I've only found one other thread on this subject and the answers are inconclusive at best. Why is the image quality in all 3 browsers(ie, opera, skyfire) so low? It has nothing to do with the zoom level, the image is poor even when fit to screen I know these are very high res images I'm looking at yet the quality is very low. The phone actually treats all my pictures like this, like the ones I have saved to the phone itself. Does the phone just have a cap on what resolution it will show when zoomed in? The other thread mentions that sometimes carriers lower the quality of all images, but I've been browsing on wifi.
Related
So if the Vibrant is only 800X480, why does a 720p movie look better than a 480 movie, it seems like the max is 480..... Also, if the Iphone 4 has 960x640, even though it looks amazing, way better than any android, it isnt actually playing a 720p video in full either is it? yes i realize how stupid that question seems to many of you. I couldnt figure out how to search google for the question. So enlighten me if you can. After you give me crap for not searching of course...thanks
DMaverick50 said:
So if the Vibrant is only 800X480, why does a 720p movie look better than a 480 movie, it seems like the max is 480..... Also, if the Iphone 4 has 960x640, even though it looks amazing, way better than any android, it isnt actually playing a 720p video in full either is it? yes i realize how stupid that question seems to many of you. I couldnt figure out how to search google for the question. So enlighten me if you can. After you give me crap for not searching of course...thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is the resolution of the movie you are comparing it to? What is the format of the movie? How was it compressed? All of this and more affects the resolution of the video. If you have a 720p movie, it my be down-converted to 480 on playback, but because it was compressed at a higher quality (and maybe in a less lossy format), it's going to look better than a movie compressed in standard-definition (and more than likely at lower data rates).
because 720 is bigger than 480, the image size is bigger and usually has a higher bitrate too than a regular 480 video, so if 720 is played on anything smaller than a 720display, it gets resized (downsized) to fit the screen (without any quality loss), in this case a 480 screen. So all those pixels on the 720 video get pushed closer together thus showing more detail on the 480 screen.
a 480 video usually looks just fine on a 480 display, but since a 720 video is bigger and was meant for higher resolution screens, it has a higher bitrate which makes it store more detail than a 480 video, that's why it looks better
thanks for the replies, that makes perfect sense. if its 720 pixels i didnt understand how they could all be on a screen capable of only 480 but i guess compressing the video maintains the quality.
And to answer the questions, i just dl a movie, and drag and drop to my vibrant through doubletwist which takes care of the conversion. Although ive noticed none of the videos i download look nearly as good as default Avatar. I dl 1080/720 movies and they always have the very pronounced, large pixels when there is action and bright colors. But Avatar looks great so i guess maybe i could use something other than doubletwist and get a better quality conversion? Because the Vibrant is clearly capable of displaying fast action and huge varieties of colors like in Avatar
That said im ready for HTC/Moto/Samsung to start popping out some high res displays to rival the I4. The Vibrant has a nice screen but put it next to the damn I4 and it looks downright dull. I guess that tiny 3.5" screen next to the Vibrant's perfectly sized 4" display benefits the I4 visually as well...
DMaverick50 said:
thanks for the replies, that makes perfect sense. if its 720 pixels i didnt understand how they could all be on a screen capable of only 480 but i guess compressing the video maintains the quality.
And to answer the questions, i just dl a movie, and drag and drop to my vibrant through doubletwist which takes care of the conversion. Although ive noticed none of the videos i download look nearly as good as default Avatar. I dl 1080/720 movies and they always have the very pronounced, large pixels when there is action and bright colors. But Avatar looks great so i guess maybe i could use something other than doubletwist and get a better quality conversion? Because the Vibrant is clearly capable of displaying fast action and huge varieties of colors like in Avatar
That said im ready for HTC/Moto/Samsung to start popping out some high res displays to rival the I4. The Vibrant has a nice screen but put it next to the damn I4 and it looks downright dull. I guess that tiny 3.5" screen next to the Vibrant's perfectly sized 4" display benefits the I4 visually as well...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
don't use doubletwist to put videos on your phone if they are already compatible with the vibrant, like a 720 video, vibrant can handle that..and all I explained was about the vibrant playing back the 720 video without conversion (just dragging and dropping the 720 video to the phone)
you have been playing the wrong movies or using the wrong convesion settings cause my movies look amazing, up to par and sometimes even better than the iphone 4. Have a look at one of my threads and download the video i uploaded (just drag and drop to phone don't use doubletwist or any other conversion method) and you will see what the vibrant screen is capable of.
thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=780155
Thanks. Avatar looks great so I realize movies can look amazing, like you said I'm just doing something wrong. Ill check your link, thanks again
I, for one, was very impressed by the 'photography' capabilities of the TP recently discussed, but it made me even more curious to know about 'video'. Just ran across a 1080p recording on Youtube. I cannot post the link (too new here), but check the channel for 'ASUSNordicAB'
Video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F_7thh_KUzs
from here: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=19813697&postcount=13
Yea, just made the 1000 posts full
Though you have mentioned the video over here but still this is quite difficult to determine how would be the actual performance.
XXX-KP said:
Though you have mentioned the video over here but still this is quite difficult to determine how would be the actual performance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree that this video is not a perfect test, nor is it one being done by an average guy in his home/yard, but to my (undiscerning) eye, it is very impressive for clarity, frame rate, color, and effects. Since this video was released, here is what some of the other sites are saying:
http://androidcommunity.com/transformer-prime-1080p-camera-gets-a-look-at-segways-and-fashion-models-20111129/
"The 8MP 1080p camera is will also meet or beat just about any tablet out there, and the manufacturer aims to prove it with their latest YouTube video. Compare this with the impressive still images already released....An Asus demonstrator walks around the trade floor showing off the 1080p recording, as well as the standard color filters. Though the Transformer Prime isn’t launching with Ice Cream Sandwich, it will include its own video tools, including an interesting time lapse mode that takes one photo every ten seconds."
http://www.ubergizmo.com/2011/11/asus-transformer-primes-camera-demonstrated/
"Everything is shot in 1080p at 30 FPS (frames per second) and looks extremely sharp not to mention there were no signs of frames dropping. However the tablet wasn’t shooting in difficult conditions so it’s not exactly the best way to judge its capabilities. But for what it’s worth, it does perform well with adequate lighting."
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Asus-Transformer-Prime-Camera-Put-to-the-Test-237339.shtml
"The whole video is shot in 1080p at 30fps and the image looks really crisp (at about the same level as some budget Full HD video cameras we would say) with no signs of frames being dropped. Lighting also wasn't ideal as the video was shot indoors, so this is another plus for the Transformer Prime."
The video definitely seems to look good. I am curious how good the audio that goes with it is though
Can anyone who owns a Jetstream tell me what the real photo viewing quality is like. I have thousands of photos which I show many of them to friends every now and then, and I am concerned about the photo viewing quality of this tablet before I buy one, as there are some great prices out there right now for this tablet.
Some reviews, like egadget, says that one can see lines due to the poor viewing quality. ( due to 150 pixel density, which many other tablets have )
Also is there a lag when moving rapidly from one photo to the next.. i.e either with swyping or slide show ?
I know there is a higher end tablets with higher pixel density coming out, but can I get a couple of opinions from anyone?
Thanks in advance.
Something that has fascinated me ever since I got the Moto Z is the option to toggle HDR for video and not just photos. Now, since traditional HDR requires multiple exposures, I doubt this mode does anything of the sort as that would be difficult to achieve at 30 or 60 fps (it is possible but unlikely what is going on). Attempting to Google this has yielded no substantial results.
My guess would be that it simply applies some kind of HDR tonemapping, which would result in a kind of fake HDR. The result seems subtle and pleasing enough though, and the feature certainly is making a significant difference.
Perhaps it's applying the tonemapping on a sort of lower hardware level, taking into account more data from the sensor than one of those fake HDR apps would when going by the end result in a jpeg, resulting in something closer to applying the tonemap to a RAW file and getting an arguably 'real' HDR effect.
Of course none of this is to be confused with HDR displaying or HDR images that can show a wider range of contrast on HDR displays, I know that's definitely not what the Moto Z is capable of. Nonetheless, I'm fascinated. I hadn't seen such an HDR video feature before but then again, I haven't owned many flagship phones. Is it common? Is there more info anywhere on how this works technically?
Hah nvm I didn't know this was common sensor technology nowadays! https://www.sony-semicon.co.jp/products_en/new_pro/april_2014/imx214_e.html
Hello.
Today i have received my s9+. Very good phone but slo motion is very blurry and not sharp
Outside
youtu.be/rpME-jyc4Lo
In my livingroom i cant see anything
youtu.be/8y5TzER0c7Y
Normal camera works fine
Anyone knows why?
Danny
The super slow motion is capped at a max resolution of 720p. It requires alot of processing resources so the imagem quality has to be downgraded in order to record 960 frames in such a short amount of time
Actually it doesn't require a lot of processing resources, just like ARemoji, they just skimped out and gave room for improvement on the Note 9, and or the S10 or whatever they call it.
This is such a lazy reply that i had to stop working, just to reply.... super slow motion as you call it, is just under developed, and wasnt given the time and attention on this phone, much like the lazy front camera which is not even upgraded or new in any meaningful way.
androidmonger said:
Actually it doesn't require a lot of processing resources, just like ARemoji, they just skimped out and gave room for improvement on the Note 9, and or the S10 or whatever they call it.
This is such a lazy reply that i had to stop working, just to reply.... super slow motion as you call it, is just under developed, and wasnt given the time and attention on this phone, much like the lazy front camera which is not even upgraded or new in any meaningful way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So... Why are you here?
Slow motion is very good. But OP is correct that the quality is very poor. I think this is because the screen resolution is so high that on playback it's just blocky.
What I don't understand is how the videos that are rolling on youtube and the presentation itself was great! The one I shot at home is not acceptable at all.
Anything above 120 Frames per second needs a lot of lighting, and might also flicker with slow lights (like indoor lighting)
It's always best to use sunlight for slow motion like 960 Fps, to get the best shots try filming with lots of sunlight outdoor, the more light the cleaner and better the shots will be.
Well Sunday mothers day in here (UK) will be trying it outdoors and hopefully will be sunny!
I agree. The quality of super slo mo is more like a 240p video! Totally unusable indoors but expected better outdoors in the sun light. The promo videos were fantastic but this is such a disappointment
Just to update everyone, I have tried in very bright sunny conditions and it is fine and acceptable. Yes it could be improved but that's more of a limitation by the technology rather than something Samsung is in control of.
I have done some super slow mo indoor and outdoor....To get good results you need a lot of light. If you don't have additional light when indoors, the quality is average to poor....Outdoor with natural sun light is more then acceptable and high above average. Have tried it on a cloudy day and the quality was just above average
Also samsung probably added noise reduction in Post to the clips used in the ads (to make it look cleaner)
You need perfect lighting situations, it is 720 after all. If the subject you're recording is "close" to the phone it doesn't look AS bad