| Author |
post pictures taken with your: sony ericsson K850 |
Darkwun
Joined: Mar 21, 2005
Posts: 20
PM, WWW
|
Here are a few contributions on my part
|
|
|
elementz
Joined: Aug 27, 2004
Posts: 56
PM |
I used to own an i-mobile 902, and I must say that 902 takes excellent night shots. Only down side is that you have to set it on timer to get sharp pics, as the exposure time is very long (can be a few seconds).
I try to dig out some of my old 902 pics. |
Shuuro
Joined: Feb 06, 2006
Posts: 74
PM, WWW
|
@elementz, your imobile 902 pics posted at hardwarezone are awesome!. |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-01 21:34:04, plankgatan wrote:
he he......why do we discuss i-mobile902 ?????? (everyone know that i-mobile often take realy good night pictures........k850 take also often good night pictures)
You challenged me to produce a sharp night photo so I responded!
And twice I asked why all your photos are 778x584. A very odd size as Esato always crops to 800x600. So I was curious to know if this is because you always use BestPic and 778x584 is the only size you get from BestPic, or do you scale down your photos before uploading?
|
tai020381
Joined: Dec 07, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
Hers's a night photo taken by k850i.
In its twilight landscape mode, ISO was reduced to 125, shutter speed to 1/2 second.
http://img452.imageshack.us/img452/1567/twilightmodeoo3.jpg
Full size picture.
Already very good for a cameraphone I think.
And Abu, why do you keep challenging and taking out i-mobile cameraphone to compare here?? Isn't there a photo thread for that phone also? And if its camera quality surpassed k850i I bet its battery juice will be sucked out in 1/2 a day of shooting compared to the k850i. Also, CMOS sensor might not lose to CCD sensor, only I think SE did some marketing on cameraphones. (As in not producing very good sensor so as not to overtake current DC sales.)
|
LCARS-Expert
Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Posts: 194
From: Croatia
PM, WWW
|
I made a macro-shot of an earphone and modded it in Photoshop.
The original image was resized to 65% of original size and then cropped to 800x600:
After removing noise and a bit of sharpening (<5min work) this is the result:
 |
Laxe
Joined: Sep 20, 2005
Posts: 68
PM |
Here's a macro pic of a spider I saw. This was taken with the document profile, and ISO 100:
 |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-11-02 11:48:28, tai020381 wrote:
And Abu, why do you keep challenging and taking out i-mobile cameraphone to compare here?? Isn't there a photo thread for that phone also?
Please read the thread from yesterday. I was just pointing out that plankgatan was not correct about low-light/night photos. He then challenged me to produce a night shot equally sharp to one which he claimed where the result of PhotoShop faking. Ironic considering that a lot of people have accused him of doing the same since he's unwilling to show his raw, unadulterated shots.
And if its camera quality surpassed k850i I bet its battery juice will be sucked out in 1/2 a day of shooting compared to the k850i.
You're right actually.  The power consumption of the CCD sensor is the reason for why i-mobile put a fairly large battery in this small phone, 1100 mAh.
Also, CMOS sensor might not lose to CCD sensor, only I think SE did some marketing on cameraphones. (As in not producing very good sensor so as not to overtake current DC sales.)
Probably true also. The management of Sony will not need to loose sleep over the risk that the K850i could ever compete with Sony's P&S cameras.
|
Bryan84
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Posts: 334
PM, WWW
|
Is there a different between:
- Setting the resolution to 5MP; Snapping a Photo; Then resize to a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) on computer
compared to:
- Setting the resolution to 3 or 1MP; Snapping a Photo; Then resize to a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) on computer
?
My Personal Homepage
http://www.bryanchung.sg |
LCARS-Expert
Joined: Aug 24, 2007
Posts: 194
From: Croatia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-11-02 13:50:39, Bryan84 wrote:
Is there a different between:
- Setting the resolution to 5MP; Snapping a Photo; Then resize to a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) on computer
compared to:
- Setting the resolution to 3 or 1MP; Snapping a Photo; Then resize to a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) on computer
?
There is, 5MP photo takes more detail and when you reduce it's size to 3MP it looks sharper and more detailed than picture that was originally 3MP. |
Bryan84
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Posts: 334
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-11-02 13:55:23, LCARS-Expert wrote:
On 2007-11-02 13:50:39, Bryan84 wrote:
Is there a different between:
- Setting the resolution to 5MP; Snapping a Photo; Then resize to a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) on computer
compared to:
- Setting the resolution to 3 or 1MP; Snapping a Photo; Then resize to a lower resolution (e.g. 800x600) on computer
?
There is, 5MP photo takes more detail and when you reduce it's size to 3MP it looks sharper and more detailed than picture that was originally 3MP.
Gosh! Maybe now I know why my photos sux .. cause I have been taking them at 1MP thinking that size I will resize the size on the computer, I might as well do it on the phone.
But ^^ is not true right?
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Bryan84 on 2007-11-02 13:27 ] |
Bryan84
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Posts: 334
PM, WWW
|
These are the "bad" shots that I took using 1MP settings.
Auto Settings
Macro +0.7 exp
Auto Settings
Auto Settings
I thought by setting to 1MP on camera, I do not have to resize so much on the computer. But seems like the above user to my previous question said there is a difference.
Are these shots bad?
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Bryan84 on 2007-11-02 13:25 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Bryan84 on 2007-11-02 13:27 ] |
marinedisco
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Posts: 68
From: Thailand
PM |
Just got mine. I am happy so far with the quality..
 |
marinedisco
Joined: Jun 24, 2007
Posts: 68
From: Thailand
PM |
One from the street...
 |
Bryan84
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Posts: 334
PM, WWW
|
Marco Shot
Document Setting
Auto Setting, ISO 100
I think I like the first photo the most.
_________________
[ This Message was edited by: Bryan84 on 2007-11-02 14:09 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2007-11-01 23:02
