I'd like to clear up a little misinformation about watching movies on the Flyer after upgrading to Honeycomb.
I kept reading that the upgrade ruined movies on the Flyer because the soft Back, Home and Menu buttons are visible on the Flyer at all times. And maybe aht's tru with some apps, but if you're using the stock movie app, those one-screen buttons go black after a couple of seconds.
Yes, there's still the loss of screen real-estate on movies formatted for 16x9, and it would be nice if the movie app would auto-hide the notification bar instead of just blackening it, but the soft buttons being visible at all times is simply not the case.
Also, keep in mind that "Panavision" formatted movies don't suffer any loss of screen size, since there was a black bar above and below to begin with.
Buttons actually "showing" or not seems like a silly distinction when the notification bar is still there hogging real estate.
And the stock player is a joke for format compatibility. Several other players have vastly better compatibility. I've hardly even used the stock player, except to verify that it sucks as bad as the stock HTC player on my phone. So yes, I think many people on here are referring to 3rd party video players.
I've tried HoneyBar, after several people on here recommending it. But it seems to make some apps act wonky, so I uninstalled.
OMG!
{
"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"
}
SO let's really clear something up. Just what video format are some of you playing on the Flyer , that needs the "entire screen" ???
Facts:
1. The Flyer and View screen is 1024x600 pixels.
2. HD video has a 16:9 ratio
3. Perfect fit without distortion for 16:9 = 1024 x 576 Pixels
4. The HoneyComb system bar is 48 pixels high
5. 600-48 is 552
6. 576 - 552 is 24 pixels
7. at most, with a properly formatted HD video you are missing 24 pixels so your
8. optimum screen format will be 976x552 pixels with no distortion.
9. if you allow it to stretch to fill all available pixels its will be 1024 x 552 with a 5% vertical pinch.
10. The highest video resolution you can play is still less than 720p format which has a resolution of 1280x720. But that is the closest standard HD.
11. Playing 1080i or P on the Flyer is a huge waste of storage space since the screen cannot reach that resolution, but the hardware will decode it , if its properly formatted.
12. For optimal performance use one of the hardware supported formats.
HTC Flyer Supported Video formats
3gp, .3g2, .mp4, .wmv (Windows Media Video 9), .avi (MP4 ASP and MP3), .xvid (MP4 ASP and MP3).
HTC Flyer Supported Audio formats
aac, .amr, .ogg, .m4a, .mid, .mp3, .wav, .wma (Windows Media Audio 9)
13. If you must use a non-supported format because you don't have time or are too lazy to convert a video then you need to use a 3rd party player. Which will offer more codecs. Some will be software codecs which will work, but may degrade performance especially if you insist on trying to feed it 1080p or i.
14. Remember that some things people call "formats" are not formats, but containers, MKV and AVI for example. MKV is just a container file and can contain almost any video format so all bets are off with such containers unless you know what is actually inside.
DigitalMD said:
SO let's really clear something up. Just what video format are some of you playing on the Flyer , that needs the "entire screen" ???
if you allow it to stretch to fill all available pixels its will be 1024 x 552 with a 5% vertical pinch.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
5% is 5%. Whether this is important to you is completely a matter of personal taste. And I would never stretch any video to fill the screen, even if by 5%. Looks ugly as hell and obvious its stretched.
So what you really need is a table with a screen 1,920 pixels wide by 1,080. Which they do actually make, but I don't think it will fit in your pocket.
I think its really just more a matter of people wanting to fully utilize the screen that they are holding in their hands. Or the video image being smaller than they were used to on GB. I'll agree with you the difference is very minor. If the Flyer had always been on HC, people may not even be complaining about this.
DigitalMD said:
So what you really need is a table with a screen 1,920 pixels wide by 1,080. Which they do actually make, but I don't think it will fit in your pocket.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Come of your fanboy horse for a second and let people rant about a real issue.
That 5% does make a difference, especially when viewing and editing PDFs heavy with text, which btw, is what the Flyer was made for.
I am willing to pay/donate a nice reward to the developer who makes a mod, ala Honeybar, that actually works with most apps and doesn't cause distortions.
jamus28 said:
Come of your fanboy horse for a second and let people rant about a real issue.
That 5% does make a difference, especially when viewing and editing PDFs heavy with text, which btw, is what the Flyer was made for.
I am willing to pay/donate a nice reward to the developer who makes a mod, ala Honeybar, that actually works with most apps and doesn't cause distortions.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That case (document reading) is really a wash ,since all that happened is the bar moved from the top of the screen to the bottom , taking up the same amount of space. Honeybar should work fine for that application.
Since the operating system has no support for hiding the system bar , by design, anything a developer does to hide it is going to be a hack like honeybar and will cause display problems with some apps, like honeybar does.
Gingerbread runs fine on flyer. Switch back and sup complaining about something that exist on all honeycomb tablets, and that multiple apps exist to fix. There was never any realistic expectation that the honeycomb bar world not be there.
Sent from my HTC Flyer P510e using xda premium
Sure the lose of screen real estate sucks but I like that better then having the capcitive buttons lit while watching Netflix on GB. Now if someone could kill the magic pen light.
DigitalMD said:
Since the operating system has no support for hiding the system bar , by design, anything a developer does to hide it is going to be a hack like honeybar and will cause display problems with some apps, like honeybar does.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mcord11758 said:
Gingerbread runs fine on flyer. Switch back and sup complaining about something that exist on all honeycomb tablets, and that multiple apps exist to fix. There was never any realistic expectation that the honeycomb bar world not be there.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This site exists for developers to come up with solutions and enhancements for problems that exist with the stock operating systems. To respond to this issue with "stfu and stop complaining" goes against the very philosophy of xda.
I'm not complaining for the sake of complaining. Gingerbread had support for fullscreen apps to hide the bar. I'm simply hoping a real developer (which neither of you are) will be able to code a solution into a rom, kernel, or application. I am willing to pay for that solution.
Switching back to GB is certainly not a solution. HC is faster and much more capable in the scribe notetaking and editing fields. Thank you for your suggestion though.
you have hurt my feelings.
There are a couple different apps that remove the bar. Lee Droid, a real developer has enabled hw buttons. I would not hold my breath waiting for another solution. Also since ics uses a similar bar I guess in general you will be dissatisfied with Android moving forward. The bar is part of honeycomb. I remove it for videos and video games, otherwise it is a welcomed addition
Sent from my HTC Flyer P510e using xda premium
redpoint73 said:
I think its really just more a matter of people wanting to fully utilize the screen that they are holding in their hands. Or the video image being smaller than they were used to on GB. I'll agree with you the difference is very minor. If the Flyer had always been on HC, people may not even be complaining about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Believe me, I would prefer to have the hardware buttons enabled also, as ICS is rumored to allow. In order to maintain the correct aspect ratio on 16x9 movies, the Flyer's stock player shrinks the image horizontally as well as vertically so you do lose a fair amout of screen real-estate. But the reason I started this thread was beacase I had read many posts in this forum that complained about the Honeycomb soft buttons being visible while watching movies, but neglected to mention that the stock player darkens them so its not an issue.
In my case, the stock player works fine for me. That's because I have over 200 DVDs that I've digitized as H.264 MP4's using DVD Catalyst 4, and they play just great with the stock player. And that's all I really need. I'm sure there are others in my position.
I'd hate to think that there are folks who will avoid the Honeycomb update due to being misinformed, as I was. That's because the Honeycomb update brings so many other killer features. I've been doing a lot of typing on my Flyer using a bluetooth keyboard (tablets are for content consumption only? LOL! Not mine!!!) and having the up,down,left,right arrow keys map correctly in landscape mode is just fantastic. Also, having the pen available in all my apps is awesome. As i noted in a different thread: it's just crazy, ironic and frustrating that HTC killed off this marvelous tablet at the very same time that they released the Honeycomb update that really makes it shine!
dsf3g said:
. As i noted in a different thread: it's just crazy, ironic and frustrating that HTC killed off this marvelous tablet at the very same time that they released the Honeycomb update that really makes it shine!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree with you other comments and share the love, but HTC didn't kill the Flyer, production of the Flyer was done and finished and over back in June. This is common and typical. HW makers do a production run of as many of an item as they think they can sell and then move on to the next product. They cannot afford to idle a production line and wait and see. In the case of the Flyer and View, HTC made way more than they could sell at their target price of $500 ++ and closed out the remaining stock at below cost. A common practice. Nothing crazy about it, simple business decision. They could not produce more at a price they could sell for a profit.
Related
I received my Archos 101 two days ago and (especially with the price in mind) am very pleased with the device so far. Currently it’s still running the stock ROM with firmware update 2.3.26.
First of all, I don’t know if this applies to other gen 8 devices as well, but the first thing I noticed when using the device was that pixel ratio in relation to the screen’s resolution wasn’t 1:1. This is probably most noticeable in the icons. Take for example the calculator icon, which is designed to be a perfect square. In landscape mode the icon is stretched out a bit, in portrait mode it’s squashed in a bit. The browser (world) icon is supposed to be a perfect circle but looks like an oval on the 101. You can also see it clearly inside the browser on webpages, especially if you’re used to what certain font faces are supposed to look like. In landscape mode the fonts are stretched (they look low and wide), in portrait mode they look squashed (they look high and narrow). If you flip it around a few times to compare I’m sure you’ll see what I mean.
I’m a bit surprised that I haven’t come across any notion of this on the forum at all so far. I know it’s not just my device because I see the same thing happening in all the screenshots I’ve seen around on the forum. I suspect the Archos framework with the softkeys might have something to do with it. That the screen real estate is transformed to make room for the soft keys (even though I’ve seen screenshots of the soft keys being put in the notification bar and still show the same problem). Or that Archos is compensating for the fact that 1024x600 is not a true 16:9 ratio (which would be 1024x576) but that the focus is put on having fullscreen video play the best way possible and that therefore the Android 1024x600 UI is forced into a different ratio.
These are just speculations on my part obviously. What I’m really curious for is if somebody came across something to compensate this (or de-compensate for that matter), or even better; got this whole thing fixed. Did anyone every play around with certain properties and found that it changed the ratio (even if it looked overly stretched out or anything, at least that would indicate you can do something with it) Could it have something to do with the ro.sf.lcd_density property? To be honest I would much rather have a black bar on the bottom of a few pixels than have the whole UI being deformed. The best solution would obviously be to give the whole Android UI the exact same pixels as the screen has. Maybe I’m being a bit picky since I didn’t find any threads on this yet, but being a visually oriented app developer it’s really annoying to me to find interface elements I carefully created be deformed on the Archos while it doesn’t on other Android devices.
Thanks in advance!
Interesting post, but I do not have that issue. The Video icon on the home screen measures exactly 5/16" by 5/16" in both landscape and portrait. I do not see any ellipsing of round icons or images, either. Obviously, widgets get resized, but if you're a dev, you already know how resizing and the Patch 9 system works.
I do see a slight kerning change in text in the stock Browser, but definitely no change to images.
I'll be interested to see what others say. Can you post some screens?
I took some screenshots and found that the deforming doesn’t happen when you take screenshots. I guess I was a bit too quick with judging the other screenshots around the forum and even started doubting myself, but looking at the screen again it was still clear to me.
Seeing this difference actually makes me think that the whole UI resolution is in fact 1024x600 (like the screenshots are, and what all the software uses for rendering) but that the resolution of the screen itself might actually be different, which could explain the stretching over the screen.
To try and proof my point I took some photos of screen details in both landscape and portrait. Granted, it’s not a pixel perfect way of testing things but I tried to take the pictures as level as possible and then measured the pixels of the width and height of the screen details inside these pictures to see if there was a significant difference in ratio between landscape and portrait and apart from my eyes the pictures also say there is.
I put some measurements with it to compare and used both an app icon (Quickpedia) in the default launcher and a square picture in a website on the browser. I get what you mean with the patch 9 smart resizing btw, but I’m actually seeing stretching of pixels happening here.
{
"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"
}
So: landscape seems to be stretched, portrait seems to be squashed. This kind of makes sense if you take into account that the “native” orientation of the Archos screen is landscape. And that portrait is basically landscape but with the UI element reorganized and the icons rotated 90 degrees. So in landscape the 1024x600 screen content (icons and websites alike) is stretched out a bit to match a slightly wider screen, and in portrait you’re looking at a landscape screen as well only you’re looking at it with a 90 degrees rotation (which makes it looks squashed but is actually stretched as well if you pitch your head 90 degrees to the side).
It’s like turning your widescreen laptop to an 800x600 resolution. Everything renders to 800x600 but it’s all stretched out over your screen because the native resolution of your display is actually different. And when you take a screenshot of the stretched out interface and look back at it in your normal widescreen resolution you’ll see a fine unstretched 1:1 800x600 screenshot. So the screenshots of the Archos show that there’s nothing wrong with the rendering, so it’s not the framework or softkeys but that in fact the native resolution of the screen might be different from 1024x600 and is actually wider. Maybe Archos decided to configure Android to 1024x600 instead of the native screen resolution because 1024x600 plays better with general apps, or maybe with video. No idea. I would still love to see the whole UI in an unstreched, screen fitting resolution though. I even think the whole screen experience might look a lot crisper and nicer without the stretching since this generally blurs things (think of the 800x600 example), even if the difference is just a few pixels (like it seems to be on the Archos).
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DVAsmrwdtQ )
They were certainly restrained to 1024x600, because it needs to be 16:9, and a multiple of 8, especially if it's ever going to be google-certified. Also, keep in mind that you must use a resolution supported by the video chipset, which will probably only support normal resolutions.
As far as the lcd itself, it's native resolution may not be 1024x600, but it's more likely it just doesn't have a square pixel ratio.
EDIT: I attached the manufacturer specs for the LCD. It shows the Pitch as 0.2175 (H) x 0.2088 (V) mm, meaning the screen itself is not 1:1, but the native resolution IS 1024x600, so there is nothing that can be done to sharpen it, or stop the resizing. The math says it should be less than a 4% difference between landscape and portrait though, so I'm not that surprised you're the first to really notice. I did notice a bit before, but I thought it was mostly my eyes.
Archos 101 LCD Panel PDF
Thanks for the very detailed answer! I guess I wasn’t taking crazy pills then and if it’s hardware related I guess that’s it then. I can live with that. I’m still curious if it would be possible to compensate for the stretch by making the width 4% less (983 x 600, am I right?). But that might make things a mess. I don’t know. This answer is clear. Thanks again
There's a small chance you could change the resolution to fix the scaling, but then the input/output will not be 1 to 1, and everything will be very fuzzy, like a flat panel that isn't at it's native resolution. (Because it WILL be a flat panel that isn't at it's native resolution anymore )
Thanks for posting this. I thought maybe i was going crazy. I noticed, when i was reviewing some of my photos. My models looked rather unnaturally elongated .(
While sitting around waiting on a prime to actually (maybe never?) arrive, I hesitate slightly at the thought of the full HD becoming the standard resolution on tablets soon. Partly this seems silly to me as the storage capacities on tablets hardly seem up to the task of holding files for that resolution, and streaming options for full hd stuff is pretty limited currently.
So a few thoughts:
Anyone with a prime even feel any lack in the current resolution? I read no indication of such, and wonder if it will even be very noticeable side by side with a full HD tab
If it was magically 1900x1200ish now, what use would that serve for you?
A lot of people's first inclination is to question how well a tablet would perform at that resolution, but I'm confident it will be decent or manufacturers wouldn't be jumping at the idea of doing it.
Please see these:
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=1411063
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showpost.php?p=20842748&postcount=20
Higher resolution tablets probably perform much "worse" than the Prime at least not as good
The only case I would want higher resolution screen is for web browsing, especially in portrait orientation where 720 pixel wide is not enough to have a clear reading experience.
Other than that I could not care less. 1080p video is a non sense on a tablet right now cause if you want a full quality movie at this definition you need a files of 11gb wich is a pain to find and take wait to much space. Anything below that, or streamed, isn't better than the quality of a good 720p movie of 4gb.
In games I wish the extra power could be use to make games look good with bigger environnement rather than pushing more pixel.
3D game still looks awfull on mobile due to the lack of good lightning effect (Glowball on Tegra3 is promising in this regard compare to the A5 but I'm guessing A6 will provide those too)
johnchad14 said:
While sitting around waiting on a prime to actually (maybe never?) arrive, I hesitate slightly at the thought of the full HD becoming the standard resolution on tablets soon. Partly this seems silly to me as the storage capacities on tablets hardly seem up to the task of holding files for that resolution, and streaming options for full hd stuff is pretty limited currently.
So a few thoughts:
Anyone with a prime even feel any lack in the current resolution? I read no indication of such, and wonder if it will even be very noticeable side by side with a full HD tab
If it was magically 1900x1200ish now, what use would that serve for you?
A lot of people's first inclination is to question how well a tablet would perform at that resolution, but I'm confident it will be decent or manufacturers wouldn't be jumping at the idea of doing it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's a heated debate. The higher the PPI, the clearer everything displayed will be - especially text. It would also be able to display full 1080P. So if that's something you consider either good or important then a higher res screen's for you.
Those saying what the Prime has is good enough use two arguments. 1) The higher res will mean a performance hit and, 2) it will mean poor battery life.
Tablets with higher res screens so far all have been leaked to have 2GB of RAM. For all we know, the extra GB could be intended for graphics acceleration. As for battery life, a leak came out today about the tech Sharp is using for the iPad3. It's IGZO and has over 300PPI plus it's 30% more energy efficient. Sharp just converted a huge TV panel factory to produce phone and tablet displays and they're already supplying screens to all the big manufacturers. So if the tech is production ready enough for the iPad3 you could see it on more devices in the near future. I'm sure there will be some announcements at CES.
So let the debate rage on...
http://gigaom.com/apple/apple-reportedly-using-new-display-tech-for-ipad-3/
https://www.semiconportal.com/en/archive/news/main-news/sharp-to-introduce-new-igzo-te.html
If I'm not mistaken, these high-res panels are also in short supply. If that's true, then their price will be much higher. Short supply + high demand = higher prices. Simple economics. I'm also pretty sure that the 2GB RAM on the Android tablets is to accommodate a larger frame buffer, and the iPad 3 will have to have 1GB RAM over its current 512MB.
All that means significantly higher prices. I don't expect any of these higher-res and higher-RAM tablets rumored to come out to be anywhere near the price of the Prime. I think the iPad 3 will be significantly more expensive and the iPad 2 will remain as a "lower-price" option (and won't go any lower in price than the Prime at 32GB, or the OG Transformer at 16GB). The Android tablets will be priced at $599 or more for 32GB, and there will remain Prime-equivalent devices at $499 or less. Hell, if Samsung/Motorola/HTC come out with high-res versions, they'll probably be $899.
For me, $499 is the max I want to spend on a tablet by itself, and I'm also not terribly sure that I'd want a tablet without the ASUS keyboard dock concept. I sure wouldn't pay $599 for a Tegra 3-based tablet with 1900X1200 pixels to push--SOMETHING has to give performance-wise. And I also like the extra brightness of the IPS+ screen more than I want higher resolution.
So, in short, the Prime's resolution is fine for me. And the screen is just luscious--bright and with uncanny viewing angles. Could it be a bit higher-res, to make text a little sharper maybe? Sure, but I wouldn't want it so badly that I'd be willing to put up with lower performance.
I'm completely satisfied with Prime display. I thought my Ipad had a great display but the Prime shows its display is clearly the best out of any tablet today in the market. major reviewers said so also like Engadget and Anandtech. Prime display is even better than ipad 2. prime has more PPI than it. plus prime has the highest contrast ratio of any tablet and the brightest. plus the viewing angles on this device is sick! lol. everything looks great to me on the display. especially when I recorded 1081p video using the rear camera. I was amazed at the quality and detail of video and display. I think Tegra3 has hit the sweet spot/optimal spot with the Prime and its resolution. we get great performance and a great display with atatanding battery life. Prime has set the new standard and set the bar high for next generation tablets to compete at.
My personal opinion on this:
Prime's screen is totally perfect
Higher resolution will have some impacts which are:
You need better/brighter backlights to compensate the additional pixels
You have heaver battery drain due to more pixels
You need a better GPU (not only more RAM) to push all those pixels (not to talk about those crazy 2K and 4K screens)
Text is easier to read on 720p/1080p displays
I wouldn't see a difference between a 720p and a 1080p display in that size playing a movie
In order to use those screens for 1080p movies you'll need more than 32GB of memory (an average Bluray 1080p rip has about 10-15GB )
Those are my initial thoughts on that topic...
Conclusion: In my opinion 1080p screens are not worth the effort yet.
I think the notion of Full HD 1080p on a 10.1" tablet is all marketing talk.
Not only is it a waste as far as video playback goes not being able to see the detail in the HD given the small screen, it will also tax the device's processor trying to render everything to 1920x1080, I can see a desktop PC dual core CPU having no problem with, but a low-powered ARM CPU.
Notice most 1080p laptops aren't smaller than 15".
To me its about app compatibility.
As it is Android already has WAY less tablet apps than iOS- Android tablets are a secondary development platform. That means that High-Res Android tablets will be (at best) the third tablet development platform, which means not great support.
I have the same issue with the GNex. Sure a 720p screen in a phone is nice, but MANY MANY Android apps are made for WXGA. Some don't even fill the full screen at 720p, or their interface breaks down. Due to how few phones have 720ps screens initially by the time the app market is full of apps ready for 720p the GNex will be obsolete hardware.
Whoever buys these high-res Android devices is taking the hit for all of us. By being an early adopter these people will literally feel every growing pain of the Android market as it catches up to high-res screens.
Meanwhile I am trying to get on what I call a "Low PPI Plateau." Between my SGS2 and a Transformer Prime I will have the two most common Android resolutions with hardware meant to maximize those resolutions.
By the time I am ready to leave my Low PPI Plateau not only will the hardware will have caught up to high-res needs, but also the market will be full of compatible apps.
1080p and above screens on a panel that is ~10" will show modest improvements in clarity, moreso with text, but even then it's very marginal for the cost, battery, and performance hit those tablets are going to take.
hell, i have a 27" 1080p monitor and a second 1280x1024 17" secondary monitor and even that that size, the quality of the two screens are very similar.
i feel like 80% of the whole high res panel is just marketing and of course once apple increases their screen res, everyone and their mother NEEDS to have the highest resolution screen that can be pumped out and charged on to their credit cards.
kokusho said:
The only case I would want higher resolution screen is for web browsing, especially in portrait orientation where 720 pixel wide is not enough to have a clear reading experience.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's 800, not 720. For me more problem is tiny letters than resolution while reading websites portrait on 800x1280 resolution.
Full HD resolution would be great for connecting to TV - you would have no rescaling then.
Best Resolution for Tablet
The TFP screen is about 1M pixels, and a full 1080p screen is over 2M pixels. So a processor would have to work 2x as hard to move the 1080p screen around as those in a 720p screen, roughly. That would show up as slowth, somewhere, or heat, or something. So you'd want to get some goodness out of that - it looked better,etc.
People are different. Some see like hawks, others with less resolution. Some people will have trouble seeing the difference between 720p and 1080p, at distance, whereas others will see a marked difference. I'm on the 720p is OK end of that spectrum.
I have noticed, that when lying in bed, that my tablet at viewing distance subtends about the same angle as the HD TV on the other side of the room. So, aside from focusing my eyes, 720p is pretty good for both.
As for the new Tegra3 tablets coming out, I'd rather have the power show up as frame rate, or image manipulation speed, or extra application processor cycles. I'm quite happy with the design center of the TFP, screenwise.
Goodness, this discussion again.
1) Let's hold off on making comments with an air of certitude about hypothetical products we know close to nothing about. OP, if you really want to know what the impact of a higher resolution screen is on the performance and battery life of a tablet, I suggest you wait until those products actually come into existence and feedback (from reviewers and consumers) on them actually exists. Sitting here making comments about how higher resolution is for sure going to kill performance and battery life is ridiculous. Tablet makers are not idiotic, of course they are going to bump up other specs in order to compensate; it's how tech always works. Companies always come out with some crazy spec and people wonder "can they really pull that off?" and a lot of times they do. It's the nature of tech. What would be appropriate to say is "I'm concerned about the challenge that higher resolution will present to battery life and performance". That's reasonable. It's not reasonable to instantly dismiss the challenge as impossible. I would suggest that these tablet makers are going to at least be aware of the challenges and try to meet them. See? I'm not going to guarantee one way or another what the ultimate outcome will be.
2) If 2nd gen tablets in 2012 manage to incorporate higher resolution without impacting battery life or performance, could that at all be a bad thing? The negativity in this thread about higher resolution is centered on the hypothetical side effects. But by itself, could higher resolution be possibly perceived as a bad thing? I'm not talking about the degree by which it is an improvement over what we already have (as everyone has their own opinion on how much of a difference a higher resolution display will have), I'm talking about purely if it's "better" or "worse". As to that, I don't understand how any logical person could say that higher resolution (in and of itself) is worse than what we currently have.
Cliffs notes: if you want to see how these high res tablets are going to be, wait till you can actually see what they actually will be. Sounds lame? Yeah. But true. Hypothetical discussions are fun and all, but they aren't anything you should make your decisions on. I would have gotten the Prime if I based my decision on the hypothetical discussions that I got myself all hyped over. For me, the real world Prime did not live up to the hypothetical Prime I really wanted. What it all boils down to is what the real world end product is, and that's what you should make a decision on.
The Janitor Mop said:
Goodness, this discussion again.
1) Let's hold off on making comments with an air of certitude about hypothetical products we know close to nothing about. OP, if you really want to know what the impact of a higher resolution screen is on the performance and battery life of a tablet, I suggest you wait until those products actually come into existence and feedback (from reviewers and consumers) on them actually exists. Sitting here making comments about how higher resolution is for sure going to kill performance and battery life is ridiculous. Tablet makers are not idiotic, of course they are going to bump up other specs in order to compensate; it's how tech always works. Companies always come out with some crazy spec and people wonder "can they really pull that off?" and a lot of times they do. It's the nature of tech. What would be appropriate to say is "I'm concerned about the challenge that higher resolution will present to battery life and performance". That's reasonable. It's not reasonable to instantly dismiss the challenge as impossible. I would suggest that these tablet makers are going to at least be aware of the challenges and try to meet them. See? I'm not going to guarantee one way or another what the ultimate outcome will be.
2) If 2nd gen tablets in 2012 manage to incorporate higher resolution without impacting battery life or performance, could that at all be a bad thing? The negativity in this thread about higher resolution is centered on the hypothetical side effects. But by itself, could higher resolution be possibly perceived as a bad thing? I'm not talking about the degree by which it is an improvement over what we already have (as everyone has their own opinion on how much of a difference a higher resolution display will have), I'm talking about purely if it's "better" or "worse". As to that, I don't understand how any logical person could say that higher resolution (in and of itself) is worse than what we currently have.
Cliffs notes: if you want to see how these high res tablets are going to be, wait till you can actually see what they actually will be. Sounds lame? Yeah. But true. Hypothetical discussions are fun and all, but they aren't anything you should make your decisions on. I would have gotten the Prime if I based my decision on the hypothetical discussions that I got myself all hyped over. For me, the real world Prime did not live up to the hypothetical Prime I really wanted. What it all boils down to is what the real world end product is, and that's what you should make a decision on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right. But it will going to be a huge impact for the processor, it is more then 2 times as much pixels the CPU/GPU will need to handle. It is just as with Windows; my old PC worked fine in games on a 1280x1024 screen but with 1920x1080 (around 1.7 as much pixels) it just couldn't handle it anymore. So i'm not sure if the Tegra3 is going to handle that, the GPU in it just isn't really good. It does its job at 1280x800, but I'm really concerned how that is gonna be on 1920x1200; are they gonna scale games back? If that would be the case they could just as well use the cheaper 1280x800 panel and let $100 off the price.
However this is all speculation I think it is gonna be this way.
Also I wouldn't want to have either a Acer or Lenovo product; Acer's build quality and support is just very bad (23,3% of their portable products are defect within 2 years in Europe) and for Lenovo I'm really wondering if they even going to give their tablets updates, also the price will be pretty high I guess, also pretty high defect rate as seen below.
{
"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"
}
Higher resolution tablets would be nice, provided that they have the hardware to push that many pixels without slowdown. I'm all for high DPI, and I'm disappointed that we rarely get high densities on desktop monitors.
However, I don't think that a display resolution higher than 1280x800 would really add to the use-case of a tablet. It's not going to allow you to do things you couldn't otherwise do, and the DPI is already acceptably high to display plenty of information on screen. Higher DPI would allow for crisper graphics and text, which I'd definitely like to have, but it's already good enough that it becomes a "nice to have" feature rather than any kind of "must-have" for me.
I don't imagine that these putative high-DPI tablets will have a keyboard dock accessory like the Prime, and, for me, that's a "must-have".
>If I'm not mistaken, these high-res panels are also in short supply. If that's true, then their price will be much higher.
As yields get better over time, price will come down. So cost is a function of time. You're probably right for the initial crop, although I'd quibble over the "much higher" amount. Pricing constraints exist.
Much depends on pricing of 2012 iPad(s), since iPad pricing is literally the reference price for the rest of the tablet market. Apple didn't raise pricing for the iPhone 4 or iPod Touch when those got the Retina Display. From this, the guess is that the iPad $500 benchmark price will still apply for base 2012 model.
If the iPad3 has 2048x1536 res and is $500, Android vendors can't sell their tablets for lower res (1920x1200) at a higher price.
Low-end 10" Android tablets in 2012 will be around USD$350. That's the current price for the Xoom Family (down-specced Xoom), and announced price for the Acer A200 (down-specced A500). Then, there's enough room ($150) to shoehorn in a hi-res display, even if you have to cut corners elsewhere.
That said, Acer & others probably don't care much about the Android tablet market, given its lackluster market reception thus far. PC vendors--Acers/Asus/Dell/HP/et al--will be concentrating on Win8 tablets, since that has a huge existing userbase. Secondly, Win8 tabs aren't as constrained by iPad pricing, as they can do more, eg content creation.
>$499 is the max I want to spend on a tablet by itself
Yes, $500 has become the reference price for most consumers. That comes from the iPad pricing. I'd limit this mindset to "content-consumption" tablets, ie iOS and Android currently.
>Prime's screen is totally perfect
A widget is "perfect" until a better/faster widget comes along. As Jobs has succinctly stated, consumers don't know what they want until they see it.
>You need a better GPU
Teg3 can already run 1080p movies, which place a much higher demand on system resources than pushing around pixels on a UI. If the OS is sluggish, then it's an OS problem, which is the case for HC.
>You have heaver battery drain due to more pixels
This may be true. From the Russian rumor, the Acer A700 has a 10Ah battery, whereas the Prime's battery is 7.4V, 3.38Ah. I'm assuming the voltage for the Acer is 3.7V. Then, the A700 has a 37Wh vs the Prime's 25Wh batt, or roughly 50% more capacity.
>Notice most 1080p laptops aren't smaller than 15"
Tablets are held closer to your eyes, hence they can use higher res. Tablets are also used as e-readers; higher res = sharper text = less eye fatigue.
>To me its about app compatibility.
Android is already awashed with many different screen res. That's why the big emphasis in ICS for res-independent apps.
>The negativity in this thread about higher resolution
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Choice-supportive_bias
JoeyLe said:
You're right. But it will going to be a huge impact for the processor, it is more then 2 times as much pixels the CPU/GPU will need to handle. It is just as with Windows; my old PC worked fine in games on a 1280x1024 screen but with 1920x1080 (around 1.7 as much pixels) it just couldn't handle it anymore. So i'm not sure if the Tegra3 is going to handle that, the GPU in it just isn't really good. It does its job at 1280x800, but I'm really concerned how that is gonna be on 1920x1200; are they gonna scale games back? If that would be the case they could just as well use the cheaper 1280x800 panel and let $100 off the price.
However this is all speculation I think it is gonna be this way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're fine to say you're afraid it might be that way. It's the people saying with absolute certainty that it will be that way that are out of line.
Personally, I'm not too excited for this Acer or Lenovo tablet either. If they're rocking the same GPU the Prime has, I'm probably not buying either. My ultimate interest is in what Samsung comes out with in 2012. I just like their approach. And I have a feeling they are going to come out with killer specs based on early information. If anyone can pull off higher resolution (and the rumored resolution is VERY high), I think it would be a company with the size of Samsung. And as I said before, I'm going to wait to see how it actually performs before I judge it.
Of course I would want a higher resolution screen, provided the tablet still performs decently. I mean... who wouldn't?
I think a lot of this discussion centers around people trying to justify their current Prime purchase, instead of waiting for the next greatest thing. The tablets that come out next year will probably be better than the Prime, in many aspects. Including beautiful high resolution screens where no pixel is discernable. Of course I would love one. But my Prime is suiting me well right now, and I don't *need* a higher resolution screen. And I don't want to play the waiting game for another tablet, because I needed one right now. That's that.
Guess we'll see!
tbns said:
Of course I would want a higher resolution screen, provided the tablet still performs decently. I mean... who wouldn't?
I think a lot of this discussion centers around people trying to justify their current Prime purchase, instead of waiting for the next greatest thing. The tablets that come out next year will probably be better than the Prime, in many aspects. Including beautiful high resolution screens where no pixel is discernable. Of course I would love one. But my Prime is suiting me well right now, and I don't *need* a higher resolution screen. And I don't want to play the waiting game for another tablet, because I needed one right now. That's that.
Guess we'll see!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To see no pixel at 10.1" the average person would need far more then 1920x1200. This "only" gives a DPI of 224.17. 1280x800 gives 149.45. The iPad 1 and 2 have 131.96. (The higher the better). A average person can't see the pixels at a DPI of 320.
JoeyLe said:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I love stats and don't consider myself either a fan or a detractor of Asus. But what you posted isn't relevant unless we're having a conversation specifically about laptops. Desktops, mobos, and tablet results could be very different and are most likely produced in different facilities. Also, there's no timeframe on your chart and one or two bad product launches (Asus' or others) can skew the results tremendously. Nice chart though.
---------- Post added at 02:09 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:07 PM ----------
tbns said:
Of course I would want a higher resolution screen, provided the tablet still performs decently. I mean... who wouldn't?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's human nature to defend your choices and purchases. Right up until the time you don't.
So I was at CES Thursday and Friday and tried to visit most of the tablet boots and have played with several tablets with qualcomm snapdragon s4, Intel atom, Omap and I few other chinese branded ones. And by far the smoothest and fastest out of all of them was the tegra 3 devices. In particular the Acer a510. TFP IMO comes in 2nd. Acer is super smooth did not lag nor stutter. TFP I do see some stutter from time to time and flicking through home screen is faster and but not as butter smooth as the a510. I'm not sure how to explain it better. It seems to be better hardware accelerated.
Iconia A510 (charges though some micro usb I havent seen before that you can plug the regular charger or micro usb. The charging adapter had a rating of 12v output.
{
"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"
}
They were demoing a game at the qualcomm booth running snapdragon s4 and I was surprised at how it stuttered and was not very smooth via HDMI. I recorded this since this was the processor I was looking forward to being one of the best out there.
Video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jhiyYIfu7Y&list=UUHqepxR6_suYYKySqKxymDg&index=2&feature=plcp
I didnt record the TFP showing Shadowgun via HDMI since most of us know how super smooth that is. I'll see if I have a video of the a510 though. I did record however this ZTE 7 (7inch tablet) by ZTE with Tegra 3. I assume this is how the 7 inch prime is going to be as far as performance (I never found the asus 7 prime anywhere).
ZTE 7
Video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMIFnjHkGCY&feature=youtube_gdata_player
The Fujitsu tablets were water proof but wow it is laggy as heck. I didn't spend a lot of time there and kinda made fun of a staff who didn't even know what OS it was running. lol. She was damn hot though. Didnt get a pic of her unfortunately.
Also checked out the Archos tablets. I was a fan of archos before and had own an a70t. But even with ICS their new tablets are really awful slow IMO.
So anyway just thought I'd share this with you guys and be happy that we have tegra 3 devices.
I've always said 2012 will be the year of The Prime & Tegra3. That new Acer looks kinda bulky. not as sexy looking as the prime. Thanks for the info. I wish you would've pulled the apk for that BladeSlinger demo..lol. what was the name of that fighting game that was playing on Snapdragon devices? Qualcimm trying to copy Nvidia Tegrazone and coming with a gaming site app for their chips also.
So if you said the snapdragons were laggy, then new 7 in. Memo from Asus may not be a good buy. its going tl have the same snapdragon chips in them I believe. it will be dual core in the memo. plus memo will only have a regular Tft Ips screen. not Super IPS + like in the prime. plus memo will be 3g.
edit: your video links aren't working. it goes to YouTube then says sorry Malformed video ID or something
The acer is slightly thicker but not by much. it only looks like it cause of the edges is not as tapered as the Prime. But center thickness is almost the same to me. I do like that it was more comfortable to hold since the edges didnt feel sharp on your palms. But yea definitely prime is slicker looking. As far as the Demo game it crashed on me a lot and wasnt playable after the video intro. So prob wasnt worth grabbing.
I'm not sure what that game was on the snapdragon device. The also had mc3 on the other side via HDMI and it was laggy too. With the Asus 7 inch prime I'm pretty sure its tegra 3 (every Nvidia rep told me that anyway) so we dont have to worry about it being laggy. If its anything like that zte 7 then it should be pretty fast.
Ill recheck the videos...
There are two memo models coming. One with Tegra3
Sent from my Nexus S 4G using xda premium
Well thinner isn't always better. For me anyways. I kinda like a little meat
on the tab. Feels solid. For that size though you would think they would have
a full size USB port?? Or did they do away with that? I seen they had the
A700 out as well. Looks like some nice hardware.
Specs on the 7in. Asus Memo pad that has Dual Core 1.2Ghz Snapdragon
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=2938&c=asus_eee_pad_memo_3d_me370t_32gb
demandarin said:
Specs on the 7in. Asus Memo pad that has Dual Core 1.2Ghz Snapdragon
http://pdadb.net/index.php?m=specs&id=2938&c=asus_eee_pad_memo_3d_me370t_32gb
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I shouldve been more clear with my post. I was referring to this one.
http://www.engadget.com/photos/asus-eee-pad-memo-370t/
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2398672,00.asp
I"m on the market for a tablet and am definitely considering the Transformer as I can take the keyboard to school and use it to take notes easier.
However, I do like the look, and price of the transformer prime and would prefer a smoother UI than the 1080p screen of the Prime 700t (unless the HD screen look THAT amazing)
Did tegra 3 run smoothly on the 1080p tablets? And also are the wireless issues THAT bad on the tf201 that would encourage me to buy the 700t?
mikeymop said:
Did tegra 3 run smoothly on the 1080p tablets? And also are the wireless issues THAT bad on the tf201 that would encourage me to buy the 700t?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not so sure about the 1080p ones as they didn't have any of them out for display. It mightve been in one of the rooms but didn't get a chance to find them. I was really looking for the asus 7 inch 370t with tegra 3. My first time at CES so I really didnt know where to go.
Anyhow 1080p on a 10 inch tablet does sound nice but its gonna be overkill IMO. Its gonna be mostly bragging rights and to the naked eye its probably gonna be hard to dicern the difference. And its most likely going to use more processing hence use more battery power. Then you have to worry about app compatibility and either wait for app to catch up or some cases apps might not ever be updated. There are already several threads about prime vs t700 so maybe you may want to give those threads a visit if you want others opinions between the 2 devices.
Re: Acer Iconia A510 - Did you check with an Acer rep and find out why they only showed it in the Nvidia booth? Don't Acer have their own booth?
Re: Asus 370T - Ditto. Should've buttonholed an Asus rep and get the low-down on it.
Anyway, both should be out in Q2 as announced, unless something happens.
>Anyhow 1080p on a 10 inch tablet does sound nice but its gonna be overkill IMO.
One can say the same thing about the Tegra 3. Should you need a quadcore just to have a smooth UI?
I mainly read texts in portrait mode on a 1024x600 7". ePubs are OK, but PDFs suck, as is web browsing. Resolution (169 dpi) is too low for the size. Was gonna give up on 7", but the upcoming 1280x800 (215 dpi) should make 7" viable again for my use.
I think that's what it boils down to. For text, 1080p on 10.1" (also 215 dpi) is better. For graphics/games, 720p is better. Regardless, 1080p will become the standard res once supply ramps up, one, because everybody needs to keep up with the iPad, and two, like you said, it's "nice to have" even though you don't actually need it (like you don't actually need a quadcore).
e.mote said:
Re: Acer Iconia A510 - Did you check with an Acer rep and find out why they only showed it in the Nvidia booth? Don't Acer have their own booth?
Re: Asus 370T - Ditto. Should've buttonholed an Asus rep and get the low-down on it.
Anyway, both should be out in Q2 as announced, unless something happens.
>Anyhow 1080p on a 10 inch tablet does sound nice but its gonna be overkill IMO.
One can say the same thing about the Tegra 3. Should you need a quadcore just to have a smooth UI?
I mainly read texts in portrait mode on a 1024x600 7". ePubs are OK, but PDFs suck, as is web browsing. Resolution (169 dpi) is too low for the size. Was gonna give up on 7", but the upcoming 1280x800 (215 dpi) should make 7" viable again for my use.
I think that's what it boils down to. For text, 1080p on 10.1" (also 215 dpi) is better. For graphics/games, 720p is better. Regardless, 1080p will become the standard res once supply ramps up, one, because everybody needs to keep up with the iPad, and two, like you said, it's "nice to have" even though you don't actually need it (like you don't actually need a quadcore).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't really check with Acer (not sure if they had a booth). All the Halls were so massive that it got very cumbersome trying to walk back and forth. So whatever I remembered I visited. Didn't dawn on me to look for Acer.
Asus 370t - went back on friday to hunt Acer booth down. They had a very tiny booth but no one was in it. Just display of a prime, processors, and forgot what else (no 370t for sure) but whatever they had were behind glass. I was new to CES so I didn't know where to go from there. I really wanted to see this thing in person too. After CES was over then I thought maybe theyre in one of the rooms. But it was too late...CES was over....
Nvidia reps had no ETA on when Acer a510 nor the 370t will be released. Makes sense since theyre just the processor manufacturer.
Screen res IMO only matters with screen 32 inches and up. How clear do you really need a text to be. My laptop is 15 inch and is 1280x800 and its perfect for when I surf or play some games on it. But I remember when I used to have a celeron processor and hated it. I couldnt run alot of games and it was slow. I'm a gamer so for me Id rather have faster processor than higher res screen unless ofcouse were talking tvs that are 40" and up. Also advantage of quadcore is HDMI out to your TV. I have a Tegra2 acer a100 and its choppy on my TV. It's like watching a low frame rate movie. Compared the prime which barely lags at all. Not only when scrolling and such but opening/closing apps and even watching movies over HDMI. Everything just runs as it should with quad core. Now the real question is, do we really need anything higher than quadcore?
First, thanks for the report and the pics & vids.
>Screen res IMO only matters with screen 32 inches and up.
Discernible resolution depends on viewing distance. TVs' are 6-10' typical; desktop monitors about 2-3'; laptops probably 18-24"; tablets 12-18"; phones 12" or less.
It also depends on what's displayed. TVs display movies--moving graphics--and the eyes have a harder time discerning fine details, as comparing to, say, static black text on white background.
As said, 1080p-on-10" matters more for readers than gamers. But if display is migrated (via HDMI) to a large-screen TV, then 1080p is desirable for everyone. Low-framerate concern should be resolved with faster SoCs--and they're progressing at a pretty fast pace, thanks to competition.
One can say HDMI-connection is a small part of tablet use, which is true for now. But there are upcoming techs that will allow wireless connections to TVs (Intel WiDi, or even 802.11ac), so TV connections will be much more convenient, therefore more popular in the near future. (The TF700 will not have high-speed wireless, so this argument is more about "future tablets" than the TF700 specifically.)
Really, there is no dispute that a higher res is desirable for everyone. While you may not see a use for higher res currently, we're only scratching the surface of the tablet's potential functionality. Recall Gate's "640K ought to be enough for anybody" quote. If there's a point to argue, it'll be how much a 1080p tab is worth. Asus says it's +$100. I think the final say will lie with the iPad 3. It will determine pricing for the rest of the market.
>My laptop is 15 inch and is 1280x800
This brings up another point, which is that all of the above is about functionality. But whether a product gets feature X is more about increased SELLABILITY, rather than about increased functionality. Increased resolution is a very good selling point for tablets, as it's simple to understand. Most all TVs now are 1080p, even on small sets where one can't see the difference. Vendors can't sell 720p sets any more.
Laptops could have better res. One reason that they don't is that screen res was never a selling point, for whatever reason. It's mainly CPU.
It's different for tablets, because Apple is the standard bearer. Other vendors are trying to beat it on specs, since they can't (yet) compete on ecosystem. Once iPad goes to QXGA as expected, every vendor will have to follow, or risk being perceived as inferior (even more than they are now). This is regardless of whatever functionality the higher res offers. In short, Apple sets the standard.
To reiterate, there is a real functionality benefit for 1080p-on-10" now--for reading. Sharper text = less eye strain. (BTW, one casualty of the increased res will be e-ink, which is already suffering in sales relative to color Nooks and Kindle Fire.) I think e-reading will be an increasingly more popular use, given the ongoing migration to e-books. Apple's e-textbook announcement today underlines this sea change.
smoothness > resolution. Thats how it is for me.
High dpi surely is nice for text, but one of the biggest advantages over paper is that you can adjust the size of the text to you liking. And i like big letters. Smaller text profits much more from higher resolutions than when you zoom in anyway. Another point where i dont need 1080p on 10.1".
I played 320x240 software rendered games on my PC with a 17" CRT back in the days. I can take 1280x800 on 10.1" anytime
Retina display is just a marketing thing imho. Yeah you can hold the thing directly in front of your eye and dont see pixels. But you will never do that while actually using the device.
Smoothness is something that you notice everytime as soon as you start the device. But in my opinion smoothness has much more to do with good software optimization than with hardware. I have used a lot of different roms on my DesireHD with 1ghz singlecore cpu. I used some roms that were very minimalistic and still totally laggy. Right now i have a bloated sense 3.5 port on it and its iphone-ish smooth all the time. Only because of tweaks and software optimization from the rom chefs.
Prime will have bootloader unlock tool -> it will have custom roms -> win.
I knew the new snapdragon chipset was gonna underperform against the competition like it always does. Snapdragon SoC's are the only reason why I'm not pulling the trigger on any LTE phones.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
xAnimal5 said:
I knew the new snapdragon chipset was gonna underperform against the competition like it always does. Snapdragon SoC's are the only reason why I'm not pulling the trigger on any LTE phones.
Sent from my Transformer Prime TF201 using xda premium
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's a good move. If you haven't heard the government actually trying to shut down LTE/4g networks. It interferes too much with other frequencies. It really interferes with BT. The companies were supposed to come up with a solution but all of the so called solutions have been disapproved so far by government.
>I knew the new snapdragon chipset was gonna underperform against the competition like it always does.
What current games or apps are there that can't be run acceptably on a Krait, as versus, say, a Tegra 3? When you say underperform, are you talking about strictly benchmark differences?
>smoothness > resolution
With current Android, smoothness isn't so much a function of resolution as it is a function of the OS maturity. Many of the things you mentioned are UI-related, and it shouldn't take a quadcore to get a smooth UI.
>you can adjust the size of the text to you liking. And i like big letters.
By reading, I'm referring to long-form reading, eg books & periodicals. If you adjust font size for larger, many hard-layout texts will need larger than the display size, which in turn would need panning. You can't do the zoom/pan thing for every page of a book, as opposed to a web page.
As you said, that's where higher res has the most benefit in allowing smaller texts to still be legible, and not requiring panning.
In thinking about it, Apple's push into e-textbooks makes more sense, in that confirms the iPad3's higher resolution. E-textbooks with hard layouts would be a poor experience with the iPad's current 1024x768 res.
>Retina display is just a marketing thing imho.
Many aspects are marketing influenced, and have little to do with functionality--eg the Prime's aluminum shell. It looks and feels "more quality" than plastic, hence marketing dictates it will sell better. But it functions worse than plastic. In that sense, arguing about functionality is somewhat academic and not reflective of how product decisions are made.
Does anybody have handbrake settings for converting video best for the Rezound? I tried to play a couple mp4's that I had saved on my comp but it just made the rezound freeze up. I had a video left over that I had converted using settings for the DROID X and it plays fine on the rezound but the video quality is capable of being much better on the rezound. The mp4's that I tried were 1280x544 so they should have played with maybe a widescreen bar on the top and bottom as the rezound is 1280x720p.
I haven't encoded anything myself or played around with different codecs on the phone, but I have copied some videos that play really nicely on the phone. They are encoded as follows with an .mkv extension:
H264 mpeg-4 AVC
624x352 29.97
Audio: mpeg aac (mp4a)
Stereo 48kHz
Don't know if that helps you at all but maybe it will give you a clue.
EDIT: I got the specs off the LMFAO video that comes with the phone. It has an .mp4 extension. Here they are:
{
"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"
}
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
feralicious said:
I haven't encoded anything myself or played around with different codecs on the phone, but I have copied some videos that play really nicely on the phone. They are encoded as follows with an .mkv extension:
H264 mpeg-4 AVC
624x352 29.97
Audio: mpeg sac (mp4a)
Stereo 48kHz
Don't know if that helps you at all but maybe it will give you a clue.
EDIT: I got the specs off the LMFAO video that comes with the phone. It has an .mp4 extension. Here they are:
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
good way to research video encoding info
A couple videos that I have are mp4's that are 1280x544. They played great after converting with handbrake. Only thing I changed was the video codec to MPEG-4 and the fps to 29.97. The video looked immaculate although the widescreen bars were on the top and bottom on an already smaller screen. I'm trying to test different aspect ratios in order to get a full screen video.
rezound is 16:9 so that should cut down on different aspect ratios you try
tschmid5 said:
A couple videos that I have are mp4's that are 1280x544. They played great after converting with handbrake. Only thing I changed was the video codec to MPEG-4 and the fps to 29.97. The video looked immaculate although the widescreen bars were on the top and bottom on an already smaller screen. I'm trying to test different aspect ratios in order to get a full screen video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It really depends on the source you are using. you'll only get full screen without letterboxing/pillaring if the source is the same aspect ratio as the screen itself. (16x9, 1280x720, 1920x1080)
So when you convert you only want to change the numbers in a way that keeps the same aspect ratio as your source (just do the math to figure it out). If you change the aspect ratio you are going to squeeze or stretch the picture or you will blow it up to fill the "height" and the sides will get cropped and you wouldn't have the whole frame.
It seems you have widescreen films that are 2.35 ratio. Widescreen standard is 2.35 or 2.40. Most films are 1.85. HD is 16x9/1.78 (1920x1080 or 1280x720), SD is 4:3/1.33. So yes, they should have played with black at top or bottom or else the picture wouldn't look right. Same as on your TV. If you watch a widescreen film on your TV you will have the same letterboxing.
feralicious said:
It really depends on the source you are using. you'll only get full screen without letterboxing/pillaring if the source is the same aspect ratio as the screen itself. (16x9, 1280x720, 1920x1080)
So when you convert you only want to change the numbers in a way that keeps the same aspect ratio as your source (just do the math to figure it out). If you change the aspect ratio you are going to squeeze or stretch the picture or you will blow it up to fill the "height" and the sides will get cropped and you wouldn't have the whole frame.
It seems you have widescreen films that are 2.35 ratio. Widescreen standard is 2.35 or 2.40. Most films are 1.85. HD is 16x9/1.78 (1920x1080 or 1280x720), SD is 4:3/1.33. So yes, they should have played with black at top or bottom or else the picture wouldn't look right. Same as on your TV. If you watch a widescreen film on your TV you will have the same letterboxing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I've learned that through the past couple years purchasing blu rays, some are just filmed that way, nothing fixes it, just got to deal with widescreen bars on an already widescreen high definition television...very frustrating lol.....although I think on a screen the size of the rezound, stretching or anything of that nature would hardly be noticeable, I converted one at 1136x544 and it was a little bit better, slight bars on the top and bottom but didn't really notice any stretching after even tho the default aspect ratio was changed
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
tschmid5 said:
Yeah, I've learned that through the past couple years purchasing blu rays, some are just filmed that way, nothing fixes it, just got to deal with widescreen bars on an already widescreen high definition television...very frustrating lol.....although I think on a screen the size of the rezound, stretching or anything of that nature would hardly be noticeable, I converted one at 1136x544 and it was a little bit better, slight bars on the top and bottom but didn't really notice any stretching after even tho the default aspect ratio was changed
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It doesn't need to be "fixed". That's the way the filmmaker intended it to be. They can't help it if TVs are a certain aspect ratio and can't accommodate the various aspect ratios films use. Film has been around a lot longer than television. I can assure you that the people who put in a lot of hard and detailed work making those films would hate to know people were changing them just to get rid of the letterbox or pillaring that's supposed to be there so you see the image properly.
Movie theaters use the same screen for all films they show, they just adjust the projector's output to the correct aspect ratio. They don't change the aspect ratio to have every film fill up the entire screen.
So don't worry about the black...it's supposed to be there.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
feralicious said:
It doesn't need to be "fixed". That's the way the filmmaker intended it to be.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
LOL, you're technically correct of course but it is still annoying as hell to have a brand new widescreen tv with a brand new blueray player And have to look at black bars on the screen.
As far as movie ripping for the Rezound, I rip 5-6 discs a week from Netflix to mp4 files for my phone.
I used to use a CuCusoft app for all my ripping in my PC (along with AnyDVD running at all times)no matter what device it was going to be shown on. I have used the same app for years and it always worked perfectly, but I was never 100% totally satisfied with the results on my Rezound.
I was trying all different settings (the app has about 50 different presets) but a few weeks ago, it finally refused to rip a disc from Netflix which has never happened before.
At that point, I decided to try an app called 1ClickDVDTOIPOD which my boss swears by. I installed it and went to the option screen. The ONLY settings you can change are screen resolution (there are two settings to pick from) and a
sliding scale for quality.
I picked the higher resolution which is 640x360 and slid the quality all the way to the highest setting which is 3725 Kbps. That makes a really big file, but I have a 32 gig card so space isn't a problem. There where 4 episodes of the TV show The Shield on the disc, and the app ripped them so fast I couldn't believe it actually worked.
I copied them all to my phone and tried playing them in my movie app (I have used Act 1 for years and find it is by far the best app of it's kind). The video quality and playback quality of the files is absolutely stunning. It fills the whole screen with no black bars if I set it to aspect full. Needless to say, I am happy with the results and will continue to use the exact same setup for the foreseeable future.
jmorton10 said:
LOL, you're technically correct of course but it is still annoying as hell to have a brand new widescreen tv with a brand new blueray player And have to look at black bars on the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure how to interpret your LOL, but I'm both technically correct and absolutely correct. But if the movie is that uninteresting that you are watching the black bars you should watch better movies!
Making every movie made fill the screen would be like having only one shape of picture frame and taking every painting and stretching it and squeezing it to fit that one particular shaped frame. Paintings and films are simply not all made in the same aspect ratio.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
feralicious said:
I'm not sure how to interpret your LOL, but I'm both technically correct and absolutely correct. But if the movie is that uninteresting that you are watching the black bars you should watch better movies!
Making every movie made fill the screen would be like having only one shape of picture frame and taking every painting and stretching it and squeezing it to fit that one particular shaped frame. Paintings and films are simply not all made in the same aspect ratio.
Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well said. good advice on earlier posts since it's been ages since I've encoded mobile video. 17 movies so that are more crispy then potato chips
feralicious said:
Paintings and films are simply not all made in the same aspect ratio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure what paintings have to do with it, but it's never made much sense to me that all films are NOT made in the same ratio.
jmorton10 said:
I'm not sure what paintings have to do with it, but it's never made much sense to me that all films are NOT made in the same ratio.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The shape of a painting is determined by the artistic view of the artist and the spatial needs to portray that. So I used it as an example to show that you can't just take something that was made a certain shape (aspect ratio) and shove it into a different one just because your existing frame (TV) is a different shape (aspect ratio). It just doesn't work.
The director has made an artistic choice to use a certain aspect ratio. CinemaScope, the really widescreen framing, allows more to be seen in the screen and gives the director more options in framing in which certain moods or perspectives can be shown. For example, Lawrence of Arabia was shot in CinemaScope and one of the advantages to that was that you really get a sense of the vastness of the desert with the wider screen. You just wouldn't get that in a 1.85 ratio. Sometimes it's that there's a desire to show more in the screen without having to pull out to a wider shot. There's different reasons behind it but it's usually an artistic choice made by the director.
Luckily with TV we have the ability to use letterboxing or pillaring to compensate for that and fill the empty space with black. If they didn't letterbox the film they would pan and scan it and then you really lose the intention of the director. If you're not familiar with pan and scan, what it is is when there's a wide shot and you see one character on each side of the screen, facing off, pan and scan would break that into two shots instead of one and first show you the left side/character then cut/pan to the right side/character. Not at all how the director shot it and intended it to be seen and giving the scene a different feel and the viewer a different experience when watching it. A scene that may have been filled with tension loses it with that method. So you don't even get to see the movie as the director made it just so you don't have to see black on your TV. Blasphemy I say!
For technical reasons it's also due to technological progress. As they learned how to use/shoot the film differently in order to get wider images they started using it for artistic reasons. As to TV, if everything was to be uniform we'd still be on 4:3 TVs and no one would have ever gone to HD/16x9 format. And remember, now we're mixing two formats. Films were not thought of being made to fit a TV when TV was 4:3. But now that HD scaling is the standard for new TVs you're wondering why films don't fit into that box perfectly. They weren't made for TV.
the green in the screen looks like light-green, washed-out, something you only see in defect display,
especially when youre coming from a samsung phone,
especially the first time you open your phone and see the color in the apps youre used to in other phones,,
I couldnt help but noticed the same thing and tried to do some tests to see if it's a common problem for Xperia Z ultra, or is it just some of us happend to have the same kind of defect display
of all the tests, here are the most comvincing ones:
first,
{
"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"
}
left is the one i took on desktop , right one is the screenshot on phone while playing the same youtube video in youtube app,
clealy the one on phone is more "light-green",
this is the proof that the "light-green" is intended by Sony rather than due to defect in the display, otherwise we would see a darker green like the one on desktop, (cause the screenshots took in-phone are what the hardware drew, rather than what we see from outside/what the screen displayed)
the second one
is a screenshot took in-phone, while displaying a .png pic file, on the left,, compared to what it's like when the same .png file was viewed on my Windows7, on the right.
No difference was found.
I quickly tried another pic that wasnt initially on the phone, prepared by sony,,,
here's the results:
: No difference to be found,
(when comparing i put the 2 pic file in the same folder and used a viewing software to quickly go back and forth between the 2 pics during which the same place of the 2pic was kept at the same place, zoomed by the same level,,,, and found no difference)
then, I copied the official demo video(Xperia HD Landscapes.MP4) to my desktop, screencaptured a frame to compare to the same one played on phone,
here's the result:
the one on the right is what the video looks like when played on my desktop,,,the result doent need anymore of my words.
So the conclusion:
While initially you may find the color , especially in google apps(casue they are the apps with obvious color youre most familiar with), washed-out,
the screen is not defect and can show the color green 100% fine,
it's most likely due to some Sony's weird software tweak,
which happened to all the video the phone plays, where the green is really "light" and feels unpleasantly "washed-out".
I can only hope Sony fix this problem as fast as possible, cause compared to Samsung 's famous oversaturating tweak(actually more due to the "side-effect" of being able to display a wider color gamut), which made almost everything on their phone looked absolutely more stunning and awesome,, Sony's tweak can only be concluded as, considering their long history in the industry and all the hype/triluminous/bravio engine/blahblahblah said in their ads,,,,, the most embarassingly retarded fail I've ever seen by such a giant multinational corporation.
any ideas?
I went from Samsung Galaxy S3 etc to the Sony Xperia Z and Sony Xperia tablet 10.1. There is a difference between the two screens. The screen colours on the tablet are simply stunning and to my taste.
I have just made a return to Samsung and bought the Note 3 and can safely say that I prefer the picture reproduction on the Sony. Different screen technologies produce different colours, light, contrast and definition. To me I see this simply as taste and not a 'fault' in either device.
I prefer the colour pallet of my Xperia tabet 10.1 to the new Note 3. I think we have to understand its a preference. I don't arrive at the same conclusions you do. I prefer what you appear to dislike.
Regards.
Ryland Johnson said:
I went from Samsung Galaxy S3 etc to the Sony Xperia Z and Sony Xperia tablet 10.1. There is a difference between the two screens. The screen colours on the tablet are simply stunning and to my taste.
I have just made a return to Samsung and bought the Note 3 and can safely say that I prefer the picture reproduction on the Sony. Different screen technologies produce different colours, light, contrast and definition. To me I see this simply as taste and not a 'fault' in either device.
I prefer the colour pallet of my Xperia tabet 10.1 to the new Note 3. I think we have to understand its a preference. I don't arrive at the same conclusions you do. I prefer what you appear to dislike.
Regards.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's fine if it's only a tweak in the video playing,, if the green has to be lighter in a coloful video wiht all the other colors to contribute to a better viewing experience,
but the green and red in many apps in the phone are also washed out(doesnt in any way can possibly contribute to any thing except making you feel like looking at a 10 years old LCD with washed out colors)
I admit it really scared me at first, which may be the reason i did all these tests in the first place,,
I believe you cant compare with screenshot, as its just copying digital values of the screen. You will have to capture side by side with a good slr camera (live output) to compare results. I did a bit side by side comparison on some videos in a shop when i wanted to buy. But put off my purchase until i am sure.
KonW said:
the one on the right is what the video looks like when played on my desktop,,,the result doent need anymore of my words.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Please add some words because I can't really see much difference there?
Hidden92 said:
Please add some words because I can't really see much difference there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
here i did painting to help you see the difference:
Guzprom said:
I believe you cant compare with screenshot, as its just copying digital values of the screen. You will have to capture side by side with a good slr camera (live output) to compare results. I did a bit side by side comparison on some videos in a shop when i wanted to buy. But put off my purchase until i am sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
since screenshot showed us the difference we felt when looking at the display,,,it at least now represents the problem at hand,,
if it doenst, then the problem might be beyond screenshot(exp, quality of the glass above the LCD,etc), then we can use a camera to shoot the difference
KonW said:
since screenshot showed us the difference we felt when looking at the display,,,it at least now represents the problem at hand,,
if it doenst, then the problem might be beyond screenshot(exp, quality of the glass above the LCD,etc), then we can use a camera to shoot the difference
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, if your assumption that the colors are so because of sony preprocessing. I believe screenshot will only show the effect of display preprocessing by the hardware/software but it won't show the end result of the inherent properties (color gamut/ depth, warmth/white balance) of the screen itself. Correct me if I'm wrong. And I would be interested in an SLR shot.
Guzprom said:
I believe you cant compare with screenshot, as its just copying digital values of the screen. You will have to capture side by side with a good slr camera (live output) to compare results. I did a bit side by side comparison on some videos in a shop when i wanted to buy. But put off my purchase until i am sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly, screenshots do not give you the screen colors. The difference you see is only due to the JPEG compression. Do a color comparison with JPEG is also not accurate as well, different devices will show you different results even on the same screen. Only specific camera can really do it, can't be done with any commercial camera or camcorder as well. As the refresh rate and backlight are different between screen and screen orientation as well (portrait and landscape).
Envoyé depuis mon C6802 avec xda premium 4
bASKOU said:
Exactly, screenshots do not give you the screen colors. The difference you see is only due to the JPEG compression. Do a color comparison with JPEG is also not accurate as well, different devices will show you different results even on the same screen. Only specific camera can really do it, can't be done with any commercial camera or camcorder as well. As the refresh rate and backlight are different between screen and screen orientation as well (portrait and landscape).
Envoyé depuis mon C6802 avec xda premium 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never said it's accurate, and as i said above it wont address the problems that could occur to affect the colors after hardware rendering,
it' like,, if youre asking your doctor what the reddness in your palm mean, what kinda of illness could it suggest, by sending him a pic file of your palm (in jpeg form might i add),,,, yeah it's not accurate nor is it real,,but it at least does the job, if your doctor says he needs further investigation then you can consider sending him a "specifi camera" taken over-100MB-in-size TIFF file of your palm for accuracy.
since the jpeg file i used here already showed very obviously the difference we felt when looking at the screen,, what's the point of using another more accurate file format?
Guzprom said:
Yes, if your assumption that the colors are so because of sony preprocessing. I believe screenshot will only show the effect of display preprocessing by the hardware/software but it won't show the end result of the inherent properties (color gamut/ depth, warmth/white balance) of the screen itself. Correct me if I'm wrong. And I would be interested in an SLR shot.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i was wondering about the same thing while doing the comparison,,
for example,, in one part of a pic it asked for the color of RGB(0,255,0), the screen tried to display RGB(0,255,0) but it looked different in our eyes than the RGB(0,255,0) displayed elsewhere, say my windows7 desktop(LCD display also),
Now i screencap the display, that place in the screencap file should be recorded as RGB(0,255,0) too,
so when i view the file on my desktop windows7, if it looked "normal" then it should be a problem of the phone display , if it looked like what we felt on the phone, then the display shouldnt be defective. (becasue that proves that it only looked different casue sony tweaked it so that it displays RGB(0,200,0) for the color RGB(0,255,0) in that specifi frame to look more appealing to the eye, not that it wasnt able to show a deeper RGB(0,255,0) color)
Now you may have doubt that when i screencapture on the phone, will the pic file record that place as RGB(0,255,0)? what if it was recorded ,say a lighter green, RGB(0,200,0) becasue it's what it's lilke and the screen wasnt able to display the color other normal screen displayed as RGB(0,255,0).
well, if that's the case then the same pic file showing the same green should look different on phone and desktop, which is certainly not true as my comparison 2 and 3 showed.
So, that screencap did work, at least in that comparison.
and now fianlly ,,
I do agree that we should use a camera to shoot together of a desktop LCD and the phone displaying the same pic file (AMOLED would obviously display a "greener" green for RGB(0,255,0) becasue of its wider color gamut), and then compare the green in that shoot, to cover any other issues , especially ones that could happen after the hardware rendering.
You are just comparing Sony firmware compression of an image display on the screen. It is not even about accuracy. Plug your phone by HDMI to a TV and make a screen shot, do you think the rendering will show how the TV displayed your picture?
Test on the phone itself.
Here original picture
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66462768/MG_0133.jpg
Here the screenshot of the same picture on my XZU
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66462768/Screenshot_2013-10-07-14-26-12.png
How come thank the screenshot show more saturated colors than the original picture on my XZU?
As one test is not enough now have the screenshot of a Asus transformer prime
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66462768/Screenshot_2013-10-07-14-23-14.jpg
The IPS+ on my tf201 show pictures lighter with more saturated colors than my XZU, but the screenshot give the opposite. Asus compression is different and Sony compression give even more saturated colors that the original picture.
Edit: uploaded to dropbox for avoid compression on XDA. Sorry for the size ^^
bASKOU said:
You are just comparing Sony firmware compression of an image display on the screen. It is not even about accuracy. Plug your phone by HDMI to a TV and make a screen shot, do you think the rendering will show how the TV displayed your picture?
Test on the phone itself.
Here original picture
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66462768/MG_0133.jpg
Here the screenshot of the same picture on my XZU
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66462768/Screenshot_2013-10-07-14-26-12.png
How come thank the screenshot show more saturated colors than the original picture on my XZU?
As one test is not enough now have the screenshot of a Asus transformer prime
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/66462768/Screenshot_2013-10-07-14-23-14.jpg
The IPS+ on my tf201 show pictures lighter with more saturated colors than my XZU, but the screenshot give the opposite. Asus compression is different and Sony compression give even more saturated colors that the original picture.
Edit: uploaded to dropbox for avoid compression on XDA. Sorry for the size ^^
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what is your point exactly?
of course they would look different,
different device has its different tweak of displaying colors,
in case you still dont see my point: some company , for exampl LG, tweak their saturation to look like the samsung or to look better(for example, if a pic ask for 25% green, the display is tweaked to show 50% deep green), a screenshot of course will show differently, unless it's the defective display that oversaturated or undersaturated the pic,,,which when screencaptured and showed at the same time in another display should look all the same.(explained in detail in my last post).
KonW said:
what is your point exactly?
of course they would look different,
different device has its different tweak of displaying colors,
in case you still dont see my point: some company , for exampl LG, tweak their saturation to look like the samsung or to look better(for example, if a pic ask for 25% green, the display is tweaked to show 50% deep green), a screenshot of course will show differently, unless it's the defective display that oversaturated or undersaturated the pic,,,which when screencaptured and showed at the same time in another display should look all the same.(explained in detail in my last post).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My point is simply to say you spend a lot of time to make comparison, but to compare nothing. A screenshot is an image taken from data directly stocked on the RAM before any image processing, and so before the XZU make any modifications (X Reality) for improve image on the screen. So you only compared image decoding and encoding and not image on the screen.
bASKOU said:
My point is simply to say you spend a lot of time to make comparison, but to compare nothing. A screenshot is an image taken from data directly stocked on the RAM before any image processing, and so before the XZU make any modifications (X Reality) for improve image on the screen. So you only compared image decoding and encoding and not image on the screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
then why you see the difference of the same pic file across devices?
KonW said:
then why you see the difference of the same pic file across devices?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try to encode a CD with Windows Media Player and Itune, both to MP3 at 320 kb/s, then use it on a sound system (if it is on poor quality you may not hear it), you'll hear that the sound is different. I am really sensible to sound and can clearly feel the difference. Same go for JPEG or PNG or any image compression, each manufacturer use his own build in encoding program and process. Even if the extension is the same at the end, the rendering will be different.
bASKOU said:
Try to encode a CD with Windows Media Player and Itune, both to MP3 at 320 kb/s, then use it on a sound system (if it is on poor quality you may not hear it), you'll hear that the sound is different. I am really sensible to sound and can clearly feel the difference. Same go for JPEG or PNG or any image compression, each manufacturer use his own build in encoding program and process. Even if the extension is the same at the end, the rendering will be different.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well except that we all already see other big differences like,, listening to 2 different songs,
so without your fancy ear capibilities we already can tell that it's different , and no matter how the comression or even bitrate is processed, 2 different songs do sound as 2 different songs
KonW said:
well except that we all already see other big differences like,, listening to 2 different songs,
so without your fancy ear capibilities we already can tell that it's different , and no matter how the comression or even bitrate is processed, 2 different songs do sound as 2 different songs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was talking about same song from the same CD, where did i say different???
bASKOU said:
I was talking about same song from the same CD, where did i say different???
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
as my first replay already said, which is the point ive been making this whole conversation
if the difference is subtle, it may be casued by other issuses, like the compression you said, and if we can barely see the difference, more accurate camera shot and file format should be used to compare
but here, we already see the very different color density like we felt when saw with naked eyes
like if you hear song A sung by devices A as " oh l love you so much"
and you record it , compare it to the same song sung by devices B as " oh I like you so much"
and record it ,,and when you compare them , you dont even need to consider what compression or bitrate you used to record, casue no matter what, you can already clearly see the difference
and then you start to wonder if it's devices A 's maker tweaking, that made it to sing "love" instead of "like" to make it more appealing , or is it that it was defective and wasnt able to produce the sound "like", and so you start to do the comparison 2, and 3 i did.
got it?
KonW said:
as my first replay already said, which is the point ive been making this whole conversation
if the difference is subtle, it may be casued by other issuses, like the compression you said, and if we can barely see the difference, more accurate camera shot and file format should be used to compare
but here, we already see the very different color density like we felt when saw with naked eyes
like if you hear song A sung by devices A as " oh l love you so much"
and you record it , compare it to the same song sung by devices B as " oh I like you so much"
and record it ,,and when you compare them , you dont even need to consider what compression or bitrate you used to record, casue no matter what, you can already clearly see the difference
and then you start to wonder if it's devices A 's maker tweaking, that made it to sing "love" instead of "like" to make it more appealing , or is it that it was defective and wasnt able to produce the sound "like", and so you start to do the comparison 2, and 3 i did.
got it?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hahahahahahahahahahaha, ridiculous. I stop here, enjoy!!
Envoyé depuis mon C6802 avec xda premium 4
bASKOU said:
Hahahahahahahahahahaha, ridiculous. I stop here, enjoy!!
Envoyé depuis mon C6802 avec xda premium 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah maybe if you stopped earlier and read my first posts replied to u more you may end up saving some of my time ,, and yours
and you shouldve done so way earlier