Expert: Werner "Menneisyys" Ruotsalainen

• As many of you already know, the long-awaited, high-end, albeit “disconnected” HP iPAQ 21x series is out - currently, the only (standalone) PDA to have a 4", good-quality (if they use the same, excellent screen as in the predecessor, the hx4700 – that is, not a cr*ppy one, heavily suffering from severe polarization issues like the one in the Dell Axim x50v/x51v) VGA screen – at a pretty nice price point, compared to the high-end PDA phones of, say, HTC.

  Some (not all – see for example THIS) of the initial discussions talked about the new, high-end, 210-series being based on the PXA320 CPU, the best of the new, Marvel PXA3x0 series. This is why I really was looking forward to this device - after all, it would have been the very first VGA device to sport a PXA320.

  Currently, there is only one Windows Mobile model out there with the PXA320, the LG KC1, but it's just an, in my opinion, pretty much mediocre QVGA phone - really nothing to write home about (no 4” VGA and it’s Korean and WM5-only – and I don’t know of “hacked”, “cooked” ROM’s making it English – albeit I haven’t searched XDA-Devs for more info), except for the high (806 MHz) CPU clock, which can come VERY handy when running for example emulators like Masterall's excellent FinalBurn, the various SNES or GBA emulators or Mplayer playing back HTTP RealAudio streams, all requiring as much processing power as possible.

  Using the new PXA320 instead of the 310 would have been a decent decision. Not only because of the higher CPU clock (and, therefore, the higher maximal speed) and other goodies like the large(r) cache, but also because of the seemingly superior video decoding capabilities, which help a lot with decoding for example full (not just “plain” 640-wide VGA), that is, PAL/NTSC-resolution (720 pixels wide) H.264 videos (please consult the just-linked H.264 Bible if you don’t but would like to understand this paragraph). Incidentally, the H.264 PXA320 is so powerful that it’s even rumored to be able to decode 720p (that is, 1280*720) H.264 videos on even an underpowered Pocket PC (!!) without problems. Quite a feat, isn’t it? Not that there would be any point in watching 1280*720 videos on a 640*480 (or, at most, 800*480) screen – let alone the huge storage requirements of these x264 files, which, in many cases, exceed the file size capabilities (4096 Mbytes at most) of the FAT32 file system used on current cards (because, initially, they were designed for NTFS or other file systems capable of much bigger files).

  However, HP’s decision for going with the clearly worse 310 is pretty much understandable (considering the price difference between the two CPU’s) and acceptable – as long as you resize & reconvert your H.264 videos to be no wider than 640 pixels. Then, assuming CorePlayer (the premium video player for all major mobile platforms) indeed, as is promised HERE, receives support for WMMX in version 1.2, you’ll see a dramatic increase in decoding efficiency of at least inferior video formats like MPEG-1 and MPEG-4 Part 2 (a.k.a. DivX / Xvid; not to be mistaken for the much more advanced H.264 / AVC!). This subject, by the way, is also thoroughly discussed HERE – I really recommend sonichedgehog360’s posts in there.

  Note that, currently, the CorePlayer folks only promise WMMX support (which, again, doesn’t help with decoding H.264). That is, no hardware H.264 decoding support has been announced. They have stated they will announce if and, if it’s possible at all, when this kind of support is added to CorePlayer after the release of CorePlayer 1.2. This means don’t run out to purchase the new iPAQ if you’re a H.264 buff: CorePlayer may not receive H.264 hardware decoding support at all.

  Of course, even if no H.264 hardware decoding support is added to CorePlayer, the new CPU platform is still vastly superior to the old, PXA270 platform. Just take a look at THIS and THIS (the PXA310 and PXA320 specs, respectively). Note that some of the online comparisons are plain useless. For example, the PXA310 quick summary HERE doesn’t even mention WMMX2 or H.264 hardware acceleration support (as opposed to the PXA320 quick summary HERE). The above-linked PDF files, on the other hand, contain much more dependable information.

  Otherwise, the device is pretty nice and the fact that it is no longer based on a touchpad (as opposed to the predecessor, the hx4700) makes it much more usable in everyday situations (for example, gaming, e-book reading or Web browsing using the D-pad). It also sports USB host capabilities, which, unfortunately, is a very-very rare feature among current Windows Mobile models and was REALLY useful on the Fujitsu-Siemens (RIP!) Pocket Loox series (for example, the most versatilye WM2003SE device ever, the Loox 720) and some other models like the Toshiba e750+ - and some current ones like the (otherwise, isn’t that nice) Toshiba G900.

Read more!

DPReview has just published their Fujifilm Finepix F31fd review.

All I can say is WOWZ! It's certainly worth checking it out. The low-light performance of the camera is unbelievably good - way better than any CCD-based supercompact. Furthermore, it produces really sharp pictures.

Too bad its zoom range is a boring 36-108 mm equiv. No wide angle zoom... Also, it's pretty bad at purple fringing too.

Now I really don't know which camera to choose (I want to go for supercompacts because of the size): the cheaper but xD-based F31fd or the Canon SD900 Digital ELPH (IXUS 900 Ti). Or, should I just stick to my slow but really cheap (no problem if it gets lost / stolen / damaged) HP R717 and wait for a camera with REAL wide angle, preferably optical image stabilization and preferably with the same quality sensor+lens combination as the F31fd or the IXUS 900 Ti? Your opinions?

DPReview, the premier resource of dependable digicam reviews, has just published their review of the latest Canon (in its category, high-end), 6 Mpixel point-and-shoot camera with built-in optical image stabilization (and 4x optical zoom), the SD 700 IS.

The article, among other things, directly compares the new model to the latest and most appealing direct competitors; for example, the Pana FX01 (see this) and is very happy with the results.

According to the article, the IS system is very nice, the purple fringing problem, marring most earlier PowerShot models is finally fixed. So is the case of the corner softness of earlier PowerShot models.

Unfortunately, SPReview has't tested/commented on one of the biggest problems with (earlier) Canon PowerShot cameras, the overexposure problem. Its battery life, as with earlier Canon PowerShot cameras, isn't spectacular so you'll most probably end up getting some additional rechargeable batteries.

Some other stuff the article hasn't commented on:

1. the 173,000-pixel-LCD, while, at last, is a step in the right direction (the SD500 only had 115,000 pixels), it could still have more pixels like, for example, the Pana FX01. Yeah, I know some new cameras have even worse LCD's (for example, the Sony H2 only has a 85,000-pixel one - it's only its EVF that has high resolution); I'd still welcome a slightly better LCD screen
2. it still only has a mono mike, while some Sony consumer-grade digital cameras (for example, the M1 and the M2) have stereo audio recording capabilities. This (or, even better, 5.1 sound) is what I'm really missing from today's (consumer) digital cameras. (Better) consumer video cameras have had stereo sound for over 20 years.
3. the lens system is the "standard" Canon 4x 35-140mm equiv. I wonder if they come up with a decent below-30 equiv. wide-angle lens system some time (some other consumer point-and-shoot cameras do have it - for example, the above-mentioned Pana FX01 (28mm equiv.)) - I'd certainly welcome it.

All in all, the article finds the camera extremely good and reliable; so do I (at least based on the results).

HP Photosmart R717

I've just bought a HP Photosmart R717 digicam (my last digicam, a R707, was stolen last December on the Helsinki-Iisalmi night bus) because of its low price (I don't want to pay more than, say, $300 for an ultracompact because significantly more expensive ultracompacts still have very bad low-light performance – then, why buy an expensive one if I can get a DSLR-like Sony R1 for double the price with an excellent 24 equiv. wide-angle lens and pretty good low-light peformance?) and because I've already had the peripherals and a spare battery for the R707, which are all compatible with the R717.

I was pleasantly surprised, particularly taking into account the, at first, really negative cnet review (the review has been edited in the meantime; now, it's much more positive. I certainly didn't know this fact when I went out shopping - so, I was really afraid of getting a really bad camera, as was the case with almost all HP cameras before the R707).

Read more!