| Author |
Hybrid Camera Driver for W800i/K750 |
brian2k1
Joined: Jul 06, 2006
Posts: 10
PM |
@aksd
The 2.1 over-exposes the picture in general, as some people have already mentioned and as evidenced by my own experience and by those comparisons made in this thread. I believe the reason why the 2.1 have superior low level performance is because of the increased exposure. But this comes at the cost of over-exposure of good lighting conditions like outdoor. You can especially see this if you look at the sky in the photos above or the building to the left of jleosza pictures. You'll notice a loss of detail in the bricks because of over-exposure.
Can someone post a 4.5 camera driver with 15fps video and 95% jpeg compression. I'd like to test this over the current 2.1 to see exactly how different the images are that they produce. I have a second suspicion that the jpeg compression is another reason why the 2.1 are generally superior. |
|
|
brian2k1
Joined: Jul 06, 2006
Posts: 10
PM |
Take a look at the sky and tree tops in these two pics and you can clearly see how the 2.1's over expose the image.
4.5 fine auto
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/45FA.jpg
2.1 fine auto
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/21FA.jpg |
111gopher
Joined: Jun 29, 2006
Posts: 12
PM |
You are wrong! Because in these two pictures have 2.1 low overexposure than 4.5. In your two pictures we do not see the same scenes!!!
And 4.5 has larger overexposure than 2.1!!!
i think that with 95% compression the photos will not be better! People has test it before without visible efect. |
brian2k1
Joined: Jul 06, 2006
Posts: 10
PM |
Here is a simple modified R1BC 4.5 camera driver I made.
Changes are:
94% JPEG Compression Fine Mode
85% JPEG Compression Normal Mode
15 FPS Video Recording
No changes made to MXE60
Pictures look better as a result of lower compression, they snap quickly like before and are not over-exposed. I'd like to know if anyone wants to make a comparisson between these and the 2.1 drivers.
http://rapidshare.de/files/25781696/camdriver0.dat.html |
arnarn911
Joined: Oct 04, 2005
Posts: 141
From: Pilipinas
PM |
is it just my phone or you guyz also get a series of white streaks in dark spots in the pic?
|
rockygali
Joined: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: > 500
From:
PM, WWW
|
white streaks? not blue? can you give us a sample?
im using 2.1, i do experience these streaks tho not as rampant as the other drivers.
@bryan2K1
dude can you post some lowlight, outdoors at daytime and dusk shots of the driver you made. that is, if you have time amigo!
ciao
"Darkness is the absence of light.. and not the opposite..." |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I've discovered something rather drastic, and a bit embarrising to report. There is a wide variety of differences between camera performance from phone to phone.
By flashing identical firmware to both my phone and my sister's, I discovered that the white lines i get are far worse than hers. My camera has always been bad, and I just used iso to correct it, or night mode etc. but now I realise it's always been worse than my sister's (by lookin back old photos).
I even changed the camera module and cable from my sister's phone (it's a spare phone) to mine, AND MY CAM WAS STILL INFERIOR!! So the fault is on the mainboard, not in the camera module. 
This means the lowlight R1BC to Hybrid camdriver comparisons I posted earlier in the thread are invalid. The reason the hybrid (in my sister's phone) performed better than R1BC was because my mainboard is up the duff. I'll do the test again if I get another mainboard.
I'm using the W810 back cover at the moment, and the lense is exposed so it's going to degrade slowly. I've decided to live with it since the phone feels and looks slick with w810 back, and hang out for funds to either refurb the K750 (mainboard, camera and cable), or buy the K800. 
The dodgy mainboard gives me the excuse to enjoy the w810 back cover for a while without feeling guilty about the lense being exposed. There's good in every circumstance.. 
|
brian2k1
Joined: Jul 06, 2006
Posts: 10
PM |
Max I always had that suspicion, some people post pics with incredible quality I never truly understood what combination of things produced such great shots, but I always had a feeling it could have been the hardware. |
2uk3y
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Posts: 214
From: Visit Malaysia 2007
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-07-14 01:59:53, brian2k1 wrote:
Here is a simple modified R1BC 4.5 camera driver I made.
Changes are:
94% JPEG Compression Fine Mode
85% JPEG Compression Normal Mode
15 FPS Video Recording
No changes made to MXE60
Pictures look better as a result of lower compression, they snap quickly like before and are not over-exposed. I'd like to know if anyone wants to make a comparisson between these and the 2.1 drivers.
http://rapidshare.de/files/25781696/camdriver0.dat.html
|
|
ok i tested between my R1AA 4.5 driver, ur modified R1BC 4.5 driver and 2.1 Hybrid driver.....
i take 2 different picture, one low light n one more light..... 
so let see what happen, all in FINE & AUTO setting.....
[u]Picture 1 (outdoor)[/u]
R1AA 4.5 (default) --> http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/45defaultFA_1.jpg
brian2k1 R1BC 4.5 --> http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/45brian2k1FA_1.jpg
2.1 Hybrid --> http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/21HybridFA_1.jpg
[u]Picture 2 (indoor, low light)[/u]
R1AA 4.5 (default) --> http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/45defaultFA_2.jpg
brian2k1 R1BC 4.5 --> http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/45brian2k1FA_2.jpg
2.1 Hybrid --> http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a226/2uk3y/21HybridFA_2.jpg |
brian2k1
Joined: Jul 06, 2006
Posts: 10
PM |
weird results, as expected the 2.1 performed better in low light because of increased exposure, but your notice the sky in the out door photo (2.1) is washed out and the colours brighter. The odd thing is that my modified driver based on the 4.5 R1BC was much darker in both instances vs the 4.5 R1AA. Clearly the R1AA looked better then R1BC but theorhetically they should be the same 4.5 ? All I changed was compression and Video recording so there must be something to the different firmware drivers then what we are lead to believe based on the version number. |
brian2k1
Joined: Jul 06, 2006
Posts: 10
PM |
I did a line by line comparison of the code in both the R1AA and R1BC 4.5 camera drivers and they are identical. The difference in darkness cannot be a result of changes in the JPEG compression, this must be the result of auto-focusing on different areas to get different light readings.
Anyone have any thoughts on all these drivers? |
arnarn911
Joined: Oct 04, 2005
Posts: 141
From: Pilipinas
PM |
could it be possible that there is something else in the firmware itself that affects the quality other than just the camdriver?
|
Xema
Joined: Dec 27, 2005
Posts: 108
From: Barcelona
PM |
@max_wedge:
I have had several w800i and the quality of the pictures taken by different handsets consistently varies a lot fron one to another: some look rather blurred, some have white lines while others look really awesome.
I've tested using the same firmware and camera drivers on all phones, also exactly the same settings.
I think that the quality of the hardware, I don't know whether it is the camera module or any other component, is very unsteady and SE quality control must not be very demanding. |
SE Rules
Joined: Oct 07, 2004
Posts: 398
From: London
PM |
Hi guys n girls,
Well, I don't understand a single bloody thing you lot have been tlaking about, but I think I get the jist of it....
Basically my question is, is it at all possible to make a cracked firmware for the K750/W800 or even K800, that would allow a higher framerate video recording or greater resolution or even both... I'm guessing not as I haven't seen it posted, but still....
Cheers
Want to stretch your mind? Try this if you dare!!!Philips Diga > Nokia 3210 > Nokia 3650 >  K750 > Nokia N80 > K800 > K850 |
2uk3y
Joined: Jul 12, 2006
Posts: 214
From: Visit Malaysia 2007
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-07-14 07:53:59, Xema wrote:
@max_wedge:
I have had several w800i and the quality of the pictures taken by different handsets consistently varies a lot fron one to another: some look rather blurred, some have white lines while others look really awesome.
I've tested using the same firmware and camera drivers on all phones, also exactly the same settings.
I think that the quality of the hardware, I don't know whether it is the camera module or any other component, is very unsteady and SE quality control must not be very demanding.
|
|
yeah maybe the harware that make it different....!!!! 
 800i R1BC002 |
|
|
Posted: 2006-07-13 18:04
K750 > Nokia N80 > 
800i R1BC002
