VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and copy Ultra HD Blu-rays and DVDs! Or rip iTunes movies and music! Download free trial !

Poll: Do you have video recording capability on your cellphone?

Be advised that this is a public poll: other users can see the choice(s) you selected.

+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 33
Thread
  1. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    So can you record video on your cellphone? Is it video only no sound? Do you have that new feature on one of the networks that lets you broadcast live video? Do you just have a picture phone?

    No multimedia functions at all on the phone?

    I have a year old Samsung t329 with a vga camera on it (tmobile prepaid plan). I have over a hundred pics on it. None of them earth shattering just fun little throw away shots that I like to keep on hand.

    If I were really into this instant picture stuff I'd certainly upgrade to a megapixel camera phone of some description. However I don't really need to change phones so I'm ok with what I have. As far as video capability I don't really see a need for it though if I had it I wouldn't object to it (though I would probably object to data transfer fees )

    How about you?
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  2. Member waheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Search Comp PM
    I have a Nokia N95 8GB and it has a 5 megapixels Carl Zeiss optics, but I don't use the video capabilities. I use just the camera for still pics as it seems decent enough for a phone.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I don't currently have a cell phone, but I can't imagine myself taking pictures or video with one for personal use, other than in an emergency. I've seen my nephews use theirs to share something they've seen with friends, although they only have the ability to take stills. I can imagine a few legitimate business uses for cell phone cameras, though not for myself.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    I see one use is to document an accident scene,or live news event.

    You need a beefy battery to go for long.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  5. Mod Neophyte Super Moderator redwudz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    USA
    Search Comp PM
    Yes, full video and audio, but haven't used the capability much yet. (3 mega pixel) I would need to increase the size of my phones memory card to make it useful. Then I would have to read the manual to find how to get it off my phone.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Member edDV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Northern California, USA
    Search Comp PM
    I've got one of those microSD chips in the phone that has capacity for many minutes of cell phone video or pics.



    To extract it you insert the MicroSD chip into an SD carrier then play the MJPeg AVI in Windows Movie Maker or VLC.



    You can also extract files in theory with BlueTooth but Verizon screws with or inhibits that.

    If your phone records MJPeg to a MOV wrapper, use Quicktime player or VLC. If it records to MPeg4, you will need the appropriate codec installed.
    Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
    http://www.kiva.org/about
    Quote Quote  
  7. Always Watching guns1inger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Miskatonic U
    Search Comp PM
    I have an LG KU990 that has a 5.1MP still camera, and can record Divx at 640 x 384 (16:9) @ up to 120 fps. The quality is reasonable for a phone camera. Records to a 2GB microSD like the one above.
    Read my blog here.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member Number Six's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    My cell phones do have full multimedia and A/V features and megapixel cameras, but I hate these things and never use them . I resisted upgrading my phones for years just for this reason, but I finally wanted to get modern phones with nice color screens and user features. I love technology and "TOYS", but I firmly believe that a cell phone should be just a phone above all. It is not something to play games or watch TV on because it will eat up the battery power, therefore preventing you from having the use of the phone when you need it because the battery is dead !
    "I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed, or numbered! My life is my own" - the Prisoner
    (NO MAN IS JUST A NUMBER)
    be seeing you ( RIP Patrick McGoohan )
    Quote Quote  
  9. My cell phone is a cell phone. If it has any other functions, I'm not aware of them.
    "Shut up Wesley!" -- Captain Jean-Luc Picard
    Buy My Books
    Quote Quote  
  10. mine got a FM transmitter with 1GB microSD .some times I connect the phone t my radio at work to listen to music.The quality of video,and cam sux big time.I wanna upgrade to a phone that can work with pandora.com
    Quote Quote  
  11. Member Epicurus8a's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Ocean West, USA (ATSC)
    Search Comp PM
    Audio and video for about 30 seconds per recording. It also takes still pix. The quality, however, sucks. So I almost never use it for anything except phone calls.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by waheed
    I have a Nokia N95 8GB and it has a 5 megapixels Carl Zeiss optics, but I don't use the video capabilities. I use just the camera for still pics as it seems decent enough for a phone.
    I also have a N95, camera stills are amazing for a phone, and the A/V recording capabilities are pretty good too, more than enough if you are gonna output to web. Heres a clip I shot with the N95, its been re-encoded to upload to youtube. Watch in high quality.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Member lordhutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I find it hard to believe how many people do not have a cel phone.
    If anything I don't know anyone who does not have one...but I know plenty of people who do not have a land line.
    Quote Quote  
  14. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordhutt
    I find it hard to believe how many people do not have a cel phone.
    If anything I don't know anyone who does not have one...but I know plenty of people who do not have a land line.
    THat might be a good poll question lordhutt.

    "DO YOU STILL HAVE A PHYSICAL PHONE LINE?"

    I'll keep that in mind
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  15. The root of all evil träskmannen's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Location
    Belgium
    Search Comp PM
    My cell phone is a cell phone, nothing more, and that's the way I want it. It is almost impossible to find a decent phone with bluetooth but without a camera in it nowadays!
    In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member waheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Search Comp PM
    I used to think at first, a phone is just a phone and any other features is just a waste.

    That's all changed now considering what needs to be used these days.

    For example, if im driving and involved in an accident, the camera is very useful on the scene for taking pictures as evidence of the damage and people involved. Alot of people commit fraud by claiming for more damage and especially injury claim (most common whiplash) amounting to thousands on pounds per person itself). Some people even claim there were other passengers in the car, even though they were driving alone. I only state this because this happened to a friend of mine. Voice recording for evidence can also be useful and video evidence, even better.

    Satellite navigation, again, if your lost, useful for finding your way back. Since its on your phone, it will always be on you.

    Audio and video, useful if your on a 3 hour train journey or stranded at the airport. other entertainment while your bored such as gaming and wireless internet (WiFi) etc...

    The list goes on and its surprising how these features can be very useful, especially in the car accident scenario above.

    Now, to be prepared on events on a daily basis, imagine carrying a separate camera, sat nav, portable audio/video player etc...

    And you don't need to use all the features, its there in case you need it.

    Just my opinion, everyone will have their own preferences.
    Quote Quote  
  17. Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    beautiful
    Search Comp PM
    My 2005 iPaq had 1.2 Mpx camera in it, capable of 320x240 videos. When I retire it last year I had made exactly 34 pics and videos in those years
    My last year's TyTN II has 3.1 Mpx videocamera in it, I'm not even sure what size videos it takes (either 320x240 or 640x480) because I haven't took any video with it yet and maybe 5 pictures LOL... although I use it's second front camera often (for videocalls).
    All phone cameras are very crappy cameras, not even comparable to $1 "disposable" old-fashion-style "analog" cameras that were available years ago, and their videos suck even more than their photo capabilities, so
    WHO CARES?
    This has got to be the most meaningless poll ever here
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member waheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DereX888
    All phone cameras are very crappy cameras, not even comparable to $1 "disposable" old-fashion-style "analog" cameras that were available years ago...
    I strongly disagree with your statement.

    My phone produces excellent pictures as can be seen below taken by my Nokia N95 8GB.



    And there are plenty of other phones on the market that have a better camera quality than my phone.

    image.jpg
    Quote Quote  
  19. sucks. Asia and Europe get better phones than the US.
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    Wow this shows our users on this website are definitely on the forefront of technology. 47% and 227 users have voted they can record video WITH audio on their cellphones. That's pretty amazing. Add another 10 users who can record video but no audio and that ups it to 237 who can record video with a cellphone.

    Not bad videohelpers!
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  21. Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    beautiful
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by waheed
    Originally Posted by DereX888
    All phone cameras are very crappy cameras, not even comparable to $1 "disposable" old-fashion-style "analog" cameras that were available years ago...
    I strongly disagree with your statement.

    My phone produces excellent pictures as can be seen below taken by my Nokia N95 8GB.



    And there are plenty of other phones on the market that have a better camera quality than my phone.

    image.jpg
    waheed, believe it or not: such well lit sunny outdoors could have been taken *better* than this by any el-cheapo $1 "analog" 35mm disposable camera with plastic lenses from about 10 years ago (not to mention better models or real cameras like my old trusty Nikon and Canons). I don't know how old are you, but either you never had any good or excellent "analog" cameras before, or its just photography is not your strong suit if you call this excellent picture (no offense)... that's just a typical snapshot (sorry, I can't call it photography) taken by a very typical short lens digital snapshooter (aka "camera") and highly compressed by its software into inferior picture format. If you'd dtake the same scene with any el-cheapo $1 disposable "analog" camera, print it to same low resolution (35mm "analog" negative's resolution is equivalent of digital camera's 26 or 28 Megapixels resolution) you'd see huge difference between them with your naked eyes.


    Originally Posted by yoda313
    Wow this shows our users on this website are definitely on the forefront of technology. 47% and 227 users have voted they can record video WITH audio on their cellphones. That's pretty amazing. Add another 10 users who can record video but no audio and that ups it to 237 who can record video with a cellphone.

    Not bad videohelpers! smile.gif smile.gif
    Are there ANY cellphones made in past 2-3 years that have no video capabilities out there on the market?
    If so, there must be handful of such models only.
    This tells me quite opposite: that our site users are NOT on the forefront of technology, because half of them is using cellphones older than 2-3 years (which is a gap of generation or two for the fast changing cellphone technologies)
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member waheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Search Comp PM
    Derex888, I don't know much about photography, but for a phone camera, i do consider the picture a excellent pic. You are entitled to your your opinion and I to mine.

    I haven't used a disposable camera, but I have used a quality analog camera before and the quality seems to be the same to my eyes.

    But with analog, you do have a hassle of getting the pictures developed while being digital, you possibilities are limitless. Pictures can be transferred to a PC, emailed, printed or even sent by MMS from your phone.

    Bottom line is the phone camera does produce good quality pictures and that's all I need in case of an emergency and its always there if you need it.

    Of course, if you need to produce professional pictures or you knew you would take pictures (for example at a wedding), then I would use a dedicated camera for the job.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    beautiful
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by waheed
    Derex888, I don't know much about photography, but for a phone camera, i do consider the picture a excellent pic. You are entitled to your your opinion and I to mine.

    I haven't used a disposable camera, but I have used a quality analog camera before and the quality seems to be the same to my eyes.

    But with analog, you do have a hassle of getting the pictures developed while being digital, you possibilities are limitless. Pictures can be transferred to a PC, emailed, printed or even sent by MMS from your phone.

    Bottom line is the phone camera does produce good quality pictures and that's all I need in case of an emergency and its always there if you need it.

    Of course, if you need to produce professional pictures or you knew you would take pictures (for example at a wedding), then I would use a dedicated camera for the job.

    "Good quality picture"...
    <sigh>

    waheed, my friend, this is actual story (my own father):
    His 1st digital camera he loved so much - and praised same as you do now that it was taking excellent pictures and that he couldn't see the difference between them and my Nikon semi-pro 35mm prints - was a S*ny garbage, and it was 10+ years ago. It was "fine and all good" until he moved from 800x600 screen to a 1024x768 new 19' monitor. At that moment he found out that his "fine and excellent" VGA pictures are just garbage, while my analog prints could be printed and scanned at any newer resolutions and still "look great".
    He bought another snapshooter called "digital camera", IIRC some Fuji. That one was taking huge back then 2.1 Mpx pictures.
    He claimed again that this is it, they are all "great".
    Well, history repeated itself again when he moved to a 19' LCD monitor and 1280x1024 resolution - immediately those 2mpx pics were not good enough anymore, while my analog 35mm prints and scans were still perfect
    So he spent enormous amount of money (back then) and bought a semi-pro 6mpx Canon Rebel, which came with basically very same lenses as my analog Canon EOS. That thing takes good pictures, I admit - there is debth, colors are right, etc.
    Now he claims again same as before - that "this IS it", he doesn't budge that there are already 18Mpx Rebel models, and he won't even listen when I tell him that my analog 35mm negatives can still be scanned raw at close to 30mpx resolutions (because thats the 35mm's "native" resolution) - which is still higher than any "professional" digital cameras can go for today and even though he got good lenses in this camera, it is still very low resolution compared to my analog...
    So I'm not saying anything to him anymore.
    I just can't wait until he moves to some 3840x2880 monitor resolution (or higher) with next computer & monitor upgrades...

    Point is: it looks "great" to you because you use low resolution monitor, and you don't see differences between those digital pics and analog prints because either your prints are too small size to notice it. But every few years we crank up our monitor's resolutions, even our home non-professional scanners and printers get higher and higher resolutions, so believe me - very soon this "loooking great" digital snapshot will seem to you as bad as those 640x480 VGA digital pics from 10 years ago appear today


    Oh and I know we're talking about phone camera here.
    But camera is a camera, it is not any excuse that one camera is in its own case, and another is inside phone's case
    Something is either "camera" or it isn't (snapshooter etc)...
    Technologically it is possible to equip "phone camera" with retractable lens like my thin Lumix snapshooter has, and it would take immediately real pictures - not snapshots - because LENS is everything for picture's quality (even if its low resolution it still can be good quality with good lenses).
    Unfortunately all phones have 3-5mm "long" lenses only. Thats pure garbage, thats why this "excellent" picture of yours has no debth at all (not to mention tons of other defects seen there) and thats why I said its not even close to those old disposable analag cameras, because they had at least 20mm F5.6 lenses there...


    (and no, I'm not any "pro", I'm just an amateur photographer who like it)
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member waheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Manchester, UK
    Search Comp PM
    Thank you for your informative reply but I do disagree with some statements. You may be correct when you state that an analog camera can sometimes produce better images than a digital camera. I have no doubts there but the main case was discussion of phone camera quality (not is comparison to other cameras). You state they are awful and I state they are decent quality pictures. As mentioned before, its all a matter of opinion. What looks good to one persons eye may look bad to other persons eye.

    Originally Posted by DereX888
    Point is: it looks "great" to you because you use low resolution monitor...
    Just to be clear, I use a High Definition full 1080P compliant 24" monitor (BenQ FP241W) set at 1920 X 1200 pixels and the phone camera pics do look great on my monitor.

    Originally Posted by DereX888
    But camera is a camera, it is not any excuse that one camera is in its own case, and another is inside phone's case
    I disagree. Surely you cannot compare a standalone dedicated piece of equipment to a all in one solution.

    You can't expects a phone camera to be at the same standards to a professional camera. It does not work that way. Its the same for any other feature of the phone. My phone also have gaming (N-gage) and the graphics are pretty decent for a phone. However, obviously, someone would be crazy to compare the gaming on the phone to, say a PlayStation 3.

    I guess the way to settle the matter is for yoda313 to produce another poll as follows:


    Do you think a phone camera produces good quality still pics:

    Yes
    No


    and we will see where the majority of votes go.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    beautiful
    Search Comp PM
    LOL, you didn't get it
    This yours 1920x1200 of today will be laughable low quality of tomorrow, same as "high resolutions" of 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768 and 1280x1024/960 before it.
    Poll...
    I can tell you already 3/5-2/3 will say YES and so what - what would it prove? Probably only well known facts (that most of people can't tell good quality from bad_as usual, same as many other polls.
    IIRC there was a poll here when we were vcdquality.com about VHS quality and more than half answered that it was good or satisfactory to them - I hope you see analogy?
    No more comments, EOT (2 me)
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member yoda313's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    The Animus
    Search Comp PM
    @derex and waheed - Just remember quality is subjective. What is sufficient for one person is garbage to the next. Can we agree on that match??
    Donatello - The Shredder? Michelangelo - Maybe all that hardware is for making coleslaw?
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member Conquest10's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by waheed
    I haven't used a disposable camera, but I have used a quality analog camera before and the quality seems to be the same to my eyes.
    No, no, no. Most regular camera phones cannot compare to even a disposable film camera. There are better camera phones out there like the Sony ones but you can't really call them that. They are more like cameras with a built-in phone. Sensor is way too small. Optics are tiny and being that they are phones and carried in a pocket most likely all scratched up and marred. They are decent quality at best.
    His name was MackemX

    What kind of a man are you? The guy is unconscious in a coma and you don't have the guts to kiss his girlfriend?
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member lordhutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by yoda313
    @derex and waheed - Just remember quality is subjective. What is sufficient for one person is garbage to the next. Can we agree on that match??
    Exactly...I don't think I can tell the difference between a 128kb MP3 and a lossless FLAC file.
    I actually consider myself lucky in that respect because I can enjoy the music either way instead of ripping the 'low quality' apart like I have seen the so called 'audiophiles' do in other threads.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Banned
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    beautiful
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by lordhutt
    Originally Posted by yoda313
    @derex and waheed - Just remember quality is subjective. What is sufficient for one person is garbage to the next. Can we agree on that match??
    Exactly...I don't think I can tell the difference between a 128kb MP3 and a lossless FLAC file.
    I actually consider myself lucky in that respect because I can enjoy the music either way instead of ripping the 'low quality' apart like I have seen the so called 'audiophiles' do in other threads.
    LOL... you *do* have a brain, hence - despite of your defunct hearing - you *can* imagine that FLAC must indeed sound better than 128kbps MP3 to those who don't share your hearing deficiency, right?

    Your "luck" is of the same kind as blind guy saying he is lucky because he don't need sunglasses on a bright sunny day
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member lordhutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by DereX888
    Originally Posted by lordhutt
    Originally Posted by yoda313
    @derex and waheed - Just remember quality is subjective. What is sufficient for one person is garbage to the next. Can we agree on that match??
    Exactly...I don't think I can tell the difference between a 128kb MP3 and a lossless FLAC file.
    I actually consider myself lucky in that respect because I can enjoy the music either way instead of ripping the 'low quality' apart like I have seen the so called 'audiophiles' do in other threads.
    LOL... you *do* have a brain, hence - despite of your defunct hearing - you *can* imagine that FLAC must indeed sound better than 128kbps MP3 to those who don't share your hearing deficiency, right?

    Your "luck" is of the same kind as blind guy saying he is lucky because he don't need sunglasses on a bright sunny day
    Well, let me rephrase that. I didn't say that I could not hear well. On the contrary I think I have great hearing. I wont let my wife let the cat in the bedroom at night because if it starts licking itself or walking around I can hear it like a drum solo...can't have any analog clocks because that ticking sound is like a hammer in my head. Despite that an MP3 or flac sound the same to me I think if you gave a blind test that most people would not be able to tell you which was which....or at the very least, if you just played them one file only they would not be able to tell you which one it was.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads