Posted by max_wedge
yes but fon't get too excited. I did a few pics and it seems to be true, but I haven't done enough comparisons to eliminate poor focus etc.
Looks promising, but more comparisons needed. Also, as mongoose says, driver may be unstable.
Posted by kopritis
2.7 mod driver download:
http://rapidshare.com/files/50657666/camdriver0.rar.html
this is sample of my mod 2.7
The image was taken with K810i r6bc002 cid52
original size download: http://rapidshare.com/files/50657522/DSC00829.JPG.html
Posted by max_wedge
1. what did you mod in the driver?
and
2. can you post comparison of the same picture with standard driver also?
Posted by mongoose3800
I've been able to get 99% and 100% working. But I couldn't get the image size to increase. So I kept trying to set the max image size value and increase the buffer size. I didn't think to try just the buffer size. It is interesting to note that even though the max image size is set at 900kb the camera can produce larger files off the original driver. I have a couple of images over 1mb in size.
MAX: What image sizes are you getting? I'm going to have to play again now. I'm about to try 99% with 1.5mb buffer.
Posted by max_wedge
Image sizes don't seem to be any larger than stock?
I think the buffer is more like a swap file - it probably doesn't need the whole image to fit in the buffer all at once.
Posted by kopritis
On 2007-08-23 02:01:19, max_wedge wrote:
1. what did you mod in the driver?
and
2. can you post comparison of the same picture with standard driver also?
1. the sharpeness and the contrast settings improved
2.i can't right now because it's night.
Posted by max_wedge
Cool
Posted by mongoose3800
Well I don't get it. I just tried 1.5mb buffer and 99% compression. Did four sample shots and all for were smaller file sizes than photo's taken with original driver. I'm talking about 100-150kb smaller. So, I wonder what would happen if I dropped the number from 90 to 85?
Posted by max_wedge
odd. I noticed that in some(but not all) of the comparisons I did.
I wonder if 85% means LESS compression than 90%? Though I wouldn't imagine image compression would be read as image is compressed by 90% I would more have thought it means image is 90% of RAW. Meaning that higher percentage = less compression.
But maybe not?
Posted by rockygali
ok guys lemme jump in for a moment...
@max and mongoose
what are you guys trying to achieve?! small compression but sharper pics?
koptris right here just made a minor tweak but it was gud. i mean the wall from afar is not over casted, tho i think using my K810 itll be overcasted.
@koptris
try night scenes.
Posted by max_wedge
rocky, I'm trying to decrease compression since K800 is more compressed than K750, giving images a "water colour" look. It's worse in low light situations - with good light it's no where near as bad. But the driver I have at 95% is seeming to be clearer and sharper than the 90% driver (stock)
I feel the algorithm in the K800 seeks to compress low light images more as a means to hide noise (the other way is to decrease iso but this results in too dark pics)
low light Noise was one of the biggest complaints about K750 and I think this is how they "fixed" it in K800. Typical SE, like microsoft, over react to user focus groups and go and change something that is actually better the way it was.
But I really need to do more testing before I'm happy we can return K800 driver to K750 type performance. Also sharpness and iso values need looking at but this is just a start.
Posted by mongoose3800
Rocky, All I want to fix is the JPG compression. I'm tired of so many pictures being ruined by excessive jpg compression. As I have a 2gb card in my phone I dont care if the images double in size. If it resolves the issue of jaggered edges I'd be over the moon.
Posted by rockygali
@max
now i get it... so thats how color bleeding happens...
@mongoose
ok mate, got yer point.. me too. i dont care about the size of the pic. as long as it delivers bright and crisp images.. fine with me.. i think the phone can process these...
Posted by max_wedge
On 2007-08-23 05:06:29, rockygali wrote:
@max
now i get it... so thats how color bleeding happens...
I think that's the main cause. The only other explanation I guess is that the cmos sensor is more crap than the K750 sensor. I hope this is not the case. Early cheap digital cameras have this "bleeding" due to the excess compression used to fit more images on the tiny onboard memory.
Posted by mongoose3800
This is interesting. I dropped the figure to 85 and the picture sizes are bigger than those with the setting at 90. Jagged edges are still there.
Posted by whatsucka
can someone tell me how to check wat CID my k800 is and how i make FAR read k800 fone, i only can get it read w800, not even w600
Posted by rockygali
@whatsucka
have you downloaded the latest plugin for SE phones used in Far manager?!
its on the first page of this thread....
Posted by TheNerd
On 2007-08-23 05:33:07, mongoose3800 wrote:
This is interesting. I dropped the figure to 85 and the picture sizes are bigger than those with the setting at 90. Jagged edges are still there.
why dont you decrease it to ,lets say,40,and then see if the jagged are still there?
messing around with 5 each time (90-85-80 etc),wont be noticeable,I presume.
Posted by mongoose3800
Yeh, I tried that. In fact I was more aggressive than that. I tried 5% and ended up with very small file sizes of 140kb. I'm really thinking that the actual software in the phone has some fairly tight limits and a max file size setting of 900kb may be one of them. Let'f face it 900kb is a pretty small size to fit a decent 3mp. So unless we can find a way to reliably increase the max file size we will probably get no where. But, No matter how many times I try to increase the max file setting the camera ends up being very unstable. mmm - I wonder what would happen if I set the max file size to 0?
Now, here's where is gets interesting. If you increase the max file size to say 950 and leave the compression at 90% (or play with another setting) you can take some photo's, provided they are rather bland. But as soon as you take a photo with complex colours and details the camera crashes. This makes sense as an image with complex colours will be larger and would no doubt exceed 900kb.
Posted by [c3]
mon, this means that the phone is actually capable of producing a larger picture, did u try setting it to 0 and see what happens?
Posted by tphg
Hi everybody!
I have got problem with my phone: After i updated my K800 firmware from R1JG001 to R1KG001 via SEUS, now my phone takes long time to save photo. Someone else face same problem with latest firmware?
Posted by milan91
On 2007-08-23 16:09:25, tphg wrote:
Hi everybody!
I have got problem with my phone: After i updated my K800 firmware from R1JG001 to R1KG001 via SEUS, now my phone takes long time to save photo. Someone else face same problem with latest firmware?
I have R1KG but that problem i dont have
Posted by tphg
On 2007-08-23 16:25:59, milan91 wrote:
On 2007-08-23 16:09:25, tphg wrote:
Hi everybody!
I have got problem with my phone: After i updated my K800 firmware from R1JG001 to R1KG001 via SEUS, now my phone takes long time to save photo. Someone else face same problem with latest firmware?
I have R1KG but that problem i dont have
@milan91
How long does it take for your phone saving photo? For mine. it takes around 15 seconds which is too long.
Posted by chadiwrx
How long does it take for your phone saving photo? For mine. it takes around 15 seconds which is too long.
Turn off the time stamp, Now it will save faster.
Posted by tphg
On 2007-08-23 16:47:56, chadiwrx wrote:
How long does it take for your phone saving photo? For mine. it takes around 15 seconds which is too long.
Turn off the time stamp, Now it will save faster.
@chadiwrx
Whaaa! You're right. Now it saves much faster, only 2 seconds.
Thanks very much!
Posted by [c3]
mongoos, max any updates?
Posted by tucurel_day
nice work
i have read the 5 pages and i am impresed hope you will manage to do it
Posted by kopritis
On 2007-08-23 05:12:49, max_wedge wrote:
On 2007-08-23 05:06:29, rockygali wrote:
@max
now i get it... so thats how color bleeding happens...
I think that's the main cause. The only other explanation I guess is that the cmos sensor is more crap than the K750 sensor. I hope this is not the case. Early cheap digital cameras have this "bleeding" due to the excess compression used to fit more images on the tiny onboard memory.
K750 have cmos sensor but the algorithm of camera driver is much different from k800/810. So, all the thing about "bleeding" in the k800/810 is from camera driver... with a little bit process from modders the driver of k800/810 it will be much better from that stock driver 2.5. All this mods, want some time to make it work good!!!!
Posted by TheNerd
On 2007-08-23 21:47:04, kopritis wrote:
On 2007-08-23 05:12:49, max_wedge wrote:
On 2007-08-23 05:06:29, rockygali wrote:
@max
now i get it... so thats how color bleeding happens...
I think that's the main cause. The only other explanation I guess is that the cmos sensor is more crap than the K750 sensor. I hope this is not the case. Early cheap digital cameras have this "bleeding" due to the excess compression used to fit more images on the tiny onboard memory.
K750 have cmos sensor but the algorithm of camera driver is much different from k800/810. So, all the thing about "bleeding" in the k800/810 is from camera driver... with a little bit process from modders the driver of k800/810 it will be much better from that stock driver 2.5. All this mods, want some time to make it work good!!!!
cant we just take the k750 camera driver and install it in the k800\\810?
maybe patch it up to 3.2mpx...
Posted by TheNerd
maybe the file size does have anything to do with the quality.
here is a sample image of the DSC-P32 3.2mpx cybershot camera:
http://65.6.152.25/DSC00681.JPG
its around 1.4MB....
light coditions are bad,but quality compared to k800\\810 is much better.
Posted by max_wedge
On 2007-08-23 21:47:04, kopritis wrote:
K750 have cmos sensor but the algorithm of camera driver is much different from k800/810. So, all the thing about "bleeding" in the k800/810 is from camera driver... with a little bit process from modders the driver of k800/810 it will be much better from that stock driver 2.5. All this mods, want some time to make it work good!!!!
well yes I realise that K800 have cmos sensor, but that doesn't mean it's as good quality as K750 sensor. There are more difference in sensors than just cmos/ccd
However that said I do believe the K800 has as good a quality sensor as K750, so I do think it is possible to get some improvement.
Posted by max_wedge
cant we just take the k750 camera driver and install it in the k800\\810?
maybe patch it up to 3.2mpx...
no this has been tried. In any case, they are vastly different, including the actual hardware (spot, infinity/AF toggle, resolution, ui, etc etc)
Too many differences for the camera driver of K750 to adequately support the full features of the K800 camera, even if it would actually work (which it doesn't)
Posted by tranced
patches work with the firmware. it has nothing to do with the hardware itself.
Posted by mongoose3800
Well, I'm giving this a rest for a while as it is doing my head in. No matter what compression level I try I can't really get a worth while improvement. I actually went out and bought a 7mp camera yesterday. It is now that I really appreciate that it is totally unreasonable to expect any real decent quality from the K800. After all, it has a tiny sensor, a tiny lens and is configured to produce images of a small size. But, with all that it doesn't do too bad at all. If it wasn't for the jagged edges I wouldn't complain about the images.
Posted by kopritis
Anyway guys! I'm working my new mod 2.8 on night shots and "quality day & night... "
Posted by xan K
I hope we can see some improvement. maybe not as good as in K750-W800 but something we could be glad about.
Posted by tranced
You wont see any improvements. You have 1.15 mega pixels more than us(k750/w800/w810 owners). Why would you want to improve more? If you want improvements then get a digicam
Posted by xan K
why?... I'll tell you why, because through a modder's eyes there's always room for improvements or just for the fun of it. and... as a matter of fact, I do have a 7.1MP Digicam: a Canon PowerShot SD1000.
LOL
Posted by max_wedge
On 2007-08-24 04:04:00, tranced wrote:
You wont see any improvements. You have 1.15 mega pixels more than us(k750/w800/w810 owners). Why would you want to improve more? If you want improvements then get a digicam
We are not trying to improve camera resolution, that's a hardware function. Megapixels is not the only criteria for a good quality digital photo. You may not have observed the K750 camera driver threads, but I can guarantee you the modders there have improved the quality of many aspects of the camera driver to an incredible degree.
For K750, better colour, manual sharpness control, enhanced night mode that removes the terrible white lines present in stock drivers, half press exposure lock (like focus lock but for exposure), 16x digital zoom, manual focus, scenes (something that SE only introduced with K800), spot photometry etc etc.
All these things were added to the K750 driver by modders, and are options that SE never chose to make available in production drivers.
So you see, there is good reason to believe that SE haven't exploited the full capabilities of the K800 camera with the driver they have supplied.
Posted by whatsucka
i cant find the link to downloaded the latest plugin for SE phones used in Far manager. can someone upload it??
is the silver edition of k800 a CID49??
_________________
download PSP Stuff here
[ This Message was edited by: whatsucka on 2007-08-24 08:44 ]
Posted by rockygali
here yah go pal!
New SEFP plugin for FAR Manager (CID52/52: DB2020)
http://www.sendspace.com/file/iuiqzp
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: rockygali on 2007-08-24 08:50 ]
Posted by hellvy
On 2007-08-24 02:33:50, kopritis wrote:
Anyway guys! I'm working my new mod 2.8 on night shots and "quality day & night... "
Hi kopritis i'm looking forward for that
I'd like to see better indoor/night picture of k790/800.
I think changing jpeg quality (i prefer word 'jpeg quality' than 'jpeg compression'
) that max_wedge sample on page 4 give a much better result already (if it's not just an unfocus/focus one and stable to use). But more and more improvement is really appreciated
One thing about water color effect issue in low light picture. i just thought it should come from some preprocessing to reduce noise, not jpeg compression itself. think about 90% jpeg quality should not give that bad result. May be the process goes like
take picture -> noise reduction -> jpeg compression -> phone memory/m2
Another thing, i noticed that the time stamp on k790/800 is lack of sharpness comparing to k750. Does it mean something?
[ This Message was edited by: hellvy on 2007-08-24 09:12 ]
[ This Message was edited by: hellvy on 2007-08-24 09:18 ]
Posted by Neo-Tech
Hi,
How do I install this onto my K800i. which folder does it go in
THANKS
machanic
Posted by max_wedge
On 2007-08-24 10:11:03, hellvy wrote:
One thing about water color effect issue in low light picture. i just thought it should come from some preprocessing to reduce noise, not jpeg compression itself. think about 90% jpeg quality should not give that bad result. May be the process goes like
take picture -> noise reduction -> jpeg compression -> phone memory/m2
I tend to agree with that. I think lower compression can help especially in low light, but ultimately we want to tweak the ISO values. Perhaps eventually even manual ISO selection aka K850.
We keep ISO low, lengthen exposure times, and get respectable result. It may still be fairly useless for low light movement, but at least we have control and can get some great night photos. This has been achieved with mod cam drivers for K750, so I imagine it's possible with K800 as well.
Also, if harsh noise filtering is being applied onboard, then I guess the more detail prior to filtering the better.
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750 K750 Tricks
K800 Tips and Themes
Max's K800 Page
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2007-08-24 10:00 ]
Posted by max_wedge
I've finally done some more testing, and I can say the effect I noticed with the truck is minor. When doing a series of photos of the same subject in the same lighting, taking care to ensure all photos are taken with a steady hand, overall the difference is only minor, if at all.
But mongoose's observation regarding file sizes leads me to suspect that changing the compression might be more involved than just changing this one value?
Posted by mongoose3800
On 2007-08-24 12:40:08, max_wedge wrote:
I've finally done some more testing, and I can say the effect I noticed with the truck is minor. When doing a series of photos of the same subject in the same lighting, taking care to ensure all photos are taken with a steady hand, overall the difference is only minor, if at all.
But mongoose's observation regarding file sizes leads me to suspect that changing the compression might be more involved than just changing this one value? And, with all the settings I played with I really haven't seen any real improvement worth writing home about. It is also annoying how much time you have to spend editing the driver, copying it across, checking images and so on only to realise you've achieved nothing. It's really annoying when you think you have a good combo of settings and you click to take a photo and the camera crashes.
I'm glad you've noticed this too. It will drive you mad. Wait until you start playing with the max and target file settings with different compressions settings. None of it makes sense. You can increase the max file size and maybe use 98% but end up with a picture that is less than 600kb in size.
[ This Message was edited by: mongoose3800 on 2007-08-24 14:52 ]
Posted by hellvy
oh, that's hurt reading max and mon's post -_-'
May be you guys just get into it too much. Some pull over, take some rest and a look around should help. Watching only leaf, won't see the whole forest. Take care guys
[ This Message was edited by: hellvy on 2007-08-24 17:59 ]
Posted by xan K
It's hard to think about it, but maybe nothing can be done. If you check SE's firmware releases you'll see that from the first FW (R1CC003) to the latest one (R6BC002) no changes have been done to the camera driver version (2.5). k750 had some considerable updates. so, if SE's development team hasn't found anything to improve in k790/k800 camera driver, perhaps there's any at all. just let's hope that's not the case...
Posted by tranced
they'd better focuse on another problems..(Operation Failed
)
Posted by whatsucka
thanx rockygali
wat should i select after installing the plugin??
all i see is this