If i wanted to convert one of my own movies for format on the phone does anyone know what resolution i should use should i use the phones default screen resolution or would there be a better res to use?
960x800 would be the ideal resolution. I don't know where you would find movies that resolution though.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
What are you using to convert the videos? I prefer Handbrake, personally. Here's a link:
http://www.knowyourcell.com/htc/htc...nsfer_them_to_the_htc_droid_incredible_2.html
It's a guide that walks you through creating a preset in Handbrake that you can reuse for each video you want to convert. I haven't done this for the Inc2 yet, but similar guides have worked well for me with past phones, PSP, iPad, etc. You might even be able to find a preset someone already made if you search a little bit.
Out of curiosity, why 960x800, kingsway? The Inc2 screen is 800x480, so I would be inclined to use that to make the file as small as possible.
I use avs video converter
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
And I tried 800x480 and it extends the length of the screen but width there is some black bordering so its not actually filling the screen
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
kingsway8605 said:
960x800 would be the ideal resolution. I don't know where you would find movies that resolution though.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually, 800x480 would be native. Using 960x800 would require compressing the video, which can cause some distortion, depending on codecs being used and the quality of the filters.
Also, one would be more likely to compress to this resolution rather than find movies at this resolution.
It should be noted that 800x480 is not a 16:9 resolution. This means most widescreen or "HD" movies that are formatted 16:9 will not fill the screen without cutting off the sides. It is also not a 4:3 resolution. This means standard def videos will also show bars.
480p is 720x480. This leaves 80 pixels of width extra over 480p widescreen video. 4:3 would be 640x480, which would leave a significantly larger amount of pixels not in use.
There are some movies that use wider aspect ratios. These movies will even show bars on 1080p displays (computer monitor, TV, etc). I have one movie on my phone that has large bars above and below...which seems a bit stupid. Not sure why studios can't crop a shot properly. (This is why we have widescreen to begin with...and now they want wider).
It's better to maintain aspect ratio of the source video when compressing. If you try to make the video fill the screen, you are looking at either cutting off portions of the video, or stretching it and making it look weird. Chances are you will have some bars somewhere around the video.
I just use rockplayer, that way there I no need for conversion.
Sent from my DINC2 in Yuma, AZ
sacnotsack said:
I just use rockplayer, that way there I no need for conversion.
Sent from my DINC2 in Yuma, AZ
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Easy enough, but converting makes the fie size smaller without sacrificing quality
Yeah but if you have 1+ gigs on your sd card left what's the point of converting to make the file smaller? I mean how many times are you going to watch this movie you put on, or how many movies do you plan on putting on your sd card. I guess for me its just more practical to put an unconverted movie on my sd card and watch it once or maybe even twice then take it off and replace it with another movie. That's just me though. I'm all about efficiency, and not converting a movie save me time, and since I have plenty of space on my sd card, it's more efficient for me since I maintain the quality of the movie.
Sent from my DINC2 in Yuma, AZ
sacnotsack said:
Yeah but if you have 1+ gigs on your sd card left what's the point of converting to make the file smaller? I mean how many times are you going to watch this movie you put on, or how many movies do you plan on putting on your sd card. I guess for me its just more practical to put an unconverted movie on my sd card and watch it once or maybe even twice then take it off and replace it with another movie. That's just me though. I'm all about efficiency, and not converting a movie save me time, and since I have plenty of space on my sd card, it's more efficient for me since I maintain the quality of the movie.
Sent from my DINC2 in Yuma, AZ
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's various reasons to downsize. For example, it seems not all 1080p movies play well (of course, this could just be my slow microSDHC card or my underclocking too).
But then again, compressing a 1080p video takes a very long time (hours). If you have no problems with the performance of the video, and you have the storage space for the video, there's no reason to compress it further. It's going to be faster to copy the video over and play as is.
I often put TV episodes on my device to watch during low periods of productivity at work. I generally don't compress them any further than what I already have them in, and they don't stay on my phone.
In any case, if you want to store a lot of videos, it's best to convert to a resolution that is close to the native resolution of the device. You will maintain the video quality as playback of higher resolution videos will be compressing it for the display anyway. However, you will have a performance hit playing higher resolution videos as they are higher bandwidth streams being decoded, and then they are downsampled. If, for example, you're planning this for a trip or something, I'd recommend compressing to the phone's display, and prepare for this days in advance to give time for compression (don't wait until day of because you might get 1 or 2 done if converting 1080p video).
Related
Anyone really annoyed by the camcorder on this device? My videos record and play-back really choppy on my device AND my computer. Especially when shooting in HD.
Coming from the Fascinate, it's a huge step back. Why does it record in .3GP? Even when shooting HD! Could 3GP be the culprit?
Someone over at the AC forums suggested that it may be due to the class of SD Card it shipped with. That it can't write to the SD Card fast enough. Going to try it with my Fascinate's SD Card. I'll report back.
I too came over from the Fascinate and have not had this issue using the SD card I had with my Fascinate.
Sent from my ADR6350 using Tapatalk
I've only done a few 30-ish second videos, pretty sure stock settings, and haven't had any issues. I may have to try again and will report back.
Havent had any issues with camera or video.
Yup...Tapatalk'd
It could, very well, be your storage not being able to keep up. If there's no buffer left due to slow storage writes, then it has to throw out data.
I definitely haven't had trouble with playback but I haven't really messed with recording that much. I'm not using the card that came with the phone either as I have a class 4 32gb that I purchased for my previous phone. I'll do some testing with it today sometime.
So when I used my other SD card, recording and playback was smooth—however, I would still get the "wobbly" image when moving the camcorder quickly, but that I can live with.
Definitely appears to have just been an issue with the shipped sandisk SD Card.
The "wobbly" is an effect of the sensor itself, and how well the imaging processor (not the CPU) can process the sensor information. Cheap camera setups (which this likely has) will have a more pronounced "wobbly" effect in video, and may display the effect in photos where there's really fast movement (think helicopter blade rotating). Even the iPhone has this problem, as well as many dedicated CCD based digital cameras. The effect actually has a name, but I can't remember it.
Side note:
I'm new to Android and the Dinc2 is my first device. I love the quality of the recorded video, but it appears that .3gp can't be natively uploaded to Facebook. I can use a File Manager to rename to .mp4 but I wondered if there was an easier way?
EDIT:
A quick look at Facebooks FAQ says that .3gp is supported, but I got errors when trying to upload using the Android Facebook App, the browser on my Dinc2 and Firefox on my MacBook Pro. It would only upload after I renamed the extension on my MBP.
I just now did a bit of testing.
The wobbly problem is pronounced in all resolutions that I tested. It's even visible in the preview. This tells me the imaging platform used is not very good, which is kinda unfortunate. Another unfortunate thing about this fact is should this get rooted and we gain access to things like CM, the camera will still have this problem.
I mentioned the wobbly problem is likely to affect photos. In my testing, it did. This is definitely not a high action camera setup. I kinda figured my ceiling fan test would show this, but did not expect my manual panning to, and it did.
One thing to note is my testing was done in ambient household lighting. Results may differ in bright sunlight. However, I don't remember my Eris having this much wobbly effect. Of course, it could have had a CMOS sensor rather than a CCD sensor.
I've pretty much exclusively used Kingston SDHC and microSDHC cards over the years because not a single one has failed me (yeah, watch something catastrophic happen now that I said that). I'm using a Kingston Class 4 32gb microSDHC card and had no problems recording video. Recording at 720p with the level of compression being used is probably pushing the limits of this card, but playback was, indeed, smooth. The recording test took place with about 10gb of usage already (music).
Edit: I should note that if you're not moving around a lot, particularly left and right, the wobbly effect won't be near as pronounced. It's still one of the worst I've seen in this regard.
Getting a HD camcorder is taking a step backward in Video Quality. HD camcorders Interpolate the video, which means of every 25 frames of video, 4 or 5 frames are taken by the lens assembly, the other frames in between these are filled in by the camcorder inner circuitry, thus giving you not true video. This happens in every video they take. I will not mention any thing, other than to say, getting a HD camcorder, make sure you have the computer that handle HD video, one clue, You need a multi core processor and both an audio and sound card also. Any thing less and you will have problems with the footage a HD camcorder makes. And Windows Maker does not work with HD video.
ankaka said:
Getting a HD camcorder is taking a step backward in Video Quality. HD camcorders Interpolate the video, which means of every 25 frames of video, 4 or 5 frames are taken by the lens assembly, the other frames in between these are filled in by the camcorder inner circuitry, thus giving you not true video. This happens in every video they take. I will not mention any thing, other than to say, getting a HD camcorder, make sure you have the computer that handle HD video, one clue, You need a multi core processor and both an audio and sound card also. Any thing less and you will have problems with the footage a HD camcorder makes. And Windows Maker does not work with HD video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Long rant for just a phone camcorder lol
Sent from my Incredible 2 using xda premium
ankaka said:
Getting a HD camcorder is taking a step backward in Video Quality. HD camcorders Interpolate the video, which means of every 25 frames of video, 4 or 5 frames are taken by the lens assembly, the other frames in between these are filled in by the camcorder inner circuitry, thus giving you not true video. This happens in every video they take. I will not mention any thing, other than to say, getting a HD camcorder, make sure you have the computer that handle HD video, one clue, You need a multi core processor and both an audio and sound card also. Any thing less and you will have problems with the footage a HD camcorder makes. And Windows Maker does not work with HD video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've got a sound card, but where in the world do I get an audio card???
</sarcasm>
ankaka said:
Getting a HD camcorder is taking a step backward in Video Quality. HD camcorders Interpolate the video, which means of every 25 frames of video, 4 or 5 frames are taken by the lens assembly, the other frames in between these are filled in by the camcorder inner circuitry, thus giving you not true video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is, most certainly, NOT how they work. When they say the video is interpolated, it means it's being recorded at something less than the full HD resolution, and an imaging processor on the camera increases the resolution of each frame on the fly. There are various techniques used to scale up an image, analyzing surrounding pixels to more accurately fill in missing information.
While it may technically be true that only 1/4 of the pixel information produced is actually recorded through the lens, the rest of it being produced through the resing up process, this happens on a frame-by-frame basis and is entirely different than only recording 1 out of every 5 frames and trying to produce the intermediate frames in their entirety. There are techniques to do that on a real computer, but no camera does that as a way to produce 25 or 30 fps video from 4 or 5 frames per second source.
I'll leave the rest of your post alone...
As for the camera on this phone, it's very highly effected by the amount of ambient light. It works surprisingly well outdoors where there's ample light, but quickly degrades as the light drops. Also, there is a definite difference between the camera/camcorder apps on stock Sense and AOSP based roms.
Hi All!
Soo... Its nearly Christmas an my wife has asked what id like
My immediate reply was a pair of video glasses
I automatically presumed I'd be able to use it with my SGSII (with the HDMI video out n all)
So off I went googl'ing the hell out of them.
I cant seem to find any "directly" compatible so I was just wondering if any one had any ideas on the concept?
I want to be able to use them with my phone and my PS3.
Has any one had first hand experiences with them?
It's a lot of money to invest in something I've never had a play with
Here are a few I've looked at >
http://www.vuzix.com
http://www.videoglasses.org.uk
http://www.zetronix.com/index.php?cPath=26&gclid=CMCT6baW4awCFaEntAodSCgIoQ
http://www.tech-in-mind.com/product01_06_en.html
I don't need the VR option (unless its free lol )
Obviously I'm trying to do this as cheap a possible (For around £250 or less)
and I'm not too fussed if the screen is around the 40-50 inch range (again wouldn't say no to the 80 incher )
Please any advice on the matter would be greatly appreciated.
If it were me, I'd get something decent for Christmas.
The displays you are looking at have resolutions of 640x480 max and will look rubbish as a virtual 80in screen. If you have an HDTV then you'll be disappointed if you put a PS3 through any video glasses IMO. The cheaper end of the range have 320x240 displays and will look even worse.
Not only will VGA or QVGA resolution look very pixelated on an (virtual) 80"-diagonal, but also consider that most footage will need to be downscaled in order to fit these low resolutions. If you downscale 1080p or 720p videos they will look acceptable, but if you downscale PAL footage (720*576) to VGA (640*480) you will get a quite blurry result.
Btw the PS3 can natively output VGA-resolution if it's in NTSC-mode (see http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/3_15/settings/videooutput.html), so it won't have that blurry-effect like downscaled PAL-footage, but it will still look pixelated.
Do get an idea of what to expect, just change your computer's resolution to 640*480 and go close to the screen.
inquisitor said:
Not only will VGA or QVGA resolution look very pixelated on an (virtual) 80"-diagonal, but also consider that most footage will need to be downscaled in order to fit these low resolutions. If you downscale 1080p or 720p videos they will look acceptable, but if you downscale PAL footage (720*576) to VGA (640*480) you will get a quite blurry result.
Btw the PS3 can natively output VGA-resolution if it's in NTSC-mode (see http://manuals.playstation.net/document/en/ps3/3_15/settings/videooutput.html), so it won't have that blurry-effect like downscaled PAL-footage, but it will still look pixelated.
Do get an idea of what to expect, just change your computer's resolution to 640*480 and go close to the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Fair enough. I thought it was all relive to the actual screen size..
I had a friend that hadn't understood he needed to hook his PS3 up to his HD tv with a HDMI cable, The difference was astonishing. not what im after.
Thanks for your help guys. I hold off for now.
As Google announced at their event, the GN should film [email protected], but after seeing the many review which are available on the net, the conclusion is that the GN only films at 24fps.
Could this be fixed through software? It would be a huge lie, if Google mentioned 30fps, reality being something else.
i would also like to know that.. really dont like 24 fps
Is that why the videos seem so choppy ?
generally, most film is done at 24FPS which is the standard for NTSC. in the past, they would 'convert' films to 30FPS by "splitting" the A/B fields in the video in an attempt to give it a more fluid sort of feel. they originally did this for older tv sets though...
if you were watching such films on a newer TV for instance you could tell a video's been converted by seeing occasional weird doubling/lines appear in motion-filled areas. tv's/pc's though have software "filters" to hide this effect, at least the lines part.. but if you have good eyes you'll still see the occasional doubling(ghosting).
considering the compact size of the GN screen though, you should not see "jerkiness(choppiness)" unless it's some sort of hardware or software related issue.
[EDIT] although it would still be weird to do a full 1080P video and limit it to 24FPS even if you are just watching it on your phone. the whole 24FPS thing was from the DVD days.
This is normal spec of 1080p videos. If you had an HTPC you'd probably already be aware of this, as some videocard manufactures have a bug were it's not fully 24fps, or alternates causing you to see a shudder..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
When filming at 1080p it is usually done at 30fps...
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
The FPS is usually capped in media_profiles.xml that you can find in the source on AOSP. That's where the quality settings and codecs used per setting is defined.
But why all the video looks like under-water
Emama said:
But why all the video looks like under-water
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Really want to know about this problem Cox this is the problem that pull me from press checkout
Luxferro said:
This is normal spec of 1080p videos. If you had an HTPC you'd probably already be aware of this, as some videocard manufactures have a bug were it's not fully 24fps, or alternates causing you to see a shudder..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1080p
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Film is 23.976 fps. If your video card is set to 24fps instead of 23.976, you'll get a stutter every 41.66 seconds.
f231f said:
Film is 23.976 fps. If your video card is set to 24fps instead of 23.976, you'll get a stutter every 41.66 seconds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah I knew it was 23.something_close_to_24.
Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using xda premium
Any idea on the video size that would be used on this tablet? I usually rip backups of my BRs and just wanted to see if anyone has tried different video sizes as of yet. Would the 1200 x 1920 resolution be acceptable? Hoping to get this tablet delivered this week and would like to get some of my favorite movies transferred over.
The best quality will the 1080p rips but the files will be huge.
The 720p will be good as well and the files will be a bit smaller.
But even with DVD rips, the quality is OK, you won't just take advantage of superb screen of the G Pad (but you'll save a lot of storage).
But the best thing would be for you to test the different formats and see what suits you the best.
Question: Why can't the pixel 6 pro shoot in 5-6k? It can shoot 12.53MP and 4k is only 8.3 MP.
Thanks,
Probably due to the pixel-binning, which results in a quarter (IIRC) of the maximum resolution of the camera (~48-50 MegaPixel).
Well my question is why cant we hit 5k? 6K should be 16.6MP.. Pixel 6Pro is 12.53 so that should be a bit over 5K (5k is around 12.45MP)
Ok we talking about video capturing right?
superman25 said:
Ok we talking about video capturing right?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes.
The phone is theoretically capable of recording 5K. I would love to see a camera mod to do it somehow.
Doug8796 said:
The phone is theoretically capable of recording 5K. I would love to see a camera mod to do it somehow.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea theoretically is capable even more sensor is not 12mpx its really 50mpx and after processing came 12mpx photos even from main camera sensor but......its about resolution/fps/ bitrate ...and all depends of cooling system and capabilities of processing of chip in phone and how wee know cooling is not what is good on pixel 6 pro
I'd love to know if any dev's could chime in.. afaik timelapse is definitely possible oat 5k.
this is likely because nearly no display that displays 5K, it doesn't make much sense to support a format that is barely used
DespairFactor said:
this is likely because nearly no display that displays 5K, it doesn't make much sense to support a format that is barely used
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'd love to get more quality out of my video. Apple makes a 5k display, and for editing purposes 5k would be nice . I like to get some shots of nature sometimes. I just wanted to know if it was possible.
Doug8796 said:
I'd love to know if any dev's could chime in.. afaik timelapse is definitely possible oat 5k.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yea timelapse is definetly capable of much higher resolutions ....and its good question becouse for now we know in future will only produce 8k tvs and 4k minimum monitors .....i think phone is capable of 1080p 480p slow mo why they dont use this who knows
DespairFactor said:
this is likely because nearly no display that displays 5K, it doesn't make much sense to support a format that is barely used
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not truth pixel count and quality was always much higher then actual displays like before decade was 16 and higher pxl Fotos and no digital monitors or tvs to show....some people have same argumenst s like you ...same with 1080p when come some people still telling wee dont needed lots of people looking on videos on tvs and most of them have only Hd tv so we dont needed right now ...what? I making memories and those memories i would like to have in best possible (reasonable ) quality what i can make with good format for future .........for example imy first tv vas plasma only 720p (in real was 768p ) but doesn't matter important is i was looking on 1080p movies and making 1080p videos l... And they look much more vetter because if you're looking on content like 1080p on 720p tvs you actually getting better quality and better looking image because its working like antialiasing or super resolution on AMD cards or whatever other metod they named and this metod ....its used in videogames for years for better image quality and its much more visible on video(moving picture ) then on just stable frame but its still visible and its make sence to only some quality like its doasant make sense looking on 8k on 1080p tv but its make sense watching on 4k picture on 1440p monitor or watching 1440p video on 1080p tv .....so 5k video on even 4k tv or monitor still make sense.
superman25 said:
That's not truth pixel count and quality was always much higher then actual displays like before decade was 16 and higher pxl Fotos and no digital monitors or tvs to show....some people have same argumenst s like you ...same with 1080p when come some people still telling wee dont needed lots of people looking on videos on tvs and most of them have only Hd tv so we dont needed right now ...what? I making memories and those memories i would like to have in best possible (reasonable ) quality what i can make with good format for future .........for example imy first tv vas plasma only 720p (in real was 768p ) but doesn't matter important is i was looking on 1080p movies and making 1080p videos l... And they look much more vetter because if you're looking on content like 1080p on 720p tvs you actually getting better quality and better looking image because its working like antialiasing or super resolution on AMD cards or whatever other metod they named and this metod ....its used in videogames for years for better image quality and its much more visible on video(moving picture ) then on just stable frame but its still visible and its make sence to only some quality like its doasant make sense looking on 8k on 1080p tv but its make sense watching on 4k picture on 1440p monitor or watching 1440p video on 1080p tv .....so 5k video on even 4k tv or monitor still make sense.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly. I have been recording 4k video since Note 5 I believe.
Look up Motion Cam on GitHub. It allows you to shoot RAW files (stored in the DNG format) at the cameras full resolution.
You'll probably be limited in the frame rate and length you can record and you'll need something like Davinci Resolve, but I've messed with it and gotten good results.
asylumxl said:
Look up Motion Cam on GitHub. It allows you to shoot RAW files (stored in the DNG format) at the cameras full resolution.
You'll probably be limited in the frame rate and length you can record and you'll need something like Davinci Resolve, but I've messed with it and gotten good results.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
holy thanks its worth to try .... for me video its ok for now but its really impresive how good is camrea in night mode