Posted by eltoffer
i would like to ask mauasca to make some shots with this driver or even better make a comparison, you are great for taking coloured pics
thanks
Posted by rajac
On 2009-09-08 03:30:17, eltoffer wrote:
i would like to ask mauasca to make some shots with this driver or even better make a comparison, you are great for taking coloured pics
thanks
Posted by Bryan84
Here is a comparison for DM3.2 vs. elToffer 3.7.
DM3.2 - 5.9MB
elToffer 3.7 - 2.9MB
I think I may prefer elToffer. The colors seem more vibrant.
[ This Message was edited by: Bryan84 on 2009-09-08 03:16 ]
Posted by Bryan84
From elToffer 3.7...
Marco Shot
Marco Shot
Auto Shot
Auto Shot
Posted by eltoffer
are the first two pics from the same day :S????
great shots pal, i like the colored pics
waiting for mausaca shots or whoever wants
enjoy your shots
[ This Message was edited by: eltoffer on 2009-09-08 04:52 ]
Posted by kazaf
@eltoffer
thanks for your new driver...what are the ISO settings of your camdriver?
100 200 400 800??
in "Effect"?
I also want to make a lng.file
-------------
EDIT
Its okay....thanks
[ This Message was edited by: kazaf on 2009-09-08 07:28 ]
Posted by Bryan84
On 2009-09-08 05:51:31, eltoffer wrote:
are the first two pics from the same day :S????
great shots pal, i like the colored pics
waiting for mausaca shots or whoever wants
enjoy your shots
[ This Message was edited by: eltoffer on 2009-09-08 04:52 ]
Yeah same day in the difference of 15 minutes.
Posted by eltoffer
On 2009-09-08 07:50:58, kazaf wrote:
@eltoffer
thanks for your new driver...what are the ISO settings of your camdriver?
100 200 400 800??
in "Effect"?
I also want to make a lng.file
-------------
EDIT
Its okay....thanks
[ This Message was edited by: kazaf on 2009-09-08 07:28 ]
Sorry about that i forgot to clear that
the values are
AUTO
100 very close shots with flash and twilight modes without flash
200 normal shots
320 poor light condition with flash and for a long distance
400 for very dark or fully dark environment and long distance
thats what i use them for thanks
@Bryan84
thanks dude great shots
Posted by wilson123123
Hi DarKMaGiCiaN
I'm Hong Kong user of 3.2
I've been using your driver est 3.0，I feel so good~!
thx for your share!
but I think your driver bias cool colors
If you update next version can be take it warmer tones could be better～
this is my img,not PS~
please guide～！thx~
Posted by igica11
Firs of all I am not very familiar with modding camdrive but I ask one question.
OK you manage to increase file size of jpg. But I dont understand, why you dont change quantization table in camdrive. As I have seen you use the same quantization table as original camdrive, which is design for lower bits. In my camdrive I change original quantization with jpeg standard quantization q=80( found it http://www.dfrws.org/2008/proceedings/p21-kornblum.pdf ) and I think images are sharper and more precise
[ This Message was edited by: igica11 on 2009-09-08 11:29 ]
Posted by Raiderski
quantization tables in driver are not used for normal pictures
Posted by igica11
OK, if quantization table is not used for normal pictures for what is than used?? Why is quantization table writen in camdrive if it doesnt have any influence on picture quality?? Tnx
Posted by eeeyaaan
eltoffer 3.7
DM 3.2
i think eltoffer has the better colors
anyway, eltoffer, i think it's better to have the ISO settings in effects because white balance is much more useful than effects and another thing, i'm not sure if it's just me.. but i THINK the manual ISO of eltoffer 3.7 doesn't lock 
when i choose an iso, iso 400 for example, it still changes as i view different things with the camera..
PS - will someone please teach me/lead me to learn how to back-up the original en.lng file? thank you
Posted by Vit
On 2009-06-15 07:02:19, eltoffer wrote:
On 2009-06-14 19:01:10, x.man wrote:
is it possible to make a Super function driver with something like manual focus,shutter speed... ?
yes it is, but i think just you, me, and some other use this driver since no one wants a completly manual cam i nwas thinking about doing a cam like this but i discard the idea :S
Man, I think you're wrong! I think you would do a tremendous job including manual ISO and Shutter speed/Exposure Time in your cam driver! I had that in my old k800 and that was awesome!
Posted by mauasca
eltoffer 3.7
macro
macro
macro
auto
auto
@eltoffer
you did a good job, but (at least for me) perhaps in macro colors are too bright and strong
Posted by Bryan84
eltoffer seriously, good driver!
Posted by mauasca
DarKMaGiCaN 3.2 Vs eltoffer 3.7
DM:
EL:
DM:
EL:
DM:
EL:
DM:
EL:
DM:
EL:
DarKMaGiCaN has colors more real, I think, however, are valid both
[ This Message was edited by: mauasca on 2009-09-08 15:56 ]
Posted by eltoffer
Thanks for your pics guys, in some shots i like DM
any issue please notify me
Posted by mikely_28
Yes. DM has better colors but only in macro. I think that in normal mode Toffer has got better sharpnes and more vivid colors. I don't use macro mode to often so...
Toffer! Great job!
Posted by eltoffer
thanks mikely
@mauasca
i can see the same problem as before your lens seems to be dirty in the pics taken with my driver
[ This Message was edited by: eltoffer on 2009-09-08 19:45 ]
Posted by mauasca
On 2009-09-08 20:44:37, eltoffer wrote:
thanks mikely
@mauasca
i can see the same problem as before your lens seems to be dirty in the pics taken with my driver
[ This Message was edited by: eltoffer on 2009-09-08 19:45 ]
I am sorry,:-(
the lens is not dirty, I clean before of the test;-)
[ This Message was edited by: mauasca on 2009-09-08 22:17 ]
Posted by anouk82
On 2009-09-08 12:28:14, igica11 wrote:
Firs of all I am not very familiar with modding camdrive but I ask one question.
OK you manage to increase file size of jpg. But I dont understand, why you dont change quantization table in camdrive. As I have seen you use the same quantization table as original camdrive, which is design for lower bits. In my camdrive I change original quantization with jpeg standard quantization q=80( found it http://www.dfrws.org/2008/proceedings/p21-kornblum.pdf ) and I think images are sharper and more precise
[ This Message was edited by: igica11 on 2009-09-08 11:29 ]
can you give us an example?your pics...
Posted by eltoffer
On 2009-09-08 23:16:12, mauasca wrote:
On 2009-09-08 20:44:37, eltoffer wrote:
thanks mikely
@mauasca
i can see the same problem as before your lens seems to be dirty in the pics taken with my driver
[ This Message was edited by: eltoffer on 2009-09-08 19:45 ]
I am sorry,:-(
the lens is not dirty, I clean before of the test;-)
[ This Message was edited by: mauasca on 2009-09-08 22:17 ]
it really seem so blurry o fuzzy
Posted by rajac
DM 3.2 nightshot 2s
Posted by wilson123123
On 2009-09-09 05:03:30, rajac wrote:
DM 3.2 nightshot 2s
hey rajac~
Even meet you here ~
Posted by rajac
@Wilson123123
Hi!Wilson.Nice to meet you here,too.
Posted by Raiderski
On 2009-09-08 13:11:45, igica11 wrote:
OK, if quantization table is not used for normal pictures for what is than used?? Why is quantization table writen in camdrive if it doesnt have any influence on picture quality?? Tnx
I don't know, in K750 and K800 they were for nothing and I don't think that anything has changed for C905. you can change all values to very small numbers like 10 and verify results. in this way quantization tables should simulate very high compression (very low jpeg quality)
Posted by igica11
On 2009-09-08 23:26:29, anouk82 wrote:
On 2009-09-08 12:28:14, igica11 wrote:
Firs of all I am not very familiar with modding camdrive but I ask one question.
OK you manage to increase file size of jpg. But I dont understand, why you dont change quantization table in camdrive. As I have seen you use the same quantization table as original camdrive, which is design for lower bits. In my camdrive I change original quantization with jpeg standard quantization q=80( found it http://www.dfrws.org/2008/proceedings/p21-kornblum.pdf ) and I think images are sharper and more precise
[ This Message was edited by: igica11 on 2009-09-08 11:29 ]
can you give us an example?your pics...
Okej you can download my modificated version of camdrive and see yourself. Notice that my camdrive is 96% based on original camdrive (because I dont like too much saturation and unnatural sharpening) and just compresion and exposure are changed-nothing radical. With this camdrive I manage to do 6,45MB picture of grass.
http://www.mediafire.com/?sha[....]a4fc82078ae6c8e04e75f6e8ebb871
bye
Posted by igica11
On 2009-09-09 13:30:35, Raiderski wrote:
On 2009-09-08 13:11:45, igica11 wrote:
OK, if quantization table is not used for normal pictures for what is than used?? Why is quantization table writen in camdrive if it doesnt have any influence on picture quality?? Tnx
you can change all values to very small numbers like 10 and verify results. in this way quantization tables should simulate very high compression (very low jpeg quality)
I remeber that small numbers in quantization table means better quality
[ This Message was edited by: igica11 on 2009-09-09 17:43 ]
Posted by rajac
Where's DM? I can't see him for a long time...
Posted by igica11
eltoffer colud you please edit my camdrive so I would be able to manual change iso. I Copy-paste some part of your camdrive from yours to mine but my camera always use iso200 indors. I Will use it only for myself and i wont share it further.
mail: smaragd@siol.net If it is very difficul than leave it. Tnx
Posted by Raiderski
On 2009-09-09 18:41:31, igica11 wrote:
I remeber that small numbers in quantization table means better quality
right, my mistake
Posted by eltoffer
whats your driver and what do you want instead of ????? and which values do you prefer???? i highly recommend 100 200 320 and 400 or 500 but its your choice
Posted by anouk82
D.M 3.2 (sharpness to
DM in youe next driver you can use more warm colours,but overal very very good.
[ This Message was edited by: anouk82 on 2009-09-09 22:58 ]
Posted by eltoffer
well it seems no one prints your photos, if you use too high sharpness the image is ugly trust me i recently printed some vacations pics and these were not that good as you think, but its your choice anyway i felt i should warn you
enjoy your shots
Posted by igica11
On 2009-09-09 21:59:08, eltoffer wrote:
whats your driver and what do you want instead of ????? and which values do you prefer???? i highly recommend 100 200 320 and 400 or 500 but its your choice
Driver is: http://www.mediafire.com/?sha[....]a4fc82078ae6c8e04e75f6e8ebb871
I would like to have iso control instead of white balance
I very rarely use iso higher than 200 (I like details with lower iso more than brightness and noisy pictures with high iso) so i would like to have:
1)auto iso
2)iso 100
2)iso 125
3)iso 150
4) iso 175
There is no need for me to have iso200 because camera allways choose iso200 indors.
I dont know if it is posible to have for example iso 175 so you can change it to iso170 or iso180 or to something else.
txn a lot
Posted by eltoffer
well let me explain you c905 is only able to set 100, 125, 160, 200, 250, 320, 400, 500 etc so your values are not allowed
Posted by anouk82
On 2009-09-10 00:21:56, eltoffer wrote:
well it seems no one prints your photos, if you use too high sharpness the image is ugly trust me i recently printed some vacations pics and these were not that good as you think, but its your choice anyway i felt i should warn you
enjoy your shots
thank's toffer but i print by myself too and the result is crystal clear for me.by the way what is the new resolution from your new driver?(video)
Posted by eltoffer
well maybe i could set it at 3 or 4 for portrait modes and 6 or 5 for the rest modes
my new res are QVGA and CIF both at 30fps with manual focus
Posted by anouk82
On 2009-09-10 01:43:58, eltoffer wrote:
well maybe i could set it at 3 or 4 for portrait modes and 6 or 5 for the rest modes
my new res are QVGA and CIF both at 30fps with manual focus
That would be the best.how do i select cif resolution?
Posted by eltoffer
change to night mode
Posted by rajac
On 2009-09-09 23:53:47, anouk82 wrote:
D.M 3.2 (sharpness to
DM in youe next driver you can use more warm colours,but overal very very good.
[ This Message was edited by: anouk82 on 2009-09-09 22:58 ]
very nice shots.DM 3.2 is good.
Posted by anouk82
On 2009-09-09 21:54:51, Raiderski wrote:
On 2009-09-09 18:41:31, igica11 wrote:
I remeber that small numbers in quantization table means better quality
right, my mistake
i have used quantization table from igica's driver to D.M 3.2 and i can see increased detail.
Posted by eltoffer
On 2009-09-10 02:26:00, anouk82 wrote:
On 2009-09-09 21:54:51, Raiderski wrote:
On 2009-09-09 18:41:31, igica11 wrote:
I remeber that small numbers in quantization table means better quality
right, my mistake
i have used quantization table from igica's driver to D.M 3.2 and i can see increased detail.
Where did you edit it and what values did you used???
Posted by cheeyh
eltoffer~~ your 3.7 version is VERY nice!
But 01 things is the marco in normal mode, it can't focus correctlly (mean will out of focus)...
can you check it? Thanks.
Posted by eltoffer
in normal mode there is not macro focus, thanks
EDIT
do you mean normal mode on SCENE or normal mode in focus????
if you mean op 1 the macro focus has to work perfectly, if you mean op 2 as i said ther is no macro on this mode, thanks
[ This Message was edited by: eltoffer on 2009-09-10 02:53 ]
Posted by eltoffer
some night shots in landscape different ISO
ISO 200
ISO 320
ISO 400
Posted by rajac
Eltoffer,can you add 2s shutter speed in your driver?It's very useful for night shot.
Posted by eltoffer
until i set 2s on night mode the camera uses 1s even on DM3.2 try by yourself, i was dealing with exposure time and i gave up, anyway if i had taken that pic on 2s it would be the same image, hope you understand why i say that
Posted by rajac
On 2009-09-10 07:16:35, eltoffer wrote:
until i set 2s on night mode the camera uses 1s even on DM3.2 try by yourself, i was dealing with exposure time and i gave up, anyway if i had taken that pic on 2s it would be the same image, hope you understand why i say that
mmmm....eltoffer,look at these 2 pics and see what's the difference.
DM 3.2 ISO 100 1s
Eltoffer 3.7 ISO 100 1s
Exif of the 2 pics are the same.But in fact,brightness of two photos is different.
[ This Message was edited by: rajac on 2009-09-10 08:34 ]