Related
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
rcobourn said:
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I would agree. Actually made me sick.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Belimawr said:
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Oyeve said:
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree. 2k is simply not enough. 4k is not enough either, but it would be a bit better. I think we are really going to need about 4k per eye in order for it to become truly fantastic. Maybe 8k per eye. So we are talking something like 7680x4320 or even 15360x4320. I doubt that smartphones are going to be the vehicle to deliver this in future.
But for now, 4k would be nice.
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
nomailx said:
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly hope it is years before they even think about a 4K screen. Our processors can barely push 2K at this point and battery life is pretty terrible currently compared to 1080p phones such as the iPhone 7. It's not worth it for such a niche feature. I mean, the Rift and Vive are not even at that resolution because desktop PCs can barely push it.
Belimawr said:
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure that's all true, but in any event, with a phone with a 2k screen the pixel density is not high enough and it won't be at 4k either. With 2k each eye is getting an image something like 1,000 pixels across (the two VR windows don't use the full screen width, so less than half of 2560 each), which for a virtual image which is bigger than even the very biggest TV screens (100"+) this is not enough pixels and the image is visibly (very badly) pixellated.
I am sure refresh rate matters too, but we really need very high pixel density and fast refresh (and low latency and wide viewing angles) for what in the end will be "perfect" VR.
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Belimawr said:
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For gaming, I agree that the Note 8 with a 4k Screen won't be much Help. But I never really enjoyed VR for gaming, it's more like a "side fun activity". But to watch video content, a 4K Display Note with an 10nm processor would be more than enough to remove the screen door effect, and give the ability to watch awesome 180/360 content, and 3D movies on a huge VR theatre.
May I remind you that VR for gaming is failing generally right now. But for some shady reason VR for videos is not... (go figure... xD )
notefreak said:
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the Sony Xperia Yoshino!
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?
Am I the only one who thinks that whoever decided to revert to 16:10 for Samsung's tablets should hang by his/her/xer tongue?!!! Who was the idiot? Did the S2 and S3 not sell well enough? So let's break it down: 16:10 is useless in portrait mode. The only thing this might (might(!)) be good for would be media consumption, specifically movie watching. Why provide the S-pen then? Is this solely a media consumption device? Or is this a productivity tablet? Pen says it's a productivity tablet. 16:10 format says media only. Clearly Samsung doesn't know what it wants, so it decided to screw up both--I mean, who in his right mind would pay upward of $650 to just watch movies (and little else)?
Why, Samsung, why?
Wanna watch movies on Android? There are plenty tablets out there for much less than half of this. No need for fancy pen-compatible screens to watch movies. And why would one need top-notch Dolby quad speakers to watch movies on the train (or on the toilet)?! You want to watch movies in style? Get a man cave, with 150" OLED screens with subwoofers, tweeters, and all that jazz! What loser buys tablets to do professional movie watching? Non-professional movie watching can be done very well on a 4:3 tablet: you don't need a 16:10 screen to watch movies on a plane, or YouTube cat videos!
Well, I'm in the other camp, and basically ask "Why oh Why in The Wide Wide World of Sports" does someone want a 4:3 tablet? If you want something the same aspect ratio as your computer monitor... Then Use Your Computer Monitor!!!
To me, the first and foremost reason for a tablet is ... Portability.
To accomplish that we want lightweight, thin, and NOT cumbersome. They need to be easily handled as they are constantly picked up, put down, held in one hand, etc etc.
The 16:10 aspect ratio is easier for that. It's easier to set on the edge of a table, it's easier to (as you say) be a media consumption device. I don't think they are meant to be your 'do everything' computer, that's why we have laptops, desktops, mobile phones, etc.
They are a niche product, yes, to be used sitting on the couch, lawn chair, etc. Where you don't put them down (when using) but hold they device. The 4:3 format is just unwieldy in that regard. And besides, the interface isn't usually a browser, it's an app, which are much more 16:10.
If you want something for productivity, get a laptop, that's what they're for.
I don't think 16:10 has much to do with practicality as its lower surface area than 4:3. Lower surface area means less OLED panel, less wacom digitizer, and thus lower costs for competing with the larger 4:3 ipad pro 10.5 in the marketing department.
The fact that the Tab S4 has 16:10 format is the only reason I consider buying a new tablet from Samsung. I still use my Galaxy Tab S 10.5 and I like it but it's getting a bit old and the battery has been better. I never considered the S2 or S3 due to it's awful screen format. A tablet for me is 99% for watching videos, so what I want is a great screen (oled) and widescreen format. If I need a portable device to be productive, I'll use my laptop. But that has nothing to do with the screen format anyway, since nearly all computer screens today are 16:10 or 16:9 aswell.
I do mostly watch movies at home of course, on my oled tv and surround sound system, but when I travel I still want a nice oled screen with the right format to carry with me to get the most out of whatever I watch on the go also. I prefer not to use a crappy 4:3 or LCD-screen for that.
And what was said about losers buying tablets to watch movies could also be said about productive work I guess (what losers use a tablet to do professional work?)
Hellberg said:
And what was said about losers buying tablets to watch movies could also be said about productive work I guess (what losers use a tablet to do professional work?)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Totally agree. There's no need to be insulting just because you disagree. Discussing the pro's and con's is the way to go. Thinking you're going to influence mfg's by slinging insults... well, those that do that will get it right back, or just ignored for immaturity.
I have a Galaxy Tab Pro 8" model, and love the screen. Sadly the device was buggy like all androids of that age and slowed down, due to programing and lack of memory/storage space. I enjoyed the 16:10 format it had.
Fast forward to 2015 I got a S2 8" model. While I disagreed with the screen display change to 4:3 and reducing the resolution it worked out well overall and have been happy with the device for the past 3 years. Its getting older and wanting something a little snappier a hence why I'm looking at the S4.
That said the screen size change back to the 16:10 format for the S4 is because it reduced the bezels on the top/bottom. With that they could lengthen the screen and still pack the larger battery in the device, as well they increase the screen resolution because its longer. Personally screen ratio doesn't bother me as much as how does the device function, it could have a 4:3 or 16:10 and still I'd be potentially looking at it. Really can't wait to see one in person hopefully next week.
graphic designer here. appreciate the 16:10 choice -- my main display is a 34" ultrawide, and i appreciate the extra real estate. was a big fan of the Galaxy Note 10.1 2014 as well, so i'm happy Samsung ditched 4:3.
I still had my original Tab S 8.4, had some iPad and minis, and I still prefer 16:10.
Let's keep things friendly in here.
I returned my S3 the other day because of the 4:3. I didn't research but also wouldn't have ever thought there would be a 4:3 display. So I ordered the S4 and am picking it up today.
I just picked a S4 up to replace my S3. I am very happy they got away from 4:3. It is however a perssonal preferencr for every one. Most computers are 16:9 so the 16:10 is better for me.
Aqua1ung said:
Am I the only one who thinks that whoever decided to revert to 16:10 for Samsung's tablets should hang by his/her/xer tongue?!!! Who was the idiot? Did the S2 and S3 not sell well enough? So let's break it down: 16:10 is useless in portrait mode. The only thing this might (might(!)) be good for would be media consumption, specifically movie watching. Why provide the S-pen then? Is this solely a media consumption device? Or is this a productivity tablet? Pen says it's a productivity tablet. 16:10 format says media only. Clearly Samsung doesn't know what it wants, so it decided to screw up both--I mean, who in his right mind would pay upward of $650 to just watch movies (and little else)?
Why, Samsung, why?
Wanna watch movies on Android? There are plenty tablets out there for much less than half of this. No need for fancy pen-compatible screens to watch movies. And why would one need top-notch Dolby quad speakers to watch movies on the train (or on the toilet)?! You want to watch movies in style? Get a man cave, with 150" OLED screens with subwoofers, tweeters, and all that jazz! What loser buys tablets to do professional movie watching? Non-professional movie watching can be done very well on a 4:3 tablet: you don't need a 16:10 screen to watch movies on a plane, or YouTube cat videos!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look at EVERY book you see at the store, comics too, they're closer to 16:9/16:10 aspect ratio than 4:3 or 3:2. Same with TV and Movies. Most websites are catered for Smartphones which opt for the elongated aspect ratio over the squat 4:3 one.
4:3 is good for PDFs and digitized textbooks/informational books like DIY books, great for retro games/emulation
3:2 is great for note taking and a bit better at displaying PDFs since it's closer to 8.5x11 inch paper that the US uses and A4 that other places use.
16:9/16:10 great for comics, novels, movies, games and websites.
Either way, the beauty of OLED is that it's amazing at displaying the aspect ratio you want and hiding the cut off bit since it doesn't require backlighting so you don't get those annoying grey (trying to be black) bars on things. Also none of that weird LCD dim screen shimmer issue.
Though, my Note Pro 12.2 (yes that old tablet) is approximately the same size as the margins of loose leaf ruled paper. Which made note taking on it a dream. I still use it for that reason alone. Also because that version of S Note is one of the best versions ever. I'm not a fan of Samsung Note. And I like that size for drawing too. Though their 4 sub-pixel screen really messes with color accuracy and causes pastel colors to look terrible due to that added white sub-pixel.
Got to say the 16:10 ratio on the screen while some complain about it, really works incredibly well for DeX mode.
Actually I don't think I've had my tablet out of DeX mode since I turned it on! I just like the function of it considerably more considering the screen size at least for me its worked out very well.
For me, 16:10 is a mistake. Love the 4:3 on my Tab S2 8" and can't imagine you could every hold a 10" 16:10 for anything more than a few minutes especially in portrait mode.
Each to there own I guess.
Masteryates said:
For me, 16:10 is a mistake. Love the 4:3 on my Tab S2 8" and can't imagine you could every hold a 10" 16:10 for anything more than a few minutes especially in portrait mode.
Each to there own I guess.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's funny, in that portrait mode is the easiest way to hold a 16:10 tablet. Yes, the bezel does need to be wide enough to put your fingers underneath and a thumb on top, but most tablet makers realize this and make the bezels wide enough.
This is of course with one hand. With 2 hands any of the tablet sizes can be held comfortably. But with one hand, it's more awkward with 4:3 than 16:10 (in portrait mode).
Yes, ea to their own, no doubt there. But holding something, a rectangular shape is easier and takes less leverage, than something that is virtually square. That's not really opinion, that's a bio mechanical fact.
AsItLies said:
But holding something, a rectangular shape is easier and takes less leverage, than something that is virtually square. That's not really opinion, that's a bio mechanical fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have to disagree with you here AsItLies;77335736. With both 16:10 and 4:3, our tablets are too big to get our hands totally around the device, and therefore we end up having to hold them essentially in the bottom corner, if we chose to hold one handed.
With a 4:3, the centre of gravity is closer to the holding hand than it is on a 16:10. That means the a 16:10 tablet puts more stress on the holding hand, even if the weights of the tablets are identical, as the lever arm is more. The structural engineer sat beside me confirms this.
If you go back to the days of 7" tablets, you would be correct as the your hand could get right around a 7" 16:9 tablet, (like the Nexus 7 2013,) but maybe not a similar 4:3 tablet.
Samsung gets a lot of criticism for the small battery on the Tab S2 8", but for me, its the best of both worlds as its unbelievably light and website don't feel cramped or cut off.
Like I said, each to there own.
Masteryates said:
I have to disagree with you here AsItLies;77335736. With both 16:10 and 4:3, our tablets are too big to get our hands totally around the device, and therefore we end up having to hold them essentially in the bottom corner, if we chose to hold one handed.
With a 4:3, the centre of gravity is closer to the holding hand than it is on a 16:10. That means the a 16:10 tablet puts more stress on the holding hand, even if the weights of the tablets are identical, as the lever arm is more. The structural engineer sat beside me confirms this.
If you go back to the days of 7" tablets, you would be correct as the your hand could get right around a 7" 16:9 tablet, (like the Nexus 7 2013,) but maybe not a similar 4:3 tablet.
Samsung gets a lot of criticism for the small battery on the Tab S2 8", but for me, its the best of both worlds as its unbelievably light and website don't feel cramped or cut off.
Like I said, each to there own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
See, here's the thing (and I'm glad you describe it clearly), when ** I ** hold a tablet, it's with one hand, in portrait mode, and you are correct, they are (now) too wide to get your hand completely around it like a phone.
So? and that's what I said earlier; The Device Has To Have A Bezel Wide Enough For Your Thumb!
By placing your thumb on the top part of the bezel and fingers underneath (of course not all the way to the other side, too wide), then, as I said, the center of gravity (thus the weight and difficulty to hold the device) is easier, it's less fatigue, it has to be as it's less cumbersome. and unwieldy.
So no, it's not really 'ea to their own', it's simple bio mechanics. If you don't mind it being heavier to hold that way, and you like 4:3, go for it. But the fact remains, one handed, on the long side, is easier with 16:10 (again! as long as the mfg has enough sense to include a wide enough bezel - I returned a huawei mediapad m5 for just that oversight by the mfg... no bezel at all, big mistake on a tablet - although perfect for a phone - narrower, one hand goes all the way around).
AsItLies said:
See, here's the thing (and I'm glad you describe it clearly), when ** I ** hold a tablet, it's with one hand, in portrait mode, and you are correct, they are (now) too wide to get your hand completely around it like a phone.
So? and that's what I said earlier; The Device Has To Have A Bezel Wide Enough For Your Thumb!
By placing your thumb on the top part of the bezel and fingers underneath (of course not all the way to the other side, too wide), then, as I said, the center of gravity (thus the weight and difficulty to hold the device) is easier, it's less fatigue, it has to be as it's less cumbersome. and unwieldy.
So no, it's not really 'ea to their own', it's simple bio mechanics. If you don't mind it being heavier to hold that way, and you like 4:3, go for it. But the fact remains, one handed, on the long side, is easier with 16:10 (again! as long as the mfg has enough sense to include a wide enough bezel - I returned a huawei mediapad m5 for just that oversight by the mfg... no bezel at all, big mistake on a tablet - although perfect for a phone - narrower, one hand goes all the way around).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok I'm getting you now. If you are holding in Portrait, the 4:3 has its centroid nearest your hand. What you describe though by saying holding it along its long side, is landscape, which means the centroid is nearest your hand on the 16:10 tablet.
So it's each to there own with respect to tablet ratio and if they use it in Landscape or Portrait. Agreed that bezel size is vital though. :highfive:
Masteryates said:
Ok I'm getting you now. If you are holding in Portrait, the 4:3 has its centroid nearest your hand. What you describe though by saying holding it along its long side, is landscape, which means the centroid is nearest your hand on the 16:10 tablet.
So it's each to there own with respect to tablet ratio and if they use it in Landscape or Portrait. Agreed that bezel size is vital though. :highfive:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's kind of funny Really, and I guess many would say tedious also, but hey, to make things clear sometimes this is what u need to do!
To make the point again, I'm not holding it with one hand on the long side with it in landscape mode, that would mean having your hand ** underneath ** the device.
I'm referring to holding it in portrait mode ** with your one hand on the side ** ... not on the bottom underneath. So it's portrait, not landscape
And when I pick it up and carry it, hand stays in much the same place, just screen off and pinch both sides, easily done with one hand. But that's really not the case with 4:3, as it's like a ** box **. There's really no side to carry it with 1 hand, or hold with 1.
Yes, it's individual, no doubt. But factually speaking, the 16:9 is easier to use and carry around. As with everything, one has to decide what's important to them.
Cheers, glad we clarified it with only having to write 1 chapter of a book, it could have been worse!
I just got my Verizon S4 and I'm loving everything about it. It is so much easier to type in, handle, carry than my S3. I love this aspect ratio. It way better for reading and running apps on portrait and watching videos on landscape. The thin bezels and lack of physical buttons is great. Also performance is top notch.
The only reason I haven't upgraded from Tab S 8.4 to Tab 2 or 3 was aspect ratio. I'm glad they switched back to wide-screen. Can't wait for mine to arrive.
Hi guys,well I want to ask you smart question and I really don't know the answer.
I got myself used Note 10 plus and because of the battery issue I switched to 1080p resolution to save some battery.
Then I opened some webpage like lets say webcam site chaturbate.
From what I know on monitors,higher resolution on monitor gives more web content on screen,so on my 1440p monitor I can see more webcam models on screen compared to 1080p monitor.
I thought then it's the same with phone screens,increasing resolution to 4K,I'll see more webcam models then 2 cams per line which was not the case,switching screen to 4K I haven't seen any difference.
So is it suppose to be like that,or I'm missunderstanding something here?
Why won't it work like on PC monitors/screen?
How can we take advantage of 4K on phones,in my case on Note 10 plus?
Does it have advantage switching to 4K when viewing websites,besides videos ofc?
Even when watching videos I doubt anyone (any human eye) will notice difference on 6.8 " screen with 1080p vs 4K on Note 10 plus.
paparazzo79 said:
Hi guys,well I want to ask you smart question and I really don't know the answer.
I got myself used Note 10 plus and because of the battery issue I switched to 1080p resolution to save some battery.
Then I opened some webpage like lets say webcam site chaturbate.
From what I know on monitors,higher resolution on monitor gives more web content on screen,so on my 1440p monitor I can see more webcam models on screen compared to 1080p monitor.
I thought then it's the same with phone screens,increasing resolution to 4K,I'll see more webcam models then 2 cams per line which was not the case,switching screen to 4K I haven't seen any difference.
So is it suppose to be like that,or I'm missunderstanding something here?
Why won't it work like on PC monitors/screen?
How can we take advantage of 4K on phones,in my case on Note 10 plus?
Does it have advantage switching to 4K when viewing websites,besides videos ofc?
Even when watching videos I doubt anyone (any human eye) will notice difference on 6.8 " screen with 1080p vs 4K on Note 10 plus.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
"4K" or WQHD+ on the note does not really relate to extra space on the screen like computer monitors. as the computer monitor scale back the size of the Icons and increase perceived desk space (depending on monitor size and max resolution capabilities) as the UI on smartphones must be readable the gain is barely perceivable. You can adjust the size of the icon to make it look like you gained some space but it wouldn't be accurate.
The real difference and depending on you, you may or may not perceive it, is on the pixel density.
In 1080p the Note has a certain pixel density, when you shift to "4K", you have a higher count of stacked pixel density. It looks better with some content that supports it but its sort of a cheat. The screen is not actually 4K, kind of like the 7nm vs 10 nm wafers in Intel Vs TSMC foundries. TSMC says it's 7 nanometers and intel 10, but they pack around the same transistor density, the names are mostly marketing.
You wont notice a big, if any, difference due to our own limitations (eysight), you can get a better picture of the issue looking up (Googling) "Full HD vs Quad HD" from the Oled Association.
They break it down a bit ...
Oh okay.Thank you for kind explanation.
Bomn said:
"4K" or WQHD+ on the note does not really relate to extra space on the screen like computer monitors. as the computer monitor scale back the size of the Icons and increase perceived desk space (depending on monitor size and max resolution capabilities) as the UI on smartphones must be readable the gain is barely perceivable. You can adjust the size of the icon to make it look like you gained some space but it wouldn't be accurate.
The real difference and depending on you, you may or may not perceive it, is on the pixel density.
In 1080p the Note has a certain pixel density, when you shift to "4K", you have a higher count of stacked pixel density. It looks better with some content that supports it but its sort of a cheat. The screen is not actually 4K, kind of like the 7nm vs 10 nm wafers in Intel Vs TSMC foundries. TSMC says it's 7 nanometers and intel 10, but they pack around the same transistor density, the names are mostly marketing.
You wont notice a big, if any, difference due to our own limitations (eysight), you can get a better picture of the issue looking up (Googling) "Full HD vs Quad HD" from the Oled Association.
They break it down a bit ...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have 20/10 near vision and I really don't notice it. Maybe side by side...
blackhawk said:
I have 20/10 near vision and I really don't notice it. Maybe side by side...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Meh, its a color game, basicaly they put up more green leds ins ome situation which makes the colors look richer... a poor man's HDR
Bomn said:
Meh, its a color game, basicaly they put up more green leds ins ome situation which makes the colors look richer... a poor man's HDR
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doesn't seem to use any or just slightly more battery so I guess I'll sample it a while.
Forgot about the WQHD setting.
The 10+ still has one of the best displays. Lots of issues with the high refresh rate displays it seems.
Well, I barely notice a very little difference, very little indeed, and, mostly when viewing photos or videos taken with the best resolutions, for everything else, all look just the same
winoles said:
Well, I barely notice a very little difference, very little indeed, and, mostly when viewing photos or videos taken with the best resolutions, for everything else, all look just the same
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Went back to FHD. WQHD uses more battery (probably about 1%@hr more) and didn't make a difference I noticed doing what I normally do.
It's cool that it's there like many of the other 10+ options.
I have 20/10 vision.
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!