I'm getting some seriously nasty bars during slow motion recording (I attached a screen shot which isn't as bad but when it's a video the bars move all around and are very distracting) Anyone seeing the same thing or am I looking at a defective phone? I already swapped out phones yesterday due to a stuck pixel, but best buy has been very easy about it thus far. Just wanting to see if this is hardware or software, thanks!
Yep, exactly the same here. Gets worse the more the sensor gain ramps up.
ydoucare said:
Yep, exactly the same here. Gets worse the more the sensor gain ramps up.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Checked the sprint store demo and a best buy demo, All the same. Must be a low light issue. Oh well, Guess most of the time the feature will be used in the daylight (although this may be a bad thing when trying to slow mo some epic beer pong matches)
coojoe1000 said:
Checked the sprint store demo and a best buy demo, All the same. Must be a low light issue. Oh well, Guess most of the time the feature will be used in the daylight (although this may be a bad thing when trying to slow mo some epic beer pong matches)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Figures, seems like it would be a hardware issue, but maybe there will be some magic firmware update that will help.
Most serious hd cameras require a lot of light, so this should be no surprise when recording show motion videos. Just be sure to have adequate lighting in the future
Sent from my HTCONE using Tapatalk 2
I haven't looked closely at the example yet otherwise I would have put my 2 cents in earlier.
I work a lot with cameras and know them very well. One thing to keep in mind is cmos sensors don't expose every pixel at the same time. This causes what is known as the jello effect when you move quickly left and right. This can also cause what is known as rolling shutter. I believe this is caused by the shutter speed in combination with the way cmos sensors work. When I get back from this weekend trip, I'll see what is going on.
At work I have a professional Sony video camera with a backlit cmos sensor. If I drop the shutter speed down too low to help when it's too dark, especially around fluorescent lights, I get brown bars rolling across the image. It's just a physical limitation of the sensor no matter the camera. Some hide it better than others. I hope this helps clear this up.
Sent from my Evo 3D CDMA using xda app-developers app
This is nothing like traditional noise caused by high sensor gain in low light. We're talking dense horizontal lines only in slow motion recording, which I'm guessing is 120fps? 60 fps mode works fine. I've seen examples of slow motion video recorded by the euro version in low light that didn't have this problem.
ydoucare said:
This is nothing like traditional noise caused by high sensor gain in low light. We're talking dense horizontal lines only in slow motion recording, which I'm guessing is 120fps? 60 fps mode works fine. I've seen examples of slow motion video recorded by the euro version in low light that didn't have this problem.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That doesn't eliminate it as a cause. The example you saw could have been in better lighting conditions than you thought, or the euro edition might have had older firmware that didn't let the ISO go as high (thus, the whole image would appear much darker, but less noise).
120fps slow motion means the camera has to use at least 120th of a second for a shutter speed. This is relatively fast for a smartphone camera, so it has to bump up the ISO to compensate. If the light is especially low, it will have to move all the way to the upper bounds of its ISO capability to get a usable image. Meanwhile, a 60fps video will have MUCH more time (2x is a lot of time) to grab light, and so it doesn't need to force the ISO so high.
It's extremely unlikely that a firmware update will solve this issue. All they could do is just force the camera not to use that high ISO setting, resulting in slow motion videos that are too dark instead of too noisy.
(Also, BTW, this has nothing to do with the jello effect)
How do you do slow motion video recording? When I have the video camera on, there aren't any menu options available.
Vincent Law said:
(Also, BTW, this has nothing to do with the jello effect)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for adding. I hadn't had a chance to even look at the example posted but felt like it should be addressed by someone. I'm out in the middle of nowhere right now, video streaming isn't always going to work well here.
Sent from my Evo 3D CDMA using xda app-developers app
Vincent Law said:
That doesn't eliminate it as a cause. The example you saw could have been in better lighting conditions than you thought, or the euro edition might have had older firmware that didn't let the ISO go as high (thus, the whole image would appear much darker, but less noise).
120fps slow motion means the camera has to use at least 120th of a second for a shutter speed. This is relatively fast for a smartphone camera, so it has to bump up the ISO to compensate. If the light is especially low, it will have to move all the way to the upper bounds of its ISO capability to get a usable image. Meanwhile, a 60fps video will have MUCH more time (2x is a lot of time) to grab light, and so it doesn't need to force the ISO so high.
It's extremely unlikely that a firmware update will solve this issue. All they could do is just force the camera not to use that high ISO setting, resulting in slow motion videos that are too dark instead of too noisy.
(Also, BTW, this has nothing to do with the jello effect)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The euro demo was in CONSIDERABLY worse lighting, without question. I don't have time to look for it now, but it's on Youtube.
The Euro version just got an official update regarding several problems. It also included a low light slomotion video upgrade
Sent from my PG86100 using xda app-developers app
I'm getting a stuck blue pixel when taking photos in low light... is anyone else experiencing this? The blue pixel is showing up in the actual photo taken, so I'm assuming it's a problem with the sensor.
Daylight photos aren't exhibiting this behavior.
Related
I have read alot of the threads involving the performance of the camera (in video mode and when operating the camera in still mode before taking a still image) and blaming this on the tytn2's lack of hardware video rendering. I have made some observations as a photographer.
My opinion is that the performance is due more to the exposure/sensitivity of the CCD than to the graphical rendering of the tytn2.
For example - in low light, the camera really suffers from low frames per second. Could this be due to the lack of sensitivity of the CCD i.e. the need to expose each frame longer per second to render the scene. The Tytns2's graphical engine can only display an image once it has received one from the camera, therefore providing slow frame per second updates.
Point the camera outdoors or directly at an indoor light and the fps of the camera shoots up to over 20 fps. The camera needs to expose the scene less , i.e. the shutter speed is quicker. The camera imagery is feeding more frames to the graphic hardware to render and therefore the fps goes up.
I would love the Tytn2 to render dark indoor scenes in a more fluid way but I feel this is a short fall of the camera hardware and not the graphic engine that is waiting for frames of imagery from it.
My orignial tytn does reproduce better results indoors and has a faster display update when framing stills or using moving video - BUT - the tytn only has a 2mp CCD.
Clearly there is a problem with lack of suitable graphic drivers from HTC but has the benefit from having a 3mp camera in the Tytn2 meant a trade off in camera video indoor performance??
Just my take!
Thanks
Stu
While what you say might make some sense I think it's a very steep performance drop. Too steep to just be explained by exposure issues?
I haven't really experienced a similair issue with any other camera. If you know of other products with similar problems is the performance drop really that bad?
I suppose wishing for an option that disables auto-brightness is going to get me no-where
I have to agree on this one; the fact that the camera performs nearly perfectly in good lighting does seem a little odd - I suppose performance issues could be introduced by the CPU rather than the GPU having to increase the brightness of each frame to display on the preview screen though?
undac said:
While what you say might make some sense I think it's a very steep performance drop. Too steep to just be explained by exposure issues?
I haven't really experienced a similair issue with any other camera. If you know of other products with similar problems is the performance drop really that bad?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes I agree, which leads me believe it is the camera in the Tytn2 which is the problem. In good light the camera responds well - or should I say the graphics engine is able to do its job rendering the scene without any lag as it isn't waiting for the camera to send it data. The graphics engine either works or it doesn't. It is having to render a 320x240 image regardless of whether the camera is in low or good light.
If it can do this well in good light then, given a decent camera app, it should have no problem in low light. I am running the new V5 camera app from HTC btw.
Could I just say that I have signed the petition, as I believe there are other issues with the D3D drivers which have other implication on other apps.
Rgds
Stu
smads said:
My opinion is that the performance is due more to the exposure/sensitivity of the CCD than to the graphical rendering of the tytn2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Also as an amateur-photographer, I totally agree with Stu on this. I like how you explained it!
E
eddythepeddy said:
Also as an amateur-photographer, I totally agree with Stu on this. I like how you explained it!
E
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
cheers Eddy
smads said:
My opinion is that the performance is due more to the exposure/sensitivity of the CCD than to the graphical rendering of the tytn2.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
CCD! Thats it! I was talking about this in another post and had CMOS stuck in my mind, not CCD! Comparing results from a proper camera set to 3MP and the Kaiser the results vary a lot, especially in poorer lighting conditions, or scenes with a lot of colour. I have also noticed image quality differs between my 3yr old Nikon D70 DSLR (6MP) and brand new Casio Exilm compact (7.2MP) (the Nikon is better) and I'm sure this has to do with the quality of the Nikon hardware compared to the Casio. With this knowledge, I don't think any driver improvements are going to increase the performance / quality of the Kaiser camera.
Then why does Qualcomm's site say the camera can record 640x480 but that is not a setting on the Kaiser? Should this be easy to change?
What you say does makes sense, haven't really thought of that.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f9b1L7m7G0Y
This clip was shot on a Touch Dual (also 2mp CCD) in normal indoor lightning, is the fps anything like the Tytn?
I dont know what fps I was getting but when the device is turned away from a close bright source of light the fps drops noticeably.
Anyway, I can't say I'm pleased with the camera on my device. Nor overall video performance for that matter.
Honestly, whats the point of having the settings where you can switch different lightings when that dayum camera stays in night mode, no matter what setting you choose?
What do you mean by different lightings? If you mean the part where you can change the white balance for sunlight, light bulbs etc, then thats to stop the colour cast you would get otherwise. Sunlight would be normal, a incandescent bulb would be very orange, flourescent green (i think). If you mean something else, please clarify.
Any camera is dependent on how much light actually striikes the recording element... film or digital doesn't matter.
Also as a photog, one thing I've learn these years past is the more light you can get to strike whatever it is actually recording the image, the better the image clarity and true to life the color will be. So, a larger lens, or a lens with better glass (clarity) that lets in more light will almost always yield the better picture, all other settings and environmental variables being the same.
This likely applies to the SLR comparison above. I don't think this necessarily applies to the 8925 to 8525 comparison, as both seem equally tiny. However, my 8925 isn't yet a week old, and I've already got a scratch across the "lens" built into the battery cover. Also, this phone shoots through not one, but two pieces of plastic over the actual lens (or the outermost piece of glass that comprises said lens). I don't see how that can be good at all.
FWIW, sure the pictures are physically bigger (space on disc), but I agree with the consensus, the result isn't as good as the previous model except in bright (such as day) light.
Steve-C said:
What do you mean by different lightings? If you mean the part where you can change the white balance for sunlight, light bulbs etc, then thats to stop the colour cast you would get otherwise. Sunlight would be normal, a incandescent bulb would be very orange, flourescent green (i think). If you mean something else, please clarify.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
yes, that's what I meant, thanks, I couldn't figure out the name of those settings for the life of me!
Back to the CCD vs. driver issue. I don't believe this is a CCD issue. Doesn't the HTC Advantage use the same CCD? 3mp? If so does that camera suffer the same HORRIBLE low light performance? If not which I don't think it does it's not the CCD but the rendering. Also the Advantage uses a different chipset which would really show it's not the CCD but point directly at the chipset/lack of driver.
Also my HTC Touch performs WAY better in low light than my Kaiser. Why would HTC purchase a "newer" CCD that performs worse than their previous CCD? Why I ask?!
Does anyone else feel like the people running these smartphone manufacturing businesses do not have their finger on the pulse of the community? And I'm not talking about low expectation every day average Joe who's only phone they ever had was a Motorola Razr and could care less as long as they can check their email and get text messages... I'm talking about XDA community type people. People who want a PC in their pocket(with a phone built in). Not just a phone in their pocket that checks email...
juiceppc said:
Also my HTC Touch performs WAY better in low light than my Kaiser. Why would HTC purchase a "newer" CCD that performs worse than their previous CCD? Why I ask?!
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Because they are cøcks.
But think of it this way:
Why would HTC purchase a "newer" Graphics chip that performs worse than their previous Graphics chip?
it's all about the money guys!
just think.. they put a ****ty one that is cheaper in lots of Kaiser..
People think.. oh Kaiser.. it's the best PDA around..
It must have all the best..
and then it turns out that they can do this things..
they can make a very large profit (cause of the millions PDA's sold arround the world).. changing just a few pieces..
well it's just a theory!
comment i'm insane
well looks like i'm crazy after all
cheers.
My Z is a few months old now, and has been functioning fine so far. Now and then though, the camera goes completely nuts- by taking photos with yellowish/brownish bars across it. The bars are visible on screen too. I can't figure out what's causing this (I've wiped the back panel), but it seems like it only happens for indoor shots, especially when the subject of the photo is close to the camera (about 20cm away).
Is this something to worry about? Are there many other users with the same problem, and should I send it in for servicing/ to get a replacement unit? It's still under warranty.
I'm on build 101.1.A.1.253, running stock 4.1.2, for what it's worth.
Get it replaced.
From me to you.
XperienceD said:
Get it replaced.
From me to you.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not sure if they provide replacements under warranty here, actually... did you have the same problem?
aprilius20 said:
did you have the same problem?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
No, but if my pictures were coming out like that as well as my display looking like it too whilst using the camera, it would be going back.
XperienceD said:
No, but if my pictures were coming out like that as well as my display looking like it too whilst using the camera, it would be going back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yeah same here, it seems more the logical. The shop you bought it can't call that a good picture.
I done some research on this
this is under fluorescent lighting @ ISO 1600
This is under fluorescent lighting @ ISO100 (still a little brownish)
This is under fluorescent lighting @ ISO 400? With HDR ON
This is under sunlight @ ISO 1600 With HDR ON
I have tested also on ther condition, did not upload it/ deleted
but i can sort of deduce this
1. The brown bars are caused by the fluorescent lighting that have a frequency clash with the camera refresh rate.
2. The problem seems minimize at ISO100, appears slightly @ ISO200 but worsen once over ISO400
3. The pictures above is taken at close range ~ 8cm away with the phone place on an elevated box.
4. with fluorescent lighting, the HDR ON affect on as low as ISO100, and causes the ghost/double image and really tits up on higher ISO. This issue lessen with natural sunlight where the image maintain crisp until ISO 1600.
5. I cannot use the self timer as the flash light for the timer sometimes f-up the focus (this is a real f-up)
6. There are still other modes i have yet to test out such as burst etc
XperienceD said:
No, but if my pictures were coming out like that as well as my display looking like it too whilst using the camera, it would be going back.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Logical enough for me
mcchin said:
I done some research on this
1. The brown bars are caused by the fluorescent lighting that have a frequency clash with the camera refresh rate.
6. There are still other modes i have yet to test out such as burst etc
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I didn't bother testing as much as you did, but all that does seem to make sense! Did some searching and it seems like some Sony cameras have this problem (point and shoot, or DSLR, I can't remember). It is an indoor only thing like you said, under fluorescent lighting.
Wonder if this qualifies as a bug or a hardware limitation...
Anyone know what if there's been any progress to getting this set up on our devices? This is literally the only thing I feel like it is missing. And I really don't understand why it is so hard to implement if the camera has the capability. Maybe Im missing something. Really wish one of the dev's here could get this set up for us all.
Thanks!
Really surprised no one else is really interested in slow mo video.
look in your app store, there are apps for slow motion recording, just not many. oh, and the devs here on xda, do things for free, no body pays them. if i were to make an app for slow motion video, id want to get oaid for it, i wouldnt do it for free. it actually would take wuite some personal time to make.
simms22 said:
look in your app store, there are apps for slow motion recording, just not many. oh, and the devs here on xda, do things for free, no body pays them. if i were to make an app for slow motion video, id want to get oaid for it, i wouldnt do it for free. it actually would take wuite some personal time to make.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
He means apps that shoot in 120-210fps. Not apps that shoot 30fps and cut that down to 15 or less and render the poor mans slow mo.
In regards to OP. No, not yet.
No camera on the planet can CAPTURE in slow motion. To do so would require travelling away from the scene being captured at insanely high rates of speed, specifically, to turn the capture speed down to 50% would require the capture device to travel away from the scene at HALF THE SPEED OF LIGHT!
ALL "slow motion" video is slowed down during PLAYBACK. It is done by rendering the frames at a rate lower than they were captured. Now naturally, the higher the rate they were captured at, the more smooth the playback will appear once they are rendered at a lower rate, but the actual function is identical.
This would require the camera to be able to capture video at 120-210 FPS... which ain't happening.
Ryjabo said:
This would require the camera to be able to capture video at 120-210 FPS... which ain't happening.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
uhmmm the N5 camera was able to do 120fps and so is my old s4, the camera in the n6 is perfectly capable of it hardware wise.
+1 for looking for slow motion
Well, as allready said this will not come until Google implements it or something magical happens
This is the closest I've found:
https://github.com/PkmX/lcamera/issues/153
Seems it theoretically could be possible to do the same hack as on nexus 5 for higher framerate videorecording. So keep the hope alive! I think i might reconsider going for nexus the next time around if google keep on skipping this... Oh well.
Lcamera - linked above is the best camera for now for taking really low light photos at least. I can take pictures at half a second exposure :good:
So here's hoping 120fps for the n6 will show up too
Say "cheese", then rate this thread to express how photos taken with the Moto G4 Plus come out. A higher rating indicates that photos offer rich color (without over-saturating), sharp detail (with all subjects in-focus), and appropriate exposure (with even lighting).
Then, drop a comment if you have anything to add!
Above average
is it that good?
I keep seeing reviews and comments talking about the great quality of this camera (above the average, at the level of high end...), however, my phone does not cope very well with some situations and I do not know why. Is it defective? is it low light? I am going to post some images but right now I am going to describe the behaviour.
For some reason the main camera struggles a lot when taking pictures of thing in movement. I does not expect a shutter speed of 1/1000 but I cannot make my son to be more steady either. The image seems focused except the moving part which is always blurry. This happens in low light but also in conditions which I consider good light (exteriors, rooms with 25W LED + side lamp...)
The front camera IMHO does not deserve any compliment, it struggles a lot to focus, more than half the pictures are blurry and/or out of focus, most of them have a lot of noise like in low light. It is a bit better after turning on the flash in screen but, again, is this normal?
I will thank any comment on this.
Picture 1_room_with_side_ window_light.jpg: Room with a side window where you do not need to turn the lights on for things like writing or sewing.
Pictures 2 and 3 has very good light in my opinion and the camera struggles.
4 and 5 are made with the front camera and both are below the standard IMHO.
1of3isgood shows how I needed 3 pictures to take one OK
sunlight shows how the camera struggel even with sunlight in the scene
whatIexpect are 2 very good photos this is what I expect
I have to say, the camera is at least VERY inconsistent on it results. It is capable of a lot but it only demonstrates some times
What do you think?
I honestly think that the camera on the Moto G could have been much better. I like the camera APP interface itself, but the photo quality is mediocre. Aside from picture quality, anyone notices their camera lens getting scratched up? Mine is.
You're right.
foxaxel said:
I keep seeing reviews and comments talking about the great quality of this camera (above the average, at the level of high end...), however, my phone does not cope very well with some situations and I do not know why. Is it defective? is it low light? I am going to post some images but right now I am going to describe the behaviour.
For some reason the main camera struggles a lot when taking pictures of thing in movement. I does not expect a shutter speed of 1/1000 but I cannot make my son to be more steady either. The image seems focused except the moving part which is always blurry. This happens in low light but also in conditions which I consider good light (exteriors, rooms with 25W LED + side lamp...)
The front camera IMHO does not deserve any compliment, it struggles a lot to focus, more than half the pictures are blurry and/or out of focus, most of them have a lot of noise like in low light. It is a bit better after turning on the flash in screen but, again, is this normal?
I will thank any comment on this.
Picture 1_room_with_side_ window_light.jpg: Room with a side window where you do not need to turn the lights on for things like writing or sewing.
Pictures 2 and 3 has very good light in my opinion and the camera struggles.
4 and 5 are made with the front camera and both are below the standard IMHO.
1of3isgood shows how I needed 3 pictures to take one OK
sunlight shows how the camera struggel even with sunlight in the scene
whatIexpect are 2 very good photos this is what I expect
I have to say, the camera is at least VERY inconsistent on it results. It is capable of a lot but it only demonstrates some times
What do you think?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not good as described in media
The photo quality is not as described. Image stabilization seems just not there are or not working properly.
Photo quality is good only if still photos are taken during day time with more light in. That is all.
But for the cost of around $200 its a good phone but not a camera phone.
How do I access camera debug options?
As far as I'm concerned the camera quality is really above average. Your problem seems to find his cause elsewhere.
To keep it simple, your photos may be blurry because of the lack of light indoor. Smartphone are known to have small objective (while real camera have big one) that can't gather a lot of light by themselve. It means that you'll have to sacrifice quality if the environnement is not well lit. In this case, you're phone try to make up for the lack of light by gathering more light before taking the photo which cause a more blurry photo. You can also manually set it to take it faster but you'll have to use a higher iso (which mean more noise).
If you want a good photo you need :
- light (even for a galaxy S7)
- A good objective (also the bigger the better but we're on a smartphone so...)
- A clean objective (I can't stress how this matter ! Even more if we consider that it's really use to put à finger on the objective of the moto g4)
Here you go, hope it helped, if you want to test your camera to see if it has some problem you should do it outdoor with the sun at zenith and some cloud to avoid bad shadows and blinding effects.
kayet95 said:
As far as I'm concerned the camera quality is really above average. Your problem seems to find his cause elsewhere.
To keep it simple, your photos may be blurry because of the lack of light indoor. Smartphone are known to have small objective (while real camera have big one) that can't gather a lot of light by themselve. It means that you'll have to sacrifice quality if the environnement is not well lit. In this case, you're phone try to make up for the lack of light by gathering more light before taking the photo which cause a more blurry photo. You can also manually set it to take it faster but you'll have to use a higher iso (which mean more noise).
If you want a good photo you need :
- light (even for a galaxy S7)
- A good objective (also the bigger the better but we're on a smartphone so...)
- A clean objective (I can't stress how this matter ! Even more if we consider that it's really use to put à finger on the objective of the moto g4)
Here you go, hope it helped, if you want to test your camera to see if it has some problem you should do it outdoor with the sun at zenith and some cloud to avoid bad shadows and blinding effects.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Thanks for your answer kayet95. The main point is that the camera is not reliable enough and you end up taking 5 pictures each time just to be sure one will be fine. Of course with the lighting you suggest the camera does well, it would be a complete rubbish if not, but take a look at my attachment sunlight. The window was fully open, there where sun coming into the scene and the camera struggled once.
I agree the camera is capable of taking great pictures, but it is nor reliable.
My experience is that the camera in G4Plus is above average for a phone. I think that who expects more is delusional, you need to buy a real camera to take good pictures - in low light or with any level of zoom.
One that I clicked this morning
just wanting to share a photo taken by my Moto G4 plus .
No special Arrangement , everything on Auto
I love this camera.... Sunny day and auto mode....
---------- Post added at 10:18 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:13 AM ----------
Another one. Raining and almost running by night. Just shot under the rain.... lot of noise but the connditions were really bad!!
SoNic67 said:
My experience is that the camera in G4Plus is above average for a phone. I think that who expects more is delusional, you need to buy a real camera to take good pictures - in low light or with any level of zoom.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I agree 100%. :good:
This camera is very good for a phone camera, especially one of this price. To expect high quality pix from it in every lighting or motion situation is simply ludicrous.
Two more photos:
One tree
Royal Palace, Madrid, Spain
the color quality is good, but sometimes i cant take a picture, might be my hand is wet, or the phone lagging
The camera is capable of good pictures, however mine seem inconsistent. Sometimes take the same shot a couple times to get good one, even in good lighting. I upgraded from last year's moto g, and consistently got excellent pictures with it.
Overall I feel the camera on the g4 plus isn't quite as good as last year's moto g. I was really expecting better.
hi , i use OpenCamera and it`s much better.
I'm opening this thread since I don't see it there.
Why do I get the impression that the 960 FPS Slow Motion that the Camera does is actually an interpolated version of a 240 FPS version?
Today I was curious to see how good it was, I put the 960 FPS mode and I said: I will finally be able to see every little detail of my experiments and social life.
I was very disappointed to see that after the video had been processed I would find myself with an old acquaintance of interpolation algorithms such as RIFE, CAIN or DAIN... The distortions. These flaws are common when interpolating videos as the AI is trying to guess where the next pixel will go in the next frame, as a consequence sometimes a teleportation effect is generated and that's what I realized today.
Honestly, that has left me disappointed because now I know that in the 960 FPS version, 3 out of 4 frames are not real.
It would be stupid to ask but the camera and processor specs support 960 FPS video. Why didn't Motorola actually implement it? Instead it is using the NPU to Interpolate
fulltronservice said:
I'm opening this thread since I don't see it there.
Why do I get the impression that the 960 FPS Slow Motion that the Camera does is actually an interpolated version of a 240 FPS version?
Today I was curious to see how good it was, I put the 960 FPS mode and I said: I will finally be able to see every little detail of my experiments and social life.
I was very disappointed to see that after the video had been processed I would find myself with an old acquaintance of interpolation algorithms such as RIFE, CAIN or DAIN... The distortions. These flaws are common when interpolating videos as the AI is trying to guess where the next pixel will go in the next frame, as a consequence sometimes a teleportation effect is generated and that's what I realized today.
Honestly, that has left me disappointed because now I know that in the 960 FPS version, 3 out of 4 frames are not real.
It would be stupid to ask but the camera and processor specs support 960 FPS video. Why didn't Motorola actually implement it? Instead it is using the NPU to Interpolate
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
They couldn't be bothered. Much about this device is made just to seem good on the surface but actually using it is a different story. I, for example, doubt that the main camera is even 108MP. Taking photos in 108MP does not offer any more detail than 12MP. They honestly should have just gone for an OIS 16MP or something but no, they went backwards from last generation and slapped in this garbage sensor, which is a shame since the telephoto and wide angle are actually great. I also noticed the messed up "960fps video" and I just never use it.
Username: Required said:
They couldn't be bothered. Much about this device is made just to seem good on the surface but actually using it is a different story. I, for example, doubt that the main camera is even 108MP. Taking photos in 108MP does not offer any more detail than 12MP. They honestly should have just gone for an OIS 16MP or something but no, they went backwards from last generation and slapped in this garbage sensor, which is a shame since the telephoto and wide angle are actually great. I also noticed the messed up "960fps video" and I just never use it.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Actually in the rest of the sections I am satisfied for the price of the phone but in the quality of the main camera I was disappointed. I'm still using GCam and I can't find a way to make the photo display with its details.
fulltronservice said:
Actually in the rest of the sections I am satisfied for the price of the phone but in the quality of the main camera I was disappointed. I'm still using GCam and I can't find a way to make the photo display with its details.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What do you mean by "display with it's detail"? The phone does take soft pictures with the main camera, I know. Shooting in RAW and opening the images in Light Room does show that there is a lot of detail that gets crushed due to the aggressive denoise algorithm that GCam uses, and the main camera app sharpens the image so much that it ends up looking like an oil painting.
Username: Required said:
What do you mean by "display with it's detail"? The phone does take soft pictures with the main camera, I know. Shooting in RAW and opening the images in Light Room does show that there is a lot of detail that gets crushed due to the aggressive denoise algorithm that GCam uses, and the main camera app sharpens the image so much that it ends up looking like an oil painting.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
With details I was referring to the information that the camera captures when you zoom in and start to see noise. I find no way to prevent the noise algorithm from creating corrections far from reality. When you take a picture, the photo is perfect until you zoom to 4x. You realize that you start to see noise and lose detail. And Motorola in the camera content update it released earlier this week hasn't fixed anything.