VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 51
Thread
  1. UNNECESSARY Video recording framerate limitations

    Hello.

    When comparing the processing performance of older phones against newer ones, there have been incredible improvements.
    But there are strange restrictions, that I can not explain:
    • The iPhone 8 hits 2160p@60fps but also 1080p@240fps. Not even the Panasonic Lumix DMC-GH5 is able to do that.
    • iPhones always had superior HFR recording. (also encoded in real-time with sound, so that it can be treated like a normal video, which is good for editing, and playback speed equals speed relative to real time, unlike the Fz1000 did.)
    • The Note 3 (2013): 2160p@30fps; 1080p@60fps. The Note 8 hits five times higher performance scores in benchmarks, but still is limited to 2160p@30fps and 1080p@60fps. It even has more performance than the iPhone 6s (1080p@120fps).
    • The Galaxy S4 had well above half the processing performance of Note 3. Still limited to 1080p@30fps?
    • 2160p@30fps means 248832000 pixels per second. Many 2160p@30fps phones were limited to 1080p@60fps and 720p@120fps. Why not 1080p@120fps? 1080p@120fps equals 248832000 pixels per second too. Same required processing speed. Same applies for 720p@270fps. Multiplying frames per second by horizontal and vertical resolution brings number of pixels read per second.
    • 30fps limitations on front cameras. (the front camera is not important anyway)
    • The S7 has 720p@240fps, while the Note 3 (S5, Note 4, S6, Note 5) has 1080p@120fps. But the S7 has 1080p@60fps and not 1080p@120fps.
    • Sony Xperia XZ has 720p@960fps for 1 second, but still 720p@120fps without time limitations.
    • OnePlus 5 has TOP specifications, but is still limited to 720p@120fps. The iPhone 6 reached 720p@240fps with less than half the system ressources.
    • Galaxy S7 with Android Marshmallow: 2160p capture without any fixed time limitation. Note 7 (even with Marshmallow) and S7 with Nougat update? 10 minutes. Why?
    I wrote a comment on HighSpeedCams.com more than a year ago. (one of the few comments that their spam filter allowed. Many comments were not posted. I stored them locally instead.)
    Here is the link to that comment: http://www.hispeedcams.com/galaxy-s7-brings-240fps-at-720p-but-skips-fhd/#comment-481
    (JavaScript needs to be enabled to read the framerate numbers due to the "@" sign, because CloudFlare's spam protector considers it as E-Mail address.)

    Here is the text of my comment:


    "I wish that framerate could be choosen freely on the S7.
    I can record 1080p@60fps, but no 720p@60fps.
    I can record 720p@240fps, but not 720p@120fps.
    I can record 2160p@30fps, but not 2160p@20fps. ﴾20fps is no standard, but a good balance between stuttering 16 fps and space consumption.﴿

    Theoretically, the S7 is able to record in those resolutions, but the software does not offer that possibility.
    When I’m low on storage, which should actually be rare with MicroSD, I have to choose a lower resolution.
    However, I would always try to keep free storage, to make sure, that I’m far away from getting into problems with space storage emergency, by moving data somewhere else such an external data storage, which could be USB-OTG or a hard drive.
    Space storage emergency is a problem, that could hit anybody at a bad time. When there’s something, that I *have* to record, I’m toast, if I fail on space storage. Additionally, the feeling of running out of space storage is unpleasent.
    If space storage gets full on the internal storage, some applications get into trouble. This leads to unpleasent data loss in rare case. It happened to me on the Galaxy Note 3 SM-N9005, where Samsung’s stock browser erased my fifty-tab-session and just kept the last 33 Tabs.

    That’s another reason to get phones with maximum internal storage. MicroSD can’t be used for everything, but it’s very useful too. One of my classmates had an iPhone 5s with just 16 Gigabytes. He always had problems with battery life and storage on some class excursions. Nobody had a powerbank, the battery was not removable, and I had a MicroSD, but his iPhone is unable to read it. Now, he has one with 64 GB.

    Back to topic:
    It is a bit disappointing, that the S7 is not capable of recording in 1080p@120fps. In this resolution, the same number of pixels are read per second, which it also gets at 2160p@30fps. 248832000 Pixels per second. So theoretically, a Note 3 from 2013 should be capable of record 1080p@120fps, because the processing speed and performance is enough to process that number of pixels in a second. The sensor reading speed should be enough and the processing power anyway.
    That’s the same kind of ridicolous software limit like the Galaxy burst shot limit. It is 100 on the S7, which is actually not bad. But Xperia and Apple have no limits.
    Until 2015, the limit was still at thirty. When I saw the S6 in the tech store for the first time, I held the shutter button, I saw the number climbing (there was no (xx/30) like previous phones, but just the number xx of the current shot in row, so I expected that they finally smashed this limitation.) But then it stopped at thirty. I had to facepalm. It did reload very fast, but it’s not an unlimited continious shot as known from iPhone and Xperia, where the counter shows 999+, if 1000 is reached, and it continues until the storage is full, the device is overheating, or the battery is weak. (this was the same day, where I realized, that the S6 records the slow motion with sound and in realtime! That was glorious! And finally, there is a torch in the quick toggle panel, which was actually messed up on the S6 but recnetly fixed with the Marshmallow update.) But the S5-G901F and the tech-shop-demo model G900X have a limit of 1000! That was beautiful. It was hanging at some places, and sometimes, the burst speed got lower a bit (possibly caused through device heating), and sometimes, it stopped (probably because my finger did slide off the tiny S5 shutter key, which has only 1/3 of the size of the SGN3 shutter button), but when I used the volume keys and held it for three minutes, I maxed out the 1000 shots in row on a G900X in the tech store.

    The S7 finally removes the 4K 5Minute limit however. Before of that, some XDA contributors made some applications to bypass this limit, but now it’s finally supported by the pre-installed software.
    Sorry for off-topic: A minor problem, which users are facing with the marshmallow update, is that the flashlight in the quick toggle panel refuses to operate when the camera is running. That’s too bad. But some third-party-external apps are able to bypass this limitation as much as ASR and Smart Voice Recorder are able to continue recording audio from the microphones, when multimedia applications are opened. But this makes it impossible for other applications to use the microphones. Google speech input and video recording will fail while photos can still be taken.

    Sorry for this long comment! It was not supposed to get that long!
    But thank you for this article! There was something, which I forgot to mention in this comment, but it is tooooo looong anyway, so there is no need to make it even longer."


    I wrote a few more comments somewhere on that site, but more than 30 comments I wrote (saved locally somewhere) could not be uploaded due to the spam filter.



    But I hope, that you can help solving this mystery.
    Hopefully, my question could wake some interests. I would highly appreciate some clues.
    Quote Quote  
  2. Originally Posted by TechLord View Post

    Back to topic:
    It is a bit disappointing, that the S7 is not capable of recording in 1080p@120fps. In this resolution, the same number of pixels are read per second, which it also gets at 2160p@30fps. 248832000 Pixels per second.


    It's not determined by "pixels per second" in the way you think - because on most phones, the sensor is either cropped or line skipped (every nth line) to achieve HFR modes and lower resolutions modes. The full sensor can only refresh at a certain max frequency. The higher modes are only achievable with with those tricks where only part of the sensor is sampled

    ie . You're not getting full quality pixel array and proper resize with oversampling when using higher frame rates. The hardware is not fast enough to process for that , or you get more frame drops that you normally would. (you already get framedrops with VFR). That' s also why quality is much lower - on models that line skip , every nth line is sampled. This results in aliasing, jaggy artifacts.

    Also those stats and framerates are misleading, because those are "average" rates. All phones actually record VFR, so not ideal for editing or filming.



    "I wish that framerate could be choosen freely on the S7.
    I can record 1080p@60fps, but no 720p@60fps.
    I can record 720p@240fps, but not 720p@120fps.
    In contrast, those ones should be achievable if someone hacked the firmware. There is no hardware limitation strictly speaking
    Quote Quote  
  3. Yet another limitation I do not understand:
    It's strange enough, why the Galaxy S7 skipped 1080p@120fps.

    However, the Panasonic camcorders HC-X1 and X1000 are able to capture 2160p at 60fps (497664000).
    How about 1080p? Also 60fps!

    497664000 pixels per second equals also 1080p@240fps (16:9), 1440p@135fps and 720p@540fps or even 480p@1440fps (3:2).

    A professional camcorder user won't feel good, if clueless amateur iSheep achieve better framerates. (but default iPhone setting is 1080p at 30fps. 99% of iSheep will not touch that.)



    The iPhone 8, which people would even purchase, if it had an iPhone 4 camera (according to @AppleSucks7 on Twitter), or if it was a piece of brick with iLogo, captures 1080p at 240fps. Shouldn't a cinema grade camcorder achieve that with ease?

    GoPro is good, but overhyped.

    Of course, none of them will reach the image quality of a X1000E. But it is a disappointing pity, that the X1000e is chained to 60fps.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    I don't know if there are technical reasons why consumer UHD camcorders do not allow 1080p120, but there are certainly practical ones, the limitations of HDMI and TVs.

    Many TVs have HDMI 1.4 which allows 1080p input at 60fps or less but not 120fps, unless it is an active 3D capable TV, and then 120 Hz only works for 3D. In theory, an HDMI 2.0 connection can support 2D 1080p at 120fps, but they don't always. Since 1080p120 consumer sources aren't common, many inexpensive UHD TVs use 60Hz panels. [Edit]Even if the panel is capable of 120Hz, a UHDTV may still be limited to 60Hz video for 1080p. It is really up to the manufacturer.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 23rd Sep 2017 at 13:51.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329
    Quote Quote  
  5. New "top consumer" Sony FDR-AX700 and Canon GX10 models for this Christmas market can record 120fps for 1080p. That Canon also records 4k@60p , has HDMI 2.0 out.
    Those higher frame rates (for 1080p)can be played back at 60p I think so it can be connected to any TV I guess (check this though).
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    I don't know if there are technical reasons why consumer UHD camcorders do not allow 1080p120, but there are certainly practical ones, the limitations of HDMI and TVs.

    Many TVs have HDMI 1.4 which allows 1080p input at 60fps or less but not 120fps, unless it is an active 3D capable TV, and then 120 Hz only works for 3D. In theory, an HDMI 2.0 connection can support 2D 1080p at 120fps, but they don't always. Since 1080p120 consumer sources aren't common, many inexpensive UHD TVs use 60Hz panels. [Edit]Even if the panel is capable of 120Hz, a UHDTV may still be limited to 60Hz video for 1080p. It is really up to the manufacturer.
    HDMi limitations? That's 0% of a reason to remove these capabilities.

    And what I hope is: The high framerate videos will be encoded with the exact same recording framerate and with audio, just like a normal video, but more versatile, so it can be treated either like a normal but HFR video, or slow motion video editing. I hope, what I mean is clear.

    Positive examples:
    • Samsung Galaxy: Starting with S6 and Note 5.
    • RX10/RX100 until 1080p@120fps.
    • LG starting with G3 and V10 with glorious camera application user interface.
    • All HFR iPhones, starting with 5s.

    Negative examples:
    • Galaxy Note 2,3,4; S4,S5.
    • Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ1000, or also Fz1k.
    • HTC One M9 (probably also M8 and M7).
    • OnePlus devices (as far as known to me). Despite OnePlus since One has great camera settings, like Oppo Find 7.
    • Motorola DroidTurbo 2.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    @TechLord What if someone wants to watch 120fps video at its original frame rate? 120Hz TVs and monitors aren't common and are comparatively expensive. Having the ability to watch and enjoy the video is important.

    Recording at 120fps requires more and faster storage and faster encoder chips, making the camera more expensive. Are there enough ordinary consumers willing to pay extra for HFR? Just because you want this feature badly doesn't mean most consumers care a lot about it and would be willing to pay for it.

    I'll bet shooting 120fps video consumes more power and generates a bit more heat, which is an important consideration for cell phones.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 29th Jan 2018 at 11:51.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    @TechLord What if someone wants to watch 120fps video at its original frame rate? 120Hz TVs and monitors aren't common and are comparatively expensive. Having the ability to watch and enjoy the video is important.

    Recording at 120fps requires more and faster storage and faster encoder chips, making the camera more expensive. Are there enough ordinary consumers willing to pay extra for HFR? Just because you want this feature badly doesn't mean most consumers care a lot about it and would be willing to pay for it.

    I'll bet shooting 120fps video consumes more power and generates a bit more heat, which is an important consideration for cell phones.
    Then, it can be slowed down inside of the video player.
    Displayed playback speed equals real world.
    Quote Quote  
  9. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    We know that. We also know that the "120fps" feature is basically there to allow for trick video/slomo.
    But as has been stated, it comes at a cost and a limit that cannot be cheated. Short bursts might be possible, but extended recording probably isn't. Binning is quite common.

    I know you seem quite enamoured of HFR video, but tell me, have you ever actually "SEEN" it? My guess is that even if you (or other compatriots) were successful at recording it, you were still viewing it on TVs or monitors running at normal framerates (e.g. 60Hz).
    That's like talking about being wowed by HDR but only using SDR monitors to evaluate. What you see there is all tone-mapped.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    @TechLord What if someone wants to watch 120fps video at its original frame rate? 120Hz TVs and monitors aren't common and are comparatively expensive. Having the ability to watch and enjoy the video is important.

    Recording at 120fps requires more and faster storage and faster encoder chips, making the camera more expensive. Are there enough ordinary consumers willing to pay extra for HFR? Just because you want this feature badly doesn't mean most consumers care a lot about it and would be willing to pay for it.

    I'll bet shooting 120fps video consumes more power and generates a bit more heat, which is an important consideration for cell phones.
    Then, it can be slowed down inside of the video player.
    Displayed playback speed equals real world.
    If it is slowed down to 60fps, then I'm watching the video in slow motion, not watching the video played at its original frame rate. Next you'll say I should let the player frame decimate to 60fps. If I have to frame decimate to see the video at real-world speed, and don't care about slow motion, then what is the point of paying for a 120fps camera? Next you'll tell me to buy a 120Hz display. What if I can't afford to replace my TVs and monitors with better ones? Maybe someone in that situation would prefer to buy camera or phone that is limited to filming 60fps and pay a little less, since they have no use for 120fps video.

    Find a phone or camera that comes closer to what you want or need and stop complaining about all the other phones or cameras that aren't designed to fully exploit the capabilities of their sensors. There are undoubtedly sound engineering, marketing or monetary reasons behind the decision not to implement certain features supported by the camera's sensor, even if you don't know what they are.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 29th Jan 2018 at 17:07.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329
    Quote Quote  
  11. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    As I wrote on your other thread:
    In the grand scheme of things, a phone is a complete POS for video. The sensors are toys.
    I have a decade-old pro dSLR that will outperform the newest of phones in terms of quality, both video and photo.
    If you want to shoot video, then buy a camera. Not a phone.

    If you think otherwise, then you don't even remotely understand digital optical image sensors.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  12. Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    As I wrote on your other thread:
    In the grand scheme of things, a phone is a complete POS for video. The sensors are toys.
    I have a decade-old pro dSLR that will outperform the newest of phones in terms of quality, both video and photo.
    If you want to shoot video, then buy a camera. Not a phone.

    If you think otherwise, then you don't even remotely understand digital optical image sensors.
    I am just curious. But I consider my understanding of image sensors as very well. Pixel size, noise, CMOS, CCD, optical zoom, OiS, lossless digital zoom and calculations, loss(l)y digital zoom, etc…. Remember, I am just 16 years old at the moment.

    I am glad, that professional cameras still outperform phones in terms of quality, because iSheep do not deserve holding too much power in their hands. If somebody is an iPhone user here, that should not be considered personal offense, but where I live, iPhone users are mostly antisocial Snapchat users.

    But why does the professional equipment not allow occasionally sacrificing quality and resolution for framerate when needed? Example: Ability to trade in 16:9 2160p@60fps against 16:9 720p@540fps. Both result into exactly 497664000 pixels of information each second.
    Another good balance between space storage consumption and resolution/quality and smoothness is 1440p@60fps.

    The processing performance is already there. What's stopping the framerates from unleashing their potential and increasing antiproportinally compared to resolutions? In smartphones and cameras.

    The flagship OnePlus 5T is stuck at 720p@120fps, where Galaxy Note 3 and iPhone 5s started (﴾2013﴿), despite the former one being equipped with newest powerful hardware. 1080p is also still at 60fps. Front camera 30fps.
    Also more professional equipment such as the Panasonic camcorders HC-X1 and HC-X1000 allow for video captures at 2160p with 60fps, yet with 1080p at 60fps, despite having easily sufficient hardware for 1080p@120fps at least.
    Last edited by TechLord; 30th Jan 2018 at 04:34. Reason: More detailed information.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    @TechLord What if someone wants to watch 120fps video at its original frame rate? 120Hz TVs and monitors aren't common and are comparatively expensive. Having the ability to watch and enjoy the video is important.

    Recording at 120fps requires more and faster storage and faster encoder chips, making the camera more expensive. Are there enough ordinary consumers willing to pay extra for HFR? Just because you want this feature badly doesn't mean most consumers care a lot about it and would be willing to pay for it.

    I'll bet shooting 120fps video consumes more power and generates a bit more heat, which is an important consideration for cell phones.
    Then, it can be slowed down inside of the video player.
    Displayed playback speed equals real world.
    If it is slowed down to 60fps, then I'm watching the video in slow motion, not watching the video played at its original frame rate. Next you'll say I should let the player frame decimate to 60fps. If I have to frame decimate to see the video at real-world speed, and don't care about slow motion, then what is the point of paying for a 120fps camera? Next you'll tell me to buy a 120Hz display. What if I can't afford to replace my TVs and monitors with better ones? Maybe someone in that situation would prefer to buy camera or phone that is limited to filming 60fps and pay a little less, since they have no use for 120fps video.

    Find a phone or camera that comes closer to what you want or need and stop complaining about all the other phones or cameras that aren't designed to fully exploit the capabilities of their sensors. There are undoubtedly sound engineering, marketing or monetary reasons behind the decision not to implement certain features supported by the camera's sensor, even if you don't know what they are.

    You mean asking. I am not complaining. I am just looking for a technical explaination.

    I meant that if I capture at 120fps, the video can be adapted to slow motion and normal playback. If the monitor can not play 120fps, no problem. The video information is still there and can be used for video editing at any later point, when needed.
    Additionally, one could own an 120fps monitor in 10 or 20 years. Same reason to record valueable moments in higher resolutions: future-proofing. Then, the video could be watched at full framerate or resolution.

    Lesser important moments can also be filmed at more space-storage saving resolutions. The options should just be available for all cases. Better 1 than 0.
    Quote Quote  
  14. [QUOTE=usually_quiet;2510231][QUOTE=TechLord;2510220]
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Maybe someone in that situation would prefer to buy camera or phone that is limited to filming 60fps and pay a little less, since they have no use for 120fps video.
    That does already exist.
    Quote Quote  
  15. 1080p@480fps?
    I would also like to discuss the MT6795 in this thread, and how it was meant to achieve high framerates.
    The dedicated thread discussion has been redirected onto here.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    You mean asking. I am not complaining. I am just looking for a technical explaination.
    Bullsh*t. This thread is a garden variety rant. Someone who has seen fit to call himself "TechLord" should know that the only people who can actually provide the technical explanations for why these phones/cameras don't have the features he wants are the engineers at the companies that created them. Nobody with even a moderate amount of technical expertise would really believe that random members of a public forum could know very much much about the reasoning behind engineering decisions made by the design teams at major consumer electronics firms.

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    I meant that if I capture at 120fps, the video can be adapted to slow motion and normal playback. If the monitor can not play 120fps, no problem. The video information is still there and can be used for video editing at any later point, when needed.
    Additionally, one could own an 120fps monitor in 10 or 20 years. Same reason to record valueable moments in higher resolutions: future-proofing. Then, the video could be watched at full framerate or resolution.

    Lesser important moments can also be filmed at more space-storage saving resolutions. The options should just be available for all cases. Better 1 than 0.
    It would be smarter to get a good 1080p-only model today and wait if there is no immediate or near-future use for 4K or 120 fps. There is no such thing as future proofing beyond the very near future. I have lived long enough to see that truth demonstrated many times. Better cameras and phones arrive every year. In 10 to 20 years any video shot today with a cell phone will look like crap.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329
    Quote Quote  
  17. One example that helps to explaine that problem,
    you perhaps cannot remember, but about 5 years ago company named RED came out to produce camcorder/cameras claiming they would make 50p/60p fullHD for affordable price (big thing then) and they advertised it as Soccer mom camera, affordable. They had even name for it - Scarlet. They run into lots of problems because of shear amount of data that needs to be handled. The biggest was heating problem. They developed even their own RED format , raw stream etc. At the end cameras were much more expensive. Nowadays they have to operate in 4k terms, fullHD is not enough.

    You cannot have a phone and capture reality in real resolution, process it in real time without cheating in some way. And we are not talking about processor capabilities. So those things cheat big time. I don't know, not reading all the lines etc., etc. So you ask. So if you see on the spec sheet 1080@120. That does not necessarily mean true 1080 lines in resolution. It is just a number on a paper. If you insist more phones and devices have it , I agree, it is a cool thing to have, but it is a gimmick. Definitely future phones , they will have it as well, 120fps, 240fps. Good for youtube, to study movement in detail during sport etc. But it is sort of like watching sports and suddenly they cut live camera from someones GoPro helmet or something. You immediately see the difference. But on paper , both cameras could have the same specs.

    So if that MT6795 really produces those 480, if that is true even on paper, question is how. How are they cheating? If it is really implemented in a phone. Shoot some scene with 60p, then 480p, compare them. Found a phone if it exists with that chip. You know the Scarlet story now. How much it is. What the limitations are.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    You mean asking. I am not complaining. I am just looking for a technical explaination.
    Bullsh*t. This thread is a garden variety rant. Someone who has seen fit to call himself "TechLord" should know that the only people who can actually provide the technical explanations for why these phones/cameras don't have the features he wants are the engineers at the companies that created them. Nobody with even a moderate amount of technical expertise would really believe that random members of a public forum could know very much much about the reasoning behind engineering decisions made by the design teams at major consumer electronics firms.

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    I meant that if I capture at 120fps, the video can be adapted to slow motion and normal playback. If the monitor can not play 120fps, no problem. The video information is still there and can be used for video editing at any later point, when needed.
    Additionally, one could own an 120fps monitor in 10 or 20 years. Same reason to record valueable moments in higher resolutions: future-proofing. Then, the video could be watched at full framerate or resolution.

    Lesser important moments can also be filmed at more space-storage saving resolutions. The options should just be available for all cases. Better 1 than 0.
    It would be smarter to get a good 1080p-only model today and wait if there is no immediate or near-future use for 4K or 120 fps. There is no such thing as future proofing beyond the very near future. I have lived long enough to see that truth demonstrated many times. Better cameras and phones arrive every year. In 10 to 20 years any video shot today with a cell phone will look like crap.
    What's wrong with asking?
    Einstein also asked. And it harms nobody.

    I wonder, why you clicked on my thread initially, if my question is considered by you as irrelevant as
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Bull$h1t.
    in your eyes. Please, do not be so easily provoke-able (like in your earlier replies I actually liked much sometimes) as an adult man.
    I hope you do better in real life, as your username suggests.

    fit to call himself "TechLord"
    So how well did you know technology as child, let's say aged three? I wonder. Well, at least no tech store ever banned you for superior knowledge compared to their customer guides. This happened to me several times starting in 2014 until 2016, when I wanted to help customers.
    Please excuse me, I did not intend to appear arrogant. I do usually_not_prefer_arrogancy.

    Personal stuff aside. I am here for different reasons.
    ▪☆▪☆▪☆▪☆▪

    In 10 or 20 years, videos shot today will absolutely not look any worse. We are out of Super8 ages
    The new cameras will just relatively become better.

    I am not asking about what device to purchase, just about the quest and causes of technical limitations that sounded irrational to me.
    Answer or discuss. Haters gonna hate.
    Last edited by TechLord; 30th Jan 2018 at 16:52. Reason: absolutely not look any worse
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    In 10 or 20 years, video shot today will look like video shot today, but in 10 to 20 years, video shot then will look much, much better. And WE will be used to it (spoiled), so anything shot from earlier will in comparison look noticeably WORSE. That's what he's saying. You know it to be true.

    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    United States
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    fit to call himself "TechLord"

    So how well did you know technology as child, let's say aged three? I wonder. Well, at least no tech store ever banned you for superior knowledge compared to their customer guides. This happened to me several times starting in 2014 until 2016, when I wanted to help customers.
    Please excuse me, I did not intend to appear arrogant. I do usually_not_prefer_arrogancy.
    I wouldn't brag about that. Of course you were banned. You were interfering with a business and preventing the salespeople from earning their living. Where were your parents? Did they not explain to you that your actions were annoying and inappropriate, and if they did, why didn't you listen to them?

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    In 10 or 20 years, videos shot today will absolutely not look any worse. We are out of Super8 ages
    The new cameras will just relatively become better.
    Expectations about what good video should look like will have risen due to much better cameras, so yes the video will seem less good, especially to those with a discerning eye. You do realize that at one time, Super 8 cameras were cutting edge consumer products, don't you?

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    I am not asking about what device to purchase, just about the quest and causes of technical limitations that sounded irrational to me.
    If you want answers, the first thing you need to do is figure out who has the information you want. As I said, it should be obvious to a 16-year old self-proclaimed technology expert that asking questions here about why certain specific design decisions were made is a waste of everyone's time. Only the people responsible for creating the phones/cameras you are asking about can tell you precisely why the technical limitations you are complaining about exist.

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    Answer or discuss. Haters gonna hate.
    You can't control what replies you get in a forum, kid.
    Last edited by usually_quiet; 30th Jan 2018 at 18:15.
    Ignore list: hello_hello, tried, TechLord, Snoopy329
    Quote Quote  
  21. Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    fit to call himself "TechLord"

    So how well did you know technology as child, let's say aged three? I wonder. Well, at least no tech store ever banned you for superior knowledge compared to their customer guides. This happened to me several times starting in 2014 until 2016, when I wanted to help customers.
    Please excuse me, I did not intend to appear arrogant. I do usually_not_prefer_arrogancy.
    I wouldn't brag about that. Of course you were banned. You were interfering with a business and preventing the salespeople from earning their living. Where were your parents? Did they not explain to you that your actions were annoying and inappropriate, and if they did, why didn't you listen to them?

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    In 10 or 20 years, videos shot today will absolutely not look any worse. We are out of Super8 ages
    The new cameras will just relatively become better.
    Expectations about what good video should look like will have risen due to much better cameras, so yes the video will seem less good, especially to those with a discerning eye. You do realize that at one time, Super 8 cameras were cutting edge consumer products, don't you?

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    I am not asking about what device to purchase, just about the quest and causes of technical limitations that sounded irrational to me.
    If you want answers, the first thing you need to do is figure out who has the information you want. As I said, it should be obvious to a 16-year old self-proclaimed technology expert that asking questions here about why certain specific design decisions were made is a waste of everyone's time. Only the people responsible for creating the phones/cameras you are asking about can tell you precisely why the technical limitations you are complaining about exist.

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    Answer or discuss. Haters gonna hate.
    You can't control what replies you get in a forum, kid.
    I am typing on a mobile phone, so I can not easily quote parts of your answer.

    > You can't control what replies you get
    Did I ever claim I could? That was just a suggestion.

    In some other tech shops, I was honoured for my supreme knowledge.
    I was passionatr about smartphones, but I stopped in 2016, as you can read.

    >Figure out the information you want.
    Reason behind technical limitations. Was that not clear enough?

    And I know that only manufacturers themselves can give a definitive answer, but maybe, some people here also provide possible explanations.


    Of course, the expectations will rise. What else? But that does not make the captured video footage look any worse. It does not degrade like analogue tape over time.
    Quote Quote  
  22. it may be intentional marketing decision - you never know how big companies work inside - they can kill good product and promote bad one if manager responsible for bad one is better in selling internal b*s* propaganda within company - i work sufficiently long for large companies to see this on my own eyes - there is no rational behaviour sometimes - other factors are important. I like concept of High FrameRate systems - as engineer i see added value from 300fps or even more - there is plenty of works done for example by BBC around HFR and they proving clearly that human perceive HFR video as better, higher quality than even 60fps. We need to wait - after flop on so called 3D, after VR (too early, too expensive) and UHD (4k) seem new marketing target will be 8k and HDR, after few years seem HFR systems will be next marketing hype - if we wait few years (6 - 10 years IMHO) then HFR will be common thing.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Originally Posted by pandy View Post
    it may be intentional marketing decision - you never know how big companies work inside - they can kill good product and promote bad one if manager responsible for bad one is better in selling internal b*s* propaganda within company - i work sufficiently long for large companies to see this on my own eyes - there is no rational behaviour sometimes - other factors are important. I like concept of High FrameRate systems - as engineer i see added value from 300fps or even more - there is plenty of works done for example by BBC around HFR and they proving clearly that human perceive HFR video as better, higher quality than even 60fps. We need to wait - after flop on so called 3D, after VR (too early, too expensive) and UHD (4k) seem new marketing target will be 8k and HDR, after few years seem HFR systems will be next marketing hype - if we wait few years (6 - 10 years IMHO) then HFR will be common thing.
    That's possible.
    They want people to upgrade. Same with 6s 1715mAh.

    But that is just software laziness, and should be bypassable with modifications.

    But I wonder, how worse can be better.
    Samsung is stuck at a quarter of framerate as Apple at 1080p.
    1440p still at 30fps, despite 1440p@120fps would be possible with given hardware easily.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    fit to call himself "TechLord"

    So how well did you know technology as child, let's say aged three? I wonder. Well, at least no tech store ever banned you for superior knowledge compared to their customer guides. This happened to me several times starting in 2014 until 2016, when I wanted to help customers.
    Please excuse me, I did not intend to appear arrogant. I do usually_not_prefer_arrogancy.
    I wouldn't brag about that. Of course you were banned. You were interfering with a business and preventing the salespeople from earning their living. Where were your parents? Did they not explain to you that your actions were annoying and inappropriate, and if they did, why didn't you listen to them?

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    In 10 or 20 years, videos shot today will absolutely not look any worse. We are out of Super8 ages
    The new cameras will just relatively become better.
    Expectations about what good video should look like will have risen due to much better cameras, so yes the video will seem less good, especially to those with a discerning eye. You do realize that at one time, Super 8 cameras were cutting edge consumer products, don't you?

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    I am not asking about what device to purchase, just about the quest and causes of technical limitations that sounded irrational to me.
    If you want answers, the first thing you need to do is figure out who has the information you want. As I said, it should be obvious to a 16-year old self-proclaimed technology expert that asking questions here about why certain specific design decisions were made is a waste of everyone's time. Only the people responsible for creating the phones/cameras you are asking about can tell you precisely why the technical limitations you are complaining about exist.

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    Answer or discuss. Haters gonna hate.
    You can't control what replies you get in a forum, kid.
    I am typing on a mobile phone, so I can not easily quote parts of your answer.

    > You can't control what replies you get
    Did I ever claim I could? That was just a suggestion.

    In some other tech shops, I was honoured for my supreme knowledge.
    I was passionatr about smartphones, but I stopped in 2016, as you can read.

    >Figure out the information you want.
    Reason behind technical limitations. Was that not clear enough?

    And I know that only manufacturers themselves can give a definitive answer, but maybe, some people here also provide possible explanations.


    Of course, the expectations will rise. What else? But that does not make the captured video footage look any worse. It does not degrade like analogue tape over time.
    I misspelled passionate.
    But what is worse? Typocrites.
    Quote Quote  
  25. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    But I consider my understanding of image sensors as very well.
    I am just 16 years old at the moment.
    It's nice that you have a high opinion of yourself -- like most teens, thinking you know everything -- but unfortunately you known almost nothing about digital photography/videography. You very clearly don't know what you don't know.

    Realize I'm not trying to insult you here.
    But you do need a reality check.
    Please do keep reading and learning. Note that reading sites on the interwebs will only go so far. Without actual hands-on experience, without actually talking to people that know what's what, you stand zero chance of understanding.

    But why does the professional equipment not allow occasionally sacrificing quality
    You clearly have never used pro equipment, nor understand what it's for.

    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    In 10 or 20 years, video shot today will look like video shot today, but in 10 to 20 years, video shot then will look much, much better. And WE will be used to it (spoiled), so anything shot from earlier will in comparison look noticeably WORSE. That's what he's saying. You know it to be true.
    Scott
    I never saw that from him, but it's definitely true ... to an extent.

    - Remember, lots of people think that VHS looks bad, until it's run through pro equipment that unlocks the actual signal quality.
    - And lots of modern video can look worse than a 20-year-old DVD.

    So is it really true that quality can reveal era? Not really.

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    I misspelled passionate.
    But what is worse? Typocrites.
    Nobody said anything. Misspellings not the same as typos, and you made obvious typo. We all do that. It's when a person doesn't know the difference between you're and your, or their, they're and there, that correction is in order.

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Bullsh*t. This thread is a garden variety rant.
    Yep. That's what this is. And of all things, a lousy phone.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank DiscsBest TBCsBest VCRs for captureRestore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member Bernix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2016
    Location
    Europe
    Search Comp PM
    About future, my personal view only difference will be framerate, I don't think it is needed to have Imax resolution at home, probably when you demolish some walls at home. And it has 12k horizontal lines, but it supposed more than 25 meters high screen(it is equal if you have 1 meter high monitor to 480 horizontal lines) of course must be watched from certain distance.
    About color, it is nonsense go deeper human usually recognize if not wrong about 10-100 of millions colors (100 millions mentioned as rarely). 10bit offers 10^9 colors, think is enough for everybody.
    Just curious if ordinary cinema isn't enough for somebody? Also don't understand mobile phones 6'' offering Full HD, Curious if anybody from normal distance tell difference 1080p or 720p here.

    Bernix
    Quote Quote  
  27. Originally Posted by Bernix View Post
    Just curious if ordinary cinema isn't enough for somebody? Also don't understand mobile phones 6'' offering Full HD, Curious if anybody from normal distance tell difference 1080p or 720p here.
    Not sure what is normal distance however being 47 year old i've realized few months ago that for today i see better from some distance and now i must shift things away to see small details clearly.
    My personal remark is: ageing is a shitty thing.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Originally Posted by lordsmurf View Post
    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    But I consider my understanding of image sensors as very well.
    I am just 16 years old at the moment.
    It's nice that you have a high opinion of yourself -- like most teens, thinking you know everything -- but unfortunately you know almost nothing about digital photography/videography. You very clearly don't know what you don't know.

    Realize I'm not trying to insult you here.
    But you do need a reality check.
    Please do keep reading and learning. Note that reading sites on the interwebs will only go so far. Without actual hands-on experience, without actually talking to people that know what's what, you stand zero chance of understanding.

    But why does the professional equipment not allow occasionally sacrificing quality
    You clearly have never used pro equipment, nor understand what it's for.

    Originally Posted by Cornucopia View Post
    In 10 or 20 years, video shot today will look like video shot today, but in 10 to 20 years, video shot then will look much, much better. And WE will be used to it (spoiled), so anything shot from earlier will in comparison look noticeably WORSE. That's what he's saying. You know it to be true.
    Scott
    I never saw that from him, but it's definitely true ... to an extent.

    - Remember, lots of people think that VHS looks bad, until it's run through pro equipment that unlocks the actual signal quality.
    - And lots of modern video can look worse than a 20-year-old DVD.

    So is it really true that quality can reveal era? Not really.

    Originally Posted by TechLord View Post
    I misspelled passionate.
    But what is worse? Typocrites.
    Nobody said anything. Misspellings not the same as typos, and you made obvious typo. We all do that. It's when a person doesn't know the difference between you're and your, or their, they're and there, that correction is in order.

    http://theoatmeal.com/comics/misspelling

    Originally Posted by usually_quiet View Post
    Bullsh*t. This thread is a garden variety rant.
    Yep. That's what this is. And of all things, a lousy phone.
    At least (mostly) constructive criticism. Thank you, I appreciate it.

    I do not consider myself as an ordinary teenager, because I absolutely despise the associated clichées such as relying peer pressure, smoking cigarettes (also known as "coolness sticks"), drinking alcoholic (also known as brain poisoning), repeatidly shouting annoying internet memes such as pingas or PPAP, dealing with drugs and antisocial behaviour (e.g. repeated usage of rude language & public vandalism such as breaking windows of glass) just to gain temporary attention in society.

    I know the parameters such as ISO, exposure, aperture size and effects on the picture (example: reinforced bokeh at wider aperture size (means lower F number)) etc.
    If there is something you do not consider me to understand, then go ahead. I am listening.

    Nobody knows everything and one should never stop learning like a beginner, that's also true.
    Last edited by TechLord; 31st Jan 2018 at 15:06. Reason: Mentioning bokeh at lower F-number, tobacco and alcohol consumption; better phrasing.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Originally Posted by Bernix View Post
    About future, my personal view only difference will be framerate, I don't think it is needed to have Imax resolution at home, probably when you demolish some walls at home. And it has 12k horizontal lines, but it supposed more than 25 meters high screen(it is equal if you have 1 meter high monitor to 480 horizontal lines) of course must be watched from certain distance.
    About color, it is nonsense go deeper human usually recognize if not wrong about 10-100 of millions colors (100 millions mentioned as rarely). 10bit offers 10^9 colors, think is enough for everybody.
    Just curious if ordinary cinema isn't enough for somebody? Also don't understand mobile phones 6'' offering Full HD, Curious if anybody from normal distance tell difference 1080p or 720p here.

    Bernix
    Between 720p, 1080p and 1440p, I visually perceive differences, but I am ready to decrease the screen resolution to 720p to save battery power. 720p is easily sufficient for mobile phones in most cases (maybe not quite for Pinyin characters).

    And for typing texts, I need no more than 30 Hz of screen refreshing rate.
    Last edited by TechLord; 31st Jan 2018 at 14:48. Reason: Mentioning Pinyin and screen refresh rate.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!