Database Develop

HD on Non-HD Screen?

Hi guys, I'm thinking about buying the Samsung Vibrant (That's the US Tmobile version of the Galaxy S for clarification) and I noticed that it can play 720P and it has a WVGA screen. These days, a lot of phones are capable of technically "playing" 720P video but none, even including the almighty retina display, have hd capable screens. But I was just wondering, besides being able to play its own recordings, what is the point of watching HD videos on a screen that really can only play 450P (keeping to true wide screen aspect ratio of course)? It just uses more battery and system resources to decode the higher res video when the end result is identical. Watching 720P on a WVGA screen is tantamount to hooking up a Bluray player to a non-HD screen. What's the point?
And yes, I'm well aware of the phone's DLNA capabilities.

Beats re-encoding right?

I think because the screen is so small and the resolution is high, it gives you the illusion of watching something in HD. If you compare a DVD rip to a 720p video on Galaxy, you'll definitely notice a difference. And the Super AMOLED screen helps too

Yeah, I can see how it's more convenient to just throw it on there raw but it seems like I'd rather take the effort to make it a lower resolution to save space on the phone if it looks the same either way?
And is there really that noticeable of a difference? I'd love it if someone could show a comparison picture between the same scene of a video in 720p and 480p on the galaxy screen to see if it's significant. Also, it might be possible that android is using sub-pixel interpolation to emulate the higher resolution.

Well the screen is a tiny bit wider than the 720 pixels you get from a DVD. Better to downsize than upsize, especially on such a sharp screen! I find that when watching DVD quality videos on a laptop, you notice the artefacts and low quality less than on the phone.

Robin.B said:
Well the screen is a tiny bit wider than the 720 pixels you get from a DVD. Better to downsize than upsize, especially on such a sharp screen! I find that when watching DVD quality videos on a laptop, you notice the artefacts and low quality less than on the phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
720p is actually 1280x720 pixels, the phone has 800x480, there should be no difference to your eyes from viewing a high quality 480p video or a 720p.... People are probably comparing a low quality 480p DVDrip with a high quality 720p video, and that's why they are seeing a difference (color quality and sharpness play a big roll here). It makes no sense to watch HD content on the phone, a good 480p will look just as good and will take less processing power...

Thank you!
aeo087 said:
720p is actually 1280x720 pixels, the phone has 800x480, there should be no difference to your eyes from viewing a high quality 480p video or a 720p.... People are probably comparing a low quality 480p DVDrip with a high quality 720p video, and that's why they are seeing a difference (color quality and sharpness play a big roll here). It makes no sense to watch HD content on the phone, a good 480p will look just as good and will take less processing power...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That is exactly what I've been saying this entire time! And since true 480p is actually 848 x 480, I've been encoding all my videos to 800 x 450 because my hd2's screen just can't take proper advantage of hd. Somewhat ironic considering its name. It requires less processing power and with good encoding, you lose very little quality compared to the original video. This whole 720P playback seems to be just another marketing ploy like the megapixel battle was. Just another bullet to throw on the spec sheet.
Update: If anyone reading this would like to test the quality difference between video resolutions on their respective HD capable device, here's a great test clip in several resolutions: http://www.bigbuckbunny.org/index.php/download/

Yes, it's ideal to reencode to maximize size usage if you're gonna keep the video on the memory for a period of time.
However, for those HD videos that you've downloaded, and you have no wish to dl a SD version of it just for portable viewing, and it's something that you're gonna watch once and delete, that's where the functionality to view HD media comes in handy.
In short, it's more convenient to have the ability than to do without it.

kenkiller said:
Yes, it's ideal to reencode to maximize size usage if you're gonna keep the video on the memory for a period of time.
However, for those HD videos that you've downloaded, and you have no wish to dl a SD version of it just for portable viewing, and it's something that you're gonna watch once and delete, that's where the functionality to view HD media comes in handy.
In short, it's more convenient to have the ability than to do without it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Hmmm good point. I suppose I'll just chalk it up to "convenient but not very practical." Thanks for all the great replies!

Very true and i believe the 720p which actually is for the video output..i just got the Nokia CA75-U cable and the 720p video playback is amazing on big screen TV.

tony800708 said:
Very true and i believe the 720p which actually is for the video output..i just got the Nokia CA75-U cable and the 720p video playback is amazing on big screen TV.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That's not 720p, it's standard definition tv.

aeo087 said:
720p is actually 1280x720 pixels, the phone has 800x480, there should be no difference to your eyes from viewing a high quality 480p video or a 720p.... People are probably comparing a low quality 480p DVDrip with a high quality 720p video, and that's why they are seeing a difference (color quality and sharpness play a big roll here). It makes no sense to watch HD content on the phone, a good 480p will look just as good and will take less processing power...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, but I meant DVD resolution which has 720 pixels in width.

Besides, my entire collection is in 720p HD.. So when I'm going out and want a movie/series with me for boring times when travelling, it's nice to not have to convert them/re-download a lesser quality rip.
I also think I see a difference, tested with a SD-rip of Top Gear vs HD-rip of it. But might just be in my mind Seems sharper though.

You kow, videos encodings are at different resolutions for luminance and chrominance data.
Color data is often half or quarter the resolution of the actual video resolution.
A properly encoded 1280x720 video will look better than the same encoded at 840x480.
Considering the processing power, when video decoding and scaling are done by hardware, power consumption will be almost identical.

tundra84 said:
Hmmm good point. I suppose I'll just chalk it up to "convenient but not very practical." Thanks for all the great replies!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not practical only for you maybe, but different people have different needs. Don't assume that you can decide for the whole world.

iPhone 4 now plays 1080p videos easily, then why Galaxy S can't

http://blog.gsmarena.com/iphone-4-now-plays-1080p-videos-easily-does-some-xviddivx-magic-too/
Seems like some people managed to play 1080p on iPhone 4.
SGS has almost the same CPU with better GPU and option for overclock.
What is the reason that is preventing us from playing 1080p? Not good enough app or something else?

1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.

We just seems to be needing a good codec to play 1080p. So it should just be a software limitation unless the GPU is capped at 720p!

ostendk said:
1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I would never watch 1080p on 4'' screen (even though some people would)
I'm just curios about the hardware.
@Prankey,
I guess SGX 540 can play 1080p if SGX 535 can.

I'll make a wild guess here:
iOS has all the software needed for full hardware acceleration while Android don't.

How is this a development related question?
And I thought galaxy can play 1080 without problems (didnt try though, as its very stupid).

so iPhone display is 960 x 640 pixels?
1080P is 1920 x 1080 pixels
unless it can output HDMI, seems pretty pointless to me.

The screen resolution is 800x480 anyway so the extra resolution does not benefit you at all. It's just a minor convenience to avoid converting the video but you're wasting battery power to decode the video and a lot of space. 720p is enough of a battery and space waster.

mickeko said:
I'll make a wild guess here:
iOS has all the software needed for full hardware acceleration while Android don't.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
dupel said:
How is this a development related question?
And I thought galaxy can play 1080 without problems (didnt try though, as its very stupid).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I guess it is a development question, because it may be related with codecs, drivers, etc.
But no, it can't. I have tried it, even though I'm not about to watch full HD on my SGS
miker71 said:
so iPhone display is 960 x 640 pixels?
1080P is 1920 x 1080 pixels
unless it can output HDMI, seems pretty pointless to me.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
We can use microUSB to HDMI and we have DLNA. So it would be useful to us. Anyway, as I've already said my interest is about hardware capabilities not watching full HD on my phone.

Maddmatt said:
The screen resolution is 800x480 anyway so the extra resolution does not benefit you at all. It's just a minor convenience to avoid converting the video but you're wasting battery power to decode the video and a lot of space. 720p is enough of a battery and space waster.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You still have to convert the video though for these devices still cause h.264 codec support for mobile devices don't support all of what the codec can do. It's also wasted bit rate as well. It's better to have a lower resolution video with a decent bit rate then it is to have a video with a massive resolution but not enough of a bit rate to smooth out artifacts. this resolution race for videos on mobile phones is a tad stupid.

Rock player plays 1080p for me.
The Video I tried was a bit choppy though but acceptable.
(I guess about 15-18fps). I only tried one Video wich I accidentally loaded on my device.
As far as I now Rock player does not use any GPU acceleration though pretty impressive what this little CPU is capable of.
Definatly plays full hd better then my atom netbook.

ostendk said:
1080p on a 4" screen? no thank you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
agree it's simply over kill
all the extra processing is wasted on a 4" screen
actually iphone4 is only 3.5" not even 4"
720p is more than enough on the 4"

jam3sjam3s said:
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I wasn't talking about hardware accelerated 1080p playback. I was talking about how everything in iOS is adapted to support as much of the hardware features as possible, while Android is not adapted to support the SGS hardware in any other way than Samsung just tossing in (semi)working drivers.

jam3sjam3s said:
1080p isn't even listed as a file which can be played. You can't even upload it via iTunes, so there is no official hardware acceleration built in for 1080p.
I guess it is a development question, because it may be related with codecs, drivers, etc.
But no, it can't. I have tried it, even though I'm not about to watch full HD on my SGS
We can use microUSB to HDMI and we have DLNA. So it would be useful to us. Anyway, as I've already said my interest is about hardware capabilities not watching full HD on my phone.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And what format have you tried yo play it in?

jam3sjam3s said:
http://blog.gsmarena.com/iphone-4-now-plays-1080p-videos-easily-does-some-xviddivx-magic-too/
Seems like some people managed to play 1080p on iPhone 4.
SGS has almost the same CPU with better GPU and option for overclock.
What is the reason that is preventing us from playing 1080p? Not good enough app or something else?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
1/ there is no point, resolution-wise
2/ with iphone there is a VERY limited range of file formats you CAN actually play, so you will spend half your life converting to a format that apple can control. Most my 1080p movies are mkv format, a format that works on Galaxy S but not on iphone. All my SD movies are Divx and Xvid, again, not compatible with iphone.
Mark.

Well actually we can! Rockplayer can do it so please stop spamming this forum!
You apple fanboy

jodue said:
just ****ing stupid! 1080p on 800x480, wtf? even 720p is higher than the screen-resolution! also a movie in 1080p has ~10Gb which would almost fill my 16gb card. STUPID and completely SENSELESS!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
well apparently the people with iphone4 are too rich and too <insert what you think here> to care about that.
they probably think they have super wireless and can stream a 1080p movie and watch it over the air

AllGamer said:
they probably think they have super wireless and can stream a 1080p movie and watch it over the air
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
And why not? 802.11n is more than enough for that...

Anything that can be done on the iphone 4 can be done on the galaxy s, just needs the right software to be made.
The only difference between the iphone 4 and the GS is the software, the screen, and the galaxy s having one generation newer gpu
Anyway what's the point in this? sd cards have a 4gb filesize limit, 1080p would waste so much battery for no benefit over a 720p file

technical spec yes
real life usage, not so great
wireless N is what i use for my home teather, yes it "works" but load time is horrible, as well as the random cut offs, then waiting for the load time again.... it's a pain in the aussie
it's much more convenient to first copy the entire movie into the hard drive via wireless N, then watch it
but that defeats the entire purpose of streaming a movie

Why can't the SGS stream youtube in HD????

Ok I'm really frustrated with this.
On 2.1 eclair the youtube app only streams in HQ, not HD.
I updated to 2.2 and even installed the newer YT ported over from gingerbread and it STILL only streams in HQ, not HD.
WHY??? Why does google not want us to stream in HD? YT is like my favourite app yet you can't stream in HD even over WIFI. Even the iphone 4 can stream youtube in HD.
Second of all, what's with people confusing HD and HQ? Looking through posts online people seem to mistakenly say you can stream in HD when in reality they mean HQ. Do people not see the difference? It's night and day....

of course it can
just click the HD button and it will display in HD if the stream is has a higher resolution file to display

is there something I'm missing then?
I've tried many videos that have HD (on computer) on my phone and it's only HQ.
THe quality difference is noticeable.

Because it makes no sense streaming in hd on 800x480 screen unless you have set-up for hd tv output. And as far I know your galaxy sh*t ( ;-) ) can't do that. And if it could, the YT app would allow you to do that.
There is no difference between 480p and 720p on your phone. Go ahead and try it, download an yt video in both variants and see! Apparently the only difference would be in 1080p, where the audio quality would be greater, but practically, just a waste of battery and server time and... everything.
Edit:
And ye forgot, even then the videos should be optimized for that, the channel should be YouTube partner and ye, optimized for mobile. I think some videos shot in 720p with smartphones and directly uploaded to yt allow that.
Sent from my HTC Desire using XDA App

in the vibrant forum, they hacked a Froyo version of the new YouTube app, you can try that and see if you get better quality.
aside that, there are many other better 3rd party apps that can download & stream video from youtube site on HD
just type in the name of the video you want to watch and it goes straight in HD
like Tube-Mate for YouTube
i made that as my default youtube app
there is also another one that also always plays/downloads only HD versions like Tube-Mate for YouTube, but forgot the name of that other app

Dany0 said:
Because it makes no sense streaming in hd on 800x480 screen unless you have set-up for hd tv output. And as far I know your galaxy sh*t ( ;-) ) can't do that. And if it could, the YT app would allow you to do that.
There is no difference between 480p and 720p on your phone. Go ahead and try it, download an yt video in both variants and see! Apparently the only difference would be in 1080p, where the audio quality would be greater, but practically, just a waste of battery and server time and... everything.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Umm no.
I'm not one for all the technical details on what the phone can or can't display but there is a CLEAR difference when it comes to streaming youtube. HD vids I load on my phone are CRISP. So-called HD on youtube when streamed on the SGS is not even near crisp, while on the iphone (my sister has one) it is crisp.
A VERY good example is this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdtejCR413c
using the youtube app on the phone, if you search up "lebron commercial" and stream it in "HQ" note the quality. Then use Tube Mate another app to download the video in 720p quality and watch it on your video player.
HUGE difference in quality. It's noticeable.
I'm sorry but I don't understand how people can not notice the quality difference. HQ and HD is a big difference. I've never streamed an HD youtube video and had it appear sharp on my phone. The words HQ appear at the top and the lower quality is definitely noticeable.

AllGamer said:
in the vibrant forum, they hacked a Froyo version of the new YouTube app, you can try that and see if you get better quality.
aside that, there are many other better 3rd party apps that can download & stream video from youtube site on HD
just type in the name of the video you want to watch and it goes straight in HD
like Tube-Mate for YouTube
i made that as my default youtube app
there is also another one that also always plays/downloads only HD versions like Tube-Mate for YouTube, but forgot the name of that other app
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hey just wondering, I used Tube-Mate but even when streaming that lebron commercial it only shows up as HQ, not HD.
If I download it with Tube-mate in 720p and watch it in video player, THEN it's in HD....

MXQBLGH said:
Umm no.
I'm not one for all the technical details on what the phone can or can't display but there is a CLEAR difference when it comes to streaming youtube. HD vids I load on my phone are CRISP. So-called HD on youtube when streamed on the SGS is not even near crisp, while on the iphone (my sister has one) it is crisp.
A VERY good example is this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdtejCR413c
using the youtube app on the phone, if you search up "lebron commercial" and stream it in "HQ" note the quality. Then use Tube Mate another app to download the video in 720p quality and watch it on your video player.
HUGE difference in quality. It's noticeable.
I'm sorry but I don't understand how people can not notice the quality difference. HQ and HD is a big difference. I've never streamed an HD youtube video and had it appear sharp on my phone. The words HQ appear at the top and the lower quality is definitely noticeable.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
This is a function of the Youtube app itself and NOT something merely SGS related. Want to get mad about it...Write google. This occurs on all android phones running the Youtube app...

video quality difference is definitely there
the problem comes with the 3G/3.5G speeds
HD plays fine on WiFi, but not on 3.5G (HSPDA)

masterotaku said:
This is a function of the Youtube app itself and NOT something merely SGS related. Want to get mad about it...Write google. This occurs on all android phones running the Youtube app...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I realize that. I did ask why wont google let us stream in HD.
AllGamer said:
video quality difference is definitely there
the problem comes with the 3G/3.5G speeds
HD plays fine on WiFi, but not on 3.5G (HSPDA)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
HD plays fine on WIFI for you?
seriously?
errr I can't possibly have a worse YT app then yours, mine is 2.0.26.
The button says HQ, not HD at the top of the video.
As mentioned, if I stream it's high quality, but not sharp.
Use Tube-Mate to download same vid in 720p, then watch in video player = HD quality and very very sharp.

MXQBLGH said:
I realize that. I did ask why wont google let us stream in HD.
HD plays fine on WIFI for you?
seriously?
errr I can't possibly have a worse YT app then yours, mine is 2.0.26.
The button says HQ, not HD at the top of the video.
As mentioned, if I stream it's high quality, but not sharp.
Use Tube-Mate to download same vid in 720p, then watch in video player = HD quality and very very sharp.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well it's probably due to the carriers. If you were a carrier with a 3G network would you want to stream 480p or 720p video to phones with 480p resolutions??
It makes sense for the carriers, so it probably made sense to Google as well.
There are also QOS (Quality Of Service) issues to consider. It's safe to say that google and your carrier cannot reliably guarantee that you could have the bandwidth via 3g/3.5g to always and reliably be able to stream HD video. Users in this scenario would likely make the mistake of blaming the carrier, google and youtube for making a crap system and crap app, rather than making the reasoned leap that perhaps the network isn't always going to be up to the task. It's best to impose a limitation few would complain out, to guarantee more reliable service and a more reliable perception of that service for everyone.
In my experience the difference in quality between streamed and directly downloaded (and higher resolution) video is minimal, and usually dependent on the source material as well as how old the youtube video is..
But you can directly download them with apps like Tube Mate....so I'm unsure of the problem, other than it merely being a lack of patience. But if patience is the issue(due to the amount of time it takes), it'd likely have trouble streaming in a timely manner anyway.

yeah I'm aware of the amount of bandwidth required to stream HD over 3G but that's not my concern. My concern is over WIFI because I can't seem to stream in HD over WIFI. There are people here saying they can stream HD through WIFI (not sure if it's more confusion with HQ and HD) but there DEFINITELY is no option to stream in HD through wifi for my youtube app, which is the latest one (the eclaire 2.1 app wasn't able to either).
I can only stream in HQ, not HD. The quality diff is noticeable. That lebron james commercial I posted is a very good example. Just dl it with tube-mate in 720p and watch it. Compare the quality with streaming the same video in "HQ" on the youtube app...big difference. I don't get why we can't even stream in HD through WIFI?
I also don't get why some people are saying they CAN stream in HD....
Unless for some reason my youtube app is gimped (highly doubt it), these people are still mistaking HQ for HD...
and yes the whole point of youtube is to stream, so of course I would want to stream in HD. Why would I want to have to search up the video, then download it, then watch it. That's not how youtube is supposed to work....
again bandwidth/speed isn't an issue since I'm on WIFI
sorry just had to get this off my chest.

Just an update.
I found what appears to be the best app to stream HD youtube vids.
It's JetVD, available for free from the market.
It streams 720p PERFECTLY. That lebron commercial above is crystal clear.
If you choose mp4 high quality, you get the same quality as what the youtube app streams. You can also download if you want.
I love the YT interface and being able to view my account, my favourites, see related videos...etc.
I guess I'l have to use both and switch to JetVD to stream 720p.
Shame for some reason Google decided to gimp the YT app (even on WIFI).

+1 for JetVD
Been using it since Hero days, used to let me download while streaming another video, or download multiple videos at once, but the most recent updates are missing this useful ability.
Still, its free and works great for viewing HD and saving them to ur phone for offline use as well!

i have jetVD installed too
still can't decide which one is better

Can the Nook Color play videos encoded in 1024x600 and 2,000 kbits rate?

Now that I heard you can put Honeycomb 3.0 on the Nook Color, I am thinking of getting it today at B&N.
However, I will be using the device mainly for watching movies and I love to convert movies. I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality.
My question is: Can it play .avi files with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate super smooth on Honeycomb?

Earthbrain said:
Now that I heard you can put Honeycomb 3.0 on the Nook Color, I am thinking of getting it today at B&N.
However, I will be using the device mainly for watching movies and I love to convert movies. I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality.
My question is: Can it play .avi files with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate super smooth on Honeycomb?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looking at the Honeycomb thread:
Doesn't work:
-Sound (sadly! Despite my efforts the last hours I didn't get it working properly yet)
-DSP e.g. no hardware video decoding
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So that would seem to be a significant barrier to your plan ;-)!
In the basic 2.1, the recommendation is for MP4 (H.264) at 1,100 kbps. I recently watched Inception at that setting and it was perfect for the Nook Color.
Check out this thread regarding Handbrake settings for the Nook Color: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=894165

for any kind of hi-res content, you'll want to use hardware accelerated playback. Unfortunately, the chip in the nook only supports a certain video codec and resolution. h.264 basic profile and a max of 800x480. 1100 kbps looks pretty good.
Any other codec or higher resolution will rely on the software renderer, and it will be very choppy.
I created a nook color preset for handbrake you might find helpful. It will convert your 720p movies to the highest quality the nook supports.

saeba said:
Check out this thread regarding Handbrake settings for the Nook Color: http://forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=894165
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You added the link to my thread while I was replying to this one.

MattZTexasu said:
You added the link to my thread while I was replying to this one.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, I went back and looked up your thread since I successfully used your presets and wanted to say thanks. They worked great and the results made a long flight from Denver to Orlando very enjoyable !

MattZTexasu said:
for any kind of hi-res content, you'll want to use hardware accelerated playback. Unfortunately, the chip in the nook only supports a certain video codec and resolution. h.264 basic profile and a max of 800x480. 1100 kbps looks pretty good.
Any other codec or higher resolution will rely on the software renderer, and it will be very choppy.
I created a nook color preset for handbrake you might find helpful. It will convert your 720p movies to the highest quality the nook supports.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You guys just burst my bubble. If the max resolution that it can play is only 800x480, then I guess I will not be buying the Nook Color. Even my HD2 can play mpg4 file that is encoded in 800x480 with 2,000 kbps smooth as butter without problem. If the NC cannot play 1024x600 with 2,000 kbps, then what is the use?
I guess I will have to wait for the Xoom to come out.

800x480 looks great. The nook scales it up to 1024x600, and the pixel density is high enough that you see no pixels. It looks very smooth.

You do realize that the hd2 has a 1ghz snapdragon processor. While we only have an 800mhz stock that can be overclocked to something equivalent. Why would you expect it to do better than the hd2? I would say they would be the same. But if the difference is worth the extra $350 premium then go for it. 854x480 at 1100kbps looks amazing on the nook.

The biggest dissapointment with my Nook is the video playback. Its not horrendous on eclair, but I have absolutely no luck with it on these froyo builds. Probably going to go back to 2.1 soon just so I can at least view some videos again.

tangomonky said:
The biggest dissapointment with my Nook is the video playback. Its not horrendous on eclair, but I have absolutely no luck with it on these froyo builds. Probably going to go back to 2.1 soon just so I can at least view some videos again.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
There's no hardware video decoding on Froyo yet.

Mikroft said:
You do realize that the hd2 has a 1ghz snapdragon processor. While we only have an 800mhz stock that can be overclocked to something equivalent. Why would you expect it to do better than the hd2? I would say they would be the same. But if the difference is worth the extra $350 premium then go for it. 854x480 at 1100kbps looks amazing on the nook.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I never thought of owning the Nook Color until I heard about being able to put Honeycomb on it. I prematurely got excited and thought that it can do good video playback since my HD2 is excellent at playing 800x480 file at 2,000 kbps encoding. I knew that it can be overclocked to become more powerful. If it can only do 854x480 at 1100 kbps then it is a big disappointment. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If 854x480 at 1100 kbps looks good to you, it may not look good to me because of possible pixelation. I want a device that can play full screen resolution with high bit rate. I know that it would require bigger memory card/bigger storage space and slightly consume more power but that is what I am willing to sacrifice.
Well, I guess I have to get either the Xoom or the G-Slate. I don't mind paying extra for it. Just put in some extra work time and I will get a device that I will be happy with.
I love gadgets and love to tinker with them and that is why I enjoy putting all kinds of available OS onto my HD2. I was just about buy the NC just to tinker with it but I guess I will wait until the great people at XDA can somehow get hardware video acceleration on the NC to be able to play videos at higher settings.
Thanks for all the info about the nook's video capability. It was very informative.

DSP support?
What are the chance the DSP will get supported in Froyo/Honeycomb?
So even with hardware acceleration we only get [email protected]
Mike

Video quality
Any idea if this would work better if the nook was oc'd to 1.1, I guess once the dsp is fixed maybe that and a 1.1 cpu will work.

While i do lov to play 720p videos on my captivate (its screens is 800x480) it is down scaling those videos... the main reason i do 720p is because thats what tubemate will let me download them as and still work..
That being said he 480p that the NC can so is still a very good picture.. Normal CTR TV's are only 480i dvd's are at 480p and they still look good on my 42" 1080p tv.. not as good as blu-ray but still good.. and thats stretched to 42" were talking about 7"
1080p 42in= 52.45 DPI
1680x1050 20in monitor= 99.06 DPI
NC running 800x480 at 7inch= 133.28 DPI
NC running 1024x600 at 7inch= 169.55 DPI
Now.. looking at those numbers.. so you REALLY need to run at 1024x600? even at the 800x480 your getting less pixelation then you do on a 42inch 1080p tv.. yes the NC is held ALOT closer.. but even so.. its still giving you DVD quiality picture in your hand on a 7inch screen..

The video playback is definitely disappointing. It sucks not being able to just download a video and just watch it.

I'm getting a bit lost from the conflicting opinions. I'm a lazy and VERY not fussy video viewer. My main use of my NC is to watch videos that were originally made for an iPhone.
Bottom line... Now that sound is working in honeycomb to the NC. am I going to be able to watch my simple iphone type videos on my NC if I take it up to honeycomb? Remember. I'm not at all fussy about quality as long as it isn't too terribly jerky.
Sent from my LogicPD Zoom2 using XDA App

rpharvey said:
I'm getting a bit lost from the conflicting opinions. I'm a lazy and VERY not fussy video viewer. My main use of my NC is to watch videos that were originally made for an iPhone.
Bottom line... Now that sound is working in honeycomb to the NC. am I going to be able to watch my simple iphone type videos on my NC if I take it up to honeycomb? Remember. I'm not at all fussy about quality as long as it isn't too terribly jerky.
Sent from my LogicPD Zoom2 using XDA App
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
From what i understand (and thats not much =) currently honeycomb still has NO hardware acceleration for video.. nither does froyo so the best video playing on a NC you can get is currently running a rooted stock rom.. encoded at 800x480 or below.. the iphone 3gs and older all have a screen size of 480x320 so they SHOULD work as long as they were encoded properly (right codec and such)

Although I understand the excitement, this seems like a very premature discussion. Despite the repeated statement that honeycomb is available on the NC, out is in fact not. What you are seeing is actually an SDK build. Software Developers Kit. For development. And the first SDK at that. You are essentially seeing an emulator running on the nook screen.
Before everyone goes nuts I know that is not technically correct, but it is as correct as saying we are running full honeycomb.
After an AOSP build is released we will see a more functional version and eventually probably see better integration with the video hardware. And for my final rain on this parade...I am a professional video content creator. And if you think you are able to see the difference between DVD quality and 2100 stream HD on a 4.3 inch screen, you are mistaken. Or have vision above that of mortal men.
For the record I owned an HD2, now use the Evo and also own a NookColor.
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

ministersin said:
...I am a professional video content creator. And if you think you are able to see the difference between DVD quality and 2100 stream HD on a 4.3 inch screen, you are mistaken. Or have vision above that of mortal men.
For the record I owned an HD2, now use the Evo and also own a NookColor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ok i'm confused by this part...
No one was really talking about the 4.3 inch screen..
ANYWAYS the dvd quality vs 2100 stream HD by that do you mean a 2100/kbps steam?
if thats the case then its not a surprise seeing as 2100/kbps is enough to stream at 480p.... which is dvd quality

Darkomen64 said:
Ok i'm confused by this part...
No one was really talking about the 4.3 inch screen..
ANYWAYS the dvd quality vs 2100 stream HD by that do you mean a 2100/kbps steam?
if thats the case then its not a surprise seeing as 2100/kbps is enough to stream at 480p.... which is dvd quality
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
OP's original question was about "I will be converting 720p .mkv movies to .avi format with 1024x600 resolution and 2,000 kbits rate to get the best video quality."
Later after some responses he comments he gets better resolution on his HD2 (that is a 4.3" screen) so he will skip the nook.
You still point out a misunderstanding I had now that I go back which is that he is starting with a 720p source but ending up 1024x600. But really this is just makes my point stronger because then we are looking at an even smaller difference in the resolution.

[Q] Resolution Question

Hey, I'm about to buy a chromecast, but there are something that stops me. If I have a phone with quad hd resolution, does it stream in that resolution on the tv, or does it stream up to 1080P?
Another question is, is there any known issues with the chromecast? I just want to be sure.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app

Well you can't tab cast from your phone. It streams directly from the internet and doesn't display mirror. So it will stream whatever the source content and your TV resolutions are.
Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk

PortalOfGaming said:
Hey, I'm about to buy a chromecast, but there are something that stops me. If I have a phone with quad hd resolution, does it stream in that resolution on the tv, or does it stream up to 1080P?
Another question is, is there any known issues with the chromecast? I just want to be sure.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Quad HD? Like UltraHD (3840x2160)?
Casting local media directly (via Avia, RealPlayer Cloud, or Allcast for rooted Chromecasts) is as-is, no conversion of the media happens, and Chromecast will play the media if it is capable of decoding it.
I don't think Chromecast can decode UltraHD as it tends to have trouble with 1080p and high (>10 Mbps) bitrates, but I'm not 100% on that. I can use AllCast to send a 1080p video I shot on my phone, but there's a little bit of pause now and then.
As far as known issues, some old TVs that report 1080p support but don't actually display correctly have trouble. Some Yamaha receivers are having some trouble with the latest firmware.
Most other issues are either in progress or have already been taken care of via updates on the application side.
A tiny number of reports of Chromecasts being "bricked" but probably normal or better for the number of Chromecasts out in the wild.

There is a phone with QuadHD resolution?!??!??!??!? LOL
There is a lot of Misinformation regarding resolution in the Phone business I assure you...
Cameras that say they shoot 1080P in most cases don't. The Chip (CMOS for the most part) does not have a REAL 1080P resolution. What it does is take the native resolution of the camera (usually much lower) and SAVE THE FILE in 1080P by simply upconverting it.
And Upconverting doesn't ADD resolution or Quality it just doubles the size of each pixel to fill in all the pixels of the higher resolution.
You may find a phone or Camera that says it supports 4K but in truth it is not a REAL 4K! The File will read and display on a 4K device but your not really getting the FULL RESOLUTION a 4K video has when captured natively in a TRUE 4K.
The Chips that receive the image from the lens are not large enough to do a true 4K. It is merely upconverted when saved to that format.
Like taking a single pixel and repeating it 3 more time to make a pixel 4 times the size of the original where in a REAL 4K each pixel can be different and rarely are the same (maybe similar but not the same)
Now these chips are improving by leaps and bounds so in time they may even do these resolutions for real...But by then we will also have things like 16K because the bigger cameras with have 3/4" and 1' CCDs or CMOS' will advance from the technology as well.

I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
I have good internet, so I don't worry about that.
Thank you all for your answers, I'm going to buy a chromecast when I come home.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app.

PortalOfGaming said:
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahh, I see qHD from the computer realm. Thanks for teaching me something new! :good:
I have some VGA (640x480) videos and from Avia they play picture-boxed (black border on all sides, because Avia does not alter the video). So it will likely depend on what application you use and what Chromecast decides to do in terms of scaling, if it has any (I don't know).

I think the biggest reason it can't do 1080p natively is because it's wireless G. I can only hope Google decides to release another chromecast or something else like it with wireless AC.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk 2

It's wireless N which is more than adequate. It depends more on latency and bitrate of their media compared to that processing power of the Chromecast hardware.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.

bhiga said:
It's wireless N which is more than adequate. It depends more on latency and bitrate of their media compared to that processing power of the Chromecast hardware.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It can't do 5GHz, and its horrible at streaming HD movies from Google Play movies. You mention processing as if the Chromecast is transcoding. None of this would be a problem if it could do 5GHz and had an AC chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7186/google-chromecast-review-an-awesome-35-hdmi-dongle/2
Edit - My Samsung UN46F6300 is also terrible at streaming HD content over it's Wi-Fi (also 2.4GHz), but connecting the tv's Ethernet to my WD wireless AC bridge alleviates all this.
Sent from my LG-LS980 using Tapatalk 2

Yes the 2.4 GHz band is not optimal as it's crowded but latency issues aside, it's fine.
The hardware still matters because most hardwareand appliance-oriented decoders have limits to the maximum bitrate it can decode due to buffer and memory limits.
It's much different to more general CPUs which can allocate more memory and have more CPU power to adjust.
Sent from a device with no keyboard. Please forgive typos, they may not be my own.

Jocelyn said:
It can't do 5GHz, and its horrible at streaming HD movies from Google Play movies. You mention processing as if the Chromecast is transcoding. None of this would be a problem if it could do 5GHz and had an AC chip.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well I'm pretty sure GPlay does some transcoding but not 100% sure. In any case If the unit is having issues playing the video over 2.4Ghz the issue is really the Video Bitrate needs to be lowered enough to stream without issue. In the end no one is getting full HD 1080P on any device over ANY wired or wireless network because Full HD uncompressed has a Bitrate of over 1.49 Gbps. Far beyond standard Ethernet standards which is why we use Fiber Optic for broadcast and even then we compress the hell out of it before you ever see it.
So pretty much all HD we are playing is not really full HD.
Can you play 1080P locally?
PortalOfGaming said:
I'm sorry regarding quad hd, english is not my first language, and when I meant quad hd, I actually meant 960x540. I know alot about resolution, but I didn't mean 4K. Before 2K and 4K, there was quad hd as 960x540.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Ahhh no Problem...You meant quarterHD actually...
You wouldn't have confused us if NHK and a Consortium hadn't actually invented QuadHD for Broadcast! bhiga and I both work in broadcast and were recently talking about it.

Well, I forgot that it was Quarter HD, but it's okay now, since I have aleardy ordered it. Again, thanks for your help guys.
Sent from my Huawei Ascend P1 U9200 using xda app-developers app.