Hi I currently have a Sony Z2 and HTC One M8, thinking of upgrading the Z2 to something better like the G3 or new S5 advance but I only have two questions that G3 reviews did not answer and they are:
1. How is the 1080P playback on the QHD display of G3. "The reason is that most steaming sites do 1080p and the ones than do 1440p are either of sub par quality or of a processed type. A call to one of the streaming sites confirms the same they have two video sources FHD and UHD there are no QHD sources"
2. How long does the 4K recording last? "My Z2 records 4K only up till 5Min which is crap and a complete joke had I known this limitation would have chosen something else, the 1080p recording is worse to HTC One M8 performance that is a slap on its face"
1. that review uttered a total nonsense any screen can playback whatever kind of res a video have as long as the hardware and software are up for the job, it's more depending on the source file itself.
nap007 said:
1. that review uttered a total nonsense any screen can playback whatever kind of res a video have as long as the hardware and software are up for the job, it's more depending on the source file itself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its not that if G3 can playback 1080p its more of that how does 1080p look on a QHD screen. For example I have a Dell U2713HM with a 2560x1440 WQHD resolution but when I play a 1080p movie the quality looks less than on a Dell S2740L because the source and screen both are 1080p.
nonsense there is too many 720p contents on the web that still looks fine even on a QHD monitor...
Title. Thinking of buying the phone but I was wondering why run 1080p at normal usage when they can do 1440p? Don't they the same aspect ratio? Does any of you think it's possible to sort of change the normal screen resolution to 1440p?
LeParkour012 said:
Title. Thinking of buying the phone but I was wondering why run 1080p at normal usage when they can do 1440p? Don't they the same aspect ratio? Does any of you think it's possible to sort of change the normal screen resolution to 1440p?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
My guess would be performance and it may be easier for the upscaler if it's a 2:1 ratio
The Nexus 6p has no problems running 1440p on a s810 snap dragon, bench mark tests beats the Sony Z5P consistently.
Mostly because it makes no difference in the user experience, but makes the SoC constantly process a lot more pixels which would contribute to the heating issues and shorten battery life.
This 4K thing is purely for brag, and Sony knows it. Wait until mobile VR grows bigger and there will be all kinds of resolution mods then, when it matters.
For now, even if you got short hands and the phone screen is ~20cm from your eyes, you cant tell the difference with a 20/20 vision.( tested )
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
rcobourn said:
It's also got to be able to do VR without going nuclear. It's hot enough in those goggles without the phone feeling like the surface of the sun.
Sent from my SM-G935T using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I would agree. Actually made me sick.
Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Belimawr said:
considering none of the VR headsets even matched the res of the Note I don't see 4k as being needed, the problem came from the low refresh rate of the screen as it is far more important.
if you want a better VR experience you should be asking for at least a 90hz screen (matching the dedicated headsets) or higher. also the higher the res the lower the frame rate and the lower the refresh rate will be to compensate for the lower frame rates leading to far more tearing and the same horrid lined effect the note had in the gearVR.
so yep had a taste of VR but on phones it is largely hampered by screens designed to save battery life, increasing screen res is just the go to assumption most people make, when the dedicated head sets run at a lower screen res but higher refresh rate giving better quality.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Oyeve said:
What are you talking about? You know the lens on the gear VR is just a lens right? There is no "resolution" to speak of. A 4k screen on a smartphone would definitely improve viewing on the gear vr. 2x in fact.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree. 2k is simply not enough. 4k is not enough either, but it would be a bit better. I think we are really going to need about 4k per eye in order for it to become truly fantastic. Maybe 8k per eye. So we are talking something like 7680x4320 or even 15360x4320. I doubt that smartphones are going to be the vehicle to deliver this in future.
But for now, 4k would be nice.
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
nomailx said:
Alright guys, here's the deal. The Note 7 was an awesome phone, i had to give it back, not cool, etc...
But now that I've seen what GearVR is, and more importantly, what it COULD be with a 4k Resolution, (without the screen-door effect), a Non-4k Note is a deal breaker for me.
If Samsung doesn't deliver 4k, I will get the next phone with a 4k Screen, (not the old Sony one but a new one which supports Daydream).
What's your take on this?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I honestly hope it is years before they even think about a 4K screen. Our processors can barely push 2K at this point and battery life is pretty terrible currently compared to 1080p phones such as the iPhone 7. It's not worth it for such a niche feature. I mean, the Rift and Vive are not even at that resolution because desktop PCs can barely push it.
Belimawr said:
the dedicated and phone headsets are identical in principle, they both place OLED screens and the gubbings behind a lense, the only difference is in a dedicated headset you can't remove the screen and other bits.
however the Oculus Rift and Vive both have better picture quality than the phone alternatives, both are only running 2 screens that give a combined screen res similar to a 1080 screen, the difference comes in the refresh rate, the Rift and Vive both run at 90hz+ meaning they can push out smoother images and have less chance of having artifacting and interlacing problems, something the phones have by the bucket load, move fast with a phone and you will see lines miss match all over the image, going to 4K or above wouldn't fix this problem if anything it would be likely to make it worse as there is less chance you would even achieve 60fps leading to even more stutter and artifacting, the 90fps+ of the dedicated headsets still isn't perfect but it's a million times better on smoothness and artifacting, this is because if you want a better picture in VR frame rate and refresh rates are far more important than the screen res as even under a lense the PPI on the likes of the Pixel and Note 7 is still that high it is of little consequence, it's the reason the dedicated headsets went with a lower screen res in favour of refresh rates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sure that's all true, but in any event, with a phone with a 2k screen the pixel density is not high enough and it won't be at 4k either. With 2k each eye is getting an image something like 1,000 pixels across (the two VR windows don't use the full screen width, so less than half of 2560 each), which for a virtual image which is bigger than even the very biggest TV screens (100"+) this is not enough pixels and the image is visibly (very badly) pixellated.
I am sure refresh rate matters too, but we really need very high pixel density and fast refresh (and low latency and wide viewing angles) for what in the end will be "perfect" VR.
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Belimawr said:
the HTC Vive has a better picture each eye has a screen at 1080x1200 giving a total resolution of 2160x1200.
the Note 7 has 2560x1440 meaning each eye is getting 1280x1440.
so the Note 7 is a noticeably higher screen res than the dedicated VR headsets, the dedicated headsets however give a better picture, both use OLED screens, the Note 7 has a higher screen res, but the Vive has a refresh rate of 90hz, most phones are lucky if they do 60hz quite often it is considerably lower to save on battery, so by your logic the Note 7 with it's higher screen res would be noticeably better quality than the Vive, however the Vive is noticeably better than the Note on picture quality and that is purely due to the refresh rate difference as it gives a smoother image and also stops nearly all the delacing issues the Note and other phones have despite being considerably higher screen res.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
For gaming, I agree that the Note 8 with a 4k Screen won't be much Help. But I never really enjoyed VR for gaming, it's more like a "side fun activity". But to watch video content, a 4K Display Note with an 10nm processor would be more than enough to remove the screen door effect, and give the ability to watch awesome 180/360 content, and 3D movies on a huge VR theatre.
May I remind you that VR for gaming is failing generally right now. But for some shady reason VR for videos is not... (go figure... xD )
notefreak said:
Yes. If Samsung doesn't announce Note8 soon, I might go with sony xperia new phone, whose name I still keep forgetting. To be anounced at MWC and with 4k screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It's the Sony Xperia Yoshino!
Any word on the s9+ model recording HDR 10 bit color space at 4K 24fps?
24fps = pleb framerate
Expect [email protected], possibly with 10-bit. Both the Snapdragon 845 and Exynos 9810 support 10-bit [email protected] (120fps for the Exynos), but it's up to Samsung to enable it, and it's also up to the camera sensor to support it.
Since there is no consumer screen on the market that fully supports 10bit colors i highly doubt that well be able to record in 10bit...
the hdr thing nowadays is a big marketing thing, the colors are mostly achieved by high brightness and boostes saturation/contrast instead of true 10bit colors
at my uni we had a screen that supported nearly 10bit, it costs 1000€ per inch... i can tell you there is a huge difference between samsung hpone screens and a 30.000€ hdr screen
LG v30 records 10 bit color space.
LG v30 records 10 bit color space. It is true. If s9 does not record 10 bit color space and hdr then it is what it is not because screens cant support it or anything else...it would be because they choose not to.
0alfred0 said:
Since the are is no consumer screen on the market that fully supports 10bit colors i highly doubt that well be able to record in 10bit...
the hdr thing nowadays is a big marketing thing, the colors are mostly achieved by high brightness and boostes saturation/contrast instead of true 10bit colors
at my uni we had a screen that supported nearly 10bit, it costs 1000€ per inch... i can tell you there is a huge difference between samsung hpone screens and a 30.000€ hdr screen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
really? i Like the HDR on S8+
gtaelbordo said:
really? i Like the HDR on S8+
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know, I am not saying samsung and other phones have bad screens, but calling the "high brightness and overly saturated mode" hdr is just marketing...
Once you read about what UHD means, you will understand that we are years from true UHD.
Also HDR has so many requirements that are not matched in today's screens.
Anyway: the "HDR" mode on our phones makes the best of our screens. 10bit colors is not something that one can be achieved easily, the screens might be able to display more than 8bit but it highly depends on the manufacturer and it is not close to 10bit (btw 10bit color depth for each color: red green and blue means 4 times as many colors... Don't let the "2bit difference" fool you.)
Since Samsung makes best screens, I think they are the way to go. But don't let them fool you guys, in 5 years we will laugh about what we called HDR in 2018.
0alfred0 said:
I know, I am not saying samsung and other phones have bad screens, but calling the "high brightness and overly saturated mode" hdr is just marketing...
Once you read about what UHD means, you will understand that we are years from true UHD.
Also HDR has so many requirements that are not matched in today's screens.
Anyway: the "HDR" mode on our phones makes the best of our screens. 10bit colors is not something that one can be achieved easily, the screens might be able to display more than 8bit but it highly depends on the manufacturer and it is not close to 10bit (btw 10bit color depth for each color: red green and blue means 4 times as many colors... Don't let the "2bit difference" fool you.)
Since Samsung makes best screens, I think they are the way to go. But don't let them fool you guys, in 5 years we will laugh about what we called HDR in 2018.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
i now its just marketing with all these hdr tv's... and i know uhd is no real UHD.
hm okay i want buy an TV but no idea which one.. all are fake hdr and doenst have a 10bit panel.. Poor customers who get fooled
gtaelbordo said:
i now its just marketing with all these hdr tv's... and i know uhd is no real UHD.
hm okay i want buy an TV but no idea which one.. all are fake hdr and doenst have a 10bit panel.. Poor customers who get fooled
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Whoa, there guys. Remember that bit depth and color space are different things, and while they overlap bit depth is not how screens and media are calibrated. Also, wide color gamut (WCG) and HDR are COMPLETELY different things; some refer to WCG as "HDR color", and HDR as "HDR brightness" which is why there is so much confusion. Don't cross your streams when talking about these things.
Most PANELS are aimed at SRGB (most phones, 1080p TVs and computer monitors) or DCI-P3 (high-end phones, OLED/Quantum Dot TVs, professional montors). However, most IMAGE PROCESSORS (GPUs, TV processors, monitor drivers) push out whatever the panel is capable of if configured properly. That means even your basic entry-level TVs (say, a Vizio E-series) that is capable of displaying ~80% of DCI-P3 (or 55% of rec.2020/full 10-bit) is still going to be FAR better than your best 1080p TV, gaming monitor or non-flagship phone that is only capable of 65% DCI-P3 or 50% of 10-bit (remember than 10 bit is BILLIONS of colors and 5% of a billion is 50 MILLION more colors). That extra color depth is used by the image processor to do smoother color gradients so every bit helps. Also remember that even if your camera is capable of full 10-bit (hint: it almost certainly isn't), you are going to be mastering that content on a screen that is only capable of displaying less than 80% of the colors the images contain. in fact, most 4k BD movies (the best quality content generally available) are mastered to rec.709 (effectively the same bit depth as DCI-P3) so even if your TV could do more than 80% of 10-bit, it would just end up not using the extra color information or using an algorithm to upscale it.
So I just bought a Samsung A50 and I'm moving from the galaxy A8 2018. One of thr downsides of that phone was its camera. Has the A50 improved on this? Slightly disappointed that there's only. 1080p @ 30fps
You can use most 3rd party apps to capture at 2160p30. Even though the Samsung camera app can only do 1080p30, it's pretty decent quality! I used to only shoot 4K on my Nokia 7 plus, but the A50's 1080p is good enough for me to use it all the time.
That still doesn't explain why they did not use the full capabilities of the chipset though, it can support up to 4K @ 120fps according to Samsung's product page for the Exynos 9610. And also, I think a camera with this sensor and lens size should perform much better than it actually does on this phone. I did get a few nice pictures, but the conditions really has to be optimal. Here is an example. The one with less dynamic range is a 25MP shot, while the other is 12.2MP : https://photos.app.goo.gl/M64sXVgjW79wzhYc7