| Author |
N1 C702 & C510 camdrivers |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
It's just a led flash so theres no slow sync for lower shutter speeds like with the xenon, #COM_EVENT(5A,01) is the flash command #COM_EVENT(5A,08) is slow sync but it has no effect with the C702 the command does nothing, i think the yellowish problem with the flash might be the colour saturation or the way the colour updates there is problems with the C702's colour updating, it's a firmware problem using the R3DA031 main firmware the yellowish flash pics problem isn't as bad the colour updates a bit better.
|
|
|
Mr.Kája
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 180
PM |
Thanks response. That's pity, it doesn't work.  Anyway, you have hard work - c702 will never be as good as (for example) k800...so many people won't appreciate your work.
Nowadays, I'm enjoying Elm, fw R7BA076. And here camdriver database for k750/w800/w810: www.camdrivers.wz.cz  |
Lightspeed_x
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Dominican Republic
PM |
Quality wise i dont know, since i havent owned a K800, however, in all honesty, i think every user of Number1's camdriver should appreciate the effort he put in developing it, and be thankful to him for sharing it...
I'm not being rude here, just expressing my point of view, i hope there are not misunderstandings about my post...
|
Mr.Kája
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 180
PM |
Lightspeed_x: Sure, I appreciate N1 work and I'm glad. I just wanted to say, that c702 has worse hardware, so it's harded work:)
number1: I took a look. I'm not any kind of modder, but I saw, c902 driver is quite similar (well, almost the same). So I opened Strong 1.1 and at #COM_EVENT(5A,xx) he had written "flash info" so maybe it's nothing about flash functionality, just something like info, if the flash is on (not exactly, but something like that)....so higher value should do nothing. But there must be solution like in old k750 with LEDs...Ok, it's not so huge problem.
I think, c902 drivers can bring some inspiration 
Nowadays, I'm enjoying Elm, fw R7BA076. And here camdriver database for k750/w800/w810: www.camdrivers.wz.cz |
aimmovie
Joined: Dec 26, 2008
Posts: 10
PM |
On 2009-01-04 20:30:25, Lightspeed_x wrote:
Yes, I´ve noticed that there's a lack of synchronization in twilight landscape too... I just use landscape or another scene mode...
@aimmovie: Try beach/snow with flash, last night i made some tests and the picture seemed to come out with a little less yellow... please let us know if you had the same results I had....
Sorry for late reply. You are absolutely correct. the yellowish color is really very less compared to other settings. some kind of relief. 
Thanks you very much. till Number1 gives another good driver i take snaps in beach/snow... |
wjgranda
Joined: Jan 07, 2009
Posts: 2
From:
PM |
Hello!!!
Im angry with my blurred pics frommy c702.., any better camdriver? (I have installed n1 v3.2)
There is any chance to get my C702 camera working like K790/800/810 camera? (yes yes, I know.. the xenon vs led..)
Greetings! |
Mr.Kája
Joined: Mar 22, 2007
Posts: 180
PM |
No, k800 has better hardware. I have really no idea, why is aperture(?) f 3,2 (even c902 has f 2,8 like k800). Im not good in photography, but higher value means darker pictures (or longer exp. times for comparable photos), am I right?
Im sure, it's not only worse think in hardware...so...don't expect miracles 
Nowadays, I'm enjoying Elm, fw R7BA076. And here camdriver database for k750/w800/w810: www.camdrivers.wz.cz |
gtr83
Joined: Sep 27, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Indonesia
PM |
@wjgranda
The reason we get blurred pics more often is because the shutter speed has been considerably decreased to allow the sensor to eat more light. Thus with C702 we need to keep very steady hands. And no I don't think C702's cam will come to terms with K800's.
Nokia 3520 > 6600 > W800i > W890i > C702 > C905 > BB 9500 > Samsung INNOV8 |
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
You're probably right about the hardware, Mr. Kaja. And yes, a higher aperture (=lower F) means less light needed. But under the right circumstances and with N1's driver C702 can make very nice shots (for a phone). It can do great close-ups. It's not as much point and shoot as K8. Just too slow.
Overall I still think most people expect too much from their phone's cam. Well, most people also think that more megapixels must make a better cam, which is so untrue, especially for mobile phones with tiny sensors and lenses. So considering that most (even high end) phone cams have pathetic hardware, picture quality is mostly dependant on drivers.
Just thinking (but not realistically): SE should introduce RAW format in their high end cam phones, so photo-fanatics can do the post-processing themselves.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
wjgranda
Joined: Jan 07, 2009
Posts: 2
From:
PM |
This is the formware of my C702:
R3CA033
If I flash my phone with another or recently firmware, the camera will improve? Or I can get better my camera just replacing the camdrivers?
Thanks for any answer.
Regards. |
Lightspeed_x
Joined: Mar 03, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Dominican Republic
PM |
@Mr.Kája: Thanks for clarifying, now i understand better what you were saying, that's right, he doesn't have the best hardware to work with...
|
gtr83
Joined: Sep 27, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Indonesia
PM |
@Sator1973
number1 said somewhere in this thread (or the official C702 discussion thread) that the balance between sensor size, megapixel count and general camera algorithm is quite ideal on the C702. I also think that 3.2MP / 5MP is better suited for mobile phones, we don't really need A3 sized posters actually.
AFAIK with firmware upgrades the camera will undergo little to no improvement at all; but number1's drivers increase the photos' usability quite a lot in my opinion.
Nokia 3520 > 6600 > W800i > W890i > C702 > C905 > BB 9500 > Samsung INNOV8 |
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
So right. I really like N1's driver. I also think my C702 makes better pics than my old K800, but it seems slower in bad light conditions.
I wish SE (or any other) would come with a phone with a much larger sensor and bigger lense and not just more megapixels.
Imagine this: my computer screen is 24" (1920x1200=2.3mp). A 10 mp (my DSLR) photo must be shrunk to less than a fourth to fit and will still be huge for a normal print. And I've never seen a phone photo that (still) looks good at actual size.
Therefore if one of my phone's photos is good enough for using, I always edit and shrink, so I don't really need the phone to do any processing I can do better myself.
I bet a camphone with only 2 mp and a twice as big sensor as usual right know would beat any 5 or more mp camphone in actual print quality.
But no, SE has chosen to run the megapixel race, would be hard to get that changed.
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
The c702's smaller aperture only effects low light pics, its slower in low light because the longer shutter speeds effect the viewfinder fps 4fps = 1/4 shutter, se's new cybershots will be 12mp cmos its time to give up i think.
|
Sator1973
Joined: Jun 20, 2006
Posts: 242
From: Netherlands
PM, WWW
|
Well, with a lense that suits that sensor, wouldn't a real cybershot phone have to be block-shaped in the near future? It's just not possible to put good camera hardware in a flat phone (maybe when we have entered the age of nano-technology).
Ceterum censeo Carthaginem esse delendam |
|
|
Posted: 2009-01-04 20:40
