Database Develop

Transreflective or not?

Sorry for the simple post - just wondering from those who have the device if the screen is transreflective or not.
If not - what is outdoor viewing like?
Thanks,
-Daniel

Hi
Not transreflective even though some sites state it is.
Outside in bright light not too bad at full backlight brightness, in bright sunshine directly on the screen probably just about usable but you will be searching for shade I expect.
Regards
Phil

Yeah, the screen is my only disappointment so far. We finally get some sunshine in the UK, and it just makes my Kaiser a pain to use outside...

Not transflective????
Sure? Even the TyTN is!

Hi
Positive it's not.
Regards
Phil

Shame
Can't even use it as a sat nav then...

PhilipL said:
Hi
Positive it's not.
Regards
Phil
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry Phil, dont know where did you get this info. I work for a SatNav company and thus, evaluate many devices. Kaiser screen is one of the best I've seen with a very strong backlight. Actually, I checked it today vs. the P3300 and found that it is at list the same if not better. It is great for navigation and in my country there is a little more sunshine than in England

Hi
The Kaiser has a very strong backlight yes, but this isn't the same as being transreflective.
Transreflective means it doesn't need a back light at all in bright light, so the brighter the daylight including the brightest direct sunlight on a transreflective display means it shows up even better.
Working for a satellite navigation company it is disappointing you are not aware of the various LCD screen types as this is important to the suitability of hardware for various uses.
A link that explains the pros/cons is here: http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,104445/article.html
Regards
Phil

Ive been spoiled by the treos ability to be seen well in direct sunlight. I am expecting this to be the only drawback with my Kaiser. Is there a special type of screen protector that may help?

Being NOT transflective, the Kaiser is probably even cheaper to make than the Hermes.
Bloody HTC. (And Toshiba for that matter)

PhilipL said:
Hi
Positive it's not.
Regards
Phil
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
how do you know? ( just wondering what your sources are)
It doesnt make sense that it would not be trasflective... im not sure, but almost all of the other HTC devices seem to be ( the only ones im unsure of are the shift and athena) as well as 99% of other PPCs, smartphones, and PDAs... why would HTC do something that would cut the usefullness of their flagship PPC in half? ...not to mention the number of users it would turn away from the device..

I am not sure you know what the differences are if you think any recent HTC units have this?
Take a look at the Nokia N95, this is transflective.
Kev

I don't claim to be an expert, but the PDAdb site seems to have pretty accurate information and it says the screen is transreflective. here is a link to a comparison I did between the 3 versions of the kaiser (100,110, and 120) alongside this sweet LG KS20:
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=pdacomparer
If you scroll down and look at the specs for the display, it says: "color transflective TFT, 65536 scales" for all 3 models. Is this information wrong?

kevwright said:
I am not sure you know what the differences are if you think any recent HTC units have this?
Take a look at the Nokia N95, this is transflective.
Kev
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
there are different levels of translfective screens... the nokia is likely better out-doors than the HTC, but i know for a fact that my wizard has this.. why wouldnt the kaiser?

It is or it is not............this is the question ..........yet..

Hi
It isn't transreflective. The site http://pdadb.net also shows the Toshiba G900 as being transreflective but it isn't, that site isn't 100% accurate.
I know what a transreflective screen looks like, and I can tell you with 100% certainty the Kaiser doesn't have one. Can you find transreflective mentioned anywhere on the HTC website specifications or in the manual? The answer is no, because it isn't.
Having said that on maximum brightness with the sun on the display it is 'just' about passable, you can make enough out to use it, but no where near as good as it would be if it was transreflective.
Regards
Phil

The G900 and the Kaiser are the most anticipated devices this year.
And neither of them turned out to be transflective!!
God why, why!!!
(Oh well, may wait for the GloFish X800 then)

wywywywy said:
Being NOT transflective, the Kaiser is probably even cheaper to make than the Hermes.
Bloody HTC. (And Toshiba for that matter)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well the science of transreflective or not left to one side for a moment - I find the Kaiser easier to see than the TyTn in sunlight and no problems so far as being satnav goes. In practical terms, I now often use it instead of my Tomtom machine and it's as easy to see and quicker to acquire a signal.
Mike

The hTC site says this about the display:
HTC TyTN II Display: 2.8 inch, 240 X 320 QVGA TFT-LCD display with adjustable angle and backlight
so it definately isn't transreflective.

Well I didn't believe it, but I took the Kaiser and a Hermes outside and guaranteed, the Kaiser is NOT transreflective, Hermes IS.
Mind you the Hermes isn't very good compared to some HP's I've had but you can read it, especially if you have a white background even with the backlight OFF. The Kaiser's display is GONE in full sunlight unless the backlight is full ON, and even then it's faint.
I don't use it often like this, and indoors or in shade it's no problem at all so it's not a deal breaker for me but I'm slightly dissapointed.
Now we know the reason for the backlight going dim vs off when the backlight timer expires, you would see nothing unlike the Hermes which at least was somewhat visible with no backlight.

Performance of the Diamond

Hi,
comparing the Diamond to the Eten X800, what should I expect in terms of performance?
Apart from a slightly slower processor (does the Samsung/Qualcomm fact make a difference?) and only a third of the Diamond's RAM, the two phones are quite similar. So would particularly about the processor, but also generally, would you say the performance of the Diamond would be rather equal, or higher or maybe even less?
Thanks.

Nobody ?

lutent said:
would you say the performance of the Diamond would be rather equal, or higher or maybe even less?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What application you comparing?

rumpleforeskin said:
What application you comparing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No application in particular, just the overall system performance.

all "modern" mobiles with WM are really sluggish... & there is no cure right now, the only cure I know is to get out WM world but today we have still no choice (yep I know there is Adnroid but it isn't working yet)
for what I saw with my eyes the only WM mobile that runs smoother is the "ugly" new Asus P serie

suiller said:
all "modern" mobiles with WM are really sluggish... & there is no cure right now, the only cure I know is to get out WM world but today we have still no choice (yep I know there is Adnroid but it isn't working yet)
for what I saw with my eyes the only WM mobile that runs smoother is the "ugly" new Asus P serie
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
totally agree....

On the compare screen only really points that I can see (from a person who's never used a WM phone before however) the Eten x800 has a higher capacity battery which although is a Li-Ion type when the Diamond contains a superior Li-Poly type battery although the capacity is much lower. Also the Eten has a better GPS chip (SiRF Star III) which has better energy efficiency and better fix apparently.
The Eten x800 does have a 2.0MP camera that will produce smaller photos , a lot less RAM and a 24 Mhz slower processor (which I don't think matters that much?)
Oh yeah and the Eten just looks plain ugly in my opinion
EDIT: and of course it is slightly larger and heavier than the Diamond

lutent said:
Apart from a slightly slower processor (does the Samsung/Qualcomm fact make a difference?) and only a third of the Diamond's RAM,
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not a third, but a half. Diamond has 106MB of real usable memory. 64mb of 192MB are hidden, used by the video system or some kind of bios, it has never been clear.
12mb are used by page pool. Some rom made it smaller, but then performance suffer a lot.
I think all vga devices are under powered today, there is no exception (who said p565?). So all in all, the diamond is a real good phone. Small and not that slow. Battery is that bad, whoever. Don't unplug your usb cable for too long, and keep a car adapter + usb cable with you all time :°)

SAR Radiation level ?

Anyone know what is the SAR radiation level for HTC One ? Haven't been able to find any info online

32GB
Head: 1.26 W/kg
Body: 0.69 W/kg
Product Specific Use: 0.69 W/kg
Simultaneous Transmission:1.58 W/kg
64GB
Head:1.16 W/kg
Body:0.72 W/kg
Product Specific Use: 0.72 W/kg
Simultaneous Transmission:1.45 W/kg

All I know is that in comparison samsung plastic phones never go past 0,4 W/kg even 0.2 on the note 2.

epicfailguy2 said:
All I know is that in comparison samsung plastic phones never go past 0,4 W/kg even 0.2 on the note 2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
S3
--------------------------
Head:0.49 W/kg
Body:1.02 W/kg
Product Specific Use:1.02 W/kg
Simultaneous Transmission:1.58 W/kg
S4
--------------------
Head:0.52 W/kg
Body:1.10 W/kg
Product Specific Use:1.10 W/kg
Simultaneous Transmission:1.58 W/kg
Note2
------------------------
Head:0.17 W/kg
Body:0.40 W/kg
Product Specific Use:0.94 W/kg
Simultaneous Transmission:0.95 W/kg
fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you

I am confused as when i called samsung and on there website for the sprint version its SAR rating are
Head .98 w/kg
body 1.58 w/kg
Where are people getting the lower ratings from?
Also all phones i have looked at the head is lower than body why would the htc one be different
I called them and they only have 1.26 w/kg but dont know if thats head or body
online i find
Head 1.26 w/kg
body .69 w/kg
So these mean that when on the phone your head gets exposed to that much "Heating" or radiation and body is how much your waist gets when holstered to your side?
I am just interested on how these numbers work . To me if the different cell phones are on the same freequency and same distance from a tower it should be similar ratings or they would not get the same signal?? Im just confused on how this works.
I dont see how you can have a lower rating and have the same service?
Thanks for any input on this!

Did you read the link directly above your post? Let me make it hot-clickable for you:
http://www.fcc.gov/guides/specific-absorption-rate-sar-cell-phones-what-it-means-you
Some of those questions are answered there.
Somehow I clicked thanks even though my actual feeling about your post was less than thankful. Anyway welcome to XDA. Now you have one post, and one thanks.

NxNW said:
Did you read the link directly above your post? Let me make it hot-clickable for you:
Some of those questions are answered there.
Somehow I clicked thanks even though my actual feeling about your post was less than thankful. Anyway welcome to XDA. Now you have one post, and one thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didnt mean to make anyone mad i did read that but dont understand how body vs head is opsite what the other phones are? the head is higher than body on the one but the others body is higher!
So all the websites saying look for a lower SAR rating really dont mean anything as thats the max output on the given phone with all freequncys used so it really depends on what carrier you have and freequency is used to find the true reading for the phone!
And SAR dosnt really give real world infor for comparison just because one phones max is hight it might run lower than the phone with a lower max.

Not mad, it just didn't sound like a lot of research had been done first. But I guess you've put some thought into this so I'll lighten up.
All the things you bring up are valid reasons why a single SAR number doesn't help you predict how much radiation you are getting at any given moment.
They are what they are: a way to compare the worst-case performance of two phones.
First paragraph of wikipedia article explains head vs body thing: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_absorption_rate
Sent from my HTC One using xda app-developers app

The maximum difference in SAR level between any two phones is equivalent to a 0.1°C change in ambient temperature*.
Most people wouldn't consider that particularly significant.
*The number is made up, but probably not far off.
Why would anybody care about the SAR level?

Hopefully we won't have any reason to care. But before you sound so smug just remember there's a difference between *expecting* that 100 years of radiation near your body won't hurt anyone and *knowing* that 100 years of radiation near your body didn't hurt anyone. We are running an uncontrolled experiment on the entire population of the earth and there is no real precedent for this. I share your optimism that this will be no big deal. Or if it is, we'll fix it as soon as it becomes clear. Still, we won't *know* how it plays out until we have a generation of kids that grows into old age after having been marinated in this stuff for an entire lifespan.

[Q] How to reduce crazy SAR value?

Hi Guys,
I was surprised that wonderful Moto X has a high SAR value, as you can see with following link it's 1.39 W/kg (head) and 0.50 W/kg (body).
Do you have any idea how it could be decreased?
http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_x-5601.php
Thank you,
Andrey

NayOn said:
Hi Guys,
I was surprised that wonderful Moto X has a high SAR value, as you can see with following link it's 1.39 W/kg (head) and 0.50 W/kg (body).
Do you have any idea how it could be decreased?
http://www.gsmarena.com/motorola_moto_x-5601.php
Thank you,
Andrey
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With proper use. In my opinion there is a recognasable diiference between USA and European or Asian SAR measuring systems. Even for the same phone those two values might be significantly different. And declared values are always peak values. So the phone with better signal power adjusting system might virtualy radiate less than one with lower value declared. Look at the Cninese phones, majority of them have SAR between 0.2 and 0.5. I don't feel that they are really so effective, usually they are technically less progresive that those from main brands and much higher declared SAR. It would be interesting to compare two phones with significantly different SAR in real environment under the same conditions.

You need to look at the detailed specs to know the SAR to expect when you're actually using it. The SAR can change quite a bit depending on band and if wifi hotspot is turned on etc.

Guys,
Thank you for your input!
I had conversation about this with scientist who research domestic emission and it's his opinion that doesn't matter what SAR if you use phone for calls less than 15 minutes per day and it's my case so I purchased phone and will join to MOTO X users since this weekend!!!
Best Regards,
Andrey

SAR value

Isn't there anyone a bit worried about the high SAR value(radiation) of the s10?

Looking at the attached link, there are worse phones.
I haven't had any issues with my S8+, which is similar and both are within allowable limits.
https://www.devicespecifications.com/en/model-sar/f0d64f1d

mab71 said:
Isn't there anyone a bit worried about the high SAR value(radiation) of the s10?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is directly from the FCC,
"ALL cell phones must meet the FCC’s RF exposure standard, which is set at a level well below that at which laboratory testing indicates, and medical and biological experts generally agree, adverse health effects could OCCUR."

Tel864 said:
This is directly from the FCC,
"ALL cell phones must meet the FCC’s RF exposure standard, which is set at a level well below that at which laboratory testing indicates, and medical and biological experts generally agree, adverse health effects could OCCUR."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Worrying? Did you read the post by @Tel864? Level well below that causes health effects. We're fine.
Tel864 said:
This is directly from the FCC,
"ALL cell phones must meet the FCC’s RF exposure standard, which is set at a level well below that at which laboratory testing indicates, and medical and biological experts generally agree, adverse health effects could OCCUR."
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you vegan?

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hold your breath there is carbon monoxide in the air, brace yourself for 5G, oh and the zombie apocalypse is coming
Seriously yes we are living in a toxic world, adapt we must.....

mab71 said:
It must not be 1.6 and above... S10 is 1.5 something... Very near to 1.6... It's now like the oneplus and xiaomi phones. Very worrying trend... Samsung phones used to have the lowest values
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Keep in mind that those values are from tests conducted on mice and according to some experts, you would have to keep the phone to your ear 10 hours a day for months to even have a chance of getting harmful radiation.
One warning though, I would keep you mouse off the phone as much a possible because we know how they love to talk.

Tel864 said:
Keep in mind that those values are from tests conducted on mice and according to some experts, you would have to keep the phone to your ear 10 hours a day for months to even have a chance of getting harmful radiation.
One warning though, I would keep you mouse off the phone as much a possible because we know how they love to talk.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any link to verify this?

Non ionizing radiation, yeah not concerned. The only way cellular radiation hurts you is the warning it can cause, and the power levels needed are orders of magnitude larger to appreciably raise your tissues temperature.

I think u guys don't know about the exynos versions... All of them have near the limit values..

European Union - 2.0
US - 1.6
If the numbers bother you then don't buy the phone. It's been deemed safe because those numbers are well below the danger levels. If the phone is taped to your head then you have a problem, if not, the sky isn't falling and the phone is safe.

Tel864 said:
European Union - 2.0
US - 1.6
If the numbers bother you then don't buy the phone. It's been deemed safe because those numbers are well below the danger levels. If the phone is taped to your head then you have a problem, if not, the sky isn't falling and the phone is safe.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
U act as if u know everything... The radiation levels indicated are not only for head but also body distance from the phone.. So if people play games for hours or put the phone in their pockets for a long time there is bound to be some effect.
Nobody's asking u not to buy the phone... It's your head and body. No need to talk about the sky falling.

mab71 said:
U act as if u know everything... The radiation levels indicated are not only for head but also body distance from the phone.. So if people play games for hours or put the phone in their pockets for a long time there is bound to be some effect.
Nobody's asking u not to buy the phone... It's your head and body. No need to talk about the sky falling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But again, it's non-ionizing radiation. You would get more of this type of radiation living close to an airport than having the phone in your pocket.

mab71 said:
I think u guys don't know about the exynos versions... All of them have near the limit values..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was surprised to see this but to my another surprise huawei is doing so good with huawei mate 20 pro with sar value of head:0.40, body:0.96
Even the p30 pro has head:0.67, body:0.99 which is well below the limit. Samsung is just getting greedy their phones have head sar low but body sar is way too high.
Looking forward to s11, note 10, mate 30 pro
---------- Post added at 04:08 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:06 PM ----------
mab71 said:
U act as if u know everything... The radiation levels indicated are not only for head but also body distance from the phone.. So if people play games for hours or put the phone in their pockets for a long time there is bound to be some effect.
Nobody's asking u not to buy the phone... It's your head and body. No need to talk about the sky falling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
100% agree :good: