Related
http://blog.gsmarena.com/iphone-4-now-plays-1080p-videos-easily-does-some-xviddivx-magic-too/
Seems like some people managed to play 1080p on iPhone 4.
SGS has almost the same CPU with better GPU and option for overclock.
What is the reason that is preventing us from playing 1080p? Not good enough app or something else?
1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.
We just seems to be needing a good codec to play 1080p. So it should just be a software limitation unless the GPU is capped at 720p!
ostendk said:
1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would never watch 1080p on 4'' screen (even though some people would)
I'm just curios about the hardware.
@Prankey,
I guess SGX 540 can play 1080p if SGX 535 can.
I'll make a wild guess here:
iOS has all the software needed for full hardware acceleration while Android don't.
How is this a development related question?
And I thought galaxy can play 1080 without problems (didnt try though, as its very stupid).
so iPhone display is 960 x 640 pixels?
1080P is 1920 x 1080 pixels
unless it can output HDMI, seems pretty pointless to me.
The screen resolution is 800x480 anyway so the extra resolution does not benefit you at all. It's just a minor convenience to avoid converting the video but you're wasting battery power to decode the video and a lot of space. 720p is enough of a battery and space waster.
mickeko said:
I'll make a wild guess here:
iOS has all the software needed for full hardware acceleration while Android don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
dupel said:
How is this a development related question?
And I thought galaxy can play 1080 without problems (didnt try though, as its very stupid).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess it is a development question, because it may be related with codecs, drivers, etc.
But no, it can't. I have tried it, even though I'm not about to watch full HD on my SGS
miker71 said:
so iPhone display is 960 x 640 pixels?
1080P is 1920 x 1080 pixels
unless it can output HDMI, seems pretty pointless to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We can use microUSB to HDMI and we have DLNA. So it would be useful to us. Anyway, as I've already said my interest is about hardware capabilities not watching full HD on my phone.
Maddmatt said:
The screen resolution is 800x480 anyway so the extra resolution does not benefit you at all. It's just a minor convenience to avoid converting the video but you're wasting battery power to decode the video and a lot of space. 720p is enough of a battery and space waster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You still have to convert the video though for these devices still cause h.264 codec support for mobile devices don't support all of what the codec can do. It's also wasted bit rate as well. It's better to have a lower resolution video with a decent bit rate then it is to have a video with a massive resolution but not enough of a bit rate to smooth out artifacts. this resolution race for videos on mobile phones is a tad stupid.
Rock player plays 1080p for me.
The Video I tried was a bit choppy though but acceptable.
(I guess about 15-18fps). I only tried one Video wich I accidentally loaded on my device.
As far as I now Rock player does not use any GPU acceleration though pretty impressive what this little CPU is capable of.
Definatly plays full hd better then my atom netbook.
ostendk said:
1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree it's simply over kill
all the extra processing is wasted on a 4" screen
actually iphone4 is only 3.5" not even 4"
720p is more than enough on the 4"
jam3sjam3s said:
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't talking about hardware accelerated 1080p playback. I was talking about how everything in iOS is adapted to support as much of the hardware features as possible, while Android is not adapted to support the SGS hardware in any other way than Samsung just tossing in (semi)working drivers.
jam3sjam3s said:
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
I guess it is a development question, because it may be related with codecs, drivers, etc.
But no, it can't. I have tried it, even though I'm not about to watch full HD on my SGS
We can use microUSB to HDMI and we have DLNA. So it would be useful to us. Anyway, as I've already said my interest is about hardware capabilities not watching full HD on my phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And what format have you tried yo play it in?
jam3sjam3s said:
http://blog.gsmarena.com/iphone-4-now-plays-1080p-videos-easily-does-some-xviddivx-magic-too/
Seems like some people managed to play 1080p on iPhone 4.
SGS has almost the same CPU with better GPU and option for overclock.
What is the reason that is preventing us from playing 1080p? Not good enough app or something else?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1/ there is no point, resolution-wise
2/ with iphone there is a VERY limited range of file formats you CAN actually play, so you will spend half your life converting to a format that apple can control. Most my 1080p movies are mkv format, a format that works on Galaxy S but not on iphone. All my SD movies are Divx and Xvid, again, not compatible with iphone.
Mark.
Well actually we can! Rockplayer can do it so please stop spamming this forum!
You apple fanboy
jodue said:
just ****ing stupid! 1080p on 800x480, wtf? even 720p is higher than the screen-resolution! also a movie in 1080p has ~10Gb which would almost fill my 16gb card. STUPID and completely SENSELESS!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well apparently the people with iphone4 are too rich and too <insert what you think here> to care about that.
they probably think they have super wireless and can stream a 1080p movie and watch it over the air
AllGamer said:
they probably think they have super wireless and can stream a 1080p movie and watch it over the air
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And why not? 802.11n is more than enough for that...
Anything that can be done on the iphone 4 can be done on the galaxy s, just needs the right software to be made.
The only difference between the iphone 4 and the GS is the software, the screen, and the galaxy s having one generation newer gpu
Anyway what's the point in this? sd cards have a 4gb filesize limit, 1080p would waste so much battery for no benefit over a 720p file
technical spec yes
real life usage, not so great
wireless N is what i use for my home teather, yes it "works" but load time is horrible, as well as the random cut offs, then waiting for the load time again.... it's a pain in the aussie
it's much more convenient to first copy the entire movie into the hard drive via wireless N, then watch it
but that defeats the entire purpose of streaming a movie
Any devs looking at the possibility to record movies in fullhd, 1080p ? I seem to remember I read somewhere that it should be capable of it.
Well if it is capable of recording in full-HD then why wouldn't Samsung themselves implement it so to make more sales?
leoon said:
Well if it is capable of recording in full-HD then why wouldn't Samsung themselves implement it so to make more sales?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Are we talking about the same company that decided to use rfs filesystem and use reserved memory thus limiting available ram... not to mention the weak wi-fi reception / gps issues.
INeedYourHelp said:
Are we talking about the same company that decided to use rfs filesystem and use reserved memory thus limiting available ram... not to mention the weak wi-fi reception / gps issues.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Exactly my point, there could be a thousand of different reasons. But maybe our devs inhere are a bit sharper than Samsung themselves...
People have made mods that claim an extra 20 - 30 megabytes of RAM. When these are applied problems are noticed with 720p recording. Imagine the ram usage for 1080p. I don't think its worth the hassle.
1080p used in mobile phones do you think will be much better?
come on!
i dont think so...
Especially since the audio is still bollixed... if they fixed that first.
Sent from my GT-I9000M using Tapatalk
Dont think it need it.
First if hardware permit to record 1080p stream the 5megapixels chip wont manage to provide 1080p frames with a decent framerate.
then if it could the optics wont be able to resolve the resolution gain.compared with n8 nokia or iphone 4 720p output you can see what there s place for improvement in this way(sharpest optic and better sensibility)
but may our dev can work on compression level to keep more fine detail , sensibility management or faster autofocus without resolution change.
think this is the only reasonable improvement we could expect by software mod
Well, I have problems with 1080p playing, let alone recording.
Anyway, the hardware is 100% capable of 1080p recording and it would be really cool if some can mod it.
medimel said:
Dont think it need it.
First if hardware permit to record 1080p stream the 5megapixels chip wont manage to provide 1080p frames with a decent framerate.
then if it could the optics wont be able to resolve the resolution gain.compared with n8 nokia or iphone 4 720p output you can see what there s place for improvement in this way(sharpest optic and better sensibility)
but may our dev can work on compression level to keep more fine detail , sensibility management or faster autofocus without resolution change.
think this is the only reasonable improvement we could expect by software mod
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hummingbird is capable of 1080p hardware decoding/encoding. It's equipped with hardware encoders/decoders. Both of them require decent amount of RAM reserved. I think that was the issue.
5mpix sensor is perfectly capable of delivering decent framerate @720p, why wouldn't it be capable of 1080p?
Resolution is enough, there might be bandwidth limiting factors between sensor-CPU.
Optics is perfectly capable of making quite sharp photos @5mpix, why wouldn't it be capable of shooting just 1920x1080?
There will be no software mod enabling 1080p recording, without hacking into hardware codecs/drivers.
Even if the framerate would go down to 15-20 fps, I would personally really like this feature. Some moments are best captured in highest resolution possible. An idea about the memory could be to allocate needed amount on demand, thereafter releasing it again?
Thanks for confirming that our Galaxy S is indeed hardware-wise capable of recording in 1920x1080.
Actually, why 1080p? It doesn't NEED to be 1080p. Why can't we add support for 800p (800lines vertical res) or even 960p.
We keep thinking about making the jump to 1080p, but is there any reason why would couldn't ramp up the resolution higher on the camera? Just because your TV expects 720p, doesn't mean computers do when playing it back...
andrewluecke said:
Actually, why 1080p? It doesn't NEED to be 1080p. Why can't we add support for 800p (800lines vertical res) or even 960p.
We keep thinking about making the jump to 1080p, but is there any reason why would couldn't ramp up the resolution higher on the camera? Just because your TV expects 720p, doesn't mean computers do when playing it back...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
800p and 960p are not common, so it would make things awkward. Can't play it on a 720p screen and not properly on a 720p screen.
BTW although noticable I don't think the difference between 1080p and 720p is that big. So I don't think anyone would really notice the difference between 720p and 960p and if so probably more as a placebo than a real difference.
Mycorrhiza said:
800p and 960p are not common, so it would make things awkward. Can't play it on a 720p screen and not properly on a 720p screen.
BTW although noticable I don't think the difference between 1080p and 720p is that big. So I don't think anyone would really notice the difference between 720p and 960p and if so probably more as a placebo than a real difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree on the odd formats. However, going from 720p to 1080p is a significant improvement, especially if you have a large ( 46" + ) flat panal to view things on.
I would be very interested in this. And for everyone saying its not needed, this is a development forum. Many many many things that are done are "not needed" but still pretty cool. He asked if it could be done, lets stick to if it can, not if it should.
xan said:
5mpix sensor is perfectly capable of delivering decent framerate @720p, why wouldn't it be capable of 1080p?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
720 from 5 meg camera is already seriously pushing it, almost hack wise. Normally only 8 meg cameras should support it. And im not speaking about 1080...
The sensors usually can't deliver 30 fps at 1080p even if the hardware can encode it (which ive seen no tech specs of,just various "web claims" aka moot stuff)
It's not because its a 5MP sensor etc, its about how much data can go through the sensor after it's captured (that's before the CPU/DSP!!) You have very good 5MP 1080p cameras, because the sensors can handle it. They also cost more. I highly doubt the one in the SGS can handle much more than 720p at 30fps.
i'd rather have the image processing improved than 1080p, since 1080p (if it could be done that is) will be approx the same quality as 720p, use twice the space and need twice the power to decode on other systems.
in fact even the encoder can maybe be optimized. i'm not familiar with the hummingbird, but the OMAP's have TI's own such hardware codecs and while its proprietary you can implement your own codec accelerated by the DSP.
HummingBird's codec produce "very average" 720p H264 mainline (i believe?) at 10-12mbits (!)
Compare with x264 4mbit 720p H264 high profile quality for the same source, it blasts it away quality wise and is 2/2.5x smaller in file size. besides it has a zillion options depending if you want quality, latency etc.
bottom line, if a genius would accelerate x264 via the DSP it would be awesome.
I know the x264 team worked on the OMAP DSP with little success, mostly due to rather cryptic documentation
There are plenty of PC displays which AREN'T 1080P (only cheap ones). 1080p and 720p is optimal for TV's, but not computer displays. There are plenty of computer displays which are 1200 lines vertical resolution.
And I've found a difference between 720p and 1080p, but it's more obvious on larger displays which supports higher resolutions
I'd rather have slow-motion and a proper app that enables video editing/cutting/sound mixing just with Iphone 4.
Sent from my GT-I9000 using XDA App
I'm inclined to agree, theres room for improvement at 720p, its like the same logic as low end cameras and camera phones alike ramping up the pixel count doesn't directly mean better quality..
Plus the phone although it should be able to currently doesn't like playing back 1080p videos...
I'm not saying everyones going to want to watch 1080p on an 800 x 400 panel, just saying you might want to play back what you've just recorded to see how its come out..
Now that I heard you can put Honeycomb 3.0 on the Nook Color, I am thinking of getting it today at B&N.
However, I will be using the device mainly for watching movies and I love to convert movies. I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality.
My question is: Can it play .avi files with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate super smooth on Honeycomb?
Earthbrain said:
Now that I heard you can put Honeycomb 3.0 on the Nook Color, I am thinking of getting it today at B&N.
However, I will be using the device mainly for watching movies and I love to convert movies. I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality.
My question is: Can it play .avi files with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate super smooth on Honeycomb?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looking at the Honeycomb thread:
Doesn't work:
-Sound (sadly! Despite my efforts the last hours I didn't get it working properly yet)
-DSP e.g. no hardware video decoding
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So that would seem to be a significant barrier to your plan ;-)!
In the basic 2.1, the recommendation is for MP4 (H.264) at 1,100 kbps. I recently watched Inception at that setting and it was perfect for the Nook Color.
Check out this thread regarding Handbrake settings for the Nook Color: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=894165
for any kind of hi-res content, you'll want to use hardware accelerated playback. Unfortunately, the chip in the nook only supports a certain video codec and resolution. h.264 basic profile and a max of 800x480. 1100 kbps looks pretty good.
Any other codec or higher resolution will rely on the software renderer, and it will be very choppy.
I created a nook color preset for handbrake you might find helpful. It will convert your 720p movies to the highest quality the nook supports.
saeba said:
Check out this thread regarding Handbrake settings for the Nook Color: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=894165
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You added the link to my thread while I was replying to this one.
MattZTexasu said:
You added the link to my thread while I was replying to this one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I went back and looked up your thread since I successfully used your presets and wanted to say thanks. They worked great and the results made a long flight from Denver to Orlando very enjoyable !
MattZTexasu said:
for any kind of hi-res content, you'll want to use hardware accelerated playback. Unfortunately, the chip in the nook only supports a certain video codec and resolution. h.264 basic profile and a max of 800x480. 1100 kbps looks pretty good.
Any other codec or higher resolution will rely on the software renderer, and it will be very choppy.
I created a nook color preset for handbrake you might find helpful. It will convert your 720p movies to the highest quality the nook supports.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You guys just burst my bubble. If the max resolution that it can play is only 800x480, then I guess I will not be buying the Nook Color. Even my HD2 can play mpg4 file that is encoded in 800x480 with 2,000 kbps smooth as butter without problem. If the NC cannot play 1024x600 with 2,000 kbps, then what is the use?
I guess I will have to wait for the Xoom to come out.
800x480 looks great. The nook scales it up to 1024x600, and the pixel density is high enough that you see no pixels. It looks very smooth.
You do realize that the hd2 has a 1ghz snapdragon processor. While we only have an 800mhz stock that can be overclocked to something equivalent. Why would you expect it to do better than the hd2? I would say they would be the same. But if the difference is worth the extra $350 premium then go for it. 854x480 at 1100kbps looks amazing on the nook.
The biggest dissapointment with my Nook is the video playback. Its not horrendous on eclair, but I have absolutely no luck with it on these froyo builds. Probably going to go back to 2.1 soon just so I can at least view some videos again.
tangomonky said:
The biggest dissapointment with my Nook is the video playback. Its not horrendous on eclair, but I have absolutely no luck with it on these froyo builds. Probably going to go back to 2.1 soon just so I can at least view some videos again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no hardware video decoding on Froyo yet.
Mikroft said:
You do realize that the hd2 has a 1ghz snapdragon processor. While we only have an 800mhz stock that can be overclocked to something equivalent. Why would you expect it to do better than the hd2? I would say they would be the same. But if the difference is worth the extra $350 premium then go for it. 854x480 at 1100kbps looks amazing on the nook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never thought of owning the Nook Color until I heard about being able to put Honeycomb on it. I prematurely got excited and thought that it can do good video playback since my HD2 is excellent at playing 800x480 file at 2,000 kbps encoding. I knew that it can be overclocked to become more powerful. If it can only do 854x480 at 1100 kbps then it is a big disappointment. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If 854x480 at 1100 kbps looks good to you, it may not look good to me because of possible pixelation. I want a device that can play full screen resolution with high bit rate. I know that it would require bigger memory card/bigger storage space and slightly consume more power but that is what I am willing to sacrifice.
Well, I guess I have to get either the Xoom or the G-Slate. I don't mind paying extra for it. Just put in some extra work time and I will get a device that I will be happy with.
I love gadgets and love to tinker with them and that is why I enjoy putting all kinds of available OS onto my HD2. I was just about buy the NC just to tinker with it but I guess I will wait until the great people at XDA can somehow get hardware video acceleration on the NC to be able to play videos at higher settings.
Thanks for all the info about the nook's video capability. It was very informative.
DSP support?
What are the chance the DSP will get supported in Froyo/Honeycomb?
So even with hardware acceleration we only get [email protected]
Mike
Video quality
Any idea if this would work better if the nook was oc'd to 1.1, I guess once the dsp is fixed maybe that and a 1.1 cpu will work.
While i do lov to play 720p videos on my captivate (its screens is 800x480) it is down scaling those videos... the main reason i do 720p is because thats what tubemate will let me download them as and still work..
That being said he 480p that the NC can so is still a very good picture.. Normal CTR TV's are only 480i dvd's are at 480p and they still look good on my 42" 1080p tv.. not as good as blu-ray but still good.. and thats stretched to 42" were talking about 7"
1080p 42in= 52.45 DPI
1680x1050 20in monitor= 99.06 DPI
NC running 800x480 at 7inch= 133.28 DPI
NC running 1024x600 at 7inch= 169.55 DPI
Now.. looking at those numbers.. so you REALLY need to run at 1024x600? even at the 800x480 your getting less pixelation then you do on a 42inch 1080p tv.. yes the NC is held ALOT closer.. but even so.. its still giving you DVD quiality picture in your hand on a 7inch screen..
The video playback is definitely disappointing. It sucks not being able to just download a video and just watch it.
I'm getting a bit lost from the conflicting opinions. I'm a lazy and VERY not fussy video viewer. My main use of my NC is to watch videos that were originally made for an iPhone.
Bottom line... Now that sound is working in honeycomb to the NC. am I going to be able to watch my simple iphone type videos on my NC if I take it up to honeycomb? Remember. I'm not at all fussy about quality as long as it isn't too terribly jerky.
Sent from my LogicPD Zoom2 using XDA App
rpharvey said:
I'm getting a bit lost from the conflicting opinions. I'm a lazy and VERY not fussy video viewer. My main use of my NC is to watch videos that were originally made for an iPhone.
Bottom line... Now that sound is working in honeycomb to the NC. am I going to be able to watch my simple iphone type videos on my NC if I take it up to honeycomb? Remember. I'm not at all fussy about quality as long as it isn't too terribly jerky.
Sent from my LogicPD Zoom2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what i understand (and thats not much =) currently honeycomb still has NO hardware acceleration for video.. nither does froyo so the best video playing on a NC you can get is currently running a rooted stock rom.. encoded at 800x480 or below.. the iphone 3gs and older all have a screen size of 480x320 so they SHOULD work as long as they were encoded properly (right codec and such)
Although I understand the excitement, this seems like a very premature discussion. Despite the repeated statement that honeycomb is available on the NC, out is in fact not. What you are seeing is actually an SDK build. Software Developers Kit. For development. And the first SDK at that. You are essentially seeing an emulator running on the nook screen.
Before everyone goes nuts I know that is not technically correct, but it is as correct as saying we are running full honeycomb.
After an AOSP build is released we will see a more functional version and eventually probably see better integration with the video hardware. And for my final rain on this parade...I am a professional video content creator. And if you think you are able to see the difference between DVD quality and 2100 stream HD on a 4.3 inch screen, you are mistaken. Or have vision above that of mortal men.
For the record I owned an HD2, now use the Evo and also own a NookColor.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk
ministersin said:
...I am a professional video content creator. And if you think you are able to see the difference between DVD quality and 2100 stream HD on a 4.3 inch screen, you are mistaken. Or have vision above that of mortal men.
For the record I owned an HD2, now use the Evo and also own a NookColor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok i'm confused by this part...
No one was really talking about the 4.3 inch screen..
ANYWAYS the dvd quality vs 2100 stream HD by that do you mean a 2100/kbps steam?
if thats the case then its not a surprise seeing as 2100/kbps is enough to stream at 480p.... which is dvd quality
Darkomen64 said:
Ok i'm confused by this part...
No one was really talking about the 4.3 inch screen..
ANYWAYS the dvd quality vs 2100 stream HD by that do you mean a 2100/kbps steam?
if thats the case then its not a surprise seeing as 2100/kbps is enough to stream at 480p.... which is dvd quality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OP's original question was about "I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality."
Later after some responses he comments he gets better resolution on his HD2 (that is a 4.3" screen) so he will skip the nook.
You still point out a misunderstanding I had now that I go back which is that he is starting with a 720p source but ending up 1024x600. But really this is just makes my point stronger because then we are looking at an even smaller difference in the resolution.
I read somewhere that although the LCD screen of the nookColor is 1024x600, the graphics chip is actually outputting at a much lower resolution and it is being scaled/interpolated to fit the 1024x600 screen. Is this why small text is hard to read and not as crisp as like on my EVO? This is especially noticable on widgets and icons like SwitchPro battery indicator. It's near impossible to read the battery percentage.
If this is something I can disable (font smoothing or something), I'd definitely do it.
I've never seen this problem on any of the nooks I've used?
Mine is crisp and clear.
really? it looks like microsoft ClearType is cranked way up. All the letters are fuzzy instead of crisp and clean edges like on a PC or an EVO. I've noticed it on every nook I've picked up.
This is the first complaint I've seen of fuzzy text. Did they have some kind of matte screen protector or something over the display?
I can't imagine a dedicated bookstore making a (supposedly) dedicated ereader without ensuring it had crisp text.
are you sure the app isnt upscaling, and designed for a small screen?
if they arent using vector images then they would blur in upscaling.
otherwise, i havent experienced anything at all like what you explain
Found where I read about the video output:
GPU Processor: PowerVR SGX530 Graphics Rendering: Open GLES1.1/2.0 Hardware Scaling: 854x480 scaled to 1024x600 Video Formats: .3GP, .MP4, .3G2 ** Video Codecs: H.263, H.264, MPEG-4, ON2 VP7 ** Image Formats: JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP ** (same GPU as Droid 2 and Droid X)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
from: http://www.androidtablets.net/forum/nook-color-technical/3483-nookcolor-full-specifications.html
I agree about the text, depending on what you are reading I do see a fuzz around the letters.
Sometimes its poor pdf quality.
I also think the video quality is kind of washed out and not as sharp as it seems it should be.
Glad I'm not the only one who is bothered by this. I certainly never noticed it on my wife's iPad and the nook should be crisper considering the dpi. UNLESS we are actually seeing an 854x480 output interpolated to 1024x600 instead of native like other devices.
wy1d said:
Found where I read about the video output:
from: http://www.androidtablets.net/forum/nook-color-technical/3483-nookcolor-full-specifications.html
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what I've read this applies purely to video decoding. Anything the OS renders from apps to text does not have this problem. That being said mine is incredibly crisp.
For those who say theirs is crisp, what are you comparing to? For example, the text on the xda app on my EVO is much much easier to read than the xda app on the nook.
wy1d said:
For those who say theirs is crisp, what are you comparing to? For example, the text on the xda app on my EVO is much much easier to read than the xda app on the nook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
AMOLED HTC Incredible with CM7.
I just made a close-up side-by-side comparison of it with the NC. The NC's text is actually smoother around the edges of the letters than the Inc's, while the interior of the letters looks more "solid" on the Inc, probably due to the physically larger pixel-grid on the NC's display. Note that this was from a viewing distance of about two inches.
To me, it's a wash. At a normal viewing distance, they appear about equal and both look great.
This isn't in any particular app, though. I have some of the same widgets and apps on my home screens, so I was comparing the widget text and icon labels.
wy1d said:
For those who say theirs is crisp, what are you comparing to? For example, the text on the xda app on my EVO is much much easier to read than the xda app on the nook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not really comparing it to anything. My iPhone4 is more crisp but it has a much higher ppi. It's just good overall, I mean your evo probably has more ppi(idk the evo specs) so I doubt the text would appear as crisp to that. I mean the text isn't blurry at all so I guess I'd say it's just as good as a book and better than a newspaper
wy1d said:
For those who say theirs is crisp, what are you comparing to? For example, the text on the xda app on my EVO is much much easier to read than the xda app on the nook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is not the nook's fault. What you are referring to is pixel density.
If you have a phone with a small screen at 840x480 versus a screen more than double the size only scaling a 1024x600, the pixel density ill be lower on that device.
Our pixel density on the nook is about 169
ipad is about 133
iphone 4 is over 300 which is why that screen looks so sharp
Anybody who says that the display is being generated at 854x480 and upscaled to 1024x600 is, well, wrong. First of all, 854x480 is not the same aspect ratio as 1024x600(the equivalent would be 820x480, which nothing renders in), so those claims are completely made up.
More conclusively, even a smidgen of playing about with any pixel-related app(Multitouch Visualizer shows distance between touches) will plainly show that the screen is, in fact, 1024x600. You can also look up the LCD panel type(see the teardown thread), or ask ANYBODY that is doing hardware dev on the thing.
"Blurriness" can result from poorly-coded apps doing a bad upscale on their graphics, or from you needing to buy glasses. But the device itself is 1024x600, and looks just fine to me.
What you have posted there are video upscaling stats. The nook hardware cannot process video above 852 pixels wide so upscales to 1024. With that said the nook color has been reviewed to have a higher pixel density than the iPad and I have never seen anything less than sharp text.
MattJ951 said:
From what I've read this applies purely to video decoding. Anything the OS renders from apps to text does not have this problem. That being said mine is incredibly crisp.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think this is correct, I looked at a list of 16x9 resolutions and this is what I see:
WVGA 854 × 480 ~16:9 1.783 410,880 total Pixels.
and
Used in many netbooks 1024 × 600 128:75 1.707 614,400 Total Pixels
I think the 848 (close to 854) by 480 is their attempt to render 16x9 or close to it for video. But that is just my guess.
Posted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_common_resolutions
Also, if you are not aware of it, there is a way to change font size when reading... I have never noticed any fuzzy text on the NC screen. Try a few different things and find your happy place.
migrax
I edited my build.prop and changed lcd density to 150. Everything looks much crisper. I snapped some macro photos of it before. Will post tomorrow.
I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?
AleT said:
I am in the market for a cheap laptop, but having recently acquired a chromecast, I'd like it to be powerful enough to tabcast HD video.
Many of the cheaper machines have an i5-4200U processor. This has a 1.6GHz clock speed, with a turbo mode speed of 2.6GHz.
The tabcasting min specs say 2GHz for an i5, so I'm not sure whether the i5-4200U would be powerful enough.
Has anyone here tried one?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
bhiga said:
Difficult to say. If your intent is to tab-cast a video, I would say that's probably not enough CPU horsepower.
The minimum tab-casting spec is likely just for casting a static tab (like a web page), not including the additional CPU load for video playback.
Do you have a specific use case in mind?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.
AleT said:
Hi,
I want to cast sites that don't yet have casting enabled natively, like like itvplayer, BTSport and 4od (UK only). Mainly flash based video.
I can cast a static tab using a ~6yr old celeron laptop, but if I try one of these video sites, it stutters and tells me my computer may not be fast enough.
The minimum spec I quoted is from https://support.google.com/chromecast/answer/3209990?hl=en, and refers to tabcasting high quality video.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh, I see. Then you might be okay, though it's always nice to have more "headroom."
Definitely make sure you have 4 GB or more RAM and of course 64-bit Windows, rather than 32-bit.
Best if the hardware can provide hardware acceleration for Flash as well.
I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.
Raw GHz isn't really the best measure of performance anyway. The i5 notebook will definitely be good enough for 480p, not sure about HD. Also Windows 8.1 supports wireless screen sharing so if you can find an affordable receiver you'd get smoother results that way.
Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk
DJames1 said:
I tab-cast from my desktop system, i5-3570K 4.2 GHz. It still stutters slightly, no difference at 720p or 480p, even though the overall CPU utilization stays low. I keep retesting with each new update of the Google Cast extension, but there hasn't been any improvement.
Plex can cast the same video stream to the Chromecast from the same desktop computer without stuttering. It's just poor coding by Google.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The stuttering with Tab Casting has more to do with the method they are using to stream as it does the power of the machine doing the streaming...
Tab Casting is (I Think it is anyway) using an M-JPEG to stream to the CCast...
Which is just what it sounds like sending JPG frames in series like it's some sort of Webcam.