Speculative: Lumia 1030 specs leak

[Nodar Sixarulidze]

Lumia 1820 = 1030: 5.2'' QHD /QSD805/3GB RAM/3400mAh/Lytrocamera and Visio pureview cam"

https://twitter.com/NextLeaks

 

[Zulfigar]

Don't fall for it. NextLeaks is the same account that rudely came up with the 1820 that's never coming.

 

[Salauddin Ahmed]

1030 =

4 gb ram

64 bit intel pocess 2.5 ghz Hexa core ( 6)

50 mp cam lytro front 5 mp

fingerprint sensor

5.2 inch 6 mm thin

 

[manicottiK]

Why not 16 GB RAM with a 50mp lytro front and back? Why not make it negative 6mm thin so that putting it in your pocket makes you thinner?

The point that I'm trying to make is that typing a higher integer for each component isn't actually a plan. Microsoft and every other company must try to fit in the most technology that they can within three common constraints: price, power, and space.

 

[jh20001]

hmmm...I heard it was going to have a cold fusion energy core. Lithium is so yesterday. Also available with or without contract for only $99, screen with be touch immersive for 3d texturing, and it will feature a built-in 40-inch pico projector and Dolby Atmos sound via it's 3.5mm jack.


.....I'd buy one

 

[Ma Rio]

These leaks get more ridiculous each day.

I don't think MS is stupid enough to put a QHD screen just because others did it. They know it's preety much useless, even worse than useless because it drains the battery way faster.
And dear God, a Lytro cam? Again with that thing?

 

[Beijendorf]

These leaks get more ridiculous each day.

I don't think MS is stupid enough to put a QHD screen just because others did it. They know it's preety much useless, even worse than useless because it drains the battery way faster.
And dear God, a Lytro cam? Again with that thing?

There's nothing especially ridiculous about those claims. Microsoft will need to keep up with the competition in terms of specifications if they want to sell devices, and they know it. So a screen with QHD resolution is reasonable for upcoming flagships, just like their step from 768p to 1080p was expected, even though that step was seen as "pointless" by many die-hard fans who defended Nokia falling behind the specification-race.

As for the "Lytro cam" claims, that's a commonly used faulty term for plenoptic and light-field cameras.

In 2013, the Nokia Growth Partners invested in Pelican Imaging, a company building a plenoptic camera module for mobile devices. Reports around this time was that devices with the imaging system would come in 2014. A year later, during CES 2014, Pelican Imaging CEO Chris Pickett instead said they expected to be part of devices arriving during Q1-Q2 2015. So while the expected date of release has been moved, the idea is not taken out of thin air.

Pelican Imaging also recently released some interactive images showcasing their technology, so they are certainly coming close to being ready for commercial release, even if they need to polish their software.

With all that being said, NextLeaks has a 0 % accuracy in its leaks and has deleted all of the posted tweets that have already been shown as false. So don't trust anything from that channel.

 

[MerlotC]

Whatever specs may be, I just hope that the rumor that there is going to be a 1020 successor is true. My contract is up in November (currently have a 920) and so far I don't see anything I really want for my next phone.

 

[valentin nikolli]

50 mp camera with multi sensors
Octa core 2.5 GH snap 810
4G ram
Fingerprint
Waterprof
And super thin ( 6 mm )

 

[jh20001]

50 mp camera with multi sensors
Octa core 2.5 GH snap 810
4G ram
Fingerprint
Waterprof
And super thin ( 6 mm )

​lol, now we can print wall murals!

 

[muvig]

I am also waiting for the successor of 1020, but with an sd card better battery as well as a good processor to match that camera.
I will definitely buy that phone no matter how much it will cost

 

[a5cent]

So a screen with QHD resolution is reasonable for upcoming flagships, just like their step from 768p to 1080p was expected, even though that step was seen as "pointless" by many die-hard fans who defended Nokia falling behind the specification-race.

It may be necessary, but it definitely isn't reasonable. Just like 1080p screens on sub 5" display's is also unreasonable. At least for me, that has nothing to do with defending Nokia, but with defending reason (and more importantly, battery life on smartphones)

Interestingly enough, Apple has no problems ignoring these spec based pissing-contests. Yet everyone agrees that iPhone's have great displays, despite not being 1080p. That just goes to show that such is possible.

This is one of the few areas where I wish MS was more like Apple. The only thing holding Apple back is their unwillingness to make slightly larger phones that can also house larger batteries.

Anyway, the whole 1820 rumor has always been BS, and anything attached to it likely is as well.

 

[AymanWP93]

I'm pretty much sure that the 1030 will be announced during the CES( and will be the first phone with Update 2 included )
Here's my predictions:
- Snapdragon 805 ( i don't think the 810 will be there since the first phones with 808/810 will be out in Sprinf 2015 )
- 2 GB RAM
- from 5'0 to 5'2 with 1080p resolution ( I dont think we'll see 1440p phones before Threshold ) . I really hope it will be LCD IPS ( I never understood why the 1020 was AMOLED , AMOLED saturates colors a lot , it does not show natural and real colors. That's a downside for what is considered a photophone. It should have LCD IPS which is more natural.
- 32 Gb with SD Card ( The lack of SD Card is probably the biggest problem of the 1020 : when each of your pictures takes 40 Mo , it can really be a mess. )
- At least 2800 mAH battery
- A thinner body ( less than 10mm if possible) , the 1020 is 13mm thick
- USB 3.0 ( like S5/Note 3 ) to be able to get photos to your computer very fast.

CONCERNING THE BIGGEST POINT : THE CAMERA.
I don't think that the 1030 needs more Megapixels. 41MP is plenty. If they could make it even greater , it will be good , but i have other priorities.
- A Faster Shutter Speed. That's essential because taking photos is not only about capturing the maximum of details but also about taking the good shot. For the 1020 , you have to wait between 2 and 3 seconds to take the next shot, which can be dramatic if you want to take an action picture. ( There's the action focus and the burst mode of course , but these two also reduces a lot the picture quality.
- A Faster processing : The image should be
- Faster Auto/Manual Focus : The Focus of the 1020 is pretty slow. The S4 focus in less than 0.3s , the iPhone 5S in 0.6s while the 1020 focuses in 1s , even beaten by the Lumia 920 ( 0.6s) .
- 4K video recording : With it's massive sensor , i don't see why the 1020 can't record 4K videos , i really hope that the 1030 will allow it.
- 60/120 FPS recording : I really hope that we will be able to record at least at 60 fps for 1080p videos ( 30 fps max now )
- Better Manual Focus/ Depth of Field : I really hope that MS will make the DoF even more impressive on the 1030.

 

[Beijendorf]

It may be necessary, but it definitely isn't reasonable. Just like 1080p screens on sub 5" display's is also unreasonable. At least for me, that has nothing to do with defending Nokia, but with defending reason (and more importantly, battery life on smartphones)

Interestingly enough, Apple has no problems ignoring these spec based pissing-contests. Yet everyone agrees that iPhone's have great displays, despite not being 1080p. That just goes to show that such is possible.

This is one of the few areas where I wish MS was more like Apple. The only thing holding Apple back is their unwillingness to make slightly larger phones that can also house larger batteries.

I meant 'reasonable' in terms of what's reasonable to expect, not what's reasonable from a purely technical perspective. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

The debate about whether a resolution of 2560x1440 is necessary or not for mobile devices is a lengthy one. There are both pros and cons on both sides of the argument.
As you mention, higher resolutions typically mean a higher power drain. Newer SoCs and screen technologies mitigate this issue however, placing them in the same or even lower brackets of power consumption. The same argument was used during the jump from 720p screens to 1080p screens, yet handsets keep getting better battery life. Perhaps the newer display technologies would have made the FHD screens even more effective, but that's something I can't find sources for.

Are the QHD screens useless on 5-6" devices then? Well, we're probably nearing a point where higher resolution won't offer much in terms of usefulness, but comparisons where there's both an FHD and a QHD-variant of a device available, there's still a notable difference when you look closely. One could argue that this improved quality and sharpness is of some import on a camera flagship where the photographer may want to see the minute details in the shot by carefully inspecting the image on the screen.


As for Apple, they're in a league of their own thanks to their marketing strategy of being a status symbol. They don't need to join the specification race (yet) in the same way fashion clothing doesn't have to be functional or expensive Rolex watches don't have to have to do anything other than tell the time. Microsoft can't afford the luxury of doing what's reasonable from a technical perspective instead of doing what's reasonable from a marketing psychology perspective. As detailed by a professor in psychology and behavioural economics, Dan Ariely, buying expensive products such as flagship handsets is what's know as a "high-involvement decision". During high-involvement decisions, consumers are taking a perceptually higher risk. As such, they are going to fall back to a psychological concept known as "extended problem solving", which includes closely comparing details and specifications with competitors products in order to get the highest-value product for their money.

Lastly, I've only seen the iPhone receive high marks for colour reproduction and brightness on their screen. Both are important aspects, but as this discussion is about resolution, I'll argue that a higher resolution could be desired. Especially as reviewers have noted pixelation in the iPhone 5S which is not present in higher-resolution handsets.

 

[a5cent]

The same argument was used during the jump from 720p screens to 1080p screens, yet handsets keep getting better battery life. Perhaps the newer display technologies would have made the FHD screens even more effective, but that's something I can't find sources for.

This isn't a valid argument.

Assuming the same battery capacity, and displays that are identical in all measures except resolution, devices with 720p displays last between 5% to 10% longer than their 1080p counterparts. As you say, nobody can argue that the industry isn't making progress on the power consumption front, but those gains are almost always sacrificed in other areas, one of the main culprits being display resolution.

Nevertheless, I agree that smartphones on average last longer than, say, two years ago, but that is not due to said changes, but despite them. If you compare phones with similar battery capacities, from today and two years ago, you'll see that the modern devices last no longer than they did back then. If that is how we measure progress, then we've long stalled. The reason smartphones overall seem to last longer today, is due to the shift in what is considered to be an acceptably sized smartphone. Larger phones can accommodate larger batteries with larger capacities. That is all.

My point is that instead of sacrificing the power consumption gains made in some areas for largely useless resolution improvements, I think we'd all be better off if those gains instead materialized in the form of (largely useful) longer battery life (disclaimer: all statements in this post apply only to displays < 5"). I'd really like a smartphone that lasts a whole weekend without having to recharge. That isn't technically impossible, but it is if consumers continue to allow things like display resolution and camera MP count to be the primary measures of quality, when they clearly aren't.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that some folks love the specs race just for the sake of technology itself. Nothing wrong with that. It's not that I don't want people to have such choices. It's just that I'd also like a more reasonable option as well. An option that combines "high-end everything" with a focus on maximizing the truly useful specs of a device, rather than just those which are most marketable and simple to scale year over year (i.e. display resolution and camera sensor MP count), because they only require comparatively simple manufacturing process improvements, rather than more clever engineering.

Lastly, I've only seen the iPhone receive high marks for colour reproduction and brightness on their screen. Both are important aspects, but as this discussion is about resolution, I'll argue that a higher resolution could be desired. Especially as reviewers have noted pixelation in the iPhone 5S which is not present in higher-resolution handsets.

Yes, and the human eye is far more sensitive to color reproduction and brightness than it is to resolution. Both of those properties are far more important than achieving 500 PPI. Anyway, I did a quick search in the article you linked to, and this is what I found:

"Both screens are sharp. The One M8 is sharper, and if you set both phones side-by-side, you'll notice a little bit of a pixel density difference (the One packs 35 percent extra pixels into each inch). But I don't think this is big enough of a difference to base your decision on. You won't find any distracting pixelation of text or images on either phone." :wink:

Just to put that in perspective:

[table="width: 500"]
[tr]
[td]Device[/td]
[td]Resolution[/td]
[td]Pixels[/td]
[td]Pixels per second at 30 FPS[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]iPhone 5S[/td]
[td]640 x 1136[/td]
[td]727'040[/td]
[td]21'811'200[/td]
[/tr]
[tr]
[td]HTC One[/td]
[td]1080 x 1920[/td]
[td]2'073'600[/td]
[td]62'208'000[/td]
[/tr]
[/table]

As you can see, the notion that 1080p is noticeably superior to the iPhone's 640p, results in purchasing a device that is forced to draw over 40 million pixels more per second on the display. That isn't peanuts! That is the cause of a 60% heavier workload, for what the article you linked to calls "not big enough of a difference to base your decision on". The only thing holding the iPhone back is its comparatively small (okay, pathetically tiny) 1500 mAh battery, compared to the HTC One's 2600 mAh battery. Also note that despite the HTC One having a 73% larger battery, it loses every battery life test to the iPhone 5S except one. The only test the HTC One wins is the cellular talk time test, where the display is off.

Source

If more people were aware of this, I think many would love a phone that combines the huge batteries found in Android devices, with Apple's focus on what matters most. That truly would be an awesome device, and make for a much better 1030.

 

[Beijendorf]

This isn't a valid argument.

Assuming the same battery capacity, and displays that are identical in all measures except resolution, devices with 720p displays last between 5% to 10% longer than their 1080p counterparts. As you say, nobody can argue that the industry isn't making progress on the power consumption front, but those gains are almost always sacrificed in other areas, one of the main culprits being display resolution.

Nevertheless, I agree that smartphones on average last longer than, say, two years ago, but that is not due to said changes, but despite them. If you compare phones with similar battery capacities, from today and two years ago, you'll see that the modern devices last no longer than they did back then.

I've been trying to find sources for the sake of defending your claim, but fail to find any truly comparable devices. The problem here is that the processor is the key ingredient for how much power drain a certain display resolution will cause, and each new step in resolution usually also bring a next-generation SoC. The closest devices I can find is the HTC One (M7) and the Moto X:

Moto X (4.7" 720p, Snapdragon S4, 2200 mAh):
Web browsing: 8:17h
Video playback: 10:01h
Talk-time: 14:06h

HTC One (M7) (4.7" 1080p, Snapdragon 600, 2300 mAh):
Web browsing: 9:58h
Video playback: 10:02h
Talk-time: 13:38h

In the GSMArena battery test, the 1080p screen actually came out on top, in spite of only having a marginally better processor and 100 mAh extra. As you say, and as is only logical, an HTC One (M7) with a 720p screen would likely have lasted even longer. I'm just trying to highlight that technical innovation removes many of the drawbacks.

Among more comparable devices, the Samsung Galaxy S5 vs the Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE-A:

Web browsing (hours, WiFi):
Samsung Galaxy S5: 10.2
Samsung Galaxy S5 LTE-A: 10.3

Again, the improvements in the SoC seem to show the higher processing load causes a negligible battery drain compared to previous generations. Then again, as you note, the processor having to deal with a far higher pixel count means the performance is stagnating due to having to handle the QHD screen, placing it on par with previous generation SoCs. With each new generation of SoC, the difference between a 1080p and a 1440p display on processing power and battery drain should near zero.

If that is how we measure progress, then we've long stalled. The reason smartphones overall seem to last longer today, is due to the shift in what is considered to be an acceptably sized smartphone. Larger phones can accommodate larger batteries with larger capacities. That is all.

My point is that instead of sacrificing the power consumption gains made in some areas for largely useless resolution improvements, I think we'd all be better off if those gains instead materialized in the form of (largely useful) longer battery life (disclaimer: all statements in this post apply only to displays < 5"). I'd really like a smartphone that lasts a whole weekend without having to recharge. That isn't technically impossible, but it is if consumers continue to allow things like display resolution and camera MP count to be the primary measures of quality, when they clearly aren't.

This isn't really fair to say. Smartphone manufacturers take battery endurance into consideration for every prototype of a phone they make, where any improvement that would lead to an unacceptably short battery life is scrapped. I want to remember battery drain was one of the reasons the Nokia Lumia 1020 didn't receive a quad core processor.

Rather than considering we've stalled, imagine the battery in a smartphone being similar to a fuel tank in a car. Sure, we could remove ACC, radio, powered steering, etc in order to have the fuel tank last longer. Or we can have a fuel tank that last most people through their everyday travels and include all the extra gear on top. Having 1-2 days of battery life is sufficient for most people, and the rest can always bring a portable charger, replacement battery, recharging cable or simply buy a simpler phone.

Don't get me wrong. I understand that some folks love the specs race just for the sake of technology itself. Nothing wrong with that. It's not that I don't want people to have such choices. It's just that I'd also like a more reasonable option as well. An option that combines "high-end everything" with a focus on maximizing the truly useful specs of a device, rather than just those which are most marketable and simple to scale year over year (i.e. display resolution and camera sensor MP count), because they only require comparatively simple manufacturing process improvements, rather than more clever engineering.

Yes, and the human eye is far more sensitive to color reproduction and brightness than it is to resolution. Both of those properties are far more important than achieving 500 PPI.

If more people were aware of this, I think many would love a phone that combines the huge batteries found in Android devices, with Apple's focus on what matters most. That truly would be an awesome device, and make for a much better 1030.

The day manufacturers try to push 4K-displays to consumers, I'll be the first one to call them out for being the obvious marketing gimmick it is. We are truly reaching a point of diminishing return, but we're not quite there yet with FHD displays at 5".

AnandTech published an article on human vision and display resolutions recently, which seemed to verify that we need about 600 PPI in order to no longer see aliasing. This just about corresponds to a 2560x1440 resolution on a 4.9" display. They seem to agree that an argument could be held for having a QHD resolutions on smartphones, while anything higher (i.e. 4K resolutions) would be purely for marketing purposes and offer no advantages to consumers. So having a 5.2" QHD screen on an imaging flagship makes sense as long as it doesn't offer serious drawbacks like hefty colour inaccuracies or low outdoor visibility.

Slightly off-topic to the post but I have to respond: As to what our eyes are sensitive to, our fovea centralis (central point on the retina containing the highest density of cones) is most sensitive to details, not colours and brightness. The peripheral vision having a higher density of rods is what's highly sensitive to light and motion. Colour vision in humans is far from our strength with around 8 % of the worlds male population being colourblind. The colour vision we do have is also largely based on individual genetics and is highly contrast dependent (the brown on top and orange on the side is the same colour). It is highly important that a screen on a camera or cameraphone offer accurate and consistent colour reproductions which correspond to the colours during print or during viewing on a high-quality display though, regardless of individual variability in human vision.

So in conclusion, I think we're basically on the same page. I agree that any improvement that offer negligible advantages at the cost of other functional aspects should be avoided at all cost. We just don't seem to be in agreement whether QHD displays on imaging flagships constitutes just that.

Edit: I should mention that Sony recently made the very same point you are making here when defending their decision to go with a 1080p screen on their Sony Xperia Z3 flagship.

 

[CyberAngel_777]

Miracast anyone?
Monitors typically don't have it. The resolutions 2560x1440/1600 are *not* TV compatible

Almost every home and office nowadays has a 1080p TV
That's the standard I'm using: everything 1920x1080 - TV, laptop, tablet, phone, PC

I'll skip the QHD for UHD
In the next five years UHD = 3840x2160 will grow popular
At some point I'll switch to UHD
One FHD frame is about 2.1 MP (2073600) looks ok in a TV
One UHD frame is about 8.3 MP (8294400) looks ok also in print