V20 is using new camera sensor, same as OP3 - LG V20 Guides, News, & Discussion
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do not know why all oems are going with 4:3 ratio it looks ****ty when showing a photo or taking a photo on the phone which is 16:9 also most monitors and TVs are 16:9 , it's just everyone following apple as usual. If the headphone jack goes I think I will meltdown )))
My PC Monitor is 4:3 (NEC 24" CRT) and my Canon takes 4:3 pictures, which works good together and when printing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 sizes on my Epson. But for phones, it makes more sense to have a 16:9 image sensor, as that is the same aspect ratio as the phone's display and when viewed on an HDTV. I was glad that the Note 4 DE I got 2 years ago used a 16:9 sensor, but it looks like the Note 7 went back to 4:3 (not sure why). I was hoping the V20 was also going to use 16:9 for its sensor.
FAUguy said:
My PC Monitor is 4:3 (NEC 24" CRT) and my Canon takes 4:3 pictures, which works good together and when printing 4x6, 5x7, or 8x10 sizes on my Epson. But for phones, it makes more sense to have a 16:9 image sensor, as that is the same aspect ratio as the phone's display and when viewed on an HDTV. I was glad that the Note 4 DE I got 2 years ago used a 16:9 sensor, but it looks like the Note 7 went back to 4:3 (not sure why). I was hoping the V20 was also going to use 16:9 for its sensor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Honestly the only reason is to follow a trend. 16:9 is so much better even if it is just so it fills the screen.
ipmanwck said:
I do not know why all oems are going with 4:3 ratio it looks ****ty when showing a photo or taking a photo on the phone which is 16:9 also most monitors and TVs are 16:9 , it's just everyone following apple as usual. If the headphone jack goes I think I will meltdown )))
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's because the lenses are spherical, so you have a circle to work with. Since we can't yet produce cost-effective circular sensors, we need rectangles to fill it and since a 4:3 rectangle fills a circle much better, using a 16:9 sensor is basically just cutting usable space, or making your pixels smaller (which would give us poor low-light photos). BTW the most area-efficient sensors would be 1:1, but that is not a standard aspect ratio, so we use the closest one (4:3). I hope you can all understand my photography-nerd rambling.
BolintsMiki said:
It's because the lenses are spherical, so you have a circle to work with. Since we can't yet produce cost-effective circular sensors, we need rectangles to fill it and since a 4:3 rectangle fills a circle much better, using a 16:9 sensor is basically just cutting usable space, or making your pixels smaller (which would give us poor low-light photos). BTW the most area-efficient sensors would be 1:1, but that is not a standard aspect ratio, so we use the closest one (4:3). I hope you can all understand my photography-nerd rambling.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That was very informative actually! Thank you. I like learning stuff...
Sent from my awesome T-Mobile LG V10!
Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have faith. The sensor alone is only half of the equation. Processing is just as important if not more important. Just look at. The lowlight capabilities of this phone. Same sensor yet it takes better pics than the one plus 3. The HTC 10 has the same sensor as the Nexus 6p and the 6p is a lot better still because of processing. Lg has great processing. No one ever talked about the g5 or g4 or v10s sensors because lg really excellent at their outstanding processing. While I agree I prefer 16:9 over 4:3 it just seems that's where it's going. Most if not all smartphone cameras are 4:3 now. There's probly a reason. Maybe to fit the controls and toggles on the screen at the same time. Maybe for eis since it crops the image or perhaps helps with the jello effect with ois. I had the g5 before returning it because of the build quality and the camera was outstanding. Krystal key from Android authority did a comparison and the g5 was her favorite camera. I'm sure we will even get one or two updates soon to improve the camera even. Plus you have. The more robust manual controls on a smartphone to date. I myself can't wait to use focus peeking like DSLRs have!!
Nitemare3219 said:
I'm not sure what the V10 used, but it's likely the same as the G5 and G4 - the IMX234, which was a 16MP 5312 x 2988 (16:9 ratio), 1/2.6" sensor with 1.12 μm pixels.
The V20 is now using a IMX298, same sensor in the OP3, with 16MP again, but this time it's 4608 x 3456 (4:3 ratio), 1/2.8" sensor, but still with 1.12 μm pixels? Not sure how that is possible... this is according to the Wiki page with image sensor specs. The wide-angle seems to be the IMX219 which is a measly 1/4" sensor, so don't expect anything decent in lower light levels.
I'm not really pleased with the move to a 4:3 ratio sensor. I really loved the 16:9 view on the G4 and V10 when I had those. I don't print or edit photos, and only view on my phone or PC... just a lot more pleasing to look at. I'm also confused as to how the pixel size remained the same, yet the image sensor shrunk in size. It does now have PDAF which is nice, but hell, the Note 4 had that 2 years ago... about time LG caught up. I don't have high hopes for this camera. I feel like if LG could use a high MP 1/2.3" sensor like Google or HTC, they'd be much better off and actually reign as the mobile photography kings in terms of detail/resolution even though Sony themselves probably have the best sensor on the market in their Xperia lineup, but bomb the software processing year after year.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I purchased a LG G4 for $325 back in November 2015 and I just got the V20. Did some camera comparisons between the G4 and V20 and here's my unprofessional findings:
The V20 videos, although a little better in quality, they are not what I expected from a 2016 flagship devices. Sounds great, but not much of an improvement over the G4.
The V20 pictures, are VERY disappointing. Initially set on the 12MP 16:9, I changed it to the 16MP 4:3, I found pictures to be more watercolour and less sharp than the G4. This is especially true when looking at grass blades and bricks.
Tried this in both auto and manual mode, and still the G4 came ahead. Loss of detail is very disappointing, especially when I've paid more than double the G4 ($770) for this phone.
Sadly, I'm going to return this back to T-Mobile and wait a little until the S8 comes out (hopefully without the home button and backwards capacitive keys). Maybe by that time the Pixel XL 128GB will drop in price and I'll consider that. Even though the phone experience is snappy and fast, and I kind of like the second top screen, along with the finger print reader, it's the camera that makes or breaks the phone for me. And in this case, it is very disappointing to have the G4 beat it.
ipmanwck said:
16:9 is so much better even if it is just so it fills the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
rudbwoy said:
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know man. Stupid companies copy Apple all the time it's annoying. I know why it's being done but they should really fill the screen like then do in video capture. Was considering v20 but the g4 was such an amazing photo phone nothing beat it and has beat it for a while. Video capture is still better on Samsung though because sound on the g4 is poo and stabilisation is not great.
Very interesting...I was just about to make a post about this, but I'm glad that I found this thread.
The V20 does a lot worse in low light than my Note 4. I am pretty disappointed with it not meeting my expectations. To date, My S7 and Note 4 take the best pictures and that's sad in a way that it out classes the V20 camera. :/
imx298 was a big mistake for a flagship with this price
imx378 could be a good choice...
iunlock said:
Very interesting...I was just about to make a post about this, but I'm glad that I found this thread.
The V20 does a lot worse in low light than my Note 4. I am pretty disappointed with it not meeting my expectations. To date, My S7 and Note 4 take the best pictures and that's sad in a way that it out classes the V20 camera. :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The s7 is so so good in low light. Was just taking photos inside in the dark of the kids dresses up in masks etc with only torch light and the photos were really good. My g4 cannot get much in that light but will be interesting to see what the v20 can do.
That's disappointing, I find the Pixel XL pretty uninteresting except of course for the amazing camera and I was thinking about exchanging it for a V20...
Additionaly the OP3T might get a IMX398 http://www.gsmarena.com/oneplus_3t_said_to_feature_a_sony_imx398_sensor-news-21328.php so I guess I'll have to wait for that OP3T now
Or the new Huawei Mate?
rudbwoy said:
I'm surrounded by 16:9 screens everywhere. Why this move to 4:3 capture... Because bandwagon IMO.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually it was the other way around.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for just about anything other than a movie on a very big screen.
Skripka said:
Actually it was the other way around.
16:9 is a terrible aspect ratio for just about anything other than a movie on a very big screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wait...what?
calculateaspectratio
At my work, most if not all, the monitors are 1920x1080. Even the projectors in the conference rooms, (I've had the facilities people take out the 4:3 projector screens so we can use the wall), I've set to 1920x1080. At home, all I have are 16:9 TVs.
When I take pics and videos, and create family slide shows and such, all are 16:9....so I can play them back on my 16:9 TVs and devices.
16:9 is terrible? I don't know about that.
rudbwoy said:
Wait...what?
calculateaspectratio
At my work, most if not all, the monitors are 1920x1080. Even the projectors in the conference rooms, (I've had the facilities people take out the 4:3 projector screens so we can use the wall), I've set to 1920x1080. At home, all I have are 16:9 TVs.
When I take pics and videos, and create family slide shows and such, all are 16:9....so I can play them back on my 16:9 TVs and devices.
16:9 is terrible? I don't know about that.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Vertically short monitors but fat are bad for anything other than theater movie watching. Movie watching isa minority of most computer LCD use. Most users would benefit from 4:3 or 5:4 in normal use. Less scrolling, and easier reading. Less wasted space of just filler going unused. It isn't isn't until you're dealing with UHD 30" class that 16:9 really works with 2 side by side windows.
LCD makers switched to basically only 16:9 to save on margins and manufacturing expense...not because it was better. Was also a carrot to get consumers to replace otherwise functioning gear.
What are you talking about? 4:3 yields no benefit in a society where wide screen has taken over monitors, tvs and projectors. Unless you're living in the 90s there is No advantage to having that aspect ratio in 2016.
It's 2016, good luck finding a new TV or even monitors in a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's a dead aspect ratio so there is zero point in making cameras with this aspect ratio.
We can argue about how 4:3 is better but the fact is in society 16:9 is everywhere there is no reason to use 4:3 when everything runs 16:9. There is no benefit to it.
Sent from my LG-H901 using XDA-Developers mobile app
evo4g63t said:
What are you talking about? 4:3 yields no benefit in a society where wide screen has taken over monitors, tvs and projectors. Unless you're living in the 90s there is No advantage to having that aspect ratio in 2016.
It's 2016, good luck finding a new TV or even monitors in a 4:3 aspect ratio. It's a dead aspect ratio so there is zero point in making cameras with this aspect ratio.
We can argue about how 4:3 is better but the fact is in society 16:9 is everywhere there is no reason to use 4:3 when everything runs 16:9. There is no benefit to it.
Sent from my LG-H901 using XDA-Developers mobile app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A) He just listed reasons for why this is happening.
B) Saying there is no benefit to 4:3 means you don't know anything about photography.
Related
Camera Aspect Ratio
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.
[Q] Can nexus S take photes in 16:9 mode and how good is it?
If yes then what resolution? I am pretty sure it can take in 720p but does it take in 1920x1080 or even a bit higher? Now how good the camera really is? I am getting very mixed opinions in reviews. With the GSMarena photo compare tool it seems really good as far as most 5MP cameras are concerned like iphone 4 and galaxy S. Some reviews complain about somewhat washed out under saturated pics, would you agree with that?
It takes 5M pixel photos which are 2560x1920 pixels on all 5M cameras btw. If you meant the camcorder than no, it will not do HD. Now, with that resolution you can easily format any picture to 16x9 aspect ratio. The stock camera doesn't have wide screen option buy some 3rd party apps do.
obsanity said: It takes 5M pixel photos which are 2560x1920 pixels on all 5M cameras btw. If you meant the camcorder than no, it will not do HD. Now, with that resolution you can easily format any picture to 16x9 aspect ratio. The stock camera doesn't have wide screen option buy some 3rd party apps do. Click to expand... Click to collapse Ok no native 16:9 shooting I see. Can you tell which application can do that? Has nexus S gotten native touch to focus with ICS?
Come on anyone??
Tap to focus didn't work for me when I had ICS on my Nexus S. I guess it's a Galaxy Nexus feature. You should be able to resize or crop photos to be 16:9 with QuickPic or Photoshop Express.
Note 3 vs Canon 5d mark 3 camera comparison
Must watch. http://mblog.gsmarena.com/galaxy-note-3-faces-canon-5d-mark-iii-video-comparison/ Sent from my SM-N900 using xda premium
razor848 said: Must watch. http://mblog.gsmarena.com/galaxy-note-3-faces-canon-5d-mark-iii-video-comparison/ Sent from my SM-N900 using xda premium Click to expand... Click to collapse Very interesting indeed. Still haven't bothered capturing at 4k as I don't have a display to do it justice. Might start recording and archive so come the time for a new TV I have some bright sharp memories to view.
I spend a full 20 minutes staring and laughing hysterically at the thread title. :laugh: Thought it was about photo's, as opposed to video. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Wasn't expecting that from the Note 3, actually. Not bad at all, for such a tiny sensor. Honestly though, comparing 4K against 1080p? Even if you downsize, that's an unfair comparison as 4K records more data than 1080p at the raw source. It's like shooting in Jpeg directly, or converting a RAWfile to Jpeg. (Which only makes sense if you know photography.) I am, however, in doubt. An old classmate of mine shoots entire films with his 5D MKIII, and the quality is significantly better than what we're seeing in the video.
ShadowLea said: I spend a full 20 minutes staring and laughing hysterically at the thread title. :laugh: Thought it was about photo's, as opposed to video. :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: Wasn't expecting that from the Note 3, actually. Not bad at all, for such a tiny sensor. Honestly though, comparing 4K against 1080p? Even if you downsize, that's an unfair comparison as 4K records more data than 1080p at the raw source. It's like shooting in Jpeg directly, or converting a RAWfile to Jpeg. (Which only makes sense if you know photography.) I am, however, in doubt. An old classmate of mine shoots entire films with his 5D MKIII, and the quality is significantly better than what we're seeing in the video. Click to expand... Click to collapse I'm sorry but you're wrong, the comparison is as valid as any comparison between 2 devices. It would be like saying you can't compare benchmarks between Note 3 and GS5, because GS 5 has CPU running at higher frequency. The fact is Note 3 can record 4k video out of the box and can record higher resolution, sharper video, than any DSLR currently on the market, period. Of course those were done in full sun/ good light, in low light Canon would win hands down. You could also see blown highlights in Note 3 video, but never the less our phone has excellent video recording capabilities I bet a lot of people are not even aware off and you have to remember Canon 5D mark III has probably one of the best video recording capabilities among DSLR and was used in quiet few commercial video recordings you see on TV. Even thought some people dismiss this as useless gimmick, it was one of the reasons I got Note 3 and I record all video in 4k, mostly of my kids, for the future memories. Right now none of my computers can play 4k video smoothly and I don't even have 4k display yet, but all this will be rectified before end of this year. Funny thing is, it is Samsung pushing the envelope, where the hell is Sony, commercial and consumer video leader?
arhhh the Pixel Myth.... Just like the Megahertz Myth! Bigger numbers doesn't always mean better. The N3 is a complete waste of time in low light despite being able to record @ 4k. I'd like to have seen the guy walking around (camera movement) with both devices as this would have shown which device was better when watching both playbacks.
fyew-jit-tiv said: arhhh the Pixel Myth.... Just like the Megahertz Myth! Bigger numbers doesn't always mean better. The N3 is a complete waste of time in low light despite being able to record @ 4k. I'd like to have seen the guy walking around (camera movement) with both devices as this would have shown which device was better when watching both playbacks. Click to expand... Click to collapse Apparently you didn't see the video comparison, which clearly shows Note 3 video is much sharper, even on low resolution screen and apparently you never looked at benchmarks, clearly showing that everything else being equal, phone running at higher GHz will run faster most of the time, otherwise you wouldn't call it a myth. As far as low light goes, every camera sucks, it just a matter of how little is not enough. Canon 5d has full size sensor, which is almost as big as half width of the phone and this size sensor could not be fitted in a small phone and forget about optics required, never the less, with huge handicap in sensor size, much, much lower price and basic optics, Note 3 is competitive in good light. In low light it is much worse, but if you ever went to the movie set, just about half of the equipment is lights to improve exposure and they have cameras costing more than most people house, so yeah, good light is required for all cameras if you want good video.
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.
Why are aspect ratios and resolutions not important anymore?
Ì sent my Samsung A70 back because 16:9 was limited to 8 MP, I knew little about aspect ratios their respective resolutions, now that I have read a lot about it I am somewhat wiser. I was used to taking 16:9 photos on my S8+ and cropping the picture to my liking while maintaining the 16:9 AR. This requires a somewhat larger original picture if you wish to view the result on a large screen. I bought the 7 pro and immediately ran into the same problem, aspect ratios are stuck to a certain resolution and 48 MP is limited to 4:3 JPG format, I can´t even choose 16:9 and decided to go along with the 20:9 fullscreen option ... can still easily be cropped to 16:9. But why are aspect ratios locked into a certain resolution which is usually okay in it´s original size for viewing but doesn´t allow for a lot of creativity. I have been using a Gcam mod which has 16:9 available and the pictures do allow for a small crop, not much though before the pixels suffer on the big screen. I will never use 4:3 as I hate the field of view it offers.
4:3 is likely the native sensor size/ratio. It comes from mimicking film cameras. Film cameras in turn copied oil painting canvases. 16:9 is just a compromise television format to approach Cinema formats roughly 21:9. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
larsdennert said: 4:3 is likely the native sensor size/ratio. It comes from mimicking film cameras. Film cameras in turn copied oil painting canvases. 16:9 is just a compromise television format to approach Cinema formats roughly 21:9. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk Click to expand... Click to collapse Yes, I figured that. Why are the size of the pictures restricted in all aspect ratios? that´s my question. As the average consumer you get 48MP advertised when you buy the phone, large pictures are however impossible to shoot in any other aspect ratio than 4:3 and for that you need to tweak the settings. For most people the camera will be 12 MP at most. Why can´t I f.ex. shoot a 16:9 picture at 24 MP? I realize the fact that it´s impossible to get a 48 MP picture at 16:9 due to how the camera angle works.
The main sensor has 48 million pixels laid out in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Furthermore they are grouped in a quad Bayer layout which really just makes it a 4x light sensitive 12mp camera instead of a 48mp detail sensor. That is the hardware. If you want images cropped to another aspect ratio afterwards, download something like Open Camera or MX Camera and set a custom resolution. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
larsdennert said: The main sensor has 48 million pixels laid out in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Furthermore they are grouped in a quad Bayer layout which really just makes it a 4x light sensitive 12mp camera instead of a 48mp detail sensor. That is the hardware. If you want images cropped to another aspect ratio afterwards, download something like Open Camera or MX Camera and set a custom resolution. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk Click to expand... Click to collapse All third party apps are limited to the 12 MP, they don´t know how to use the 4x .... so they are pretty limited in their range of resolutions.
Yes and regrettably can't use the other lenses either. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk
larsdennert said: 4:3 is likely the native sensor size/ratio. It comes from mimicking film cameras. Film cameras in turn copied oil painting canvases. 16:9 is just a compromise television format to approach Cinema formats roughly 21:9. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk Click to expand... Click to collapse Cinema is 2.35:1 which is why on 16:9 shows you the black bars on the top and bottom of your screen for the majority of movies. ---------- Post added at 01:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:30 PM ---------- AurioDK said: Yes, I figured that. Why are the size of the pictures restricted in all aspect ratios? that´s my question. As the average consumer you get 48MP advertised when you buy the phone, large pictures are however impossible to shoot in any other aspect ratio than 4:3 and for that you need to tweak the settings. For most people the camera will be 12 MP at most. Why can´t I f.ex. shoot a 16:9 picture at 24 MP? I realize the fact that it´s impossible to get a 48 MP picture at 16:9 due to how the camera angle works. Click to expand... Click to collapse Unless your going to print MASSIVE size prints, overall, MP is a marketing ploy to get your to spend more money on am item. After 12 to 16mp, for 95% of people, the difference is in the pixel size in Montana, not the number is pixels.
larsdennert said: The main sensor has 48 million pixels laid out in a 4:3 aspect ratio. Furthermore they are grouped in a quad Bayer layout which really just makes it a 4x light sensitive 12mp camera instead of a 48mp detail sensor. That is the hardware. If you want images cropped to another aspect ratio afterwards, download something like Open Camera or MX Camera and set a custom resolution. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk Click to expand... Click to collapse So in general, when stock camera takes 12mp photo on 48mp sensor, it would be using pixel binning, resulting in better looking image, right? larsdennert said: Yes and regrettably can't use the other lenses either. Sent from my GM1917 using Tapatalk Click to expand... Click to collapse If yes, then if 3rd party Apps can capture photos at 12mp only, is it using pixel binning on main 48mp sensor or some other tech? If other tech, what is that other tech? Thanks!
Even non Bayer sensors use four sensors filtered for each color. Generally an RGGB configuration. One sensor with a red filter, two with green and one with blue. They aren't individually addressible. They are summed together in hardware to mix all the colors. A Bayer configuration of groups allows sub addressing of different luminance channels.
larsdennert said: Even non Bayer sensors use four sensors filtered for each color. Generally an RGGB configuration. One sensor with a red filter, two with green and one with blue. They aren't individually addressible. They are summed together in hardware to mix all the colors. A Bayer configuration of groups allows sub addressing of different luminance channels. Click to expand... Click to collapse Thanks for more details. Also, if you could, please answer (maybe you already answered but I did not get it) the doubts I asked above. Thanks
It might be a custom API that only the manufacturer accesses with their binary or camera app. Google camera2 API may not support it but people do cool stuff with the Google camera app to get at stuff.