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:
Related
Not used to making video's as all my previous phones
Universal,Hermes,TytnII,Raphael,Touch HD didn't make them too well.
So just tried out making video's while driving (as a passenger) and
they look stunningly good. There's lot's of sun/cloud changes
and it picks up beautifully.
Frame rate is above 20FPS average in MPEG 640x480. Nice.
EDIT : from comments below I see most people expect more. For once I'm on the satisfied side
What .. it too can't play 640x480 flawlessly ? I saw some benchmarks which played such videos at 200%.
Dr.Sid said:
What .. it too can't play 640x480 flawlessly ? I saw some benchmarks which played such videos at 200%.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you read his comment???? where does it say it cant play 640x480
A sample recording would be nice
Smooth playback is 24 fps and beyond. if it's between 20-24, it sucks.
It's the recording rate in 640x480 not the playback speed.
It will almost always keep the 23.99 frames per second while recording
So I meant to say, it's a great video recorder.
I think the title of this thread is a little bit naive!
C'mon 640 x 480 has been on most high end phones now since 2006!
We now have alot of phones with 640 x 480, a fair few with 720 x 480 (D1?) and one or two with 720p recording.
The hardware in this phone is capable of 720p as is that of the Palm Pre, Iphone 3GS and probably others too.
So, in summary - I dont see 640 x 480 as amazingly good at all!
On the topic, do any devs think it would be possible to up the recording to it's 720p capabilities?
See above. I accidently posted twice.
jamuk2004 said:
The hardware in this phone is capable of 720p
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Qualcomm advertises Snapdragon (rather over-optimistically in my opinion) as being capable of 720p video playback - where do they say it's capable of 720p capture?
My bad !
I did not notice he talks about RECORDING, I thought he talks about playback.
lucid said:
Frame rate is above 20FPS average in MPEG 640x480. Nice.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So video quality is "surprisingly mediocre", then. Is there any non-HTC smartphone in the world that can't manage at least 30fps at VGA resolution? The Samsung i8910HD can almost manage 24fps at a resolution of 1280x720. If the HD2 could better that, then maybe you could describe it as "amazingly good".
The Snapdragon probably should be able to record in 720P from a hardware point of view. My currrent phone, the i8910, records in 720P at around 22-24fps, and its only packing a 600mhz Cortex 8 CPU.
So i went to the registry and messed with some values a bit. I set the bitrate much higher than the default. It would still capture video @ about 25 fps. Can't really tell the difference in quality, but the filesize has increased by a 100%. I'll try to see if there are more reg settings to mess around.
NZtechfreak said:
The Snapdragon probably should be able to record in 720P from a hardware point of view. My currrent phone, the i8910, records in 720P at around 22-24fps, and its only packing a 600mhz Cortex 8 CPU.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's a lot more to it than CPU power, I think - it's a bandwidth issue rather than MIPS. I wouldn't be surprised if Windows Mobile imposes some limitations too.
Hi, Iam going through the motions of thinking about upgrading my Touch HD again, at present it is pretty much coming down to video playback.
I would be grateful if someone could download this and see how it runs on the HD2 using coreplayer, it currently pretty much wont run at all on my HD.
Thanks
http://download.bethsoft.com/trailers/fallout3/MothershipZeta-x264-6500-HD.mp4
i never was able to get coreplayer to work on my hd2, but i will say the built-in video player plays my ripped dvd mp4 files very well, with such fluidity that i dont need or want coreplayer. the only problem with the native player is the video & audio are often not perfectly synchronized, but its never bad, just barely noticeable.
i downloaded your test mp4 file, but the native player wont show the video, only the audio
all in all, the hd2 is lightyears ahead of the hd in performance. i use duttys latest 6.5.x rom, ver 23544, and with chainfires video driver, everything is perfectly fluid qnd quick. i tried a 23542 rom on my old hd and together with manila 2.5, its just too much, and brings the poor hd to its knees, and it crawls very slowly
hope this helps... if you live in the usa, get a telstra 3g model. you wont be disappointed!
It struggles a lot in TCPMP (shows possibly one frame a second) and doesn't play in Album at all.
hmm, this is not good at all, I expected no problems at all, it could be the codec though, i dont want to re-encode everthing like you have to do in the touch HD so its looks like the HD2 isnt such a good buy after all - for video anyway.
its proably the high bitrate causing the issue
Richy99 said:
its proably the high bitrate causing the issue
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah, I'd like to see a mobile device properly decode 6.4mbp/s + audio!
video is as below, the res is pretty much perfect for the HD2, low bit rate as well, this should fly being an MP4? - it is x264 though...
input bit rate 704 kb/sec
codec AVc1
48000 stereo
res 864x460
frame rate 29.9700
Plays perfectly on my 3gs. Absolutely smooth with zero frame drop.
But then who wants a toy, right? ;-)
With all due respect, while I completely understand why you would want to play back high definition video clips on a phone, it's simply not going to happen; particularly not on a phone manufactured by HTC, who have a long history of shipping phones which lack adequate hardware-acceleration for video playback. It's possible you might get adequate performance from either an Acer NeoTouch or a Toshiba TG01 - the latter (and I think also the former, though I'm not certain) ships with a hardware-accelerated version of CorePlayer which is very good; but I wouldn't be at all sure even with them.
A sensible resolution and bit-rate would be 800x480 (i.e. the resolution of the screen) and a bit-rate of 2000kb/s variable, with CABAC enabled. (See, for example, the videos attached to this post, which look very good indeed on the HD2). You will not lose any playback quality re-encoding like this, though of course there is the inconvenience of transcoding.
Shasarak said:
With all due respect, while I completely understand why you would want to play back high definition video clips on a phone, it's simply not going to happen; particularly not on a phone manufactured by HTC, who have a long history of shipping phones which lack adequate hardware-acceleration for video playback. It's possible you might get adequate performance from either an Acer NeoTouch or a Toshiba TG01 - the latter (and I think also the former, though I'm not certain) ships with a hardware-accelerated version of CorePlayer which is very good; but I wouldn't be at all sure even with them.
A sensible resolution and bit-rate would be 800x480 (i.e. the resolution of the screen) and a bit-rate of 2000kb/s variable, with CABAC enabled. (See, for example, the videos attached to this post, which look very good indeed on the HD2). You will not lose any playback quality re-encoding like this, though of course there is the inconvenience of transcoding.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The movie I posted is at a sensible resolution with a low bit rate, see my specs above.
Just a friendly warning to anyone thinking of dl'ing this on their mob, its an 80 meg file. Be sure and save it to sd card!
stoolzo said:
The movie I posted is at a sensible resolution with a low bit rate, see my specs above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm sorry, but 1280x720 is not a "sensible resolution" in this context.
EDIT: Is it possible that the link you posted doesn't link to the video that you think it links to?
stoolzo said:
video is as below, the res is pretty much perfect for the HD2, low bit rate as well, this should fly being an MP4? - it is x264 though...
input bit rate 704 kb/sec
codec AVc1
48000 stereo
res 864x460
frame rate 29.9700
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong video! Your download is 1280x720
That video doesn't work but:
input bit rate 704 kb/sec
codec AVc1
48000 stereo
res 864x460
frame rate 29.9700
works perfectly!
eaglesteve said:
Plays perfectly on my 3gs. Absolutely smooth with zero frame drop.
But then who wants a toy, right? ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I don't believe you!! iPhone is a toy and plays only video from iTunes, no 1280x720 because iTunes converts the video!!
stoolzo said:
The movie I posted is at a sensible resolution with a low bit rate, see my specs above.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your specs are wrong. This is what mediainfo says of your file
http://download.bethsoft.com/trailers/fallout3/MothershipZeta-x264-6500-HD.mp4
Format : AVC
Format/Info : Advanced Video Codec
Format profile : [email protected]
Format settings, CABAC : Yes
Format settings, ReFrames : 5 frames
Codec ID : avc1
Codec ID/Info : Advanced Video Coding
Duration : 1mn 42s
Bit rate mode : Variable
Bit rate : 6 406 Kbps
Width : 1 280 pixels
Height : 720 pixels
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sm3rtlag3l said:
I don't believe you!! iPhone is a toy and plays only video from iTunes, no 1280x720 because iTunes converts the video!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Nope. Just have to click on the link. That brings up a screen that asked me if I want to play it direct or to download it first. In either way, it plays smoothly.
Of course it is impossible for a toy to be so good, right?
I've read articles in which the authors used an iPhone 3GS to play back 1080p video with a bit-rate of 30Mb/s - this isn't exactly stable, but it does play. 720p video would be very easy.
Shasarak; said:
I've read articles in which the authors used an iPhone 3GS to play back 1080p video with a bit-rate of 30Mb/s - this isn't exactly stable, but it does play. 720p video would be very easy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why not just go to a Telco or apple store to try it out yourselves? There're just too much false information about what an iPhone can or cannot do around. Lots of it on this forum.
Don't know about what you have read, but mine plays THIS video smoothly. If you click on the link and let it stream, then you may need to wait for enough of the 80+ mb to be downloaded before the player starts. If your phone is JB you have the additional option of downloading it first before playing. Video picture is sharp, completely free if pauses, jitter, or frame drops, and sound completely in sync.
Cheers.
Edit: Thought I might as well video record how well it plays for your guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAGqKYlSnHA
Sorry about the quality of the recording as I was using an old camera to do the recording rather than a proper video recorder, but still you will be able to see how smoothly it plays. Please blame my camera, not my iPhone for the poor video resolution. ;-)
eaglesteve said:
Why not just go to a Telco or apple store to try it out yourselves? There're just too much false information about what an iPhone can or cannot do around. Lots of it on this forum.
Don't know about what you have read, but mine plays THIS video smoothly. If you click on the link and let it stream, then you may need to wait for enough of the 80+ mb to be downloaded before the player starts. If your phone is JB you have the additional option of downloading it first before playing. Video picture is sharp, completely free if pauses, jitter, or frame drops, and sound completely in sync.
Cheers.
Edit: Thought I might as well video record how well it plays for your guys.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kAGqKYlSnHA
Sorry about the quality of the recording as I was using an old camera to do the recording rather than a proper video recorder, but still you will be able to see how smoothly it plays. Please blame my camera, not my iPhone for the poor video resolution. ;-)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi, that doesnt really prove anything, you could have converted it to a lower bit to play though itunes, plus the iphone screen res is half that of he HD2.
However, who would actually bother going to those lengths to fake this?
hmmm....
Honestly, even if the Iphone could play it smoothly, does it matter here? This IS the HD2 forums, isn't it? Nothing against it, but it is getting a bit tiresome to hear about it everywhere.
i have tried 60fps video while im driving
what do you think 60fps video i think 1080p much better whts the advantage of 60fps?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8shZlOqMkaY
What were you going to say? I hardly think creating a whole new thread and just posting vids contributes to any discussion >.<
ArmedandDangerous said:
What were you going to say? I hardly think creating a whole new thread and just posting vids contributes to any discussion >.<
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No wiev of others and sample HTC One is very good at taking video but 60fps is not as good as 1080p video
cihanleanne said:
No wiev of others and sample HTC One is very good at taking video but 60fps is not as good as 1080p video
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The point of the 60 FPS is to do a slow motion, once you took the video, you can edit it to get some parts (well actually one part) to go slower.. then you can for example, while filming a freind jumping with a skate board, slow down only the part when he actually is in the air.. you can choose what speed to reduce it to as well.
opher50 said:
The point of the 60 FPS is to do a slow motion, once you took the video, you can edit it to get some parts (well actually one part) to go slower.. then you can for example, while filming a freind jumping with a skate board, slow down only the part when he actually is in the air.. you can choose what speed to reduce it to as well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thanks
Recording videos while driving a car. Great job. Moron.
took a 60 fps of a local race.
i think it makes a more smooth video ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nVXHG5wWLJM
YouTube isn't 60fps so video is pointless
Sent from my HTC One using xda app-developers app
No it is not, you have slow motion option and HD fast (60fps), they are different things, with 60fps you will have a smother video.
Smoother like if you are playing a game at 20fps(for example) in a computer and then change the configuration or the hardware and it give you 30~40fps, you will be able to play it much better.
60 fps is 720p, 30 fps is 1080p. (i'm guessing 60fps means lower compression rate / less space taken?)
bloodrain954 said:
Recording videos while driving a car. Great job. Moron.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Some people have car mounts....
Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2
bloodrain954 said:
Recording videos while driving a car. Great job. Moron.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not trying so start anything or anything here, but some of us can actually do that and still maintain a car on the road. ^^;
Sent from my HTC One using XDA Premium.
let me bring a little clarity!!!
The reason the 60 frames per second looks so smooth is because our eyes see at about 60 frames per second that is the point in having 60 frames per second . this is why in the gaming industry for many many years we have tried to get 60 frames per second that is also coincidentally the same refresh rate of your monitor (likely) to go a little further you'll notice that 3d TVs are typically 120 Hertz so 60 ÷60 is 120 3d is 2 images. Tada sooo, For me i love the 60 fps because theres no loss in frames when I watch it with my eyes... Your dog will see it skip but not you! Dogs see at like 75 or 80 fps dont quote me on that ,but its a lil faster than we do.. Wikipedia can explain all that if you wanna know more.... So both arguments are kind of right. Yes the images will look better in slow mo and yes the images will look smooth but you would actually one more like 120 for slow mo or 240 the more frames you get the better it looks in slow mo..
I've just videoe my TV screen (with ceiling light above me too)
The stock camera app recording was fuzzy around the edge (grainy) and the TV picture wasn't that clear at all (was half zoomed in)
So then I used the LG camera app. Turned FPS to 60 and rate to 10mbit... EPIC!
Yes it uses more space, but the quality is amazing!
Anybody wanting to test video capability, download LG camera app, set FPS to 60 and check it out! (it doesn't look,great until you start recording)
Am just uploading a sample,video which is on highest settings in LG camera app. It's a whopping 250mb for just under a minute!!
wezzel98765 said:
I've just videoe my TV screen (with ceiling light above me too)
The stock camera app recording was fuzzy around the edge (grainy) and the TV picture wasn't that clear at all (was half zoomed in)
So then I used the LG camera app. Turned FPS to 60 and rate to 10mbit... EPIC!
Yes it uses more space, but the quality is amazing!
Anybody wanting to test video capability, download LG camera app, set FPS to 60 and check it out! (it doesn't look,great until you start recording)
Am just uploading a sample,video which is on highest settings in LG camera app. It's a whopping 250mb for just under a minute!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did you download the app from?, you should post this in the themes and apps section aswell.
Just search on the play store
.. Its free
Still waiting for it to upload, taking ages
wezzel98765 said:
Just search on the play store
.. Its free
Still waiting for it to upload, taking ages
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yeah i just checked and installed it, its the middle of the night here so il test properly tomorrow, i remember using this app a long time ago when i had my htc sensation.
Here's the sample
Not bad for an indoor false light video of a TV! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWq1CVkuwNU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
wezzel98765 said:
Here's the sample
Not bad for an indoor false light video of a TV! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWq1CVkuwNU&feature=youtube_gdata_player
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what video settings did you use, what bitrate did you use. the samples good for the condition, i think we need to test this in normal daylight to see what it can really do. I took a video 32 seconds and it was 80mb
wezzel98765 said:
I've just videoe my TV screen (with ceiling light above me too)
The stock camera app recording was fuzzy around the edge (grainy) and the TV picture wasn't that clear at all (was half zoomed in)
So then I used the LG camera app. Turned FPS to 60 and rate to 10mbit... EPIC!
Yes it uses more space, but the quality is amazing!
Anybody wanting to test video capability, download LG camera app, set FPS to 60 and check it out! (it doesn't look,great until you start recording)
Am just uploading a sample,video which is on highest settings in LG camera app. It's a whopping 250mb for just under a minute!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thnx my frnd... it is indeed an amazing app and really the vids r much much better.. n so are pics too
wezzel98765 said:
Just search on the play store
.. Its free
Still waiting for it to upload, taking ages
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Can you pls post the link.
Cant seem to find it.
amey2606 said:
Can you pls post the link.
Cant seem to find it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Its in the play store, just search its called LG Camera.
If this is the app
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=rubberbigpepper.lgCamera&hl=en
then 60fps not supported, I just checked it out, 1 file on 30fps and 17mbit, the other file at 60fps and at 60mbit or whatever it was. Both files are at 29fps, so until sony adds a [email protected], I don't think it will be supported.
ascariss said:
If this is the app
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=rubberbigpepper.lgCamera&hl=en
then 60fps not supported, I just checked it out, 1 file on 30fps and 17mbit, the other file at 60fps and at 60mbit or whatever it was. Both files are at 29fps, so until sony adds a [email protected], I don't think it will be supported.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah thats the one....damn i was hoping for the 60fps option to work
MX Player detects 59,4 Hz!
OfficerTux said:
MX Player detects 59,4 Hz!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is something else, fps means frames per second and i have just checked on my pc and the videos max out at 30.1fps.
Well in this case Hz and fps actually are the same, as long as we are talking about the captured framerate and not the outputted one, which can very well differ.
Still you're right! MX Player is detecting bull****, Media Info on my PC does show 29,716 fps.
Would have liked it to by different though, 60fps would have been great for some slowmo action
OfficerTux said:
Well in this case Hz and fps actually are the same, as long as we are talking about the captured framerate and not the outputted one, which can very well differ.
Still you're right! MX Player is detecting bull****, Media Info on my PC does show 29,716 fps.
Would have liked it to by different though, 60fps would have been great for some slowmo action
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
nah im sorry Hz and fps are 2 completly different things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hertz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate
MX player indicated correctly, it just didnt show you fps
Hz describes a frequency and just means "per second" and normally when I use it to describe framerates people do understand what I mean, even if fps is the better word
If you take a look at my earlier Screenshot you will see that MX Player never claimed it to be Hz, it just says "Bildfrequenz", which means framerate, and does not use any unit.
you're right, the quality seems much better with lgCamera. :good:
EDIT: also took some pictures but the quality of them does not seem to be improved.
Well either way, whether it improves FPS or not (which I didn't check it.actually did), it does improve the video massively. That video was captured using the highest bitrate, which is what defines the quality of the video
video. You don't have to use maximum setting all the time, but it truly is much better than the stock app.
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