Related
is it possible to remove the 60 fps cap that samsung has put on our devices. I dnt like limitations
Anarchist310000 said:
is it possible to remove the 60 fps cap that samsung has put on our devices. I dnt like limitations
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
More than 60 is useless .
Anarchist310000 said:
is it possible to remove the 60 fps cap that samsung has put on our devices. I dnt like limitations
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The display registers at 60MHz meaning any fps above this will not look smoother or in any way better. In fact you'd simply be pushing the device harder using more battery for zero improvements. Apart from certain benchmarks of course, which is a ridiculous reason to mod a device anyway.
Anarchist310000 said:
is it possible to remove the 60 fps cap that samsung has put on our devices. I dnt like limitations
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Frankly, your opinion is uneducated. The screen of the Galaxy S II has a refresh rate of 60 Hertz, meaning the screen physically cannot display any material higher than 60 frames per second. If you uncap the software frame rate, then the CPU and GPU of the phone will work harder to render as much material as possible - let's say in this case, we have something that has 80 frames to display in a single second. Yet since the screen cannot display 80 frames per second, 20 of those frames will never be shown, and the resulting movement could even suffer from tearing because of the mismatched refresh rate and frame rate. In order to fix tearing, a technique called vertical sync is employed, which would cut frame rates to 60fps in order to eliminate the extra frames which cause tearing.
So, if we remove the frame rate cap on Samsung's version of Android, then what do we accomplish? We increase the workload on the phone's processors, increasing heat output and decreasing battery life. Rendering above 60fps will generate frames which are never shown, and will introduce visual glitches if vertical sync is not used; vertical sync, in turn, would cap the frame rate to 60fps once again. I hope this post has been helpful.
i'm pretty sure the limit is due to the AMOLED display hardware not being capable of higher than 60Hz, but someone correct me if i'm wrong.
however on some of the tegra II phones, the LCD screens have been getting up to 100 FPS on some benchmarks/tests/examples. so i think its the AMOLED that has the cap for the SGS2.
Be happy its not an EVO.
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk
The point, I'm sure, would be to shut up tegra 2 fanboys once and for all...which would be a nice thing.
bcam117 said:
The point, I'm sure, would be to shut up tegra 2 fanboys once and for all...which would be a nice thing.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Use Nenamark2 benchmark. It's powerful that it doesn't hit the 60fps. Tegra 2 is only little bit faster than original Galaxy S. SGS2 is twice faster than SGS.
developing said:
Frankly, your opinion is uneducated. The screen of the Galaxy S II has a refresh rate of 60 Hertz, meaning the screen physically cannot display any material higher than 60 frames per second. If you uncap the software frame rate, then the CPU and GPU of the phone will work harder to render as much material as possible - let's say in this case, we have something that has 80 frames to display in a single second. Yet since the screen cannot display 80 frames per second, 20 of those frames will never be shown, and the resulting movement could even suffer from tearing because of the mismatched refresh rate and frame rate. In order to fix tearing, a technique called vertical sync is employed, which would cut frame rates to 60fps in order to eliminate the extra frames which cause tearing.
So, if we remove the frame rate cap on Samsung's version of Android, then what do we accomplish? We increase the workload on the phone's processors, increasing heat output and decreasing battery life. Rendering above 60fps will generate frames which are never shown, and will introduce visual glitches if vertical sync is not used; vertical sync, in turn, would cap the frame rate to 60fps once again. I hope this post has been helpful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well as u said it was an uneducated question and thank u for explaining to me the reasons why it would not be wise to even attempt a mod like this.
developing said:
Frankly, your opinion is uneducated. The screen of the Galaxy S II has a refresh rate of 60 Hertz, meaning the screen physically cannot display any material higher than 60 frames per second. If you uncap the software frame rate, then the CPU and GPU of the phone will work harder to render as much material as possible - let's say in this case, we have something that has 80 frames to display in a single second. Yet since the screen cannot display 80 frames per second, 20 of those frames will never be shown, and the resulting movement could even suffer from tearing because of the mismatched refresh rate and frame rate. In order to fix tearing, a technique called vertical sync is employed, which would cut frame rates to 60fps in order to eliminate the extra frames which cause tearing.
So, if we remove the frame rate cap on Samsung's version of Android, then what do we accomplish? We increase the workload on the phone's processors, increasing heat output and decreasing battery life. Rendering above 60fps will generate frames which are never shown, and will introduce visual glitches if vertical sync is not used; vertical sync, in turn, would cap the frame rate to 60fps once again. I hope this post has been helpful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A doubt,from your post ... shows a relationship between the refresh rate and fps, to me it does not follow that there can be this kind of connection between things.
The frequency is the period of time that elapses between two refresh full image, or better those refresh in a unit of time, while the fps is the ability of the GPU to generate the frames FramePerSecond, I can easily have 60 Hz of frequency and 4000 fps (sbav sbav).
Am I wrong?
Going above 60fps it's like looking at 300+ ppi screen.. you won't notice any significant difference..
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
Does anyone know what the screen refresh rate is for our devices? Just wondering if we'd be able to watch 3D movies on it with those 3D glasses (not the blue/red ones).
PS. I love 3D. 3DSteroid and Camera3D FTW!
Screen can do 60hz. As far as watching 3D stuff, it would have to be the coloured classes unless you could find some active glasses that paired via bluetooth and stuff, so unlikerly.
The screen of the Galaxy S II has a refresh rate of 60 Hertz, so the screen physically cannot display any material higher than 60 frames per second. If you uncap the software frame rate, then the CPU and GPU of the phone will work harder to render as much material as possible - let's say in this case, we have something that has 80 frames to display in a single second. Yet since the screen cannot display 80 frames per second, 20 of those frames will never be shown, and the resulting movement might even suffer from tearing because of the mismatched refresh rate and frame rate. In order to fix tearing, vertical sync is employed, which would cut frame rates to 60fps in order to eliminate the extra frames which cause tearing.
So, if we remove the frame rate cap on the SGS2, then what do we accomplish? We increase the workload on the phone's processors, increasing heat output and decreasing battery life. Rendering above 60fps will generate frames which are never shown, and will introduce visual glitches if vertical sync is not used.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regards.
..
I hate to throw another monkey wrench into the works, but I just got a C1 from Sam's Club and noticed something pretty immediately...
I'd previously noticed that the latest B1's I'd tried from Best Buy (yes, I've been on a quest for a Prime where every hardware component at least works, even if within the Prime's general limitations) were keeping the screen a bit dim for my tastes, and I hadn't remembered my other Primes doing that. The C1, however, was adjusting more appropriately and more often.
So, I decided to check the light sensor using Elixer 2, and the B1 Primes have much less sensitivity than the C1. Where the C1 immediately picks up on lighting conditions and quickly adjusts, the B1's stick at one low value, then unstick for a few seconds, then stick back at the low value. They also don't adjust as quickly nor maintain it as well.
So, there seems to be yet ANOTHER component with some variability. Suffice it to say that the C1 has a much more sensitive light sensor that does a better job of adjusting for ambient conditions.
No difference on our two Primes.
I Found This In A N4 Thread.
Just Add This Line To build.prop And Reboot.
Code:
debug.egl.swapinterval=0
Again,This CAN Cause Glitches,So Depends On The User.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR DAILY USAGE.
Enjoy.
Here Are Some Benches.
Nenamark 2-144fps
Quadrant-8264
Regards,
acervenky,
XPT
Works! Pass Mark bench is the highest 4716
Can see as high as 102 during quadrant.
OG e970 stock+
mystery emotionz 6.1
1.8 GHz oc/uv
Does this have any other benefits beyond benchmark
I've had some interesting results enabling this.
I havent run any benchmarks, but running GTA Vice City with this enabled does make for smoother gameplay, but also gives minor graphical tearing .
As far as I know, our screens are only 60hz. Anything above 60fps is almost pointless and would cause more harm than not. Yes, you may see smoother gameplay, but you're overworking the GPU for a slight boost and visual problems.
I'm not a developer or anything of the sort from Android but I do a LOT of tinkering and programming with computers so I expect the same results since smart phones are Pretty much the same.
Sent from my CM10.2 LG-E970
I would wager this is harmful.... As the user above me pointed out they're no gains to be had in terms of usage.
Outside of that it's one thing to go past 60 fps on a desktop or even laptop designed to handle more intense graphics but, there is no exhaust in your phone which works twice as hard for no real reason.
The excess heat just increases your chances of nasty things happening.. And I mean nasty you need a new phone before 2 years type things.
Sent from my LG-E970 using xda app-developers app
Warning heeded... I don't game though I just like to tweak. I never use intense graphics for long stretches and it makes a difference in short bursts when I'm browsing video heavy sites or watching short videos (placebo, maybe). I'm also a benchmark whore (no shame). I expect to not make two years anyway. .. G2 is sweet and who knows what will be here by next summer, lol. Thanks though.
OG e970 stock+
mystery emotionz 6.1
1.8 GHz oc/uv
---------- Post added at 07:54 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:43 AM ----------
Neroga said:
As far as I know, our screens are only 60hz. Anything above 60fps is almost pointless and would cause more harm than not. Yes, you may see smoother gameplay, but you're overworking the GPU for a slight boost and visual problems.
I'm not a developer or anything of the sort from Android but I do a LOT of tinkering and programming with computers so I expect the same results since smart phones are Pretty much the same.
Sent from my CM10.2 LG-E970
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You may be thinking refresh rate... that's the screen measurement. I've never seen one for a phone. Fps is video source measure, chip. I'm definitely no techy, but would it cause that much more heat... it's not overclocking (although I am) just running at higher speeds longer, maybe. No extra heat yet, mhl for movies most intense thing I've done since tweak though.
OG e970 stock+
mystery emotionz 6.1
1.8 GHz oc/uv
Ok, time to clear some stuff up. Unless specifically stated in a lcd display's specifications, and it was made in the last few years, it only supports up to a 60hz refresh rate. No matter what you do, you can't make it refresh faster. You'll just get screen tearing and your GPU will consume more electricity and generate more heat. This isn't a cathode ray tube display with adjustable refresh rate.
Sent from my Optimus G using xda premium
Frame rate/Refresh rate the same?
I was just wondering if frame rate and refresh rate are both the same. For example in a PC if the screen's refresh rate is , say 60 Hz. Won't it be able to display anything with frame rates greater than 60? If so, I beleive it applies to the mobiles too. Can someone clear up this mystery for me with some citations?
Thanks
Andromann said:
I was just wondering if frame rate and refresh rate are both the same. For example in a PC if the screen's refresh rate is , say 60 Hz. Won't it be able to display anything with frame rates greater than 60? If so, I beleive it applies to the mobiles too. Can someone clear up this mystery for me with some citations?
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Correct and as Death said, it'll cause screen tearing on mobile devices. 60fps matches the 60hz of our screens. I'm not too familiar with how this works on Android, but if you could raise the fps to about 65 then you'd notice a boost in performance when it comes to games. 60 is ideal for gaming but with the cap at 60 it tends to dip below frequently and causes slight lag. 65 would make everything stay nice and smooth and shouldn't give you any graphical errors as well as not burning battery life.
Sent from my Paranoid 4.3 LG-E970
Neroga said:
Correct and as Death said, it'll cause screen tearing on mobile devices. 60fps matches the 60hz of our screens. I'm not too familiar with how this works on Android, but if you could raise the fps to about 65 then you'd notice a boost in performance when it comes to games. 60 is ideal for gaming but with the cap at 60 it tends to dip below frequently and causes slight lag. 65 would make everything stay nice and smooth and shouldn't give you any graphical errors as well as not burning battery life.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mmm.. i'm sorry but i think that you're confusing fps caps with vertical synch, fps caps give almost no fps drops because it only throw away every frame superior to the cap, but with vsync caps it to 60fps but it synchronize it with the lcd hz, fps caps can cause tearing even at same framerate than lcd hz but vsync doesn't
D4rk_W0lf said:
mmm.. i'm sorry but i think that you're confusing fps caps with vertical synch, fps caps give almost no fps drops because it only throw away every frame superior to the cap, but with vsync caps it to 60fps but it synchronize it with the lcd hz, fps caps can cause tearing even at same framerate than lcd hz but vsync doesn't
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A fps cap does not discard frames. It will not render the extra frames. The GPU will fills it's clocks with NOP instructions until it needs to render the next frame.
Wouldn't this be useful if someone has attached his smartphone to External display , which supports displays with higher refresh rates .:good:
Hi,
I have an e-bike. Just to test the GPS accuracy of my new watch i used the "bike" sport program. The top speed of my bike is around 20-24 km/h. The GPS tracking went really well, I am impressed there. However I saw rather strange and high heart rate readings. It was 113 bpm in average and 146 bpm as highest. I actually do not have much physical activity using the e-bike in full assist mode. I really have to push hard myself to get my heart rate to about 150 pbm.
I did repeat the test and got the same result.
So I have to conclude that, the watch checks my speed and thinks I am pushing hard on a "real" bike. It does not take the actual sensor reading, but something "pre-programmed" = fake one.
ventura1977 said:
Hi,
I have an e-bike. Just to test the GPS accuracy of my new watch i used the "bike" sport program. The top speed of my bike is around 20-24 km/h. The GPS tracking went really well, I am impressed there. However I saw rather strange and high heart rate readings. It was 113 bpm in average and 146 bpm as highest. I actually do not have much physical activity using the e-bike in full assist mode. I really have to push hard myself to get my heart rate to about 150 pbm.
I did repeat the test and got the same result.
So I have to conclude that, the watch checks my speed and thinks I am pushing hard on a "real" bike. It does not take the actual sensor reading, but something "pre-programmed" = fake one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmm, it's probably that. Although it gives me approx. the same readings on my regular bike, but I'm just a fat bastard.
If you have a chance to wear some other heart rate bracelet simultaneously, do that, and compare results.
Sent from my LG-D858HK using Tapatalk
Their faking algorithm is well known to be very advanced... it also takes temperature, atmospheric pressure, activity duration, your weight, height, and age into account. It also manages to pass comparative tests to other similar devices and external heart rate monitors, and detects when you give your watch to another person and measures his HR correctly. Ah, yes, and yesterday I saw some bright lights in the sky - be prepared, the aliens are coming.
trueruer said:
Their faking algorithm is well known to be very advanced... it also takes temperature, atmospheric pressure, activity duration, your weight, height, and age into account. It also manages to pass comparative tests to other similar devices and external heart rate monitors, and detects when you give your watch to another person and measures his HR correctly. Ah, yes, and yesterday I saw some bright lights in the sky - be prepared, the aliens are coming.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
Can't decide what you are saying... So you mean the measurements should be correct and I am "making up" the complaints on the bad readings? Or else?
ventura1977 said:
Hi,
and I am "making up" the complaints on the bad readings?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
it's different to say that "i get bad readings" (or not very accurate) and different "i get fake readings"
btw gps has nothing to do with the hr measures (common sense , gps is only for outdoor activities)
ventura1977 said:
Hi,
Can't decide what you are saying... So you mean the measurements should be correct and I am "making up" the complaints on the bad readings? Or else?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've just showed you what happens when way of thinking is flawed, based on what I see when using only my amazfit device and taking your hypothesis that there is a faking algorithm involved. Nothing more. I suggest you read this article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method , then continue your investigation into why in your case the watch is showing faulty(if it is faulty) data and in what conditions. Otherwise your proposition about faking is no different than the one about an alien invasion coming every time there is a bright light in the sky.
I kinda ran into a similar issue. I was wearing the Pace past the wristbone and had my Schosche Rythmm+ on the forearm connected to my Under Amour App on my smartphone and went for a walk/Run - the heartrate readings and caloric burn were way off. The highest my Pace Watch would show is about 110 or 120, but i was running 400M intevals with 2:30 minutes of rest in between. My Rythm was showing 140-160 on the sprints. Which is about accurate.
So I am question the ability and accuracy of the device. If we could connect to an external HRM via Bluetooth this watch would be killa!
I really like the watch and not trying to make up stories guys. It was a simple observation about an odd behaviour.
Somewhere I have saw posted that single measurements seems to be accurate, but if you ran a sport program it is way off.
I suppose the easiest way is to verify this is to run a program while sitting in the car or bus with gps good signal.
Is there a possibility that while on your bike felt adrenaline when you were going fast causing your heart rate to go up?
Honestly, if you want accurate heart rates get an Amazfit Health Band w/it's ECG sensor. http://amazfitcentral.com/amazfit-health-band-specifications/
I use mine for jogging. The first firmware was very accurate but after the OTA update it always said that heart rate too high, over 170. Then I have to keep the strap pretty tight to get better reading.
Then I changed the firmware to PACIfied version. Reading was good again & without too much tightening of strap.
I think the watch fakes it too.
I think it fakes it too.
Did some tests. Ran an intervall where it got all the way up to 195. Which was 10 beats off what the treadmill shows. Which is fine, not expecting it to be that accurate so high.
Then I walked flat for 6kmh and it detected 110 which is also OK. Then I walked 6kmh with 10 degree uphill.
Now watch still show 110, mill showing 150.
It doesn't detect the uphill.
I'm so extremely disappointed in this thing. Wasted 110$
jhenrikb said:
I think it fakes it too.
Did some tests. Ran an intervall where it got all the way up to 195. Which was 10 beats off what the treadmill shows. Which is fine, not expecting it to be that accurate so high.
Then I walked flat for 6kmh and it detected 110 which is also OK. Then I walked 6kmh with 10 degree uphill.
Now watch still show 110, mill showing 150.
It doesn't detect the uphill.
I'm so extremely disappointed in this thing. Wasted 110$
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm going to run on the treadmill for thirty minutes, then put the watch on as soon as i stop the machine and see what the heart rate is.
FYI, had a Cambridge University educated doctor take my pulse and he said it was a lot less than what the amazefit watch was saying.
[Amazfit][Bip] heart rate sensor is a joke (firmware 0.9.40)
Hi, I have purchased the Amazfit Bip recently, it was cheap.
Several threads on the heart rate sensor of the Pace have try to warn against a possible fake feature.
I would like to extend this notice on the Bip after few tests.
I have posted a video on youtube to illustrate. unfortunately I am not able to post the link, here the title :
"Amazfit Bip heart rate sensors test."
Hope this helps.
here the description of the video :
A video of a heart rate test of the Huami Amazfit Bip watch. It can be seen that the watch does not offer a measurement but an estimate of the heart rate. This estimation rely on the time elapsed in the activity as seen in the first part of the video; but also on the information that can give the optical sensor, in the second part of the video. After turning off the camera, I started to move and put away my stuff and thus stress the accelerometer: the estimate of the heart rate has recovered.
The problem is that my heart rate could not exceed 60 bpm during the whole test (nothing doing it is around 54).
After several tests, this estimate seems made from several parameters:
- time: over time the heart rate increases in the effort
- what the optical sensor gives.
- the accelerometer : to detect an activity. (although in the first part of the video the watch does not move)
- parameters on age, weight, height, reported in mi fit, to establish a range of variation in the estimation of the heart rate.
Why that ? Maybe the sensor is unable to provide a measurement: the flash intensity is very low on this watch, the sensor covers a very small area.
What I expected: a measure like my polar f6
(without signal nothing is displayed: "--")
With a phone that has GPS and pedometer, it would have been better to invest in a Bluetooth module with electrodes.
Toni Maltes said:
Hi, I have purchased the Amazfit Bip recently, it was cheap.
Several threads on the heart rate sensor of the Pace have try to warn against a possible fake feature.
I would like to extend this notice on the Bip after few tests.
I have posted a video on youtube to illustrate. unfortunately I am not able to post the link, here the title :
"Amazfit Bip heart rate sensors test."
Hope this helps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're right, when missing data, the BIPseems to interpole the resullts with the data available.
If you put the BIP on your wrist during that time, it sloooooowwly go down to the HR. It's still rely to the old incomplete data that globally at this moment gives a false result.
That could be improved by software I hope.
EMPTY
RisenVe said:
Same here,
shaved my hairy arm at the bip position. Measured while riding my bike. Drived with 23km/h over all time and some sprinting intervalls to vo2/max. The Bip says at normal riding 110bpm +/-5 beats. But then, holy moly, at sprinting.... 130bpm +/-5 beats. On right arm i have used my mi band 2, on same height compared to bip. It says heart rate is between 80bpm at start up to 180bpm in sprint intervalls.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you sure it's tighten well ?
The sensor, is fully on your skin and doesn't move while riding?
Toni Maltes said:
Hi, I have purchased the Amazfit Bip recently, it was cheap.
Several threads on the heart rate sensor of the Pace have try to warn against a possible fake feature.
I would like to extend this notice on the Bip after few tests.
I have posted a video on youtube to illustrate. unfortunately I am not able to post the link, here the title :
"Amazfit Bip heart rate sensors test."
Hope this helps.
here the description of the video :
A video of a heart rate test of the Huami Amazfit Bip watch. It can be seen that the watch does not offer a measurement but an estimate of the heart rate. This estimation rely on the time elapsed in the activity as seen in the first part of the video; but also on the information that can give the optical sensor, in the second part of the video. After turning off the camera, I started to move and put away my stuff and thus stress the accelerometer: the estimate of the heart rate has recovered.
The problem is that my heart rate could not exceed 60 bpm during the whole test (nothing doing it is around 54).
After several tests, this estimate seems made from several parameters:
- time: over time the heart rate increases in the effort
- what the optical sensor gives.
- the accelerometer : to detect an activity. (although in the first part of the video the watch does not move)
- parameters on age, weight, height, reported in mi fit, to establish a range of variation in the estimation of the heart rate.
Why that ? Maybe the sensor is unable to provide a measurement: the flash intensity is very low on this watch, the sensor covers a very small area.
What I expected: a measure like my polar f6
(without signal nothing is displayed: "--")
With a phone that has GPS and pedometer, it would have been better to invest in a Bluetooth module with electrodes.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
very interesting test, I already realized that the cardiac sensor of this watch gives me strange results sometimes.