Related
I saw the optimus 3d today and played with it. I liked the 3d effect but damn...aliasing everywhere! I can count the freaking pixels!
I also played asphalt and well sometimes i had the feeling the display was malfunctioning because i saw lines ect, but those linee were actually parts of 3d models. Its that bad...
Is this with every game? Really that race games was horrible...
Movies were nice though, just like some demo pictures.
TBh I have played the games maybe for 2 mins and removed them gaming on Phones is poor at best, movies and playing/recording is where it is at.
I have not noticed that in Asphalt, it looks and plays well, though the 3d effect is not as prominent as it is in RF 2011, Shrek Kart and Spiderman. Did you adjust the 3D level to achieve the optimum sweet spot?
Vertical resolution is halfed due to the parallax barrier. So you're left with 240 lines. That's not much but its not as bad like you make it sound. The same rules apply to pictures and movies,your experience with them should have been the same.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA App
SinSilla said:
Vertical resolution is halfed due to the parallax barrier. So you're left with 240 lines. That's not much but its not as bad like you make it sound. The same rules apply to pictures and movies,your experience with them should have been the same.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, i spoke the truth...
Nova, Gold and archercraft looks good in 3d.
SinSilla said:
Vertical resolution is halfed due to the parallax barrier. So you're left with 240 lines. That's not much but its not as bad like you make it sound. The same rules apply to pictures and movies,your experience with them should have been the same.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct, but I think 3d still looks very impressive as the depth more than makes up for the lower resolution.
Same with the Nintendo 3ds.
Keep in mind as well that this is a total bleeding edge device and that all those games you are talking about are from a single developer. Im sure there will be more games from other developers down the line and that advances will be made graphically through the life of the device within the scope of the hardware boundaries.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA Premium App
borgqueenx said:
Well, i spoke the truth...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course you did.
If that was your subjective impression then it's fine. It's just that the majority of users and people who have seen 3D Games running on this device haven't had such a drastic experience (that would imply a malfunctioning display).
But in reality, the 2D graphics of Nova, Asphalt etc (undoubted good looking games) are exactly the same in 3D, only with half the vertical resolution.
Due to the parallax barrier in 3D Mode you can indeed make out the individual lines if you want, but they're not "part of the 3d models". Maybe your demo device was glitching.
SinSilla said:
Vertical resolution is halfed due to the parallax barrier. So you're left with 240 lines. That's not much but its not as bad like you make it sound. The same rules apply to pictures and movies,your experience with them should have been the same.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it's the 800 that's halved so it's actually 400x480
If you really have a very high expectation from 3D mobile phone at this stage, I really suggest that you look else where instead of always say that these phones are bad for this and that.
This is in fact the first generation of 3D on mobile and also is a starting point. I see that you really like E3D. If you have your mind fixed, why would you keep on looking at O3D? Personally I have chance to use both phones side by side and I own a O3D myself while my friend has a E3D. We both have the same impression that O3D truely looks better for 3D.
Talking about games, if you think 3D games viewing on O3D is crap, then E3D is much worse. For O3D you can still play your game while travelling. With E3D, it is very hard to keep your eye on the sweet spot for games while travelling for sure. You comment regarding to aliasing everywhere and counting the freaking pixels is definitely on E3D as well. It is worse as the 3D games was aim for O3D screen in first place.
The number of pixels is halved only because half of them go to one eye and the other half go to the other eye. The resolution is NOT halved, unless 1+1 no longer equals 2, or you use it with one eye shut.
I played golf2 last night for the first time, I reckon the 3D is superb!
Pete
mmace said:
it's the 800 that's halved so it's actually 400x480
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
800 pixels horizontal x 480 pixels vertical. Parallax barrier is aligned horizontal and therefore sends 240 lines to each eye. Or did i get something wrong?
Edit: me stupido, of course you were right. Its the other way around. Sorry for confusion...
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA App
mad_sunday said:
The number of pixels is halved only because half of them go to one eye and the other half go to the other eye. The resolution is NOT halved, unless 1+1 no longer equals 2, or you use it with one eye shut.
I played golf2 last night for the first time, I reckon the 3D is superb!
Pete
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
2D = 800x480 for each eye
3D = 400x480 for each eye and each pixel of the game is rectangular (2x1) to make it still appear 800 wide (like 4:3 DVDs are 720x576 but widescreen are still 720x576 but with rectangular pixels), the resolution is halved, as it is in video recording meaning it's not actually HD (640x720) where as photos are 3MP even though the full image is 6MP
mmace said:
2D = 800x480 for each eye
3D = 400x480 for each eye and each pixel of the game is rectangular (2x1) to make it still appear 800 wide (like 4:3 DVDs are 720x576 but widescreen are still 720x576 but with rectangular pixels), the resolution is halved, as it is in video recording meaning it's not actually HD (640x720) where as photos are 3MP even though the full image is 6MP
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what we can see on the display is not HD, but the files themselves are. we are limited by the small reslution of the phone screen. fire that stuff over hdmi to a 3dtv and you are looking at full 720p 3d though.
hefonthefjords said:
what we can see on the display is not HD, but the files themselves are. we are limited by the small reslution of the phone screen. fire that stuff over hdmi to a 3dtv and you are looking at full 720p 3d though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Unfortunately not, the O3D records Half-SBS not Full-SBS, it fits both eyes into a single 720p image and as such you get half the resolution, it does the same with the camera too.
I assume they chose Half-SBS for compatibility over HDMI. As while there is no reason not to record Full-SBS, you would only be able to output Half-SBS over HDMI. Its a bit of a shame though as if they captured Full-SBS we could use the PC to edit it into frame sequential for playback on Blu-ray players.
It even happily plays Full-SBS files although oddly the YouTube app does not recognise Full-SBS material so you have to download it on PC to play it properly on the O3D, or else it still stretches it width wise making it a thin band in the middle of the screen.
Alex Atkin UK said:
Unfortunately not, the O3D records Half-SBS not Full-SBS, it fits both eyes into a single 720p image and as such you get half the resolution, it does the same with the camera too.
I assume they chose Half-SBS for compatibility over HDMI. As while there is no reason not to record Full-SBS, you would only be able to output Half-SBS over HDMI. Its a bit of a shame though as if they captured Full-SBS we could use the PC to edit it into frame sequential for playback on Blu-ray players.
It even happily plays Full-SBS files although oddly the YouTube app does not recognise Full-SBS material so you have to download it on PC to play it properly on the O3D, or else it still stretches it width wise making it a thin band in the middle of the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you're the 1st person who has agreed with me or knew what I was on about, cheers!
I must add that TECHNICALLY of course HDMI CAN output frame sequential, like how 3D Blu-ray works, for a full 1080p 3D video.
However, LG chose to stick to simple Half-SBS for good reasons.
It requires no more effort to play back than 2D video as it outputs the file exactly as it was written.
You can even play it back on a 2D player to a 3DTV as most TVs work like the O3D where you can tell it a 2D input is SBS and it will then output as 3D.
Full SBS would be no benefit here, you have to squash it down to 720p to output over HDMI anyway (3D 1080p over HDMI only works at 24fps so you have to use 720p for 30fps) resulting in Half SBS again. Worse still, many players would refuse to play it at all due to being an odd resolution (Full SBS 720p is 2560x720). So it makes sense for LG to avoid all that bother and make it "just work".
I don't think there is any technical reason LG could not switch to Full SBS later if they chose but I think this is more likely to happen with some third-party app. Just as now you can record 2D video at a higher bitrate using the third-party lgCamera app. (no relation to LG the company btw)
As for gaming, no 3D gaming does not "look like crap", it looks 400x480. If you had done any research at all you would know this is how glasses-less 3D has to work, its even how LGs Cinema 3D TVs work, except that loses vertical resolution as it polarises every other line so that the Cinema glasses only allow odd lines to the left eye, even lines to the right eye. The only way to fix that problem is to wear active shutter glasses or make an LCD with double the horizontal resolution, which at 4.3" is probably not possible due to viewing angle issues with the parallax barrier (as people report even the slight decrease in pixel size of the EVO 3D has a huge negative impact on the 3D screen).
At least they didn't pull a Nintendo who restricts the 3DS output to 400x240 (the 3DS screen is 800x240) at all times so that you can't see a difference in the picture between 3D mode and 2D mode (because there isn't one, horizontal pixels are doubled in 2D mode). I would be much more upset if LG had done that to avoid the "games look worse in 3D" argument. At least this way I have a choice, I can run stuff in 800x480 for the best picture, or sacrifice half the resolution for greater clarity and depth.
How to disable 3D demo?
how are you
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
I’m going to be buying a new phone soon. I’ve been eyeing up the Galaxy S II but I thought I might as well wait and see what is announced this month. One thing that all top end rumoured phones have in common is a 720p display. I have to admit this alone has tempted me to wait. But then I got to thinking, aside from the ‘cool’ factor. What benefit in the real world will a 720p display bring us?
The two main advantages that I can see are improved PPI and the obvious advantage when playing 720p videos. But a higher PPI means more processing power, which in turn means lower battery life. Also from an admittedly purely lazy point of view it means having to zoom in further to be able to read text.
A 720p display will now mean that 480p videos on youtube and the like will be upscaled and won’t look as good. ‘Just choose the 720p option’ you say. Fine, so long as you’re on wifi. Until 4G hits and is widespread (which in the UK is going to take a while) it will mean longer waits and buffer issues.
Yes I’m nit picking but I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts on the pros and cons of a 720p display. I know there will be many more I’ve missed.
i see it from 2 sides....
720p = really nice picture quality
720p bad for some apps/games, which might no longer run properly, unless fixed, or some how the hardware can auto adjust the resolution to stretch it to fit.
720p can be a bit of a pain, if some Apps/Games developer decide to use too small of a touch area, due the larger dot-pix available in the 720p area
that also means DVD quality or lower quality videos played on the 720p will look like blurry or smeared, that can be fixed with software/hardware correction, like games.
^^ All that.
Plus, I don't really see the need for a 720 screen that's around the 4" size. Do you really need pixels that small? They'll be smaller than photons if we carry on like this and then it'll be reality that'll have to catch up with our tech
Personally, I wouldn't hold back for purely that one feature, but who knows what else is round the corner. Get a phone and let it be the best for a few months and then slowly drop down the list. As everyone always says, there's always something better coming, and if you waited then you'd never get anything.
Incidentally, I do have the SGS2, and it is REALLY nice
well definitely 1080p will be around the corner as we already stepped into the 720p kingdom
so 1080p on a 4" display would not be a long wait, but it will really make you think, what's the point of cramming so much in such a little screen
i can see 1080p to be a normal thin on a 10" tablet, but on a phone... that's a bit much
i do hope they don't go beyond 720p on any screen smaller than 5"
imagine running Windows Vista/7 on 15" wide LCD at 1080 (there are many laptops that are actually like that) it's soooooo eye strain-ful, it literally kills the eyes
i always down set the resolution back to something more readable to not strain my eyes
AllGamer said:
i always down set the resolution back to something more readable to not strain my eyes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you need your reading glasses as well, so you can find your pipe and slippers?
i don't wear glasses, and i intent to keep it that way, reason why i prefer an easy reading, on 480 vs 720
on 720 i'll have to probably the the font size twice as big, to make it easily legible when you are in the car, bus/subway, or walking
no i don't get dizzy reading while doing any of the above
many people can't read if they are in a moving vehicle
probably due the same relevant issue about having to scan the text in a small device and straining your vision, while trying to keep an eye on the road and not crashing
AllGamer said:
i don't wear glasses, and i intent to keep it that way, reason why i prefer an easy reading, on 480 vs 720
on 720 i'll have to probably the the font size twice as big, to make it easily legible when you are in the car, bus/subway, or walking
no i don't get dizzy reading while doing any of the above
many people can't read if they are in a moving vehicle
probably due the same relevant issue about having to scan the text in a small device and straining your vision, while trying to keep an eye on the road and not crashing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you, therebisbreally no reason to go above 720p resolution on small smartphone devices. I myself notice my eyes begin to hurt after more than thirty minutes or so of heavy reading on my Sensation. Now I know my Sensation does not have 720p but I am just saying the size of the screen and the text on that screen is no doubt a strain on the human eye after extended reading done on the device. 1080p is definitely so,ethimg that should just make it to the larger tablets and not smartphones.
Oh and yes actually paying attention to the road while you are driving is a highly recommended activity lol.
AllGamer said:
that also means DVD quality or lower quality videos played on the 720p will look like blurry or smeared, that can be fixed with software/hardware correction, like games.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is just plain wrong, low resolution video will look just as good on 720p displays.
Sent from my GT-I9100
Maybe i miss-understood your question, but i am using the Galaxy SII
I never had any screen / resolution issues
Well,first off,let's not forget that Android supports changing the DPI in build.prop(I think-haven't bothered in a while).I don't think manufacturers will leave 220-240 dpi of the current devices on 720p devices,but they would rather pump it up,so that everything stays the same size,but is just crisper.That's just my thought though.
On another note,lower resolution videos won't look worse at all.Resolution in that aspect is irrelevant.The same way that you can play a 720p video on a 480p screen without problems,you can do the opposite just as well.Unless some manufacturer decides to f*ck it up with upscaling tricks and stuff that will defo make the image blurry and ugly.
The only really valid argument on the topic,in my opinion,is the possible lack of processing power,especially when it comes to GPUs.We even saw the Mali MP-400,the most powerful GPU on a PHONE (DON'T SAY ABOUT THE A5 IN THE iPAD!!!!) to date,struggle to keep up in the case of the Galaxy Note's resolution.If the next gen of SoCs doesn't improve quite a lot in that aspect,we'll see some performance drops for sure.Not to mention the worst thing,the losses of battery life in case that extra power is met.Not that I mind about battery life as long as it makes it through the day,but many many people do.
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Papi4baby said:
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
progressive, opposed to the i of interlaced.
Technically 720i use half the vertical pixels for each frame.
Papi4baby said:
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes man,we know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p
sgs 2
sent from my cappy. xda app
HD rules
Hello everyone
This you must consider just some help and ideas based on my experience with 3D devices - not that I have such a great experience. I own a 3D camera, the FujiFilm RealPix 3D W1 and this phone.
You are free - and I hope that will do it, to contribute with your own ideas and photos.
First thing first... As in normal photography, not take shots against light sources, as sun and other powerfull light sources. Against the sun, lasers you could end with your camera ruined because of the too much light on the sensor - consider that it gets focused, like a magnifying glass...
Also in 3D avoid taking photos with flash. The flash is not powerfull enough and do not distribute even light for all two camera, so in some way you'll get the left photo slightly brighter than the right photo and when is all put together you might get a ghost effect.
Do not shoot on object perpendicular on the cameras because when is viewed in 3D you'll get a very annoying and disturbing effect that you'll hit your eyes and brain like a cannonball ' remember that °it is all in your head° - the 3D effect I mean.
Also do not shoot object that do "split" in half the 3D image - gives the same annoying effect.
The distance from the subject is recommanded between 2 and 5 meters. Below 2 meters you'll get your cannonball, above 5 meters the 3D effect is lost.
Also is recommanded to take photos of subjects with different depths, like flowers, because you'll get a very obvious and good 3D effect. Do not shoot a subject that fills up all the photo with one color, like a table painted in yellow.
Pay attention at parallax - a wrong adjustment and you'll get ghost pictures. If you're forced to take a photo of different subjets, on different depths in same photo, hitting the right parallax is a little harder than usual. I choose the center of the photo, in which all subjets are clear, that I crop the photo, leaving the ghost effect (which in this case is on the margins) out.
3D mostly means contours and coloured subjects, so you have to seek always some contrast between different subjects in same photos.
These are the main things I can think of right now.
Hope that you'll find them helpful. Please let me know what you think.
LE: talking to TylDurden (you'll find his query later this thread - please feel free to help if you can) I reminded of some tips that first time I forgot to mention. here they are
NEW TIP (which I forgot about it) - When you're gonna shoot in 3D mode just don't make a full press of the onscreen button, press it just a little shorter in time in order to get the real preview of the photo. In this preview you'll see how the final photo will be. And if you get some ghost image just adjust the parallax and try to get all the objects or most of them without ghost trails or sides.
Another TIP - set your screen brightness at maximum level because if you have it reduces you might not notice ghost effects
Another TIP - the focus area works better if is set on center not on border - don't ask why but I do see a difference.
And most important TIP - try, try, try. Remember every settings used to take the photos and compare same photos of the same object but with different settings and see which ones are working for you.
Thanks
Thanks for the tips, are very helpful.
Thanks for the tips.
I have learned that to get something to jump from the phone towards the viewer, you must keep an entire object within the picture.
Take ie. a picture of a face/head, it can be on 1m, just keep the entire head inside the frame. Don't come too close, it'll cause the headaches/canonball effect BigBadSheep already talked about, but 2m is way too much. 0.8m or 0.5m can work a lot! As long as you keep the object within the frame.
I stumbled upon this when my son kept his icecream close to the camera with his hand. When we watched the photo the icecream was really jumping out of it.
I have tested this a lot, by moving the object very close to the camera or partly out of the frame. Just play with it to find the best result.
3D pictures with water are very cool as well!
I have made many 3D pictures with people jumping into the water. Especially if you dare to keep the camera quite close to the action, it gives awesome effects!
Timing is very difficult with the O3D b/c there's about 1sec between pressing the button and the picture actually being taken.
I started to press the button 1sec before the expected water bomb, that works quite good! I now have about 30 very very cool pictures of my kids smashing into the water!
I'm more and more leaning towards favouring 3D pictures above 3D movies.
Shooting 3D movies is very hard and the image is shaking very easily which becomes too tiresome to watch. Filming in 3D is very difficult. Making pictures is cool though!
And if you watch them on a good passive(!) 3D TV it's even better!
(please all: never buy an active 3D TV, I have an active 3D TV myself and I use it less and less. the effect is so bad during daylight and the on/off button is very tedious, especially the switching all the time if you're moving through pictures etc. passive 3D tvs work perfect during daylight, never the strobing effect. cheap glasses. no batteries needed for glasses.
My father/sister has a passive TV and I really regret having an active TV. Surely, the 3D is good and all, but compared to the passive (LG/Philips) TV of my father/sister, passive is just the way to go.
Don't believe those who claim that active gives a full HD while passive doesn't. It's bollocks. At first b/c the strobing effect is far worse then even the supposed half Full HD effect could be. Secondly b/c both active and passive offer a half Full HD effect. Active just closes your left and right eyes half of the time while passive hids half the image from your left and right eye)
Rho'd Berth said:
Don't believe those who claim that active gives a full HD while passive doesn't. It's bollocks. At first b/c the strobing effect is far worse then even the supposed half Full HD effect could be. Secondly b/c both active and passive offer a half Full HD effect. Active just closes your left and right eyes half of the time while passive hids half the image from your left and right eye)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry but that is incorrect. I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
As for passive and active being half quality you seem to misunderstand how they work because only passive 3D is half resolution.
Passive tv puts both images on tv together and the glasses block out half the image from each eye so right eye and left eye see half the picture.
Active tv doesn't cover each eye up as you say but instead sends the whole picture for each view to each eye very quickly rather than just hide half of it as passive does.
They don't just feed half of what's on screen to each eye but instead show the full hd image to each so you get full quality not half. It is also what causes the strobing that some people experience.
This halving of resolution on passive 3D is why some sets now go higher than 1080p so that when displayed passively the video is same resolution as an active set although most sets still don't do this.
http://hometheater.about.com/od/tel...ve-Polarized-Vs-Active-Shutter-3d-Glasses.htm
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
As an owner of a 3D active
mistermentality said:
Sorry but that is incorrect. I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
As for passive and active being half quality you seem to misunderstand how they work because only passive 3D is half resolution.
Passive tv puts both images on tv together and the glasses block out half the image from each eye so right eye and left eye see half the picture.
Active tv doesn't cover each eye up as you say but instead sends the whole picture for each view to each eye very quickly rather than just hide half of it as passive does.
They don't just feed half of what's on screen to each eye but instead show the full hd image to each so you get full quality not half. It is also what causes the strobing that some people experience.
This halving of resolution on passive 3D is why some sets now go higher than 1080p so that when displayed passively the video is same resolution as an active set although most sets still don't do this.
http://hometheater.about.com/od/tel...ve-Polarized-Vs-Active-Shutter-3d-Glasses.htm
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I must say that still the active is the way to be, even if now there are some TV with passive 3D that makes a good picture. I own the LG 50PX950N TV set, the first with THX certified 3D. Always the LG. But, as it happens always, LG pulled out from the hat the 3D passive which is advertised as better as the active ones, from here seeing the in all company, on all branches, is the philosophy: you bought it? Thanks alot sucker! because they made these passive one 7 months after the shouted out: you've made the greatest 3D active TV ever!
But still , as stated, I think that active is still the way.
And, in another news, I would like to write about how to connect the phone to the TV in such manner that you get 3D directly out of the box. I had some time to figure this out.
First you need the HDMI 1.4 cable. Then, from the HDMI settings you must force it on 1080p (50Hz or 60 HZ - I think it makes no difference, seeing that now all TVs can make both frequencies). Leaving in automatic mode it just takes the native resolution of the screen, which is 480x800 and in this mode you wont't get the 3D effect, nor the HD videos played.
Next, about the 3D pictures, will be a tutorial on how to make them "universal", meaning being able to display them on every display, with red-cyan 3 mode.
BigBadSheep said:
Hello everyone
This you must consider just some help and ideas based on my experience with 3D devices - not that I have such a great experience. I own a 3D camera, the FujiFilm RealPix 3D W1 and this phone.
You are free - and I hope that will do it, to contribute with your own ideas and photos.
First thing first... As in normal photography, not take shots against light sources, as sun and other powerfull light sources. Against the sun, lasers you could end with your camera ruined because of the too much light on the sensor - consider that it gets focused, like a magnifying glass...
Also in 3D avoid taking photos with flash. The flash is not powerfull enough and do not distribute even light for all two camera, so in some way you'll get the left photo slightly brighter than the right photo and when is all put together you might get a ghost effect.
Do not shoot on object perpendicular on the cameras because when is viewed in 3D you'll get a very annoying and disturbing effect that you'll hit your eyes and brain like a cannonball ' remember that °it is all in your head° - the 3D effect I mean.
Also do not shoot object that do "split" in half the 3D image - gives the same annoying effect.
The distance from the subject is recommanded between 2 and 5 meters. Below 2 meters you'll get your cannonball, above 5 meters the 3D effect is lost.
Also is recommanded to take photos of subjects with different depths, like flowers, because you'll get a very obvious and good 3D effect. Do not shoot a subject that fills up all the photo with one color, like a table painted in yellow.
Pay attention at parallax - a wrong adjustment and you'll get ghost pictures. If you're forced to take a photo of different subjets, on different depths in same photo, hitting the right parallax is a little harder than usual. I choose the center of the photo, in which all subjets are clear, that I crop the photo, leaving the ghost effect (which in this case is on the margins) out.
3D mostly means contours and coloured subjects, so you have to seek always some contrast between different subjects in same photos.
These are the main things I can think of right now.
Hope that you'll find them helpful. Please let me know what you think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also use to have the fuji 3D w1 by the way update the firmware it will improve too much, I sell it and got they W3 and it's waaaayyy better. Thanks for the tips man.
Sent from my LG-P920 using xda premium
mistermentality said:
Sorry but that is incorrect. I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
As for passive and active being half quality you seem to misunderstand how they work because only passive 3D is half resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, both eyes receive half the Full HD resolution, together that's Full HD.
Passive tv puts both images on tv together and the glasses block out half the image from each eye so right eye and left eye see half the picture.
Active tv doesn't cover each eye up as you say but instead sends the whole picture for each view to each eye very quickly rather than just hide half of it as passive does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Active shutter is closing one eye after another eye. All the time only 1 of your eyes can see the screen. The other one is closed / blackened.
The TV is showing first the left eye frame and then the right eye frame. While the left eye frame is showed, the right eye is blackened, and the other way around.
They don't just feed half of what's on screen to each eye but instead show the full hd image to each so you get full quality not half. It is also what causes the strobing that some people experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I said, they feed the full image to each eye half of the time.
I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Watch a 3D movie in full day light and you will have strobing problems, unless your glasses cover your eyes entirely.
When ie. your left eye is blackened by the glasses, then there's still light coming in from the sides of your glasses. It's not so much the TV that's strobing but the light from other sources.
It's a fact that watching active 3D during daylight just plainly sucks.
Did you ever watch passive 3D TV? Did you ever compare? Or are you just defending your own TV, like most people do.
Like I said, I have an active 3D TV myself, a very good rated Samsung. Compared to even the cheap Philips passive 3D TV of my father my TV sucks in 3D. Not during the night if we're wathcing a good movie. Then it's ok. But the entire viewing experience is more then just the dark evening in the winter. IT's also the turning on of the glasses, the replacing the batteries, the fact that the glasses are that expensive. The fact that my Laptop 3D shutter glasses are damaged and also cost $100. The fact that the glasses are heavy, etc.
We've watching vacation pictures on a passive TV with 8 people among with 4 kids. No need to turn on the glasses for the kids and some adults. Imagine doing the same on active TV..... and then I'm not even taking the extra $600 for glasses in account.
Rho'd Berth said:
Watch a 3D movie in full day light and you will have strobing problems, unless your glasses cover your eyes entirely.
When ie. your left eye is blackened by the glasses, then there's still light coming in from the sides of your glasses. It's not so much the TV that's strobing but the light from other sources.
It's a fact that watching active 3D during daylight just plainly sucks.
Did you ever watch passive 3D TV? Did you ever compare? Or are you just defending your own TV, like most people do.
Like I said, I have an active 3D TV myself, a very good rated Samsung. Compared to even the cheap Philips passive 3D TV of my father my TV sucks in 3D. Not during the night if we're wathcing a good movie. Then it's ok. But the entire viewing experience is more then just the dark evening in the winter. IT's also the turning on of the glasses, the replacing the batteries, the fact that the glasses are that expensive. The fact that my Laptop 3D shutter glasses are damaged and also cost $100. The fact that the glasses are heavy, etc.
We've watching vacation pictures on a passive TV with 8 people among with 4 kids. No need to turn on the glasses for the kids and some adults. Imagine doing the same on active TV..... and then I'm not even taking the extra $600 for glasses in account.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree with everything of the above. I also have an active 3D Samsung TV and especially during the daylight there are problems. Not to mention the extremely expensive 3D glasses.
Last weekend a friend of mine who just purchased a passive 3D LG TV (with 8 FREE glasses included) had a BBQ party of 6 people. I took some 3D videos with my O3D and played them on his TV. All 6 people at the same time could enjoy my 3D videos on his TV under broad daylight. With my TV this could be impossible.
Rho'd Berth said:
No, both eyes receive half the Full HD resolution, together that's Full HD.
Active shutter is closing one eye after another eye. All the time only 1 of your eyes can see the screen. The other one is closed / blackened.
The TV is showing first the left eye frame and then the right eye frame. While the left eye frame is showed, the right eye is blackened, and the other way around.
That's what I said, they feed the full image to each eye half of the time.
Watch a 3D movie in full day light and you will have strobing problems, unless your glasses cover your eyes entirely.
When ie. your left eye is blackened by the glasses, then there's still light coming in from the sides of your glasses. It's not so much the TV that's strobing but the light from other sources.
It's a fact that watching active 3D during daylight just plainly sucks.
Did you ever watch passive 3D TV? Did you ever compare? Or are you just defending your own TV, like most people do.
Like I said, I have an active 3D TV myself, a very good rated Samsung. Compared to even the cheap Philips passive 3D TV of my father my TV sucks in 3D. Not during the night if we're wathcing a good movie. Then it's ok. But the entire viewing experience is more then just the dark evening in the winter. IT's also the turning on of the glasses, the replacing the batteries, the fact that the glasses are that expensive. The fact that my Laptop 3D shutter glasses are damaged and also cost $100. The fact that the glasses are heavy, etc.
We've watching vacation pictures on a passive TV with 8 people among with 4 kids. No need to turn on the glasses for the kids and some adults. Imagine doing the same on active TV..... and then I'm not even taking the extra $600 for glasses in account.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As you just pointed out the active glasses send the full image to each eye alternating between left and right but both eyes do still see full hd in both eyes because the two images are at full resolution.
They do not half the resolution at all, and if you have an active tv you can see that yourself because you will see both images at the same time but full res. Now do that on a passive set and you'll notice the difference.
As for expensive glasses, you can buy them for under fifteen pound in uk and rechargeables are only twenty something pound and neither are heavy, I watched the olympics for three hours no problem at all last night.
I do need to explain regarding strobing, I was referring to the 3D image not strobing.
You are right that light sources will flicker, but I don't watch much 3D tv during the day so for me it isn't an issue as I prefer watching films with the lights off but yes you are right on that.
This review of both at http://m.cnet.com/news/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better/57437344?ds=1 does a good job of explaining what I mean even though the author prefers passive they do admit active has higher resolution.
In a few years I will probably get a passive set as by then 4K passive sets will be higher res than current active ones but for now I prefer a higher resolution image but each format has benefits.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
Dave,
So you admit that there is strobing of light (not the TV) that is annoying. You're just saying that it doesn't matter b/c you don't watch TV during daylight anyway. So let's keep it honest: there is a problem, and you can't watch 3D movies during the summer and much of the spring.
They do not half the resolution at all, and if you have an active tv you can see that yourself because you will see both images at the same time but full res. Now do that on a passive set and you'll notice the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And again you claim that you see Full HD to both eyes at the same time.
No, that's not true, all the time 1 of your eyes is covered. Never do you see a Full HD image to both your eyes at the same time.
I'm not saying that passive is better a picturing a Full HD image, it's just using a different technique.
Passive 3D: Both your eyes get half a Full HD image all the time
Active 3D: Both your eyes get a Full HD image half the time
In my opinion the quality is very very good on both active and passive 3D.
The reason I favour passive is b/c of the:
- strobing during daylight
- annoying expensive glasses
And so far everybody who has experienced both Passive and Active 3D TV agrees with me.
Only people who read up the theory and never saw a passive 3D TV disagree.
Robert
mistermentality said:
As you just pointed out the active glasses send the full image to each eye alternating between left and right but both eyes do still see full hd in both eyes because the two images are at full resolution.
They do not half the resolution at all, and if you have an active tv you can see that yourself because you will see both images at the same time but full res. Now do that on a passive set and you'll notice the difference.
As for expensive glasses, you can buy them for under fifteen pound in uk and rechargeables are only twenty something pound and neither are heavy, I watched the olympics for three hours no problem at all last night.
I do need to explain regarding strobing, I was referring to the 3D image not strobing.
You are right that light sources will flicker, but I don't watch much 3D tv during the day so for me it isn't an issue as I prefer watching films with the lights off but yes you are right on that.
This review of both at http://m.cnet.com/news/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better/57437344?ds=1 does a good job of explaining what I mean even though the author prefers passive they do admit active has higher resolution.
In a few years I will probably get a passive set as by then 4K passive sets will be higher res than current active ones but for now I prefer a higher resolution image but each format has benefits.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No matter which one of the 3D types is better the full HD resolution shouldn't be the main factor for choosing your 3D TV, at least for the majority of the people. That's because the average human eye could fully spot the 1080p only when it's very close to the TV.
For example, with an 40-inch TV, you need to sit closer than 5 feet (1.5 meters) for the full HD resolution to become apparent. How many people watch TV that close?
Check the chart here:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
I have 42" lg tv and i can definitely see the difference between 720p and 1080p from 2,5m or so. Clearly see it for example in ps3 xmb is in 1080p vs xbox dash which is always in 720p just upscaled. Or when playing sacred 2(one of the few games that run in full hd) in xbox try to set 1080p play and then set 720p and it will look like **** compared to 1080p. So full hd matters. Not to mention difference in movies.
Sent from my LG-P920 using xda app-developers app
xtrustkillx said:
I have 42" lg tv and i can definitely see the difference between 720p and 1080p from 2,5m or so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not surprising considering your TV size and the your viewing distance. If you look at the chart, for 42" TV the 2.5m you're sitting it's actually the upper limit for distinguishing between 720p and 1080p (the actual range is 1.6-2.5m for a 42" TV). But if you sit 3-4m away, you can't distinguish between 720p and 1080p.
And that's for a normal 2D picture which uses as a source sharp graphics and fonts of PS3 games. If you watch instead 3D video the differences between 1080p and 720p are even less apparent considering the slightly darker image and the glasses.
Rho'd Berth said:
Dave,
So you admit that there is strobing of light (not the TV) that is annoying. You're just saying that it doesn't matter b/c you don't watch TV during daylight anyway. So let's keep it honest: there is a problem, and you can't watch 3D movies during the summer and much of the spring.
And again you claim that you see Full HD to both eyes at the same time.
No, that's not true, all the time 1 of your eyes is covered. Never do you see a Full HD image to both your eyes at the same time.
I'm not saying that passive is better a picturing a Full HD image, it's just using a different technique.
Passive 3D: Both your eyes get half a Full HD image all the time
Active 3D: Both your eyes get a Full HD image half the time
In my opinion the quality is very very good on both active and passive 3D.
The reason I favour passive is b/c of the:
- strobing during daylight
- annoying expensive glasses
And so far everybody who has experienced both Passive and Active 3D TV agrees with me.
Only people who read up the theory and never saw a passive 3D TV disagree.
Robert
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ive posted two links which explain clearly that active gives full hd to each eye and passive does not.
I could post a hundred but you will still insist I'm mistaken or lying.
If you can't see that a full hd image to each eye (your eye combines both hd images to make one 3D image so it is a full hd 3D image) is better than half hd I then nothing I say and no links I post will convince you and this thread will just become a kind of back and forth argument that goes nowhere so I will agree to disagree.
And yes passive is better except for resolution, as I explained when you said strobing I was referring to what a lot of people do when saying that which is that the tv image strobes and disagreeing about that.
So yes passive is good but it is still correct that for resolution per eye active remains better for now. That doesn't make active better in general of course but in that specific area it does.
And of course people will still argue that I'm incorrect or have never seen passive 3D etc so I'm going to agree that we can disagree.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------
botson71 said:
No matter which one of the 3D types is better the full HD resolution shouldn't be the main factor for choosing your 3D TV, at least for the majority of the people. That's because the average human eye could fully spot the 1080p only when it's very close to the TV.
For example, with an 40-inch TV, you need to sit closer than 5 feet (1.5 meters) for the full HD resolution to become apparent. How many people watch TV that close?
Check the chart here:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. I chose active for the higher picture resolution primarily as I watch most of my films in the dark so any flickering of daylight isn't a problem for me. And because I like the tv of course.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
Thanks for the 3D Photo tips. I don't do a whole lot of 3D Photography since I suck at it, maybe these tips will change that and I'll get back into it.
Also just to chime in on the whole Active vs Passive debate I have a 23" LG Passive set and even a passive set with glasses I have a hell of a time finding the sweet spot. I thought a set with glasses wouldn't have that problem like our phones do. Obviously our phones have a parralax barrier and that's why you have to find the sweet spot but with my LG set and Passive glasses I still have to nail a vertical sweet spot. I can't be too high or too low. This also effects how close I can sit to the set. If I sit too far away than I will get ghosting on either the top or the bottom of the screen. I can shift myself higher or lower and make one of them go away but the only way to fix them both is to simply move myself closer to the screen. My friend has an Active set and we never have any of these issues with his set. It's in his basement and is pitch black in broad daylight so he's never had to worry about bright daylight. The cheap glasses of the Passive set are nice but the sweet spot is such a hassle.
Maybe someone can point out what I'm doing wrong and I can have a much better 3D experience with my Passive set.
Well...glad to be helpful
TylDurden said:
Thanks for the 3D Photo tips. I don't do a whole lot of 3D Photography since I suck at it, maybe these tips will change that and I'll get back into it.
Also just to chime in on the whole Active vs Passive debate I have a 23" LG Passive set and even a passive set with glasses I have a hell of a time finding the sweet spot. I thought a set with glasses wouldn't have that problem like our phones do. Obviously our phones have a parralax barrier and that's why you have to find the sweet spot but with my LG set and Passive glasses I still have to nail a vertical sweet spot. I can't be too high or too low. This also effects how close I can sit to the set. If I sit too far away than I will get ghosting on either the top or the bottom of the screen. I can shift myself higher or lower and make one of them go away but the only way to fix them both is to simply move myself closer to the screen. My friend has an Active set and we never have any of these issues with his set. It's in his basement and is pitch black in broad daylight so he's never had to worry about bright daylight. The cheap glasses of the Passive set are nice but the sweet spot is such a hassle.
Maybe someone can point out what I'm doing wrong and I can have a much better 3D experience with my Passive set.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But again I'll be talking from personal experience. Before I buy my TV set - a 50 inches LG PX950N, I was searching on all forums for every kind of info. And at that moment I've reached the conclusion, and is also recommended, that in order to enjoy a real 3D effect your TV set has to be 40 inches or bigger, especially for passive, which at that moment - I'm talking March 2012, wasn't so much accepted. And because my living room isn't big enough I went for a 50 inches Plasma TV set for three reasons - 3D effect (with all those criterias to obey to - size and active) but also that the TV must give full satisfaction in 2D mode HiDef and SD. And the third one as I had this offer - TV set and 3D camera (and here's another story to tell) I bought all just for 1000 euros (plus 40 euros for SD HC card for the 3D camera). Overall a good affair.
Now what can I tell in your case: maybe isn't you that don't get the perfect photo maybe it's just the size of your 3D TV set. And surely it's the passive mode which still is not a real option.
NEW TIP (which I forgot about it) - When you're gonna shoot in 3D mode just don't make a full press of the onscreen button, press it just a little shorter in time in order to get the real preview of the photo. In this preview you'll see how the final photo will be. And if you get some ghost image just adjust the parallax and try to get all the objects or most of them without ghost trails or sides.
Another TIP - set your screen brightness at maximum level because if you have it reduces you might not notice ghost effects
Another TIP - the focus area works better if is set on center not on border - don't ask why but I do see a difference.
And most important TIP - try, try, try. Remember every settings used to take the photos and compare same photos of the same object but with different settings and see which ones are working for you.
Thanks guys for reading and replying to my posts.
You are right
botson71 said:
No matter which one of the 3D types is better the full HD resolution shouldn't be the main factor for choosing your 3D TV, at least for the majority of the people. That's because the average human eye could fully spot the 1080p only when it's very close to the TV.
For example, with an 40-inch TV, you need to sit closer than 5 feet (1.5 meters) for the full HD resolution to become apparent. How many people watch TV that close?
Check the chart here:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But just to make fun out of it - the human brain, let me say that I can spot the 1080p from very far away, and I'm talking something like 5 meters - my living room is long 6,7 m and 4 m wide, and when I'm eating between me and TV (50 inches plasma TV set) is this distance. And I notice better 3D effect than my wife. But my wife is seeing more colors - mixtures, shades and variations than I do. So go figure how we're set in my house.
Great thread. Worth a bump for those like me who are new here.
Sent from my LG-SU870 using xda app-developers app
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.