the Exmor's power budget and packaging for integration into smartphones so the rumour is GB/Sony will use that in one of their next smartphones.

Motorized assembly is simply not an option in smartphone cameras (too large/heavy/noise/fragile/battery hog/costly) - GB's "experiment" with that optical zoom camera in one of their phones proved that.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jun 2013 08:27

google glass will get apps to make POV videos of cough cough 'that' type...it was inevitable from day1
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/pointofview- ... 79-11.html

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 02 Jun 2013 09:05

Singha wrote:google glass will get apps to make POV videos of cough cough 'that' type...it was inevitable from day1
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/pointofview- ... 79-11.html

Google Glass is a classic case of where the component which took 1% of the development effort is getting 99% of the attention (similar to baby playing with the box and ignoring the toy). The display in Glass is its most unique component and why the Glass project started in the 1st place with hiring of Babak Parviz but the camera in it is getting all the attention.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jun 2013 12:52

Wait till add on airport nanga sensors make it into rootkitted hw...if anyone can put android on a nokia 720 i am all for it

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jun 2013 13:09

What is the advantage of a curved screen on phones?

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 02 Jun 2013 14:46

Singha wrote:Wait till add on airport nanga sensors make it into rootkitted hw...if anyone can put android on a nokia 720 i am all for it

Android won't run as smoothly on the same HW.

Singha wrote:What is the advantage of a curved screen on phones?

If by curved you mean 2.5D glass, it looks and feels aesthetically pleasing plus certain UIs which depend on swipe gestures from the edges benefit from it such as WP, Meego/Maemo6 since the curved edges provide a physical cue to the user hence the gesture feels more natural.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 02 Jun 2013 16:46

I was referring to purported spy shots of iphone 5s where the entire screen is allegedly concave or convex.

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 02 Jun 2013 21:34

^^^Thats hardly new - the Nexus S used to have it too and looked quite good. They look good and are theoretically useful (the glass 'curves' around your face) but in real use such a curve (assuming concave) means the glass comes in more contact with your skin during calls, which means more skin oils and crud on the glass, dirtier and nastier the display of your phone despite use of oleophobic coatings.

2.5D glass is essential convex - imagine it as a very small slice of the top of a very large sphere. Lately though the top of the sphere is getting flattened like earth.

habal · Post by **habal** » 03 Jun 2013 13:37

this was an original mobile ph design. Saw it many years ago in a flight mag and it still feels contemporary. Wonder why it never caught on.

http://www.techshout.com/images/serenata-phone.jpg

krishnan · Post by **krishnan** » 03 Jun 2013 14:31

Gift it to me

Raja Bose · Post by **Raja Bose** » 04 Jun 2013 10:41

Darn clever logo

NSFWish

nachiket · Post by **nachiket** » 04 Jun 2013 22:23

Rohit, negi and others, thanks for your inputs. Marten mullah, any problems using the HSDPA network in India with the 822?

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 05 Jun 2013 10:27

Is Aircel 3G connection any better than Airtel? Airtel 3G is painfully slow for even simple things like search query using Google. Bliss to provide inputs from experienced users.

BhairavP · Post by **BhairavP** » 05 Jun 2013 11:31

Check out the Haswell battery life numbers. Excellent upgrade for roadwarriors.

negi · Post by **negi** » 05 Jun 2013 11:41

Zynda wrote:Is Aircel 3G connection any better than Airtel? Airtel 3G is painfully slow for even simple things like search query using Google. Bliss to provide inputs from experienced users.

In Bangalore Airtel 3G is pretty good (I can surf youtube videos without too much buffering); you might get probably equal or better speed with DOCOMO guys but then they don't literally exist anywhere outside Bangalore.

Zynda · Post by **Zynda** » 05 Jun 2013 12:04

Negi, do you purchase their monthly plans? I just surf on my "talk time"...wondering if purchasing their plans make 3G experience any faster? I am in BLR as well!