Just stumbled upon this because the GVR was making my face sore after wearing it a while. I had already replaced the stock foam pad with the alternate one which has the nose bridge. For more padding I simply took the original "noseless" pad and put it on first. I then placed the full pad on top of it, attaching the nose section to the velcro so it stays in place - in other words, double foam.
WOW.
What I didn't expect was the MAJOR REDUCTION IN SCREEN DOOR EFFECT which has been achieved simply by moving the GVR another 1/4 inch from my face. I was looking at the Mars 360 photos and I thought, "Damn these look clear." Then I looked at some others and noticed the pixels all seemed about half the size they were previously. To really test it I loaded up The Hobbit in Oculus Cinema. WOW! SO much better. Again, pixels half the size. It makes sense. Your eyes are twice as far from the lenses so pixels half as big. Incredible.
The best analogy is that instead of feeling you are looking through a screen door, it looks like the image is projected on canvas. Much much more pleasant.
So apparently the biggest cause for the screen door effect on the GVR is it's just too damned close to your eyes. I also found focusing much easier and eye strain reduced - and oh yeah, face hurt less. I find the screen looks better with this mod if I wear the GVR a bit lower on my face as well.
Give it a try. Watch the Hobbit without the "double-stuff" then watch it with - you'll see the difference.
P.S., Some have commented that this will reduce your FOV and cause focus issues at the edges. Please remember that you are only moving 1/4 in from the lenses. IMHO there is no perceptible FOV loss and no additional focus problems at the edges. The only thing which changes is the image is so much better.
Anyone try this? Any improvement? For me it's night and day.
When you get the chance, can you post a pic of what the modified padding looks like?
Buddy Revell said:
When you get the chance, can you post a pic of what the modified padding looks like?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just follow my instructions. Put the noseless pad on the bottom and the nose pad on the top. Simple.
But if you do that you lose so much of the picture...
ickna11 said:
But if you do that you lose so much of the picture...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What? How? You don't lose any picture at all. You simply stack the padding on top of each other. It just causes the lenses to be 1/4 inch further from your eyes so pixels look smaller. How are you losing picture?
Was just looking at 360 pics again like this. It's a whole new device. Instead of looking big and distinct pixels look like grains of sand.
mitchellvii said:
What? How? You don't lose any picture at all. You simply stack the padding on top of each other. It just causes the lenses to be 1/4 inch further from your eyes so pixels look smaller. How are you losing picture?
Was just looking at 360 pics again like this. It's a whole new device. Instead of looking big and distinct pixels look like grains of sand.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You lose fov being further away, more of a binocular effect.
ickna11 said:
You lose fov being further away, more of a binocular effect.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not even remotely correct. No perceived loss of FOV at all. Binocular effect actually seems lessened as the image quality is so much improved. Remember, we are talking 1/4 inch here.
mitchellvii said:
Not even remotely correct. No perceived loss of FOV at all. Binocular effect actually seems lessened as the image quality is so much improved. Remember, we are talking 1/4 inch here.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You lose fov being further away, this is a fact.
You also get a more distorted picture around the edges of the lens.
Not saying it doesn't make it more clear because you are further away, just pointing out what you lose when you do this.
ickna11 said:
You lose fov being further away, this is a fact.
You also get a more distorted picture around the edges of the lens.
Not saying it doesn't make it more clear because you are further away, just pointing out what you lose when you do this.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No I'm sorry but you are wrong. Have you actually tried it or is this just your theory?
By moving back only 1/4 inch you lose maybe 1-2% of your field of view and there is no additional distortion around the edges but the image is dramatically better - night and day. So which would you rather have, tiny pixels and 98% of the FOV or huge pixels and 100% FOV? Miniscule sacrifice, huge gain.
mitchellvii said:
Just stumbled upon this because the GVR was making my face sore after wearing it a while. I had already replaced the stock foam pad with the alternate one which has the nose bridge. For more padding I simply took the original "noseless" pad and put it on first. I then placed the full pad on top of it, attaching the nose section to the velcro so it stays in place - in other words, double foam.
WOW.
What I didn't expect was the MAJOR REDUCTION IN SCREEN DOOR EFFECT which has been achieved simply by moving the GVR another 1/4 inch from my face. I was looking at the Mars 360 photos and I thought, "Damn these look clear." Then I looked at some others and noticed the pixels all seemed about half the size they were previously. To really test it I loaded up The Hobbit in Oculus Cinema. WOW! SO much better. Again, pixels half the size. It makes sense. Your eyes are twice as far from the lenses so pixels half as big. Incredible.
The best analogy is that instead of feeling you are looking through a screen door, it looks like the image is projected on canvas. Much much more pleasant.
So apparently the biggest cause for the screen door effect on the GVR is it's just too damned close to your eyes. I also found focusing much easier and eye strain reduced - and oh yeah, face hurt less. I find the screen looks better with this mod if I wear the GVR a bit lower on my face as well.
Give it a try. Watch the Hobbit without the "double-stuff" then watch it with - you'll see the difference.
P.S., Some have commented that this will reduce your FOV and cause focus issues at the edges. Please remember that you are only moving 1/4 in from the lenses. IMHO there is no perceptible FOV loss and no additional focus problems at the edges. The only thing which changes is the image is so much better.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Surely gone to try this, thanks a lot!
Aedriaen
Aedriaen said:
Surely gone to try this, thanks a lot!
Aedriaen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hey its worth a try since there is nothing permanent about the mod. Everyone's eyes work differently with the GVR but for me its made all the difference.
Aedriaen said:
Surely gone to try this, thanks a lot!
Aedriaen
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
As a quick test tried pressing GVR harder against my face to see if pixels size increased and they did, dramatically so. Also noticed tiny increase in FOV, hardly worth it to endure the bigger pixels.
mitchellvii said:
As a quick test tried pressing GVR harder against my face to see if pixels size increased and they did, dramatically so. Also noticed tiny increase in FOV, hardly worth it to endure the bigger pixels.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Just a clarification: the pixels are not changing size. You are looking through a concave lens. The further back you move, the less "magnified" the view becomes. It simply looks clearer because you are getting closer to the original resolution of the image by "zooming" less. If you really feel that they were a whole foam buffer off in how close the lenses should be for clear viewing, you should probably be telling Oculus. That is the sort of stuff they want to know when they release an "innovator" edition.
twistedumbrella said:
Just a clarification: the pixels are not changing size. You are looking through a concave lens. The further back you move, the less "magnified" the view becomes. It simply looks clearer because you are getting closer to the original resolution of the image by "zooming" less. If you really feel that they were a whole foam buffer off in how close the lenses should be for clear viewing, you should probably be telling Oculus. That is the sort of stuff they want to know when they release an "innovator" edition.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is why the density solution will not work in this case. It does not apply.
twisted, if you own the GVR just for grins try my double-stuff solution and watch some movies. You'll see the difference.
mitchellvii said:
This is why the density solution will not work in this case. It does not apply.
twisted, if you own the GVR just for grins try my double-stuff solution and watch some movies. You'll see the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know it isn't what you want to hear, but if enough people didn't find the lens placement "optimal" the way they are, the headset would have been designed with deeper lenses. There are others that have the same issue, but they are the exception. I, on the other hand, do not suffer from this "severe" issue. It has nothing to do with density. I think it's best left between you and your optometrist. Good luck.
The closer the better for me. The extra pad makes it too blurry for me. I think the gear vr pad around the nose was removed from first goam pad because it brings your face even closer.
I went ahead and tried both and couldn't find a good focal point for my eyes. Sadly it made it far worse for me. Awesome it works for you tho and was with a try for me. I wear contacts to see, then readers to see anything closer than 3 feet. Ha
Compusmurf said:
I went ahead and tried both and couldn't find a good focal point for my eyes. Sadly it made it far worse for me. Awesome it works for you tho and was with a try for me. I wear contacts to see, then readers to see anything closer than 3 feet. Ha
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Doubt it makes any noticeable difference (tried it myself and the experience/immersion was just way worse than normally and the pixels were just as visible). This did though give me an idea - to try the Gear VR without any padding at all in order to get it as close to your face as possible. Liked it a lot more and is worth a try if the pads that came with the device don't make for a comfortable fit for you (also a lot easier to get decent focus!). Btw. has anyone figured out a way to switch seats in the cinema without the controller? Setting up the sixaxis every time I want to watch a movie is a bit of a chore (want the screen to be as big as possible, and the front seat is the only one that offers anything like that). Don't really get why void cinema doesn't allow you to move closer and farther away from the "screen"(want it to fill my entire FOV).
mitchellvii said:
just for grins try my double-stuff solution and watch some movies. You'll see the difference.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok, while I was in the Gear VR tonight, I made a point of trying to experience it through your eyes to understand what you are going at better. You know what? I did start to see it through your eyes and it only confirmed what I was saying for why you are not experiencing it like others are (as well as others that have posted with similar reactions, such as as the Official Oculus Forum where a member was very similarly disappointed for the same reasons.) You might have 20/20 vision, but you also might consider you have focus issues.
I had to start rejecting the focal point of the image and start staring at the pixels to see what you were seeing. I also kept moving the face plate away from my eyes and back to look for the pixel size change. After doing this for a few minutes where I ignored the image, my eyes began to obsess over the pixels, noting the RBG field, and was less able to focus on the actual image. Quite frankly, this is a like a person watching an old CRT TV while focusing on the pixels rather than the program overlaid on the screen. You could see those old pixels at a normal viewing distance from within a living room much as you perceive the Gear VR pixels. At any rate, because of the exercise it became distracting when I was trying to go back to focusing on the actual image while I was looking at 360 Photos. Just moving my head around I'd lose focus on the image and follow the pixels. Taking a break to reset will get me back to enjoying it.
This is why you are getting more resistance than agreement. You are focused on the wrong point and that is not what the majority does., but you aren't alone.
Related
I find every picture I take with the diamond sub par and not even 3 megapixel standard. my resolution is def set to highest. even my missus's iphone produces sharper more defined pics. diamond pics are soft, cloudy and blotchy when zoomedl auto white balance is useless, always gets things wrong and I have to always fiddle around with manual settings. what are your experiences?
Original files are in zip.. When you hold the td perfectly still the photo's are ok.. when te conditions are worse, i.e. your walking/moving, in darker places, the quality runs back quickly.
I found the camera amazing (except for in the dark, while contra-light doesn't seem to matter that match). Good quality, high-res pictures if you allow it to focus correctly and hold still. Some good modes too.
Prety much the same. Only way to get a reasonable pic is to remove the back when I need as good a quality as possible, and when I do so they're passable. Find auto WB is ok outdoors, but rubbish indoors (badly washed out), and needs a bit of fiddling to get the best out of it.
Bit of a nause, but I'm not a prolific snapper, so it's not the end of the world for me.
camera is amazing on light.
but in the dark it is really ****.
studz said:
Prety much the same. Only way to get a reasonable pic is to remove the back when I need as good a quality as possible,
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is exactly what has been said before, i completely agree and I did some tests on it to. Both my images showed that with the cover on, cloudy, misty pictures and with the cover off, good quality, reasonably sharp pictures.
intel286 said:
camera is amazing on light.
but in the dark it is really ****.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I do also agree that indoors and in low light the quality isn't that great but outdoors especially in good light the pictures are pretty good. Would be great if there was some sort of software tweak or software upgrade that would improve the quality of the pictures produced.
But at the end of the day we all know it all goes down to the quality of the camera that the manufacturer has used in the device. Im reasonably happy with the 3.2 megapixel that was used but with things like the Samsung i900 Omnia coming out / recently out with a pretty good 5 mega pixel hopefully HTC will take note and upgrade the cameras in future devices.
Im happy with mine, taking the back cover off can be a pain, but it works for me! (For now, hehe!)
Compared to what I just came from (a terrible VGA cam in a Motorola V3), I think the camera is amazing. It's not up to proper camera levels, but if I was after a camera for more than the occasional picture, I'd buy a proper digital cam or one of these phone/camera hybrids.
It does require a steady hand though, and it very low light it's not good, but even in relatively poor light it still did better than I was expecting.
Its just 'OK' in the light and useless in dark.
okay. tried with the cover off and theres definately an improvement, although still not perfect. however, its going to be a major pain in the arse to take the back cover off everytime I want to take an improv picture.
darthbane2k said:
okay. tried with the cover off and theres definately an improvement, although still not perfect. however, its going to be a major pain in the arse to take the back cover off everytime I want to take an improv picture.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
push the lense cover out....worked for me
but then you have the problems or crap getting in the back of the phone
Pretty good during the day, but at night it turns to ****, my guess is that it tries to prolong the shutter speed instead of increase the gain / ISO sensitivity.
HTC need to learn 2 program.
liamhere said:
push the lense cover out....worked for me
but then you have the problems or crap getting in the back of the phone
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
what if we cover the hole with clear screen protector film?
it would warp the image, short of proper optics you cant just cover a hole an take a picture through it, what we need it some sort of shutter on the back panel, quite easy to manufacture if someone could be bothered
Tendou said:
Pretty good during the day, but at night it turns to ****, my guess is that it tries to prolong the shutter speed instead of increase the gain / ISO sensitivity.
HTC need to learn 2 program.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
you have any idea what does it take in terms of sensor circuitry to increase ISO sensitivity?
you have any idea how expensive a good camera sensor is (not the crap you see in consumer cameras, which are also **** in the dark)?
guys, I think you're just being unrealistic about what a phone camera should do.
I cleaned up my cover lens and I pushed it more that I wanted and ups it is out so now Im glad with clean photos and once a time I clean up hole back under cover...
...but about steady hand and good not blurry pictures...does anybody worked sports or burst mode with resolution higher than size "L"
kultus said:
I cleaned up my cover lens and I pushed it more that I wanted and ups it is out so now Im glad with clean photos and once a time I clean up hole back under cover...
...but about steady hand and good not blurry pictures...does anybody worked sports or burst mode with resolution higher than size "L"
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
can popping out the lens cover really damage the phone?
well
you'll get dust inside, this shall be most notably when wearing it in pocket...
i managed it by putting a plastic seal around it:
i took one of those cable holders which came with the diamond (e.g. holding the headset together) cut it in the middle (so it was half as high as before) and placed it around the lense
now its closed again (teste with very fine sand) and i got much better photos....
(sry for the bad english ;D - I hope you can get what i mean)
Im wearing it in my pocket and its not that horible than I expected so its your choice...no damage btw glue is still there so its the matter of 2 sec to stick it up...
If you don't want to remove the lens cover, then clean the cover. Have a look at your cover and you should see why the picture comes out the way it does.
I.ve been watching this forum for more on this issue. The camera is crap. I upgraded to the htc rom because it said it made camera improvements. Bull***t. It’s still the same. I take loads of photos and almost all with the diamond have some sort of blurriness. If you have some sort of movement when the photo is taken then it blurs’. Examples below. Because of what another member posted about the same problem. I will be contacting htc support.
http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=412397
My old 2.0 mp Artemis and 3.0 mp Tytn II never had this problem.
Photos with the diamond
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/j.../IMAGE_041.jpg
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/j.../IMAGE_022.jpg
http://i274.photobucket.com/albums/j.../IMAGE_014.jpg
i.ve tried without back cover and it makes no diference
I've found Skype to be a bit awkward on my N7 because the camera is angled at 90degrees from the frame, rather than sloping towards the center of the screen. As a result I have to hold the tablet further away from me, but then I sometimes struggle to hear the audio from the back-facing speaker.
Has anyone else found this? Or, has anyone here heard of other devices where the camera angle has been modified, and how?
Thoughts?
Tilt the tablet slightly
Sent from my Nexus 7 using xda premium
Pretty sure anything involving tilting the camera would be more trouble than its worth, you may be able to stick a small refractive lens to the front of it but not sure if anyone makes one.
MikeMurphy said:
I've found Skype to be a bit awkward on my N7 because the camera is angled at 90degrees from the frame, rather than sloping towards the center of the screen. As a result I have to hold the tablet further away from me, but then I sometimes struggle to hear the audio from the back-facing speaker.
Has anyone else found this? Or, has anyone here heard of other devices where the camera angle has been modified, and how?
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Get a case. The speaker is designed to bounce sound if there's a surface behind it (try putting the tablet flat on a table). Or just hold it such that your hand cups the speaker and redirects sound at your face.
davidcampbell said:
Pretty sure anything involving tilting the camera would be more trouble than its worth, you may be able to stick a small refractive lens to the front of it but not sure if anyone makes one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks. I might take my N7 apart and possibly wedge something behind the camera depending on how its secured. A small adjustment to the angle would go a long way.
Will let you know if I am able to make any good progress on this.
uberNoobZA said:
Tilt the tablet slightly
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for contributing. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss for words that might help you understand what the problem is.
You might want to sit this one out.
MikeMurphy said:
Thanks for contributing. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss for words that might help you understand what the problem is.
You might want to sit this one out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He's obviously saying that tilting the tablet up a bit is a lot easier than screwing up something trying to modify the camera. I suggest looking long and hard at tear-downs before you attempt anything.
MikeMurphy said:
Thanks for contributing. Unfortunately, I'm at a loss for words that might help you understand what the problem is.
You might want to sit this one out.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know exactly what the problem is. And my suggestion is that the easiest way to fix it is to simply tilt the tablet to aim the camera where you want to aim it. Sorted.
uberNoobZA said:
I know exactly what the problem is. And my suggestion is that the easiest way to fix it is to simply tilt the tablet to aim the camera where you want to aim it. Sorted.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wrote that having the camera at a 90 degree angle to the frame makes for awkward Skype conversations.
Now this next part is critical as to why your suggestion doesn't address anything: If I tilt the frame, the camera is still at 90 degrees to the frame. If you don't believe me, try it.
I haven't pulled my N7 apart to do anything other than loosen and tighten the screws. Looking through the bezel at the camera I see what appears to be some space between the camera and the bezel. This might not actually be the case, but it looks like it is. If the camera is anything like the camera built into my S2 it can be slightly angled with some gentle coaxing. Given the narrow angle of the camera optics I don't believe the edge of the bezel would interfere by blocking part of the camera's image, either.
Perhaps a good place to start is the ifixit tear-downs per suggestion above. Thanks!
Cheers,
Had a look through ifixit, see step 13 on the below link.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-7-Teardown/9623/2
Unfortunately, the connector appears to be on the wrong axis for easy bending / tilting. It would have to be twisted which doesn't work well.
MikeMurphy said:
Had a look through ifixit, see step 13 on the below link.
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/Nexus-7-Teardown/9623/2
Unfortunately, the connector appears to be on the wrong axis for easy bending / tilting. It would have to be twisted which doesn't work well.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually in that teardown, it appears to be attached via a really short ribbon that might flex a little...
So it may be possible, with the right application of something really thin at the front of the camera on the inside edge, and something at the back behind the camera on the outside edge might be enough to tilt it slightly for your purposes, something thin like a tiny slit of paper, or a tiny bit of sticker you could cut from a bumper sticker maybe.
I've just been running some tests on my Z1 camera.
I noticed that it's virtually unable to produce straight lines.
I've attached a picture of my PC's monitor (in admittedly difficult light) and as you can see the normally straight lines of the bezel and windows all bulge.
Does anyone else have that issue? Is my camera a duff one?
I'm extremely hesitant to send it in to Sony for repair. Currently they have my old Xperia Z for repairs, to replace the camera module that developed black spots. It's been three weeks and still waiting for it to come back (UK repair centre).
It's those kind of issues that make choosing a Sony extremely frustrating, as much as I want to love the brand.
It's.from the lens of the camera. If someone else's camera doesn't show that aberation you should go to Sony. Only way to get it right is post processing every picture.
Sent from my C6802 using XDA Premium 4 mobile app
For comparison I took some shots with an old 350D, with kit objective (18-55mm).
One shot with at 18mm, one at 55mm, one with my Z1 and one with an old Xperia Pro.
350D:
18mm IMG_1805
55mm IMG_1806
Z1:
DSC_0111_
Xperia Pro:
DSC_1426
Exry said:
For comparison I took some shots with an old 350D, with kit objective (18-55mm).
One shot with at 18mm, one at 55mm, one with my Z1 and one with an old Xperia Pro.
350D:
18mm IMG_1805
55mm IMG_1806
Z1:
DSC_0111_
Xperia Pro:
DSC_1426
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Your Z1 is also quite bumpy, not perhaps not as much as mine.
naujoks said:
Your Z1 is also quite bumpy, not perhaps not as much as mine.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Although I don't know how much of distortion is acceptable, it's probably because of the very low focal length and wide angle? I'm no photographer but I expected it to bulge a bit.
yeah i mentioned this in the camera thread in the general section. every Z1 i've tested does this (10+ phones plus every image i've seen of a grid or line from the z1 on this forum). depending on the way the lense is mounted most deformation will normally appear towards the extreme top or bottom of an image.
ps. if you bought your phone from a uk network and are outside of your in store exchange period and wanted to get it repaired (not that i think there are any current z1's without this problem and therefore a lense that would be much better to be put into your phone) than send it through the network shop for a warranty repair and it will be repaired or replaced by anovo (all network shops use them) in around 5 working days.
That´s not unexpected.
If you make a wideangle lens this small there will be always quite a lot of distortion. Almost all cameras nowadays correct this distortions in the image-processing.
The problem is that the optical distortion changes with very close focus-distances and most software-corrections only adjust to the lenses focal-length (when having a zoom-lens), but not to the focus-distance, so the software-correction is wrong.
It seems that Sony does a combination of optically correcting the distortion in the lens, additionally to the software-corrections, which causes this very complex distortion, which quite strong pincushion-distortion in the center while still having some barrel-distortion at the edges of the image.
In distances 1m+ there is hardly any visible distortion left.
*R2D2* said:
That´s not unexpected.
If you make a wideangle lens this small there will be always quite a lot of distortion. Almost all cameras nowadays correct this distortions in the image-processing.
The problem is that the optical distortion changes with very close focus-distances and most software-corrections only adjust to the lenses focal-length (when having a zoom-lens), but not to the focus-distance, so the software-correction is wrong.
It seems that Sony does a combination of optically correcting the distortion in the lens, additionally to the software-corrections, which causes this very complex distortion, which quite strong pincushion-distortion in the center while still having some barrel-distortion at the edges of the image.
In distances 1m+ there is hardly any visible distortion left.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's very interesting and the most insightful reply on this topic in any thread yet, thanks. My only concern is that i have read a report of a picture of a horizon have both the barrel distortion and pincushion problems which is at some distance. I'll have to check for long distance distortion. If it's not there i'm happy.
Thanks for the replies!
On top of the above problem I also noticed a distinct out of focus area (top left corner in my case) in shots taken at a wide distance.
I can't say I every detected either of these problems on my old iPhone 5. Maybe Apple's camera is simply better and the algorithms even things out more.
I'm currently having the Z1 and the Galaxy Note 3 at home and try to decide which one to keep, and it's proving very difficult. Both phones have their distinct positive and negative sides.
naujoks said:
Thanks for the replies!
On top of the above problem I also noticed a distinct out of focus area (top left corner in my case) in shots taken at a wide distance.
I can't say I every detected either of these problems on my old iPhone 5. Maybe Apple's camera is simply better and the algorithms even things out more.
I'm currently having the Z1 and the Galaxy Note 3 at home and try to decide which one to keep, and it's proving very difficult. Both phones have their distinct positive and negative sides.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
the bottom right side of my pictures are blurred. gsmarena had a similar issue with their test unit.
Today I conducted some more tests with both Z1 and GN 3.
At 100 ISO the Z1 showed considerable noise and much less in focus than the GN3, in good light.
At first I thought that the Z1 camera complaints might be not so visible to the untrained eye and that the average user such as myself wouldn't notice anything amiss, but the differences in direct comparison are really striking.
There are many things I like about the Z1, and its design is far superior to the GN 3, but knowing that there are virtually no conditions under which the Z1 would be able to take good pictures is a deal break for me, so the Z1 will go up on eBay. Hopefully better luck in 6 months with the Z's next iteration.
naujoks said:
At 100 ISO the Z1 showed considerable noise and much less in focus than the GN3, in good light.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think Sonys decision not to kill all detail with heavy noise-reduction was a good (although unexpecting when looking at their cameras which usually use quite heavy NR). Chroma-Noise is very well under control up to the highest sensitivities and the luminance-noise is very fine grained and not objectionable at all. Unfortunately thats not true for ISO 1600+, where NR gets so high everything becomes a blurry mess. Of course these sensitivities are hardly usable for 1/2,3"-Sensors, regardless of the strength of the NR
Finally you can always use some additional NR in PP, but you never can bring back detail that has already been destroyed by heavy processing.
Also contrast (at least in manual) mode is quite low (at least for a consumer-device), which leads to surprisingly good DR, unlike the blocked shadows (which also hide noise) you get on most phones (and most compact-cameras as well). Again increasing contrast in PP is not a problem, unlike the other way around.
I just hope this won´t change with future Firmware-updates.
Of course there will be less in focus as well, a bigger sensor + larger aperture means less DOF and therefore less in focus.
This can also become a problem at close focus-ranges, because the focus-plane is in reality not flat, instead it is somewhat spherical shaped. At close focus-distances therefore soft corners can become a problem.
demoniality said:
My only concern is that i have read a report of a picture of a horizon have both the barrel distortion and pincushion problems which is at some distance. I'll have to check for long distance distortion. If it's not there i'm happy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've taken pictures of a sea horizon...
They get the strange distortion too
---------- Post added at 11:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 11:20 PM ----------
*R2D2* said:
I think Sony's decision not to kill all detail with heavy noise-reduction was good.
I just hope this won´t change with future Firmware-updates.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm completely agree
High detail is better than a very little bit of noise
I think the only thing I would like to see in next firmware is a stronger sharpness algorithm. XZ with Honami Camera driver produces sharper pictures (obviously they get more grain and pixelled than XZ1 when zooming in because of sensor, lens and mpx)
*R2D2* said:
I think Sonys decision not to kill all detail with heavy noise-reduction was a good (although unexpecting when looking at their cameras which usually use quite heavy NR). Chroma-Noise is very well under control up to the highest sensitivities and the luminance-noise is very fine grained and not objectionable at all. Unfortunately thats not true for ISO 1600+, where NR gets so high everything becomes a blurry mess. Of course these sensitivities are hardly usable for 1/2,3"-Sensors, regardless of the strength of the NR
Finally you can always use some additional NR in PP, but you never can bring back detail that has already been destroyed by heavy processing.
Also contrast (at least in manual) mode is quite low (at least for a consumer-device), which leads to surprisingly good DR, unlike the blocked shadows (which also hide noise) you get on most phones (and most compact-cameras as well). Again increasing contrast in PP is not a problem, unlike the other way around.
I just hope this won´t change with future Firmware-updates.
Of course there will be less in focus as well, a bigger sensor + larger aperture means less DOF and therefore less in focus.
This can also become a problem at close focus-ranges, because the focus-plane is in reality not flat, instead it is somewhat spherical shaped. At close focus-distances therefore soft corners can become a problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
An interesting and well informed reply, however, in my test shots we were not just talking about "a bit" of noise, but a considerable amount, and the picture was noticeably less sharp than the GN 3 picture I took, with its 13MP camera. So if there are any advantages to be had on the Sony, I can't see them. And while I theoretically could tinker with improving the pics in Photoshop I don't think I would have had the patience to do this with every little picture I take.
So, out of the box, the Samsung produces the better pictures, with less hassle for me, and I don't need to have specialist knowledge in photography or Photoshop in order to get a good result, and that's what tipped the scale for me.
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
shawnhalu said:
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
---------- Post added at 12:15 AM ---------- Previous post was at 12:14 AM ----------
hi sorry but i cant understand what whitelines the OP is talking.
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I was talking about CROOKED lines, not white lines.
And yes, you have them too.
shawnhalu said:
i upload a picture, can tell me if mine have any problem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Look at the somewhat waved appearance of the tab bar.
But what worries me more in your picture is the softness on the right side, that is obvious even at this rather small image-size. It may be a result of not holding the camera parallel to the screen (the softer bottom definitely is), but if you always get a soft right side, your camera-lens might be misaligned.
*R2D2* said:
Look at the somewhat waved appearance of the tab bar.
But what worries me more in your picture is the softness on the right side, that is obvious even at this rather small image-size. It may be a result of not holding the camera parallel to the screen (the softer bottom definitely is), but if you always get a soft right side, your camera-lens might be misaligned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
haha i cant see the softness u stating. i try take afew more picture head on and let u see. thanks
naujoks said:
I was talking about CROOKED lines, not white lines.
And yes, you have them too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
actually i cant see the crooked line where is it?
---------- Post added at 10:47 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:43 AM ----------
naujoks said:
I was talking about CROOKED lines, not white lines.
And yes, you have them too.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
*R2D2* said:
Look at the somewhat waved appearance of the tab bar.
But what worries me more in your picture is the softness on the right side, that is obvious even at this rather small image-size. It may be a result of not holding the camera parallel to the screen (the softer bottom definitely is), but if you always get a soft right side, your camera-lens might be misaligned.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
photo retake for u, can u help me have a look of the softness and the crooked line?
shawnhalu said:
photo retake for u, can u help me have a look of the softness and the crooked line?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
First picture again shows severe softness on the right side, just look how hard it is to read the text.
Corner-sharpness isn´t the greatest with this camera, which is to be expected considering the relatively large sensor with a relatively small lens, but this shouldn´t extend that far into the picture.
Your camera seams to be especially strange, as the corners are actually sharper, the small text of the clock in the bottom right corner for example is much easier to read then the text in the center right side, which is very unusual. Normally the corners are the softest, but as you use 16:9, which crops the extreme corners, there shouldn´t be much of a problem at all.
There is nothing to notice on the rest of the pictures.
I don´t really know what´s going on there, the strange sharpness-pattern could be a result of the rather unusual distortion and the correction for it, but then left and right side should be identical. A misaligned lens/sensor should show worse corners (top right corner is quite good as well).
If the camera had some image-stabilization I would say, that maybe the moving sensor/lens-element moved to an area of the lens which isn´t optically as good, but as this camera doesn´t have any stabilization this isn´t possible.
One guess would be that there is some dirt on one side of your lens, or the covering-glass, or maybe some scratches.
Another guess would be that the camera chose one of the multi-shot-modes. Sonys cameras usually are quite good discovering softer parts of the image and multiple instances of the same objects their multi-shot-modes, but of course the algorithm isn´t fool-proof, so their might be a chance that software combined a softer image in the final picture on the right side, while not using this soft image on the left side.
This idea may seem silly, but no less silly than trying to remove foam, add foam, or make floam.
I found this trick while trying to figure out why no adjustment to the Durovis Dive (moveable lenses) seemed as clear as I expected. The solution was to move where the headset sat on my face, despite it not feeling like that was the "intended placement"
Whether or not you use the nose piece is up to you. I honestly never took the time to compare the two foam blobs, so whichever is the default is the one I use. Most of the trick involves using the tension of the top headband, so adjust the one that wraps around your head to wherever it is tight, but still comfortable.
The next part is where it varies by user. You will want to put the headset on and adjust the focus wheel to get as clear as possible for you. After you are comfortable with the view and about to come back here and say WTF, hold the headset by both sides and move it slightly higher on your face. If the view gets clearer, adjust the top band to keep it locked in place. If there is no change, try moving it lower on your face, and again adjust as needed.
While this may not fit into a scientific explanation of pixel depth, it is a rather simple concept. By moving the headset up or down, you actually slightly alter the angle in relation to your eyes. Most games and apps are intended for a view "level to the eye" and when the headset is too low, your nose can cause it to angle slightly downward. When it is too high, the upward tilt can cause your eyes to strain a bit more.
Hopefully that can help some to solve their issue with clarity before running off to cut up or pack in any additional parts.
Depends upon what you mean by clarity? If you mean focus then sure, wearing the headset in different positions may improve focus depending on what works best for your eyes - I personally like to wear my GVR lower on my face for this very reason. However I don't believe this will reduce the appearance of pixels or make them smaller unless of course adjusting the headset in this manner moves the screen further from your face.
Have never personally had focus issues with the GVR other than 360 videos, but I believe that to be a software and not a hardware issue.
**Interesting idea another member posted was to use an anti-glare screen protector. This would serve to diffuse the edges of pixels and thus may smooth them out. No idea what negative effects this would have on focus as I don't own this type of screen protector. Sounds plausible though.
Closed due to excessive trolling.
I read somewhere the FOV is around 101 degrees. I must say it's a very small FOV compared to my BoboVR Z4 which has a much wider FOV. I tested both headsets with the same phone and same app and I could see more wider view on the Z4. I know BoboVR claim 120 FOV on their headset but if the Gear VR truly is 101 degrees then the BoboVR must be around 110 degrees.
The length of the the wide opening on the outside of the lenses is shorter than that of the BoboVR. So is there anyway to improve the Gear VR FOV? I noticed the inside walls on the outside of the lenses are straight. Perhaps we can cut away some of the plastic to make it more rounded and wider. Has anyone done this?
According too this site, they measured the FOV at just under 90 degrees which is exactly what it feels like. Samsung are claiming 101 degrees. Why do all manufacturers exaggerate their FOV measurements? Really sucks.
http://www.sitesinvr.com/viewer/gearvr2016/index.html
You can GREATLY improve FOV by replacing the default face pad with something much thinner ( I used some bicycle helmet padding ). I know it doesn't seem like it would make that much of a difference--but it does. It's also easy to do because the Gear has a thin line of velcro built in so it is easy to remove the original padding and try various replacements.
If you have a phone with a bigger screen you can also use a dremel to cut away some of the plastic shield covering up the screen. I have a 5.7 inch screen and the Gear is designed for much smaller screens, so I lose a lot of pixels if I don't mod the headset myself.
Haints said:
You can GREATLY improve FOV by replacing the default face pad with something much thinner ( I used some bicycle helmet padding ). I know it doesn't seem like it would make that much of a difference--but it does. It's also easy to do because the Gear has a thin line of velcro built in so it is easy to remove the original padding and try various replacements.
If you have a phone with a bigger screen you can also use a dremel to cut away some of the plastic shield covering up the screen. I have a 5.7 inch screen and the Gear is designed for much smaller screens, so I lose a lot of pixels if I don't mod the headset myself.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Currently I am placing the padding under heavy weight to see if it will flatten it somewhat.
Also I did think about cutting some of the sides away as you suggest, but upon further analysis I don't think it will help much.
tboy2000 said:
Currently I am placing the padding under heavy weight to see if it will flatten it somewhat.
Also I did think about cutting some of the sides away as you suggest, but upon further analysis I don't think it will help much.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The default padding has a pretty firm backing. I think you'd have better results replacing it with something that didn't.
As for cutting away the sides, I also did extensive testing. With a 5.7 inch phone, it definitely helps. Smaller phones perhaps not.
Haints said:
The default padding has a pretty firm backing. I think you'd have better results replacing it with something that didn't.
As for cutting away the sides, I also did extensive testing. With a 5.7 inch phone, it definitely helps. Smaller phones perhaps not.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Do you have a photo of your mod please?