Database Info

3D in 1080p?

Hello, since the Optimus 3D can handle full HD, why cant it just capture 1080p split screen like in 3D mode for 720p? After all its not recording two videos, its sharing the sensors into one. Perhaps a hack?

I am pretty sure it is recording 2 videos, that's why it is SBS (SIDE BY SIDE) format...
prove me wrong

what i mean is its making one single video of 1280x720 split in half for each lens.. so its not really 720p its more like two sensors of 640 (1280/2) side resolution, joined into one videofile.
If that is so, then they could make one of 1080p. At least itll be 1920 cut in half (960 lines across each) instead of 1280 cut in half..

I understand it all.. but look at it this way..... you think it is easy to process 2 simultaneous videos of 960x480?
if it is so easy, everybody would do it... but it is not happening

Yes it is possible to shoot in 3D 1080p with TI omap 4460 which is an upgrade of
TI omap 4430.
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wt...ntId=53243&navigationId=12843&templateId=6123
TI omap 4460 runs at 1.5 GHz. Perhaps some one can overclock TI omap 4430 and create software to shoot 3D at 1080p.

With overclock and software mods this is probably possible but i expect that battery life will be disasterously low. Im sure someone will work on this eventually once we have an overclock kernel.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA Premium App

cinemano said:
what i mean is its making one single video of 1280x720 split in half for each lens.. so its not really 720p its more like two sensors of 640 (1280/2) side resolution, joined into one videofile.
If that is so, then they could make one of 1080p. At least itll be 1920 cut in half (960 lines across each) instead of 1280 cut in half..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
720p 3D is making two 720p movies.
1080p 3D is making two 1080p movies.
That's the side by side thing. It has a different video for your left eye and for your right eye.
The fact that the o3d itself is playing interlaced 3d movies doesn't mean that it also records that way. B/c if it did then the specs should say that it's recording 720i and not 720p.
Thus that's why it can't record 1080p 3D, it's just too much for the hardware.
But maybe someone can overclock it and make it work anyway.

Even if the CPU can handle 1080p 3D, I doubt that memory and the I/O is fast and big enough to handle the movie. 720i 3D is already pushing the limit of the hardware on O3D.
But then I do hope that one day we can do it

You can also wait for TI OMAP 5.
Comsumer products will be expetcted end of 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I24j2NKr9h8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQD48oe9Rzw

there is no interlacing or 720i on this phone, please people, stop saying there is.
It isn't HD 3D, if it was there would be 1280x720 (minimum) for each eye as there is with other 2D HD video. The O3D has 640x720 for each eye with rectangular pixels (progressive, side by side, not interlaced)

mmace said:
there is no interlacing or 720i on this phone, please people, stop saying there is.
It isn't HD 3D, if it was there would be 1280x720 (minimum) for each eye as there is with other 2D HD video. The O3D has 640x720 for each eye with rectangular pixels (progressive, side by side, not interlaced)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you may need to look up what "interlaced" means.
It might not be interlaced in the traditional sense and indeed I presume its drawn to the screen in a progressive manner. However it IS a column interlaced image, because that is how a parallax barrier works by interlacing left and right eye images and obstructing the right eye image from the left, vice versa.
Anyway that does not alter the fact you are correct about how the O3D is capturing 720p 3D. Its also quite irritating as LG are promoting horizontal interlaced passive Cinema 3D technology on their TV and monitors while employing vertical interlacing on their phone.
It makes them a less than ideal match as you are effectively capturing half the resolution width wise then having to drop the vertical resolution too for the passive 3D to work. Its damn annoying as horizontal parallax I suspect would be easier to stay in the sweet spot on O3D too, which is why its used on TVs in the first place.
I also notice the O3D does not seem to display anything other than video at 1080p, which makes displaying photos on a 3DTV/monitor a PITA.
That said I am not very impressed with their Cinema 3D monitor I just bought, it looks awful for general PC use as you can see feint lines on the screen. I did not expect the polarising film to cause a visible effect like this with the glasses off.
The crosstalk is also worse than I expected, sometimes worse than the O3D, sometimes better. Its sad to see the reviews were correct for once, I certainly did not see this on their 47" TV using the same technology. I guess pixel size must have an effect on how easy it is to block crosstalk. Its weird though, as with the glasses looking up close you would swear it was blocking every other line fully from the wrong eye, but the crosstalk makes it all to clear its not.
Anyway back on topic, the reason its harder to do 1080p in 3D is because when filming in 3D you aren't simply taking the images from both cameras and storing them. The software is actually constantly working out how much to converge the two images for the 3D effect work and THEN cropping/scaling the image down to fit into 720p Half-SBS. For that to be possibly it has to open the cameras at 720p, it needs the extra width to simulate the lenses being further apart or closer together, depending on how its focusing the 3D image. So again for 1080p it would have to process two full 1080p video feeds, which might even be possible but would require the kind of software optimisation that will never happen in a market where the next best thing is always around the corner.
After all, its both easier and more financially viable to just put that feature on the NEXT device so it will not require as much software optimisation (the next device will be more powerful so it might "just work" without needing optimisation at all) and is a selling point for people to pickup the new device. Its a win win for the manufacturer.

sorry but the optimus isnt capturing 720p 3D, its 640 lines across for each eye. Its one single 1280x720 video file in split screen not two. I first read this in a respectable review of the phone, then confirmed it when i opened a videofile from the phone and looked at it's properties.

Alex Atkin UK said:
I think you may need to look up what "interlaced" means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
apologies, I was meaning capture

Interesting fact about camera

Has anyone noticed that camcorder on Desire S records videos at only ~22 FPS? No matter how good light conditions are and regardless of recording resolution/bitrate - video always comes out at ~22 FPS (or less in low light conditions).
This is not because of hardware limitations, but because of camera module itself. It has noticable lag when looking through viewfinder and, of course, camera can not record what the camera can not see (more frames per sec).
On the other hand, front camera can record video at ~29 FPS VGA! Bad quality, but yeah, more FPS.
Why, in Gods name, would HTC put such bad camera module on back and (in terms of video recording fps) and better camera on front?

What method are you using to determine the FPS?
If it is just a software issue than a custom ROM should resolve it.

I have used "GSpot" app, and I don't believe this is a software issue, as I'm on my 5th custom rom.
Also, I don't think that my unit is faulty or something, all desire s cameras are like this (compared). Its a shame, because video quality is quite nice, but fps...

http://www.100fps.com/how_many_frames_can_humans_see.htm

yeah i noticed that the other day i thought it was because i had an 8gb class 2 mem car but i recently got a 16gb class 6 and it still looks choppy and if as u say its and hard wear defect or they did it on purpose then their is no easy fix

this sucks. it kindof defeats the point of having 720p when the fps is less than 30...

Yh this is the one thing which is annoying but not a major disadvantage. Hope there is some software which can rectify this.
Sent from my HTC Desire S using XDA App

1080p smartphones and 60fps plausibility?

I dont see a lot of chatter about 60fps recording on the latest batch of 720/1080p recording smart phones.. Is it even possible or just a matter of hardware limitations? Im just curious if we could see a future hack enabling 60fps or do we wait for manufacturers to offer it. thanks!

That would be SICK... But I don't think it'd be possible due to the size of the camera sensor in most mobile phones.

i just know that the HTC Bass (Runnymede) will be able to do 720p recording at 60fps.
afaik, there are no known phones that can do [email protected] currently.

socalwrx said:
I dont see a lot of chatter about 60fps recording on the latest batch of 720/1080p recording smart phones.. Is it even possible or just a matter of hardware limitations? Im just curious if we could see a future hack enabling 60fps or do we wait for manufacturers to offer it. thanks!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like James Cameron's dream phone, to me. Cameron is pushing for the movie industry to adopt a minimum 60fp/s for movies.

is 60fps the limit? cant it go any higher?

Really isn't much benefit in going higher except for Video/Sports analysis, TBH. For just watching stuff, 60 FPS is good enough.

I understand that for general recording/watching 30fps is plenty. 24fps even.. Id just be interested for some cool slo-mo effects. even if it were capped at a short time due to the size of the file. Im just wondering if its hardware limitations (video encoding of the chipset, size of the sensor as previously mentioned) or just a matter of software tweaking; forcing the phone to record/encode @ 60fps.
I had an older LG phone that had a slo-mo effect that looked cool but quality took a big hit.

socalwrx said:
I understand that for general recording/watching 30fps is plenty. 24fps even.. Id just be interested for some cool slo-mo effects. even if it were capped at a short time due to the size of the file. Im just wondering if its hardware limitations (video encoding of the chipset, size of the sensor as previously mentioned) or just a matter of software tweaking; forcing the phone to record/encode @ 60fps.
I had an older LG phone that had a slo-mo effect that looked cool but quality took a big hit.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree
even if games / videos were made to run 60 fps, it's a waste of power
there's no point pushing more than 30 frames when human eyes can barely keep up with less than that

AllGamer said:
agree
even if games / videos were made to run 60 fps, it's a waste of power
there's no point pushing more than 30 frames when human eyes can barely keep up with less than that
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't agree at all. The difference is big and is easily proven. Seems to be some kind of urban legend that eyes cannot perceive faster movement than around 24-30fps
Check for example these example videos (using a modern browser on a modern PC).
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html

tjtj4444 said:
Don't agree at all. The difference is big and is easily proven. Seems to be some kind of urban legend that eyes cannot perceive faster movement than around 24-30fps
Check for example these example videos (using a modern browser on a modern PC).
http://www.boallen.com/fps-compare.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is an age old debate and is far more complex than that one example can cover. For video playback where you can't resolve individual frames though, 30 fps is more than enough.
Yes, we all like to see those beautiful bullet time type videos shot with fast cameras, but there are limitations other than processing power. In this case it's optical. The faster you shoot, the better lit the scene needs to be and the better the light gathering ability of the optics. Perfectly easy to overcome when you're lighting the scene and using proper hardware. Not so good when you're using a phone to do the shooting though!

I don't see the point of 1080p/60fps until they can do 1080p/30fps properly
Also better optics before moving onto anything else

DirkGently1 said:
This is an age old debate and is far more complex than that one example can cover. For video playback where you can't resolve individual frames though, 30 fps is more than enough.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry but I don't agree at all, and your post doesn't include one single argument for you statement so it doesn't make any change.
30 fps looks ok, but 60fps video looks more fluid. It is very obvious in fast moving videos, e g sports.
I know that movies are made for 24fps and have "motion blur" to remove the problems with low frame rate, and some people prefere this motion blur (i e movie captured with small aperture) but that is a matter of taste and doesn't change what looks more fluid or not.

HTC Vivid [email protected] http://www.gsmarena.com/htc_vivid-4302.php

That all depends on the GPU. Maybe the powervr sgx 543 can, seems the most plausible of all the GPUs available.

So those can shoot @60fps:
-LG G2
-Note 3
-HTC One (720p only)
Does anybody know more devices?
Maybe Nexus 5 after some camera hack...? I would buy if it had 1080p60

Samsung Galaxy S4 and S5 can record 60fps video as well

Note 3 vs Canon 5d mark 3 camera comparison

Must watch.
http://mblog.gsmarena.com/galaxy-note-3-faces-canon-5d-mark-iii-video-comparison/
Sent from my SM-N900 using xda premium

razor848 said:
Must watch.
http://mblog.gsmarena.com/galaxy-note-3-faces-canon-5d-mark-iii-video-comparison/
Sent from my SM-N900 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very interesting indeed. Still haven't bothered capturing at 4k as I don't have a display to do it justice. Might start recording and archive so come the time for a new TV I have some bright sharp memories to view.

I spend a full 20 minutes staring and laughing hysterically at the thread title. :laugh: Thought it was about photo's, as opposed to video. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Wasn't expecting that from the Note 3, actually. Not bad at all, for such a tiny sensor.
Honestly though, comparing 4K against 1080p? Even if you downsize, that's an unfair comparison as 4K records more data than 1080p at the raw source. It's like shooting in Jpeg directly, or converting a RAWfile to Jpeg. (Which only makes sense if you know photography.)
I am, however, in doubt. An old classmate of mine shoots entire films with his 5D MKIII, and the quality is significantly better than what we're seeing in the video.

ShadowLea said:
I spend a full 20 minutes staring and laughing hysterically at the thread title. :laugh: Thought it was about photo's, as opposed to video. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
Wasn't expecting that from the Note 3, actually. Not bad at all, for such a tiny sensor.
Honestly though, comparing 4K against 1080p? Even if you downsize, that's an unfair comparison as 4K records more data than 1080p at the raw source. It's like shooting in Jpeg directly, or converting a RAWfile to Jpeg. (Which only makes sense if you know photography.)
I am, however, in doubt. An old classmate of mine shoots entire films with his 5D MKIII, and the quality is significantly better than what we're seeing in the video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry but you're wrong, the comparison is as valid as any comparison between 2 devices. It would be like saying you can't compare benchmarks between Note 3 and GS5, because GS 5 has CPU running at higher frequency.
The fact is Note 3 can record 4k video out of the box and can record higher resolution, sharper video, than any DSLR currently on the market, period. Of course those were done in full sun/ good light, in low light Canon would win hands down. You could also see blown highlights in Note 3 video, but never the less our phone has excellent video recording capabilities I bet a lot of people are not even aware off and you have to remember Canon 5D mark III has probably one of the best video recording capabilities among DSLR and was used in quiet few commercial video recordings you see on TV. Even thought some people dismiss this as useless gimmick, it was one of the reasons I got Note 3 and I record all video in 4k, mostly of my kids, for the future memories. Right now none of my computers can play 4k video smoothly and I don't even have 4k display yet, but all this will be rectified before end of this year. Funny thing is, it is Samsung pushing the envelope, where the hell is Sony, commercial and consumer video leader?

arhhh the Pixel Myth.... Just like the Megahertz Myth! Bigger numbers doesn't always mean better. The N3 is a complete waste of time in low light despite being able to record @ 4k. I'd like to have seen the guy walking around (camera movement) with both devices as this would have shown which device was better when watching both playbacks.

fyew-jit-tiv said:
arhhh the Pixel Myth.... Just like the Megahertz Myth! Bigger numbers doesn't always mean better. The N3 is a complete waste of time in low light despite being able to record @ 4k. I'd like to have seen the guy walking around (camera movement) with both devices as this would have shown which device was better when watching both playbacks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Apparently you didn't see the video comparison, which clearly shows Note 3 video is much sharper, even on low resolution screen and apparently you never looked at benchmarks, clearly showing that everything else being equal, phone running at higher GHz will run faster most of the time, otherwise you wouldn't call it a myth. As far as low light goes, every camera sucks, it just a matter of how little is not enough. Canon 5d has full size sensor, which is almost as big as half width of the phone and this size sensor could not be fitted in a small phone and forget about optics required, never the less, with huge handicap in sensor size, much, much lower price and basic optics, Note 3 is competitive in good light. In low light it is much worse, but if you ever went to the movie set, just about half of the equipment is lights to improve exposure and they have cameras costing more than most people house, so yeah, good light is required for all cameras if you want good video.

Video recording quality.

Has anybody noticed how terrible the video recording performance is on this phone? Even in fairly well lit conditions there's so much smoothing going on it makes the overall video look absolutely terrible.
Is there a way to turn this smoothing off? I have been using GCam purely for recording videos and the quality is a lot better (doesn't have this smoothing effect) but the app itself isn't perfect and crashes fairly regularly. Any suggestions/known fixes welcome
I have my video settings set to 4k 60fps.
TIA.

I noticed this too.
Even on 60FPS it is not as smooth as I was hoping - my eyes actually hurt when I watch videos with moving objects.
Still objects are very, very good, especially with 5X optical zoom.
I think this is something to do with steadiness not with FPS.