More Praise for the Creative Zen Vision:M

[Chris Gohlke]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/1832/creative_zen_visionm' target='_blank'>http://www.ehomeupgrade.com/entry/1832/creative_zen_visionm</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Although the Zen was considerably bulkier than the new iPod, it appears that bulk is not without its merits. Whereas the new iPod's battery dies after about 1.5 to 2 hours of video playback, the Zen hangs in for twice the amount of time - coming in at just around 4 hours of video playback. The same battery will give you about 12 hours of audio playback with moderate LCD usage. When it comes to file format support, the Vision:M has the iPod beat hands down. In short, if your video files are encoded in DivX or Xvid and don't exceed 720x576 resolution, you don't need to worry about re-encoding them. Creative also threw in support for MPEG-1/2/4, WMV9 and Motion-JPEG, although WMV support appears to be somewhat buggy with the shipped firmware."</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/creative_zen_vision_m.jpg" /><br /><br />Another positive review for the Zen Vision: M. Even though it is too late for the holiday shopping season, creative needs to strike while the iron is hot and start advertising this thing. They don't seem to realize that when competing against the iPod juggernaut, you need more than just a great product.

[Tim Williamson]

The interface looks nicer than the iPod's, I'm wondering if it pulls the album art from the ID3 tag though (unlike the iPod)?

[Macguy59]

The interface looks nicer than the iPod's, I'm wondering if it pulls the album art from the ID3 tag though (unlike the iPod)?

Agree about the UI but the controls look clunky

[Kent Pribbernow]

I'm consfused about the display quality. Most of the reviews I read praise the screen as being high quality, and yet Ryan Block and Peter Rojas (engadget) call it a "disappointment."

[Phronetix]

Creative made a smart move, because 2 hours of playback is pathetic. I won't be in the market for one of these for a while... not til i see double digit playback ratings... unless you talk to my wife, who'd say I'm blocked from near future iPod purchases. :wink:

Phro, waitin' fer the cows to come home.

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

The display is certainly not disappointing. Compared to my calibrated Dell 2001FP it's slightly warmer in the yellow hues, and the colours exhibit a saturation boos similar to a 5-8 step increase in Photoshop's satuation control.

[Macguy59]

The display is certainly not disappointing. Compared to my calibrated Dell 2001FP it's slightly warmer in the yellow hues, and the colours exhibit a saturation boos similar to a 5-8 step increase in Photoshop's satuation control.

So you have one?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

So you have one?

Yup, bought one a few days back. You can read about it here (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9484).

[Macguy59]

So you have one?

Yup, bought one a few days back. You can read about it here (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9484).

Thanks for the heads up. I'm wondering though about the screens. I have played with the New iPod video that had digital pics, some episodes of "Lost" and some converted QT trailers like "King Kong". In the real life pics that included scenery, outdoor and indoor shots of family I did not see any of the banding you mention seeing on the Creative even though it has fewer colors (65K). I wonder why?

[Lee Yuan Sheng]

I thought I'd check it again, and it appears the problems come mainly in shadow areas with low contrast. They appear fine on my computer's monitor.