Database Info

3D in 1080p?

Hello, since the Optimus 3D can handle full HD, why cant it just capture 1080p split screen like in 3D mode for 720p? After all its not recording two videos, its sharing the sensors into one. Perhaps a hack?

I am pretty sure it is recording 2 videos, that's why it is SBS (SIDE BY SIDE) format...
prove me wrong

what i mean is its making one single video of 1280x720 split in half for each lens.. so its not really 720p its more like two sensors of 640 (1280/2) side resolution, joined into one videofile.
If that is so, then they could make one of 1080p. At least itll be 1920 cut in half (960 lines across each) instead of 1280 cut in half..

I understand it all.. but look at it this way..... you think it is easy to process 2 simultaneous videos of 960x480?
if it is so easy, everybody would do it... but it is not happening

Yes it is possible to shoot in 3D 1080p with TI omap 4460 which is an upgrade of
TI omap 4430.
http://focus.ti.com/general/docs/wt...ntId=53243&navigationId=12843&templateId=6123
TI omap 4460 runs at 1.5 GHz. Perhaps some one can overclock TI omap 4430 and create software to shoot 3D at 1080p.

With overclock and software mods this is probably possible but i expect that battery life will be disasterously low. Im sure someone will work on this eventually once we have an overclock kernel.
Sent from my LG-P920 using XDA Premium App

cinemano said:
what i mean is its making one single video of 1280x720 split in half for each lens.. so its not really 720p its more like two sensors of 640 (1280/2) side resolution, joined into one videofile.
If that is so, then they could make one of 1080p. At least itll be 1920 cut in half (960 lines across each) instead of 1280 cut in half..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
720p 3D is making two 720p movies.
1080p 3D is making two 1080p movies.
That's the side by side thing. It has a different video for your left eye and for your right eye.
The fact that the o3d itself is playing interlaced 3d movies doesn't mean that it also records that way. B/c if it did then the specs should say that it's recording 720i and not 720p.
Thus that's why it can't record 1080p 3D, it's just too much for the hardware.
But maybe someone can overclock it and make it work anyway.

Even if the CPU can handle 1080p 3D, I doubt that memory and the I/O is fast and big enough to handle the movie. 720i 3D is already pushing the limit of the hardware on O3D.
But then I do hope that one day we can do it

You can also wait for TI OMAP 5.
Comsumer products will be expetcted end of 2012.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I24j2NKr9h8&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQD48oe9Rzw

there is no interlacing or 720i on this phone, please people, stop saying there is.
It isn't HD 3D, if it was there would be 1280x720 (minimum) for each eye as there is with other 2D HD video. The O3D has 640x720 for each eye with rectangular pixels (progressive, side by side, not interlaced)

mmace said:
there is no interlacing or 720i on this phone, please people, stop saying there is.
It isn't HD 3D, if it was there would be 1280x720 (minimum) for each eye as there is with other 2D HD video. The O3D has 640x720 for each eye with rectangular pixels (progressive, side by side, not interlaced)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you may need to look up what "interlaced" means.
It might not be interlaced in the traditional sense and indeed I presume its drawn to the screen in a progressive manner. However it IS a column interlaced image, because that is how a parallax barrier works by interlacing left and right eye images and obstructing the right eye image from the left, vice versa.
Anyway that does not alter the fact you are correct about how the O3D is capturing 720p 3D. Its also quite irritating as LG are promoting horizontal interlaced passive Cinema 3D technology on their TV and monitors while employing vertical interlacing on their phone.
It makes them a less than ideal match as you are effectively capturing half the resolution width wise then having to drop the vertical resolution too for the passive 3D to work. Its damn annoying as horizontal parallax I suspect would be easier to stay in the sweet spot on O3D too, which is why its used on TVs in the first place.
I also notice the O3D does not seem to display anything other than video at 1080p, which makes displaying photos on a 3DTV/monitor a PITA.
That said I am not very impressed with their Cinema 3D monitor I just bought, it looks awful for general PC use as you can see feint lines on the screen. I did not expect the polarising film to cause a visible effect like this with the glasses off.
The crosstalk is also worse than I expected, sometimes worse than the O3D, sometimes better. Its sad to see the reviews were correct for once, I certainly did not see this on their 47" TV using the same technology. I guess pixel size must have an effect on how easy it is to block crosstalk. Its weird though, as with the glasses looking up close you would swear it was blocking every other line fully from the wrong eye, but the crosstalk makes it all to clear its not.
Anyway back on topic, the reason its harder to do 1080p in 3D is because when filming in 3D you aren't simply taking the images from both cameras and storing them. The software is actually constantly working out how much to converge the two images for the 3D effect work and THEN cropping/scaling the image down to fit into 720p Half-SBS. For that to be possibly it has to open the cameras at 720p, it needs the extra width to simulate the lenses being further apart or closer together, depending on how its focusing the 3D image. So again for 1080p it would have to process two full 1080p video feeds, which might even be possible but would require the kind of software optimisation that will never happen in a market where the next best thing is always around the corner.
After all, its both easier and more financially viable to just put that feature on the NEXT device so it will not require as much software optimisation (the next device will be more powerful so it might "just work" without needing optimisation at all) and is a selling point for people to pickup the new device. Its a win win for the manufacturer.

sorry but the optimus isnt capturing 720p 3D, its 640 lines across for each eye. Its one single 1280x720 video file in split screen not two. I first read this in a respectable review of the phone, then confirmed it when i opened a videofile from the phone and looked at it's properties.

Alex Atkin UK said:
I think you may need to look up what "interlaced" means.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
apologies, I was meaning capture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

sgs 2
sent from my cappy. xda app

HD rules

Making better 3D photos with our eLGy

Hello everyone
This you must consider just some help and ideas based on my experience with 3D devices - not that I have such a great experience. I own a 3D camera, the FujiFilm RealPix 3D W1 and this phone.
You are free - and I hope that will do it, to contribute with your own ideas and photos.
First thing first... As in normal photography, not take shots against light sources, as sun and other powerfull light sources. Against the sun, lasers you could end with your camera ruined because of the too much light on the sensor - consider that it gets focused, like a magnifying glass...
Also in 3D avoid taking photos with flash. The flash is not powerfull enough and do not distribute even light for all two camera, so in some way you'll get the left photo slightly brighter than the right photo and when is all put together you might get a ghost effect.
Do not shoot on object perpendicular on the cameras because when is viewed in 3D you'll get a very annoying and disturbing effect that you'll hit your eyes and brain like a cannonball ' remember that °it is all in your head° - the 3D effect I mean.
Also do not shoot object that do "split" in half the 3D image - gives the same annoying effect.
The distance from the subject is recommanded between 2 and 5 meters. Below 2 meters you'll get your cannonball, above 5 meters the 3D effect is lost.
Also is recommanded to take photos of subjects with different depths, like flowers, because you'll get a very obvious and good 3D effect. Do not shoot a subject that fills up all the photo with one color, like a table painted in yellow.
Pay attention at parallax - a wrong adjustment and you'll get ghost pictures. If you're forced to take a photo of different subjets, on different depths in same photo, hitting the right parallax is a little harder than usual. I choose the center of the photo, in which all subjets are clear, that I crop the photo, leaving the ghost effect (which in this case is on the margins) out.
3D mostly means contours and coloured subjects, so you have to seek always some contrast between different subjects in same photos.
These are the main things I can think of right now.
Hope that you'll find them helpful. Please let me know what you think.
LE: talking to TylDurden (you'll find his query later this thread - please feel free to help if you can) I reminded of some tips that first time I forgot to mention. here they are
NEW TIP (which I forgot about it) - When you're gonna shoot in 3D mode just don't make a full press of the onscreen button, press it just a little shorter in time in order to get the real preview of the photo. In this preview you'll see how the final photo will be. And if you get some ghost image just adjust the parallax and try to get all the objects or most of them without ghost trails or sides.
Another TIP - set your screen brightness at maximum level because if you have it reduces you might not notice ghost effects
Another TIP - the focus area works better if is set on center not on border - don't ask why but I do see a difference.
And most important TIP - try, try, try. Remember every settings used to take the photos and compare same photos of the same object but with different settings and see which ones are working for you.
Thanks

Thanks for the tips, are very helpful.

Thanks for the tips.
I have learned that to get something to jump from the phone towards the viewer, you must keep an entire object within the picture.
Take ie. a picture of a face/head, it can be on 1m, just keep the entire head inside the frame. Don't come too close, it'll cause the headaches/canonball effect BigBadSheep already talked about, but 2m is way too much. 0.8m or 0.5m can work a lot! As long as you keep the object within the frame.
I stumbled upon this when my son kept his icecream close to the camera with his hand. When we watched the photo the icecream was really jumping out of it.
I have tested this a lot, by moving the object very close to the camera or partly out of the frame. Just play with it to find the best result.
3D pictures with water are very cool as well!
I have made many 3D pictures with people jumping into the water. Especially if you dare to keep the camera quite close to the action, it gives awesome effects!
Timing is very difficult with the O3D b/c there's about 1sec between pressing the button and the picture actually being taken.
I started to press the button 1sec before the expected water bomb, that works quite good! I now have about 30 very very cool pictures of my kids smashing into the water!
I'm more and more leaning towards favouring 3D pictures above 3D movies.
Shooting 3D movies is very hard and the image is shaking very easily which becomes too tiresome to watch. Filming in 3D is very difficult. Making pictures is cool though!
And if you watch them on a good passive(!) 3D TV it's even better!
(please all: never buy an active 3D TV, I have an active 3D TV myself and I use it less and less. the effect is so bad during daylight and the on/off button is very tedious, especially the switching all the time if you're moving through pictures etc. passive 3D tvs work perfect during daylight, never the strobing effect. cheap glasses. no batteries needed for glasses.
My father/sister has a passive TV and I really regret having an active TV. Surely, the 3D is good and all, but compared to the passive (LG/Philips) TV of my father/sister, passive is just the way to go.
Don't believe those who claim that active gives a full HD while passive doesn't. It's bollocks. At first b/c the strobing effect is far worse then even the supposed half Full HD effect could be. Secondly b/c both active and passive offer a half Full HD effect. Active just closes your left and right eyes half of the time while passive hids half the image from your left and right eye)

Rho'd Berth said:
Don't believe those who claim that active gives a full HD while passive doesn't. It's bollocks. At first b/c the strobing effect is far worse then even the supposed half Full HD effect could be. Secondly b/c both active and passive offer a half Full HD effect. Active just closes your left and right eyes half of the time while passive hids half the image from your left and right eye)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sorry but that is incorrect. I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
As for passive and active being half quality you seem to misunderstand how they work because only passive 3D is half resolution.
Passive tv puts both images on tv together and the glasses block out half the image from each eye so right eye and left eye see half the picture.
Active tv doesn't cover each eye up as you say but instead sends the whole picture for each view to each eye very quickly rather than just hide half of it as passive does.
They don't just feed half of what's on screen to each eye but instead show the full hd image to each so you get full quality not half. It is also what causes the strobing that some people experience.
This halving of resolution on passive 3D is why some sets now go higher than 1080p so that when displayed passively the video is same resolution as an active set although most sets still don't do this.
http://hometheater.about.com/od/tel...ve-Polarized-Vs-Active-Shutter-3d-Glasses.htm
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2

As an owner of a 3D active
mistermentality said:
Sorry but that is incorrect. I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
As for passive and active being half quality you seem to misunderstand how they work because only passive 3D is half resolution.
Passive tv puts both images on tv together and the glasses block out half the image from each eye so right eye and left eye see half the picture.
Active tv doesn't cover each eye up as you say but instead sends the whole picture for each view to each eye very quickly rather than just hide half of it as passive does.
They don't just feed half of what's on screen to each eye but instead show the full hd image to each so you get full quality not half. It is also what causes the strobing that some people experience.
This halving of resolution on passive 3D is why some sets now go higher than 1080p so that when displayed passively the video is same resolution as an active set although most sets still don't do this.
http://hometheater.about.com/od/tel...ve-Polarized-Vs-Active-Shutter-3d-Glasses.htm
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I must say that still the active is the way to be, even if now there are some TV with passive 3D that makes a good picture. I own the LG 50PX950N TV set, the first with THX certified 3D. Always the LG. But, as it happens always, LG pulled out from the hat the 3D passive which is advertised as better as the active ones, from here seeing the in all company, on all branches, is the philosophy: you bought it? Thanks alot sucker! because they made these passive one 7 months after the shouted out: you've made the greatest 3D active TV ever!
But still , as stated, I think that active is still the way.
And, in another news, I would like to write about how to connect the phone to the TV in such manner that you get 3D directly out of the box. I had some time to figure this out.
First you need the HDMI 1.4 cable. Then, from the HDMI settings you must force it on 1080p (50Hz or 60 HZ - I think it makes no difference, seeing that now all TVs can make both frequencies). Leaving in automatic mode it just takes the native resolution of the screen, which is 480x800 and in this mode you wont't get the 3D effect, nor the HD videos played.
Next, about the 3D pictures, will be a tutorial on how to make them "universal", meaning being able to display them on every display, with red-cyan 3 mode.

BigBadSheep said:
Hello everyone
This you must consider just some help and ideas based on my experience with 3D devices - not that I have such a great experience. I own a 3D camera, the FujiFilm RealPix 3D W1 and this phone.
You are free - and I hope that will do it, to contribute with your own ideas and photos.
First thing first... As in normal photography, not take shots against light sources, as sun and other powerfull light sources. Against the sun, lasers you could end with your camera ruined because of the too much light on the sensor - consider that it gets focused, like a magnifying glass...
Also in 3D avoid taking photos with flash. The flash is not powerfull enough and do not distribute even light for all two camera, so in some way you'll get the left photo slightly brighter than the right photo and when is all put together you might get a ghost effect.
Do not shoot on object perpendicular on the cameras because when is viewed in 3D you'll get a very annoying and disturbing effect that you'll hit your eyes and brain like a cannonball ' remember that °it is all in your head° - the 3D effect I mean.
Also do not shoot object that do "split" in half the 3D image - gives the same annoying effect.
The distance from the subject is recommanded between 2 and 5 meters. Below 2 meters you'll get your cannonball, above 5 meters the 3D effect is lost.
Also is recommanded to take photos of subjects with different depths, like flowers, because you'll get a very obvious and good 3D effect. Do not shoot a subject that fills up all the photo with one color, like a table painted in yellow.
Pay attention at parallax - a wrong adjustment and you'll get ghost pictures. If you're forced to take a photo of different subjets, on different depths in same photo, hitting the right parallax is a little harder than usual. I choose the center of the photo, in which all subjets are clear, that I crop the photo, leaving the ghost effect (which in this case is on the margins) out.
3D mostly means contours and coloured subjects, so you have to seek always some contrast between different subjects in same photos.
These are the main things I can think of right now.
Hope that you'll find them helpful. Please let me know what you think.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also use to have the fuji 3D w1 by the way update the firmware it will improve too much, I sell it and got they W3 and it's waaaayyy better. Thanks for the tips man.
Sent from my LG-P920 using xda premium

mistermentality said:
Sorry but that is incorrect. I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
As for passive and active being half quality you seem to misunderstand how they work because only passive 3D is half resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, both eyes receive half the Full HD resolution, together that's Full HD.
Passive tv puts both images on tv together and the glasses block out half the image from each eye so right eye and left eye see half the picture.
Active tv doesn't cover each eye up as you say but instead sends the whole picture for each view to each eye very quickly rather than just hide half of it as passive does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Active shutter is closing one eye after another eye. All the time only 1 of your eyes can see the screen. The other one is closed / blackened.
The TV is showing first the left eye frame and then the right eye frame. While the left eye frame is showed, the right eye is blackened, and the other way around.
They don't just feed half of what's on screen to each eye but instead show the full hd image to each so you get full quality not half. It is also what causes the strobing that some people experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's what I said, they feed the full image to each eye half of the time.
I have an active shutter tv and no strobing problems at all.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Watch a 3D movie in full day light and you will have strobing problems, unless your glasses cover your eyes entirely.
When ie. your left eye is blackened by the glasses, then there's still light coming in from the sides of your glasses. It's not so much the TV that's strobing but the light from other sources.
It's a fact that watching active 3D during daylight just plainly sucks.
Did you ever watch passive 3D TV? Did you ever compare? Or are you just defending your own TV, like most people do.
Like I said, I have an active 3D TV myself, a very good rated Samsung. Compared to even the cheap Philips passive 3D TV of my father my TV sucks in 3D. Not during the night if we're wathcing a good movie. Then it's ok. But the entire viewing experience is more then just the dark evening in the winter. IT's also the turning on of the glasses, the replacing the batteries, the fact that the glasses are that expensive. The fact that my Laptop 3D shutter glasses are damaged and also cost $100. The fact that the glasses are heavy, etc.
We've watching vacation pictures on a passive TV with 8 people among with 4 kids. No need to turn on the glasses for the kids and some adults. Imagine doing the same on active TV..... and then I'm not even taking the extra $600 for glasses in account.

Rho'd Berth said:
Watch a 3D movie in full day light and you will have strobing problems, unless your glasses cover your eyes entirely.
When ie. your left eye is blackened by the glasses, then there's still light coming in from the sides of your glasses. It's not so much the TV that's strobing but the light from other sources.
It's a fact that watching active 3D during daylight just plainly sucks.
Did you ever watch passive 3D TV? Did you ever compare? Or are you just defending your own TV, like most people do.
Like I said, I have an active 3D TV myself, a very good rated Samsung. Compared to even the cheap Philips passive 3D TV of my father my TV sucks in 3D. Not during the night if we're wathcing a good movie. Then it's ok. But the entire viewing experience is more then just the dark evening in the winter. IT's also the turning on of the glasses, the replacing the batteries, the fact that the glasses are that expensive. The fact that my Laptop 3D shutter glasses are damaged and also cost $100. The fact that the glasses are heavy, etc.
We've watching vacation pictures on a passive TV with 8 people among with 4 kids. No need to turn on the glasses for the kids and some adults. Imagine doing the same on active TV..... and then I'm not even taking the extra $600 for glasses in account.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to agree with everything of the above. I also have an active 3D Samsung TV and especially during the daylight there are problems. Not to mention the extremely expensive 3D glasses.
Last weekend a friend of mine who just purchased a passive 3D LG TV (with 8 FREE glasses included) had a BBQ party of 6 people. I took some 3D videos with my O3D and played them on his TV. All 6 people at the same time could enjoy my 3D videos on his TV under broad daylight. With my TV this could be impossible.

Rho'd Berth said:
No, both eyes receive half the Full HD resolution, together that's Full HD.
Active shutter is closing one eye after another eye. All the time only 1 of your eyes can see the screen. The other one is closed / blackened.
The TV is showing first the left eye frame and then the right eye frame. While the left eye frame is showed, the right eye is blackened, and the other way around.
That's what I said, they feed the full image to each eye half of the time.
Watch a 3D movie in full day light and you will have strobing problems, unless your glasses cover your eyes entirely.
When ie. your left eye is blackened by the glasses, then there's still light coming in from the sides of your glasses. It's not so much the TV that's strobing but the light from other sources.
It's a fact that watching active 3D during daylight just plainly sucks.
Did you ever watch passive 3D TV? Did you ever compare? Or are you just defending your own TV, like most people do.
Like I said, I have an active 3D TV myself, a very good rated Samsung. Compared to even the cheap Philips passive 3D TV of my father my TV sucks in 3D. Not during the night if we're wathcing a good movie. Then it's ok. But the entire viewing experience is more then just the dark evening in the winter. IT's also the turning on of the glasses, the replacing the batteries, the fact that the glasses are that expensive. The fact that my Laptop 3D shutter glasses are damaged and also cost $100. The fact that the glasses are heavy, etc.
We've watching vacation pictures on a passive TV with 8 people among with 4 kids. No need to turn on the glasses for the kids and some adults. Imagine doing the same on active TV..... and then I'm not even taking the extra $600 for glasses in account.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As you just pointed out the active glasses send the full image to each eye alternating between left and right but both eyes do still see full hd in both eyes because the two images are at full resolution.
They do not half the resolution at all, and if you have an active tv you can see that yourself because you will see both images at the same time but full res. Now do that on a passive set and you'll notice the difference.
As for expensive glasses, you can buy them for under fifteen pound in uk and rechargeables are only twenty something pound and neither are heavy, I watched the olympics for three hours no problem at all last night.
I do need to explain regarding strobing, I was referring to the 3D image not strobing.
You are right that light sources will flicker, but I don't watch much 3D tv during the day so for me it isn't an issue as I prefer watching films with the lights off but yes you are right on that.
This review of both at http://m.cnet.com/news/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better/57437344?ds=1 does a good job of explaining what I mean even though the author prefers passive they do admit active has higher resolution.
In a few years I will probably get a passive set as by then 4K passive sets will be higher res than current active ones but for now I prefer a higher resolution image but each format has benefits.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2

Dave,
So you admit that there is strobing of light (not the TV) that is annoying. You're just saying that it doesn't matter b/c you don't watch TV during daylight anyway. So let's keep it honest: there is a problem, and you can't watch 3D movies during the summer and much of the spring.
They do not half the resolution at all, and if you have an active tv you can see that yourself because you will see both images at the same time but full res. Now do that on a passive set and you'll notice the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And again you claim that you see Full HD to both eyes at the same time.
No, that's not true, all the time 1 of your eyes is covered. Never do you see a Full HD image to both your eyes at the same time.
I'm not saying that passive is better a picturing a Full HD image, it's just using a different technique.
Passive 3D: Both your eyes get half a Full HD image all the time
Active 3D: Both your eyes get a Full HD image half the time
In my opinion the quality is very very good on both active and passive 3D.
The reason I favour passive is b/c of the:
- strobing during daylight
- annoying expensive glasses
And so far everybody who has experienced both Passive and Active 3D TV agrees with me.
Only people who read up the theory and never saw a passive 3D TV disagree.
Robert
mistermentality said:
As you just pointed out the active glasses send the full image to each eye alternating between left and right but both eyes do still see full hd in both eyes because the two images are at full resolution.
They do not half the resolution at all, and if you have an active tv you can see that yourself because you will see both images at the same time but full res. Now do that on a passive set and you'll notice the difference.
As for expensive glasses, you can buy them for under fifteen pound in uk and rechargeables are only twenty something pound and neither are heavy, I watched the olympics for three hours no problem at all last night.
I do need to explain regarding strobing, I was referring to the 3D image not strobing.
You are right that light sources will flicker, but I don't watch much 3D tv during the day so for me it isn't an issue as I prefer watching films with the lights off but yes you are right on that.
This review of both at http://m.cnet.com/news/active-3d-vs-passive-3d-whats-better/57437344?ds=1 does a good job of explaining what I mean even though the author prefers passive they do admit active has higher resolution.
In a few years I will probably get a passive set as by then 4K passive sets will be higher res than current active ones but for now I prefer a higher resolution image but each format has benefits.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse

No matter which one of the 3D types is better the full HD resolution shouldn't be the main factor for choosing your 3D TV, at least for the majority of the people. That's because the average human eye could fully spot the 1080p only when it's very close to the TV.
For example, with an 40-inch TV, you need to sit closer than 5 feet (1.5 meters) for the full HD resolution to become apparent. How many people watch TV that close?
Check the chart here:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/

I have 42" lg tv and i can definitely see the difference between 720p and 1080p from 2,5m or so. Clearly see it for example in ps3 xmb is in 1080p vs xbox dash which is always in 720p just upscaled. Or when playing sacred 2(one of the few games that run in full hd) in xbox try to set 1080p play and then set 720p and it will look like **** compared to 1080p. So full hd matters. Not to mention difference in movies.
Sent from my LG-P920 using xda app-developers app

xtrustkillx said:
I have 42" lg tv and i can definitely see the difference between 720p and 1080p from 2,5m or so.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not surprising considering your TV size and the your viewing distance. If you look at the chart, for 42" TV the 2.5m you're sitting it's actually the upper limit for distinguishing between 720p and 1080p (the actual range is 1.6-2.5m for a 42" TV). But if you sit 3-4m away, you can't distinguish between 720p and 1080p.
And that's for a normal 2D picture which uses as a source sharp graphics and fonts of PS3 games. If you watch instead 3D video the differences between 1080p and 720p are even less apparent considering the slightly darker image and the glasses.

Rho'd Berth said:
Dave,
So you admit that there is strobing of light (not the TV) that is annoying. You're just saying that it doesn't matter b/c you don't watch TV during daylight anyway. So let's keep it honest: there is a problem, and you can't watch 3D movies during the summer and much of the spring.
And again you claim that you see Full HD to both eyes at the same time.
No, that's not true, all the time 1 of your eyes is covered. Never do you see a Full HD image to both your eyes at the same time.
I'm not saying that passive is better a picturing a Full HD image, it's just using a different technique.
Passive 3D: Both your eyes get half a Full HD image all the time
Active 3D: Both your eyes get a Full HD image half the time
In my opinion the quality is very very good on both active and passive 3D.
The reason I favour passive is b/c of the:
- strobing during daylight
- annoying expensive glasses
And so far everybody who has experienced both Passive and Active 3D TV agrees with me.
Only people who read up the theory and never saw a passive 3D TV disagree.
Robert
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ive posted two links which explain clearly that active gives full hd to each eye and passive does not.
I could post a hundred but you will still insist I'm mistaken or lying.
If you can't see that a full hd image to each eye (your eye combines both hd images to make one 3D image so it is a full hd 3D image) is better than half hd I then nothing I say and no links I post will convince you and this thread will just become a kind of back and forth argument that goes nowhere so I will agree to disagree.
And yes passive is better except for resolution, as I explained when you said strobing I was referring to what a lot of people do when saying that which is that the tv image strobes and disagreeing about that.
So yes passive is good but it is still correct that for resolution per eye active remains better for now. That doesn't make active better in general of course but in that specific area it does.
And of course people will still argue that I'm incorrect or have never seen passive 3D etc so I'm going to agree that we can disagree.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2
---------- Post added at 10:45 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 AM ----------
botson71 said:
No matter which one of the 3D types is better the full HD resolution shouldn't be the main factor for choosing your 3D TV, at least for the majority of the people. That's because the average human eye could fully spot the 1080p only when it's very close to the TV.
For example, with an 40-inch TV, you need to sit closer than 5 feet (1.5 meters) for the full HD resolution to become apparent. How many people watch TV that close?
Check the chart here:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree. I chose active for the higher picture resolution primarily as I watch most of my films in the dark so any flickering of daylight isn't a problem for me. And because I like the tv of course.
Dave
( http://www.google.com/producer/editions/CAownKXmAQ/bigfatuniverse )
Sent from my LG P920 using Tapatalk 2

Thanks for the 3D Photo tips. I don't do a whole lot of 3D Photography since I suck at it, maybe these tips will change that and I'll get back into it.
Also just to chime in on the whole Active vs Passive debate I have a 23" LG Passive set and even a passive set with glasses I have a hell of a time finding the sweet spot. I thought a set with glasses wouldn't have that problem like our phones do. Obviously our phones have a parralax barrier and that's why you have to find the sweet spot but with my LG set and Passive glasses I still have to nail a vertical sweet spot. I can't be too high or too low. This also effects how close I can sit to the set. If I sit too far away than I will get ghosting on either the top or the bottom of the screen. I can shift myself higher or lower and make one of them go away but the only way to fix them both is to simply move myself closer to the screen. My friend has an Active set and we never have any of these issues with his set. It's in his basement and is pitch black in broad daylight so he's never had to worry about bright daylight. The cheap glasses of the Passive set are nice but the sweet spot is such a hassle.
Maybe someone can point out what I'm doing wrong and I can have a much better 3D experience with my Passive set.

Well...glad to be helpful
TylDurden said:
Thanks for the 3D Photo tips. I don't do a whole lot of 3D Photography since I suck at it, maybe these tips will change that and I'll get back into it.
Also just to chime in on the whole Active vs Passive debate I have a 23" LG Passive set and even a passive set with glasses I have a hell of a time finding the sweet spot. I thought a set with glasses wouldn't have that problem like our phones do. Obviously our phones have a parralax barrier and that's why you have to find the sweet spot but with my LG set and Passive glasses I still have to nail a vertical sweet spot. I can't be too high or too low. This also effects how close I can sit to the set. If I sit too far away than I will get ghosting on either the top or the bottom of the screen. I can shift myself higher or lower and make one of them go away but the only way to fix them both is to simply move myself closer to the screen. My friend has an Active set and we never have any of these issues with his set. It's in his basement and is pitch black in broad daylight so he's never had to worry about bright daylight. The cheap glasses of the Passive set are nice but the sweet spot is such a hassle.
Maybe someone can point out what I'm doing wrong and I can have a much better 3D experience with my Passive set.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But again I'll be talking from personal experience. Before I buy my TV set - a 50 inches LG PX950N, I was searching on all forums for every kind of info. And at that moment I've reached the conclusion, and is also recommended, that in order to enjoy a real 3D effect your TV set has to be 40 inches or bigger, especially for passive, which at that moment - I'm talking March 2012, wasn't so much accepted. And because my living room isn't big enough I went for a 50 inches Plasma TV set for three reasons - 3D effect (with all those criterias to obey to - size and active) but also that the TV must give full satisfaction in 2D mode HiDef and SD. And the third one as I had this offer - TV set and 3D camera (and here's another story to tell) I bought all just for 1000 euros (plus 40 euros for SD HC card for the 3D camera). Overall a good affair.
Now what can I tell in your case: maybe isn't you that don't get the perfect photo maybe it's just the size of your 3D TV set. And surely it's the passive mode which still is not a real option.
NEW TIP (which I forgot about it) - When you're gonna shoot in 3D mode just don't make a full press of the onscreen button, press it just a little shorter in time in order to get the real preview of the photo. In this preview you'll see how the final photo will be. And if you get some ghost image just adjust the parallax and try to get all the objects or most of them without ghost trails or sides.
Another TIP - set your screen brightness at maximum level because if you have it reduces you might not notice ghost effects
Another TIP - the focus area works better if is set on center not on border - don't ask why but I do see a difference.
And most important TIP - try, try, try. Remember every settings used to take the photos and compare same photos of the same object but with different settings and see which ones are working for you.
Thanks guys for reading and replying to my posts.

You are right
botson71 said:
No matter which one of the 3D types is better the full HD resolution shouldn't be the main factor for choosing your 3D TV, at least for the majority of the people. That's because the average human eye could fully spot the 1080p only when it's very close to the TV.
For example, with an 40-inch TV, you need to sit closer than 5 feet (1.5 meters) for the full HD resolution to become apparent. How many people watch TV that close?
Check the chart here:
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But just to make fun out of it - the human brain, let me say that I can spot the 1080p from very far away, and I'm talking something like 5 meters - my living room is long 6,7 m and 4 m wide, and when I'm eating between me and TV (50 inches plasma TV set) is this distance. And I notice better 3D effect than my wife. But my wife is seeing more colors - mixtures, shades and variations than I do. So go figure how we're set in my house.

Great thread. Worth a bump for those like me who are new here.
Sent from my LG-SU870 using xda app-developers app

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.

No real full screen on YouTube with S8 Plus

So when i use the Youtube app the screen is about an inch short on both sides of being full screen.
There is an option to expand the screen its called "crop to fit" but it literally crops the video so you cant see descriptions captions or things at the bottom or the top of the video....missing content like this
Anyone else notice this.
Any suggestions. This is kind of disappointing.
Whats the point of such of big screen if you cant go full screen mode without it cutting out some of the content???????
When i use the stock Samsung browser to go to Youtube in desktop mode. Same thing its not True full screen.
But if I switch the stock samsung browser to mobile view it gives you 3 options. One of the options lets you go true full screen and doesnt crop as much out. But the thing is you cant select or change the video quality/resolution when its in mobile view. That kind of sucks if you want to watch a 720p or 1080p hd vid
This seems kind of like a big deal. I cant be the only one bothered by this.

gn4life84 said:
So when i use the Youtube app the screen is about an inch short on both sides of being full screen.
There is an option to expand the screen its called "crop to fit" but it literally crops the video so you cant see descriptions captions or things at the bottom or the top of the video....missing content like this
Anyone else notice this.
Any suggestions. This is kind of disappointing.
Whats the point of such of big screen if you cant go full screen mode without it cutting out some of the content???????
When i use the stock Samsung browser to go to Youtube in desktop mode. Same thing its not True full screen.
But if I switch the stock samsung browser to mobile view it gives you 3 options. One of the options lets you go true full screen and doesnt crop as much out. But the thing is you cant select or change the video quality/resolution when its in mobile view. That kind of sucks if you want to watch a 720p or 1080p hd vid
This seems kind of like a big deal. I cant be the only one bothered by this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no good way to scale or crop it. That's what we get because Samsung decided to go with a weird screen aspect ratio instead of making this phone a little wider. I wish it was wide enough to keep the ratio correct.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

dottat said:
There's no good way to scale or crop it. That's what we get because Samsung decided to go with a weird screen aspect ratio instead of making this phone a little wider. I wish it was wide enough to keep the ratio correct.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks
Wow. If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8. People always get so hype over these new phones that they dont even question basic stuff anymore.
Dont get me wrong its a great phone but this could be a deal breaker.
But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF.
No point in bragging about the sceen size in all the reviews.
Seems like my old Notes actually had a bigger viewing area if you dont like stuff cropped out. What a bummer.

>But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF
What are you talking about??? If the youtube video is 16:9 you can still watch it on a 18.5:9 screen. Same idea as watching a 4:3 video on a 16:9 screen. You aren't missing anything just because there are black bars on the side. Do you want your phone to show video in the sides that never even hit the camera sensor that filmed whatever video you are watching? You want something literally impossible.
>If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8.
Guess what... the Note 8 will have the same problem. Every screen on planet earth has this problem. It's not even a problem, its just how reality works. If the note 8 is a 16:9 screen it wont completely fill up with 4:3 videos. on nooo!!! If you get a 2.4:1 home theater projector screen and try to watch a 16:9 video OMG all that money down the drain!!!! You can't fill your screen!!!
Come on. If you absolutely must watch 16:9 videos on your phone with no black bars then don't buy a phone that is clearly not 16:9.

gn4life84 said:
Thanks
Wow. If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8. People always get so hype over these new phones that they dont even question basic stuff anymore.
Dont get me wrong its a great phone but this could be a deal breaker.
But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF.
No point in bragging about the sceen size in all the reviews.
Seems like my old Notes actually had a bigger viewing area if you dont like stuff cropped out. What a bummer.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You might as well stop buying Samsung flagships then, Samsung will keep using the taller screen ratio in the future too. And it's literally impossible to fill the entire 18.5:9 screen with a 16:9 video without either cropping the video or stretching it. Video is information, and new information cannot be generated like you are asking (how are you going to return back in time, to have the camera capture more image from the sides to fill the screen with? The camera did not capture more from the sides, meaning it's not possible to know what was there, the information is missing, thus making it impossible to fill the screen without stretching or cropping)

It's a none issue. The picture quality is so exceptional I don't care enough to worry about black bars

Moreover, if watching a common 2.4:1 movie (i.e. 21.6:9) on the 2.05:1 S8/+ display (i.e. 18.5:9), one can enjoy an almost full screen image using only a small cropping, without the upper and lower black bars...:good:

themissionimpossible said:
Moreover, if watching a common 2.4:1 movie (i.e. 21.6:9) on the 2.05:1 S8/+ display (i.e. 18.5:9), one can enjoy an almost full screen image using only a small cropping, without the upper and lower black bars...:good:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The cropping is cutting out informative info at the bottom of the vids I like to watch.
mikeyaj said:
It's a none issue. The picture quality is so exceptional I don't care enough to worry about black bars
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it is but it was also great on all my old phones. HD youtube can only look so good on screens this size anyways. It does seem better on the 8+ though. I wanted a larger viewing area. Legit question...If size disnt matter why did you go with the 8+ instead of normal 8?
I wish i could get over the black bars like you.
galaxyYtester said:
You might as well stop buying Samsung flagships then, Samsung will keep using the taller screen ratio in the future too. And it's literally impossible to fill the entire 18.5:9 screen with a 16:9 video without either cropping the video or stretching it. Video is information, and new information cannot be generated like you are asking (how are you going to return back in time, to have the camera capture more image from the sides to fill the screen with? The camera did not capture more from the sides, meaning it's not possible to know what was there, the information is missing, thus making it impossible to fill the screen without stretching or cropping)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont mind the Stretch. I prefer the stretch. However stretch view is not an option with the Youtube app. Youtube app is the only way to change the resolution to HD in full screen mode. Thats the whole point to screens like this is to watch HD stuff.
Thanks for the technical info but that is a bit over my head. I still dont really understand that. Its not absurd to buy a $900 device and expect it to play youtube vids full screen in HD.
The cropping is an issue because it literally cuts out some of the info listed at the bottom on the screen that is important to the vids I watch.
Also kind of defeats the whole purpose of an edgeless display and how the phone was advertised.
You think the Note 8 will have the same issue????? You dont think they will make it a tad wider to compensate and make it different from the s8+?

gn4life84 said:
You think the Note 8 will have the same issue????? You dont think they will make it a tad wider to compensate and make it different from the s8+?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope, if they make it wider with the same tiny bezels, it's going to end up looking short and odd. Samsung isn't going back to the 16:9 aspect ratio, it's going to look old-fashioned to people that are used to the taller screen, now that Samsung has branded it as futuristic and great (Infinity display). And it's not an "issue", because it's just a way that screens work, different ratio screens have things cropped out or stretched out if you want to fill the whole screen.

dontbstupid said:
>But come on you cant watch true full screen HD YouTube vids. WTF
What are you talking about??? If the youtube video is 16:9 you can still watch it on a 18.5:9 screen. Same idea as watching a 4:3 video on a 16:9 screen. You aren't missing anything just because there are black bars on the side. Do you want your phone to show video in the sides that never even hit the camera sensor that filmed whatever video you are watching? You want something literally impossible.
>If i knew that I would of waited on the Note 8.
Guess what... the Note 8 will have the same problem. Every screen on planet earth has this problem. It's not even a problem, its just how reality works. If the note 8 is a 16:9 screen it wont completely fill up with 4:3 videos. on nooo!!! If you get a 2.4:1 home theater projector screen and try to watch a 16:9 video OMG all that money down the drain!!!! You can't fill your screen!!!
Come on. If you absolutely must watch 16:9 videos on your phone with no black bars then don't buy a phone that is clearly not 16:9.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Dont be a jerk... Calm down. Dont take it personally. Its a legit concern and question I have about enjoying my device. FOR MY NEEDS THAT I PAID MY MONEY FOR.
The bottom and top of the content of the vids I watch daily is cut off in crop to fit mode. Youtube app isnt offering stretch mode for some reason.
There is important info that i need to see for the vids i watch ussualy at the bottom or top of the screen.
It is not ridiculous to expect to watch HD vids full screen and not miss content. Are you kidding me??? You sound like a fan boy. Its a valid point.
I really like the phone other wise. But this very well could be a deal breaker for some. If Its not fof you great. You have no idea what I use my phone for or why I spent money on it.
Again you pay for a big HD screen to be able to use it fully.
If im having these issues swith just using youtube im sure all the other sites and online media are going to suffer from this.
I bought the phone for screen size and hd capabilities. Had no idea I would have to choose between the 2 on one device.

galaxyYtester said:
Nope, if they make it wider with the same tiny bezels, it's going to end up looking short and odd. Samsung isn't going back to the 16:9 aspect ratio, it's going to look old-fashioned to people that are used to the taller screen, now that Samsung has branded it as futuristic and great (Infinity display). And it's not an "issue", because it's just a way that screens work, different ratio screens have things cropped out or stretched out if you want to fill the whole screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Things come and go every device. I try not to get caught up in the branding or marketing.
Also I would guess the Note needs to be different size than the S8. Otherwise its just going to be a S8 with a pen and moved fingerprint scanner.
Guess we will see.

gn4life84 said:
Things come and go every device. I try not to get caught up in the branding or marketing.
Also I would guess the Note needs to be different size than the S8. Otherwise its just going to be a S8 with a pen and moved fingerprint scanner.
Guess we will see.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Note 8 changes will be a 4K screen, fingerprint scanner embedded inside the screen, dual cameras, 6 gigs of RAM and of course an S-Pen. It's a half-year renovation, the general design will barely change, most likely a bit more square than the S8, but generally the same. The screen size will be the same or a tiny bit bigger than the S8+, this time changes are focusing more on specs than the screen size, that is already at the very edges of what is useful in the S8+. The Note 7 screen size increase over the S7 was minimal too. The Note 8 will also get a major software renovation like the Note 7 did, but thanks to XDA we will see that software in our devices most likely even before official release date of the phone, because the processor is the exact same

The annoying thing for me is when the next video plays I have to crop the screen again I don't know if there's a way to keep it full screen until you exit the YouTube app and when you go full screen straight away the ads go full screen but then the video seems to go black bars and you crop it again.

I never understood why people don't like the aspect ratio. The video would be the same size on another phone but there would just be bezels there instead. At least when I'm in other apps I get more real-estate instead of having just big black bars constantly there in the form of bezels

galaxyYtester said:
Note 8 changes will be a 4K screen, fingerprint scanner embedded inside the screen, dual cameras, 6 gigs of RAM and of course an S-Pen. It's a half-year renovation, the general design will barely change, most likely a bit more square than the S8, but generally the same. The screen size will be the same or a tiny bit bigger than the S8+, this time changes are focusing more on specs than the screen size, that is already at the very edges of what is useful in the S8+. The Note 7 screen size increase over the S7 was minimal too. The Note 8 will also get a major software renovation like the Note 7 did, but thanks to XDA we will see that software in our devices most likely even before official release date of the phone, because the processor is the exact same
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Would of waited if I knew that. Wonder the price difference

gn4life84 said:
Would of waited if I knew that. Wonder the price difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The Note 8 be about the same price as the S8+ right now, just like last year the Note 7 was about the price of the S7 Edge. And as software is a big selling point of the Note line, I don't feel bad at all getting an S-line device, thanks to XDA
To the average customer, a software refresh may be a big reason to buy a new device, but thanks to XDA, we will get complete software ports of the Note 8 over to the S8 quickly. These ports will also have very few bugs, because the specs are so similar, good example is how a bugless Note 7 ported ROM came to the S7 before the Note 7 actually went on sale
And take in mind that the Note 8 release date will most probably be later in the yearly cycle than last year so that the S8 can get a good run, because the S8 this year came later than S-line phones usually do. I don't find it worth waiting +5 months for those upgrades, when the price will be the same

simonhcai said:
The annoying thing for me is when the next video plays I have to crop the screen again I don't know if there's a way to keep it full screen until you exit the YouTube app and when you go full screen straight away the ads go full screen but then the video seems to go black bars and you crop it again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah thats super annoying especially if you're eating watching vids.
Wiseor said:
I never understood why people don't like the aspect ratio. The video would be the same size on another phone but there would just be bezels there instead. At least when I'm in other apps I get more real-estate instead of having just big black bars constantly there in the form of bezels
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I dont know if thats true. Especially if you're coming from a note. I wish I could get my old phone to power on to test this.
I do find the black bars or the white menu bar to be way more distracting than a bezel.

gn4life84 said:
Dont be a jerk... Calm down. Dont take it personally. Its a legit concern and question I have about enjoying my device. FOR MY NEEDS THAT I PAID MY MONEY FOR.
The bottom and top of the content of the vids I watch daily is cut off in crop to fit mode. Youtube app isnt offering stretch mode for some reason.
There is important info that i need to see for the vids i watch ussualy at the bottom or top of the screen.
It is not ridiculous to expect to watch HD vids full screen and not miss content. Are you kidding me??? You sound like a fan boy. Its a valid point.
I really like the phone other wise. But this very well could be a deal breaker for some. If Its not fof you great. You have no idea what I use my phone for or why I spent money on it.
Again you pay for a big HD screen to be able to use it fully.
If im having these issues swith just using youtube im sure all the other sites and online media are going to suffer from this.
I bought the phone for screen size and hd capabilities. Had no idea I would have to choose between the 2 on one device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So when you bought it you had no clue about the new aspect ratio?
Sent from my S8 plus, Note 7, S7 Edge or S6

force70 said:
So when you bought it you had no clue about the new aspect ratio?
Sent from my S8 plus, Note 7, S7 Edge or S6
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
None.
All I knew was the hype and that blue whale commercial.
Didnt know it was a thing to make sure the phone was manufactured with certain porportions.
Thought being able to use the screen in HD and full screen would be a given.
I have no problem with stretching the screen from the aspect ratio. However that doesnt seem to be an option on most HD content.

gn4life84 said:
None.
All I knew was the hype and that blue whale commercial.
Didnt know it was a thing to make sure the phone was manufactured with certain porportions.
Thought being able to use the screen in HD and full screen would be a given.
I have no problem with stretching the screen from the aspect ratio. However that doesnt seem to be an option on most HD content.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not trying to be a **** but dude they advertised the hell out of the new aspect ratio to the point it got annoying.i dont know how you wouldn't have known lol
Sounds like in the future you may want to research your purchases a little more carefully.
I do agree Id much rather have the traditional 16:9 ratio in a 6.2" size...would be much better for sure
Sent from my S8 plus, Note 7, S7 Edge or S6