So huawei stills refusing to tell us the truth of 960 fps.
Adobe after effect (twixtor) users will now what i am talking about.
The p20 pro is incapable of 960 fps video recording. It is just an frame interpolation technique. It may be recording only in 240 fps or 480 fps. Nevertheless, Software interpolation should be improved.
Those two videos show clearly the case
What do you think guys ?
Huawei should work more on that soft interpolation slow mo thing
you need to practice a little to get good results - https://photos.app.goo.gl/QnvGmwrUL5LmmAZe2
starbase64 said:
you need to practice a little to get good results - https://photos.app.goo.gl/QnvGmwrUL5LmmAZe2
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Practise what, im showcasing some examples from youtube to compare p20 pro and slow mo interpolation outputs.
Frame rate interpolation is what meant by camera powered by AI, i think
Great findings, the question is is this a bug, SW limitation or hw limitation. The drone part of the video definitely show that there is something weird going on. It would be great to have the same tests with 240fps to see if the result is as sharp as it should be...
Also it might depend of firmware version, it seems they made quite a lot of changes in a short time.
Huawei lie to us....
jbfuzier said:
Great findings, the question is is this a bug, SW limitation or hw limitation. The drone part of the video definitely show that there is something weird going on. It would be great to have the same tests with 240fps to see if the result is as sharp as it should be...
Also it might depend of firmware version, it seems they made quite a lot of changes in a short time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I have recorded some videos of muzzle blasts from ww2 era rifles,(yes there is a 6 foot flame out the barrel? not much fun on the shoulder though) in 960fps, it looks just like the you tube video, the 240fps looked alot better, I slowed them down as much as I could on the computer, the 960fps was no better than the 60 FPS, in fact I think the 60 FPS on my old windows 950 was better, with the p20 pro the 960 FPS vid played frame by frame was only 30 frames.
Trying to explain that the FPS is not right to so-called experts is a nightmare! I have explained it like this to a few at Huawei and EE, If you have a camera that shoots 900 FPS and you take a 1 second vid then when you play it back you should have 900 'photos' not 30, they still think it's recorded right as as it's slowed down, they cannot see the distortion or the lack of frames, or they choose to ignore you as they have been 'trained' on this phone.
According to meta data the 960 FPS bids are recorded at 30fps, if I connect the phone to the computer, go into the phones video file and right click on a vid for the properties, it says 30gps for the 960, the 250fps is recorded around the 240 mark (the speed is variable)
It is most likely a hardware limitation Huawei worked around with software trickery to get a similar effect. My guess is that Huawei's sensor lacks the on-sensor memory cache which is required for the sensor to be able to record high frame rate video without any of the normal limitations.
/ Magnus
Magnus3D said:
It is most likely a hardware limitation Huawei worked around with software trickery to get a similar effect. My guess is that Huawei's sensor lacks the on-sensor memory cache which is required for the sensor to be able to record high frame rate video without any of the normal limitations.
/ Magnus
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's true
The 960 fps vídeos really look like twixtor vídeos.
But one thing do not make sense.
If it is a 60fps with some sw gimmick to make a 960fps why there is a recording time limit?
Enviado de meu CLT-L29 usando o Tapatalk
Stupid from huawei
They put the same options as of the galaxy s9 to make you believe that it is real 960 fps
I still believe in some hw limitation as a rolling shutter insted of a global shutter that creates this effect similar to twixtor.
If it is only sw it would make more sense to record at 240fps without time cap and afterwards during editing let the user select the time frame to create the super slowmo.
Enviado de meu CLT-L29 usando o Tapatalk
Can anyone clarify that they get these anomalies and if so what fw are you on?
I'm assuming that some of this is software based so it's possible if that's the case that it can be improved.
Really really horrible to see this though, I did a video of some rain whilst on 110 and it was crap.
Small fast moving objects just come out wrong. Solid normal moving objects seem to be perfect.
EG: the wings on a bee from one of the first posts, you can see the blur effect
i also think it's some kind of rolling shutter issue maybe combined with a real 480fps... limiting the record time would otherwise make no sense st all...
i've made a video where it's provoked by a flickering led-illumination. If the illumination is bright it seems to get better.... cannot post the link, as i'm a newbie - some assembly needed by removing two spaces: https: //youtu .be/4bxmu6nhyho
short update on my comment: did some tests with bad/good illumination and now im pretty sure it's a rolling shutter issue (which isn't a surprise, that you need a lot of light for 960fps) videos wil follow soon...
960fps is fake (at least on the p20)
so i analyzed the video files i made with bad illumination and some movies with good illumination frame by frame and the answer is very simple: 960fps is completely fake. it's recorded at 240fps and then interpolated to 960 fps.
If the illumination is bad, it will just copy 4 times the same image which avoids the ugly artifacts. If the illumination is good it interpolates the frames in-between. it sometimes does a great job, sometimes a really bad one...
in the video here you can see the effect of the interpolation working/not working with the small droplet which stays in place for 4 consecutive frames:
https ://youtu. be/DK-A3j-mino
(again assembly required, sorry... remove the space after the "https" and before the "be")
flowgeek said:
so i analyzed the video files i made with bad illumination and some movies with good illumination frame by frame and the answer is very simple: 960fps is completely fake. it's recorded at 240fps and then interpolated to 960 fps.
If the illumination is bad, it will just copy 4 times the same image which avoids the ugly artifacts. If the illumination is good it interpolates the frames in-between. it sometimes does a great job, sometimes a really bad one...
in the video here you can see the effect of the interpolation working/not working with the small droplet which stays in place for 4 consecutive frames:
https ://youtu. be/DK-A3j-mino
(again assembly required, sorry... remove the space after the "https" and before the "be")
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is exactly what it is. Huawei scammed us with fake specs
yeah... why is huawei not just honest?!? this way they sell a product intentionally with wrong specs! (with big advertisment on the webpage as well...) to me that's fraud, nothing else.
flowgeek said:
yeah... why is huawei not just honest?!? this way they sell a product intentionally with wrong specs! (with big advertisment on the webpage as well...) to me that's fraud, nothing else.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Any sure procedure to report that with a solid proof
Xda staff would be posting articles about that if they were
honest
Related
Hello everyone
Seriously whats wrong with HTC?
Same time when all companies try to give a better response to costumers with more improvements ,here we go again.... HTC is just making it worse.
The HTC diamond 2 ( Topaz) is Using the same Camera HTC HD Does. Touch Pro، Diamond and Touch HD all capture videos in CIF Resolution . The new VGA version cut the bit rates to the Half,now Instead of 30 frames per second we have 15.... Is it even funny?
I know its all related to the Software,they easily can solve the problem with an update so what we can do?Im sure they are not going to make such updates.
So any Idea how we can make it?How to tell them?
I dont think it's related to software..
30fps vga movie recording is (640*480)*30fps burst image recording with compression.. So, it's limited by hardware imho..
definitely a hardware issue, not software
DUDE!
if you wana make a film or film things, you shude buy a filmcamera
cameras on phones SUCK ! on ALL phones!!!!
Zinnix said:
cameras on phones SUCK ! on ALL phones!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thats not completly true, my old N95 8GB had a very good video capture
I don't know what's wrong with your device(s), but mine is recording fine with 30 fps.
Zinnix is right though, if you have aspirations to be a movie maker, buy a proper movie camera................
adesonic said:
Zinnix is right though, if you have aspirations to be a movie maker, buy a proper movie camera................
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I already have one
The problem is they could do it better when previous versions have a better one,anyway leave it because Topaz image capturing satisfies me and that's enough.
peterbonge said:
I don't know what's wrong with your device(s), but mine is recording fine with 30 fps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
mine too
Zinnix said:
DUDE!
if you wana make a film or film things, you shude buy a filmcamera
cameras on phones SUCK ! on ALL phones!!!!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is complete nonsense. There are a couple of phones (starting with the Nokia N95) which have an excellent video recording quality.
I also get pretty mad at HTC when I compare the SE C905 camera to the HTC Diamond 2 camera. Even the "old" Nokia N95 takes much better pictures than the Diamond 2, I won't even start to mention the much higher shutter release/focus speed of the N95.
As to video PLAYBACK quality, HTC sucks bigtime. I don't know what is wrong with them but most of their newer devices need a lot of tweaking and/or special programs like CorePlayer to be able to playback video files in a decent quality. I know it is a hardware restriction (Qualcomm sucks!) but HTC is to blame for it because this is nothing new and there are thousands of complaints about this on the internet.
Samsung actually proved pretty well that most "issues" on modern Windows Mobile devices aren't caused by Windows Mobile but are limitations induced by the used hardware. Take the Samsung i780 as an example: this device has NO problems whatsoever to playback video files in a decent quality. It uses a Marvell chipset, not Qualcomm. Also look at the decent camera of the Samsung Omnia i900, it may mot beat the Nokia N95 photo quality but it is definetely better than anything HTC has to offer, sad but true.
P996 said:
This is complete nonsense. There are a couple of phones (starting with the Nokia N95) which have an excellent video recording quality.
I also get pretty mad at HTC when I compare the SE C905 camera to the HTC Diamond 2 camera. Even the "old" Nokia N95 takes much better pictures than the Diamond 2, I won't even start to mention the much higher shutter release/focus speed of the N95.
As to video PLAYBACK quality, HTC sucks bigtime. I don't know what is wrong with them but most of their newer devices need a lot of tweaking and/or special programs like CorePlayer to be able to playback video files in a decent quality. I know it is a hardware restriction (Qualcomm sucks!) but HTC is to blame for it because this is nothing new and there are thousands of complaints about this on the internet.
Samsung actually proved pretty well that most "issues" on modern Windows Mobile devices aren't caused by Windows Mobile but are limitations induced by the used hardware. Take the Samsung i780 as an example: this device has NO problems whatsoever to playback video files in a decent quality. It uses a Marvell chipset, not Qualcomm. Also look at the decent camera of the Samsung Omnia i900, it may mot beat the Nokia N95 photo quality but it is definetely better than anything HTC has to offer, sad but true.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I Second that,but The phone definitions are available on Net before we get a handy so we all knew its nothing new. We are talking about Pocket pcs but As for Multimedia you could wait for Omnia HD which is the king.
I was going to buy Omnia HD but well Its not going to come with windows mobile ,For now Topaz was the best choice for me because i couldn't wait anymore.
For those who can Wait ,We are going to see new generation of pocket pcs within 2 or 3 month so you can wait.
PhilXdaOrbit2 said:
mine too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Common boys,Doesn't matter where you get it but they are all same. Please read various reviews of Topaz every where and you will see this problem is not just about me.
peterbonge said:
I don't know what's wrong with your device(s), but mine is recording fine with 30 fps.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Mine only records at just under 20fps. How are you getting 30fps? Is there a tweak or something I'm missing? Thanks
PhilXdaOrbit2 said:
mine too
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
How do you tell? I've got it set for VGA but it only records at about 16-19fps.
I've just switched from a N95 to a D2 and the video looks great on the D2 compared to the N95.
I just got my D2 last week so could it be a newer ROM?
WMguy said:
Mine only records at just under 20fps. How are you getting 30fps? Is there a tweak or something I'm missing? Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I think I can solve this mystery now: The D2 records with variable frame rate. Some programs or tools (like GSpot) are showing only the maximal frame rate, which is indeed 30 fps. Other tools are showing the averaged frame rate. Now I've found a tool called MediaInfo, which shows all frame rates. I've just tested it with a recorded video:
Code:
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 19.228 fps
Minimum frame rate : 7.500 fps
Maximum frame rate : 30.000 fps
peterbonge said:
I think I can solve this mystery now: The D2 records with variable frame rate. Some programs or tools (like GSpot) are showing only the maximal frame rate, which is indeed 30 fps. Other tools are showing the averaged frame rate. Now I've found a tool called MediaInfo, which shows all frame rates. I've just tested it with a recorded video:
Code:
Frame rate mode : Variable
Frame rate : 19.228 fps
Minimum frame rate : 7.500 fps
Maximum frame rate : 30.000 fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It has 5 kind of Resolution:
1- S(128x96)
2-M(176x144)
3-L(320x240)
4-CIF(352x288)
5-VGA(640x480)
payameno said:
It has 5 kind of Resolution:
...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you want to tell us with this listing? I was talking about the frame rate and not the resolution.
peterbonge said:
What do you want to tell us with this listing? I was talking about the frame rate and not the resolution.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Each Resolution has its own Frame rate,For VGA its 15 fps
payameno said:
Each Resolution has its own Frame rate,For VGA its 15 fps
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Have you checked that with MediaInfo? The results I've posted are from a VGA recording.
peterbonge said:
Have you checked that with MediaInfo? The results I've posted are from a VGA recording.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not actually,Im just saying that as its what GSMArena reviews says.
I think there is something strange here.
How a same VGA Resolution does the recording with such various Frame rates? There is no option to change Rates so basically it just records with an invariable rate which it seems to be 15 fps for the VGA resolution.
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..
Hi Guys! Im looking for a phone that is the best in low light video (not photo!!!)
had an s9 on me a few days ago but the videos were way too dark in the situation i need it for.
now i found this video on youtube, can this be legit, or some gimmick used here?
Huawei P20 Pro - moving in low light : Bucharest at night 4K
the dark places (park, under trees etc) look way better than the s9.
but its hard to believe, i read in lot of reviews that the videos on the p20 pro are mediocre, not as great as the photo quality.
i suspect this was made with DSLR, not this phone....
any opinions? thx?
kbuss said:
Hi Guys! Im looking for a phone that is the best in low light video (not photo!!!)
had an s9 on me a few days ago but the videos were way too dark in the situation i need it for.
now i found this video on youtube, can this be legit, or some gimmick used here?
Huawei P20 Pro - moving in low light : Bucharest at night 4K
the dark places (park, under trees etc) look way better than the s9.
but its hard to believe, i read in lot of reviews that the videos on the p20 pro are mediocre, not as great as the photo quality.
i suspect this was made with DSLR, not this phone....
any opinions? thx?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It might be real...I own one and the video quality is way better since android 9...I will make a video tonight and upload it on youtube and post it here...and let you decide. The light in that video is not bad,because of the street lights,so not so hard to be at that quality. But I always make videos ad 1080 60 fps,it's better in my opinion and stabilization is active.
But I will do it at 4k in a few hours(they obviously put the phone on a stand or something,the video had no shake at all,I will do it by hand,so a little shake will be in my video,the stabilization is only active at most 1080 60 fps)
Please note that the p20 pro does not have image stabilization in 4k. They used a gimball. That is indeed p20 pro, I recognise the wavyness of the video when panning around. However... The video quality is not good. Samsung is better at that.
exodus394 said:
It might be real...I own one and the video quality is way better since android 9...I will make a video tonight and upload it on youtube
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey thanks but if not a problem for you, plz make a video in the lowest possible framerate/resolution.
allow me to be more precise. im looking for the phone i can make a usable video in the lowest possible light.
i live in a problematic neighborhood, and if there is some argument that i record for evidence, i need video that is not just a black screen...
i dont need 4k for that, in fact even 480p would be enough if it has best low light sensitivity.
i try to attach 2 examples . THESE WERE MADE WITH S9!!! not p20 pro
1. part of my room with a 15W lava lamp. as you can see, apart from the lamp, everything else in unrecognizable (guitar on the wall, computer desk) you can barely see something is there.
2. garden+street with average suburban lighting. at the end of the video, there is good lighting, but if something is shadowed from the streetlight (tree, bushes) you basically see nothing, just pitch black. you woulnd even see if a person is there or not.
i converted to gif for better uploading but on the original videos the light level was the same, you cannot see nothing in the dark parts.
thats why it was hard to believe in the first post video, you can basically see everything, even in the shadows.
guys it wont properly play the above gifs, and many times just hangs. XDA site problem or its on my side...? thx
I do a ton of recording at EDM shows, rapidly changing lights, lazers, etc, and I've been beyond impressed by the video quality. The details this camera catches is nothing shy of amazing. I also don't bother with 4k, because in all honesty, I won't be viewing the videos on a TV large enough to take advantage of the resolution. So for me 1080P is more than adequate. Plus the steady shot/stabilization is definitely needed at my shows. My only complaint about videos on the P20 is the volume in loud environments. Ideally I should be using a usb-C microphone, but it's just easier without.
kbuss said:
hey thanks but if not a problem for you, plz make a video in the lowest possible framerate/resolution.
allow me to be more precise. im looking for the phone i can make a usable video in the lowest possible light.
i live in a problematic neighborhood, and if there is some argument that i record for evidence, i need video that is not just a black screen...
i dont need 4k for that, in fact even 480p would be enough if it has best low light sensitivity.
i try to attach 2 examples . THESE WERE MADE WITH S9!!! not p20 pro
1. part of my room with a 15W lava lamp. as you can see, apart from the lamp, everything else in unrecognizable (guitar on the wall, computer desk) you can barely see something is there.
2. garden+street with average suburban lighting. at the end of the video, there is good lighting, but if something is shadowed from the streetlight (tree, bushes) you basically see nothing, just pitch black. you woulnd even see if a person is there or not.
i converted to gif for better uploading but on the original videos the light level was the same, you cannot see nothing in the dark parts.
thats why it was hard to believe in the first post video, you can basically see everything, even in the shadows.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok,I will. I did not have time yesterday. I will make a video in my room,with light only from pc,and another with the monitor turned off,I have lots of leds so there is some light,but very low.
Here you go,I made a video in my room,the only light source being my pc: https://youtu.be/Hb5nxI_APNA
exodus394 said:
Here you go,I made a video in my room,the only light source being my pc: https://youtu.be/Hb5nxI_APNA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey, thx nice Union Jack :good: :highfive:
exodus394 said:
Here you go,I made a video in my room,the only light source being my pc: https://youtu.be/Hb5nxI_APNA
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
just 1 more thing. if you turn off the monitor, but put the video in 720p/30 fps, does the camera "see" anything?
exodus394 said:
It might be real...I own one and the video quality is way better since android 9...I will make a video tonight and upload it on youtube and post it here...and let you decide. The light in that video is not bad,because of the street lights,so not so hard to be at that quality. But I always make videos ad 1080 60 fps,it's better in my opinion and stabilization is active.
But I will do it at 4k in a few hours(they obviously put the phone on a stand or something,the video had no shake at all,I will do it by hand,so a little shake will be in my video,the stabilization is only active at most 1080 60 fps)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There is no stabilization at 1080p 60 fps. You will only have it up to 30 fps.
kbuss said:
just 1 more thing. if you turn off the monitor, but put the video in 720p/30 fps, does the camera "see" anything?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Of course not,only the leds from pc,but in picture,night mode it can capture a lot more detail than I can see with my eyes.
And the video you saw captured very well,I did not see much more than the camera,it was very dark in the room.
exodus394 said:
Of course not,only the leds from pc,but in picture,night mode it can capture a lot more detail than I can see with my eyes.
And the video you saw captured very well,I did not see much more than the camera,it was very dark in the room.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
thx, sorry, i was looking into other phones thats why it took long to get back...
i understand your reply, thats exactly my problem. im pretty much convinced that the original video is fake or cannot be made with a stock p20p camera app...
i live in a similar city like Bucharest where the video is made, eastern europe also.
in a business disctrict maybe, but in parks, normal streets etc we just dont have enough light for that
if you check the video you see that everything is visible even in the shadows, for example someone couldnt hide there cos the camera would see him.
thats just not realistic. i watched your footage, and is very similar to s9, although i had less light, but not complete darkness, sort of in between.
yes i know the night photo is great but i couldt find any evidence that it has better low light video then other phones... (apart from that one in the post)
i mean if its that good, how come we dont have a lot of amateur videos, or vlogger videos made at night with the p20p..?
just doesnt add up for me.
ps: i checked, my light was about 1/3 of your white PC screen.
kbuss said:
thx, sorry, i was looking into other phones thats why it took long to get back...
i understand your reply, thats exactly my problem. im pretty much convinced that the original video is fake or cannot be made with a stock p20p camera app...
i live in a similar city like Bucharest where the video is made, eastern europe also.
in a business disctrict maybe, but in parks, normal streets etc we just dont have enough light for that
if you check the video you see that everything is visible even in the shadows, for example someone couldnt hide there cos the camera would see him.
thats just not realistic. i watched your footage, and is very similar to s9, although i had less light, but not complete darkness, sort of in between.
yes i know the night photo is great but i couldt find any evidence that it has better low light video then other phones... (apart from that one in the post)
i mean if its that good, how come we dont have a lot of amateur videos, or vlogger videos made at night with the p20p..?
just doesnt add up for me.
ps: i checked, my light was about 1/3 of your white PC screen.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I did not compare it with other premium NEW phones,but it's good enough for me,if I ever want to make a video at night,most probably it will be inside a house,a pub,or even outside is good enough with street lights...if you need more,I don't know what to recommend to you,I did not research enough. But I do know it's better than cheaper phones for sure...and better than my old P9 and my Asus Zenfone 3(which were both premium when they were released).
why did samsung even bother putting in 8k 24 if theres no motion blurring?
It looks choppy as hell and nowhere near cinematic
It's a marketing check-box. You need at least a 33MP+ sensor to do 8k. It's simply something they can say they can do that most of their competition can't.
dscline said:
It's a marketing check-box. You need at least a 33MP+ sensor to do 8k. It's simply something they can say they can do that most of their competition can't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
sorry man but you're wrong... it's trully 8K (64 and 108 Mpx lens)
8K is somewhat of a gimmick anyway. From the average distance an average person usually is from a screen they can't tell the difference between 4K and 8K. We live in a time where the resolution really can't get much better because the human eye generally doesn't distinguish any better detail unless you've got hawk vision. So, it's probably OK to just use 4K and get the much higher frame rates. But, even for 8K 24fps I'd imagine you can post process the video to add as much motion blur as you need in order to smooth it out.
Here's a video that explains why anything above 4K is just a marketing gimmick:
UNIK97122 said:
sorry man but you're wrong... it's trully 8K (64 and 108 Mpx lens)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wrong about what? I never said it wasn't 8k, and of course it's a 108MP sensor. That's the whole point. They have a 108MP sensor, so that enables them tout a marketing point that other phones with <33MP sensors can't possibly compete on.
dscline said:
Wrong about what? I never said it wasn't 8k, and of course it's a 108MP sensor. That's the whole point. They have a 108MP sensor, so that enables them tout a marketing point that other phones with <33MP sensors can't possibly compete on.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
true but the cpu must support 8k too that's why the other don't use it, it's not marketing because if you what it on 8K screen, you can see the differences against 4K
I've watched it on a 75" 8K Q900R and it is discernably sharper (just), however the low framerate makes it only really suitable for scenes without too much fast action. Great perhaps for cityscapes with lots of edge detail or large landscape shots.
dajaco said:
I've watched it on a 75" 8K Q900R and it is discernably sharper (just), however the low framerate makes it only really suitable for scenes without too much fast action. Great perhaps for cityscapes with lots of edge detail or large landscape shots.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes, and you can capture photos directly from the videos at 33Mpx, it the best way to use the 8k footage without tripod
I'm opening this thread since I don't see it there.
Why do I get the impression that the 960 FPS Slow Motion that the Camera does is actually an interpolated version of a 240 FPS version?
Today I was curious to see how good it was, I put the 960 FPS mode and I said: I will finally be able to see every little detail of my experiments and social life.
I was very disappointed to see that after the video had been processed I would find myself with an old acquaintance of interpolation algorithms such as RIFE, CAIN or DAIN... The distortions. These flaws are common when interpolating videos as the AI is trying to guess where the next pixel will go in the next frame, as a consequence sometimes a teleportation effect is generated and that's what I realized today.
Honestly, that has left me disappointed because now I know that in the 960 FPS version, 3 out of 4 frames are not real.
It would be stupid to ask but the camera and processor specs support 960 FPS video. Why didn't Motorola actually implement it? Instead it is using the NPU to Interpolate
fulltronservice said:
I'm opening this thread since I don't see it there.
Why do I get the impression that the 960 FPS Slow Motion that the Camera does is actually an interpolated version of a 240 FPS version?
Today I was curious to see how good it was, I put the 960 FPS mode and I said: I will finally be able to see every little detail of my experiments and social life.
I was very disappointed to see that after the video had been processed I would find myself with an old acquaintance of interpolation algorithms such as RIFE, CAIN or DAIN... The distortions. These flaws are common when interpolating videos as the AI is trying to guess where the next pixel will go in the next frame, as a consequence sometimes a teleportation effect is generated and that's what I realized today.
Honestly, that has left me disappointed because now I know that in the 960 FPS version, 3 out of 4 frames are not real.
It would be stupid to ask but the camera and processor specs support 960 FPS video. Why didn't Motorola actually implement it? Instead it is using the NPU to Interpolate
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They couldn't be bothered. Much about this device is made just to seem good on the surface but actually using it is a different story. I, for example, doubt that the main camera is even 108MP. Taking photos in 108MP does not offer any more detail than 12MP. They honestly should have just gone for an OIS 16MP or something but no, they went backwards from last generation and slapped in this garbage sensor, which is a shame since the telephoto and wide angle are actually great. I also noticed the messed up "960fps video" and I just never use it.
Username: Required said:
They couldn't be bothered. Much about this device is made just to seem good on the surface but actually using it is a different story. I, for example, doubt that the main camera is even 108MP. Taking photos in 108MP does not offer any more detail than 12MP. They honestly should have just gone for an OIS 16MP or something but no, they went backwards from last generation and slapped in this garbage sensor, which is a shame since the telephoto and wide angle are actually great. I also noticed the messed up "960fps video" and I just never use it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually in the rest of the sections I am satisfied for the price of the phone but in the quality of the main camera I was disappointed. I'm still using GCam and I can't find a way to make the photo display with its details.
fulltronservice said:
Actually in the rest of the sections I am satisfied for the price of the phone but in the quality of the main camera I was disappointed. I'm still using GCam and I can't find a way to make the photo display with its details.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you mean by "display with it's detail"? The phone does take soft pictures with the main camera, I know. Shooting in RAW and opening the images in Light Room does show that there is a lot of detail that gets crushed due to the aggressive denoise algorithm that GCam uses, and the main camera app sharpens the image so much that it ends up looking like an oil painting.
Username: Required said:
What do you mean by "display with it's detail"? The phone does take soft pictures with the main camera, I know. Shooting in RAW and opening the images in Light Room does show that there is a lot of detail that gets crushed due to the aggressive denoise algorithm that GCam uses, and the main camera app sharpens the image so much that it ends up looking like an oil painting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With details I was referring to the information that the camera captures when you zoom in and start to see noise. I find no way to prevent the noise algorithm from creating corrections far from reality. When you take a picture, the photo is perfect until you zoom to 4x. You realize that you start to see noise and lose detail. And Motorola in the camera content update it released earlier this week hasn't fixed anything.