I'm thinking of buying a Tab2 as they are quite cheap now.
I read an online review from 2012 that stated that they are no good for viewing large 1080P file movies?
Is this correct? Have firmware updates corrected this or is the problem related to their average hardware specs?
Sent from my GT-I9300
yes it'$ cann play 1080 p
if my tab 2 7 can do this , so why this not
Well, our screen resolution is 1024 x 600.
So, while you can play 1080P videos on Tab 2, you won't get the full resolution. You will watch the video no problem, but it won't be at 1080.
ddochi11 said:
Well, our screen resolution is 1024 x 600.
So, while you can play 1080P videos on Tab 2, you won't get the full resolution. You will watch the video no problem, but it won't be at 1080.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually my P5110 has a screen resolution of 1280 x 800 but it's still not 1080P.
Sent from my GT-I9300
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.
I've always wondered...
On my Nexus 9 which has 2048 x 1536 resolution, how does a 1080p file display so smoothly?
Logically speaking, i would imagine all those 1080p be blown up and stretched to fit the full screen of the display. However, it seems the video is just as crisp as the original.
Is there some magic involved when a video is set to full screen?
Or is it in reality being stretched but my eyes can't distinguish?
You could tell that the quality of a 720p game forced to 1080p looks horrendous.
How do videos in full screen actually work?
Thanks for the education lessons!
To display 1920x1080 image on 2048x1536 screen it's need to be upscaled from 1920x1080 to 2048x1152 (the rest will be filled with black bars). It's just 7% increase, which is hardly noticeable on video content.
Example: 1920x1080 source.
Downscaled to 1366x768, downscaled to 1280x720 and upscaled to 1366x768 (same 7% increase).
Games that ran at subnative resolution are a different thing:
1) They're very aliased.
2) They have pixel-perfect elements like fonts and osd.
3) They're upscaled using fast methods with low quality. They run at sub-native resolution exactly because perfomance is low.
Thanks for that informative reply!
So is it safe to say, it's actually better to get a device with 1920 x 1080 resolution, just for perfect viewing?
Well yeah, but then you would be forfeiting a larger screen. Like vivan said, it's only a 7% increase upscaling the 1920x1080 to 2048x1152,
AjunNg said:
So is it safe to say, it's actually better to get a device with 1920 x 1080 resolution, just for perfect viewing?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would say that it barely matters - probably subtle difference will be noticeable if you'll switching between 2 devices, but other differences between displays will be way more noticeable.
If I were to select - it would be the last thing I will consider (while first will be display quality and perfomance).
Also you can always switch to 100% zoom mode - it will add small borders on all sides.
Hi everyone
I'm torn between a few phones, mainly looking at the 6p BUT I just discovered the M8. It has a FHD (1080p) screen and 6'' (compared with the 5.7'' AMOLED of the 6p).
Do you guys notice that extra bit of screen size when watching movies/youtube on it? And do you feel the resolution is a problem?
Thanks for your input
I feel the resolution is no problem whatsoever. I haven't got any movies in higher than 1080p anyways.
sure it makes a difference, but only if you keep your phone at a distance of like 1 cm in front of your face while watching movies
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?