Related
I did a small search but could not find anything.
Would it be possible for some smart developer to create new drivers/application for htc camera?
I mean iphone 4 has 5 megapixel camera just like htc hd2 however it can record 720p resolution videos. I will dear to say it quite good quality!!!
How come Leo can not do it? Is it possibly down to hardware as well?
720p video resolution is 1280x720 and 5mp stills are easilly 2x that?
so
1st: the 5 megapixel are for pictures only.
2nd: i think the Hardware of the HD2 is capable of 720p videos as it is the same camera as in the Desire/Nexus One...
3rd: as windows mobile doesnt support 720p video playback (i think so) i dont think that it could record it
if it is possible, then in android...
ruscik said:
I did a small search but could not find anything.
Would it be possible for some smart developer to create new drivers/application for htc camera?
I mean iphone 4 has 5 megapixel camera just like htc hd2 however it can record 720p resolution videos. I will dear to say it quite good quality!!!
How come Leo can not do it? Is it possibly down to hardware as well?
720p video resolution is 1280x720 and 5mp stills are easilly 2x that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He does sorta kinda have a good point
720p does not mean the quality is going to be better. it means that the resolution is going to be larger.
you can stretch a VHS video to 720p... but at the end of the day its still a VHS.
Its all down to the camera sensor. Thats why you can pick up a 12MP digi cam for £60 or a 10.1MP Canon 1DS Mk3 for £1700.
I know which one I would have...
Oberoth said:
so
1st: the 5 megapixel are for pictures only.
2nd: i think the Hardware of the HD2 is capable of 720p videos as it is the same camera as in the Desire/Nexus One...
3rd: as windows mobile doesnt support 720p video playback (i think so) i dont think that it could record it
if it is possible, then in android...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that about camera still shots being 5mp only. Windows not supporting 720p is partially correct. Windows media player does not want to play anything bigger then 800x640 while core player shouts at me at 1024x768 sp not short of 720p, it is obvious it's driver/codec/software issue only for playback. Did anyone try tcpmp for 720p playback?
shuttsies said:
720p does not mean the quality is going to be better. it means that the resolution is going to be larger.
you can stretch a VHS video to 720p... but at the end of the day its still a VHS.
Its all down to the camera sensor. Thats why you can pick up a 12MP digi cam for £60 or a 10.1MP Canon 1DS Mk3 for £1700.
I know which one I would have...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
720p does mean quality will be better.
Resolution 640x480 is 307200 pixels per frame plus what ever colour depth so x16 for 16m and so on.
Resolution 1280x720 is 921600 pixels which is over twice as much data to be displayed on the same surface.
Single pixel size on 32" screen with 640 resolution will be much bigger and therefore have much less details then with 1280 resolution.
Twice as much data will have to equal better quality.
I know that camera sensor is very important, quite often more then MP value. However our sensor if good enough to catch twice the resolution of 720p and after all video is just a bunch of still images played one after another (a bit more in to that I know ).
On HTC HD2 there was a burst photo option. With registry edit you could tell it to make 20 pictures a second ad 1280x720p or something similar. Almost full frame late
With Android (today build) you can rec 800x480 video file
vessk0 said:
With Android (today build) you can rec 800x480 video file
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is it real? how can i find this build?
vessk0 said:
With Android (today build) you can rec 800x480 video file
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This would be true except there is no button on the HD2 to activate video recording (at least through the default android video recording facility. I'm assuming someone is working out how to remap one of the keys whilst in this program. It will happen though.
jonboyuk said:
This would be true except there is no button on the HD2 to activate video recording (at least through the default android video recording facility. I'm assuming someone is working out how to remap one of the keys whilst in this program. It will happen though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On the build I used, you simply press on the screen for 3 secs...
h8196288 said:
On the build I used, you simply press on the screen for 3 secs...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THATS ONLY FOR THE CAMERA DUDE LOL
ruscik said:
720p does mean quality will be better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it doesn't.
As he mentioned, you can stretch any video source to make it 720p or even 1080p or even go to 4k if you want.
It's up to the camera sensor to fill in the extra pixels to make it a high def image, if it can't then all you're doing is making 1 pixel use 2 pixels instead.
Psygnosis84 said:
No it doesn't.
As he mentioned, you can stretch any video source to make it 720p or even 1080p or even go to 4k if you want.
It's up to the camera sensor to fill in the extra pixels to make it a high def image, if it can't then all you're doing is making 1 pixel use 2 pixels instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For one pixel to be used on two is upscaling. That is a software option and our camera for now does not have it. But even if camera would only do that to 10% of the extra spaces it has to fill the quality will be much better as that still means 10% extra data captured.
Pixel size in standard and 720p resolution is not the same. If the picture will be split it will also be compressed to fit smaller pixel keeping the same ammount of data mostly (this one we will not know until we try it) so when used on bigger screens there will be mroe detail there.
It is down to sensor to pickup everything at desired resolution and as long as we do not exceed 5mp still it does. What is the problem is speed that sensor processes the information, converts it to known format, sends it and stores it.
In other words how fast is the cpu that converts it, communication with cpu and memory, plus finally speed it can save it to card.
If you have an HD camcorder get it to record stock resolution, then get a class 1 sd card and get it to record 1080p. Compare the images.
At 1080p sensor will get all the pixels but will not be able to save them and it will be similar situation to what Leo camera will do. Without trying we will not know how much. Fact that Android can record at 800x480 should say it will be better as cam was instantly capable of that.
I am not working in video industry but I do a lot of editing and video processing from my, and my friends motorcycle cameras and other action cams. I know a thing or two about videos. Sometimes you do not need much improvement in camera to see a lot improvement in quality. It is all down to how much camera can save per frame.
Hi
I noticed this odd thing with the Nexus 5 camera and searched over all different reviews and forums but could not find a single mention of it.
When I take a photo with the Nexus 5 native camera app, the photo taken will always cover a larger area then what was seeing in the preview. For example, Lets say you want to take a photo of your monitor screen and (regardless of using the zoom or not) you position the phone so the borders of the monitor cannot be seen in the photo. Once you snap the photo you will notice you can see the border of the monitor and some... the resulting photos always cover a larger area then what is seen on the phone.
Has anyone noticed this or am I missing something?
Thanks
icbraz said:
Hi
I noticed this odd thing with the Nexus 5 camera and searched over all different reviews and forums but could not find a single mention of it.
When I take a photo with the Nexus 5 native camera app, the photo taken will always cover a larger area then what was seeing in the preview. For example, Lets say you want to take a photo of your monitor screen and (regardless of using the zoom or not) you position the phone so the borders of the monitor cannot be seen in the photo. Once you snap the photo you will notice you can see the border of the monitor and some... the resulting photos always cover a larger area then what is seen on the phone.
Has anyone noticed this or am I missing something?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Resolution. The camera resolution is superior to your screen resolution. Compare the screen spec. to any full res shot details to see the difference.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Screen is 16:9 but the camera sensor is 4:3.
If you drop the camera down to 2 mpx widescreen, what is in the screen will all be photo
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Thanks
Thanks guys for clarifying. It makes sense. I didn't think about it as somehow this wasn't an issue with my old Note2 even though the screen resolution was lower, with the same 8mpx camera.
Depends if it was taking widescreen pictures or not.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
The Nexus 5 also has a wider angle lens than most phones too. That might have something to do with it as well.
i had this finding too not long ago.. at the expense of some important photos of precious moments "ruined" by this mismatch of screen preview and actual resolution..
and my way out is to use apps that handle this situation..
e.g. "Snap Camera HDR" has a "Preview Cropping" setting.. when this setting is turned off, the screen preview shows exactly as the current resolution ur photo is set at (with some blank margins at left/right or top/down sides to cater for the resolution differences..)
im just a happy user of this app and am in no way associated with it.. there is free version in the play store and xda here so u may give it a try..
Hi Guys,
I asked myself how the zoom on my Z3 should work.
As far as I know, the Z3 can Zoom into the sensor while taking 8mpix pictures.
While I tried it, it seemed to me that the quality gets really bad.
I was guessing that the indicator on the left is the indicator which separates digital zoom from the sensor-zoom.
As far as I thought the light grey indicator-bar shows the part which is the sensor zoom and the dark part is the digital zoom.
Considering the quality it seems to me that both modes are digital zoom. The picture looks really annoying while i use it.
I just thought maybe I'm doing something wrong - has anyone an idea how I can improve this or use it right or or or...
Regards,
Matthias
I didn't know about the 8mp restriction, i also tested it out in the shop, but in 20mp mode. The sections looked identical. However, as the sensor is not at it's limits at 8mp, i guess it could take a higher resolution and crop it to 8mp size at the zoomed in section.
Auto mode enables you to use the camera's Clear Zoom feature, which produces good-looking, lossless-like digital zoom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the image is stretched by the software, which then attempts to fill in the blanks as best as it can. Well, thanks to the giant sensors on the Nokia Lumia 1020 and Sony Xperia Z1/Z1 Compact, zoom is no longer a problem. But instead of opting for bulky zoom lens (Galaxy S4 Zoom), they both rely on their massive resolution in order to get what we call 'lossless' zoom.
So what's lossless zoom, then? In simple terms, it means that zooming into a scene will only result in a negligible loss in quality. Think of it this way: there are so many pixels available with a camera like the one on the 1020 that you can 'crop' any part of the photo and still have more than enough pixels for a full-sized photo that will appear zoomed in. No upscaling, and no loss of quality. But how does it work in practice?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
More info about everything
http://www.phonearena.com/news/What...-work-in-the-Lumia-1020-and-Xperia-Z1_id52198
So conclusion is, it is all digital zoom
electrash said:
More info about everything
http://www.phonearena.com/news/What...-work-in-the-Lumia-1020-and-Xperia-Z1_id52198
So conclusion is, it is all digital zoom
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, it is something like digital zoom. But I think, the quality while zooming into an 8mpix picture should not be worse in quality (depending on the zoom factor) than the 20mpix picture.
When I take a 8 mpix picture, I assume that the image processor will take it in 20mpix and shrink it down to 8.
And what I would like to see is that
I could zoom in and it will just move into the sensor to a 1:1 size.
Another thing : while using the video mode, the stabilizer does an amazing job.
What about the photo-mode? I can't see any stabilisation there.
Since I only take 8mpi pictures, I guess the picture-frame could also be panned around the 20m of the sensor...
Regards,
Matthias
Maeffjus said:
Okay, it is something like digital zoom. But I think, the quality while zooming into an 8mpix picture should not be worse in quality (depending on the zoom factor) than the 20mpix picture.
When I take a 8 mpix picture, I assume that the image processor will take it in 20mpix and shrink it down to 8.
And what I would like to see is that
I could zoom in and it will just move into the sensor to a 1:1 size.
Another thing : while using the video mode, the stabilizer does an amazing job.
What about the photo-mode? I can't see any stabilisation there.
Since I only take 8mpi pictures, I guess the picture-frame could also be panned around the 20m of the sensor...
Regards,
Matthias
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In SA mode, phone take oversampled photo (which means he take 21mp, but he make HD pixel (one pixel combine colors from neibghours)... so when you take 8mpx it takes 20mp ovesampled.
When you zoom in, it will take more and more neibhours pixel to combine in one, so that means loseless.
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not know why all oems are going with 4:3 ratio it looks ****ty when showing a photo or taking a photo on the phone which is 16:9 also most monitors and TVs are 16:9 , it's just everyone following apple as usual. If the headphone jack goes I think I will meltdown )))
My PC Monitor is 4:3 (NEC 24" CRT) and my Canon takes 4:3 pictures, which works good together and when printing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 sizes on my Epson. But for phones, it makes more sense to have a 16:9 image sensor, as that is the same aspect ratio as the phone's display and when viewed on an HDTV. I was glad that the Note 4 DE I got 2 years ago used a 16:9 sensor, but it looks like the Note 7 went back to 4:3 (not sure why). I was hoping the V20 was also going to use 16:9 for its sensor.
FAUguy said:
My PC Monitor is 4:3 (NEC 24" CRT) and my Canon takes 4:3 pictures, which works good together and when printing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 sizes on my Epson. But for phones, it makes more sense to have a 16:9 image sensor, as that is the same aspect ratio as the phone's display and when viewed on an HDTV. I was glad that the Note 4 DE I got 2 years ago used a 16:9 sensor, but it looks like the Note 7 went back to 4:3 (not sure why). I was hoping the V20 was also going to use 16:9 for its sensor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly the only reason is to follow a trend. 16:9 is so much better even if it is just so it fills the screen.
ipmanwck said:
I do not know why all oems are going with 4:3 ratio it looks ****ty when showing a photo or taking a photo on the phone which is 16:9 also most monitors and TVs are 16:9 , it's just everyone following apple as usual. If the headphone jack goes I think I will meltdown )))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's because the lenses are spherical, so you have a circle to work with. Since we can't yet produce cost-effective circular sensors, we need rectangles to fill it and since a 4:3 rectangle fills a circle much better, using a 16:9 sensor is basically just cutting usable space, or making your pixels smaller (which would give us poor low-light photos). BTW the most area-efficient sensors would be 1:1, but that is not a standard aspect ratio, so we use the closest one (4:3). I hope you can all understand my photography-nerd rambling.
BolintsMiki said:
It's because the lenses are spherical, so you have a circle to work with. Since we can't yet produce cost-effective circular sensors, we need rectangles to fill it and since a 4:3 rectangle fills a circle much better, using a 16:9 sensor is basically just cutting usable space, or making your pixels smaller (which would give us poor low-light photos). BTW the most area-efficient sensors would be 1:1, but that is not a standard aspect ratio, so we use the closest one (4:3). I hope you can all understand my photography-nerd rambling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was very informative actually! Thank you. I like learning stuff...
Sent from my awesome T-Mobile LG V10!
Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have faith. The sensor alone is only half of the equation. Processing is just as important if not more important. Just look at. The lowlight capabilities of this phone. Same sensor yet it takes better pics than the one plus 3. The HTC 10 has the same sensor as the Nexus 6p and the 6p is a lot better still because of processing. Lg has great processing. No one ever talked about the g5 or g4 or v10s sensors because lg really excellent at their outstanding processing. While I agree I prefer 16:9 over 4:3 it just seems that's where it's going. Most if not all smartphone cameras are 4:3 now. There's probly a reason. Maybe to fit the controls and toggles on the screen at the same time. Maybe for eis since it crops the image or perhaps helps with the jello effect with ois. I had the g5 before returning it because of the build quality and the camera was outstanding. Krystal key from Android authority did a comparison and the g5 was her favorite camera. I'm sure we will even get one or two updates soon to improve the camera even. Plus you have. The more robust manual controls on a smartphone to date. I myself can't wait to use focus peeking like DSLRs have!!
Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I purchased a LG G4 for $325 back in November 2015 and I just got the V20. Did some camera comparisons between the G4 and V20 and here's my unprofessional findings:
The V20 videos, although a little better in quality, they are not what I expected from a 2016 flagship devices. Sounds great, but not much of an improvement over the G4.
The V20 pictures, are VERY disappointing. Initially set on the 12MP 16:9, I changed it to the 16MP 4:3, I found pictures to be more watercolour and less sharp than the G4. This is especially true when looking at grass blades and bricks.
Tried this in both auto and manual mode, and still the G4 came ahead. Loss of detail is very disappointing, especially when I've paid more than double the G4 ($770) for this phone.
Sadly, I'm going to return this back to T-Mobile and wait a little until the S8 comes out (hopefully without the home button and backwards capacitive keys). Maybe by that time the Pixel XL 128GB will drop in price and I'll consider that. Even though the phone experience is snappy and fast, and I kind of like the second top screen, along with the finger print reader, it's the camera that makes or breaks the phone for me. And in this case, it is very disappointing to have the G4 beat it.
ipmanwck said:
16:9 is so much better even if it is just so it fills the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
rudbwoy said:
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know man. Stupid companies copy Apple all the time it's annoying. I know why it's being done but they should really fill the screen like then do in video capture. Was considering v20 but the g4 was such an amazing photo phone nothing beat it and has beat it for a while. Video capture is still better on Samsung though because sound on the g4 is poo and stabilisation is not great.
Very interesting...I was just about to make a post about this, but I'm glad that I found this thread.
The V20 does a lot worse in low light than my Note 4. I am pretty disappointed with it not meeting my expectations. To date, My S7 and Note 4 take the best pictures and that's sad in a way that it out classes the V20 camera. :/
imx298 was a big mistake for a flagship with this price
imx378 could be a good choice...
iunlock said:
Very interesting...I was just about to make a post about this, but I'm glad that I found this thread.
The V20 does a lot worse in low light than my Note 4. I am pretty disappointed with it not meeting my expectations. To date, My S7 and Note 4 take the best pictures and that's sad in a way that it out classes the V20 camera. :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The s7 is so so good in low light. Was just taking photos inside in the dark of the kids dresses up in masks etc with only torch light and the photos were really good. My g4 cannot get much in that light but will be interesting to see what the v20 can do.
That's disappointing, I find the Pixel XL pretty uninteresting except of course for the amazing camera and I was thinking about exchanging it for a V20...
Additionaly the OP3T might get a IMX398 http://www.gsmarena.com/oneplus_3t_said_to_feature_a_sony_imx398_sensor-news-21328.php so I guess I'll have to wait for that OP3T now
Or the new Huawei Mate?
rudbwoy said:
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it was the other way around.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for just about anything other than a movie on a very big screen.
Skripka said:
Actually it was the other way around.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for just about anything other than a movie on a very big screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait...what?
calculateaspectratio
At my work, most if not all, the monitors are 1920x1080. Even the projectors in the conference rooms, (I've had the facilities people take out the 4:3 projector screens so we can use the wall), I've set to 1920x1080. At home, all I have are 16:9 TVs.
When I take pics and videos, and create family slide shows and such, all are 16:9....so I can play them back on my 16:9 TVs and devices.
16:9 is terrible? I don't know about that.
rudbwoy said:
Wait...what?
calculateaspectratio
At my work, most if not all, the monitors are 1920x1080. Even the projectors in the conference rooms, (I've had the facilities people take out the 4:3 projector screens so we can use the wall), I've set to 1920x1080. At home, all I have are 16:9 TVs.
When I take pics and videos, and create family slide shows and such, all are 16:9....so I can play them back on my 16:9 TVs and devices.
16:9 is terrible? I don't know about that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vertically short monitors but fat are bad for anything other than theater movie watching. Movie watching isa minority of most computer LCD use. Most users would benefit from 4:3 or 5:4 in normal use. Less scrolling, and easier reading. Less wasted space of just filler going unused. It isn't isn't until you're dealing with UHD 30" class that 16:9 really works with 2 side by side windows.
LCD makers switched to basically only 16:9 to save on margins and manufacturing expense...not because it was better. Was also a carrot to get consumers to replace otherwise functioning gear.
What are you talking about? 4:3 yields no benefit in a society where wide screen has taken over monitors, tvs and projectors. Unless you're living in the 90s there is No advantage to having that aspect ratio in 2016.
It's 2016, good luck finding a new TV or even monitors in a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's a dead aspect ratio so there is zero point in making cameras with this aspect ratio.
We can argue about how 4:3 is better but the fact is in society 16:9 is everywhere there is no reason to use 4:3 when everything runs 16:9. There is no benefit to it.
Sent from my LG-H901 using XDA-Developers mobile app
evo4g63t said:
What are you talking about? 4:3 yields no benefit in a society where wide screen has taken over monitors, tvs and projectors. Unless you're living in the 90s there is No advantage to having that aspect ratio in 2016.
It's 2016, good luck finding a new TV or even monitors in a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's a dead aspect ratio so there is zero point in making cameras with this aspect ratio.
We can argue about how 4:3 is better but the fact is in society 16:9 is everywhere there is no reason to use 4:3 when everything runs 16:9. There is no benefit to it.
Sent from my LG-H901 using XDA-Developers mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A) He just listed reasons for why this is happening.
B) Saying there is no benefit to 4:3 means you don't know anything about photography.
Can't seem to find this info. Is there a list anywhere? I assume, the Sony video and album apps work in 4k. YouTube and Amazon Prime too. After that I'm not sure. Vlc? Netflix?
Thanks in advance.
Netflix is a no, not supported yet! vlc should work fine. And 4k pron is epic lol
daveyp187 said:
Netflix is a no, not supported yet! vlc should work fine. And 4k pron is epic lol
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't spread misinformation. Netflix released HDR support some days ago for our phone.
Artyomska said:
Don't spread misinformation. Netflix released HDR support some days ago for our phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry my bad. I got the app a few weeks ago and didn't see the update. I also left them bad feedback lol. I'm going to check out Netflix now thanks
Artyomska said:
Don't spread misinformation. Netflix released HDR support some days ago for our phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He wasn't spreading mis information. HDR and 4k are not the same thing. Can't find it said anywhere that they support 4k yet.
Shnig said:
He wasn't spreading mis information. HDR and 4k are not the same thing. Can't find it said anywhere that they support 4k yet.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My bad. I understood wrong , so sorry for the unfair accusation . Yeah we still don't know if Netflix streams their content on 4K along with the HDR.
EDIT: Does anyone happen to have a premium Netflix subscription so we can know if our phone supports 4K along with the HDR (if it's possible to see the resolution somehow).
Artyomska said:
Does anyone happen to have a premium Netflix subscription so we can know if our phone supports 4K along with the HDR (if it's possible to see the resolution somehow).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As far as I can tell, it does not. Just HDR at the moment.
I have premium subscription. I only see a box for HDR on the movies that have it and movies without HDR have only HD box so that's all.
Netflix uhd
Last I spoke to netflix support the guy checked and said they're updating the code in the app to make Uhd 4k compatible on our xzp. Can't wait as already hdr looks at amazing.
The Amazon Prime video doesn't show either if a video is 4K HDR or not. How can we know it?
the
Katsigaros said:
The Amazon Prime video doesn't show either if a video is 4K HDR or not. How can we know it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
they have [Ultra HD] in the title, from what I see. it will also say "Ultra HD" at the bottom after a bit of streaming.
doesn't seem to specify HDR or not when playing, but the Ultra HD shows are in the HDR channel.
other apps seems to show "HDR" in front of the current resolution, though.
Sent from my Sony G8142 using XDA Labs
of course that does pose an interesting question, if you cant tell if your watching 4k HDR then whats the point other than decimating your battery .
Personally I can tell HDR a mile off, on the other hand 4k MOVING content on such a small screen is a lot harder to see than you might think. on such a small screen I suspect the vast majority of people will never notice if its a 1080 or 2160 image they are watching but the HDR will be clear as day.
HDR on a 50in 4k TV looks absolutely stunning, but generally speaking, on a small screen the biggest benefit most people will be able to notice unless they are sitting an inch from the screen is the HDR, that is the most noticeable element to the 4K package and you can get that with a 1080p video so....
(Cue die hard fans declaring otherwise)
just saying, don't be expecting a monumental improvement on Netflix or Amazon when they go 4K, if you are already getting HDR then you are 95% of the way to a great picture.
4K HDR on a massive TV on the other hand is unbelievably beautiful the best way to describe it is that its like looking out of a window, the biggest part of that is HDR but on such a large display the detail is incredible, without pressing your nose up against the screen
I disagree. The difference in sharpening and details is noticeable in 4K, especially in high contrast and action scenes, even if you are watching the video 30 cm away from the screen. But 1080p is still good if you watch certain videos or when want to save the battery.
Katsigaros said:
I disagree. The difference in sharpening and details is noticeable in 4K, especially in high contrast and action scenes, even if you are watching the video 30 cm away from the screen. But 1080p is still good if you watch certain videos or when want to save the battery.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
except to say that's all in your head. you want it to be true so it is. That's not a dig at you or anything, that's just the way our minds are wired.
on static images you can just about tell on such a small display sitting at a normal distance away of around 20-30 cm, but on a moving image on a screen that small, you physically cant see a difference, its biologically impossible unless you have what would normally be bad eye sight
Its been shown time after time in double blind tests that when two high bit rate images are displayed on the same small size screen and at the same distance but one being 4k and the other being 1080p, there are as many people who think the 1080p looks "better" as there are the 4k.
its subjective. throw in a moving picture which may deliberately contain noise and its virtually impossible to tell UNLESS, you get close enough.
I'm sitting in front of two screen just now, one is a 4k monitor, the other is the 1080p panel in this laptop. I have the same image on both (a 4K image) and they look identical unless you get close enough to see it.
Our eyes are pretty cleaver things in fact they are one of the most amazing examples of evolution in our whole body but seeing detail isn't their strongest point, what they are very good at doing is helping to make your brain think it sees what it wants to see. In short, they are an analogy tool which has physical limitations neither you nor I has any control over.
Its cool if you don't want o believe that, as I said, our minds are designed to make you believe whatever you want but that is the truth, unless you have normally very bad eyesight or your nose is up against the screen, you wont notice the difference.
HDR on the other hand which isn't typically played with 1080p content makes the situation very different. As does having 60+ Hz displays. OLEDs make a huge difference as does how the RGB components are arranged.
Normal folk don't sit with their eyes glued to the screen but if you don't do that, you wont see the physical pixels. Its all good if you think you see more, and perhaps you do have dodgy eye sight that allows you to see more, but the average is 20/20 and most folk wont actually see anything different.... at a normal distance away
as I said though, the HDR is truly amazing, I cant stress that enough.
BTW, I do have the XZp and I have a huge 4K Samsung TV. Absolutely love the large display, you wouldn't be able to pry it out of my cold dead hands
dazza9075 said:
except to say that's all in your head. you want it to be true so it is. That's not a dig at you or anything, that's just the way our minds are wired.
on static images you can just about tell on such a small display sitting at a normal distance away of around 20-30 cm, but on a moving image on a screen that small, you physically cant see a difference, its biologically impossible unless you have what would normally be bad eye sight
Its been shown time after time in double blind tests that when two high bit rate images are displayed on the same small size screen and at the same distance but one being 4k and the other being 1080p, there are as many people who think the 1080p looks "better" as there are the 4k.
its subjective. throw in a moving picture which may deliberately contain noise and its virtually impossible to tell UNLESS, you get close enough.
I'm sitting in front of two screen just now, one is a 4k monitor, the other is the 1080p panel in this laptop. I have the same image on both (a 4K image) and they look identical unless you get close enough to see it.
Our eyes are pretty cleaver things in fact they are one of the most amazing examples of evolution in our whole body but seeing detail isn't their strongest point, what they are very good at doing is helping to make your brain think it sees what it wants to see. In short, they are an analogy tool which has physical limitations neither you nor I has any control over.
Its cool if you don't want o believe that, as I said, our minds are designed to make you believe whatever you want but that is the truth, unless you have normally very bad eyesight or your nose is up against the screen, you wont notice the difference.
HDR on the other hand which isn't typically played with 1080p content makes the situation very different. As does having 60+ Hz displays. OLEDs make a huge difference as does how the RGB components are arranged.
Normal folk don't sit with their eyes glued to the screen but if you don't do that, you wont see the physical pixels. Its all good if you think you see more, and perhaps you do have dodgy eye sight that allows you to see more, but the average is 20/20 and most folk wont actually see anything different.... at a normal distance away
as I said though, the HDR is truly amazing, I cant stress that enough.
BTW, I do have the XZp and I have a huge 4K Samsung TV. Absolutely love the large display, you wouldn't be able to pry it out of my cold dead hands
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you finish your diagnosis? So according to you people who notice the difference between 4K vs 1080p on a smartphone have a bad eyesight, while the others don't. Alright... [emoji16]
You can't understand that it is better to display a 4K video file on its native resolution screen, than squeezing it on a lower resolution screen. Sure the size of the screen matters but this doesn't mean that in a smaller screen it isn't noticeable.
Katsigaros said:
Did you finish your diagnosis? So according to you people who notice the difference between 4K vs 1080p on a smartphone have a bad eyesight, while the others don't. Alright... [emoji16]
You can't understand that it is better to display a 4K video file on its native resolution screen, than squeezing it on a lower resolution screen. Sure the size of the screen matters but this doesn't mean that in a smaller screen it isn't noticeable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes, that's exactly it, but you will notice I said that it would be bad in everyday life. ie you don't have 20/20 vision.
If I render a 2160 image and display it on my 4K panel then render a 1080 image and display it on my 10800 panel then view it from a normal distance, you cant tell the difference unless you get up close.
ok, I can see this is slipping away from you so ill try change of tact.
If you sit in front of your 1080 screen and look at your desktop at arms length can you see the individual pixels? nope, I sure as hell cant, not unless I have major eye sight issues that magnifies everything, So what makes you think you can see 2160 image pixels? you cant. which means any detail within those pixels that you cant physically see, is lost. It doesn't mean you cant see the image, only that you can only see a grouping of pixels.
Or perhaps another way to look at it. if you lie on a beach, you might be able to see the individual sand grains by your head. but I bet you cant see the individual grains of sand by your feet. You can still see the sand, you just cant physically see the grain.. Its the same with phone screens only significantly more challenging because a grain of sand is typically between 0.1mm and 2mm.
on the 4k display on a phone that has a screen size of 5.5in, that works out that each individual pixel is just 0.03mm wide
that makes a 1080p pixel 0.06mm wide.
now tell me, if you had two pixels that size sitting right next to each other in front of you by about 30cm, are you honestly telling me that you could clearly see both separate pixels? nope. you wont and that is on a static image, never mind a moving one with Noise and compression artefacts in it.
That is the physical limitation of your eyes, your brain then does the rest and if your adamant its better, you will always see it being better. But I bet if I did a blind test on you, the results would be interesting for you to read
its cool tho, as I said, if you believe its better than that is all that matters, you are the person watching it, I just wouldn't want people on here expecting big things and being disappointed if it doesn't live up to expectations.
dazza9075 said:
yes, that's exactly it, but you will notice I said that it would be bad in everyday life. ie you don't have 20/20 vision.
If I render a 2160 image and display it on my 4K panel then render a 1080 image and display it on my 10800 panel then view it from a normal distance, you cant tell the difference unless you get up close.
ok, I can see this is slipping away from you so ill try change of tact.
If you sit in front of your 1080 screen and look at your desktop at arms length can you see the individual pixels? nope, I sure as hell cant, not unless I have major eye sight issues that magnifies everything, So what makes you think you can see 2160 image pixels? you cant. which means any detail within those pixels that you cant physically see, is lost. It doesn't mean you cant see the image, only that you can only see a grouping of pixels.
Or perhaps another way to look at it. if you lie on a beach, you might be able to see the individual sand grains by your head. but I bet you cant see the individual grains of sand by your feet. You can still see the sand, you just cant physically see the grain.. Its the same with phone screens only significantly more challenging because a grain of sand is typically between 0.1mm and 2mm.
on the 4k display on a phone that has a screen size of 5.5in, that works out that each individual pixel is just 0.03mm wide
that makes a 1080p pixel 0.06mm wide.
now tell me, if you had two pixels that size sitting right next to each other in front of you by about 30cm, are you honestly telling me that you could clearly see both separate pixels? nope. you wont and that is on a static image, never mind a moving one with Noise and compression artefacts in it.
That is the physical limitation of your eyes, your brain then does the rest and if your adamant its better, you will always see it being better. But I bet if I did a blind test on you, the results would be interesting for you to read
its cool tho, as I said, if you believe its better than that is all that matters, you are the person watching it, I just wouldn't want people on here expecting big things and being disappointed if it doesn't live up to expectations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look doctor what you said is true for printed images but not for the motion picture videos. Or when you use high res images and you zoom at them. If you have any eponymous scientific research that proves your theory then post it here or i will never take your opinion into consideration.
But even then do you believe that the film industry should going backwards and shoot at 1080p in order to satisfy the majority of smartphone manufactures?
Do you thing that it is convenient for any person to convert their 4K videos to 1080p in order to use them on their smartphones?
Also what type of resolution should they choose the smartphone users with QHD screens?
Do you thing that the downsampling code out of the 4K resolution, that Youtube and other online streaming services use is good enough to be presented on a 1080p screen?
If other smartphone manufacturers in the future adopt the 4K resolution and see you praise them for that, then i will put everything you said in your face. But to see you underestimating this excellent piece of hardware in order to justify others inability to compete, this doesn't make the others look better by any means.
in terms of pixel size, it doesn't matter if its printed media or video, in fact motion picture makes the difference between 1080 and 2160 even less relevant on a small screen because you cant focus on a single area for any length of time. But you didn't answer my questions, if you sit at a computer screen at 30CM distance, can you optically distinguish one pixel from another without magnification aids? this was your test and I'm throwing you a bone because on a computer monitor the PPI is significantly lower than on your mobile device!
4K on small screen, anything less that 50in for the most part, is the worlds latest lie in order to get you to buy something new that is the untenable true in it, when 3D failed miserably this was the latest thing as it happens they also released HDR which is a monumental improvement which makes the display look amazing.
at a typical distance from a tv set, if you have a screen of less than 50 in you will need to sit within 3 feet or there about to actually, physically, see the difference, ALL other perceptions are just your mind making stuff up to make you feel better.
This is also why when you go shopping for TV sets they get you as close to the screen as humanly possible, because it looks fantastic, but in reality ya don't sit that close.
same is true of any display, you just need to scale it down.
There are numerous other considerations to consider when talking about image quality, bitrate ( compression artefacts), compression algorithm, FPS, Display refresh rate and yes of course Resolution, but resolution can only help if it fits within the physical limitations of our eyes.
As to why the movie industry files in 4k or higher, well, there is a very good reason for that and that is because its typically shown on a 70 FOOT screen, a screen that is typically meters away from you.
however don't take my word for it, this chap has summed up what is actually pretty complex in a nice easy to understand manor.
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/
read that, its a little dated but then our ability to see hasn't suddenly improved. the important part to read and understand the 0.4 arc minutes which gives us a theoretical maximum discernible resolution of just over 4k but ONLY if its so close to your eyes you can barely focus on it!
BUT is saying all that, as I said before, if you believe its better then that is all that really matters but I just strongly advise people looking to buy the phone not to expect mind blowing images because in reality, it physically cant do it.... unless its on the end of your nose.
This article scientifically proves that the legally accepted norm of 20/20 vision only asks for 876 ppi/dpi at 4 inches (10 cm).
At 1 foot (12 inches = 30cm), is about 720 ppi/dpi.
Only at 2.5 feet (76,2 cm) is about 300 ppi/dpi.
http://wolfcrow.com/blog/notes-by-dr-optoglass-the-resolution-of-the-human-eye/
So the required pixel density for smartphones is between 720 and 876 ppi/dpi because you hold them 10-30 cm away from your eyes.
The 300 ppi/dpi pixel desity applies only for computer monitors because you are siting at least 60-70 cm away from them.
The myth Steve Jobs created about "magic number right around 300 pixels per inch" for smartphones is officially debunked!
I don't seem to have much luck getting UHD content to play any higher than 1080p on the Amazon app. The only thing that has ever played in 4K was an episode of The Grand Tour.