| Author |
Modded Camera Driver for k800i/k810i |
juming
Joined: Dec 11, 2001
Posts: 141
From: Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
Max, I already played with buffer size and compression (raw Quality), and I made it 1 MB for buffer with 95% compression, all i have to say is I get file around 770 KB (lowest) and 905 KB (biggest) all have no problem, but in my opinion the more complex target picture, it will give you more bigger size, also I play with ISO, and now seems like the edge water color on object reduced, I set all ISO to same setting with ISO 100, since that ISO is the last ISO before all picture have water color on object's edge.
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?
| |
|
whatsucka
Joined: Feb 17, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
aite, i check my silver k800 is a CID52, so dats no hope i can mod any driver inside??
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-08-25 00:47:51, juming wrote:
Max, I already played with buffer size and compression (raw Quality), and I made it 1 MB for buffer with 95% compression, all i have to say is I get file around 770 KB (lowest) and 905 KB (biggest) all have no problem, but in my opinion the more complex target picture, it will give you more bigger size, also I play with ISO, and now seems like the edge water color on object reduced, I set all ISO to same setting with ISO 100, since that ISO is the last ISO before all picture have water color on object's edge.
good effort, I guess this shows Iwas wrong about compression being the main factor, it's ISO causing the problem.
This still doesn't explain the jaggedness, but while I feel for mongoose's frustration, I really don't seem to get that affect very often. I'm tempted to think that the jaggedness is an inherant flaw that is worse on some models due to varying quality control.
With the 1MB 95% versus stock photo series I took - it was all of exactly the same scene and file sizes on average are the same. (there is +/- differences of 50-100KB, but that's between photos taken with the same driver. Photos taken with 95% driver on average are no larger than stock driver photos.
|
juming
Joined: Dec 11, 2001
Posts: 141
From: Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-08-25 03:05:49, max_wedge wrote:
With the 1MB 95% versus stock photo series I took - it was all of exactly the same scene and file sizes on average are the same. (there is +/- differences of 50-100KB, but that's between photos taken with the same driver. Photos taken with 95% driver on average are no larger than stock driver photos.
Probably, anyway I have one picture that has 905 KB in size after I do 95% and 1 MB buffer, which I think this should be impossible with stock setting. So this can show that both above setting will give influence in some cases, not all cases actually, but some with complex image, like if you take an photo for an object with many color gradation. |
BLKSNAKER
Joined: Apr 22, 2006
Posts: 149
PM |
Mmmm...comparing different scenes...I can see Document Mode is much sharper and better, despite it tends to be darker than the others scenes modes. I think we have to see what happens in Document Mode, and start improving from its settings, comparing the others. |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
good point.
|
rockygali
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: > 500
From:
PM, WWW
|
is camdriver1.dat for the FRONT CAM?!
"Darkness is the absence of light.. and not the opposite..." |
BLKSNAKER
Joined: Apr 22, 2006
Posts: 149
PM |
Mmmm...I think the jaggedness has much to do with iso...how? Well...I believe by firm, a noise filter is applied just in the same proportion as ISO grows, what I mean is that the phone automatically increases this noise filter strenght, in the same proportion as iso grows (to reduce noise, we know noise increases with iso), and this produces the jaggedness. What make me think this is that when taking "ae xenon iso" to a higher value, makes much more jaggedness. What we have to do is disable this filter from the camdriver, and there must be a way. It is important for me to mention that Raiderski found a way to disable bilinear filtering in w800/k750/w810 camdrivers, just with a comand from the camdriver 
Meanwhile discovering how to disable the noise filter, we have to play with exposure values in order to avoid the automatical noise filtering and get good low light shots. What do you think guys?
|
juming
Joined: Dec 11, 2001
Posts: 141
From: Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
More or less I agree with you, so meanwhile we just wait someone who can real tweaking the camdriver, anyway what do you guys think about this picture ?
http://img237.imageshack.us/img237/9029/dsc01319iy5.jpg
On 2007-08-25 05:30:16, BLKSNAKER wrote:
Mmmm...I think the jaggedness has much to do with iso...how? Well...I believe by firm, a noise filter is applied just in the same proportion as ISO grows, what I mean is that the phone automatically increases this noise filter strenght, in the same proportion as iso grows (to reduce noise, we know noise increases with iso), and this produces the jaggedness. What make me think this is that when taking "ae xenon iso" to a higher value, makes much more jaggedness. What we have to do is disable this filter from the camdriver, and there must be a way. It is important for me to mention that Raiderski found a way to disable bilinear filtering in w800/k750/w810 camdrivers, just with a comand from the camdriver
Meanwhile discovering how to disable the noise filter, we have to play with exposure values in order to avoid the automatical noise filtering and get good low light shots. What do you think guys?
|
tucurel_day
Joined: Aug 17, 2007
Posts: 16
From: Romania
PM |
rocky the answer is yes |
kopritis
Joined: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 295
From: Loutsa-Greece
PM |
On 2007-08-25 04:16:33, rockygali wrote:
is camdriver1.dat for the FRONT CAM?!
Yes the cam1.dat is for the front cam |
sieskei
Joined: Jun 08, 2007
Posts: 38
From: Pravec, Bulgaria
PM |
Hi. give me link for last ver. on this modded camdrver k800/k810
10x |
kopritis
Joined: Mar 11, 2007
Posts: 295
From: Loutsa-Greece
PM |
On 2007-08-25 18:31:36, sieskei wrote:
Hi. give me link for last ver. on this modded camdrver k800/k810
10x
Go to page 4 man!!! |
BLKSNAKER
Joined: Apr 22, 2006
Posts: 149
PM |
Look...here are discussing the iso matter...
http://forum2.mobile-review.com/showthread.php?t=53700&page=2 |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
yep that makes perfect sense. They are saying that the flash sets ISO to 400 everytime, when a flash picture should have lower iso!
This explains why flash pictures have the water colour effect when you would expect this to be only on low light pictures. This was buggin me for ages - how can flash pictures be MORE grainy than ones without flash?
This is what Mark_Q has to say:
It seems like the term blur, blurred is used carelessly by many around. High ISO do cause more noise, and in these days of noise removal this means noise removal artefacts which look like "watercolor effect" = low contrast details are viped off. Kinda blur. Back in old days, before in-camera noise removal, noise appeared as oldfashionate noise, grainyness so to say. Then we hav blur caused by hand shake during the longish exposure time, motion blur more exactly.
Keep in mind: doubling the ISO means halving the exposure time, more "noise blur" less motion blur - your take...
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750 K750 Tricks
K800 Tips and Themes
Max's K800 Page
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2007-08-26 02:51 ] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-08-25 00:47
