| Author |
For those who post in the K750 photo thread. |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-09-23 15:52:26, bondock wrote:
@JN - I'll answer u're Q... although its a bit off topic 
The pics taken by the K750i using 1632x1224 (2MP) are between 350 and 450Kb in size. MMS has a limit for the size of photo u can send just as there's a limit also for the size of video u can send, IIRC its 160Kb for the video, not too sure about the photo though. The K700 takes VGA pics (640x480) and the maximum pic size was around 90Kb I think. That's why u didn't have a problem with the K700 but have one with the K750. Hope that clears matters up. 
|
|
@bondock - H m m m , OK. So, we can consider here that sending pics thru emails can be considered as - MMS, right? Why is it then that I am (can) receiving images (via mail) which has a file size of 500 KB or more taken from their conventional cameras/ digicams  This will depend now on the local network I am using I presume mate. Many thanks!
[addsig] |
|
|
staline
Joined: Feb 04, 2004
Posts: 209
From: Brussels,Belgium
PM |
I never use any application after shots taken with my K750i...!
Fan of S E
K750i
Proximus,be
Team member of a French SE forum: http://www.planete-se.net |
Bobby77
Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 36
PM |
While agreeing that posts in this forum should reflect the actual (raw) quality of the pictures taken with the K750, it's beyond doubt that some manipulation will improve the quality of the pics, especially for printing purposes.
I for one use Noiseware Community Edition to eliminate noise, then Paint Shop Pro's One Stop Photoedit to change contrast/colour settings. The end result is dramatic for a 2Mb camera with no optical zoom!! |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
OK then Bobby77, prove it.
Show us the dramatic difference. I dont doubt there will be a difference, but i dont think you can really improve a picture dramatically without removing something that makes the picture look raw.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
noice reduction is legitimate (providing it is stated). So is contrast correction, and also colour correction, since the auto white balance is so poor in certain conditions.
The above edits only correct the camera for it's inherent flaws, and also rely on the photographer (image editor) being true to the original picture and not trying to enhance features of the photo beyond reality, for example making greens look more green than they were in real life.
In my view, photography can have two broad functions:
1. To record scenery/events as they occur - any manipulation that "corrects" the original image to faithfully represent the subject is legitimate (for example restoring grass to green that has been made blueish by a poor automatic whitebalance). Afterall, correcting for exposure and colour is common place in film processing.
and
2. As a freestyle art form, where there is an obvious and stated departure from "realism", in which case all bet's are off and you can do what you like. |
Edridge
Joined: Jun 26, 2005
Posts: 57
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2005-09-23 13:33:56, dreamfish wrote:
i don't the official term, but "noise" is basically the dots or lines you get if u take a photo in poor conditions.
|
|
ohhhh... thats what that is..... tnx!!! |
mario2002
Joined: Feb 15, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Jeffrey's-Bay ,South Africa
PM, WWW
|
Now,what is the best noise remover program ? It must be easy to use and show a definite improvement in picture quality.
This message was posted from a Nokia 7650 |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
noiseware is pretty good.... |
Klorin
Joined: Oct 09, 2004
Posts: 262
From: Norway
PM |
Here is a picture taken with S700i where noise is removed using Noiceware. It removes noice but it also removes alot of details in the picture. It looks good when resized to smaller sizes though.
Before:
After:
 |
Bobby77
Joined: May 28, 2005
Posts: 36
PM |
Here are some examples. It goes without saying that the greater the details in the raw image, the greatest the result
|
|
|
Posted: 2005-09-23 16:25
