Database Info

3D in 1080p?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1080p smartphones and 60fps plausibility?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Note 3 vs Canon 5d mark 3 camera comparison

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

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

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

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

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

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

No real full screen on YouTube with S8 Plus

So when i use the Youtube app the screen is about an inch short on both sides of being full screen.
There is an option to expand the screen its called "crop to fit" but it literally crops the video so you cant see descriptions captions or things at the bottom or the top of the video....missing content like this
Anyone else notice this.
Any suggestions. This is kind of disappointing.
Whats the point of such of big screen if you cant go full screen mode without it cutting out some of the content???????
When i use the stock Samsung browser to go to Youtube in desktop mode. Same thing its not True full screen.
But if I switch the stock samsung browser to mobile view it gives you 3 options. One of the options lets you go true full screen and doesnt crop as much out. But the thing is you cant select or change the video quality/resolution when its in mobile view. That kind of sucks if you want to watch a 720p or 1080p hd vid
This seems kind of like a big deal. I cant be the only one bothered by this.

gn4life84 said:
So when i use the Youtube app the screen is about an inch short on both sides of being full screen.
There is an option to expand the screen its called "crop to fit" but it literally crops the video so you cant see descriptions captions or things at the bottom or the top of the video....missing content like this
Anyone else notice this.
Any suggestions. This is kind of disappointing.
Whats the point of such of big screen if you cant go full screen mode without it cutting out some of the content???????
When i use the stock Samsung browser to go to Youtube in desktop mode. Same thing its not True full screen.
But if I switch the stock samsung browser to mobile view it gives you 3 options. One of the options lets you go true full screen and doesnt crop as much out. But the thing is you cant select or change the video quality/resolution when its in mobile view. That kind of sucks if you want to watch a 720p or 1080p hd vid
This seems kind of like a big deal. I cant be the only one bothered by this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no good way to scale or crop it. That's what we get because Samsung decided to go with a weird screen aspect ratio instead of making this phone a little wider. I wish it was wide enough to keep the ratio correct.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

dottat said:
There's no good way to scale or crop it. That's what we get because Samsung decided to go with a weird screen aspect ratio instead of making this phone a little wider. I wish it was wide enough to keep the ratio correct.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks
Wow. If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8. People always get so hype over these new phones that they dont even question basic stuff anymore.
Dont get me wrong its a great phone but this could be a deal breaker.
But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF.
No point in bragging about the sceen size in all the reviews.
Seems like my old Notes actually had a bigger viewing area if you dont like stuff cropped out. What a bummer.

>But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF
What are you talking about??? If the youtube video is 16:9 you can still watch it on a 18.5:9 screen. Same idea as watching a 4:3 video on a 16:9 screen. You aren't missing anything just because there are black bars on the side. Do you want your phone to show video in the sides that never even hit the camera sensor that filmed whatever video you are watching? You want something literally impossible.
>If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8.
Guess what... the Note 8 will have the same problem. Every screen on planet earth has this problem. It's not even a problem, its just how reality works. If the note 8 is a 16:9 screen it wont completely fill up with 4:3 videos. on nooo!!! If you get a 2.4:1 home theater projector screen and try to watch a 16:9 video OMG all that money down the drain!!!! You can't fill your screen!!!
Come on. If you absolutely must watch 16:9 videos on your phone with no black bars then don't buy a phone that is clearly not 16:9.

gn4life84 said:
Thanks
Wow. If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8. People always get so hype over these new phones that they dont even question basic stuff anymore.
Dont get me wrong its a great phone but this could be a deal breaker.
But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF.
No point in bragging about the sceen size in all the reviews.
Seems like my old Notes actually had a bigger viewing area if you dont like stuff cropped out. What a bummer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You might as well stop buying Samsung flagships then, Samsung will keep using the taller screen ratio in the future too. And it's literally impossible to fill the entire 18.5:9 screen with a 16:9 video without either cropping the video or stretching it. Video is information, and new information cannot be generated like you are asking (how are you going to return back in time, to have the camera capture more image from the sides to fill the screen with? The camera did not capture more from the sides, meaning it's not possible to know what was there, the information is missing, thus making it impossible to fill the screen without stretching or cropping)

It's a none issue. The picture quality is so exceptional I don't care enough to worry about black bars

Moreover, if watching a common 2.4:1 movie (i.e. 21.6:9) on the 2.05:1 S8/+ display (i.e. 18.5:9), one can enjoy an almost full screen image using only a small cropping, without the upper and lower black bars...:good:

themissionimpossible said:
Moreover, if watching a common 2.4:1 movie (i.e. 21.6:9) on the 2.05:1 S8/+ display (i.e. 18.5:9), one can enjoy an almost full screen image using only a small cropping, without the upper and lower black bars...:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The cropping is cutting out informative info at the bottom of the vids I like to watch.
mikeyaj said:
It's a none issue. The picture quality is so exceptional I don't care enough to worry about black bars
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is but it was also great on all my old phones. HD youtube can only look so good on screens this size anyways. It does seem better on the 8+ though. I wanted a larger viewing area. Legit question...If size disnt matter why did you go with the 8+ instead of normal 8?
I wish i could get over the black bars like you.
galaxyYtester said:
You might as well stop buying Samsung flagships then, Samsung will keep using the taller screen ratio in the future too. And it's literally impossible to fill the entire 18.5:9 screen with a 16:9 video without either cropping the video or stretching it. Video is information, and new information cannot be generated like you are asking (how are you going to return back in time, to have the camera capture more image from the sides to fill the screen with? The camera did not capture more from the sides, meaning it's not possible to know what was there, the information is missing, thus making it impossible to fill the screen without stretching or cropping)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont mind the Stretch. I prefer the stretch. However stretch view is not an option with the Youtube app. Youtube app is the only way to change the resolution to HD in full screen mode. Thats the whole point to screens like this is to watch HD stuff.
Thanks for the technical info but that is a bit over my head. I still dont really understand that. Its not absurd to buy a $900 device and expect it to play youtube vids full screen in HD.
The cropping is an issue because it literally cuts out some of the info listed at the bottom on the screen that is important to the vids I watch.
Also kind of defeats the whole purpose of an edgeless display and how the phone was advertised.
You think the Note 8 will have the same issue????? You dont think they will make it a tad wider to compensate and make it different from the s8+?

gn4life84 said:
You think the Note 8 will have the same issue????? You dont think they will make it a tad wider to compensate and make it different from the s8+?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, if they make it wider with the same tiny bezels, it's going to end up looking short and odd. Samsung isn't going back to the 16:9 aspect ratio, it's going to look old-fashioned to people that are used to the taller screen, now that Samsung has branded it as futuristic and great (Infinity display). And it's not an "issue", because it's just a way that screens work, different ratio screens have things cropped out or stretched out if you want to fill the whole screen.

dontbstupid said:
>But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF
What are you talking about??? If the youtube video is 16:9 you can still watch it on a 18.5:9 screen. Same idea as watching a 4:3 video on a 16:9 screen. You aren't missing anything just because there are black bars on the side. Do you want your phone to show video in the sides that never even hit the camera sensor that filmed whatever video you are watching? You want something literally impossible.
>If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8.
Guess what... the Note 8 will have the same problem. Every screen on planet earth has this problem. It's not even a problem, its just how reality works. If the note 8 is a 16:9 screen it wont completely fill up with 4:3 videos. on nooo!!! If you get a 2.4:1 home theater projector screen and try to watch a 16:9 video OMG all that money down the drain!!!! You can't fill your screen!!!
Come on. If you absolutely must watch 16:9 videos on your phone with no black bars then don't buy a phone that is clearly not 16:9.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dont be a jerk... Calm down. Dont take it personally. Its a legit concern and question I have about enjoying my device. FOR MY NEEDS THAT I PAID MY MONEY FOR.
The bottom and top of the content of the vids I watch daily is cut off in crop to fit mode. Youtube app isnt offering stretch mode for some reason.
There is important info that i need to see for the vids i watch ussualy at the bottom or top of the screen.
It is not ridiculous to expect to watch HD vids full screen and not miss content. Are you kidding me??? You sound like a fan boy. Its a valid point.
I really like the phone other wise. But this very well could be a deal breaker for some. If Its not fof you great. You have no idea what I use my phone for or why I spent money on it.
Again you pay for a big HD screen to be able to use it fully.
If im having these issues swith just using youtube im sure all the other sites and online media are going to suffer from this.
I bought the phone for screen size and hd capabilities. Had no idea I would have to choose between the 2 on one device.

galaxyYtester said:
Nope, if they make it wider with the same tiny bezels, it's going to end up looking short and odd. Samsung isn't going back to the 16:9 aspect ratio, it's going to look old-fashioned to people that are used to the taller screen, now that Samsung has branded it as futuristic and great (Infinity display). And it's not an "issue", because it's just a way that screens work, different ratio screens have things cropped out or stretched out if you want to fill the whole screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Things come and go every device. I try not to get caught up in the branding or marketing.
Also I would guess the Note needs to be different size than the S8. Otherwise its just going to be a S8 with a pen and moved fingerprint scanner.
Guess we will see.

gn4life84 said:
Things come and go every device. I try not to get caught up in the branding or marketing.
Also I would guess the Note needs to be different size than the S8. Otherwise its just going to be a S8 with a pen and moved fingerprint scanner.
Guess we will see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Note 8 changes will be a 4K screen, fingerprint scanner embedded inside the screen, dual cameras, 6 gigs of RAM and of course an S-Pen. It's a half-year renovation, the general design will barely change, most likely a bit more square than the S8, but generally the same. The screen size will be the same or a tiny bit bigger than the S8+, this time changes are focusing more on specs than the screen size, that is already at the very edges of what is useful in the S8+. The Note 7 screen size increase over the S7 was minimal too. The Note 8 will also get a major software renovation like the Note 7 did, but thanks to XDA we will see that software in our devices most likely even before official release date of the phone, because the processor is the exact same

The annoying thing for me is when the next video plays I have to crop the screen again I don't know if there's a way to keep it full screen until you exit the YouTube app and when you go full screen straight away the ads go full screen but then the video seems to go black bars and you crop it again.

I never understood why people don't like the aspect ratio. The video would be the same size on another phone but there would just be bezels there instead. At least when I'm in other apps I get more real-estate instead of having just big black bars constantly there in the form of bezels

galaxyYtester said:
Note 8 changes will be a 4K screen, fingerprint scanner embedded inside the screen, dual cameras, 6 gigs of RAM and of course an S-Pen. It's a half-year renovation, the general design will barely change, most likely a bit more square than the S8, but generally the same. The screen size will be the same or a tiny bit bigger than the S8+, this time changes are focusing more on specs than the screen size, that is already at the very edges of what is useful in the S8+. The Note 7 screen size increase over the S7 was minimal too. The Note 8 will also get a major software renovation like the Note 7 did, but thanks to XDA we will see that software in our devices most likely even before official release date of the phone, because the processor is the exact same
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would of waited if I knew that. Wonder the price difference

gn4life84 said:
Would of waited if I knew that. Wonder the price difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Note 8 be about the same price as the S8+ right now, just like last year the Note 7 was about the price of the S7 Edge. And as software is a big selling point of the Note line, I don't feel bad at all getting an S-line device, thanks to XDA
To the average customer, a software refresh may be a big reason to buy a new device, but thanks to XDA, we will get complete software ports of the Note 8 over to the S8 quickly. These ports will also have very few bugs, because the specs are so similar, good example is how a bugless Note 7 ported ROM came to the S7 before the Note 7 actually went on sale
And take in mind that the Note 8 release date will most probably be later in the yearly cycle than last year so that the S8 can get a good run, because the S8 this year came later than S-line phones usually do. I don't find it worth waiting +5 months for those upgrades, when the price will be the same

simonhcai said:
The annoying thing for me is when the next video plays I have to crop the screen again I don't know if there's a way to keep it full screen until you exit the YouTube app and when you go full screen straight away the ads go full screen but then the video seems to go black bars and you crop it again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah thats super annoying especially if you're eating watching vids.
Wiseor said:
I never understood why people don't like the aspect ratio. The video would be the same size on another phone but there would just be bezels there instead. At least when I'm in other apps I get more real-estate instead of having just big black bars constantly there in the form of bezels
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont know if thats true. Especially if you're coming from a note. I wish I could get my old phone to power on to test this.
I do find the black bars or the white menu bar to be way more distracting than a bezel.

gn4life84 said:
Dont be a jerk... Calm down. Dont take it personally. Its a legit concern and question I have about enjoying my device. FOR MY NEEDS THAT I PAID MY MONEY FOR.
The bottom and top of the content of the vids I watch daily is cut off in crop to fit mode. Youtube app isnt offering stretch mode for some reason.
There is important info that i need to see for the vids i watch ussualy at the bottom or top of the screen.
It is not ridiculous to expect to watch HD vids full screen and not miss content. Are you kidding me??? You sound like a fan boy. Its a valid point.
I really like the phone other wise. But this very well could be a deal breaker for some. If Its not fof you great. You have no idea what I use my phone for or why I spent money on it.
Again you pay for a big HD screen to be able to use it fully.
If im having these issues swith just using youtube im sure all the other sites and online media are going to suffer from this.
I bought the phone for screen size and hd capabilities. Had no idea I would have to choose between the 2 on one device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So when you bought it you had no clue about the new aspect ratio?
Sent from my S8 plus, Note 7, S7 Edge or S6

force70 said:
So when you bought it you had no clue about the new aspect ratio?
Sent from my S8 plus, Note 7, S7 Edge or S6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None.
All I knew was the hype and that blue whale commercial.
Didnt know it was a thing to make sure the phone was manufactured with certain porportions.
Thought being able to use the screen in HD and full screen would be a given.
I have no problem with stretching the screen from the aspect ratio. However that doesnt seem to be an option on most HD content.

gn4life84 said:
None.
All I knew was the hype and that blue whale commercial.
Didnt know it was a thing to make sure the phone was manufactured with certain porportions.
Thought being able to use the screen in HD and full screen would be a given.
I have no problem with stretching the screen from the aspect ratio. However that doesnt seem to be an option on most HD content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not trying to be a **** but dude they advertised the hell out of the new aspect ratio to the point it got annoying.i dont know how you wouldn't have known lol
Sounds like in the future you may want to research your purchases a little more carefully.
I do agree Id much rather have the traditional 16:9 ratio in a 6.2" size...would be much better for sure
Sent from my S8 plus, Note 7, S7 Edge or S6

Which video apps have 4k playback enabled?

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.