Related
Hi everyone!
Edit: The camera and camcorder response / accessing time is also 5 and 4 times higher than another Android device.
This tablet comes Full HD display, utilizing nvidia's 40nm processor technology (SoC).
The current IC fabrication technology is 22nm, 28nm and 32nm which is considerably more efficient than 40nm in terms of processing power.
I noticed on the first day of receiving this tablet I was overwhelmed by its full HD display, for this tablet being a high-end product.
When I look at the image captured by the camera I was somewhat not surprised by the image quality of the camera.
It has been one of the main features which was talked about in the launch / promotional video of the TF Infinity.
Where it talked about a 5th lens that adds on a superior quality but I don't see that quality. There are couple of problems with the camera.
1. The well known focus clicking problem in video mode (auto focus is unavailable in video mode).
2. The image captured in a room with fluorescent lighting has a refresh rate problem (with horizontal bars across the image).
3. The zoom feature worked fine but somehow the preview which shown on the screen isn't, the live preview is low resolution and produce undesirable sharp blocks (which is just as annoying as using a low ended product).
The camera software is primitive and is lacking lots of the standard features of a camera.
But I'd expect much more quality from them and nevertheless to say it is pretty unexpected to see the full HD display while still leaving lots of blanks for the critics to fill up (wondering why the reviewers never mentioned the negative points on the tablet) and usability problems which its users faces.
A lot of people probably don't care about the camera but hey this tablet isn't cheap to start with and it's made by a reputable brand name in the technology industry (& they don't make Cameras...).
If you watch the live preview closely, you can actually see the horizontal bars moving down the screen (just like the refresh rate of the good old analog TV).
Is there any experts with cameras who can tell me how do you capture an image without the presence of the horizontal bars?
Is this tablet with high-end specification and without quality?
But if you are just an average user; Do you still get really annoying about all of the problems on the tablet?
*# One other thing which is rather inconsistent, I noticed is the file modified date in the recently released FW updates "*_epad-user-9.4.5.22.zip", all of the files within it are dated with 22/3/2011 11:21AM. And the zipped file within "*_epad-user_9_4_5_22_UpdateLauncher.zip" are dated 15/6/2012 and this update was only uploaded a few days ago!
I remember my phone originally had a lot of issues with camera...it ended up being software. I tried Camera Zoom FX, and the pictures started to come out quite a lot better. LGCamera works great as well, and also has a video mode. Try those, that might increase your picture quality and also gives you a lot more control over pictures.
As good as the camera was built up by Asus, its still a tablet camera. Tablet cameras have a reputation for being kinda crap.
But I agree with KilerG's post. Try other camera software and see if that helps. Or perhaps try turning down the resolution.
Jotokun said:
As good as the camera was built up by Asus, its still a tablet camera. Tablet cameras have a reputation for being kinda crap.
But I agree with KilerG's post. Try other camera software and see if that helps. Or perhaps try turning down the resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't expecting to become a professional photographer with this tablet, much less shoot my next great film on it (even though if I did, that would be hilarious). I probably won't spend a lot of time using the camera, and when I do, I think that's it's adequate for what it is...a tablet camera.
Remember how Apple talks up their camera? It still doesn't take the most amazing photos, especially on the iPad (well they talk up everything that is basically worthless, so maybe that's a bad example). I can get a better picture from a Samsung or HTC phone 9 times out of 10 than on a fruit device.
KilerG said:
I wasn't expecting to become a professional photographer with this tablet, much less shoot my next great film on it (even though if I did, that would be hilarious). I probably won't spend a lot of time using the camera, and when I do, I think that's it's adequate for what it is...a tablet camera.
Remember how Apple talks up their camera? It still doesn't take the most amazing photos, especially on the iPad (well they talk up everything that is basically worthless, so maybe that's a bad example). I can get a better picture from a Samsung or HTC phone 9 times out of 10 than on a fruit device.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So; I guess you didn't buy a tablet because of its camera, but you see the point of having a camera on the tablet is to make life easy and fun.
It should be expected of from a tablet, various components of the tablet works but its not perfect, why? Maybe the manufacturer can answer the question.
Redefined301 said:
So; I guess you didn't buy a tablet because of its camera, but you see the point of having a camera on the tablet is to make life easy and fun.
It should be expected of from a tablet, various components of the tablet works but its not perfect, why? Maybe the manufacturer can answer the question.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is maybe philosophical.
Being the best does not infer perfection.
Ahhh, but I too would prefer perfection. Those cameras cost 10's of thousands and almost require a degree to operate. For 500 bucks and a ton of more relevant things it does I am happy with the best of crap.
So to speak.
Lets just hope for the best of apps to get us home.
+1 for Camera ZoomFX. One of the first apps i install on my devices.
timrock said:
+1 for Camera ZoomFX. One of the first apps i install on my devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The quality remains the same as the horizontal bars are still present in the still image.
I took this picture today and it seemed to come out perfectly fine. There were no lights on and it was starting to get dark. My phone's camera would have taken an incredibly grainy picture, but this seemed to work just fine.
That's. My grandpa and great uncle if you were wondering. I'm visiting my grandparents and great uncle currently
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using xda app-developers app
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
It would be nice to hear some opinions on this following thoughts I've had, ever since I upgraded my phone last year from an iPhone 3G (2.5mp camera I think) to an Xperia Arc S, which at the time was the highest quality / size MP camera on a phone at 8MP, which is still a decent size for a phone camera today, as mid-ranged phones usually start at around 5-8MP and the super smart phones these days are running upward of 10MP, I think 13MP is the highest, at least on Android, that Nokia Symbian phone was like... 42MP? Or at least the fidelity / quality resembled that due to its massive lens housing, god knows what was in there, but if I remember rightly it was only 5MP images... Someone correct me.
Anyway, with my Arc S at 8MP, the images are fairly decent, I mean they're never going to be used for print, so it doesn't really need to be higher. However, as an art graduate, I spend time when I can taking photographs, and I have a 14MP Sony NEX 5, which as standard is already a better quality sensor than the tiny ones that make it into a phone.
My first point is it's still only 1MP higher than these smartphones, which makes me think; say I upgrade my phone in 1 year when 16MP is the highest, now we've gone over, for me I'm reluctant to go higher than my camera because I'd probably be swayed to using the phone more for photography, though the phones would probably have to be double the MP of a decent camera to really compare.
Secondly, Lenses, well the one on my Arc S is fairly standard, though probably more complex than some others as I think it has 7 layers of various shaped pieces of glass. But when it comes down to it, any photographer will tell you it's almost 100% the lens that really makes a photograph what it is, the phones are getting better quality, but the lenses probably aren't, the phones are constantly trying to get thinner which doesn't help matters, but phones have actually gotten fatter sue to bigger screens needing bigger battery, so I'm unsure on this part of the topic.
The lenses I use on my NEX are Canon FD mounts, a format from the early to mid 70's all the way up to about 1994, they are manual lenses because of their age and incompatibility with modern auto-focus, but the quality is superb, and I'm not just saying it, one of the lenses is a 1.4 50mm prime, and can do some great shots, though the camera isn't full frame so the lens works out at 75mm, but I also have a 28mm 2.2 (I think?) prime, which works out around 42mm and is really good.
Both lenses are dated between 1972 and 1982, and no current phone could replicate the fidelity, bokeh and colour, which is one of the reasons why proper cameras will always have the advantage. (The NEX doesn't have a mirror inside so can replicate the original setup of older cameras easily, meaning a huge number of adaptors allows tons of different lenses to become available)
However with the Nokia pureview phone (still don't remember its name... 850?...) It had a body capable of housing some very interesting tech, that hasn't really been used since, at least to my knowledge. Seeing some pictures online really showed you what this phone was capable of, I think the resolution of the images were in the ten thousands X whatever, and remained really sharp, for a phone at least. Maybe it's lack of success is due to it been on a non-leading OS at the time, I can imagine people would want a camera with maybe an Android phone? (Which apparently, Nokia are working on) so maybe it will see it's true colours shine on a larger base OS. If this tech is worth the larger body size of a phone, people are going to want it...
And lastly, Convenience. One of the main points of having a camera is to be able to capture moments WHENEVER, and having a decent camera on a phone has been a growing trend over the past few years, with the growth of social networks, YouTube and Instagram. And you're more likely to have a phone with you than a camera for a situation that's spontaneous.
So what are peoples thoughts? A few months back Jessops one of the leading camera sales company in the UK went into administration, with only a few stores been saved;
Will we see a heightening trend amongst phones been used instead of standalone cameras?
Will they (DSLR's etc) be phased out completely?
Are you an avid photographer with your phone, or do you use a standalone camera?
Am I wrong?
I'd like to hear some opinions, hopefuly some educated ones on the subject will give a sense on the spectrum of issues.
Another point to consider, Smart-Cameras, the new trend of cameras running Android, though I don't think any have interchangeable lenses.
Thanks for reading, also... You may need to change some 'if's to 'of's because my phone has a habit of changing my words.
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app
I use my phone for everyday rubbish shots (whatsapp and such) and storing information (bustimes, lists, important stuff i take a snapshot of.) .
It will NEVER replace my DSLR.
It simply lacks the functionalities of one. So long as I can't set aperture and change lenses, it's not a real camera. I need my telezoom and macro lenses.
You can't seriously expect a phone, even that 42mp one to be as high - quality as a dslr. Too many pixels crammed into way too small a sensor. As it has always been with phones.
Not to mention, phones lack the power of a dslr. Ever tried taking nightshots with a phone? They're bad. Very bad. Or high speed shots. Nuhuh, they cant. Or far-zoom?
Lets face it, cameras on phones are not meant for professionals. They're meant for people on facebook, twitter and instagram.
Send From My Samsung Galaxy S3 Using Tapatalk 2
ShadowLea said:
I use my phone for everyday rubbish shots (whatsapp and such) and storing information (bustimes, lists, important stuff i take a snapshot of.) .
It will NEVER replace my DSLR.
It simply lacks the functionalities of one. So long as I can't set aperture and change lenses, it's not a real camera. I need my telezoom and macro lenses.
You can't seriously expect a phone, even that 42mp one to be as high - quality as a dslr. Too many pixels crammed into way too small a sensor. As it has always been with phones.
Not to mention, phones lack the power of a dslr. Ever tried taking nightshots with a phone? They're bad. Very bad. Or high speed shots. Nuhuh, they cant. Or far-zoom?
Lets face it, cameras on phones are not meant for professionals. They're meant for people on facebook, twitter and instagram.
Send From My Samsung Galaxy S3 Using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Man how can you compare a DSLR with a smartphone camera??, a DSLR is a camera with an awesome quality and the smartphone camera is only a phone with a decent camera and not for pro- photographers.. i would always choose a DLSR over a smartphone camera. And by the way i agree with ShadowLea that you can't cram 42mp in a small lens!!! it is outrageous!
Well, it's to do with trends, if you agree or not is a different matter, but lots of pro photographers and teachers will tell you if you ask, about how important this new revolution is, the quality you can get is pretty good, even compared to digital cameras less than 10 years ago.
If it can take photographs then it's a valid form, there are pro photographers then spend lots of their time using phones for photography, 5MP and decent light is enough, some of these phones are better quality than the point and shoot cameras of recent past.
Instagram, though trendy is a very valid post processing tool, just because the majority of people use it recreationaly it doesn't diminish its power, and usage.
People use Polaroid cameras all the time, and they're quite limited, and the quality can vary greatly. You can't change the lens, and you can't really adjust any settings.
Polaroid is probably most comparable to the quality of the mid range smartphones.
As for the Nokia 41MP camera phone, if you actually look at the images you can get a good sense of the quality. The short article can be found here:
http://www.extremetech.com/electron...review-camera-finally-coming-to-windows-phone
You can also easily find examples by doing an image search on Nokia Pureview.
The convenience of a very good quality camera phone can allow for great photos, which is why it's really taking off as a trend.
Denying it is the same arguments as saying Digital is better than Film, though there are still counter arguments, benefits and people still use film cameras and Polaroid.
There's a statistic recently that goes something like; there have been more photographs taken in 2012 than all previous years since photography's invention combined.
I'm not sure if that's word for word correct, but I think it was on a Vsauce YouTube video not long back.
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app
I think you need to understand that Professional stands for "getting paid for your work" or "being an accomplished/awarded photographer" and not "I can hold a camera!".
Yes, there have been more photo's taken in the last year than since the invention of the photograph. I do hope you are also aware that this includes every halfbrained moron on Instagram and Facebook posting their friday-night drunk shots.
No selfrespecting real photographer uses a phone's camera for his or her work. The only ones that do are either A, doing an experiment, or B, people on the internet fooling themselves into thinking they're photographers.
PHONE CAMERAS DO NOT HAVE APERATURE SETTINGS. And that's where it all ends. There isn't a single pro or semi-pro who uses a fixed aperature camera.
42MP doesn't make a bloody difference if the sensor is meant for 2MP. The photo's may look fine on the internet, but newsflash: Your monitor is 72DPI, not 300. And a 6000x6000 pixel image is always going to look amazing when downsized to 1920x1080 or lower. (which is what every website does.)
As for trends, they're for the common cattle, not semi/professionals. People with knowledge and experience pay attention to specs, not to hypes.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2
ShadowLea said:
I think you need to understand that Professional stands for "getting paid for your work" or "being an accomplished/awarded photographer" and not "I can hold a camera!".
Yes, there have been more photo's taken in the last year than since the invention of the photograph. I do hope you are also aware that this includes every halfbrained moron on Instagram and Facebook posting their friday-night drunk shots.
No selfrespecting real photographer uses a phone's camera for his or her work. The only ones that do are either A, doing an experiment, or B, people on the internet fooling themselves into thinking they're photographers.
PHONE CAMERAS DO NOT HAVE APERATURE SETTINGS. And that's where it all ends. There isn't a single pro or semi-pro who uses a fixed aperature camera.
42MP doesn't make a bloody difference if the sensor is meant for 2MP. The photo's may look fine on the internet, but newsflash: Your monitor is 72DPI, not 300. And a 6000x6000 pixel image is always going to look amazing when downsized to 1920x1080 or lower. (which is what every website does.)
As for trends, they're for the common cattle, not semi/professionals. People with knowledge and experience pay attention to specs, not to hypes.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk 2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think you're missing my point, I meant professional photographers that use iPhones for photography for non print, recreation, street photography etc.
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app
For those interested in hearing a pro talk about it, I present, Chase Jarvis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buDa-m65RyA&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Sent from my LT18i using xda app-developers app
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.
Hello fellow Pixel users,
In my country Google is not selling their phones officially, so from my perspective it's a tough decision to make. I will be buying it from Germany within my business travel. I am currently using OnePlus 8 Pro and before that I had a Samsung S10+ (Exynos variant). So I am familiar with having a processor that is way better than Exynos is quite the difference.
1- So my first question is how good is the Tensor chip inside Google's phone. I am aware of the better usage as we can see with Apple maintaining the iphone's own silicone. They are trying the best power output of the smartphone within it's hardware capabilities. I am no gamer with the phone so all I expect is watch some videos, use basic social media and open many chrome tabs and sometimes take pictures from my travel.
2-My second question is the material used in the phone. As I said before I never seen or used a pixel phone. I expect it to be maintain basics or better than overall quality but from the social media I am hearing that camera frame has getting damage, power button is falling inside the phone. A fellow youtuber JerryRigsEverything said about bending issue in his teardown video too. Is anyone here experienced issues like this? Or is it a %1 manufacturing mistake that can happen to anyone.
3-My third question is the battery life and camera performance from your experience. I have watched some youtube videos from MKBHD, which is just praising the Pixel 7 Pro and I am trusting his channel. Meanwhile I have watched some unbiased compare videos with the S23 Ultra and iphone 14 Pro Max and usually photos and videos from Pixel phone looks much worse than how it's announced. Maybe they are not editing their photos, just comparing them with the way it is looking straight from the camera. But since nobody here is doing a sponsorship with pixel I trust your words over them.
Thank you for your response
Clearly these are only my own opinions.
1. Tensor 2 is great, it might not look good on paper thanks to all the benchmarking people do but in the real world it is more than enough.
2. You are never going to bend the phone like Zack does on JRE and lets be fair here, the P7P didn't snap or remain bent in his test. My P7P is now 5 months old and remains scratch free with all its buttons in place.
3. Battery life in my experience is good, i don't recall having to charge in the day even when going mental with the camera on a day out or on Holiday. Photos are good but they do have that pixel look about them and despite Googles "real tone" claims it sometimes makes a right pigs ear of skin tones regardless of colour. Mainly though you will end up with a good photo just about every time, whether it is framed right is down to you. As for video, well it is a Pixel, its never been any Pixels strongest attribute but i find videos from it perfectly acceptable.