Results 1 to 11 of 11
  1.    #1  
    Someone mentioned on this board that the screen of the 600 was DEFINATELY going to have the color depth of the 300, i.e. 12 bit color instead of the industry standard 16 bit.

    To me, that seems impossible. With an imbedded camera, I can't see how Handspring could do that. It just seems like a giant step backwards, and it would be a deal killer for me.

    To anyone who knows for sure, is the color depth on the 600 12bit or 16bit?

    (like 160x160 wasn't bad enough)
  2. #2  
    Display depth does not imply picture-taking depth.

    (nor does display resolution imply picture-taking resolution)
  3. #3  
  4.    #4  
    Wow, I really don't want to believe it, but I guess its true!

    BTW, its understood that camera color depth does not equal display color depth. However, speaking from a common sense standpoint, why would you put a camera on a phone and have your screen be so limited? Especially, given the fact that the camera is of such low quality that viewing on a standard monitor yields less then optimal results?

    Clearly, the designers wanted the phone itself to be the main device for viewing photos taken with the treo. Yet they chose 4k color? To me, this is a waste. Most color information will be lost. Why not have the camera's color depth match the phone's, yielding the same results on the phone's screen, and knock some $ off the sticker? Viewing images on a standard computer screen is going to be bad either way. What else is there, email and MMS? Great. My photos look better on your phone than it does on the one I took it on. Or just get rid of the thing completely. I don't need it anyway.

    Sorry for the rant, but I was sure I'd found a device that was suitable for my needs. Now I'm going to have to see one in person before I buy one. (Just when I had gotten over 160x160 and bluetooth, too.)
    Last edited by ardint; 09/21/2003 at 01:44 PM.
  5. #5  
    Personally I'm not too concerned by the low colour depth for a number of reasons:
    1. On a screen of that physical size, I don't think anyone will notice the difference between 4k and 65k colours.
    2. I'm buying the device for the phone and PDA functions, not viewing images - if I want to do that, I'll use my laptop and have a proper sized display.
    3. For displaying information by colour in applications such as DateBook, or database applications, 256 colours would be sufficient, let alone 3375 colours.
    4. I've just spent 4 years with a grey scale Visor. After that, any kind of colour is a luxury.

    I will admit that a higher resolution display would be nice, but after reading reports of Handspring testing a 320x320 display, and reducing the battery life by 35%, it's a sacrifice I'm willing to make.
  6. #6  
    Originally posted by kmwmtd
    Personally I'm not too concerned by the low colour depth for a number of reasons:
    1. On a screen of that physical size, I don't think anyone will notice the difference between 4k and 65k colours.
    I could notice the difference on a Sprint A500 and A600 (4096 vs. 65k). Those screens are much smaller than PDA screens
  7.    #7  
    True, I don't use my treo 300 for images. However, I'm not buying the "35% decrease" line they are feeding us. It seems too outrageous, given the battery life of similar handhelds like the tungsten, (900mAh), compared to the 600 (1800mAh). For comparison, the 300 is a 850mAh battery. Granted, the TT isn't a cell phone, but does the cell radio really eat that much juice? Why is it that regular cell phones have much better talk time? Sounds like spin to me...

    The point is, the screen was one of the weakest points of the original treo line. Right under battery life, lack of SD (which the 90 even had) and processor speed. To me, form factor comes after all of these things. Give me the 600 in a 300's case with High Res and I'll take it any day of the week.

    In the end, I'll probably still upgrade. I guess the most frustrating part is that I am sooooo close to eliminating the need to have a laptop completely, but it'll have to wait until the next line of Treos come out.
  8. #8  
    Originally posted by ardint
    True, I don't use my treo 300 for images. However, I'm not buying the "35% decrease" line they are feeding us. It seems too outrageous, given the battery life of similar handhelds like the tungsten, (900mAh), compared to the 600 (1800mAh). For comparison, the 300 is a 850mAh battery. Granted, the TT isn't a cell phone, but does the cell radio really eat that much juice? Why is it that regular cell phones have much better talk time? Sounds like spin to me...

    The point is, the screen was one of the weakest points of the original treo line. Right under battery life, lack of SD (which the 90 even had) and processor speed. To me, form factor comes after all of these things. Give me the 600 in a 300's case with High Res and I'll take it any day of the week.

    In the end, I'll probably still upgrade. I guess the most frustrating part is that I am sooooo close to eliminating the need to have a laptop completely, but it'll have to wait until the next line of Treos come out.
    Addressing the processor speed, Palm OS4 didn't really need that much muscle to be efficient.

    Addressing the images, I would think (or hope) the screen would be pretty decent since they've been touting features like photo caller ID and the built in camera.

    Addressing the battery life, there aren't many CDMA (Sprint) phones that offer spectacular battery life, with 3 hrs being average out the box (not including extended batteries).
  9. #9  
    I have never had trouble with the battery life of my 300. I tend to charge it overnight every few days, while using it extensively. About the screen, can we just stop discussing the hi-res issue? I think that by far that is themost dissapointing lack on the 600, but do we have to refer to it every post? I have hi-res sony clie and it is BEAUTIFUL. But anyways, I really hope that the 600 s 16bit, because pictures on my 300 look sooooo bad. There is my rant.
    "Matters of great concern should be taken lightly, matters of small concern should be taken seriously."
    -ancient chinese adage
  10. #10  
    Originally posted by mwylde
    I really hope that the 600 s 16bit, because pictures on my 300 look sooooo bad. There is my rant.
    Agreed. That's one of my greater fears.
    Last edited by Jaggrey; 09/21/2003 at 11:31 PM.
  11. #11  
    Originally posted by mwylde
    I have never had trouble with the battery life of my 300. I tend to charge it overnight every few days, while using it extensively. About the screen, can we just stop discussing the hi-res issue? I think that by far that is themost dissapointing lack on the 600, but do we have to refer to it every post? I have hi-res sony clie and it is BEAUTIFUL. But anyways, I really hope that the 600 s 16bit, because pictures on my 300 look sooooo bad. There is my rant.
    I have had trouble with the battery life of my Treo 270. Not often mind you but when you find yourself standing outsde an emergency room at 1 AM having to call a bunch of relatives to let them know what just happened -- not to mention a cab -- a low battery warning can give you pause. So I'll take battery life over resolution and color depth any day.

    For me it's a relatively simple equation, I've gone from a Visor Deluxe with only four grayscale colors to a Palm IIIc with 256 to a Visor Prism with 65,000 to a Treo 270 with 4,000. With each PDA came a corresponding drop in battery life until the Treo which was a good compromise between battery life and color. I'm hoping the Treo 600 is also an improvement in terms of battery life as well. A great screen would be nice but I already know it will be 12-bit and that's fine with me as I also know it will be much brighter and sharper.

    For me, the only real disappointment with the Treo 600's screen would be if it turned out that it too washes out as badly in sunlight as the 270's screen did -- if that doesn't happen, I'll be happy.

Posting Permissions