Posted by Bryan84
On 2009-09-25 04:37:29, fangdue wrote:
Welcome to Easto!
nice first shot!
Posted by fangdue
C905 from Vietnam
Posted by fangdue
@Bryan84: thx so much!
Posted by eltoffer
a taste of my new driver, the flash shots are ready, no more yellowness corners for sure ^^ and real colors not so vivid tomorrow morning will test outdoor shots (no flash) and also portrait shots, be patient this will be so far the best driver i could ever made and also the very last one
cheers
[ This Message was edited by: eltoffer on 2009-09-25 10:16 ]
Posted by tsuick
Would anyone tell me which driver can support CIF video recording?
I am now using the cybershot experience driver and found it very good.
I want to taste the eltofer and DM driver as well but I am not familiar with their specification.
would anyone tell me >< thanks!
here is my some test photos
Posted by igica11
I suggest DM that he little edit his quantization table from:
jpeg_qtable_0=
01 01 01 01 01 02 03 03
01 01 01 01 01 03 03 03
01 01 01 01 02 03 03 03
01 01 01 01 02 04 04 03
01 01 03 04 04 06 06 04
01 02 03 03 04 05 06 05
02 03 04 04 05 06 06 05
05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05;
jpeg_qtable_1=
01 01 02 04 06 11 11 11
01 01 02 04 08 11 11 11
02 02 03 04 11 11 11 11
04 04 04 05 11 11 11 11
06 08 11 11 11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11;
to:
jpeg_qtable_0=
04 01 01 01 01 02 03 03
01 01 01 01 01 03 03 03
01 01 01 01 02 03 03 03
01 01 01 01 02 04 04 03
01 01 03 04 04 06 06 04
01 02 03 03 04 05 06 05
02 03 04 04 05 06 06 05
05 05 05 05 05 05 05 05;
jpeg_qtable_1=
04 01 02 04 06 11 11 11
01 01 02 04 08 11 11 11
02 02 03 04 11 11 11 11
04 04 04 05 11 11 11 11
06 08 11 11 11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11
11 11 11 11 11 11 11 11;
The first place in the upper left corner is very important number. It represents the average, or mean value. So if the whole block is dark brown or light red on average, this place says so. I get some artiffact when using original DM driver
see example:
http://www.mediafire.com/?dgmzj5nzmzm
grass looks unnatural
I will use higher number in the first place in the upper left corner and see if results would bee better
Posted by Raiderski
the question is: what for?
please explain because in my opinion these tables do nothing, however if I'm wrong I would like to see anything what can convince me that I'm wrong
Posted by igica11
OK try this, use one photo (XY for example) and open it in adobe photoshop. Than use function save as and use quality 11 and save it as XYa. Then once again open XY photo and save as XYb with quality for example 7. Then compare photo XYa with XYb. You probably wont see any obvios difference (except file size) but you cannot say there is no difference. Adobe photoshop use for different quality settings different quantization tables, more on: http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/jpeg-quantization.html
[ This Message was edited by: igica11 on 2009-09-25 16:14 ]
Posted by mikely_28
DM 3.5
macro
Posted by eltoffer
@raiderski
you are right i tested it yesterday and it does NOTHING no matter what values you use, but let them keep dreaming ^^ anyway if they think it is better, doesnt affect you at all
Posted by masada1971
eltoffer still waiting for your new driver...
Posted by jake20
I am trying to decide whether to buy a C905 or not.
I am concerned about all of the reports of bad build quality with broken earpieces..
Is this phone durable? and do you guys truly feel it is a replacement for a digital camera?
thanks for the help!
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2009-09-25 16:42 ]
Posted by masada1971
if you get one with no problems,it sure is a replacement of your digicam in terms of photography..see the results for yourself in previous pages...or you can still wait few days for Satio, which would be even better in all aspects...
[ This Message was edited by: masada1971 on 2009-09-25 16:49 ]
Posted by Raiderski
igica11
basically I agree, but you cannot compare Adobe PS to
compression. PS uses constant qtables for various levels of compression while uses variable (or adaptive) compression which means no constant qtables. qtable for every single picture taken is calculated from parameters like min, avg, max file size and min, avg, max quality. you can easily find them in code. DM used very high values in these parameters, that's why jpegs have a lot of MB and big % of quality
mikely
very nice set
Posted by mikely_28
DM 3.5
macro
Posted by fangdue
On 2009-09-25 17:23:40, mikely_28 wrote:
DM 3.5
macro
great!
distance from ur camera to the subject is how far?
Posted by mikely_28
Raiderski
Thanks M8
fangdue
It's about 15 - 17 cm
Posted by mikely_28
DM 3.5
macro
Posted by mauasca
I think it is better not to post photos, otherwise the mods. close the 3D
Posted by mikely_28
DM 3.5 macro
Sorry Mauasca didn't seen Your post.
Just one more
DM 3.5 macro red eye flash in totally dark place
[ This Message was edited by: mikely_28 on 2009-09-25 19:15 ]
Posted by jake20
based on these amazing shots, and what has been done with the cam drivers (thanks toffer and DM!) , i have just purchased a c905!
A lot of people told me to stay away from this phone due to build quality issues. I hope they were wrong!
Posted by daviep
i think the early ones had probs with earpieces etc but any now should be ok.
Posted by DarKMaGiCiaN
@przemek505
I have a question can you make driver that can record video in higher resolution that 320x240
yes but I dont recomend that
it takes time to start recording and sometimes camera crash ( phone restart )
I didnt try 352 x 288 resolution I have to test it ^_^
@mauasca
nice shots ^_^
@rajac
Great job,DM.But...only a little difference from 3.2?
it is DM3.2 + color correction fix (under Daylight WB)
@anouk82
nice shot and again I want to thank you for the test ^_^
@mikely_28
WoooooooooW! DM Great work!!! Perfection at all!!!
Toffer I'm big fan & user of Your camdriver. I'm waiting for Your reply against DM camdriver.
Guys! Maybe U will Unite together and make something super special!!!
Toffer I'm big fan & user of Your camdriver. I'm waiting for Your reply against DM camdriver.
Guys! Maybe U will Unite together and make something super special!!!
thanks
mmmm me 2 I'm witing for Toffer driver
I think 2 driver better than 1
@mazi292
DM driver is great....
thanks
@danekro
i have a question...i want to have control of ISO,but i dont want to upload the .lng file...if i dont upload this file,can i use the driver with MANUAL ISO?
yes you can ^_^
@eltoffer
woow i just tested dm3.5 and for now is filling me at all, im giving up :S DM wins
and now im looking for satio i will sell my c905, so good luck
have nice shots
and now im looking for satio i will sell my c905, so good luck
have nice shots
mmmmm witing for your new Driver
really cant wait ^_^
@xl883n
there is nothing perfect in this world ^_^
@fangdue
nice shots and welcome to esato ^_^
@jake20
I am trying to decide whether to buy a C905 or not.
I am concerned about all of the reports of bad build quality with broken earpieces..
Is this phone durable? and do you guys truly feel it is a replacement for a digital camera?
I am concerned about all of the reports of bad build quality with broken earpieces..
Is this phone durable? and do you guys truly feel it is a replacement for a digital camera?
I heard that new C905 dont have there issue
and about replacemet I dont know as I m happy with my C905 and I dont have a digital camera to till if C905 can replace it or not ^_^
Posted by DarKMaGiCiaN
@igica11 & Raiderski
I dont know!!
mmmm when you guys were talking about the quantization table I tested that
first thing I deleted all JPEG section from the driver and the camera worked without problem and there was no change in the pics quality
then I replaced it with other quantization table (took it from a digital camera ) just to see the user comments
even DM 3.2 and DM 3.5 are the same except the color correction in Daylight selection under WB , I found that user like 3.5 more !! is that mean quantization table do effect !!!!
DM used very high values in these parameters, that's why jpegs have a lot of MB and big % of quality
CORRECT
@mauasca
I think it is better not to post photos, otherwise the mods. close the 3D
I recommend more photos + comments
to know what exactly do we have to improve ^_^
[ This Message was edited by: DarKMaGiCiaN on 2009-09-25 20:13 ]
Posted by mazi292
Photos with DM3.2
[ This Message was edited by: mazi292 on 2009-09-25 20:43 ]
Posted by Raiderski
user like 3.5 more !!
magic of new version?
Posted by anouk82
On 2009-09-25 21:58:51, Raiderski wrote:
user like 3.5 more !!
magic of new version?
yes it's magical
Posted by mikely_28
DM: Take a look at this picture:
If I do pictures of people inside with flash the picture is very yellow at all. I took a lot of pictures to check it and every has this problem. What do U think?
Posted by DarKMaGiCiaN
@Raiderski
mmmmm I dont know
@mikely_28
that because of the Color Correction just set the WB to Auto and try again
for indoor + people + flash
I usually recommend to set the WB to Auto and select twilight portrait try this also
^_^
Posted by jake20
On 2009-09-25 20:12:51, mikely_28 wrote:
DM 3.5 macro
Sorry Mauasca didn't seen Your post.
Just one more
DM 3.5 macro red eye flash in totally dark place
[ This Message was edited by: mikely_28 on 2009-09-25 19:15 ]
Is this DM 3.5 EFFECT or ISO driver?
Posted by DarKMaGiCiaN
@jake20
Effect and ISO are the same
the only difference between them is
you have ISO manual setting
Auto
100
160
200
400
in stade of
the Effect list
Posted by jake20
On 2009-09-25 22:48:23, DarKMaGiCiaN wrote:
@jake20
Effect and ISO are the same
the only difference between them is
you have ISO manual setting
Auto
100
160
200
400
in stade of
the Effect list
ahhh.. ok. i understand now.. thanks DM!
Posted by mikely_28
It's ISO 200 and ISO 160
Posted by jake20
On 2009-09-25 23:10:16, mikely_28 wrote:
It's ISO 200 and ISO 160
could you take the same pics, but on AUTO settings to compare? will they come out as nice?
Posted by mikely_28
I'll try, but I don't promiss anything. I'm at countryside once a week. But I will take other photos with auto ISO.
Posted by anouk82
DM 3.5
Posted by igica11
OK just one more thing about quantization table and than I will stop mentioning it. First of al look in picture below:
http://www.mediafire.com/imag[....]p?quickkey=znjdydnommd&thumb=4
Do you find that picture look like it was taken with slow shutter speed?-I mean you probably see that grass seem blurred-but in some small parts it looks very sharp. But shutter speed was 1/250 and it shouldnt bee blurried. The strange thing is that --often when i use very qualillity quantization table (numbers close to 1) very fine details seem often blureed. I was wondering why this happens, especially because I expect if encoder dont have enough bits to encode fine details (because I rise quality of quantization table) picture should look like more blocked(like in divx).
But today i have found that some jpg endoders use JPG2000 COMPRESSION. Read more on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
And because I have never seen any blocking artifact on c905 --only blurring artifacts(see example of picture up) I am now sure that C905 use JPG2000 COMPRESSION. And conclusion of this story is -that i have noticed more blurred fine details with very qualillity quantization matric before I know for this artifact and that this artifact is in conected with jpg encoder. For me that is no coincidence and I canot say for me that it was placebo effect because I didnt expect this sort of artifact and I thought i had shaky hands(which is for hig shutter speed almost imposible) . And also engineers in
are not probably so stupid to write somethig in camdrive that dont have any influence on picture or camera. OK C905 use variable quantization but this table in camdrive is tellin then upper limit. And if you delete q.table there is no limits for coeficients.
OK I have finished about quantization tables
.
Second question:
Supposing C905 use JPG2000 COMPRESSION. In Wikipedia is written that the main advantage offered by JPEG2000 is the significant flexibility of the codestream and it is clear from one study ( http://www.geocities.com/ee00224/btp2.html ) that JPEG2000 works better only when the image is highly compressed.
Is in this part of camdrive flexibility of the JPG2000 COMPRESSION defined?
F0 0A // JPEG_MAX_CODE_SIZE = 2800d
08 07 // JPEG_MIN_CODE_SIZE = 1800d
98 08 // JPEG_TARGET_CODE_SIZE = 2200d
Maybe if all CODE_SIZE was the same we get standard jpeg compression with constant codestream and therefore we get some blocking artifact instead of blurring artifacts. Maybe that would be apropriate ---becase we manage to get 6,5MB pictures with C905 and with low compresion-- standard jpeg compession is more suitable. Maybe, maybe
Has anybody tried to use same min,max,target CODE_SIZE?
I hope you understand my not the best english
[ This Message was edited by: igica11 on 2009-09-26 02:10 ]
Posted by jake20
@anouk82
wow, those last two pics are AMAZING!
what settings did you use for these?
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2009-09-26 01:34 ]
Posted by anouk82
On 2009-09-26 02:31:26, jake20 wrote:
@anouk82
wow, those last two pics are AMAZING!
what settings did you use for these?
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2009-09-26 01:34 ]
colour correcion+ev -7
Posted by mikely_28
On 2009-09-26 02:35:47, anouk82 wrote:
On 2009-09-26 02:31:26, jake20 wrote:
@anouk82
wow, those last two pics are AMAZING!
what settings did you use for these?
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2009-09-26 01:34 ]
colour correcion+ev -7
How did U set ev value to -7? Where is that function?
Posted by daviep
when camera is activated the d-pad has 4 symbols lit,press the top 1 which looks like a sun and adjust the ev value with left and right on the d-pad
Posted by mikely_28
On 2009-09-26 10:19:42, daviep wrote:
when camera is activated the d-pad has 4 symbols lit,press the top 1 which looks like a sun and adjust the ev value with left and right on the d-pad
Yes I know but max value is -2 and +2. How did He get -7???
Posted by Raiderski
he meant -0.7EV
Posted by mikely_28
On 2009-09-26 10:33:39, Raiderski wrote:
he meant -0.7EV
Oh, I understand now. He totally confused me with that -7 value
Posted by mikely_28
DM 3.5 macro Auto ISO
Posted by mikely_28
DM 3.5 macro Auto ISO with flash
Posted by jake20
is it possible to get amazing shots with all AUTO?
It seems like the best pics here all have custom settings, and not on auto.
Posted by Bryan84
On 2009-09-26 16:09:19, jake20 wrote:
is it possible to get amazing shots with all AUTO?
It seems like the best pics here all have custom settings, and not on auto.
I too wish everything is AUTO.
Posted by lucasschimdt
Nice photos guys!!! camdriver DM is really very good.
am not sure about buy the new phone
c905 vs w995
what is the best for camera c905 vs w995 ?
what the best for video recording and video play c905 vs w995 ?
what the best for audio c905 vs w995 ?
what the best for style perfomance and visiual new look c905 vs w995 ?
good job modders!
Posted by rajac
When DM's superdriver for C905 is released,C905 will be a real DC.We are all looking forward to it...