Database Info

720p video resolution

I did a small search but could not find anything.
Would it be possible for some smart developer to create new drivers/application for htc camera?
I mean iphone 4 has 5 megapixel camera just like htc hd2 however it can record 720p resolution videos. I will dear to say it quite good quality!!!
How come Leo can not do it? Is it possibly down to hardware as well?
720p video resolution is 1280x720 and 5mp stills are easilly 2x that?

so
1st: the 5 megapixel are for pictures only.
2nd: i think the Hardware of the HD2 is capable of 720p videos as it is the same camera as in the Desire/Nexus One...
3rd: as windows mobile doesnt support 720p video playback (i think so) i dont think that it could record it
if it is possible, then in android...

ruscik said:
I did a small search but could not find anything.
Would it be possible for some smart developer to create new drivers/application for htc camera?
I mean iphone 4 has 5 megapixel camera just like htc hd2 however it can record 720p resolution videos. I will dear to say it quite good quality!!!
How come Leo can not do it? Is it possibly down to hardware as well?
720p video resolution is 1280x720 and 5mp stills are easilly 2x that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He does sorta kinda have a good point

720p does not mean the quality is going to be better. it means that the resolution is going to be larger.
you can stretch a VHS video to 720p... but at the end of the day its still a VHS.
Its all down to the camera sensor. Thats why you can pick up a 12MP digi cam for £60 or a 10.1MP Canon 1DS Mk3 for £1700.
I know which one I would have...

Oberoth said:
so
1st: the 5 megapixel are for pictures only.
2nd: i think the Hardware of the HD2 is capable of 720p videos as it is the same camera as in the Desire/Nexus One...
3rd: as windows mobile doesnt support 720p video playback (i think so) i dont think that it could record it
if it is possible, then in android...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know that about camera still shots being 5mp only. Windows not supporting 720p is partially correct. Windows media player does not want to play anything bigger then 800x640 while core player shouts at me at 1024x768 sp not short of 720p, it is obvious it's driver/codec/software issue only for playback. Did anyone try tcpmp for 720p playback?
shuttsies said:
720p does not mean the quality is going to be better. it means that the resolution is going to be larger.
you can stretch a VHS video to 720p... but at the end of the day its still a VHS.
Its all down to the camera sensor. Thats why you can pick up a 12MP digi cam for £60 or a 10.1MP Canon 1DS Mk3 for £1700.
I know which one I would have...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
720p does mean quality will be better.
Resolution 640x480 is 307200 pixels per frame plus what ever colour depth so x16 for 16m and so on.
Resolution 1280x720 is 921600 pixels which is over twice as much data to be displayed on the same surface.
Single pixel size on 32" screen with 640 resolution will be much bigger and therefore have much less details then with 1280 resolution.
Twice as much data will have to equal better quality.
I know that camera sensor is very important, quite often more then MP value. However our sensor if good enough to catch twice the resolution of 720p and after all video is just a bunch of still images played one after another (a bit more in to that I know ).
On HTC HD2 there was a burst photo option. With registry edit you could tell it to make 20 pictures a second ad 1280x720p or something similar. Almost full frame late

With Android (today build) you can rec 800x480 video file

vessk0 said:
With Android (today build) you can rec 800x480 video file
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is it real? how can i find this build?

vessk0 said:
With Android (today build) you can rec 800x480 video file
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This would be true except there is no button on the HD2 to activate video recording (at least through the default android video recording facility. I'm assuming someone is working out how to remap one of the keys whilst in this program. It will happen though.

jonboyuk said:
This would be true except there is no button on the HD2 to activate video recording (at least through the default android video recording facility. I'm assuming someone is working out how to remap one of the keys whilst in this program. It will happen though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
On the build I used, you simply press on the screen for 3 secs...

h8196288 said:
On the build I used, you simply press on the screen for 3 secs...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THATS ONLY FOR THE CAMERA DUDE LOL

ruscik said:
720p does mean quality will be better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No it doesn't.
As he mentioned, you can stretch any video source to make it 720p or even 1080p or even go to 4k if you want.
It's up to the camera sensor to fill in the extra pixels to make it a high def image, if it can't then all you're doing is making 1 pixel use 2 pixels instead.

Psygnosis84 said:
No it doesn't.
As he mentioned, you can stretch any video source to make it 720p or even 1080p or even go to 4k if you want.
It's up to the camera sensor to fill in the extra pixels to make it a high def image, if it can't then all you're doing is making 1 pixel use 2 pixels instead.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For one pixel to be used on two is upscaling. That is a software option and our camera for now does not have it. But even if camera would only do that to 10% of the extra spaces it has to fill the quality will be much better as that still means 10% extra data captured.
Pixel size in standard and 720p resolution is not the same. If the picture will be split it will also be compressed to fit smaller pixel keeping the same ammount of data mostly (this one we will not know until we try it) so when used on bigger screens there will be mroe detail there.
It is down to sensor to pickup everything at desired resolution and as long as we do not exceed 5mp still it does. What is the problem is speed that sensor processes the information, converts it to known format, sends it and stores it.
In other words how fast is the cpu that converts it, communication with cpu and memory, plus finally speed it can save it to card.
If you have an HD camcorder get it to record stock resolution, then get a class 1 sd card and get it to record 1080p. Compare the images.
At 1080p sensor will get all the pixels but will not be able to save them and it will be similar situation to what Leo camera will do. Without trying we will not know how much. Fact that Android can record at 800x480 should say it will be better as cam was instantly capable of that.
I am not working in video industry but I do a lot of editing and video processing from my, and my friends motorcycle cameras and other action cams. I know a thing or two about videos. Sometimes you do not need much improvement in camera to see a lot improvement in quality. It is all down to how much camera can save per frame.

[Q] Higher Resolution Android Phones

I'm very surprised the Nexus S didn't come out with a higher resolution Super Amoled screen. Apparently, 2.3 supports higher resolution according to wikipedia. I'm just waiting for a new android phone with a higher resolution/pixel density to put the iphone 4 to shame.
Imagine, a Super Amoled screen with a 1024x768 or 1280x720 resolution would be the best mobile phone screen in the world.
When do you think we will realistically see android phones with higher resolution displays?

The current Super AMOLED screen already trades blows with the Retina Display. I'm sure there will be higher res screens at some point but whats the rush? Wouldnt a higher resolution screen be more of a burden on battery than the current screens already are anyway? I'd see resolutions that high being more relevant for tablets and PMP than phones.

Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)

Well, android definitely needs to match or better the 640x960 resolution of the iPhone 4 to maintain feature parity.

The current SuperAMOLED screens are less battery consuming than old LCD and Retina, so bigger resolutions shouldn't be a battery problem.
But what's the point of having 1280x768 on a 4" screen?
I'm pretty satisfied with 480x320 on 3.2" and 800x480 on 4" looks also awesome.

The Meizu M9 have a 960x640 display, but (even if you are in china) this little boy is still difficult to find.
The next Meizu (M9ii) will have a 1280×854 or 1280×800 4" screen, and should be animated by a Tegra2 with 1Gb of RAM. They said that the release date will be on middle 2011, so maybe we will be able to grap it in the late 2011.
The two phones are running on a custom android 2.2 (the UI is very different from the classical Android).
For the battery, it's more backlight that drains power.
A higher resolution will only put a little more stress on the GPU, but if the OS is well coded, it should not consume a lot more.

DPI, its all about DPI

You can have all the DPI in the world, but all its gonna mean is LAG and Battery if we're still relying on the CPU to push pixels.

dimon222 said:
Why? It will drain battery more and more, and higher resolution don't need for still small display. Just imagine, MP3 player with Desktop resolution.
Haha? Try push sensor button, wtf it's so small...
U wanna get more ability to use sensor keyboard? (sarcastic)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You have absolutely no comprehension of what resolution is. Look at the iphone going from 480x320 to 960x640. Did the icons get smaller? No I didn't think so. You simply put more pixels into an icon the same size. Because it seems you're under the impression that pixel count determines image size.

however, there is no need for a higher resolution because the display is that too small. better resolution would look like the same as the resolution looks on current phones.

I can see several reasons to be interested in higher screen resolution (but IMHO you will need at least a 3.5" display):
Games
ok, that's not for today, but with ports like the unreal engine on android, phones will become more like a mobile console (PSP phone, for example). A better resolution sounds like a better playing experience, but will still need more powerful hardware (and that's on the way with multi core SOC)
Video
isn't that obvious? and it's essential if you're watching videos with subtitles
Internet
I don't know for you, but on my 800x480 handset, i have to zoom out to have the full page, and zoom in, etc...
With a better screen resolution, the navigation will be easier
It's not interesting for everybody, but I think clivo360 and I are not the only guys looking for a higher resolution screen

Although 4.3" is probably the upper limit for what you'd consider "pocketable", I'd still be attracted to bigger screens and more powerful phones because there are things that can take advantage of them, such as video. Imagine 1080p screens on a phone!
At some point though, phones are probably going to suffer the same problem that PCs did - that hardware outdoes all user needs. Imagine a point where the hardware has reached such a point where for the average user, they don't need the most potent phone anymore. We're already well on the way there. It happened with PCs, where the average user needs office software such as word processing, a spreadsheet, and the Internet, but nothing that demands crazy hardware (the average user is not a high end gamer we're talking here).

A better resolution makes even more difference on an SAMOLED screen compared to an LCD/SLCD - due to the PenTile matrix configuration of pixels a 800x480 SAMOLED screen doesn't really have as many pixels as an 800x480 standard LCD.
Just take a close look at the screen of a Nexus One or Nexus S at some text and you'll see it's slightly fuzzy. See here for more info
Better resolutions aren't available yet because a) it's a relatively new technology and b) manufacturers are having a hard enough time making enough just to cover the existing devices that use them.
AFAIK, there is only one Android device with a larger screen resolution that, as long as you don't live in the good old US of A (and even there it can be done), can make calls: the Samsung Galaxy Tab. But not exactly small enough to fit in your trouser pocket (although it does slip easily into a jacket pocket).
PS: The Tab is fantastic for video (1080p MKV supported), games and general browsing (with plugins set to on-demand) plus the odd short book, although you do look very strange if you answer calls on it without a BT headset (very Trigger Happy).

Ugh, I won't flame people saying we don't need higher resolution, though I wanted to...
Here is one basic application where the higher resolution really does make a difference: Reading text .PDFs.
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Higher resolution does not nesc. need more battery/CPU power: it's the brightness that uses the battery most.

critofur said:
I tried reading PDFs on my 800 x 480 Samsung Fascinate (Galaxy S) and I wish the text was a little smoother. Sure, I'd like a slightly larger screen (no more than 4.3") but if the screen was larger I'd be even more desperate for higher resolution. I'd like to see 1024 * 640 on a 4" Android.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't your phone's AMOLED screen use the PenTile matrix? If so, that's a huge factor. I have 2 Droid Incredibles, one AMOLED w/PenTile matrix, the other SLCD. The SLCD has MUCH smoother text despite both being the same 480x800 resolution. AMOLED w/PenTile matrix has a "screen door effect".
Anyway, Toshiba might make your dream come true, and even exceed what you'd like to see.
http://www.engadget.com/2011/05/16/toshiba-enters-pixel-density-fray-with-367ppi-lcds-for-cellphone/

its true about the screen door effect. texting the g2x is very smooth dispite the resolution being the same as the vibrant.

Not sure I could put larger than 4.3" in my pocket

How much would a widescreen HDR+ picture taken with the Nexus 5 measure?

Since Google won't update the awful stock camera app and the quality of the pictures taken with the third party apps on the play store is garbage.
I will crop my pictures using a Photoshop Script until we get a new app or I get the HTC One+/ One 2014 , to which size should I crop my pictures to get the maximum resolution posible of photos taken with HDR+ on?
The Nexus 5 camera takes pictures with 3264x2448 and when you use HDR+ it takes slightly smaller pictures (3200x2368) native 8 MP cameras take pictures with 3008 x 2000 resolution, would it be ok if i just chop 368 pixels horizontally and 192 vertically?

Chad_Petree said:
Since Google won't update the awful stock camera app and the quality of the pictures taken with the third party apps on the play store is garbage, I will crop my pictures using a Photoshop Script until we get a new app or I get the HTC One+/ One 2014 , to which size should I crop my pictures to get the maximum resolution posible of photos taken with HDR+ on? The Nexus 5 camera takes pictures with 3264x2448 and when you use HDR+ it takes slightly smaller pictures (3200x2368) native 8 MP cameras take pictures with 3008 x 2000 resolution, using my 3200x2368 pictures and cropping them to 3008 x 2000 won't slightly distort the picture?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cropping CUTS the image. It doesn't SQUISH it so no distortion is possible. You just wont be able to see parts of the photo you crop off.
Anyway, to get a 16:9 aspect ratio from a width of 3264, You would need to crop to a height of 1836.
4:3 means for every 4 pixels across the screen, it goes 3 pixels up the side of the screen. So if 3264 is the 4 across (3264 / 4 = 816 for each 1) then 816 * 3 = 2448
16:9 for every 16 pixels across, it goes 9 pixels up. So if 3264 is the 9 across (3264 / 16 = 204 for each 1) then 204 * 9 = 1836
Or in otherwords
Resolution is always WidthxHeight
Aspect ratio is always Width:Height
Take Resolution Width and divide it by Aspect Ratio Width to get a multiplier. Multiply the multiplier by the Aspect Ratio Height to get the resolution height.

rootSU said:
Cropping CUTS the image. It doesn't SQUISH it so no distortion is possible. You just wont be able to see parts of the photo you crop off.
Anyway, to get a 16:9 aspect ratio from a width of 3264, You would need to crop to a height of 1836.
4:3 means for every 4 pixels across the screen, it goes 3 pixels up the side of the screen. So if 3264 is the 4 across (3264 / 4 = 816 for each 1) then 816 * 3 = 2448
16:9 for every 16 pixels across, it goes 9 pixels up. So if 3264 is the 9 across (3264 / 16 = 204 for each 1) then 204 * 9 = 1836
Or in otherwords
Resolution is always WidthxHeight
Aspect ratio is always Width:Height
Take Resolution Width and divide it by Aspect Ratio Width to get a multiplier. Multiply the multiplier by the Aspect Ratio Height to get the resolution height.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Had to re read what you posted hahaha :'( , but I do what aspect ratio refers to, yes silly me, the picture won't be distorted, because I'm just chopping a piece of it, what I should have asked is wether cutting it to 3008 x 2000 will give me a true 16:9 aspect ratio, I cropped a HDR+ picture (3200x2168) and I got a 3200x1800 picture

Chad_Petree said:
Had to re read what you posted hahaha :'( , but I do what aspect ratio refers to, yes silly me, the picture won't be distorted, because I'm just chopping a piece of it, what I should have asked is wether cutting it to 3008 x 2000 will give me a true 16:9 aspect ratio, I cropped a HDR+ picture (3200x2168) and I got a 3200x1800 picture
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why would you choose to crop to 3200 width? Are you using an app with presets?
3200 x 1800
16 : 9
3200 / 16 = 200
200 * 9 = 1800
So yes
OR
3200/16 = 200
1800/9=200
So yes
.

rootSU said:
Why would you choose to crop to 3200 width? Are you using an app with presets?
3200 x 1800
16 : 9
3200 / 16 = 200
200 * 9 = 1800
So yes
OR
3200/16 = 200
1800/9=200
So yes
.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I'm using the Photoshop presets for 16:9 , why is it a different size than the size you're talking about ?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Chad_Petree said:
Yes I'm using the Photoshop presets for 16:9 , why is it a different size than the size you're talking about ?
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok well I can confirm, that preset is 16:9 but you're also losing some width of the photo there too. The number in my earlier response is based on the maximum width of image produced by the N5 sensor. The optimum 16:9 resolution for an image taken from the Nexus 5 is 3264x1836, however your preset isn't much smaller so its a non-issue I suppose.

Of course for anyone else reading ( @Chad_Petree knows this) it will still only display as 2mpx 1920x1080 on a HD display. A higher resolution can only be achieved on a higher than HD resolution screen or printing to poster size.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

I believe the 3200 width comes from the HDR+ photos hes taking. The pictures are reduced in size presumably to better stitch the multiple images together.

rootSU said:
Of course for anyone else reading ( @Chad_Petree knows this) it will still only display as 2mpx 1920x1080 on a HD display. A higher resolution can only be achieved on a higher than HD resolution screen or printing to poster size.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, by the way I'll reserve judgment until I see them, maybe they will blow me away, but all this talk about 2k screens on phones, I think it's innecesary, putting more strain on the battery, just give me a damn phone that last 24 hours with heavy use, a normal sized phone not a phablet
bblzd said:
I believe the 3200 width comes from the HDR+ photos hes taking. The pictures are reduced in size presumably to better stitch the multiple images together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That sounds like a plausible explanation, the photos taken with HDR+ are indeed a bit tinier

bblzd said:
I believe the 3200 width comes from the HDR+ photos hes taking. The pictures are reduced in size presumably to better stitch the multiple images together.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes you're right
---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------
Chad_Petree said:
Yes, by the way I'll reserve judgment until I see them, maybe they will blow me away
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They won't. It is impossible for there to be any visual improvement between a 2mpx image and a 6mpx image on a 2mpx screen. In fact, since the 6mpx image has to be condensed into 2mpx, it is even possible that a 2mpx image will look better than a 6mpx image.
The only time you will get blown away with more than 2mpx is if:
1) You have a screen with more than 2mpx (4k for example)
2) You're printing the image in an enlarged format

rootSU said:
yes you're right
---------- Post added at 10:53 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:49 AM ----------
They won't. It is impossible for there to be any visual improvement between a 2mpx image and a 6mpx image on a 2mpx screen. In fact, since the 6mpx image has to be condensed into 2mpx, it is even possible that a 2mpx image will look better than a 6mpx image.
The only time you will get blown away with more than 2mpx is if:
1) You have a screen with more than 2mpx (4k for example)
2) You're printing the image in an enlarged format
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was talking about 2k screens, not 2k videos on our 1080p screens, don't forget that when 1080p screens were announced we were quick to say they were gimmicks, but look how much better they look, and yes I realise that it probably has to do more with the fact that they come with new technologies and the resolution is not the main reason why they look better

Chad_Petree said:
I was talking about 2k screens, not 2k videos on our 1080p screens, don't forget that when 1080p screens were announced we were quick to say they were gimmicks, but look how much better they look, and yes I realise that it probably has to do more with the fact that they come with new technologies and the resolution is not the main reason why they look better
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not saying that they're a gimmick. 4k screens will become prevalent in the future. 2k seems like a pointless step to me though.
Watching a 1080 video on a 720 screen looks no better (in fact worse) than watching a 720 video on a 720 screen. The trick is, display whatever you are displaying at the native resolution for best results
...and yes, a 6mpx photo will look better than a 2mpx photo on a 2k screen. The 6mpx image will need to be condensed to fit but the 2mpx picture is a lower resolution so it will either need to be upscaled or simply not fill the screen.
However 1080 screens are 2mpx so a 2mpx photo will always look better than a 6mpx photo on the same screen because it is the native resolution of the image and screen.
So as long as you have nothing over and above 1080, a 6mpx image is pointless. That said, I prefer as full a resolution as I can get for future proofing.

Does WQHD (2560x1440) strain pixels more than FHD (1920x1080)

I decided to test if there's an actual difference in FHD and WQHD quality wise, and I definitely see a pretty discernible difference, the most with black text on a white screen ( i.e. in facebook messenger ). In WQHD the text is definitely much crisper. After spending a bit of time at WQHD and switching back to FHD, it looks blurry.
So anyway to get to the point of the post, I've seen some S6 / S7 / S8s with dead pixels recently and It's got me wondering, does keeping it at WQHD constantly increase pixel strain, thus increasing the probability of dead pixels? It sounds plausible for someone who's not that informed with how super amoled displays work, but it could just be completely wrong, so if anyone has a definitive answer I'd really appreciate it, cheers!

Reducing the resolution doesn't reduce the number of pixels used, they are all used no matter what rez you set, so no, no difference in pixel strain

Why use WQHD+ Instead of FHFD+ Resolution?

I noticed on my new phone it comes with the resolution defaulted to 2280 x 1080 (FHD+) but it can be set to WQHD+ (3040 x 1440). My understanding is you use a bit less battery when using a lower resolution.
So if I'm not playing games, or watching 4K videos, is there really any reason to use the WQHD+ resolution? When I switch between the two, the fonts, icons, and apps have no noticeable difference in appearance. This is understandable when you consider many of us are watching TV and Movies in 1080P FHD and 4K UHD on a 60+ inch TV from across the room. Packing that same resolution into a 6-6.7" screen, even when viewing close up the PPI is so dense, even the lower 2280 x 1080 resolution looks beautiful with no discernable difference compared to 3040 x 1440. Even if you were to watch a 4K YouTube Video, on that small of a screen, I doubt there's any significant difference to watching it in 1080P. You definitely can see a difference on a 60" TV from 10-feet away.
I would also think in some cases on some phones maybe even gamers WANT to use the lower resolution to get faster frame rates for their games?
So I got to thinking further, is the WQHD+ resolution really in all practicality amounting to more of a marketing benefit to be able to advertise a spec that is equal to or better than competing model phones? Sort of like how for several years we got into the "Megapixel Race" on digital cameras only to come to realize more is not always better (higher megapixels on many cameras just introduced more noise given the same sensor size.)
Maybe the fact the manufacturer (Samsung), ships the phone defaulted to FHD+ instead of WQHD+ sort of answers my question right there?