| Author |
Modded Camera Driver for k800i/k810i |
Neo-Tech
Joined: Sep 24, 2006
Posts: > 500
PM |
Keep on bringing it guys, i can't wait for the perfect driver
|
|
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Yeah, I'm not saying it's only your phone, just that the issue is more pronounced on some than others. I saw quite a wide variety of quality between handsets in K750 handsets. When I say wide, for example I saw cameras with virtually no white lines in low light, and others with white lines so bad the photo was completely unusable. This is despite them being flashed with identical firmware. So unfortunately I can't be too sure of SE's quality control when it comes to camera modules (perhaps the blame is Sony's?)
However that said I'm still not sure whether I don't get the problem badly or if my expectations are just lower! I will look through my photos again. As I've said before I don't deny I get the affect, but I've only been feeling that it's an occasional thing, no more concerning than any number of other cheap digital camera issues that crop up in even the best camera phones (aka the K800).
Maybe it's an aliasing affect that arises in only very specific circumstances?
|
amarsidhu
Joined: Mar 09, 2004
Posts: 361
PM |
i have not tried 2.8 on my k800
coz i was satisfied with teh 2.7 sharpness
but what do you say guys
is 2.8 better
[addsig] |
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
Hellvy, you have definately picked up on what I'm seeing. Thank god - I'm not insane.
Max, once you start looking I'm sure you'll find the jagged edges affects more photos than you think. Especially if you look at them at full size on a 17-19" monitor. I wasn't really that aware of it until I took photos of my new car. And bang there they were ruining the picture. Then I started looking back at my photo's with more scrutiny and found it affected so many images in one way or another. i.e. Cats whiskers, stems on flowers, fine branches on trees, leaves, building ledges, the hands on clocks, numbers, edges on paper, etc, etc.
The reason I am picky is because I don't print my photo's. Printed at 6x4 you'll probably never see the jagged effect. But, I prefer to keep my photo's organised on a computer and viewing them on a computer. I can honestly say I have never seen anything ruin photo's so often in this manner as the K800 - not even those from 10 years ago. The more you look at K800 photo's the more you'll be disappointed. I also tend to find pictures have un-natural looking outlines and I agree with you, Max, that photo's do look like water colour paintings. The grid lines that bugged me on the W800/K750 are not as annoying as this. And, you know what - you can actually take photos with the W800 and get a similar jagged effect - if you use digital zoom. What does that say about the K800. If it's not a driver issue then the sensor must not be that good.
So, I am really hopeful that we can somehow figure out something that will overcome the excessive jpg compression, improve image quality and colour. I plan/hope to do some more testing and would like to better understand how the driver works. Namely, I want to figure out why increasing the compression to 95 results in smaller file sizes. Why decreasing the compression figure to 85 results in a larger images. Is the camera set too sharp? Do any settings actually make that much difference and if so, why. It may take some time, and I may achieve nothing, but i'll give it a good shot and hope others will continue to experiment as well.
|
[c3]
Joined: Aug 18, 2004
Posts: 181
From: Kuwait
PM |
Keep it up guys. Great job. As far as i've seen I cant upload the driver to my phone now bcz im using my mac:( ill do it as soon as i get back from my trip.
|
hellvy
Joined: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 42
PM |
On 2007-08-27 10:54:23, max_wedge wrote:
...
Maybe it's an aliasing affect that arises in only very specific circumstances?
That's what i'm trying to say. It's anti-aliasing process not sharpen setting, sorry -_-'
The reason I am picky is because I don't print my photo's. Printed at 6x4 you'll probably never see the jagged effect. But, I prefer to keep my photo's organised on a computer and viewing them on a computer.
hmm.. that's quite different from my view, mongoose. I don't print photo paper often too. But i use print-out photo paper as reference. If the picture on paper looks good, i don't care much about what it's displayed on screen, strange color, noise, jagged edge.
I always think that monitor screen give much more detail than print-out paper (i'm still using old-time 17" Trinitron monitor  ). So any artifacts can be revealed there. Pls note that i'm not a digital camera guy. Just k750/790 user fooling around. May be i have a narrow point of view about this stuff.
And, you know what - you can actually take photos with the W800 and get a similar jagged effect - if you use digital zoom. What does that say about the K800. If it's not a driver issue then the sensor must not be that good.
Oops, that's hurt. But you still believe in the power of K800 right?
Anyway, may be this anti-aliasing setting thing is hiding somewhere in the camera driver. Waiting for you modder guys found it 
[ This Message was edited by: hellvy on 2007-08-27 16:13 ] |
centur
Joined: Jun 10, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Bulgaria
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-08-26 22:27:28, tranced wrote:
the video looks awesome(quality-wise). 40 fps?
 |
xan K
Joined: Jun 15, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Republica Dominicana
PM |
mmhmmm, unless youtube changes uploaded videos resolution, but that is not our phone's video size.
_________________
I tried to be different until I realized everyone was trying the same
Phone History:
K300/K700/K750/W810/K790 (Highly Modded)
[ This Message was edited by: xan K on 2007-08-27 22:24 ] |
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
Well there you go. I have done some research on anti-aliasing and it perfectly describles what I am noticing. So, there's another avenue for me to look at. |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
aliasing is common to all digital cameras, even in some circumstances quality digital cameras can produce aliasing. This is why I've tended to discount the aliasing - it's a disappointing phenomenon, but one I've noticed in all the digicams I've ever used.
The aliasing I've noticed in K800 is not that unusual, however some of the examples you gave are quite bad and I haven't had that with my K800. For example the playground slide, that's an appalling case of aliasing and I haven't had anything near as noticable as that.
btw, sharpening worsens the aliasing affect. Softening improves it but at the cost of detail.
|
juming
Joined: Dec 11, 2001
Posts: 141
From: Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
That's why I'm decreasing the sharpening on kopritis 2.8 camdriver, cause if I make it lower the jaggies going low, but so far very subjective to judge which setting is \"balanced\" for individual, so try yourself for sharpening setting, but for me 03 is the balanced setting (which is give 37.5% sharpening).
On 2007-08-28 01:39:06, max_wedge wrote:
btw, sharpening worsens the aliasing affect. Softening improves it but at the cost of detail.
|
BLKSNAKER
Joined: Apr 22, 2006
Posts: 149
PM |
Take a shot in draft mode, the flash activates, but the pic gets underexposed, despite this, the picture looks great, you can see it after applyin photo dj light balance filter. That is the line we gotta follow |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
yep, I set the flash to 100 in the driver (instead of 400 ISO) and got the same results.
Draft mode does the same thing (document setting iso = 100)
|
juming
Joined: Dec 11, 2001
Posts: 141
From: Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-08-28 05:43:01, max_wedge wrote:
yep, I set the flash to 100 in the driver (instead of 400 ISO) and got the same results.
Draft mode does the same thing (document setting iso = 100)
Set it to ISO 200 is better, little bit grainy, but all is Ok, other is set ISO 100 and set EV to 1. |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
so ISO 200 isn't too badly under-exposed? 100 was way dark, I thought of trying 200, but hadn't got around to it yet..
|
|
|
Posted: 2007-08-27 09:59
