When taking pics they all are in the 4:3 aspect ratio (both in 2D & 3D). Anybody knows a way to take pics that fill the screen (without post cropping them) when beeing watched (like the videos do)?
tnx
Sent from my wonderful
LG-P920 using XDA App
I suspect this is just the simple fact that the sensors are 4:3 ratio, when shooting video the sensor probably just ignores so many pixels at the top and the bottom to fake the aspect ratio.
So if you want 16:9 then just frame your photos as if the top and bottom is not there, then crop them on the PC later. You can probably even crop them on the phone itself but I have not looked into it myself as I do not see that it matters. You are always best keeping them 4:3 in case you want to have them printed later.
Better to have the option on the phone itself
Hello Alex,
I was using the n900 as well before i bought the o3d. I agree with you that the camera quality was much better on the n900.
And it was possible to choose the 16:9 resolution - although i think the sensor on the n900 was 4:3 as well.
in between i had the atrix for 1 month or so - it also offered to shoot in 16:9, but this one was not 3d ;-).
I think it would be great to be able to see the pics just taken as a "screen filling experience"! Cropping by hand or on the PC is an option, but it would be more convenient to have it as an option on the phone, to take pictures in the original screen ratio.
thanks for your reply anyway
heiwid
There are a few more options in lgCamera and it also lets you record video at higher bitrates.
It seems a bit twitchy since V10d firmware though, you might have to switch between the image viewer and back before the preview starts working.
Still photos still come out very over-processed though, so I am guessing this is something only LG can improve or someone hacking around with Android itself.
[EDIT]
Actually be careful with that app, it just locked up my phone. Annoying as it seemed fine firmware V10b.
Thanks for the hint.
I tried it - worked - but no 16:9 settings as well except 720x480.
But this is not an option for taking pics.
I think you are right, Only LG could change it.
It looks like the view of the software engineers @ LG is not as wide as the one of the hardware engineers ;-).
That LG camera app is as buggy as hell, total crap.
Hi everyone!
Edit: The camera and camcorder response / accessing time is also 5 and 4 times higher than another Android device.
This tablet comes Full HD display, utilizing nvidia's 40nm processor technology (SoC).
The current IC fabrication technology is 22nm, 28nm and 32nm which is considerably more efficient than 40nm in terms of processing power.
I noticed on the first day of receiving this tablet I was overwhelmed by its full HD display, for this tablet being a high-end product.
When I look at the image captured by the camera I was somewhat not surprised by the image quality of the camera.
It has been one of the main features which was talked about in the launch / promotional video of the TF Infinity.
Where it talked about a 5th lens that adds on a superior quality but I don't see that quality. There are couple of problems with the camera.
1. The well known focus clicking problem in video mode (auto focus is unavailable in video mode).
2. The image captured in a room with fluorescent lighting has a refresh rate problem (with horizontal bars across the image).
3. The zoom feature worked fine but somehow the preview which shown on the screen isn't, the live preview is low resolution and produce undesirable sharp blocks (which is just as annoying as using a low ended product).
The camera software is primitive and is lacking lots of the standard features of a camera.
But I'd expect much more quality from them and nevertheless to say it is pretty unexpected to see the full HD display while still leaving lots of blanks for the critics to fill up (wondering why the reviewers never mentioned the negative points on the tablet) and usability problems which its users faces.
A lot of people probably don't care about the camera but hey this tablet isn't cheap to start with and it's made by a reputable brand name in the technology industry (& they don't make Cameras...).
If you watch the live preview closely, you can actually see the horizontal bars moving down the screen (just like the refresh rate of the good old analog TV).
Is there any experts with cameras who can tell me how do you capture an image without the presence of the horizontal bars?
Is this tablet with high-end specification and without quality?
But if you are just an average user; Do you still get really annoying about all of the problems on the tablet?
*# One other thing which is rather inconsistent, I noticed is the file modified date in the recently released FW updates "*_epad-user-9.4.5.22.zip", all of the files within it are dated with 22/3/2011 11:21AM. And the zipped file within "*_epad-user_9_4_5_22_UpdateLauncher.zip" are dated 15/6/2012 and this update was only uploaded a few days ago!
I remember my phone originally had a lot of issues with camera...it ended up being software. I tried Camera Zoom FX, and the pictures started to come out quite a lot better. LGCamera works great as well, and also has a video mode. Try those, that might increase your picture quality and also gives you a lot more control over pictures.
As good as the camera was built up by Asus, its still a tablet camera. Tablet cameras have a reputation for being kinda crap.
But I agree with KilerG's post. Try other camera software and see if that helps. Or perhaps try turning down the resolution.
Jotokun said:
As good as the camera was built up by Asus, its still a tablet camera. Tablet cameras have a reputation for being kinda crap.
But I agree with KilerG's post. Try other camera software and see if that helps. Or perhaps try turning down the resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't expecting to become a professional photographer with this tablet, much less shoot my next great film on it (even though if I did, that would be hilarious). I probably won't spend a lot of time using the camera, and when I do, I think that's it's adequate for what it is...a tablet camera.
Remember how Apple talks up their camera? It still doesn't take the most amazing photos, especially on the iPad (well they talk up everything that is basically worthless, so maybe that's a bad example). I can get a better picture from a Samsung or HTC phone 9 times out of 10 than on a fruit device.
KilerG said:
I wasn't expecting to become a professional photographer with this tablet, much less shoot my next great film on it (even though if I did, that would be hilarious). I probably won't spend a lot of time using the camera, and when I do, I think that's it's adequate for what it is...a tablet camera.
Remember how Apple talks up their camera? It still doesn't take the most amazing photos, especially on the iPad (well they talk up everything that is basically worthless, so maybe that's a bad example). I can get a better picture from a Samsung or HTC phone 9 times out of 10 than on a fruit device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So; I guess you didn't buy a tablet because of its camera, but you see the point of having a camera on the tablet is to make life easy and fun.
It should be expected of from a tablet, various components of the tablet works but its not perfect, why? Maybe the manufacturer can answer the question.
Redefined301 said:
So; I guess you didn't buy a tablet because of its camera, but you see the point of having a camera on the tablet is to make life easy and fun.
It should be expected of from a tablet, various components of the tablet works but its not perfect, why? Maybe the manufacturer can answer the question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is maybe philosophical.
Being the best does not infer perfection.
Ahhh, but I too would prefer perfection. Those cameras cost 10's of thousands and almost require a degree to operate. For 500 bucks and a ton of more relevant things it does I am happy with the best of crap.
So to speak.
Lets just hope for the best of apps to get us home.
+1 for Camera ZoomFX. One of the first apps i install on my devices.
timrock said:
+1 for Camera ZoomFX. One of the first apps i install on my devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The quality remains the same as the horizontal bars are still present in the still image.
I took this picture today and it seemed to come out perfectly fine. There were no lights on and it was starting to get dark. My phone's camera would have taken an incredibly grainy picture, but this seemed to work just fine.
That's. My grandpa and great uncle if you were wondering. I'm visiting my grandparents and great uncle currently
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using xda app-developers app
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
It seams the our Motorola Razr HD has very good features that are highly compatible with top smart phones out there.. except in the camera department !
Camera photos are below par of any phone manufacturing.
With our smart developers, why don't they invest some of their knowledge in finding a solution to improve the camera quality...?
If i recall right most of the issue is hardware. Not really able to change that.
Sent from my Transformer TF101 using xda premium
Razr HD camera quality issue: Hardware or Software ?
Report from Phonearena:
"Outside images captured with the 8MP camera look good enough for a “point and shoot” camera, as there is plenty of detail, yet the edges are rather soft. The problem that we found is that Motorola is still having issues with the auto white balance, as some images have a “cool blue” look to them, while others have oversaturated colors. Unfortunately, it doesn’t get better when taking indoor images, as the colors look unnatural, and there is plenty of visible grain. When using the LED Flash, we noticed it really isn’t bright enough to illuminate an average size room, as anything further away than 10 feet was not bright enough to see"
If you use the nexus 4 camera app theres less shutter lag
Swyped while swerving from my Droid Razr Maxx HD
Hi anybody
Some new phones come with a full hd ~5" display. My 42" television has also the same resolution
What are the benefit from full hd to xlarge (960dp x 720dp) ?
Cheers, Marc
I'd guess the quality of the image you're getting lol
It's all about the distance from the screen to your eyes.
Smaller the pixel, sharper the image.
As isajoo said, it makes pictures more crisp. Also a 5inch phone held 50cm away will look as big as a 42inch TV which is sitting across the room.
TF101 KatKiss. SGS2 Stock.
HumbleRequestor said:
As isajoo said, it makes pictures more crisp. Also a 5inch phone held 50cm away will look as big as a 42inch TV which is sitting across the room.
TF101 KatKiss. SGS2 Stock.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally Agree
Pretty much the quality of the picture and how close to real it seems.
720p on my 4.5" Moto G looks fantastic, so it all depends on your screen size. I bet 720 would look good on a 5" screen also.