| Author |
Sony Ericsson 8.1MP C905 Discussion (Shiho) |
Hiron
Joined: Aug 16, 2007
Posts: 435
From: Denpasar - Bali, Indonesia
PM |
Fake? No..
Edited? Yes. At least it has been resized to 800x600. Some edited photos can suffer corrupted EXIF.
Other photos by Virgile doesn't has strange EXIF like that...
Hiron |
|
|
yea g
Joined: Jul 02, 2008
Posts: > 500
From: New Zealand
PM, WWW
|
Maybe its because they havn't perfected the exif yet cause its not the final firmware
|
marty mcfly
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM |
[quote]
On 2008-09-16 07:20:48, Hiron wrote:
Some edited photos can suffer corrupted EXIF.
Other photos by Virgile doesn't has strange EXIF like that...
That's not exactly true. Editing photos can cause them to lose EXIF entries altogether, but it wouldn't change individual values like that.
On 2008-09-16 05:30:36, jigonx wrote:
have you ever seen EXIF from SO905iCS...?
also in different value 
Also exist on digital camera (same value)
This suggests it's a problem within Sony Ericsson firmware then. As you pointed out, the Shutter Speed and Exposure Time should be the same value. They are one and the same thing.
I don't think they are fake at all, but the EXIF information is a load of rubbish. Hopefully that will be sorted.
_________________
I can't think of anything to write here...
[ This Message was edited by: marty mcfly on 2008-09-16 09:02 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2008-09-12 08:45:00, marty mcfly wrote:
If those are natural colours for the landscape, either its taken on another planet, or you always wear blue tinted sunglasses! Plus, this picture looks very strange. I'm sure it's a photo of a photo. The actual picture seems to be edited. The leaves don't look natural against the background, like it's superimposed. Not the best example of a C905 photo.
in hindsight I can see it does have a blue hue but it's not serious tbh. I think the photshop over corrects the colour (makes the sand more yellow than it is). Those flowers are a blue colour, so it looks a bit unatural, but that might be just they way they are.
But I agree it still has too much of a blue hue. My personal view about colour is that it's easy to correct. What's more important is how clear and detailed an image is because this can't be corrected for.
|
marty mcfly
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM |
On 2008-09-16 14:33:04, max_wedge wrote:
On 2008-09-12 08:45:00, marty mcfly wrote:
If those are natural colours for the landscape, either its taken on another planet, or you always wear blue tinted sunglasses! Plus, this picture looks very strange. I'm sure it's a photo of a photo. The actual picture seems to be edited. The leaves don't look natural against the background, like it's superimposed. Not the best example of a C905 photo.
in hindsight I can see it does have a blue hue but it's not serious tbh. I think the photshop over corrects the colour (makes the sand more yellow than it is). Those flowers are a blue colour, so it looks a bit unatural, but that might be just they way they are.
But I agree it still has too much of a blue hue. My personal view about colour is that it's easy to correct. What's more important is how clear and detailed an image is because this can't be corrected for.
I added a lot of saturation to show the blue tint up. But as for correcting colour, it should be perfect from the handset. You shouldn't have to correct anything afterwards, it takes away the point of a camera.
However, this all seems to have been corrected with the pictures posted from Virgile Fontaine.
|
@l+3r 3g0
Joined: Mar 27, 2008
Posts: 36
PM |
c905 produces nice pic imo.. great level of detail, less noise, and no purple fringing... juz i think there's a slight yellow tint that makes the colors seems inaccurate... this is most visible on the blue color of the sky and red though.. this is just my opinion, sorry if i misjudged the colors... |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2008-09-16 09:59:49, marty mcfly wrote:
This suggests it's a problem within Sony Ericsson firmware then. As you pointed out, the Shutter Speed and Exposure Time should be the same value. They are one and the same thing.
Not if the camera (phone) has a mechanical shutter. The shutter may be open for longer than the actual time the image data is sampled from the sensor. |
marty mcfly
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM |
On 2008-09-17 08:04:16, AbuBasim wrote:
On 2008-09-16 09:59:49, marty mcfly wrote:
This suggests it's a problem within Sony Ericsson firmware then. As you pointed out, the Shutter Speed and Exposure Time should be the same value. They are one and the same thing.
Not if the camera (phone) has a mechanical shutter. The shutter may be open for longer than the actual time the image data is sampled from the sensor.
I'm sorry that is wrong. Exposure Time is determined by shutter speed because they are the same thing. They are not two different measurements.
A mechanical shutter would not stay open for 1 sec and give a much lower exposure time, because then the camera would have to be using an additional electronic shutter to stop light coming into the sensor. This would take away the point of having a mechanical shutter in the first place. (Plus Electronic Shutters are very advanced and very very expensive bits of kit.)
If the shutter is open for 1 sec, that is how long the sensor is exposed for, hence exposure time.
It is clearly something that is not being logged properly. Other Cyber-shot phones log this value as just 'Exposure Time'. The example from the C905 shows that a value is being logged as 'Shutter Speed', but is clearly an error in the firmware.
_________________
I can't think of anything to write here...
[ This Message was edited by: marty mcfly on 2008-09-17 09:02 ] |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
I got the shutter speed and exposure times the wrong way. I was looking at EXIF from i-mobile 902 photos and noticed that the shutter speed usually is shorter than the exposure time. (The i-mobile 902 has a mechanical shutter.) So I deduced incorrectly. 
Thanks for the clarification, Marty.
Edit: Actually, I still think there's a reason why some cameras record different values for exposure time and shutter speed. The i-mobile 902 is not the only one doing this. Have a look at sassho's nice cat photo here.
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2008-09-17 12:20 ] |
marty mcfly
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM |
Is okay. The silly ISO figure proves somethings not right with the software anyway.
But moving on I guess, these newer pictures are very exciting. I wasn't too impressed by the C905 as first, but I am looking forward to it now. Lets just hope bugs are down to a minimum.
|
marty mcfly
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: England
PM |
Edit: Actually, I still think there's a reason why some cameras record different values for exposure time and shutter speed. The i-mobile 902 is not the only one doing this. Have a look at sassho's nice cat photo here.
Yes as I said its something that shouldn't be there. Please read this article:
http://www.goldfries.com/phot[....]hutter-speed-aperture-and-iso/
It explains that Shutter Speed and Exposure Time are the same thing.
|
t0t0_b0y
Joined: Nov 16, 2007
Posts: 13
PM |
I have a silly question to ask. Does anyone knows how many pics can you take with C905 BestPic feature? From what I've been reading, it's 7 but on some other phones (K800i, C902) it's 9. Could it be a mistake? |
Muhammad-Oli
Joined: Jun 13, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: The NZ of L
PM |
I don't see why they'd change... I assume they just bolt that feature on and leave it fairly unchanged from model to model.
This message was posted in the mail
2008, 2009, 2010 Best Australasian Member. |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2008-09-17 14:30:21, Muhammad-Oli wrote:
I don't see why they'd change... I assume they just bolt that feature on and leave it fairly unchanged from model to model.
Still VGA-sized shots then?
|
valgargg
Joined: Feb 28, 2007
Posts: 22
PM |
On 2008-09-17 15:10:23, AbuBasim wrote:
On 2008-09-17 14:30:21, Muhammad-Oli wrote:
I don't see why they'd change... I assume they just bolt that feature on and leave it fairly unchanged from model to model.
Still VGA-sized shots then?
The k850i does 9 pics with bestpic at full 5 mp resolution each pic, so like Oli said I dont think they would take a step back |
|
|
Posted: 2008-09-16 07:20
