Database Info

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

720p Displays - 'Cool Factor' or a practical improvement?

I’m going to be buying a new phone soon. I’ve been eyeing up the Galaxy S II but I thought I might as well wait and see what is announced this month. One thing that all top end rumoured phones have in common is a 720p display. I have to admit this alone has tempted me to wait. But then I got to thinking, aside from the ‘cool’ factor. What benefit in the real world will a 720p display bring us?
The two main advantages that I can see are improved PPI and the obvious advantage when playing 720p videos. But a higher PPI means more processing power, which in turn means lower battery life. Also from an admittedly purely lazy point of view it means having to zoom in further to be able to read text.
A 720p display will now mean that 480p videos on youtube and the like will be upscaled and won’t look as good. ‘Just choose the 720p option’ you say. Fine, so long as you’re on wifi. Until 4G hits and is widespread (which in the UK is going to take a while) it will mean longer waits and buffer issues.
Yes I’m nit picking but I’d genuinely like to hear your thoughts on the pros and cons of a 720p display. I know there will be many more I’ve missed.

i see it from 2 sides....
720p = really nice picture quality
720p bad for some apps/games, which might no longer run properly, unless fixed, or some how the hardware can auto adjust the resolution to stretch it to fit.
720p can be a bit of a pain, if some Apps/Games developer decide to use too small of a touch area, due the larger dot-pix available in the 720p area
that also means DVD quality or lower quality videos played on the 720p will look like blurry or smeared, that can be fixed with software/hardware correction, like games.

^^ All that.
Plus, I don't really see the need for a 720 screen that's around the 4" size. Do you really need pixels that small? They'll be smaller than photons if we carry on like this and then it'll be reality that'll have to catch up with our tech
Personally, I wouldn't hold back for purely that one feature, but who knows what else is round the corner. Get a phone and let it be the best for a few months and then slowly drop down the list. As everyone always says, there's always something better coming, and if you waited then you'd never get anything.
Incidentally, I do have the SGS2, and it is REALLY nice

well definitely 1080p will be around the corner as we already stepped into the 720p kingdom
so 1080p on a 4" display would not be a long wait, but it will really make you think, what's the point of cramming so much in such a little screen
i can see 1080p to be a normal thin on a 10" tablet, but on a phone... that's a bit much
i do hope they don't go beyond 720p on any screen smaller than 5"
imagine running Windows Vista/7 on 15" wide LCD at 1080 (there are many laptops that are actually like that) it's soooooo eye strain-ful, it literally kills the eyes
i always down set the resolution back to something more readable to not strain my eyes

AllGamer said:
i always down set the resolution back to something more readable to not strain my eyes
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you need your reading glasses as well, so you can find your pipe and slippers?

i don't wear glasses, and i intent to keep it that way, reason why i prefer an easy reading, on 480 vs 720
on 720 i'll have to probably the the font size twice as big, to make it easily legible when you are in the car, bus/subway, or walking
no i don't get dizzy reading while doing any of the above
many people can't read if they are in a moving vehicle
probably due the same relevant issue about having to scan the text in a small device and straining your vision, while trying to keep an eye on the road and not crashing

AllGamer said:
i don't wear glasses, and i intent to keep it that way, reason why i prefer an easy reading, on 480 vs 720
on 720 i'll have to probably the the font size twice as big, to make it easily legible when you are in the car, bus/subway, or walking
no i don't get dizzy reading while doing any of the above
many people can't read if they are in a moving vehicle
probably due the same relevant issue about having to scan the text in a small device and straining your vision, while trying to keep an eye on the road and not crashing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you, therebisbreally no reason to go above 720p resolution on small smartphone devices. I myself notice my eyes begin to hurt after more than thirty minutes or so of heavy reading on my Sensation. Now I know my Sensation does not have 720p but I am just saying the size of the screen and the text on that screen is no doubt a strain on the human eye after extended reading done on the device. 1080p is definitely so,ethimg that should just make it to the larger tablets and not smartphones.
Oh and yes actually paying attention to the road while you are driving is a highly recommended activity lol.

AllGamer said:
that also means DVD quality or lower quality videos played on the 720p will look like blurry or smeared, that can be fixed with software/hardware correction, like games.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is just plain wrong, low resolution video will look just as good on 720p displays.
Sent from my GT-I9100

Maybe i miss-understood your question, but i am using the Galaxy SII
I never had any screen / resolution issues

Well,first off,let's not forget that Android supports changing the DPI in build.prop(I think-haven't bothered in a while).I don't think manufacturers will leave 220-240 dpi of the current devices on 720p devices,but they would rather pump it up,so that everything stays the same size,but is just crisper.That's just my thought though.
On another note,lower resolution videos won't look worse at all.Resolution in that aspect is irrelevant.The same way that you can play a 720p video on a 480p screen without problems,you can do the opposite just as well.Unless some manufacturer decides to f*ck it up with upscaling tricks and stuff that will defo make the image blurry and ugly.
The only really valid argument on the topic,in my opinion,is the possible lack of processing power,especially when it comes to GPUs.We even saw the Mali MP-400,the most powerful GPU on a PHONE (DON'T SAY ABOUT THE A5 IN THE iPAD!!!!) to date,struggle to keep up in the case of the Galaxy Note's resolution.If the next gen of SoCs doesn't improve quite a lot in that aspect,we'll see some performance drops for sure.Not to mention the worst thing,the losses of battery life in case that extra power is met.Not that I mind about battery life as long as it makes it through the day,but many many people do.

Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.

Papi4baby said:
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
progressive, opposed to the i of interlaced.
Technically 720i use half the vertical pixels for each frame.

Papi4baby said:
Do any of you guys know the p in 720p stands for?
It has nothing to do with resolution, which is what you are all trying to talk about.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes man,we know.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p

sgs 2
sent from my cappy. xda app

HD rules

4K video so disappointing

I've been recording a few 4k clips. I think its pretty pointless A) No OIS , you need a tripod only reall for using it B) Frame rate not 30fps all the time stutters a bit.
Other than that its the most detailed amazing video on my 2560 x 1440p monitor (No 4k monitor yet), but with no OIS its really not practical at all. Or usable. And not to mention the 5 minute clip limit...
Anyone here going to honestly be using it over 1080p? (Unless you carry a tripod) Guess i'm too use to the G2's OIS camera which gives much smoother videos.

Honestly, mostly I just use 720p. In my opinion the 4k function is an marketing trick by Samsung. Well it works but the mainstream market needs a few more years until it's the non+ ultra. It's nice to have but I'm quietly sure I won't use it at all.

Lenniitsch said:
Honestly, mostly I just use 720p. In my opinion the 4k function is an marketing trick by Samsung. Well it works but the mainstream market needs a few more years until it's the non+ ultra. It's nice to have but I'm quietly sure I won't use it at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Agreed. 100% marketing gimmick. Other than playing with it for a few minutes, doubt I will ever use it again. If it was 4K 30fps with image stabilization yes.

Chaialo says
I was actually thinking of filming a commercial with it. I do have a tripod, slider and a clamp to hold it. I will also be shooting the same scenes in 1080P on my HPX300 just in case.

Hendrickson said:
I've been recording a few 4k clips. I think its pretty pointless A) No OIS , you need a tripod only reall for using it B) Frame rate not 30fps all the time stutters a bit.
Other than that its the most detailed amazing video on my 2560 x 1440p monitor (No 4k monitor yet), but with no OIS its really not practical at all. Or usable. And not to mention the 5 minute clip limit...
Anyone here going to honestly be using it over 1080p? (Unless you carry a tripod) Guess i'm too use to the G2's OIS camera which gives much smoother videos.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wish you guys would quit with the whining.. the camera (from what I have seen) is clearly better than its predecessors or just about anything on the market for a smartphone. Samsung has clearly improved this phone in every way, its by far the best phone on the market. No other phone can anywhere close to what this phone offers, the features are endless. So stop crying and be happy that you are fortunate to own the best phone on the market. IMO

I don't think that the 4k ability is outstanding but someone has to take the first step. And that the note 3 can handle the bandwidth needed for 4k is enough to wow me right there.(it is very compressed I'd imagine)
And to people saying its a marketing gimmick, isn't the iphones slow mo feature the same? The note 3 can do 720p 120fps just like the iphone but there not hyping it up. 4k is more exciting then watching every video on YouTube in slow mo. If I want to watch slow mo I want to see it at 1000fps with a true slow mo camera.

Lenniitsch said:
Honestly, mostly I just use 720p. In my opinion the 4k function is an marketing trick by Samsung. Well it works but the mainstream market needs a few more years until it's the non+ ultra. It's nice to have but I'm quietly sure I won't use it at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Uh, 4K is a feature of the snapdragon 800 chipset. Samsung had nothing to do with it. Blame Qualcomm for it being less than desirable.

I imagine xda devs will get around the 5 minute limit soon enough.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317

I'm so tired of coming to this forum and seeing people constantly complain about things that are either superficial or not mind blowing (etc. speakers not putting out surround sound 7.1, 4k not being worlds better than 1080p).
Keep these negative post in:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2458640

Agree Sgt. Beside that I would add permission that people with less of 200 (maybe 100) cant open new threads in general..Only qa.
Sent from my SM-N9005 using xda app-developers app

Sounds great, they should also make it that Samsung fanboys can only start posts too? Fanboys here don't let people express their opinions which is what forums are all about discussions and sometimes there are topics you might not like.
Edit: I've request this thread be lock and buried incase more don't like it

Mod Edit
Thread closed at [OP] request
malybru
Forum Moderator

Video quality

Your friends are never going to believe what you did. The only way to prove it to them is with that video you took. Rate this thread to express how videos shot on the Huawei P10 Plus come out. A higher rating indicates that videos are smooth (and not choppy) and that auto-focus works very well, and that the camera adjusts quickly to different lighting conditions while recording.
Then, drop a comment if you have anything to add!

The quality of video is quite good. It doesn't match up with modern mirrorless cameras, but Leica optics does hand a great value to video quality. This is exactly why I'm so frustrated on the software. Camera on itself is awesome and the quality is top notch, yet deficiency of the camera application renders camera almost useless. Except for the selfie, monochrome and pro-mode parts (which are photography modes) Too bad, video is the worst part of the camera. Only in perfect conditions it will perform quite well, but at least here in Finland Sun doesn't shine around the clock. When using artificial lighting, shutter flickering happens about 80% of time because one can not lock down the shutter speed to match frequency of said lighting. And on normal-to-low light situations, noise and artifacts destroys the video quality to a point you don't ever want to use the phone for video.

video quality is very bad. to the point that i dont like shooting with it anymore. camera is bad as well. it is very frustrating. i swapped out my iphone 6s for this huawei p10 more because i was attracted with the leica branding. and i am regretting it.. it has been 3 months already since i bought this. 2 months of selling it and no body is buying this thing

chamitobear said:
video quality is very bad. to the point that i dont like shooting with it anymore. camera is bad as well. it is very frustrating. i swapped out my iphone 6s for this huawei p10 more because i was attracted with the leica branding. and i am regretting it.. it has been 3 months already since i bought this. 2 months of selling it and no body is buying this thing
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
lol,i'm the same,camera was better on my note 4

Well,
is there a place where one can see other phone's videos, for comparison?
Except gsmarena.

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.