| Author |
post pictures taken with your: sony ericsson K850 |
Arne Anka
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
@mongoose3800
The pictures are indeed abit grany as on most camera phones I have seen. Some cam phones try to hide noise/grain by applying noise filtering, but in the process details are lost and the picture looks fuzzy. You can not add more pixles without increasing the size of the sensor as well and the sensors in most phone cams are to small for the pixle resolution they are made for.
But honestly, how many people looks at their photo albums with family and friends in full size (which don't even fit the screen) with a magnification glas as you seem to do ?
Not many I would say. Reduced size is how this kind of pictures should be viewd IMO.
I'm not saying your observation is wrong, just that you seem to use your cam phone in a wrong way sot to speak IMO.
Cheers
Arne
[ This Message was edited by: Arne Anka on 2007-10-16 16:10 ] |
|
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-10-16 16:33:05, mongoose3800 wrote:
I'm sorry, but I'm not one bit impressed with one shot I have seen from the K850. Sure, when shrunk down the photos look O.K. but so do photo's from any cheap low res camera. At full res K850 shots look very grainy. Even worse if you zoom in a little. At least it doesn't seem to suffer problems with anti-aliasing as badly as the K800. Every shot I've seen from the K850 look terrible at full res. What's the point of 5mp if the images look crap when viewed at full res. With more MP I expect better image quality at full res and the ability to zoom in to some degree. This clearly isn't the case. I know, some of you don't care about that - probably only because your justifying to yourself the purchase of the phone. But others do care about what images look like at full res. SE are actually claiming this phone will perform like a dedicated Digicam. What a load of rubbish. You would expect photos taken in full daylight to be pretty clear but even they appear grainy and over processed. Obviously there is only so much you can expect from a tiny Lens. I definately wont be making the same mistake of "ugrading" to a K850. I learnt my lesson with the K800 - it still bugs me to this day.
Well, I've not been disappointed with my K800 at all. Yes I do get an occasionally badly aliased picture, but the rest of the time I get pictures I'm very happy with (except where it's my own fault). The camera performs well for me, only flash pics are a little disappointing due to excess iso (mod driver offers an improvement in this).
I think if you have expectations of a camera phone being as good as an equivalent MP dedicated digicam you are going to be disappointed. The lenses and sensors are smaller by quite a bit compared to most digicams. However I've also seen many an ultra cheap digicam much worse than either K850 or N95 and even the K800. So atleast camera phones are maturing.
The fact is if you look at many of the images posted, while you may not be able to zoom in much, the images are more than suitable for display on a monitor or printing up to A3 in the case of 5MP, or 8x10 in the case of 3MP.
That's a good result for a camera that also has to accomodate the bulk of a mobile phone.
|
ericvert
Joined: Oct 11, 2007
Posts: 5
PM |
mongoose3800 is right... you can buy a 50MP camera... if there is no better image quality with camera sensor enhancement... it's bulshit...
When I see the first K850 pictures, it doesn't seems to be a revolution compare to k800 or even K810 ...
Will not advice to buy this model... |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
but there is better image quality. If you resize a K850 photo to the same size as a K800 photo it is crisp and clear as if a high quality 3MP ccd camera took the picture. Therefore for a given image size the K850 has better detail and is clearer and has less noise.
Resize the K800 image to the size of a K750 image, and it becomes a high quality 2MP picture instead of an average 3MP.
Each successive camera is better than the previous.
In my view, most low to mid range digital cameras also have graininess or compression artifacts when viewed close up. Only high end cameras, and usually ccd cameras, have that nice smooth clear look without post processing.
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
On 2007-10-16 16:47:41, aledemo wrote:
hi,scuse me for the disturb..
can i ask to the luky man that have the k850 if he can take 2 or 3 photo with the flash?
please...
the power of the flash is the same of the k800?
i can take a picture whit the flash from 2 or 3 meters of the subject?
thank you
the flash works better on k850 compared to k810(k800)...no doubt about that. (when i had my k810, the pics became fairly bad when i used the flash in a larger area(room)...never happends with k850).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
guys guys...we talking about cell phone cameras here..(a tiny cell phone camera will NEVER be the same like a real camera.....so you can complain, compare what ever you want...im happy with k850 camera...think its doing a great job).
_________________
I  k850i,  w810i &  T28
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2007-10-16 17:09 ] |
aledemo
Joined: Apr 27, 2006
Posts: 6
PM |
thank you plankgatan for the answer...
i think me too that the pics are better with the k850,because with the flash use iso 200,(k800 use iso 400)..
but the power is the same?
i can take a photo from 3 meters from the subject? |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-10-16 17:07:03, Arne Anka wrote:
@mongoose3800
The pictures are indeed abit grany as on most camera phones I have seen. Some cam phones try to hide noise/grain by applying noise filtering, but in the process details are lost and the picture looks fuzzy.
Actually, not only some but all CMOS-based camera phones. The other type of camera, DSLRs, where also CMOS sensors are used, the sensor is so large that the amount of noise is low enough not to require noise reduction. The DSLR sensor sizes start at APS-C while for example the K750i has a 1/2.7" sensor, and the P990i has an even smaller 1/3" sensor.
But honestly, how many people looks at their photo albums with family and friends in full size (which don't even fit the screen) with a magnification glas as you seem to do ?
Not many I would say. Reduced size is how this kind of pictures should be viewd IMO.
If you take a 5MP photo from the K850i and scale it down to 2MP the result is much better than what the K750i can produce. Does the K850i allow saving the photos directly in 2MP size?
|
Shuuro
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
Posts: 74
PM, WWW
|
My sincere question...with k850i is it truly possible to capture a picture of blue sky? can anyone please upload full size picture to http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/upload.php |
indup
Joined: Sep 13, 2007
Posts: 243
PM |
The first picture taken full auto, second picture taken with EV set to -0.7. Just take note when you see the picture looking whitish before you take a snap. Readjust the exposure before you take!!
whats EV and how do you change the settings to for eg. -0.7? |
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
On 2007-10-16 16:53:04, NightBlade wrote:
@mongoose:
The point of more megapixels is to have more detail when the picture is viewed at a lower resolutions.
Do you realise how stupid this statement is? What's the point of increasing MP to view at reduced size. Without a doubt in my mind, I could post a reduced picture taken by a very cheap 2/3mp camera and it would look GREAT. Just look at the K750/W800 pictures that have been posted in reduced size. They are just as good, if not better, than 3-5mp pictures. In It is my observation that the photo's taken by the most basic 2-3mp dedicated digicam will run rings around anything taken by the K850 or K800. My point is that Se claim that the camera on the K850 is worthy of a true digicam status. It's not and the shame is people expect it to be. I think it's false advertising. The only thing a camera on phone is good for is to take shots because your real digicam was elsewhere.
I would also like to point out that alot of people now take DVD's full of images to view on other peoples P.C.s/TV's. What's the point of 5 MP if it looks like crap on a large screen? All I can say is that a lot of you are easily pleased. In my books SE's claims are extremely exagerated and you could qualify for refund just by demonstrating the quality of a low end 3mp phone.
Please, anyone, proof me wrong. show me a full res image that would reall y leave someone wondering whether it was taken with a true digicam of camera phone.
|
Piecan
Joined: Oct 14, 2007
Posts: 27
From: UK
PM |
mine has gone back to o2, but this was an inside pic I took today (whilst not touching the back of the phone of course)..
[ This Message was edited by: Piecan on 2007-10-16 17:46 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Piecan on 2007-10-16 17:49 ] |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-10-16 18:34:04, mongoose3800 wrote:
Please, anyone, proof me wrong. show me a full res image that would reall y leave someone wondering whether it was taken with a true digicam of camera phone.
How about this one?
|
masada71
Joined: May 16, 2007
Posts: 75
PM |
trully amazing photos!!cant beleive that theyre from a cameraphone and not a digicam... |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
Apologies for the large image linked directly.
_________________
The Tree of Life is Self-Pruning. -- DarwinAwards.com
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2007-10-16 18:55 ] |
gola
Joined: Jul 17, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: South Africa
PM |
er,lol,why did you post it?
EDIT:you said it was not from a camera phone...
_________________
'A gentle answer turns away wrath,but a harsh word stirs up anger'
[ This Message was edited by: gola on 2007-10-16 18:58 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2007-10-16 17:07
