I have been using L-droid for a month now. Its perfect in every way except the following two.
1 - Display crispness
2 - Camera
1 - Display Crispness
I feel the Stock Sammy ROMs have a much sharper and crisper image with better colors as compared to any CM based ROM I've used. I want to understand why is this difference ?
2 - Camera
Stock Sammy takes Photos way too quickly (from the time you press the button to the time it gets snapped and ready for another) compared to stock CM camera. Again I want to understand why is this difference ?
salimbaba said:
I have been using L-droid for a month now. Its perfect in every way except the following two.
1 - Display crispness
2 - Camera
1 - Display Crispness
I feel the Stock Sammy ROMs have a much sharper and crisper image with better colors as compared to any CM based ROM I've used. I want to understand why is this difference ?
2 - Camera
Stock Sammy takes Photos way too quickly (from the time you press the button to the time it gets snapped and ready for another) compared to stock CM camera. Again I want to understand why is this difference ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are correct about 1, there's a sharpness fix implemented in some kernels.
No idea about the second one, are we talking AOSP vs samsung camera on AOSP and samsung roms respectively or both on a samsung rom?
If former, it's due to closed sources.
Choristav said:
You are correct about 1, there's a sharpness fix implemented in some kernels.
No idea about the second one, are we talking AOSP vs samsung camera on AOSP and samsung roms respectively or both on a samsung rom?
If former, it's due to closed sources.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sharpness fix in kernels : which kernels have it? Can you name them.
AOSP camera on AOSP ROM vs SAMMY CAM on STOCK SAMMY ROM.
If it's because of closed source then my question comes out to be : developers have figured out the camera driver what's the factor they haven't figured out yet?
My curiosity comes from me being a driver developer for nix for specialized systems . Haven't worked on any drivers for Android yet. But I am curious.
salimbaba said:
Sharpness fix in kernels : which kernels have it? Can you name them.
AOSP camera on AOSP ROM vs SAMMY CAM on STOCK SAMMY ROM.
If it's because of closed source then my question comes out to be : developers have figured out the camera driver what's the factor they haven't figured out yet?
My curiosity comes from me being a driver developer for nix for specialized systems . Haven't worked on any drivers for Android yet. But I am curious.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Boeffla has the sharpness fix, that's as much as I can tell you, you're better off doing a quick search yourself.
I don't dig deep into issues since I can't do anything about them, but as far as I know, they haven't found what exactly makes all the hardware camera tweaks work and how to implement them, maybe try searching for codeworkx posts or even justarchi. I believe it's the same with HWComposer.
The only reason I stuck with Sammy ROM, it's camera quality :/
Sent from my GT-I9300 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
Related
Hi all,
A couple night's ago I flashed the latest version of popdog's Oxygen ROM (2.7). This is the first version in a while that has been running stable for me with no issues with gapps. I really like the speed and battery life I'm getting with it. The only issue I have is with the quality of the camera. Previously I was using Adfad's N2 ROM and the camera quality was great on that, and judging by what others have written, N2 has the best camera quality. I left N2 mainly because I wanted to go with a more current ROM that is being updated.
I've seen a few people mention a flashable exposure fix for the camera in CM7 RC1. Unless I'm mistaken this is related to the default exposure levels and has no bearing on the overall quality of the camera shots?
Basically I'm just wanting to know if there is a a newer ROM than Adfad's N2 that has similar camera quality... Thanks
I've tried all ROMs but only N2 satisfies me as I need camera daily and N2 has amazing cam quality, in latest nightlies, you cannot get good exposure even after using the patch to fix exposures, you will need to set exposure again and again every time before clicking a photo, while in N2, default exposure is amazing, I'm trying to port the N2 camera to other ROM's
Thanks for the info umangleekha Getting the N2 camera in other ROMS would be fantastic. As much as I like the newest Oxygen ROM, I'm probably going to have to go back to N2 because of the camera. I use it regularly too.
Just out of curiosity, which kernel are you using with N2?
Dudeeee I sucessfully ported the N2 camera to RC1, check my thread in Android Development section.
Yes! Thanks for that . Just what I was looking for. Much appreciated
Android 4.0 brought a ton of improvements in regards to the tracking of your finger on the screen. Using the Galaxy Nexus was a joy - accurately flicking through long lists with similar smoothness and accuracy to iOS. Jelly Bean brought it to another level surpassing iOS imo (but that's a different topic).
On the S3 "flicking" through lists or the browser feels disconnected and is much less accurate producing incorrect interpretations and scrolling when it shouldn't or vice versa. The main culprit I can see is the "smoothing" algorithm Samsung has added throughout the system and in the browser which works okay if you scroll very slowly and over large areas like a grandpa but for faster and quicker movements it just produces errors. Why couldn't they just stick with the ICS default behavior? Is there any way to get rid of the Samsung behavior besides flashing an AOSP-based ROM like CM or AOKP? I'd gladly flash those roms the day they get driver support but for now I just can't live without being able to use my camera and other "basic" things.
Using cm9 and camera I working fine snappy and touchscreen is very nice!
Sent from my GT-I9300 using xda premium
dinan said:
Android 4.0 brought a ton of improvements in regards to the tracking of your finger on the screen. Using the Galaxy Nexus was a joy - accurately flicking through long lists with similar smoothness and accuracy to iOS. Jelly Bean brought it to another level surpassing iOS imo (but that's a different topic).
On the S3 "flicking" through lists or the browser feels disconnected and is much less accurate producing incorrect interpretations and scrolling when it shouldn't or vice versa. The main culprit I can see is the "smoothing" algorithm Samsung has added throughout the system and in the browser which works okay if you scroll very slowly and over large areas like a grandpa but for faster and quicker movements it just produces errors. Why couldn't they just stick with the ICS default behavior? Is there any way to get rid of the Samsung behavior besides flashing an AOSP-based ROM like CM or AOKP? I'd gladly flash those roms the day they get driver support but for now I just can't live without being able to use my camera and other "basic" things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is driver support for CM9, samsung dropped the source code for ICS around release date, everything works and theres even CM9 stable releases in rom manager.
as far as i can tell 99% of things also work in CM10, the camera was 100% fixed today
mintvilla said:
There is driver support for CM9, samsung dropped the source code for ICS around release date, everything works and theres even CM9 stable releases in rom manager.
as far as i can tell 99% of things also work in CM10, the camera was 100% fixed today
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, wow I've been out of the loop, guess I'll have to update tonight.
Still, my original qualm is still valid is it not? =)
dinan said:
Ok, wow I've been out of the loop, guess I'll have to update tonight.
Still, my original qualm is still valid is it not? =)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
so did you sort out how to feed your finger tracking needs ??
i feel i think exactly like you... id like to keep my crapwiz functionalitues, but i'm crying out for the miss of smoothness here.
since me and u seems to have the same needs on this topic, please let me know if you find out somethig intresting.
c ya
dinan said:
On the S3 "flicking" through lists or the browser feels disconnected and is much less accurate producing incorrect interpretations and scrolling when it shouldn't or vice versa. The main culprit I can see is the "smoothing" algorithm Samsung has added throughout the system and in the browser which works okay if you scroll very slowly and over large areas like a grandpa but for faster and quicker movements it just produces errors. Why couldn't they just stick with the ICS default behavior? Is there any way to get rid of the Samsung behavior besides flashing an AOSP-based ROM like CM or AOKP? I'd gladly flash those roms the day they get driver support but for now I just can't live without being able to use my camera and other "basic" things.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you tried running a custom stock-based ROM that has the scrolling cache disabled (such as WanamLite) or with a kitchen option to disable this cache (such as Omega)?
this issue is driving me crazy... no matter what i do i can't get good battery life with cm based roms.... no mater what i try: official, temasek, carbon, paranoid, all have **** battery life that barrely last a day.
i always end up going back to sammy based roms like wanamlite. byt i dont like it!
i greenify apps, disable gps, dormancy, startup apps, what else???
if it matters, i never change kernels..
You aren't experiencing anything new, only Samsung based roms will get good battery life on the S3.
Probably due to a lack of sources
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
rootSU said:
Probably due to a lack of sources
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what do you mean?
Samsung don't release their exynos source code properly, so AOSP developers don't have all the information required to get similar performance out of all the hardware components
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
rootSU said:
Samsung don't release their exynos source code properly, so AOSP developers don't have all the information required to get similar performance out of all the hardware components
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
is there any aosp or aokp based rom that will provide good battery life?
They're all about the same
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
they last the same for me with custom kernels.
i wont go back to sammy
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda app-developers app
To me, any CM/AOSP and any kernel included or custom last about the same, and that is about 40% less then stock samsung rom.
Of course depending on situation...
However I won't be coming back to stock samsung rom any time soon
Agreed, custom kernels help a lot but still not quite as much as stock. Similarly, im sticking with aosp
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Probably irrelevant but i tried the Illusion Rom and it gave me 1d 53h of normal usage whereas sammy barely gets me through the day
Just thought id mention it
1 day + 4 days?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
You are confusing things here...
rootSU said:
Probably due to a lack of sources
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You are confusing things here - the lack of sources is somehow relevant to the kernel part, and generally the best kernels in regard to power consumption are the custom ones (like Perseus, Siyah and so on) - which are precisely started from the sources coming from Samsung.
The ROM part only talks to the kernel part, and once you have the same kernel (like Siyah) talking to both a CM ROM and a Sammy ROM and you get better power consumption in Sammy I don't really see how that can be related to "lack of sources".
rootSU said:
1 day + 4 days?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hahahaha sorry my bad:silly:
1d 13h
AthlonGFX said:
Probably irrelevant but i tried the Illusion Rom and it gave me 1d 53h of normal usage whereas sammy barely gets me through the day
Just thought id mention it
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah sure, I even got on couple of occasion over 2 day and maybe 3-4hrs...
But however on stock with the the approximately same usage I would still have 30-40% more usage time.
xclub_101 said:
You are confusing things here - the lack of sources is somehow relevant to the kernel part, and generally the best kernels in regard to power consumption are the custom ones (like Perseus, Siyah and so on) - which are precisely started from the sources coming from Samsung.
The ROM part only talks to the kernel part, and once you have the same kernel (like Siyah) talking to both a CM ROM and a Sammy ROM and you get better power consumption in Sammy I don't really see how that can be related to "lack of sources".
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No im not confusing things - but you're over simplifying things. The kernel sources are complete. Siyah uses the samsung kernel sources as a base and it interacts with touchwiz roms perfectly. The same kernel does not interact with aosp roms in the same way.
Set up a touchwiz rom with basic settings and siyah kernel and compare it to aosp with the same basic settings and kernel and touchwiz will win hands down.
Samsungs kernel source may be complete but the exynos and hardware sources are incomplete. That's why an aosp rom camera is much lower quality than samsungs using the same hardware.
Also its worth noting that these dual purpose kernels are built from a mixture of samsung sources and Google sources. Otherwise they wouldn't be able to support 4.2.2 aosp roms...because 4.1 kernels are different to 4.2 kernels...hence no existing kernels can work on 4.2 sammy roms. We need their kernel sources for that, but they will come unlike complete exynos sources.
If you look at the snapdragon variants of the s3, the chipset is well documented so the developer community have much more scope to get comparable battery performance but this isn't an option for us. This is why the developer community here are so frustrated with samsung and the i9300 to the point where team hacksung decided they no longer wish to support cyanogen on exynos devices. We are unable to exploit the hardware to its full potential as we don't have what's required. Developers need to use a lot of guess work to get things working. Our s3 device tree for aosp roms is incomplete and this is samsungs fault for not being forthcoming with their non kernel sources
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 4
You are still confused
rootSU said:
...
Samsungs kernel source may be complete but the exynos and hardware sources are incomplete. That's why an aosp rom camera is much lower quality than samsungs using the same hardware.
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is completely irrelevant to what it was discussed - and is also false since for instance your own post is somehow trying to suggest that the AOSP camera works perfectly for non-Exynos S3 and works bad for Exynos S3 - once you get your time to check reality instead of propagating stuff you will see that is just another myth and that:
a) the AOSP camera is about as bad for BOTH CPUs
b) the information that is missing has nothing to do with the CPU from Samsung but instead with the camera itself.
And getting back to what this thread was about - POWER CONSUMPTION - the facts show that most CM ROMs have worse power consumption than most Sammy ROMs when both scenarios are run with the SAME KERNEL compiled from sources. A very remote point might be (maybe) made for device-drivers that are blobs (and where custom ioctls maybe are not documented) - but CPU / power management is not one of those! Debunking even further your childish talking point - with the same Sammy ROM the POWER CONSUMPTION is clearly better when running with one of those custom kernels then when running standard Samsung kernel - so any point that somehow any information relevant to power consumption is missing - when actually the custom open-source kernels are demonstrably better in this regard - now stands forever debunked
xclub_101 said:
That is completely irrelevant to what it was discussed - and is also false since for instance your own post is somehow trying to suggest that the AOSP camera works perfectly for non-Exynos S3 and works bad for Exynos S3 - once you get your time to check reality instead of propagating stuff you will see that is just another myth and that:
a) the AOSP camera is about as bad for BOTH CPUs
b) the information that is missing has nothing to do with the CPU from Samsung but instead with the camera itself.
And getting back to what this thread was about - POWER CONSUMPTION - the facts show that most CM ROMs have worse power consumption than most Sammy ROMs when both scenarios are run with the SAME KERNEL compiled from sources. A very remote point might be (maybe) made for device-drivers that are blobs (and where custom ioctls maybe are not documented) - but CPU / power management is not one of those! Debunking even further your childish talking point - with the same Sammy ROM the POWER CONSUMPTION is clearly better when running with one of those custom kernels then when running standard Samsung kernel - so any point that somehow any information relevant to power consumption is missing - when actually the custom open-source kernels are demonstrably better in this regard - now stands forever debunked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Without the exynos source the cm kernels can't take full advantage of exynos power saving features..... Simple.
On another note, I suggest you tone down your attitude, and apologise for calling rootSU childish, and don't treat this place like somewhere you can come to wind people up or I will personally introduce you to the moderators
xclub_101 said:
That is completely irrelevant to what it was discussed - and is also false since for instance your own post is somehow trying to suggest that the AOSP camera works perfectly for non-Exynos S3 and works bad for Exynos S3 - once you get your time to check reality instead of propagating stuff you will see that is just another myth and that:
a) the AOSP camera is about as bad for BOTH CPUs
b) the information that is missing has nothing to do with the CPU from Samsung but instead with the camera itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, way to take something completely out of context and miss an entire point! I didn't even think this was possible. Impressive.
So firstly, I cited the camera as an example of something that relied on Samsung sources along with the exynos chipset (NOT CPU by the way, I haven't use the term CPU, so I guess you just decided to choose that term yourself). The sources are incomplete and the binaries, libs an patches provided are not enough to get everything running on the device as it should be. I, in know way stated or inferred that the camera was better on snapdragon S3's.
The point was we don't have everything in relation to the camera, ergo the camera is not as good as Samsungs. This is not because of the AOSP camera application. Instead it is down to a lack of documentation /sources for the camera HAL. It was a simple example explaining that if we haven't got everything required to run the hardware properly, we can't achieve the same performance. This is obvious with the camera and it's poorer quality images compared to the touchwiz camera using the very same hardware. This is not the case with just the camera though, this extends to all the hardware where we have incomplete information and sources.
xclub_101 said:
the facts show that most CM ROMs have worse power consumption than most Sammy ROMs when both scenarios are run with the SAME KERNEL compiled from sources
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It is true, with the SAME KERNEL on both platforms, power consumption is different (That's exactly what my post said). However, the dual purpose kernels are compiled from 2 sets of sources, so AOSP and Touchwiz platforms do not overlap 100% with each other (usage wise) in regards to what is compiled into these kernels. Touchwiz ROMs utilise (random guess number to illustrate a point) 90% of whats in the kernel as does AOSP. Meaning there could be a (fictitious) 10% of the kernel exclusively for each platform.
xclub_101 said:
but CPU / power management is not one of those!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't mention CPU power management. I did not say that the kernels on AOSP were any different at *managing* the power. Although thanks for bring that up... because now that you mention it, they are.
xclub_101 said:
Debunking even further your childish talking point
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't understand how you can be so audacious to call my talking point childish when you've managed to avoid applying adult levels of reading to my entire post thus far and have taken every point I made conversely to how it was intended.
xclub_101 said:
with the same Sammy ROM the POWER CONSUMPTION is clearly better when running with one of those custom kernels then when running standard Samsung kernel
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Say what now? If You're saying you think that custom kernels on a Sammy ROM are better than stock kernels on the same sammy rom for power consumption, you'd be right. I never said anything to the contrary of that. I said these custom kernels on a sammy rom are better that they are on an AOSP rom for power consumtion.
xclub_101 said:
so any point that somehow any information relevant to power consumption is missing - when actually the custom open-source kernels are demonstrably better in this regard - now stands forever debunked
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I really don't think you are managing to get any point you're trying to make across. You're not even arguing against the point I made. Surely a rebutal must directly address my points. You seem to be meandering aimlessly, taking pot shots at what you *think* is my point.
Again, I never said anything about information pertaining to power consumption being missing. My point is simple and basic, so here it is again. We do not have everything to run the hardware optimally. Whenever this is the case, performance suffers. If it is not running as originally intended because sources are missing to provide proper and full support, things are inefficient. Inefficiencies can lead to more power being used than is needed. That's all I was saying. You seem to be going out of your way to argue points I didn't even make, and not even graciously.
Edit>
Link for reading:
http://www.xda-developers.com/android/samsung-aware-of-exynos-documentation-issue/
slaphead20 said:
Without the exynos source the cm kernels can't take full advantage of exynos power saving features..... Simple.
On another note, I suggest you tone down your attitude, and apologise for calling rootSU childish, and don't treat this place like somewhere you can come to wind people up or I will personally introduce you to the moderators
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would just put him on ignore. It won't be the first time he's acting like an obnoxious know-it-all and it certainly won't be his last. For all his talk, I haven't seen him contribute anything remotely useful to any sort of development, just pointless ranting, raving and demanding.
I just got my note 3 pro and I really like the device and I have no problem with using MiUi, but I have considered to maybe put cm 13 or 14 on it. I have heard that the kernel that Xiaomi have released is old and outdated and never version of the note 3 might come into some problems. Is that true?
What about the camera on cm is it as good as on stock?
I've been using CM 13 from the moment I got this phone and it's the most stable rom for me. As for the camera, yes it is better than stock since it lets you record 720/1080p at @60 fps (even 4k at 20~fps), while the camera on MIUI is limited at 720/1080p, only at 30 fps. If you decide to flash official CM 13, you could try flashing Radon Kernel which probably has the most features so far ("double tap to wake" recently added!). Make sure you read the instructions first since this kernel is NOT compatible with every custom rom, but it will work for most of them.
jimakos98 said:
I've been using CM 13 from the moment I got this phone and it's the most stable rom for me. As for the camera, yes it is better than stock since it lets you record 720/1080p at @60 fps (even 4k at 20~fps), while the camera on MIUI is limited at 720/1080p, only at 30 fps. If you decide to flash official CM 13, you could try flashing Radon Kernel which probably has the most features so far ("double tap to wake" recently added!). Make sure you read the instructions first since this kernel is NOT compatible with every custom rom, but it will work for most of them.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What about flash. Is that working? In other phones when using cm the flash would come on to later or early making it impossible to use the camera in low light situations.
JollyDrifter said:
What about flash. Is that working? In other phones when using cm the flash would come on to later or early making it impossible to use the camera in low light situations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Works fine, but the camera on this phone is generally terrible in anything except direct sunlight anyway.
JollyDrifter said:
What about flash. Is that working? In other phones when using cm the flash would come on to later or early making it impossible to use the camera in low light situations.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
banana_bender said:
Works fine, but the camera on this phone is generally terrible in anything except direct sunlight anyway.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Flash works just fine, but as "banana_bender" mentioned, don't expect any decent results in low-light situations, especially for 60 fps recordings.
In terms of photo quality, I think MIUI camera performs better than CM and other custom rom camera's. It's the reason I'm still using MIUI.
I like the CM 13, but the sound quality. I too low.
I am curently on NOS and i tested RR too but both have very bad camera, even pixelated even after 1-2 levels of zoom.
Any recomandation ?
I dont want to revert to MIUI.
RootNightmareX said:
I am curently on NOS and i tested RR too but both have very bad camera, even pixelated even after 1-2 levels of zoom.
Any recomandation ?
I dont want to revert to MIUI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Try something CAF based like Citrus but that won't improve the camera much.
Unfortunately xiaomi.eu ROM and a custom launcher like Nova are the only way to go if you want a decent camera and good battery life.
And one last thing: Try LineageOS 13 based on Marshmallow by Gizmo. It is supposed to take better pictures than Nougat based ROMs
Noter2017 said:
Try something CAF based like Citrus but that won't improve the camera much.
Unfortunately xiaomi.eu ROM and a custom launcher like Nova are the only way to go if you want a decent camera and good battery life.
And one last thing: Try LineageOS 13 based on Marshmallow by Gizmo. It is supposed to take better pictures than Nougat based ROMs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So all nougat roms get very pixelated photos when zooming?
RootNightmareX said:
So all nougat roms get very pixelated photos when zooming?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The camera in custom ROMs based on Nougat is worse than in stock ROM, yes.
In Marshmallow based ROMs, the camera isn't that much worse but the images are still different than with stock. Someone posted photos here on the forum comparing stock and LineageOS 13 camera
Try N os now the camera is some what optimized now 21 St build
RootNightmareX said:
Any recommendation?
I dont want to revert to MIUI.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no point in comparing camera quality between different ROMs.
Historically the area where custom ROMs suffer the most in comparison to stock ROMs is image quality.
More or less the quality will be the same as the software remains the same, Snap camera, and all the ROMs use mostly the same sources for the same hardware.
The difference will be made by software image processing, which only MIUI can provide.
So if you want the best possible image quality from your sub 200$ phone, you have to use MIUI or be satisfied with the camera on your custom ROM.
arnavbatra said:
There's no point in comparing camera quality between different ROMs.
Historically the area where custom ROMs suffer the most in comparison to stock ROMs is image quality.
More or less the quality will be the same as the software remains the same, Snap camera, and all the ROMs use mostly the same sources for the same hardware.
The difference will be made by software image processing, which only MIUI can provide.
So if you want the best possible image quality from your sub 200$ phone, you have to use MIUI or be satisfied with the camera on your custom ROM.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I remeber that in february-march Nougat roms the image wasnt so pixelated thats why i was asking.