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
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).
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.
I have been doing some video recordings today and noticed how large the 4k 60fps videos are (about twice as larger as 1080p 60fps recordings).
So I went ahead and did some 1080p recording to compare 4k and 1080p on my 4k LG CX TV.
Tbh, I didn't notice much of a difference.
So I am really wondering if 4k is even worth it considering its file size?
It mostly just depends on the camera used. I guess you used your phone to record. right? Most phones can't do 4K properly, it's just a feature they advertise. If to you 1080p looks fine, I don't see why you would bother with 4K60. Or maybe just try 4K30, in some cases it does end up looking better than 4K60.
i mean twice the size for 4X the resolution is worth it
you need to take into account the finer details and edging in 4K which will show better results.
also most smart tvs including the CX have resolution scaling and other filters to make lower res content look better on 4K panels
also dont forget thats an Oled tv thats gonna look great with whatever you pump into it
Username: Required said:
It mostly just depends on the camera used. I guess you used your phone to record. right? Most phones can't do 4K properly, it's just a feature they advertise. If to you 1080p looks fine, I don't see why you would bother with 4K60. Or maybe just try 4K30, in some cases it does end up looking better than 4K60.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes ofcourse I used the phones camera The google pixel 6 pro camera.
Izy said:
i mean twice the size for 4X the resolution is worth it
you need to take into account the finer details and edging in 4K which will show better results.
also most smart tvs including the CX have resolution scaling and other filters to make lower res content look better on 4K panels
also dont forget thats an Oled tv thats gonna look great with whatever you pump into it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ye but if most TV's (or small screens like our smartphones, or any 1080p screen) won't really show a difference in quality, why even bother with the bigger file size. No one will realistically notice? :S
Utini said:
Ye but if most TV's (or small screens like our smartphones, or any 1080p screen) won't really show a difference in quality, why even bother with the bigger file size. No one will realistically notice? :S
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One advantage would be that you could theoretically crop or zoom the video and still retain acceptable quality on most resolutions on screens. Just like you said, it won't make a big difference on standard FHD displays however it would be noticeable when the video is cropped or zoomed.
Utini said:
Ye but if most TV's (or small screens like our smartphones, or any 1080p screen) won't really show a difference in quality, why even bother with the bigger file size. No one will realistically notice? :S
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i mean by that logic why watch 4k and get 4k tvs in first place. why have a higher res screen.
I mean why get the pro should have got the 1080p panel 6
Theres a lot of content 4K video will shine
even 4k video downsampled to 1080p retains better details than 1080p does.
Sure on a phone screen you wont see the difference but on a tv thats 55inch or higher the gap is noticeably wider its a major difference.
There will be parts you notice also more so. take into the account if you want to focus on specific parts of a video or edit / crop edit
also your content is future proofed
open all the images in seperate tabs to see full resolution.
the latter 2 are 50% res of the original screencaps you can easily see the details are maintained scaled down
{
"lightbox_close": "Close",
"lightbox_next": "Next",
"lightbox_previous": "Previous",
"lightbox_error": "The requested content cannot be loaded. Please try again later.",
"lightbox_start_slideshow": "Start slideshow",
"lightbox_stop_slideshow": "Stop slideshow",
"lightbox_full_screen": "Full screen",
"lightbox_thumbnails": "Thumbnails",
"lightbox_download": "Download",
"lightbox_share": "Share",
"lightbox_zoom": "Zoom",
"lightbox_new_window": "New window",
"lightbox_toggle_sidebar": "Toggle sidebar"
}
scale down the content even more say 50% of the cropped image and its still noticeable difference
Izy said:
i mean by that logic why watch 4k and get 4k tvs in first place. why have a higher res screen.
I mean why get the pro should have got the 1080p panel 6
Theres a lot of content 4K video will shine
even 4k video downsampled to 1080p retains better details than 1080p does.
Sure on a phone screen you wont see the difference but on a tv thats 55inch or higher the gap is noticeably wider its a major difference.
There will be parts you notice also more so. take into the account if you want to focus on specific parts of a video or edit / crop edit
also your content is future proofed
open all the images in seperate tabs to see full resolution.
the latter 2 are 50% res of the original screencaps you can easily see the details are maintained scaled down
scale down the content even more say 50% of the cropped image and its still noticeable difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Real 4k movie content does look surely better on my 4k TV compared to a 1080p TV / content.
But that is real 4k movie material and not google pixel 6 pro 4k video content.
Are your screencaps from recordings done with the google pixel 6 pro?
Because I am talking only about the P6P recordings, not about anything recorder with smth else.
Utini said:
Real 4k movie content does look surely better on my 4k TV compared to a 1080p TV / content.
But that is real 4k movie material and not google pixel 6 pro 4k video content.
Are your screencaps from recordings done with the google pixel 6 pro?
Because I am talking only about the P6P recordings, not about anything recorder with smth else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
no they were not but the point still stands it was just a prime example
regardless i literally did test videos of still objects in my spare room with text from a distance.
in poor lighting conditions its literally dark and the bulbs ****
literally even look at the portrait still in gallery before you even play the video you could see the text on objects was actually legible and also sharper
if you fail to even notice the difference between 1080 and 4k on your tv you may need your eyes checked.
dont forget theres literally rated seating distances for screen sizes, distant seated and also resolurion of display
the closer you are the better the fine details you see
did you stand up and look or did you sit down and look so you basically looking at like a 20inch display
Sounds like you putting the LG CX to waste
it was the exaxt same situation with people when hd 720p and 1080p came out they coudnt tell difference from sd
also people who think FHD and 4K dont make a difference are the type of people who think you can see above 60fps.
One of these is 4k downscaled the other is 1080p downscaled both also limited to poor lighting conditions
Izy said:
no they were not but the point still stands it was just a prime example
regardless i literally did test videos of still objects in my spare room with text from a distance.
in poor lighting conditions its literally dark and the bulbs ****
literally even look at the portrait still in gallery before you even play the video you could see the text on objects was actually legible and also sharper
if you fail to even notice the difference between 1080 and 4k on your tv you may need your eyes checked.
dont forget theres literally rated seating distances for screen sizes, distant seated and also resolurion of display
the closer you are the better the fine details you see
did you stand up and look or did you sit down and look so you basically looking at like a 20inch display
Sounds like you putting the LG CX to waste
it was the exaxt same situation with people when hd 720p and 1080p came out they coudnt tell difference from sd
also people who think FHD and 4K dont make a difference are the type of people who think you can see above 60fps.
One of these is 4k downscaled the other is 1080p downscaled both also limited to poor lighting conditions
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Okay, then again: This is specific to the google pixel 6 pro.
Yes there is a difference between 4k and 1080p.
Yes there is a difference between 30hz,60hz,120hz.
But it also depends on the source equipment and how it is recorded.
I can use a **** camera to record a video in 4k but it won't look any better than 1080p due the camera being so bad. And this is exactly why I am asking this in regards to the google pixel 6 pro.
How good is the camera in videos really and how big is the difference with it in 4k vs 1080p.
Thanks, I know how to setup my TV. And due to my job I have to test my eyes every year.. still getting highest results :>
But if you can see a difference in the thumbnail of your image gallery, then the placebo is really strong with you.
And again:
There is a difference between 720p,1080p, and 4k.. but:
Utini said:
Okay, then again: This is specific to the google pixel 6 pro.
Yes there is a difference between 4k and 1080p.
Yes there is a difference between 30hz,60hz,120hz.
But it also depends on the source equipment and how it is recorded.
I can use a **** camera to record a video in 4k but it won't look any better than 1080p due the camera being so bad. And this is exactly why I am asking this in regards to the google pixel 6 pro.
How good is the camera in videos really and how big is the difference with it in 4k vs 1080p.
Thanks, I know how to setup my TV. And due to my job I have to test my eyes every year.. still getting highest results :>
But if you can see a difference in the thumbnail of your image gallery, then the placebo is really strong with you.
And again:
There is a difference between 720p,1080p, and 4k.. but:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Most people who cannot notice a difference either have reduced vision or use a small monitor. I dare everyone that can't make out a difference between 1080p and 4k source material to use a Monitor 40" or bigger. On my LG CX (48") that I use as a monitor the difference is night and day.
It should be noted, though, that the difference is rather minor when video footage has been shot by phones - their sensors are just too small to make out the minute differences, plus they can't take in enough light. If you compare professional video material shot by expensive dedicated gear in 1080p vs 2160p, the difference is HUGE, whilst smartphone camera footage isn't that "obvious".
At the end of the day it's what works for a given person. If 1080p video works then that's a great option, if 4k works then that's a great option.
If the 4k video is really only twice the size then it's because they're being more aggressive in compression. There's no magic bullet to squeeze 4x the data into 2x the space other than throwing data out.
Tangentially related - GoPro's 8/9 and probably 10 set (i.e. limit) the recorded video to 100mbs for higher resolutions. Ergo you get higher quality (less compression) with 4k24 versus 4k30 versus 4k60 because they're all recorded at the same bit rate.
The P6P may have throughput issues that limits just how fast they can write data that results in higher compression in order to reduce the file size at higher resolutions. Or it could be design choice to reduce file use since the most common ones are likely the 128gb versions.
In this case, specifically with the P6P's, the actual end result is that 1080P might be nearly as good as 4K if they're cranking the compression up and loosing the details that are the point of recording in 4k. So bottom line the OP could have a pretty solid case.
I should get mine tomorrow and the holiday coming up should make for some interesting testing.
Ultimoose said:
At the end of the day it's what works for a given person. If 1080p video works then that's a great option, if 4k works then that's a great option.
If the 4k video is really only twice the size then it's because they're being more aggressive in compression. There's no magic bullet to squeeze 4x the data into 2x the space other than throwing data out.
Tangentially related - GoPro's 8/9 and probably 10 set (i.e. limit) the recorded video to 100mbs for higher resolutions. Ergo you get higher quality (less compression) with 4k24 versus 4k30 versus 4k60 because they're all recorded at the same bit rate.
The P6P may have throughput issues that limits just how fast they can write data that results in higher compression in order to reduce the file size at higher resolutions. Or it could be design choice to reduce file use since the most common ones are likely the 128gb versions.
In this case, specifically with the P6P's, the actual end result is that 1080P might be nearly as good as 4K if they're cranking the compression up and loosing the details that are the point of recording in 4k. So bottom line the OP could have a pretty solid case.
I should get mine tomorrow and the holiday coming up should make for some interesting testing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1080p30 is 19.8mb/s at 1080p
4k30 is 42.8mbps
1080p60 is 24mb/s
4k60 is 62mb/s
this was at h265
4k30 h264 is only 48mb/s
4k60 h264 is only 72mb/s
h265 uses a main profile @ 6.1
h264 used a high profile
4k60h265 is only 45.2mbs on my galaxy note 9
For me, the question is do you need 60 FPS over 30 FPS? I do 4K because I want the highest resolution I can get but I do 30 FPS because I don't need that smooth look.
Izy said:
1080p30 is 19.8mb/s at 1080p
4k30 is 42.8mbps
1080p60 is 24mb/s
4k60 is 62mb/s
this was at h265
4k30 h264 is only 48mb/s
4k60 h264 is only 72mb/s
h265 uses a main profile @ 6.1
h264 used a high profile
4k60h265 is only 45.2mbs on my galaxy note 9
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's interesting that the bitrates are on the lower, half the bitrate for 4K30 for example compared to any GP in the last few years. Is this user adjustable is a question.
I'm getting the P6P 512 with the hope that I can ditch the GP's I usually carry. I record VLOG footage during my ultra runs and I carry a phone with me regardless. One less device and its accessories to deal with would be great.
I have a selection of video recorded with my GP 8 and 9's, I can run the same run/route in the same resolution and do an apples to apples comparison of quality. It'll be interesting if nothing else to compare the stabilization quality of each. Hmm, I think I can probably mount both the phone and a GP to the same stick and get direct side by side as well. The wheels are spinning now on how best to compare the final product of each for my needs.
Ultimoose said:
That's interesting that the bitrates are on the lower, half the bitrate for 4K30 for example compared to any GP in the last few years. Is this user adjustable is a question.
I'm getting the P6P 512 with the hope that I can ditch the GP's I usually carry. I record VLOG footage during my ultra runs and I carry a phone with me regardless. One less device and its accessories to deal with would be great.
I have a selection of video recorded with my GP 8 and 9's, I can run the same run/route in the same resolution and do an apples to apples comparison of quality. It'll be interesting if nothing else to compare the stabilization quality of each. Hmm, I think I can probably mount both the phone and a GP to the same stick and get direct side by side as well. The wheels are spinning now on how best to compare the final product of each for my needs.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
could be a heavier encoding profile than standard go pros that and action cams in general usually have a large amount of motion so bitrate is needed to compensate and gopros are generally used professionally so editing etc needs that kind of headroom
my akaso v50x uses the same bitrate roughly at 4k30 as the pixel but is perfectly fine in daytime except its cheapness shows in low light performance
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