Related
Hi everyone.
HTC Desire is being found in my country better than other android phones, but I have a serious problem with its bad video recording framerate (15). I tried to download a video sample, and it was really bad as I thought (no offense to the fans ).
My phone's video recording ability is important for me, so please don't give answers like: this is a phone, go get a camcorder, ...
Some people say that it will have HD 720P support in future firmware updates, but I wanna know is there a plan to improve the framerate as well?
Thanks.
As the phone records direct to the SD card I would suggest trying a faster class of card and see if that affects things at all.
Sent from my HTC Desire using Tapatalk
mahi58 said:
Hi everyone.
HTC Desire is being found in my country better than other android phones, but I have a serious problem with its bad video recording framerate (15). I tried to download a video sample, and it was really bad as I thought (no offense to the fans ).
My phone's video recording ability is important for me, so please don't give answers like: this is a phone, go get a camcorder, ...
Some people say that it will have HD 720P support in future firmware updates, but I wanna know is there a plan to improve the framerate as well?
Thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the desire already has 720p recording, but keep in mind its limited by its hardware, 1 ghz isnt alot to encode HD and i know the iphone has better HD recording but i think that has somthing to do with its improved gpu, recording at lower resolution is flawless so why not do that?
Galaxy S and iPhone 4 are the first phones that are likely to have the processing power to record 720p with decent framerates. Desire just isn't as powerful, no matter how it's optimized it won't be perfect, ever.
However, even those two phones (probably) don't benefit much in terms of real video quality by just upping the recorded resolution. Trying to fit even a BAD 720p-capable sensor in a phone form factor isn't going to be a reality for a couple years or so, I'd estimate. Right now you get lots of extra pixels but the picture doesn't actually look any better since the sensor is too small to properly capture such high resolution.
It's something like the "megapixel war" that went on (and continues to some extent) between the major camera vendors. There's not more space to use a better sensor, they just make the sensor try to interpret the light better. Now it's phone vendors claiming they can do 720p when in reality the sensors they're using are probably capable of "real" 480i resolution at best.
But you can see the result... take two shots on the phone of your choice, one at 3mp or so and one at the maximum, then try blowing up the 3mp one to the 10mp one's dimensions and compare them side by side. The resized one looks a bit blurry? Now apply a good professional sharpening filter such as Neat Image. Voila, they're all but identical, just one has lots more garbage data in the form of grain where there was none in real life. The sensor is so tiny there's literally just not enough photons hitting it to do anything but interpolate most of the data, even in daytime outdoors.
I know you said you don't want me to say "just buy a camcorder", but honestly that's the only solution if you want an actual image quality difference. An honest camcorder can give you a million times the feature set and record decent audio too.
Maybe check out the Canon HF100... I think that's what it's called. I have the previous year's model and it's outstanding value. Record true 1080p @ 30fps, and it's so clear you can capture individual frames from it and it looks better than any cameraphone. Takes competent stills too, and I think the most recent model has 20x optical zoom. It's like... 25% larger than an empty toilet paper roll and a little more squarish.
So do you recommend setting to 480?
Thank you guys.
I bought a Google-HTC nexus one today D). I had to buy a used cell phone because of the android phone shortage in my country, and I had to buy it today, so I wasn't able to read any of your posts; but some interesting comments have been posted:
AndroHero
You mean there is a video recording mode for desire, which records in lower resolution, but gives better framerates?
If so, desire would have been a flawless choice for me! Why isn't this mentioned anywhere?
nawoa
Very interesting ideas, thank you.
I have noticed the difference between true 720P videos and the "claimed" ones which are being recorded by cell phones, and, frankly, the difference is obvious.
But still, if you watch the video samples from desire and some competitors (from GSMArena or somewhere), you will confirm that there's a huge difference, which is not being caused by the low resolution, but by the poor framerate in desire.
Desire's video sample is disappointing...
But if it's possible to record in lower resolution and better framerate, then desire would have been a better choice than a second hand nexus one.
Hardware not capable? 1Ghz not fast enough?
Nexus one 720p @27fps!!!
Edit:Video
nawoa said:
Galaxy S and iPhone 4 are the first phones that are likely to have the processing power to record 720p with decent framerates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
IPhone uses its GPU, that's why it performs so well. Guess it's a driver issue. If the desire were to utilize the GPU, the results would be far better.
iPhone and Galaxy S share the same CPU/GPU chip, and as you say, yes it probably leverages the GPU to help encode the data more efficiently. Even if not, it's a more efficient chip which doesn't just mean it's smaller and uses less battery, but it's actually more powerful despite running at the same clock speed.
For example, I had an experience when I was upgrading my computer last year, going from a 65nm CPU to a 45nm CPU with identical architecture, cache, etc. Running at the same clock speed I get ~20% or more of a performance boost just due to the better efficiency.
I can't say how well that carries over to this situation since I'm sure there are more improvements in the transition from "snapdragon" to "hummingbird" than just the newer manufacturing process and more powerful GPU, but you can be sure the CPU gains a significant speed advantage from the lower node even before whatever other enhancements have been made.
"Hardware not capable? 1Ghz not fast enough?
Nexus one 720p @27fps!!!"
I'm not even going to look. 27 FPS isn't any kind of standard and if indeed that framerate is being achieved it's because there is extremely good lighting. Please introduce me to the world you live in where everyone and everything is always in ideal studio lighting... Aside from that I know without clicking the link that it will be terrible-looking.
"But if it's possible to record in lower resolution and better framerate, then desire would have been a better choice than a second hand nexus one."
I don't mean to belittle you but doesn't it go without saying that there is a lower-resolution video mode available when 720p is only just being unlocked in the most recent firmware? Whatever the case, N1 and Desire have identical hardware, if anything you might have a screen you like better than if you bought a Desire today.
Anyway, yes in my opinion you'd normally want to record at a lower resolution. I haven't done a thorough quality comparison but I'd guess you're not going to get much benefit from going above 320x240 for video. The truth is harsh, isn't it? Probably no harm in using the highest image size but it's not going to deliver miracles, especially considering the shutter lag and lack of any kind of image stabilization system.
But on the upside, your videos will have a smaller filesize, the framerate will stay consistent (at least if there is adequate lighting), and as I said earlier there is absolutely no real-world quality difference except that you'll get less battery usage and video noise when recording and playing back lower-resolution video.
Keep in mind, I bought a Desire and I love it. I even think the camera and video is fine. Just keep your expectations reasonable and realize that you need an actual camera to take good pictures/video. It's for Youtube, Facebook, and that kind of thing, not wedding photos.
Canon HF100 (IIRC) is a solid prosumer choice, or if you want something more compact but still versatile you might look at the Sony DSC-TX5, which is very durable and even waterproof to boot. It was just replaced with a newer (but not significantly different) version, so you can get it pretty cheap too. It offers quite good still and video quality (REAL 720p) considering it's like 15mm thick and even has some voodoo real 5x optical zoom system despite not having a moving lens on the front.
This thread's piqued my curiosity a bit, I'm going to try to do a semi-scientific study to determine what the best settings are for the camera.
I can't say exactly how you'll have to configure your new N1 since I'm using the Sense camera app, but you can probably still have an improvement by trying to modify settings in a similar way.
This is very preliminary and I don't have daylight to work with, I'll get into it more tomorrow, but so far:
Contrast is best at its default setting, 0. I'd prefer a -0.5 but no such option exists.
Saturation should be reduced to -1, this will help lessen the strength of noise and also gives somewhat more realistic color.
Sharpness should be reduced to -1, this again will help reduce noise and eliminates the majority of the sharpening artifacts. Going down to -2 helps a bit more but the loss of detail probably isn't worth it.
Brightness should be left at 0, it operates in mysterious ways and doesn't seem to be very helpful regardless of how it's set.
The ideal video capture resolution is 640x480. 320x240 doesn't appear to bring a framerate improvement so there's not really much sense unless you're limited by storage. All capture sizes besides 320x240 and 640x480 operate by simply cropping the image and offer no positive effects that I can see. 720p may add a superficial amount of detail but at the cost of an unsteady framerate and much greater encoding/decoding load (1280x720 vs 640x480, or 921,600 pixels per frame vs 307,200).
Similarly, taking widescreen stills simply crops the top and bottom and results in no quality difference to the part of the full frame that's actually recorded. You're probably best off recording in the sensor's native 4:3 aspect ratio and then cropping them to your taste on your home computer.
The ideal video capture codec is MPEG4 - H.264 offers a nice reduction in filesize but uses too low of a bitrate, resulting in worse quality during fast movement. It is also more work to encode and decode, hurting your battery life.
Obviously don't use zoom for any reason since it's just cropping and resizing with speed as the only consideration. You'll get much better results doing the same thing on your home computer.
Due to the low sensor quality, there's not a whole lot of difference between 5 and 3 megapixel shots, but there's no harm in going with 5mp. The biggest difference is the filesize. Taking a picture of the same subject, my 5mp shots ranged from 2.96mb to 2.38mb, while the 3mp ones were 1.22mb to 0.76mb.
I'd like to revise my earlier statement that the processor isn't capable of encoding 720p30 in realtime. It's now my opinion that the problem is just the camera firmware trying to make sense of the idea that you're asking it to pull usable pixel data for a 1280x720 frame, 30 times a second, from such a tiny sensor. To compensate for the lack of light information, it's forced to reduce the framerate or else the image will turn into a mess of noise. It's probably being a bit too conservative, but not by a lot. The fault lies with the sensor, not the CPU... I think.
Finally, *something* I did seemed to significantly reduce the framerate, or rather, the quality of recording high-motion video. This might be something peculiar to the rom I'm running, or it could be completely in my head, but I think I changed something when I was messing with the various settings and it had a noticeable negative effect.
It's late here now so I'll pick up in the morning but my current wild guesses are:
-Capturing full-frame is more difficult than capturing cropped widescreen, or vice-versa?
-Face detection processing adds too much latency to the recording?
-Flicker reduction should be taken off auto for best performance?
-Custom filtering settings (brightness/sharpness, etc) slow recording down?
-How the camera was focused reduced/increased the encoding difficulty?
-Sharpness settings increased/decreased the amount of frame data needing to be encoded?
-...Or I screwed something up in SetCPU? No... I don't... think so... but it's pretty late. Hmm...
I'll pick up tomorrow. Someone's probably already figured out the perfect settings but I'm pro at being redundant.
The 480p is flawless?
Come on ... It is OK-ish, but not flawless. Especially indoor, even with good lighting still mediocre.
Multimedia is one of the weakest in Android, hopefully Gingerbread will correct this.
AndroHero said:
the desire already has 720p recording, but keep in mind its limited by its hardware, 1 ghz isnt alot to encode HD and i know the iphone has better HD recording but i think that has somthing to do with its improved gpu, recording at lower resolution is flawless so why not do that?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You could try switching to 800 ISO in settings camera mode, then switch back to camcorder mode. I noticed a considerable fps boost even in low light conditions.
I don't mean to belittle you but doesn't it go without saying that there is a lower-resolution video mode available when 720p is only just being unlocked in the most recent firmware? Whatever the case, N1 and Desire have identical hardware, if anything you might have a screen you like better than if you bought a Desire today.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Before buying nexus one, I checked out desire's specifications in its GSMArena's page, and it said:
Video: Yes, WVGA (800x480 pixels) @ 15fps
So I thought its the only video recording mode that the phone has (I'm not experienced with modern phones). I wasn't expecting a cell phone to have different video capture modes like a digicam/camcorder.
Then, I downloaded a video sample that was being recorded in daylight, but was really disappointing, and the framerate was exactly 15.
And, in my experince, if you buy products, specially high tech products like modern phones relying on the informations that (you think) "go without saying" you're going to be serioulsly punished by your mistakes.
You can only rely on facts...
By the way, thanks for the experiments.
There is some work done in the developement section to optimize HTC camera 720p framerate. A guy obtained 29fps in good lighting (not perfect) but he's still working on it. Funny part is that he blew his desire while testing it.
Check this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynB0M9NeVCE
Regarding the current state, a good sd card can help with the occasional stuttering, or if you can live with AOSP roms, you probably will get a couple fps more. Otherwise you are confined to good lighting to have something on the good side of 20fps.
some examples from my phone:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S6KuPCn6_2M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ugjI5ygsXzQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssFnQsdz0DE
That change the ISO on the still camera seems a good tip
Marcus2388 said:
You could try switching to 800 ISO in settings camera mode, then switch back to camcorder mode. I noticed a considerable fps boost even in low light conditions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that's really good tip!
when you increase your ISO your picture quality gets poor.
it helps to make videos faster and smooth but with no quality.
Ive just ordered my new Micro Sd card class 10 card... let it come and i'll let you know if something good happens...
malikahsan said:
when you increase your ISO your picture quality gets poor.
it helps to make videos faster and smooth but with no quality.
Ive just ordered my new Micro Sd card class 10 card... let it come and i'll let you know if something good happens...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'll disagree about poor quality - it just gets a little worse, even in indoor lightning, but you get an acceptable video, compared to the "very creepy slide show" in auto-ISO mode.
Besides the average framerate, which is probably more due to the lens and partially to the software, isn't the stuttering problem caused by an aggressive datarate when writing to the sd ? If you compare cyanogen 720p recording to HTC, quality isn't really different, but the data-rate codec probably is, and that's why even with a class 2 you avoid stuttering in cyanogen (OD and Defrost too).
Sorry if I up this thread, I found a micro sd card A-Data class 6 with good price, this micro SD can fix the problem recording video a 720p?
Thanks to all
I'm trying to figure out if the One X has a good video capture or a bad video capture. I've seen tons of youtube 1080p videos, both recent and older, and there's a lot of inconsistency, even among the newer ones. The audio is still the typical bad HTC audio, with lots of clipping/popping and digital garbley voices. The video is the sporadic thing. It can go from very sharp and detailed to very blurry and noisy, indoor/outdoor doesn't really matter. The smoothness also goes from utter BLUR in some videos to skippy/laggy screen tearing in some videos to slight stuttering and ghosting, all when panning around. What is consistent though is how shaky it is.
The mobile-review.com review has a couple downloadable non-altered videos. I'm still looking for other downloadable ones. The indoor video looks pretty good, although it can get shaky and blurs pretty bad when moving around. The outdoor one is pretty much unusable the framerate is so low, which is weird since its outdoors, but the sharpness and quality seems very good otherwise.
Would be great if some peeps who own the phone can upload a few 1080p videos to a filehoster somewhere.
Edit: I just saw the HTC One V review at phonearena. Why is the audio on the lower tier device so much better? The video is also buttery smooth and clean, unlike the HTC One X/S, although less detailed. What gives? The HTC Vivid also had good audio capture, but it was pretty much a niche phone for AT&T early LTE adopters. Why don't they put this sort of effort for their main headline making phones? So frustrating. Seems they are capable of it, but somehow in the design process it always gets shoved to the back.
The Sony Xperia XZ Premium has a crazy crisp display. Just kidding, this is automated text so who knows if this screen is any good. So, you be the judge! A higher rating indicates that it's extremely sharp and clear, and that you cannot see pixels with your naked eye.
Then, drop a comment if you have anything to add!
I do see pixels
We all do cuz of the pixel pattern...
Screen isnt as crisp as i expected in a 4k display, id say its as good as standard 1080 screen... Not even a good 1080 xD
When virtually emulated to 4k its better, its still on a 1080p level though thats how my eye sees it at least
Im only talking in terms of sharpness, i expected more details on a 4k display.
In terms of colors, brightness, id give it a superb level as it is very natural and realistic! Not like fake amoled crap, but super natural and its like looking out a window, yet i expected a sharper display concidering the 4k display
The screen is really crisp, at least through vr. When I use VR, I can see the pixels but they don't look huge like on 2k phones.
madshark2009 said:
I do see pixels
We all do cuz of the pixel pattern...
Screen isnt as crisp as i expected in a 4k display, id say its as good as standard 1080 screen... Not even a good 1080 xD
When virtually emulated to 4k its better, its still on a 1080p level though thats how my eye sees it at least
Im only talking in terms of sharpness, i expected more details on a 4k display.
In terms of colors, brightness, id give it a superb level as it is very natural and realistic! Not like fake amoled crap, but super natural and its like looking out a window, yet i expected a sharper display concidering the 4k display
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you ever try to change it's default resolution to 4k with 720-821 ppi density via adb command?
If you looking for "crisp", already try it and still say "isn't crisp as I expected", then i can't say anything anymore.
For my eyes, when try to change it's default res to 4k, in terms of crisp and sharp it's the top of the top of crazy display i've ever see. I've never see for real 8k display monitor yet, but I can say panel on this phone is really insane. You can directly compared with any phones in the world right now with that configuration (4k default res), and it's a champ! Yes, there 'unpleasant' bug layout for some apps because they aren't reach yet to develop on 4k native resolution. And the most important, the black recent apps fault lol. So I am not use that config for daily usage.
But if you just curious to see how the real performance of this phone screen, then that config is worth to try.
I've not said about 4k HDR content, there some example files you can download to see 'beyond the limit performance' of this phone. It's super crazy sharp and crisp with insane range of colour!
Instead, in terms of detail, i can't barely say it will fulfil your expectation, because for me it's hard to expect level of detail on small size display.
knightazura said:
Have you ever try to change it's default resolution to 4k with 720-821 ppi density via adb command?
If you looking for "crisp", already try it and still say "isn't crisp as I expected", then i can't say anything anymore.
For my eyes, when try to change it's default res to 4k, in terms of crisp and sharp it's the top of the top of crazy display i've ever see. I've never see for real 8k display monitor yet, but I can say panel on this phone is really insane. You can directly compared with any phones in the world right now with that configuration (4k default res), and it's a champ! Yes, there 'unpleasant' bug layout for some apps because they aren't reach yet to develop on 4k native resolution. And the most important, the black recent apps fault lol. So I am not use that config for daily usage.
But if you just curious to see how the real performance of this phone screen, then that config is worth to try.
I've not said about 4k HDR content, there some example files you can download to see 'beyond the limit performance' of this phone. It's super crazy sharp and crisp with insane range of colour!
Instead, in terms of detail, i can't barely say it will fulfil your expectation, because for me it's hard to expect level of detail on small size display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OMG finally someone on the internet sharing a same frustration as me. I wonder if there's any workaround for the black recent apps view glitch when running higher than physical resolution? It almost feels like a internal scaling issue where if I put the phone into landscape I can see partial app snapshot being visible in recent view. This is so far the only issue holding me off from using QHD or even UHD on a daily basis.
knightazura said:
Have you ever try to change it's default resolution to 4k with 720-821 ppi density via adb command?
If you looking for "crisp", already try it and still say "isn't crisp as I expected", then i can't say anything anymore.
For my eyes, when try to change it's default res to 4k, in terms of crisp and sharp it's the top of the top of crazy display i've ever see. I've never see for real 8k display monitor yet, but I can say panel on this phone is really insane. You can directly compared with any phones in the world right now with that configuration (4k default res), and it's a champ! Yes, there 'unpleasant' bug layout for some apps because they aren't reach yet to develop on 4k native resolution. And the most important, the black recent apps fault lol. So I am not use that config for daily usage.
But if you just curious to see how the real performance of this phone screen, then that config is worth to try.
I've not said about 4k HDR content, there some example files you can download to see 'beyond the limit performance' of this phone. It's super crazy sharp and crisp with insane range of colour!
Instead, in terms of detail, i can't barely say it will fulfil your expectation, because for me it's hard to expect level of detail on small size display.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes I can see now on 4k mod its insane but I can still see pixels, the phone sharpness look insane! but seeing pixels is kind of a draw back i mean the phone's crispness is on another level with 4k mod but why see pixels?
madshark2009 said:
yes I can see now on 4k mod its insane but I can still see pixels, the phone sharpness look insane! but seeing pixels is kind of a draw back i mean the phone's crispness is on another level with 4k mod but why see pixels?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hangon, keep in mind there are high density dots on the screen, these are not pixels. I'm sure these dots are from the manufacturing process of the phone.
I bet you actually can't see the pixels but are mistaking them for these dots scattered on the screen. The display, which is 3840×2160, is bellow the screen which has dots at a dpi (dots per inch) of around 200.
After a while these dots disappear
busawahk said:
Hangon, keep in mind there are high density dots on the screen, these are not pixels. I'm sure these dots are from the manufacturing process of the phone.
I bet you actually can't see the pixels but are mistaking them for these dots scattered on the screen. The display, which is 3840×2160, is bellow the screen which has dots at a dpi (dots per inch) of around 200.
After a while these dots disappear
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
why would there be scattered dots on the screen in the manufacturing process?
and how do you know this?
I'm in the middle of using the pixel 2xl as the primary camera on a YouTube cooking show. Aside from the need for extra/adequate lighting - why shouldn't I just shoot everything in slow motion?
From what I can see the files aren't even twice as large as those shot in 1080p60. Which still makes them about 20% the size of 4k video (my math is most certainly terrible)
The kicker - is that the slow motion video when played at regular speed (I think it's 60fps) doesn't look any different than if I shot it at 1080p60 - again assuming the lighting is adequate. So with every take it seems like I get a regular and slow motion shot. I just have to render it both be ways. I thought there would be ghosting or blur but I'm not seeing any at 60fps.
I did not tested the 60 FPS for a while now but I remember the quality of the 60FPS was not so detailed.
There are a couple of videos on youtube like:
Test if it is fits for you. Maybe some of the latest patches fixed some of the quality loss.
Note this isn't a bash the pixel 6 or google post. It's just my initial impressions with only a couple of shortish video samples.
I took the P6P out yesterday and put it in a mount next to a GP9. I went out to the trail and recorded sections of footage with runs and walk sections.
It was full sun for the most part, no clouds to speak of, at 1:00 p.m. (ish).
The results were... lets say interesting. I can't share the footage unfortunately, it was BF and gorgeous weather here so no one was working or in school and there were families all over the place and I don't post videos with minors in them. I'll have to go back out on Monday during the day when there won't be any one around.
Pixel 6 Pro settings - 4k/30 Active mode stabilization, exposure and color set to auto adjust (defaults)
GoPro 9 - 4k/30, flat color profile, white balance 5000, ISO 100/1600, Sharpness Low, Shutter speed Auto, bitrate High (100mbps), EV -0.5, Hypersmooth Boost+Horizon Lock.
Both were left to record out to HEVC format.
The GP9 settings are my default trail running settings. For me 1gb of space was used on the P6P in roughly 7:30 so to make for easy comparisons I checked the same 7.5 minutes storage burn rate on the GP9.
7.5 minutes of 4k30 on the P6P consumed 1.07gb of space.
7.5 minutes of 4K30 on the GP9 consumed 5.50gb of space.
That puts the P6P with an effective about 20mbps bitrate, at least for this one sample.
Pulling the footage into DaVinci the Pixel footage and putting them side by side, initial impressions -
P6P was obviously sharper since the AI is doing that on the fly. I'd like to see an option to turn this off as I prefer to handle it myself in post but I find it acceptable. Adding 0.44 sharpness in DaVinci to the GP9 brought the two by eye pretty close.
The color space between the two was visibly reasonably close to each other which I liked. In at least this footage there's room to color grade the P6P footage, it's not blown out or over saturated like I get with the GP's native color profile. I could probably use the same grading on both footages with only minor tweaks to merge them somewhat transparently in the same comp.
I noticed a bit of exposure and color wobble at times on the P6P footage. I think auto exposure and color needs to be turned off on the P6P if you're at all going to do any color grading or post work on the footage.
The lens flares on the P6P were noticeably worse than the GP9.
A major complaint I have right now is the P6P footage seems like it would just randomly pick something to focus on and shift the video off to the side. There are a couple of spots it was like I had the two devices on different mounts and was pointing the P6P off to the side of the trail. It was bad enough at first I thought, "did the phone mount loosen up on me and I didn't notice it?" But then it would correct itself and 'aim forward' again.
There were also what I can only assume are frame drops or weird focus choices as there are a few places that look like jump cuts were done on the P6P footage or the AI jumped around the sensor to focus on something else.
There's also signs of the jello'ing in the P6P from time to time.
Overall, without updates/tweaks or opening up some values for user control, I don't think the P6P is going to become my primary recording device on ultra runs unfortunately. Which is a shame as that's why I bought the 512.
For less motion heavy recording like walking/running on technical trail this may not be an issue.
I'll have to see if there are alternate camera apps or putting the P6P on a gimbal and turning stabilization on the phone off. If DJI would ever get the OM5 working 100% with newer androids (P4 is the last official supported Pixel) then that might make for a solid combination. Or wait for updates.
And there's also the incredibly annoying issue of "No you can't turn off the screen while recording because perverts." problem with mobile devices which also adds to the power burn problem. There needs to be some quick way to drop the screen brightness down to 0 while recording IMO.
Other points, 4K/30 video burns through the power as well, more than I like. I started around 68%, finished with 34% but to be fair while I only recorded about 12-15 minutes total footage, I took a crap ton of pictures out on the trails so I don't have a solid idea yet of exactly how bad the burn is going to be. Nor what the impact of setting the display to it's lowest possible brightness will do to help with that.
Also to be fair my Garmin live track was running for the entire 3 hours of the run and there was crappy cell service in that area. But that's the normal for what I wanted to use it for.
Once I have footage I'm okay with posting publicly I'll throw up a side by side view in case someone finds it interesting or helpful.
I don't usually take video, but on a couple of occasions I tried to, it was unusable. Granted, I tried to zoom in at 4x on both tries, and the results were so pixelated and overprocessed, that the footage was unwatchable on anything larger than a phone.
Thats because Google stupidly don't use the 4x telephoto on video. It's a crop.
MacGuy2006 said:
I don't usually take video, but on a couple of occasions I tried to, it was unusable. Granted, I tried to zoom in at 4x on both tries, and the results were so pixelated and overprocessed, that the footage was unwatchable on anything larger than a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
MacGuy2006 said:
I don't usually take video, but on a couple of occasions I tried to, it was unusable. Granted, I tried to zoom in at 4x on both tries, and the results were so pixelated and overprocessed, that the footage was unwatchable on anything larger than a phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
86rickard said:
Thats because Google stupidly don't use the 4x telephoto on video. It's a crop.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's where your wrong
It uses the telephoto but only if your using 4K30fps
@Ultimoose the P6P uses 43mbs for 4k30 and 62/63mbs for 4K60
Already tested it before and checked mediainfo for bitrates
Quick question from a noobie: why not using 4k/60fps but only 4k/30fps?
I think comparing GoPro 9 video results to a smartphone video results is setting the P6P up for failure.
The GoProv9 (I have the Hero * Black) is solely built to be an active sport recoding device, nothing else.
The P6P is a smartphone that offers the ability to capture video, which I'm pretty sure wasn't designed around mountain biking, trail running, or active outdoor sporting.
Even if the comparison was sitting at a table filled with friends using these two devices; one is specifically designed to capture video, and one has a video capturing feature.
Az Biker said:
I think comparing GoPro 9 video results to a smartphone video results is setting the P6P up for failure.
The GoProv9 (I have the Hero * Black) is solely built to be an active sport recoding device, nothing else.
The P6P is a smartphone that offers the ability to capture video, which I'm pretty sure wasn't designed around mountain biking, trail running, or active outdoor sporting.
Even if the comparison was sitting at a table filled with friends using these two devices; one is specifically designed to capture video, and one has a video capturing feature.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I just tried shooting a horse show on video. Experimenting with different settings. Didn't turn out that great. Lol. I told girlfriend I need pro equipment
Utini said:
Quick question from a noobie: why not using 4k/60fps but only 4k/30fps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the 4X telephoto zoom works only with 4K30 but it works very wel
though honestly could be a software limitation
Some nice zoom today in the cold (looks better in 4k once processing finishes)
Golf c said:
I just tried shooting a horse show on video. Experimenting with different settings. Didn't turn out that great. Lol. I told girlfriend I need pro equipment
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm a pretty aggressive mountain biker and the GoPro hero 8 black is amazing at video stabilization.
Biggest issue with the GoPro imho is the inaccurate depth perception. Not sure if you meant video horse shows while on a horse or on a static mount.
Az Biker said:
I'm a pretty aggressive mountain biker and the GoPro hero 8 black is amazing at video stabilization.
Biggest issue with the GoPro imho is the inaccurate depth perception. Not sure if you meant video horse shows while on a horse or on a static mount.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was sitting in chair watching. No mount. Auto focus and the horse's motion were glitchy. Still learning those video settings. I had people's heads in front of me and horses in background. The focus on people's heads were perfect. Lol. Maybe turn off auto focus and do manual?
Golf c said:
I was sitting in chair watching. No mount. Auto focus and the horse's motion were glitchy. Still learning those video settings. I had people's heads in front of me and horses in background. The focus on people's heads were perfect. Lol. Maybe turn off auto focus and do manual?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
if you look in bottom right corner and select the hand there are 4 different stabilisation options
(some affect resolution)
Izy said:
if you look in bottom right corner and select the hand there are 4 different stabilisation options
(some affect resolution)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I tried them all. Experimenting. I shot a bunch of stuff. Have to go through it and see what is what.
Found the issue with only seeing 20mbps bit rate. With Active mode stabilization you lose the ability to shoot in 4k/30, it drops to 1080P/30 (technically 28.7 and 28.6 in two different clips so it's not quite the normal). This is a personally painful limitation for me.
So if you want active motion video you either settle for 1080P, less stabilization or use a gimbal as of right now. Except DJI doesn't fully support the P6P / Android 12. Just mostly works.
Side note, the DJI Fly app doesn't work at all on the P6 (or android 12 to be fair). DJI's current official recommendation is to find a phone that their app works on.
The joys of early adopter.
Utini said:
Quick question from a noobie: why not using 4k/60fps but only 4k/30fps?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Depends on the recording device. On a GoPro 4k/60 and 4k/30 both use 100mbps (with high bitrate selected) to record the video/audio. In order to fit 60 frames per second into the same storage space as 30frames per second the GP uses higher compression which results in lower amount of data per frame. i.e. 4k/60 is lower visual quality than 4k/30. And 4k/24 would be slightly higher quality than 4k/30 but the Pixel doesn't record in 24.
I only use 4k/60 for clips I specifically intend to slow down in post personally.
I captured some more footage and rendering it out now. I'm going to have to say the Pixel 6 suffers in comparison at 1080/30 with Active stabilization. To anything that records video in some respects, not just against a GoPro.
For example: There are frequent freezes where the Pixel's video records the same frame over several frames, I've counted as high as 10 frames of a static image being recorded. This results in what looks like a jump cut transition when it catches back up. This happened several times in the first few minutes of the recording and the outside temp was around 45F which should rule out an overheating issue. Notably the phone recorded the entire 32 ish minute run without shutting down.
The focal point (not focus) drifts pretty badly as well at times. There are spots where it literally looks like the pixel is aimed off the side of the trail while the GP is aimed straight forward with both on the same mount. The camera appears to be shifting which portion of the sensor it's recording from not in a good way. I'm familiar with active stabilization artifacting from this kind of movement, I've owned or own every GP except the 1 so I've seen how EIS has grown and matured over time but the P6's drift and yo yo'ing is not pretty at times.
The jello effect is also noticeable as is the exposure shift although not OMG this sucks kind of way, it's more a ugh, that's ugly kind of way.
The above may be issues with the Active mode stabilization. I wasn't expecting it to be this janky or I'd of recorded other segments with EIS set to 'light' and 'cinematic'. The 'locked' mode which I assume means no stabilization would only be of any use mounted to a stationary tripod or possibly a gimbal.
Once the render finishes, uploads and the full resolution is available I'll post a link. It'll be a few hours at best as YT takes forever to provide the 4k format for me.
Side note, the Active stabilization when it's working seems solid, I'll need to see the rendered side by side but in my editor it's making a solid showing going up against the GP9's Linear+HL+Boost combo.
Nice...very curious to see your results. And thanks for explaining all this!