| Author |
Sony Ericsson XPERIA X1 discussion |
iksplusipsilon
Joined: Dec 23, 2007
Posts: 303
PM |
I agree with aksd !
the photos look good because of the bike  , but there are small sharpening artifacts and lot of detail is lost in the background ... |
|
|
Indrawan
Joined: Apr 29, 2008
Posts: 25
PM |
@theos
The pictures that you saw are taken by macro mode. |
rontysee
Joined: Oct 02, 2007
Posts: 77
From: India
PM |
Hey, thanx for the pics. But, pls can u provide all the pics and video in original size and quality on rapidshare
[ This Message was edited by: rontysee on 2008-04-29 07:39 ] |
iksplusipsilon
Joined: Dec 23, 2007
Posts: 303
PM |
@Indrawan ok, but I was reffering to loss of detail due to nise reduction/sharpening ( leaves, brick wall ) , and not general out-of-focus blur ...
This message was posted from a WAP device |
chombos1
Joined: Jun 06, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: IRAN.
PM |
these are not full size pics...... it means that a program is used to resize the pics
and a resized pic means less detail.
and from the looks of it... it may have been the MS paint.
in this case NOTHING can be said regarding the details.. (why? save a jpeg with paint to know).
but even with the bad jpeg compression.... the pics and the camera module looks promising.
|
goldenface
Joined: Dec 17, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Liverpool City Centre
PM |
Fantastic pictures - very impressive.
|
SE-Naz
Joined: Dec 23, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: LONDON
PM |
The phone looks promising...
Decent pics... from a PROTO...
Cheers
 ENJOY
|
Dups!
Joined: Sep 24, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: GMT +2
PM |
@metcard
agree with you 110%, that silver keypad on the black version is terrible- REALLY SUCKS!
Other than that it looks promising.
It's not what you do or even how you do it but in what state of mind you do it: Dups! 2009 |
aksd
Joined: Nov 11, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: UK, India
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-04-29 05:55:38, WhyBe wrote:
Why not get a real camera if you're going to analyze pictures so closely?
There are many things that go into making a camera or picture great, a cell phone simply isn't going to fit all of those technologies into such a small form-factor.
Many flaws in pictures are attributable to the photographer and conditions, not the camera itself.
[ This Message was edited by: WhyBe on 2008-04-29 04:57 ]
I do have a camera, I actually do free lance wild life photography, so that was just my opinion, we dont want false info on this site do we now? The fact remains that the processing is crap, wheather its resized or not, resizing would actually make the picture appear to have a bit more detail near the leaves, if you view a crop it would in reality look worse, unless bengal boy has run the pic through a noise removal software such as Noiseware. The P1i takes better detailed pics imo, and the pastyness of the pic is not user related but hardware related, anybody with even a basic knowledge on photography can see that.
I'm not saying the final will be crap, but these pics are
_________________
Regards,
Akshay
[ This Message was edited by: aksd on 2008-04-29 13:12 ] |
WhyBe
Joined: Apr 02, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Ohio, USA
PM |
"...and the pastyness of the pic is not user related but hardware related, anybody with even a basic knowledge on photography can see that..."
Looks like an improperly set white-balance by the photographer to me...
[ This Message was edited by: WhyBe on 2008-04-29 13:35 ] |
aksd
Joined: Nov 11, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: UK, India
PM, WWW
|
In pastyness I mean lack of detail, not related to white balance at all. White balance is not an issue, any photographer knows that, can be edited even on the comp if need be, detail cannot be regained once lost.
_________________
Regards,
Akshay
[ This Message was edited by: aksd on 2008-04-29 13:38 ] |
WhyBe
Joined: Apr 02, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Ohio, USA
PM |
On 2008-04-29 14:34:52, aksd wrote:
In pastyness I mean lack of detail, not related to white balance at all
Lack of detail could be an unsteady hand, high exposure, slow shutter speed due to lack of proper light or any combination of the above.
My point is, I don't see anything that points out "crappy camera". I see "unskilled photographer."
[ This Message was edited by: WhyBe on 2008-04-29 13:39 ] |
aksd
Joined: Nov 11, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: UK, India
PM, WWW
|
Listen, unsteady hand would result in a completly dull image, you can see sharpness but no detailing, that is because the detail HAS not been captured, is that so hard to understand? If he shook they would be no shrpness altogether, my points are with respect to the outdoor pics of the bike, look at them, especially the tire one, theres no detailing on the wall or on the tire, look at the grass in the first one, the bike is sharp but the grass is just a green blob, or the grey wall, you can see the detailing on it. Its not a module problem theres are shabby processing algortihms by SE, which will be improved in the final version no doubt. If you really cant see this, I dont think you should be judging pics anytime in the near future, or maybe a crash course in photography should help 
|
Coquito
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Moca, Rep.Dom
PM, WWW
|
Great Pictures!!! The camera will be as good as the phone
|
WhyBe
Joined: Apr 02, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: Ohio, USA
PM |
On 2008-04-29 14:58:01, aksd wrote:
...Its not a module problem theres are shabby processing algortihms by SE, which will be improved in the final version no doubt. If you really cant see this, I dont think you should be judging pics anytime in the near future, or maybe a crash course in photography should help
Why couldn't the original photo have been taken in insufficient light? Therefore leading to all the flaws that are seen:
*Poor white balance
*Noise reduction (due to artificial exposure boosting) and subsequent sharpening
IOW these pics could have been taken around sunset.
[ This Message was edited by: WhyBe on 2008-04-29 14:49 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2008-04-29 06:40
