Related
I have been doing a loong research on the web without luck about this. This device has a good processor for gaming,
but the god damned screen resolution screws everything up having to scale the 320x240 graphics to 640x480.
It's not only the work of having to double every pixel on screen, but also to redraw 4 times the ammount of pixels that it was meant to.
The pixel rendering rate of this graphics chip can't handle 640x480 since it has no hardware acceleration for such a task.
I keep finding that Real VGA, 96DPI, 128DPI crap arround wich doesnt actually do anything but change the sizes of the fonts/enviroment
while rettaining the same 640x480 resolution.
I'm no developer, so im sending an s.o.s. call to any dev, technician or whoever with the knowlegde to tell me if there is a possible way
to switch the video resolution to REAL 320x240 or if its possible to hack this device video driver to use 320x240 instead of 640x480.
Thanks in advance for reading.
I just realiced that maybe there is no need to modify any drivers at all, since i believe this device ati graphics chip is used on other devices running at 320x240 from htc aswell. Can someone verify this please?.
Even if it was possible, real 320x240 would physically cover 320x240 px on your device and therefore leave the better area of the screen unused. I doubt that it is possible to output QVGA and stretch it to match the screen and I dare not even think about how crappy that would look... Apart from games everything runs nice and fast and the Universal is quite responsive. Videos can be played back just fine in 320x240 and run perfectly with a decent player. Which apps are causing trouble for you?
Im having a hard time with high requirement games, like Legacy 2, Raging thunder,XIII zeal, Ancient evil, *.swf flash files... not to mention demoscene intros for ppc.
About the 320x240 output, probably the lcd panel can scale it to 640x480 with its hardware just like a regular tft monitor. It wouldnt look bad at all, remember how games look. Yeah you can actually see the the pixels with pixel doubling, but even with pixel doubling it still looks good enough since the screen size isn't that big to have such a huge impact.
I still believe that if this is possible it's worth a try, atleast for users that use this device for entertainment and gaming.
From what i understand the nexus shoots video in dvd like quality but can playback in hd 720p. Does the nexus have the best resolution, video recording, and video playback(without researching I feel sure the 5 megapixel camera is easily outdone by other phones) on a u.s. mobile phone? Also, what are the different types of screens and how does amoled compare and why? If nexus isnt the ultimate then what's the brand and specs of a better one? And is it true thy ota's can actually improve visuals on a phone ie making the camera and recorder look better (this isnt a complaint I'm thorough impressed with the nexus visually ) i guess im basically asking for a clinic in mobile phone screens with comparisons to the stunning nexus one.Thanks
The Nexus One is the only WVGA AMOLED on the market *that I can think of* right now. However, the Droid's screen resolution is more suited for 16:9 video playback. 854/480 ~ 16/9 while 800/480 does not. The Nexus One has a better camera, though.
I noticed on an ipod touch 4, that the quality was HD.
I wonder why the the quality on the Android devices play in HQ.
Side by side, makes me cry to see what I am lacking.
Just odd Google's major product plays better on a non-Google device.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
I haven't used YoutTube App much BUT is there a point of playing it at higher quality?
480p = 640 x 480
480p = 704 x 480
our screens = 800 x 480
The benefit we get from 720p -> 480p is fairly minimum as you can see :/
Kinda making this up, but it might be because of the higher resolution display that the iphone and itouch have.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
yea the iphone 4 and ipod touch 4 does have a higher resolution
But when you're watching on a 4" screen does it really matter? Not trying to watch a movie off Youtube after all.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
gTen said:
I haven't used YoutTube App much BUT is there a point of playing it at higher quality?
480p = 640 x 480
480p = 704 x 480
our screens = 800 x 480
The benefit we get from 720p -> 480p is fairly minimum as you can see :/
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
que? are those resolutions the old crappy TV lines that werent really even 480i?
480p= 720x480
720p ( i assume you meant) = 1280x720
So if our phones are 800x480, 480p would be a better image than a scaled 720p, I seriously doubt our phones have the scalers of most modern TVs or Monitors. Native resolution is pretty much always better. (the widescreen images being letterboxed 480p like out of a dvd player).
Yeah they have amazing, almost unnecessary resolution for a 3.5" screen. Great for text readability, but so is SAMOLED
So anyways, if a 960x640 (apple) device is actually defaulting to scaling 720p down, theyre actually shooting themselves in the foot... unless their scaler is a faroudja... but with iOS its all about status, so having that little indicator on the screen say HD, even though the device falls a bit short of actually delivering, and degrading the image by scaling when it is not necessary on such a small device (any phone), it just makes us look better . Wow, im used to having these discussions relating to CRT projectors, not phones So yeah, stick to native resolution or smaller.
That said, if our TV out option worked, then 720p or whatever the best output is would be a good default, if that option were plugged in.
ungovernable1977 said:
que? are those resolutions the old crappy TV lines that werent really even 480i?
480p= 720x480
720p ( i assume you meant) = 1280x720
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I meant what I meant but I forgot one 720 x 480..there are multiple standards for 480p based on the sample such as4:3 (640x480)..
ungovernable1977 said:
que? are those resolutions the old crappy TV lines that werent really even 480i?
480p= 720x480
720p ( i assume you meant) = 1280x720
So if our phones are 800x480, 480p would be a better image than a scaled 720p, I seriously doubt our phones have the scalers of most modern TVs or Monitors. Native resolution is pretty much always better. (the widescreen images being letterboxed 480p like out of a dvd player).
Yeah they have amazing, almost unnecessary resolution for a 3.5" screen. Great for text readability, but so is SAMOLED
So anyways, if a 960x640 (apple) device is actually defaulting to scaling 720p down, theyre actually shooting themselves in the foot... unless their scaler is a faroudja... but with iOS its all about status, so having that little indicator on the screen say HD, even though the device falls a bit short of actually delivering, and degrading the image by scaling when it is not necessary on such a small device (any phone), it just makes us look better . Wow, im used to having these discussions relating to CRT projectors, not phones So yeah, stick to native resolution or smaller.
That said, if our TV out option worked, then 720p or whatever the best output is would be a good default, if that option were plugged in.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Regardless of the quality the iphone degrades, it still looks better...that's what he meant lol so if it looks better with a scaled down 720p, imagine regular 720p
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
I am not talking about the resolution of the screen. I realize the iphone/ipod have higher res than our phones, and that relates to the sharpness. But I am talking about the actual content quality is actually much higher definition, as it takes longer to buffer because of this aswell. I know the Android app is better overall vs IOS version.
I watch alot of HD [HQ on our phones] of car videos and such, and yes it bothers me that it is not the best it can.
Not anything worth whining about Would be cool if we had [3g/mobile] [HQ] and [HD] options.
This is XDA, maybe we can hack it lol
*Thanks for all the replies by the way
Duh, been too long since I dealt with SD... you are correct.
But as far as 'looks good', its subjective, and looking at my friends touch, I really dont think video is even close... text is awesome... but theres too many factors, such as were you using youtube apps, or the actual site? Really though, I guess it boils down that you really prefer resolution over color, clarity, etc of the samoleds.... But everyone has their preference, I still prefer my Barco 808s projector running 720p CRT at 120" over most 1080p TVs... But to be fair most TVs are crap...
hayabusa1300cc said:
I am not talking about the resolution of the screen. I realize the iphone/ipod have higher res than our phones, and that relates to the sharpness. But I am talking about the actual content quality is actually much higher definition, as it takes longer to buffer because of this aswell. I know the Android app is better overall vs IOS version.
I watch alot of HD [HQ on our phones] of car videos and such, and yes it bothers me that it is not the best it can.
Not anything worth whining about Would be cool if we had [3g/mobile] [HQ] and [HD] options.
This is XDA, maybe we can hack it lol
*Thanks for all the replies by the way
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah I noticed that too,compared even to my old iphone 3gs I just watch youtube videos using Dolphin Hd browser with AdobeAir flash installed,quality is definetly better than on YouTube app.
What I'm more concerned with now is actually watching a youtube video and not watching 3 seconds of it, it skipping, and then having to start over because it fails to load completely
The old youtube app was horrible and would always do that but the new one has been awesome so far.
Yea that's true, the new is way better for reliability lol
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
download a program called tubemate from the market. its free.
when you use this app, you browse it just like you would youtube , but when you watch a video you have 2 options. watch or download. when you watch it steams in poor quality, however if you download you can play it back in HD. its pretty cool. you can even download 720p ( on 4g its pretty quick)
I recently did some testing. I encoded 2 of the exact same videos at h264 AVC .mp4 video files. Both at 2,000kbps video bitrate. The hd2 was at 800x480 with a 5:3 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I do realize that the reduced resolution is easier on the hardware but doesn't use much more cpu. I will do another test at a more universal resolution like say 720x480 for both devices to test again. The atrix was at 960x540 with a 16:9 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I then played back both videos on both devices in Vital Player Pro in software decoding. I set the clock to 750Mhz on the atrix and it was unable to playback smoothly. I had to increase to roughly 800Mhz to barely playback smoothly. For flawless playback, I needed 900Mhz+ on the atrix. With the hd2 on the other hand I first set the clock to 576Mhz and it was very choppy. So i increased it until it could playback smoothly. I raised it to 652Mhz and was able to playback flawlessly. I'm losing a lot of respect for the atrix with it not being able to decode without raising the cpu way up. It's a dual core but it's likely the OS and the application can't utilize the additional thread. This however shows that when running on one thread, the HTC HD2's cpu is much more powerful while software decoding video under vital player. I suppose once the roms and kernel's get more perfected, I suppose the Atrix will perform better. The down side is that's not going to happen for some time.
Your thoughts would be highly appreciated.
ATRIX @ EternityProject kernel, android 2.3.4, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1210Mhz
HTC HD2 @ Rafpigna's 2.0, android 2.3.3, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1536Mhz
1chris89 said:
I recently did some testing. I encoded 2 of the exact same videos at h264 AVC .mp4 video files. Both at 2,000kbps video bitrate. The hd2 was at 800x480 with a 5:3 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I do realize that the reduced resolution is easier on the hardware but doesn't use much more cpu. I will do another test at a more universal resolution like say 720x480 for both devices to test again. The atrix was at 960x540 with a 16:9 pan and scan at 23.97fps. I then played back both videos on both devices in Vital Player Pro in software decoding. I set the clock to 750Mhz on the atrix and it was unable to playback smoothly. I had to increase to roughly 800Mhz to barely playback smoothly. For flawless playback, I needed 900Mhz+ on the atrix. With the hd2 on the other hand I first set the clock to 576Mhz and it was very choppy. So i increased it until it could playback smoothly. I raised it to 652Mhz and was able to playback flawlessly. I'm losing a lot of respect for the atrix with it not being able to decode without raising the cpu way up. It's a dual core but it's likely the OS and the application can't utilize the additional thread. This however shows that when running on one thread, the HTC HD2's cpu is much more powerful while software decoding video under vital player. I suppose once the roms and kernel's get more perfected, I suppose the Atrix will perform better. The down side is that's not going to happen for some time.
Your thoughts would be highly appreciated.
ATRIX @ EternityProject kernel, android 2.3.4, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1210Mhz
HTC HD2 @ Rafpigna's 2.0, android 2.3.3, stock
- Maximum Available frequency @ 1536Mhz
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What rom were you using to test this? If its a blur based rom, that would explain it.
4.5.91.MB860.ATT.en.us
------------------------
Android 3.0
------------------------
ATR-HoneyComb1.2-IX
Both phones were running Launcher Pro Plus with identical configurations. The htc hd2 however was running a CM7 rom. Both phones have a 384M VM Heap from within build.prop. The HTC HD2 @ 240 lcd density. The atrix @ 285 lcd density.
1chris89 said:
4.5.91.MB860.ATT.en.us
------------------------
Android 3.0
------------------------
ATR-HoneyComb1.2-IX
Both phones were running Launcher Pro Plus with identical configurations. The htc hd2 however was running a CM7 rom. Both phones have a 384M VM Heap from within build.prop. The HTC HD2 @ 240 lcd density. The atrix @ 285 lcd density.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's your problem. Even with an alternate launcher, Motoblur is still running on the Atrix. CM7 also has a repuation for running faster than stock firmwares. If you want a fair comparison, you'd need to run CM7 on the Atrix.
I'm not trying to dispute what your saying, it certainly is plausible that a non-dual core optimized application would perform better on a single core device. Motoblur has a reputation for being quite bloated, so you just have to take it into consideration.
Jotokun said:
There's your problem. Even with an alternate launcher, Motoblur is still running on the Atrix. CM7 also has a repuation for running faster than stock firmwares. If you want a fair comparison, you'd need to run CM7 on the Atrix.
I'm not trying to dispute what your saying, it certainly is plausible that a non-dual core optimized application would perform better on a single core device. Motoblur has a reputation for being quite bloated, so you just have to take it into consideration.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Cool, sounds good. I'll rerun the test with cm7 beta on the atrix with the new cm7 oc kernel. I'll make sure the vm heap is at 384m just like the htc hd2. I may have to add it manually to the build.prop. If i'm not mistaken, it's missing in the cm7 beta.
Cool
nstalled cm7 and eternityproject kernel for 1100mhz. Same result. Couldn't maintain stable playback until 912Mhz. I'll reconvert the video into a universal 720x480 one at a 16:9 pan and scan and the other at a 5:3 pan and scan. I may even do a universal standard video to just compare the two devices.
1chris89 said:
nstalled cm7 and eternityproject kernel for 1100mhz. Same result. Couldn't maintain stable playback until 912Mhz. I'll reconvert the video into a universal 720x480 one at a 16:9 pan and scan and the other at a 5:3 pan and scan. I may even do a universal standard video to just compare the two devices.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Makes me wonder why it needs to be up that high to run on the Atrix. I'm sure if the video player were set up to use both cores it'd be better, but its still kind of surprising just how much extra speed it needs to run comparably.
The atrix has 35% more pixels than the other. So if the clock needs to be 35% higher, that seems reasonable. I doubt the app is dualcore optimized
Sent from my Motorola Atrix 4G MB860 using Tapatalk
Magnetox said:
The atrix has 35% more pixels than the other. So if the clock needs to be 35% higher, that seems reasonable. I doubt the app is dualcore optimized
Sent from my Motorola Atrix 4G MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With the 35% increase in resolution, do you think a 260Mhz clock frequency would be required to playback on a device with DDR2 memory which should in every way possible outperform an outdated cpu with half the amount of ram running at low clocks as well. I'll do some more tests to make the test more even for a better comparison. I can say that even with that increase in resolution, the HD2 has a sharper pixel and the pixels are almost unnoticeable. The colors are very realistic and natural. On the atrix however even with the increased resolution. The pixels are very noticeable. The colors are overly saturated and seems to be lacking in the amount of colors the HD2 displays. I was pretty sure the Atrix has a 24bit display rather than a 16bit that the HD2 has. Is there a hack to make sure 24bit is activated on the Atrix?
later
1chris89 said:
On the atrix however even with the increased resolution. The pixels are very noticeable. The colors are overly saturated and seems to be lacking in the amount of colors the HD2 displays.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The pixels are only noticeable on the atrix if your holding your phone about 5 inches or closer to your face, as true with most displays. If you are holding it that close or closer, I might recommend reading glasses as the screen can be a little small at times.
You can definitely tell the atrix is running at a 24bit color depth as the colors dont look like something from a 90s computer display. Although, I will agree that I've seen some apps out there that look like they might have been written in the 90's
Also just out of curiosity... 2 threads really necessary?
Sent from my MB860 using XDA App
Is this guy for real? Aside from the obvious, how about trying the video playback at 960x540 on the hd2 and let us know how that comparison goes.
I voided my warranty.
Magnetox said:
The atrix has 35% more pixels than the other. So if the clock needs to be 35% higher, that seems reasonable. I doubt the app is dualcore optimized
Sent from my Motorola Atrix 4G MB860 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One, the APIs available to app devs cannot access 2 cores since the dalvik VM was coded for only 1 core.
Two, you do not need a 35% faster clock just to upscale a video 35%. Upscaling video takes very little processing power in the first place, and unless you're watching a high profile h.264 720p video file, you aren't even using all of 1 core anyways.
video format @ avc h264 mp4, 720x480, auto aspect, letterbox, 2,000kbps video bitrate, cbr, aac @ 128kbps 48,000khz 2 channel.
MX Video Player @ Software (Fast Mode)
Playback results
htc hd2 - cm7 - rafpigna 2.0 oc gb - 384Mhz
motorola atrix - blur 2.3.4 rom - faux123 - 608Mhz
Vital Player Pro
htc hd2 - cm7 - rafpigna 2.0 oc gb - 652Mhz
motorola atrix - blur 2.3.4 rom - faux123 - 912Mhz
cm7 atrix rom or blur 2.3.4 rom with eternityproject kernel or the 1210Mhz kernel had no effect of improving the cpu performance for this test. Results remained constant.
End of test.
My Moto Razor boots faster than my Moto Atrix, Atrix fails.
Pointless thread
Moboplayer?
I didn't do any scientific testing, I just played back a tv show from my phone using software decoding. It worked fine at 456MHz using Moboplayer. I don't know the bitrate of the video, so I'm willing to bet it isn't too high, but just a thought. It has codecs specifically for ARMv7 instructions.
Who cares? Could you tell a difference with out the tests? I can't. Plus in general the Atrix is more powerful than the 2009 HD2.
BravoMotorola said:
Who cares? Could you tell a difference with out the tests? I can't. Plus in general the Atrix is more powerful than the 2009 HD2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't necessarily care, but I thought id see since I was bored.
Sent from my MB860 using XDA Premium App
Hi. Just got a new HD10 specifically because I need the 1920x1200 resolution. But it is not currently functioning in that resolution, which is quite obvious by the fact that my stuff doesn't fit on the screen. Went to www.whatismyandroidversion.com and it shows the resolution is 1280x800. Checked wm size in ADB and it says 1920x1200. I have tried googling for a solution, but all I ever get is thousands of useless blogs listing the specifications. So hoping someone here knows what's going on.
How can I actually get the 1920x1200 resolution? Thx.
MCL1981 said:
Hi. Just got a new HD10 specifically because I need the 1920x1200 resolution. But it is not currently functioning in that resolution, which is quite obvious by the fact that my stuff doesn't fit on the screen. Went to www.whatismyandroidversion.com and it shows the resolution is 1280x800. Checked wm size in ADB and it says 1920x1200. I have tried googling for a solution, but all I ever get is thousands of useless blogs listing the specifications. So hoping someone here knows what's going on.
How can I actually get the 1920x1200 resolution? Thx.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you want to see a native resolution of your Fire tablet?
You can use AIDA64 to view it:
Google Play: https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.finalwire.aida64
AIDA64 website: https://www.aida64.com/downloads/latesta64droid
know what the native resolution is, it is 1920x1200. But the browsers are only using 1280x800.
So I think this is happening because the device pixel ratio is 1.5. But I cannot figure out how to change this. There is no display scaling in settings, and it doesn't appear to be an ADB command either.
Got it. The pixel density in ADB was 240. 240 / 1.4 = 160. So wm density 160 brought the scale back to 1:1 and the browser is using the full resolution now.