Related
Soon after I got my Evo I made a video recording on my way into my apartment. One of my neighbors cats was being very frisky in the window, it cracked me up so I made a recording. I think it may have been my first video recording.
I had it set to 640x480, mpeg4. This video is 29~30FPS and is as smooth as can be. There is lots of motion in the video and no flicker or choppiness whatsoever. After watching this video I was very pleased with the video performance.
I have not been able to make another video that comes in at much higher than ~10fps since then.
I did install Fresh 0.2. I've been figuring it must be a bug in that, but I've tried since tried Bugless Beast, Superersonic, rolled back to stock and God knows how many other roms trying to get this smooth video back. I can't get decent fps at ANY resolution.
I don't even particularly care for video functionality, but after seeing that this phone CAN do very impressively smooth video I was eager to use it for that. Needless to say I can't figure out how I did it or what I did to alter the performance.
What gives?
.-*boop*-.
I recorded a 720 video and it came out at 12 FPS!!! yikes.. not sure if thats normal or not?
I'm running Fresh 0.3, made a 10 minute 720P video of my dogs and it was able to capture at 24fps. My videos have been very good no matter which ROM I'm using.
daneurysm said:
Needless to say I can't figure out how I did it or what I did to alter the performance.
What gives?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Lighting can make a HUGE difference. In low light the Nexus (and probably Evo & other HTC Android's) have their lowest framerate set at 8fps in the kernel. Try shooting another video in the same location & conditions and see if you get similar speeds.
Geniusdog254 said:
Lighting can make a HUGE difference. In low light the Nexus (and probably Evo & other HTC Android's) have their lowest framerate set at 8fps in the kernel. Try shooting another video in the same location & conditions and see if you get similar speeds.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This probably explains my 12 fps as it was an indoor movie.
Thanks for the info.
I haven't actually installed the ROM myself yet on my HD2 (kinda happy at the moment with MDJ's 2.3 Gingerbread NAND ROM for now), and I know that the DFT WP7 ROM now finally enables true 720p (1280x720) video recording.
Can someone do a test recording of that functionality and post the video sample someplace so I can see what kind of quality it offers? Just a 30 second clip would be great, perhaps something shot out of a window in daylight, whatever, doesn't matter. Just want to see how the quality and performance of the video appears.
Drop a link here from wherever, maybe post the clip to MegaUpload or something (not YouTube, please, as they might re-encode it to another format/settings). I'm looking for a native recorded clip on the HD2 using the DFT WP7 ROM at 720p settings, that's all.
Thanks...
I know you mentioned no youtube.. but i don't know other way.. and megaupload has an error when I tried it.. but just to give you an idea. here is youtube link for 720p with HD2..
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5cv6bQ9FgA
Is it just me or is there a lot of noise interference in the background?
If you Zip or RAR the clip, MegaUpload or even MediaFire (faster) would accept it, but anything with the native .mp4 extension can be problematic as those sites try to treat the file as a streaming video.
I downloaded the YouTube one you posted, myowin, thanks. If anyone else has samples, go for it, I'm just trying to see what the HD2 is truly capable of so a variety of samples would be awesome to check out. This one posted above looks as expected - not "professional" level quality but then again we are talkin' about a smartphone with a tiny optical sensor in it.
It ain't perfect but at least finally we can do true 720p video recording on our HD2.
Always knew the hardware was capable...
As far as noise, the video itself looks as expected as I mentioned, and for audio noise, the mic is simply picking up whatever it can. It's pretty amazing when you do a recording in a room that you think is absolutely quiet and realize when you play the video back that there's a ton of background noise in it. Our subconscious minds filter out a lot of that background noise because it's always there, but when you listen to a recording, the brain knows it's not listening to the background noise anymore - instead, it's a recording of it and all that background crap just comes through loud and clear.
bbz_Ghost said:
Drop a link here from wherever, maybe post the clip to MegaUpload or something (not YouTube, please, as they might re-encode it to another format/settings).
Thanks...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you can download original file from youtube by using service savefrom.net.
tweakos said:
you can download original file from youtube by using service savefrom.net.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
bbz_Ghost said:
I downloaded the YouTube one you posted, myowin, thanks.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Guess you missed where I stated that, I can download direct from YouTube.
I tried mediafire and uploaded now.. here is the link..
http://www.mediafire.com/?6w4k4z6ts68a5s2
I hope this help..
for the noises in background.. I am surprised how much HD2 can pick up.. I mean not only playback volume is loud... recording volume is also very sensitive and loud.. maybe it's a good thing..
bbz_Ghost said:
If you Zip or RAR the clip, MegaUpload or even MediaFire (faster) would accept it, but anything with the native .mp4 extension can be problematic as those sites try to treat the file as a streaming video.
I downloaded the YouTube one you posted, myowin, thanks. If anyone else has samples, go for it, I'm just trying to see what the HD2 is truly capable of so a variety of samples would be awesome to check out. This one posted above looks as expected - not "professional" level quality but then again we are talkin' about a smartphone with a tiny optical sensor in it.
It ain't perfect but at least finally we can do true 720p video recording on our HD2.
Always knew the hardware was capable...
As far as noise, the video itself looks as expected as I mentioned, and for audio noise, the mic is simply picking up whatever it can. It's pretty amazing when you do a recording in a room that you think is absolutely quiet and realize when you play the video back that there's a ton of background noise in it. Our subconscious minds filter out a lot of that background noise because it's always there, but when you listen to a recording, the brain knows it's not listening to the background noise anymore - instead, it's a recording of it and all that background crap just comes through loud and clear.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
myowin said:
I tried mediafire and uploaded now.. here is the link..
http://www.mediafire.com/?6w4k4z6ts68a5s2
I hope this help..
for the noises in background.. I am surprised how much HD2 can pick up.. I mean not only playback volume is loud... recording volume is also very sensitive and loud.. maybe it's a good thing..
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yah, it is, and thanks for the proper upload. The YouTube version was re-encoded as I suspected and chopped - it's only 6.32MB and they cut the average bitrate down to only 2795 Kbps whereas the original video you just uploaded to MediaFire is 7911 Kbps for the average bitrate and it looks better because of it (while remaining the original 17.7MB in size also).
So I'm guessing the "average" bitrate done on the HD2 with WP7 is about 8 Mbps 720p and that's more than acceptable.
removed.
brolynchhung said:
Is it just me or is there a lot of noise interference in the background?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think he's just a heavy breather lol
at first, I was gonna say there's no 720p when I noticed my vids are all 480p
and after reading more topics, I found out that I must use English (US) not UK to enable 720p =.=
I thought WP7 camera is no better than iphone camera at first, but the features are actually hidden in US English versions...
I don't get it why they hide it there....
Btw, 720p is now 100% working and quality is brilliant!!!
Any hackers gonna port it to Android??
But 480p got a faster framerate than 720p
bountygiver said:
at first, I was gonna say there's no 720p when I noticed my vids are all 480p
and after reading more topics, I found out that I must use English (US) not UK to enable 720p =.=
I thought WP7 camera is no better than iphone camera at first, but the features are actually hidden in US English versions...
I don't get it why they hide it there....
Btw, 720p is now 100% working and quality is brilliant!!!
Any hackers gonna port it to Android??
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Interesting, still, pressing settings only seems to bring me flash options, photo or video, am I missing something??
How can i enable the 720p on Wp7? I just press "green" button on the phone and it beigns to record at 640x480... in the options not found anynthing about the resolution.
Thanks!!!
Ventu89 said:
How can i enable the 720p on Wp7? I just press "green" button on the phone and it beigns to record at 640x480... in the options not found anynthing about the resolution.
Thanks!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
go to the phone settings, under language, choose english us, then restart
Hi, i have a questin about 720p playback right on the phone.
i cant playback the recorded files in 720p on the phone.
it will only play files in lower resolution.
is this normal ?
I wondered why it only records with low settings xD It's a little bit tricky but ok ^^
No, that isn't beacuse of him. A couple of days ago I tried capturing a 720p video at work...After that I noticed that there was a much more louder than this guy's noise in the background and figured it out why...I was about 1meter from a PC and the noise was coming from it's fans. I don't know if this is good or bad but 720p for real ! )
°
aaam is it possible to play the recorded 720p files on the phone ?
i have a black screen and only here sound when i try to playback 720p recorded video.
I just made a video, though I don't have that noise in the background.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzAckfa8eww
EDIT :
@schlei
720p videos play fine here
Hello, you surely already know about the 120fps-Recording of the Note 3. [TAGS TO THIS THREAD: SlowMo|SloMo|Record|Video|Speed]
Like (almost) any other Slow-Motion-Camera, there's something, that really disappoints me!
What disappoints me:
If you record a Slow·Mothion-Video, then the Video will be saved as Slow Motion too!
-Better: Save in Original Speed and in the Player you can slow down - and choose if the Sound keeps the pitch-level while speed adjustment.
IF i record 4 seconds @ 120 Fps, then i want to get a 4sec. Video with 120·FPS.
and not a 16 seconds-video with 30 fps with lost sound.
What i'd like: Save in Original Speed and Includes Sound while Recording!
But even worse: If you get asked to edit the video after that - INFORMATION WILL BE THROWN AWAY!
Well... Xperia Z2 includes the Sound and the WHOLE Scene but the Slown-Down parts
The not-slown-down parts will be saved at normal framerate, so information gets lost.#
The Output file has 30 Fps.
„An Example“ said:
Here's one good example -
IF i record one hour Slow-Motion at 100 Frames per Second, then i don't want 4 Hours with 25 Frames-per-Second in the Output-File.
The outputfle must have Sound and 100 Frames per Second and must be 3600 seconds long in this example!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
But the manufacturers think, that all the people like the sucking method!
The sucking method example:
I record 10-Seconds in real-time at 480 fps.
Then the output file has a length of 2 Minutes and 40 Seconds with 30 fps.
Then the Output-File isn't in real time.
That does suck! This sucks!
I want output file with no information loss (full framerate) but at real time with REAL 480 fps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What you'd probably think right now:
Just play the Video at a higher speed in the Video Player!
My Answer:
Oh, i'm soo lucky, that 60 fps at real time is possible! With sound!
I simply want an output file without information loss.
Now what you'd think:
Well, that not-realtime-video which is slown down does have ALL Frames!
My answer - Well, yes... but then in the Video-Specs
What i'd simply wish:
If i record a Video (example: 00:00:10, 96 fps) then i want an output file with the SAME SPECIIFICATIONS.
What i don't want:
If i record a Video (00:00:00:10, 96fps) then i get a Video with a Length of 40 Seconds and 24 Frames per Second.!
NOW DON'T SAY:
„Why is slow-motion called SLOW-Motion?
Because you want to get a Video with SLOW-Motion!“
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Then my answer would(avtuallý ) be:
My Personal answer:„Well... ýes but this is what I want. And it is more pratique! The players display real-time-equivalent speeds (1.00x Playing Speed= Original RealTime-Equivalent Speed ) and a Higher Bitrate/REAL second would be maybe worse for devices with weaker processingPower but the filesize would be the same. (4x Higher bitrate but 4x shorter video. Why not 5x higher bitrate? Less detail-loss! (WooHooo!)) “
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Suprised this hasn't been mentioned before, this will be very useful.
@celderic: Thank you very much!
celderic said:
Suprised this hasn't been mentioned before, this will be very useful.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
THank you SOoooooooooo much for UnderStanding mee!
:d :laugh:
Read this post to avoid mistunderstandings...!
Now what you'd think:
Well, that not-realtime-video which is slown down does have ALL Frames!
My answer - Well, yes... but then in the Video-Specs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I Forgot to finish writing here!
Both Videos ([email protected]) and [email protected] both have ALL Frames.
But the RealTime-Equivalent Video with REAL 120 fps is simply better!
Well, it's got 4x higher bitrate but is also 4x shorter.
So the Quality will be approxmintly the same.
If you see a 50fps or 60fps Video (real time), then you'll see how awesome smoothly it is!
120fps at 720p ([email protected] 120/100fps for LUMIX FƵ1000, great!) has a little bit lower resuoloution but runs even more smoothly.
Which mode you choose depends on situration.
4k is for detailed moments if 24-30fps is smoot enough but 60fps for a little bit more movier moments...
120fps is useless because there's no sound and the output file is slown doen.
120fps would be useful in some sitouarations, if the output file would have a RealTime-Equivalen-Speed (1.00x Plaýback Speed ≜ 1x Realtime Speed) and also sound, in the Full Microphone-Quality of the device(can do.!).
Did you know... ?
In (the )most more Advanced Players (Windows and Android) you can slow down playing. 0.125x/12,5%/⅛ Playback speed are also ⅛ in REAL WORLD.
Hannah Stern said:
I Forgot to finish writing here!
Both Videos ([email protected]) and [email protected] both have ALL Frames.
But the RealTime-Equivalent Video with REAL 120 fps is simply better!
Well, it's got 4x higher bitrate but is also 4x shorter.
So the Quality will be approxmintly the same.
If you see a 50fps or 60fps Video (real time), then you'll see how awesome smoothly it is!
120fps at 720p ([email protected] 120/100fps for LUMIX FƵ1000, great!) has a little bit lower resuoloution but runs even more smoothly.
Which mode you choose depends on situration.
4k is for detailed moments if 24-30fps is smoot enough but 60fps for a little bit more movier moments...
120fps is useless because there's no sound and the output file is slown doen.
120fps would be useful in some sitouarations, if the output file would have a RealTime-Equivalen-Speed (1.00x Plaýback Speed ≜ 1x Realtime Speed) and also sound, in the Full Microphone-Quality of the device(can do.!).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
In the Sucking method:
4x or 8x Playback Speed= Original Speed in the Reality. And no sound. I hate that.
[Hide="Did you know - ?"]So did ýou know? : that you can slow down in more advanced players? And they show those REAL-TIME-EQUILEVANT speeds. 0,25x Playback Speed= 0.25x Real-Time-Eq. Speed! Better method!
And it's quite stupid to think, that everybody likes a slown-down output file - and even without sound (mutid). Muted sound=lost sound information in [umgebung] and 4x playback speed = 1x Speed in Real world? - „Oh no!“ But those manutfacturers think, that everybody likes it. What do you think of it? Simply post it![/HIDE]
So you just need to slow down inside of the player, to see all those small moves.
I find that(/this) better - ... ¡
TItle;: - Note 3 Camera - Slow Mothion Function - Original (real·time) Speed! -–-?
This is simply the [FONT="Courier New"[COLOR="Blue"]]the [/FONT]more
[/COLOR]pracctique waý! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! ·! - ·
What do YOU think is better?
How i'd like to have it or the way, the manufacturers do it?
You actually know, what i'd like tO0!
Is the method (that the Manufacturers use) [REALLÝ] BETTER?
...and WHAT is the Advantage of the method, that i don't like soo much for slow motion?
I don't think so- every player must have a Feature for Slow Down, Reverse Playback:laugh: and Ƶoom while Playing/Pause/Preview Frame. (Rotation is very Funny.)
And it must have a Feature to adjust sound mode at Speedup/Slow down! (Keep Original pitch or make it Lower/Higher at Slowdown/Speedup.)
And it may also would be a good idea to use te trick in the Média Players, which one the High-Advanced SmartTV's - „Calculating“ the Frame(s) between 2 Frames. (Works almost perfect for flowent running text ).
Hannah Stern said:
...and WHAT is the Advantage of the method, that i don't like soo much for slow motion?
I don't think so- every player must have a Feature for Slow Down, Reverse Playback:laugh: and Ƶoom while Playing/Pause/Preview Frame. (Rotation is very Funny.)
And it must have a Feature to adjust sound mode at Speedup/Slow down! (Keep Original pitch or make it Lower/Higher at Slowdown/Speedup.)
And it may also would be a good idea to use te trick in the Média Players, which one the High-Advanced SmartTV's - „Calculating“ the Frame(s) between 2 Frames. (Works almost perfect for flowent running text ).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
WooHooooooooooooo! :laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh::laugh: 256 Posts!!!!!
If the Slow Motion would be, like i described here, then making Slow Motion Videos would be a much bigger fun.
Example Videos:
Here is an example of what i 'd like.:
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testber...100-iii/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video05.MP4
XAVCS-Coding
With Audio
Real Time 100fps (eqilevant to sensor output.) ☺☻☺♦
But THAT'S what i don't want:
http://www.dkamera.de/media/testber...-fz1000/6_beispielaufnahmen/video/video04.MP4
No Audio
And not Real Time Slow motion. (Sensor: 100 fps, File: 25 fps, really Sucks)
One of the Most shocking things of GSMArena - (in my opinion)
Look here, at the end of the page: http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-apple-iphone-5s-is-not-actually-recording-720p-slo-mo-video/
What i want to talk about is not that with the 480p but...
GSMArena said:
The slow motion clips might look cool on your iPhone, but they look quite disappointing on a TV or a monitor. Which reminds us of our other disappointment about the feature – when we tried to play those iPhone 5s slo-mo videos on a PC we found that unlike all previous slow motion-capable smartphones, the iPhone 5s actually encodes the video at 120 fps and your computer will play it on 120fps unless you explicitly force it to slow the video four times in order to achieve the desired slow-motion effect. It would have been way more natural the iPhone 5s to process the frames and output a standard 30fps video as most of the phones do, which doesn’t require special players and tools to play properly.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't know before, that iPhones save with ORIGINAL FRAMERATE and SOUND.
But their opinion is, that the sucking method:laugh: is actually better!
I can actually also understand what they mean, but is there any other reason? ...for the sucking method of taking Slow-Motion Videos
For me it's actually not a disappointment - well done Apple! :laugh:
Im gégenteil - das finde ich toll!
I hope, that all (of) the other manufacturers do the same!
...Canon SX50hs and Sony RX100 :good: DMC-FZ1000 very good camera with [email protected] [Output file 30fps and muted sound ; ( :crying: ]
GSMAréÀ said:
Here’s hoping Apple fixes this promptly with an update – it certainly can’t be that hard.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Oh no PLEASE NOT!
the standard 30fps video as most of the other phones do
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's too bad.
I respect other opinions. But i prefer my described way to take Slow Motio Videos.
So all the best, and have a nice day!
Ok, Nice Feautre! :laugh:
You can download the original video here - 720p @ 120fps (8MB). You'll need a player capable of reducing the framerate to experience the slowdown, the video itself runs realtime.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This time, i'm really proud of Apple.
Plesae, learn something from here, other manufacturers that do it wrong.
.upscaling from 480p to 720p is still better than taking „SUCKING “ slow-motion videos.. <·
„Piche-Level“ [EXPLAINED]
Hannah Stern said:
Hello, you surely already know about the 120fps-Recording of the Note 3. [TAGS TO THIS THREAD: SlowMo|SloMo|Record|Video|Speed]
Almost every Slow-Motion Capable Device does the Same mistake.
What disappoints me:
If you record a Slow·Mothion-Video, then the Video will be saved as Slow Motion too!
►Better: Save in Original Speed and speed adjustment comes inside of the player
- and being able to choose if the Sound keeps the pitch-level while speed adjustment.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
and choose if the Sound keeps the pitch-level while speed adjustment ...inside of the Player.
Pitch-Level
2.0x Playback Speed - 2.0x or always keep x1.0 Pitch Level?
For example: VLC Always keeps x1.0, indipendant from Playback Speed. But MPC-HC► makes the Pitch-Level dependent from the Playback Speed (► x2.0 = ♫♪x2.0)
Pitch Level is Tone Height. aka Pitchbend.
AKA=Also Known As
Have a Nice day
Isssue 4ever
I can't really believe that the new Galaxy Notes alos have this issue.
No Sound and not Realtime.
...
Hrm...
Many manufacturers embarrass theirself by doing the same mistake but good the luck 1[email protected] with sound and realtime is possible.:laugh:
I can't believe that the FƵ1000 and the 255 HS also have that issue.
But the SX50 HS and the RX100/3 are completly free of this issue .
...also, the S5 (not the Note 4) are able to adjust the Playback-Speed in the player...
and... duh, forgot what.
Have a nice day
Links and Info
The Canon IXUS 256 HS would be actually nice - it IS nice. (And also low noise at high iso and full resolution iSO6k)
...but it has this again.
Look here, many people also want AUDIO on Slow Motion.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3,4,5
Link 6
One Advantage
If you want to see the Slow-Motion effect on a Friendly RT-Slow Motion (Output file is the Same as Sensor Records), you've got to slow down inside of the player to see the Slow-Motion effect. And also... not every player has this feature.
This is a big advantage of the Sucking Method but i think, that it's really the one and only advantage.
My New Thread
New Thread: http://forum.xda-developers.com/general/general/slow-motion-phones-device-how-to-imo-t2998500
If you want, you can still write here!
(With the word „Writing“, i meant „Posting“)
:laugh:
Why is this not available on the newest version of nexus line?
If you pick a other app, is then possible to record 1080p 60fps?
Send with the App Tapatalk
????
Send with the App Tapatalk
Hmmmm cant see anywhere the answer
Send with the App Tapatalk
Technically speaking the Snapdragon is capable of processing 1080 @ 120 FPS, however there may be either a hardware limit on the sub-processor of camera (haven't even looked if there was one). As far as I can see from the kernel source posted on AOSP there is a high media profile for [email protected] fps and [email protected], Theoretically you might be able to just create another entry in the profile to enable it.
Bump..
Send with the App Tapatalk
I'm very very interested to this discussion! The last nexus 6 was 100% capable of recording fullhd videos @60fps but Google disable that function and nobody know why, I was absolutely sure that in this nexus 6p that record mode would be present! There are no reason why it should be disabled, who cares if I can record a bird at 240fps (in slow motion), how many times somebody use this functions? One in a month?
How many instead make some (normal) videos? Maybe two/three times a week or even more and recording @ 60fps instead of 30fps is like day and night! Damn Google.
Why would you ever want to record 1080p videos @ 60fps? You would never be able to tell the difference from from 30fps. The human eye can only see about 42-45 fps. If you shoot a video at 60fps it is actually going to look unnatural. Most that shoot 60fps do so only because they intend to slow it down to 30fps in post production.
30fps is the standard and it is rare to shoot video at higher frame rates. In fact, shooting at 60fps would reduce your shutter speed requiring more light to get a quality video.
nonnasmyladie said:
Why would you ever want to record 1080p videos @ 60fps? You would never be able to tell the difference from from 30fps. The human eye can only see about 42-45 fps. If you shoot a video at 60fps it is actually going to look unnatural. Most that shoot 60fps do so only because they intend to slow it down to 30fps in post production.
30fps is the standard and it is rare to shoot video at higher frame rates. In fact, shooting at 60fps would reduce your shutter speed requiring more light to get a quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because 60fps looks a lot better - obviously.
I don't know how you, or anybody can even come close to thinking the 30 frames per second is OK when you have the option of 120 and 240.
Have you never seen a YT video with 60fps!? Yeah... You're blind if you can't see the difference. It makes no sense for Google to have those very high frame rate options but still not have 60 frames per second at 1080p.
Also, no, you are wrong about people slowing down 60 frames per second video. You would slow down 120 or 240, yes, but nobody in their right mind would use 60 frames per second down to 30 in today's world. You would just use the 60 frames per second video because it looks a lot smoother.
You sound very ignorant in your post. Nearly all of what you said is bull****.
nonnasmyladie said:
Why would you ever want to record 1080p videos @ 60fps? You would never be able to tell the difference from from 30fps. The human eye can only see about 42-45 fps. If you shoot a video at 60fps it is actually going to look unnatural. Most that shoot 60fps do so only because they intend to slow it down to 30fps in post production.
30fps is the standard and it is rare to shoot video at higher frame rates. In fact, shooting at 60fps would reduce your shutter speed requiring more light to get a quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't know about your source, but the human eyes are seeing the world at arround 2000fps.
PS: you can clearly see the difference between 30vs60 and you can see a little difference at 120fps
I think that poster is either a troll or a moron - or has been reading console forums (because anyone with half a brain knows that what they said is a complete lie)
Me thinks they didn't read before spewing garbage. Shame really...
marcoruzza said:
I'm very very interested to this discussion! The last nexus 6 was 100% capable of recording fullhd videos @60fps but Google disable that function and nobody know why, I was absolutely sure that in this nexus 6p that record mode would be present! There are no reason why it should be disabled, who cares if I can record a bird at 240fps (in slow motion), how many times somebody use this functions? One in a month?
How many instead make some (normal) videos? Maybe two/three times a week or even more and recording @ 60fps instead of 30fps is like day and night! Damn Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nonnasmyladie said:
Why would you ever want to record 1080p videos @ 60fps? You would never be able to tell the difference from from 30fps. The human eye can only see about 42-45 fps. If you shoot a video at 60fps it is actually going to look unnatural. Most that shoot 60fps do so only because they intend to slow it down to 30fps in post production.
30fps is the standard and it is rare to shoot video at higher frame rates. In fact, shooting at 60fps would reduce your shutter speed requiring more light to get a quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
iRub1Out said:
Because 60fps looks a lot better - obviously.
I don't know how you, or anybody can even come close to thinking the 30 frames per second is OK when you have the option of 120 and 240.
Have you never seen a YT video with 60fps!? Yeah... You're blind if you can't see the difference. It makes no sense for Google to have those very high frame rate options but still not have 60 frames per second at 1080p.
Also, no, you are wrong about people slowing down 60 frames per second video. You would slow down 120 or 240, yes, but nobody in their right mind would use 60 frames per second down to 30 in today's world. You would just use the 60 frames per second video because it looks a lot smoother.
You sound very ignorant in your post. Nearly all of what you said is bull****.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
warplane95 said:
I don't know about your source, but the human eyes are seeing the world at arround 2000fps.
PS: you can clearly see the difference between 30vs60 and you can see a little difference at 120fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
iRub1Out said:
I think that poster is either a troll or a moron - or has been reading console forums (because anyone with half a brain knows that what they said is a complete lie)
Me thinks they didn't read before spewing garbage. Shame really...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I can definitely say that I can see it. Between 30fps and 60fps. Soooo much smoother and crisp. If you look a sample on youtube. You only want 60 fps.
Send with the App Tapatalk
The human eye does not "view" at around 2000fps, it doesn't actually see in any fps while viewing the natural world. The human eye sees things live, as in ~fps. Those of us with good eyesight can definitely see the screen refresh on lower rates like 60fps. My TV is 1080p hd @ 50hz (which is not fps) & its gotten so painful to watch it, that I am considering a new TV. When you watch a 60fps video on a 50hz TV, the refresh rate & the frames of the video don't coincide & make the experience jumpy. 30fps looks better because the fps is slower than the refresh rate.
On our 2k phone screens however 30fps looks jumpy because the resolution is higher & our eyes are trying to view it in the same manner as we view the natural world.
iRub1Out said:
I think that poster is either a troll or a moron - or has been reading console forums (because anyone with half a brain knows that what they said is a complete lie)
Me thinks they didn't read before spewing garbage. Shame really...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I actually studied photography and film extensively in college as it was my major. It is true that 30fps is standard and 60fps would look awkward. There are some human eyes that notice changes up to 200fps but those are basically jet pilots, the exception not the rule. No human eye would be able to notice 2,000 fps. That is not possible. Lastly, set your camera to 240 fps and see how everything gets darker. That isn't a lie. It is a fact that high frame rates will result in darker, noiser videos because they require more light.
60 fps is not a good speed to shoot at. Especially in a sensor without IS. You will get more jitter in your video. I produce video for a living, as In it is my job and I do it daily. You dont EVER record in 60 fps unless you are capturing very fast action or are intending to slow it down. And when you record in 60 FPS, you always export it at 30 fps or 25 fps from Premier pro of Final cut, whatever you use.
All I know is that on my Note 4, I only record at 60fps 1080p and wow does it ever look better then anything I've ever recorded in 30fps.
Delete.
Photography and videography are not the same.
60fps is better than 30fps for any and all reason regardless of whatever you think you know - nobody agrees with you if they've seen 60fps video. It's day and night, and if you read anything from YT users, gamers, normal humans, they all say 60fps is better - in any scenario.
Back on point, however, still mind blown that this wasn't included with the camera.
I use Premier Pro and After Effects, and 60fps is my only export option - I wouldn't even consider lower unless it was SHOT lower, but never is. Look at my YT page. Nothing under 60fps once I had my hands on a camera capable of 60fps. I practice what I preach.
I would NEVER shoot 60 fps video with an intention to slow it down, that's stupid - that's what 120/240fps are for - those are to be slowed down.
60 fps is for normal viewing speed - anything higher is OK to slow down, but 60 down to 30 - no thanks. That's just a waste of good 60fps footage.
Any one tried snap camera on N6P yet? http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2055140
nonnasmyladie said:
Why would you ever want to record 1080p videos @ 60fps? You would never be able to tell the difference from from 30fps. The human eye can only see about 42-45 fps. If you shoot a video at 60fps it is actually going to look unnatural. Most that shoot 60fps do so only because they intend to slow it down to 30fps in post production.
30fps is the standard and it is rare to shoot video at higher frame rates. In fact, shooting at 60fps would reduce your shutter speed requiring more light to get a quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not , but I can tell you 100% that a human eye can see beyond whatever you have stated. I game on a 144hz monitor , and yes I could tell and feel the difference between 30/60/144.
Back on topic , I found it very weird already when the Galaxy s6/note 5 with the fast processor not being able to record in 240fps . Also , I've noticed slow motion inconsistencies regarding the 6p's 240fps , some youtube videos look buttery smooth , some looks like some slideshow. No idea what's causing this , any thoughts?
nonnasmyladie said:
I actually studied photography and film extensively in college as it was my major. It is true that 30fps is standard and 60fps would look awkward. There are some human eyes that notice changes up to 200fps but those are basically jet pilots, the exception not the rule. No human eye would be able to notice 2,000 fps. That is not possible. Lastly, set your camera to 240 fps and see how everything gets darker. That isn't a lie. It is a fact that high frame rates will result in darker, noiser videos because they require more light.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't assume what others would find awkward. Guessing a lot like it since Google allows those to see it on Youtube. Even besides that, you say you can't see it or its "awkward". Okay. Me and plenty of others like it and can see the difference. Videos are not dark looking when I record ALL my videos with my iPhone.
Sad to see Google didn't include this with this latest Nexus device.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-N910A using Tapatalk
This has been bugging the hell out of me since I got this phone. All the reviews made such a huge deal out of the phones camera quality and capabilities. But upon using it myself.. I am not all that impressed. When I record a video in say 1280x720, the resulting video always looks like it was recorded in say 800x450 or something along those lines. No matter what bitrate I choose, it looks like a lower resolution. You can't zoom the video hardly without it degrading. Go ahead, try zooming on some text in 720P. Now compare it to 720P on some other phone. Now, when I record in say 1920x1080, the resulting video looks like it was recorded in 720p, not 1080.
I have 720p videos I recorded from my Galaxy S4 that look FAR FAR better than so called 720p on the V20. It seems like the camera on the V20 is UPSCALING the video recording output to the next highest resolution than what is ACTUALLY being recorded. 720p appears as 480p, 1080p appears as 720p etc. As someone who is picky about quality, this has been a major blow since I got this phone. I am surprised no one has ever posted about this.
THE-COPS said:
This has been bugging the hell out of me since I got this phone. All the reviews made such a huge deal out of the phones camera quality and capabilities. But upon using it myself.. I am not all that impressed. When I record a video in say 1280x720, the resulting video always looks like it was recorded in say 800x450 or something along those lines. No matter what bitrate I choose, it looks like a lower resolution. You can't zoom the video hardly without it degrading. Go ahead, try zooming on some text in 720P. Now compare it to 720P on some other phone. Now, when I record in say 1920x1080, the resulting video looks like it was recorded in 720p, not 1080.
I have 720p videos I recorded from my Galaxy S4 that look FAR FAR better than so called 720p on the V20. It seems like the camera on the V20 is UPSCALING the video recording output to the next highest resolution than what is ACTUALLY being recorded. 720p appears as 480p, 1080p appears as 720p etc. As someone who is picky about quality, this has been a major blow since I got this phone. I am surprised no one has ever posted about this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Iv noticed it, but I brushed it off as I felt nothing could be done to fix by me or other devs that I am/was aware of. Now that I think if it more from your words, maybe could be fixed by overclocking the 4k to 6k, or 8k, to get a 4k resolution. Need root to try this though.
Well, at least I'm not the only one who noticed. Is it the same way on Oreo? I mean, did the update "fix" anything related to video recording resolution or is it still upscaled? (I'm still on 7.0 Nougat for battery reasons, but if 8.0 has a video improvement.. well, game changer). This seems like false advertising meant to try and push 4k capability when it really couldn't. If the camera really isn't capturing 4K, then does that mean it would be too much a burden on the hardware to actually be pulling 30 4k FPS ...VS 30 1080P FPS upscaled to 4K?
Are you talking about the quality on Google photos, or the out of camera quality?
have you tried exporting it to your computer via USB? Cos, for some reason the quality and resolution are lower on G Photos.
THE-COPS said:
Well, at least I'm not the only one who noticed. Is it the same way on Oreo? I mean, did the update "fix" anything related to video recording resolution or is it still upscaled? (I'm still on 7.0 Nougat for battery reasons, but if 8.0 has a video improvement.. well, game changer). This seems like false advertising meant to try and push 4k capability when it really couldn't. If the camera really isn't capturing 4K, then does that mean it would be too much a burden on the hardware to actually be pulling 30 4k FPS ...VS 30 1080P FPS upscaled to 4K?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't think a burden but more of how's it's coded. 4K on tripod is hard to tell vs 1080p. Note 3 was same way. Oreo cam may be better but I can't really tell. Idk why 16mp is not fully utilized for 4K 16:9 either. Coding that I personally don't know how to do. Slow mo don't even have sound via stock cam.
Lebatman said:
Are you talking about the quality on Google photos, or the out of camera quality?
have you tried exporting it to your computer via USB? Cos, for some reason the quality and resolution are lower on G Photos.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Camera output. That is, the resulting video file from the camera after pressing record button.
I know there is a loss of quality from compression. But it's not compression artifacts causing this. Bitrate doesn't make any difference. You can clearly see the video detail is not even close to what it says it is. I especially noticed this with text. I was recording a video while in a car. There was a car maybe 1-2 car lengths ahead. One can easily read the license plate. In the recorded 1280x720 video, I could NOT make out the plate at all. You'd thought I recorded in 960x540 or close. It's rather blurry. I think that's why LG added all that oversharpening.
I even set it to take photos at 1280x720. And even with high jpg compression zoomed/cropped, it doesn't look like the 1280x720 zoomed/cropped video of the same exact item being photo'd.
Been using Mark Harmons OpenCamera and trying all sorts of video bitrates. Then changing photo save resolution. I found that a photo resolution of between 960x540 and 800x480 (cropped) looks very similar to what a cropped 720P video appears. It seems as if there is some kind of preprocessing going on with the image that makes it appear extremely muddy (smudged blurry detail cropped). Nothing at all changed with the quality whether the bitrate was set at 5Mbps or 50Mbps. Quality remained unchanged.
Mysticblaze347. I don't think a burden but more of how's it's coded. 4K on tripod is hard to tell vs 1080p. Note 3 was same way. Oreo cam may be better but I can't really tell. Idk why 16mp is not fully utilized for 4K 16:9 either. Coding that I personally don't know how to do. Slow mo don't even have sound via stock cam.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Sounds like Oreo update isn't worth the trouble. As far as how it's coded... I think it's the awful preprocessing muddying up the image detail as I mentioned above. Using massively high bitrates does no good at all.
4K on tripod VS 1080 on tripod is quite noticeable on the V20 due to the appearance of upscaling (or horrible preprocessing.. whichever it is).
I didn't know Slo-Mo was supposed to have sound. I mean, the option to enable sound would be interesting (say a time-stretched audio instead of slowed down pitch).
THE-COPS said:
Camera output. That is, the resulting video file from the camera after pressing record button.
I know there is a loss of quality from compression. But it's not compression artifacts causing this. Bitrate doesn't make any difference. You can clearly see the video detail is not even close to what it says it is. I especially noticed this with text. I was recording a video while in a car. There was a car maybe 1-2 car lengths ahead. One can easily read the license plate. In the recorded 1280x720 video, I could NOT make out the plate at all. You'd thought I recorded in 960x540 or close. It's rather blurry. I think that's why LG added all that oversharpening.
I even set it to take photos at 1280x720. And even with high jpg compression zoomed/cropped, it doesn't look like the 1280x720 zoomed/cropped video of the same exact item being photo'd.
Been using Mark Harmons OpenCamera and trying all sorts of video bitrates. Then changing photo save resolution. I found that a photo resolution of between 960x540 and 800x480 (cropped) looks very similar to what a cropped 720P video appears. It seems as if there is some kind of preprocessing going on with the image that makes it appear extremely muddy (smudged blurry detail cropped). Nothing at all changed with the quality whether the bitrate was set at 5Mbps or 50Mbps. Quality remained unchanged.
Sounds like Oreo update isn't worth the trouble. As far as how it's coded... I think it's the awful preprocessing muddying up the image detail as I mentioned above. Using massively high bitrates does no good at all.
4K on tripod VS 1080 on tripod is quite noticeable on the V20 due to the appearance of upscaling (or horrible preprocessing.. whichever it is).
I didn't know Slo-Mo was supposed to have sound. I mean, the option to enable sound would be interesting (say a time-stretched audio instead of slowed down pitch).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Who wouldn't want sound with slow mo? That's like no sound with regular video lol.
LG also made it to where 4k can barely be done via third party. Gcam can't...Open Cam can. Nothing can be done without root tho. Even then... limitations upon availability and know how. Manual setting is your best bet. Auto is well...auto, so definitely postprocessing will be involved and yes it's not the best, unless fixed with some mod, even if that works. LG hardcoded lockdowns. Camera firmware can be possible tweaked...but I do not know how.