| Author |
Video Recording and photo quality is poor in new Firmware |
muppet
Joined: Jan 09, 2005
Posts: 165
From: Auckland, New Zealand
PM, WWW
|
Nice cat!
As as test, I have shown those photos to 5 different people at my work, not telling them which the "higher quality" one is.
2 guessed the first, 3 guessed the second. Try it, see what results you get.
I'm not doubting you can see a difference, but what particular area of the image makes it obvious to you one's better than the other?
I myself can't tell any real difference, apart from prehaps in the second one where the wall is much darker there is a little more jpeg compression, though I also think this could be caused by the light conditions itself.
I think to most joe-average people (SE's target market really, not us techos) the images look the same. I would say they have slightly increased the jpeg compression in the hope of letting users save 10% more pictures, most of their users aren't going to notice, or they have just farked up (see below)
Another poster said that normal/fine doesn't make a difference. On all other SE products I know, fine just means "less jpeg compression" so prehaps in the new firmware they've just forgotten to check the flag when taking images and movies (yes, the movie quality is obviously worse)
SE have made some similar stupid blunders with new firmware before!
Cheers,
Muppet
|
|
|
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
close up shots like the cat are bad examples of the photoquality degrade, as there are no big difference in close ups. I still get good pictures with close objects.
The problem is mainly in scenery/landscape shots outside in daylight.
I more or less constantly get overexposure, wrong colors (blue tint) and poor focus compared to the old firmware.
Its anoying me more and more each day, because I can nolonger count on it to take the pictures I expect it to, like it did before.
Yesterday I took about 15 shots of some white swans in a lake, sunny day, perfect conditions, and all of them are so overexposed that the swans just look like some big white spots in the picture. They are all pretty much useless. Some where shot using automatic settings, some were shot using daylight setting, but it didnt make any difference.
Example:
Took 3 shots of my kid, colors are completely off, blue tint has ruined colors, overexposure totally burns out the white shirt to a point where you cant make out it actually has lases. Also bad focus. On all of them. Didnt have time to play with different settings or exposuresompensation, but my point is I didnt have to on the old firmware where similar shots taken the same place, same conditions, came out nice. I dint have these overexposure problems or color problems in sunny daylight on the old firmware.
Example:
Colors edited in imageeditor to simulate how they should have been, but theres no way to fix the overexposure when details are burned out.
[ This Message was edited by: numb on 2005-07-01 10:24 ] |
azz0r
Joined: Jun 05, 2005
Posts: 96
PM |
Its obviously done to save space - its a shame they didnt add an option to save with the old quality. |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
I can see numb's point with the pictures he has provided.
However my K750i does not do this.
Since mine does not, and many other people have not noticed much difference surely this must mean theres a problem with some firmware versions.
I dont see why SE would lower the photo quality on some handsets, and others they do not.
I reckon they'll either fix it in the next firmware version, or (again in the next firmware version) lower the quality of everyones K750i to match - because right now my photos look fine. 
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
I agree etaab, I can see in the shots you post in the K750 picturethreads that yours look like they should, and like mine did before. And many others also post pictures from the new firmware that looks as they should.
Its definately not all that have this problem, but I cant tell if its specific to certain firmwareregions or where the cat is burried.
|
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
Today im going to take a picture of the exact same place where i took one of my first K750i shots. It'll be a different time of day, but i'll see if it looks noticably worse. I doubt it will though.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
Paulino2
Joined: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 57
PM |
Well filesize certanly depends on conditions and lot of other things when taking the pics just look at this shot its only 80Kb taken in Fine Mode
and the other two are with and without flash that without flash has double filesize
 
These are two shoots using R1J and R1L of course there are different amount of light etc but you can get an general idea. The filesize with R1j is actually less than that with R1L
R1A
R1L
As for the problem with over exposure I think you should use the Exposure Compensation it usally does the trick and its there for a reason. Look at the table in the pic with R1A its certanly over exposed.
[ This Message was edited by: Paulino2 on 2005-07-01 18:43 ] |
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
I know the exposurecompensation is there for a reason, I also know how to use it, my point was that I very seldom needed to use it on R1A, while on R1J it seems I need to use it all the time.
This does indicate that something has changed in the camerasoftwares ability to adapt correctly to lightconditions between version 3.8 and version 4.4
|
Paulino2
Joined: Oct 13, 2002
Posts: 57
PM |
Well I havent noticed any big difference in that part form R1A to R1L but ussually white and direct sun light doesent go well togehter and when I got my K750i in may the sun wasnt as present and strong as it is now in middle of summer but I surely got overexposed pics in R1A also sorry to see that yours seem to have got more bad. Look at the two pics I posted the R1A overexposed table while the R1L isnt. One plus is that I seem to get less blur with new FW. |
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
The coloradaption and exposure are defintaly better on your R1L picture than on your R1J picture.
I've only just updated to R1L, havent made any test pictures on that one yet, but will try.
|
Vipera ammodytes
Joined: Sep 22, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Serbia
PM |
can we just start spaming SE email about this issues!!!!!!! good idea!!!
OnePlus 8 |
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
Here are 2 shots I just made, first one is slightly overexposed, second used -0,7 exposurecompensation and it looks more like it should.
 |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
Well, as promised heres my comparison. I originally posted this picture in the post a K750i picture thread.
Picture taken 29/5/05, R1A firmware, 553kb:
Picture taken 1/7/05, R1J firmware, 405kb:
They were taken at a different time of the day, with different lighting. The one taken with R1A is slightly larger than the one taken with R1J.
I cannot really tell much difference in quality which, if there is a difference, could be explained from the different conditions, rather than the different firmware.
Pay particular attention to the horizon in the pictures. They're both sharp in both images.
Im still happy with the picture quality, since i seem to have no loss of quality with still images, but the picture file sizes have compressed a little more.
_________________
This message was posted from a desktop computer
[ This Message was edited by: etaab on 2005-07-02 00:09 ] |
numb
Joined: Feb 07, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
#etaab
I think theres actually quite a bit difference in quality of these shots, the first being the best.
Sure, some can be accounted to different times of day, but never the less, the first one looks alot more natural in colors, while the second in comparison seems overexposed even if I take into account the different time of day. The road doesnt look naturall, to bright, so does the bricks up to the grass. And look at the white windows in the back, they are starting to burn out from overexposure even though they are far away. And look at the roof of the house in the middle, its almost getting white, Im sure its not like this really. Details in the grass are getting lost because of overexposure, much better grass in the first picture. I also find more compression noise in the second picture.
Second picture is not bad, but its just close to the point were it would begin to be bad, objects are close to the limit of breaking up.
First picture is definately better and more natural.
[ This Message was edited by: numb on 2005-07-02 00:44 ] |
augustborn9917
Joined: Jun 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Uranus
PM |
@numb and etaab: improper study. you cannot compare photos with different lighting conditions. look at the shadows: dawn/dusk vs. midday. "full on" lighting will wash out the colors.
*need 2 cameras, 2 diferent FW, same spot, same focus point, seltimer on. either way, difference should be barely perceptible (both excellent). video quality however..........
|
|
|
Posted: 2005-07-01 10:13
