Not sure if this topic has been brought up but I figured I'd shine some light on it as we are on the verge of finally getting our beloved froyo source code. I have read elsewhere that there is an fps cap on these phones. I get the same consistent results with neocore no matter what rom I'm on. Which leads me to believe there is one. Now I know the powervx is dedicated but I figured with all the tweaks with a modded epic verses a stock di18 version there would be atleast SOME difference. Makes me wonder about what it can really be capable of. Everyone drop your pennies in.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
I think I remember reading in one of the threads that said it is capped at 50fps. Or something in that neighborhood. It was definitely below the magic 60fps though.
Yup there is one. There was even a custom kernal that released to up it. If course that was for 2.1 and there was no difference at all because as it is I think it's maxed at 56 now. Which we can't notice passed 30 with the naked eye unless directly next to another source with much higher fps.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
I can notice anything under 50. Being a PC gamer and going for that sweet 60 makes you extremely anal. I'm sure its locked on stock 2.1 and the dk28 based Tom's too eh? Since we have no source there's no kernel out there to unlock the cap correct? Anyone have any guess as to what the powervx540 can REALLY do?
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
It can do at least 70fps on a specific kernal and over clock...
That makes me happy. I want it.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
running_the_dream said:
I think I remember reading in one of the threads that said it is capped at 50fps. Or something in that neighborhood. It was definitely below the magic 60fps though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Probably the biggest factor in the perception of smooth motion given a frame rate is whether there is a consistent delay between frames as well as if the frame rate is constant.
The Epic's LCD is probably 56 hz, hence the frame limiter. In order to maintain a consistent delay between frames, the frame rate would have to be 56 fps or some fps that divides evenly into 56 fps. More specifically, there would have to be ~18 ms between frames, or some multiple. Removing the limiter and reaching higher than 56 fps will not lead to smoother motion, and could make it worse as well as lead to frame tearing (although it might improve other processing in single-threaded games).
Also, given a consistent delay between frames, I would bet that you could not notice the difference between 28 fps and 56 fps; furthermore, I guarantee you that you could not notice the difference between a 56 fps on a 56 hz screen and 60 fps on a 60 hz screen. Therefore, there is no "magic" that makes 60 hz look better; you are probably just used to 60 hz screens where 56 fps looks choppier than the straight frame rate number might imply (due to very inconsistent delays and a dynamic frame rate).
Keep in mind virtually all television broadcasts and movies run at 24 fps in the US, and they look silky smooth. That is because the frames per second count is very precisely controlled, whereas games frequently have very inconsistent frame rates and thus can look choppier at higher frame rates. I haven't thought of this before, but I believe most TVs are 60 hz (or 120 / 240 hz) whereas the video signals are frequently 24 fps. This makes me think that the higher frequency TVs are just making the delays between frames more and more consistent (indeed 120 hz can make the delays perfectly consistent since 24 is evenly divisible into 120), which would further make me think a 24 hz screen should look just as smooth as a 240 hz screen given 24 fps content. This means you are viewing content with inconsistent delays between frames while watching a lot of TV content (albeit ones that correspond to a defined pattern).
That makes me wonder if games ever implement fps "steps" where they either lock the fps down to a multiple of the refresh rate or ensure that the frames are presented according to defined patterns (e.g. showing the same frame twice, then the frame after that once, then the next frame twice, etc.). I would bet locking a game to 28 fps on a 56 hz screen would look much nicer than allowing a 40 fps frame rate. I would also bet such games are perceived as being more efficient / running more smoothly at lower frame rates than other games that do not take such approaches.
EDIT: The Wikipedia article on frame rate says "Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion." so I was correct in my wondering!
The difference between 28 and 56 FPS is quite noticeable. The idea that it isn't noticeable is actually laughable. 24 fps on films is only acceptable because of motion blur, which is just a cheap trick.
Also, TVs that display higher than 60 fps are just doing interframe interpolation. There's no extra data being displayed, but there are 5-10 intermediate frames generated between actual frames.
The only correct part of your post is that it would be difficult to notice the difference between 56 and 60 fps.
hazridi said:
The difference between 28 and 56 FPS is quite noticeable. The idea that it isn't noticeable is actually laughable. 24 fps on films is only acceptable because of motion blur, which is just a cheap trick.
Also, TVs that display higher than 60 fps are just doing interframe interpolation. There's no extra data being displayed, but there are 5-10 intermediate frames generated between actual frames.
The only correct part of your post is that it would be difficult to notice the difference between 56 and 60 fps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Motion blur is more or less eliminated on modern TVs. They use high quality panels with very quick response times. If there was blur at 24 fps, 60 fps and above would be completely unwatchable. Most gamers rarely experience consistent delays between frames and constant frame rates in games, and so they believe as you do.
I believe most of the 120 hz TVs have the option to turn off those interpolation features and simply repeat frames, and the manufacturers come up with fancy names for their interpolation algorithms.
I stand by all of my theories and claims. I would bet double-blind studies would back me up on this.
thechicgeak said:
Probably the biggest factor in the perception of smooth motion given a frame rate is whether there is a consistent delay between frames as well as if the frame rate is constant.
The Epic's LCD is probably 56 hz, hence the frame limiter. In order to maintain a consistent delay between frames, the frame rate would have to be 56 fps or some fps that divides evenly into 56 fps. More specifically, there would have to be ~18 ms between frames, or some multiple. Removing the limiter and reaching higher than 56 fps will not lead to smoother motion, and could make it worse as well as lead to frame tearing (although it might improve other processing in single-threaded games).
Also, given a consistent delay between frames, I would bet that you could not notice the difference between 28 fps and 56 fps; furthermore, I guarantee you that you could not notice the difference between a 56 fps on a 56 hz screen and 60 fps on a 60 hz screen. Therefore, there is no "magic" that makes 60 hz look better; you are probably just used to 60 hz screens where 56 fps looks choppier than the straight frame rate number might imply (due to very inconsistent delays and a dynamic frame rate).
Keep in mind virtually all television broadcasts and movies run at 24 fps in the US, and they look silky smooth. That is because the frames per second count is very precisely controlled, whereas games frequently have very inconsistent frame rates and thus can look choppier at higher frame rates. I haven't thought of this before, but I believe most TVs are 60 hz (or 120 / 240 hz) whereas the video signals are frequently 24 fps. This makes me think that the higher frequency TVs are just making the delays between frames more and more consistent (indeed 120 hz can make the delays perfectly consistent since 24 is evenly divisible into 120), which would further make me think a 24 hz screen should look just as smooth as a 240 hz screen given 24 fps content. This means you are viewing content with inconsistent delays between frames while watching a lot of TV content (albeit ones that correspond to a defined pattern).
That makes me wonder if games ever implement fps "steps" where they either lock the fps down to either a multiple of the refresh rate or ensure that the frames are presented according to defined patterns (e.g. showing the same frame twice, then the frame after that once, then the next frame twice, etc.). I would bet locking a game to 28 fps on a 56 hz screen would look much nicer than allowing a 40 fps frame rate. I would also bet such games are perceived as being more efficient / running more smoothly at lower frame rates than other games that do not take such approaches.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
24fps is actually PAL. In the US it's 30 fps (29.97) since we're on NTSC. Sorry to quibble over details.
houkah said:
24fps is actually PAL. In the US it's 30 fps (29.97) since we're on NTSC. Sorry to quibble over details.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ah, I wasn't aware of that. That is actually very relevant because it makes NTSC broadcasts an even multiple of the refresh rate of 60 hz TVs. Although I believe many other sources are still 24 fps.
24fps and 60 fps is quite noticeable in videogames considering each frame is its own image.
Id much rather see my character move his arm in a 60frame animation than half that. It'd be noticeably choppy since there's half the pics.
If you can't see the difference between metroid prime 3 and halo 3 (30fps and 60fps, respectively) then there's something wrong.
Don't compare a movie with video games when it comes to fps because movies don't have to draw the human body animation for animation since god or whatever did that already lol
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
A_Flying_Fox said:
24fps and 60 fps is quite noticeable in videogames considering each frame is its own image.
Id much rather see my character move his arm in a 60frame animation than half that. It'd be noticeably choppy since there's half the pics.
If you can't see the difference between metroid prime 3 and halo 3 (30fps and 60fps, respectively) then there's something wrong.
Don't compare a movie with video games when it comes to fps because movies don't have to draw the human body animation for animation since god or whatever did that already lol
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
One thing I didn't think about that is also relevant is the amount of motion in the content. Content that varies quite a bit between frames (action movies and FPS games) benefit more from higher frame rates.
That being said, I still believe most people overestimate their ability to detect differences in frame rates. There is certainly nothing "wrong" with you if you can't tell the difference. Only a minority of people truly can.
Honestly my favorite hobby is arguing with people who say that they can notice a difference between 100fps and 60fps on their 60Hz screen.
Going beyond the refresh rate of your screen does nothing for you and actually degrades the image through tearing. Your next best option is half of your screens refresh rate, and then half of that, etc.
back to the topic though, unless the hardware is capped at something absurdly low like 30fps, then it's probably in place for a reason. I don't know what the refresh rate on the amoled screen is, but whatever it is would be a great place to cap the framerate since anything beyond what the screen can show is a waste of power. If the refresh rate is 50fps and they capped the hardware to run at 50fps, then they've done us a favor.
houkah said:
24fps is actually PAL. In the US it's 30 fps (29.97) since we're on NTSC. Sorry to quibble over details.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Since we're quibbling over details, maybe you should check your facts.
NTSC DVD = 720 x 480 @ 29.976 FPS
PAL DVD = 720 x 576 @ 25 FPS
As far as 24 FPS (or 24p), that's another story (actually 23.976 FPS and used for theatrical movies).
But seriously, to even try to compare games' to movies' FPS is ridiculous.
They just aren't the same (Dynamic vs Static).
And to get back on topic here, I agree that syncing frame rate with refresh rate is optimal.
There is no benefit in rendering more frames in a second than the screen can display?
With the demise of CRT displays, the days of 120Hz refresh rates are a thing of the past.
And no, my 120Hz TV isn't really displaying @ 120Hz, it's doing some mathamagic to make my brain think that it is.
I also agree with Roisen, they did us a favor if they have enabled "vertical sync" as many gamers know it.
=]
ACS Xtreme Kernel has the FPS cap raised to like 80... 2.1...... now that 2.2 source is live expect big things all over from devs
BopChie said:
ACS Xtreme Kernel has the FPS cap raised to like 80... 2.1...... now that 2.2 source is live expect big things all over from devs
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I remember someone saying that the readings for GPS were not correct on that kernel. That the cap was not bypassed but the values were masked off to higher numbers.
Sent from my SPH-D700 using XDA App
thechicgeak said:
Probably the biggest factor in the perception of smooth motion given a frame rate is whether there is a consistent delay between frames as well as if the frame rate is constant.
The Epic's LCD is probably 56 hz, hence the frame limiter. In order to maintain a consistent delay between frames, the frame rate would have to be 56 fps or some fps that divides evenly into 56 fps. More specifically, there would have to be ~18 ms between frames, or some multiple. Removing the limiter and reaching higher than 56 fps will not lead to smoother motion, and could make it worse as well as lead to frame tearing (although it might improve other processing in single-threaded games).
Also, given a consistent delay between frames, I would bet that you could not notice the difference between 28 fps and 56 fps; furthermore, I guarantee you that you could not notice the difference between a 56 fps on a 56 hz screen and 60 fps on a 60 hz screen. Therefore, there is no "magic" that makes 60 hz look better; you are probably just used to 60 hz screens where 56 fps looks choppier than the straight frame rate number might imply (due to very inconsistent delays and a dynamic frame rate).
Keep in mind virtually all television broadcasts and movies run at 24 fps in the US, and they look silky smooth. That is because the frames per second count is very precisely controlled, whereas games frequently have very inconsistent frame rates and thus can look choppier at higher frame rates. I haven't thought of this before, but I believe most TVs are 60 hz (or 120 / 240 hz) whereas the video signals are frequently 24 fps. This makes me think that the higher frequency TVs are just making the delays between frames more and more consistent (indeed 120 hz can make the delays perfectly consistent since 24 is evenly divisible into 120), which would further make me think a 24 hz screen should look just as smooth as a 240 hz screen given 24 fps content. This means you are viewing content with inconsistent delays between frames while watching a lot of TV content (albeit ones that correspond to a defined pattern).
That makes me wonder if games ever implement fps "steps" where they either lock the fps down to a multiple of the refresh rate or ensure that the frames are presented according to defined patterns (e.g. showing the same frame twice, then the frame after that once, then the next frame twice, etc.). I would bet locking a game to 28 fps on a 56 hz screen would look much nicer than allowing a 40 fps frame rate. I would also bet such games are perceived as being more efficient / running more smoothly at lower frame rates than other games that do not take such approaches.
EDIT: The Wikipedia article on frame rate says "Many games lock their frame rate at lower but more sustainable levels to give consistently smooth motion." so I was correct in my wondering!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks, I like seeing smooth screens but did not know much about the tech behind it...
thechicgeak said:
The Epic's LCD is probably 56 hz, hence the frame limiter. In order to maintain a consistent delay between frames, the frame rate would have to be 56 fps or some fps that divides evenly into 56 fps. More specifically, there would have to be ~18 ms between frames, or some multiple. Removing the limiter and reaching higher than 56 fps will not lead to smoother motion, and could make it worse as well as lead to frame tearing (although it might improve other processing in single-threaded games).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Isn't the Epic's refresh rate 68Hz?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5D1cygsc_1M
Skip to 8:50
Related
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has tried to tweak the 720p video recording on the Evo to 60fps, and if so, if he/she could add some pointers. I have looked at the documents for the camera (OmniVision OV8810) and it is definitely capable of that. If no one is working on it at all, I will prob start looking into the datasheets.
Edit: 60fps is probably out. Now aiming for stable 24 or 30fps recording.
Weird that no one's replied yet...
Good luck, good sir! If you could also find a way so that it doesn't compress the video down to oblivion, that would be great, as well.
Wow this would be soooo awesome...
Making it not compress the video so much will give better results than just a higher framerate. I would lock it to 30fps instead of 24fps and lower the compression instead of trying to just mindlessly boost the framerate, since you have to do something with that data you capture too.
Geniusdog254 said:
Making it not compress the video so much will give better results than just a higher framerate. I would lock it to 30fps instead of 24fps and lower the compression instead of trying to just mindlessly boost the framerate, since you have to do something with that data you capture too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I definitely agree (not that I have any clue how to do any of this lol). Basically every review talked about how the 720p recordings werent actually HD quality b/c of the over compression. With 16gb mirco sd cards being relatively cheap, I think reducing the compression is more important that having 60fps. 60fps at the current evo compression is still going to be very ugly IMO.
this would be sick!
Agreed, i'd rather have less crappy compression then higher frame rate. I don't like my videos looking like they came from an NES.
geyes30 said:
Hi,
I was wondering if anyone has tried to tweak the 720p video recording on the Evo to 60fps, and if so, if he/she could add some pointers. I have looked at the documents for the camera (OmniVision OV8810) and it is definitely capable of that. If no one is working on it at all, I will prob start looking into the datasheets.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Best of luck, the Epsen panel can always display 16m colors instead of 65k apparently.
jerryparid said:
Best of luck, the Epsen panel can always display 16m colors instead of 65k apparently.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are you saying Esponpanel on rev 3 Evos display 16 million colors or are just capable of it?
i think htc set the compression to what it is because of the bandwidth issues with standard class 2 sd cards, not because they were worried about the files being too big. someone did the math for this before and it was shown that heavy compression would be needed to not exceed the class 2 standards
And maybe crancking up the audio bit rate so it isn't laughable low. Sample rate could stand to be much higher.... or even adjustable... And maybe get that damned automatic gain control on the Mic to be toggleable while your at it... between that and a constant 30fps and less compression all around.... and I think were really on to something...
Thank you santa clause:
Sent from my PC36100 using XDA App
One thing to keep in mind, if you are going to lower the compression, you will have to stream data MUCH faster to SD. I wouldn't even try this without having one of the new Class 10 MicroSDHC's.
If you are going to lock any FPS to the video it should be a at 29.97, either way, if you ever try to edit that, it will be a mess because you have to chop out that .03 percent for anyone to benefit from watching it.
Geniusdog254 said:
Making it not compress the video so much will give better results than just a higher framerate. I would lock it to 30fps instead of 24fps and lower the compression instead of trying to just mindlessly boost the framerate, since you have to do something with that data you capture too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Completely agree with this too. We don't need higher framerates. Movies and other very high quality productions cap out at 24-30 fps. We need better quality.
I am sure a dev here should be able to do this. That would be amazing.
muncheroo said:
i think htc set the compression to what it is because of the bandwidth issues with standard class 2 sd cards, not because they were worried about the files being too big. someone did the math for this before and it was shown that heavy compression would be needed to not exceed the class 2 standards
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The math should be pretty straight forward.
Basically, class 2 sd cards support 16Mb/s or 2 MB/s which using 1000 for k, or M would be
16000000 b/s or 2000000 B/s
720p contains 720*1280 pixels which is a total of 921600 pixels. Assuming the displays show 65k colors (I don't know this for sure) that is 16 b/pixel So one frame would be
14745600 b or 1843200 B or even 1.84 MB
Doing a framerate of 30 fps, you would need something cabable of 55.2 MB/s write speed to capture uncompressed 720p video.
So, basically you have to be able to compress 55.2 MB of data down to 2 MB, or you need to compress away 96% of the data, for a class 2 card.
A class 6 card supports 48 Mb/s or 6 MB/s so this would require you to compress away 89%
If you go up to 16m colors, instead of 65k you need another byte of data for each pixel.
If you have a class 10 card, it supports 80 Mb/s or 10MB/s which would require a compression to 19% of the size, or to compress away 81% of the data.
It seems no matter what it needs to have some hefty compression, but of course 4% of the data, would look worse than 19% of the data.
No matter what, you will have to play with the compression. I don't know what the compression on the evo currently uses, but my bet it it's far more than is needed. If you up the framerate alone, you will have to compress it more too. So it's probably better to cap it around 30 fps and then lower the compression to get higher quality data.
Good luck either way.
EDIT: Just so you know where I got my SD card info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital#SD_Speed_Class_Rating
And these are *MINIMUM* write speeds. So that would be the highest you would need to compress the video to insure it would work at 30fps.
16Mbps is plenty for 720p video. Think about it. That's 120MB per minute or over 7 gigs per hour. In fact, 16Mb is pretty good even for 1080p.
Dougie2187 said:
The math should be pretty straight forward.
Basically, class 2 sd cards support 16Mb/s or 2 MB/s which using 1000 for k, or M would be
16000000 b/s or 2000000 B/s
720p contains 720*1280 pixels which is a total of 921600 pixels. Assuming the displays show 65k colors (I don't know this for sure) that is 16 b/pixel So one frame would be
14745600 b or 1843200 B or even 1.84 MB
Doing a framerate of 30 fps, you would be something cabable of 55.2 MB/s write speed to capture uncompressed 720p video.
So, basically you have to be able to compress 55.2 MB of data down to 2 MB, or you need to compress away 96% of the data, for a class 2 card.
A class 6 card supports 48 Mb/s or 6 MB/s so this would require you to compress away 89%
If you go up to 16m colors, instead of 65k you need another byte of data for each pixel.
If you have a class 10 card, it supports 80 Mb/s or 10MB/s which would require a compression to 19% of the size, or to compress away 81% of the data.
It seems no matter what it needs to have some hefty compression, but of course 4% of the data, would look worse than 19% of the data.
No matter what, you will have to play with the compression. I don't know what the compression on the evo currently uses, but my bet it it's far more than is needed. If you up the framerate alone, you will have to compress it more too. So it's probably better to cap it around 30 fps and then lower the compression to get higher quality data.
Good luck either way.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Very good explanation for everyone! Though we need compression, when you say 89-90% I think that throws a lot of people off. I mean look at a well encoded mkv file... Agreed it's h.264 (end the compression method is extremely important), but the video is running at about 20,054kbps ( 20.05 Mbps(2.51 MB/s) and it looks extremely clear, far more than I would ever expect out of the camera of this...
Something that I noticed, when I go to details of a video I made. It says it was recorded at 6Mbps, at only 9fps. Anyone else notice that? I can't find the setting to adjust to 24 fps even.
OMG!, if this works I will donate to the Dev, because this is one of the reasons why I am thinking about taking back my EVO and getting a full refund plus the fact that I can't get good reception (1 bar maybe 2), "4G" and slow 3G in my apartment, which is where I use my phone the most, but if that new HTC Android phone "Project Emerald" that's coming to T-Mobile is better than the EVO then bye bye Sprint and back to where it all started is where I go.
Not to change the subject, but Amazon is selling this 8GB KingMax microSD Class 10 for $30.50 link
just to point out that class 10 is becoming a reality and we shouldn't compromise on quality... maybe this will motivate devs more.
Tenny said:
Very good explanation for everyone! Though we need compression, when you say 89-90% I think that throws a lot of people off. I mean look at a well encoded mkv file... Agreed it's h.264 (end the compression method is extremely important), but the video is running at about 20,054kbps ( 20.05 Mbps(2.51 MB/s) and it looks extremely clear, far more than I would ever expect out of the camera of this...
Something that I noticed, when I go to details of a video I made. It says it was recorded at 6Mbps, at only 9fps. Anyone else notice that? I can't find the setting to adjust to 24 fps even.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
If I understand your situation correctly, I believe the difference is that your example has a read speed of 2.51. Where as my situation has a requirement on the write speed. But I do think I understand what you mean.
I have some of the videos I have taken from the evo, and they report a framerate of 2fps, which would be atrocious if it was true, I can't believe that though. It wouldn't look near as smooth as it does with 2 fps.
i imagine the bitrate would be similar
any way to do this?
Someone could hack it wouldn't mind!
Sent from my GT-I9100 using XDA Premium App
i really don't think it's possible .
its hardware issue, the sensor won't be a
ble to take it even with lower than 720p
wouldn't have to be 60fps even though.
anything higher would be an improvement
tommo123 said:
wouldn't have to be 60fps even though.
anything higher would be an improvement
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Video recording needs to be done in a standardized frame rate, 24, 25, or 30Hz (or 50 & 60p). If not, it would be a terrible jitter from pulldown during playback.
plenty of videos are vfr depending on the scene motion state though (although mosty wmv afaik). as long as the player knows the right frame rate to play back it plays back fine
anyway, i was thinking as far as the data rate goes, it wouldn't be much different. if there's some hardware limit that doesn't allow it - fair enough.
what is the highest fps we could get though?
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
Whats the 4K recording bitrate and hows it compared to other phones . Also, is there a 5 min limit like on my note4?
--Thx
I did a quick test and got 90MB for 15 seconds, around 6MB/s.
But, I wasn't sure if there was some way to stress the bitrate of the codec - bright scenes? dark scenes? high contrast? If anyone has any insight into which are the hardest scenes to compress I can repeat the experiment.
Or, is the codec somehow a constant rate codec (as in fixed rate MP3 vs variable rate)?
how about the time limit? how long can you record 4K?
I think 6/MB is average. I heard of people that root note 4 able to up the bitrate. Even if it is the same it still might look better then other phones with the same bitrate due to the lens and so forth. I think the main issue is going to be with the stabilization. OIS helps but I guess you can run it through adobe or some other program to get software to add to that. I wonder if I record in 1440 if the software will work for that.
So I was wondering if there's any possible way to limit the maximum frames rendered on this device. By that I mean limiting the maximum FPS of OpenGL apps much in the way Samsung does it with their Game Tuner app and if that's not possible maybe even limit the FPS system-wide. The reason why I ask is because there are some games that have a 60 FPS cap and while this device can do better than 30 FPS it sometimes struggles to hit 60 FPS. And the difference from 60 to 30 is quite jarring which is why I'd like to have an option to do that (games like Rush Rally 3, Assoluto Racing, Slaughter 3 have an inbuilt option to limit the frames to 30 FPS).