| Author |
Post pictures taken with Satio (idou) |
Acelew
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
Posts: 62
From: Moscow
PM |
 |
|
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2010-09-07 10:14:59, norbi_nw wrote:
Again, im not saying its crap, its mediocre. Vivaz is better and Elm too. And non of those 2 where advertised as entertainment unlimited. Its the first and still only 12mpx camera from sony, and still they wont make it more better. It could easily blow everything away, i know that, but the crap software (the software is the huge crap here) makes it mediocre. Idiot SE developers arent interested in further tuning. They are really really dumb IMO. Should get a Nobel prize for dumbness. Never did SE improve their phones camera quality. I bet much more can be done with it, at least they should have made it full unlocked so we the customers take care of further modding. Samsung is always beating SE in details. omnia HD beat the C905 in details and the Pixon12 is beating Satio in details. Colors are ok in both phones, SE is always red-ish. Some shots where failed on GSMarena, but the phone is not a joke. Too bad it came with a crappy OS. Thats why i am mad, 1 phone has good OS (clearly im not working about the satio here) and one has good camera.. One can do this good and the other something else. I dont know why cant we get all in one phone.
So again you cant convince me that Satio is more then mediocre, because i owned ALOT of phones and i have saw the evolution of some high end phones. I am not blinded by SE nor by other manufacturers. Im just saying it can do more..
omnia HD camera is slower than satio and slower than c905. Detail maybe about the same but no xenon flash. Slowness of satio os, yes but doesn't seem any worse than any other s60. So I think se have done what they can regarding ui responsiveness. It would have been interesting had satio been win mobile or android but it's not and we knew that from the start. As to people expecting se to upgrade satio to android or symbian 3 that's delusional. It'd be far too expensive to develop a new os firmware for an existing phone, you might as well start again from scratch on a completely new phone. What we got is what we got se never lied about it.
Btw, I've owned a few high end cameraphones myself, including the omnia i8910, c905, k800. Also a range of nokia and samsung phones so I'm going by experience as much as you are.
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2010-09-07 12:35 ] |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
You know what ? im not even remotely interested in reading norbi_nw's posts, in fact i just didnt read them. This thread is for posting pictures and not for slagging off the Satio. If they want to do so let them in another thread. In my previous post i wanted to include some pictures, unfortunately at the time of posting imageshack was playing up and i couldnt upload. Now im at my girlfriends house for a few days and she has no USB cable or Bluetooth for me to transfer my pictures to her laptop.
Anyway, all i have to say to such fools who think the Satio has a bad camera is this. It doesnt. norbi_nw said the Satio image quality sucks after my post. He is uneducated - how can he comment on images on my phone he has not even seen ? he is clearly of bad opinion without any proof. What a stupid comment to make.
The Satio is far from perfect and pictures posted on here probably dont look as good as a K750i from 2005, but thats because they have to be resized so much more to fit the forum. Images on my Satio look amazing on my tv at home in 1080p resolution when stored on my PS3.
Please guys, stop trying to force your bad opinions onto other people when they know better. Its like me trying to convince you are not you ! its ridiculous !
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
norbi_nw
Joined: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Romania, Timisoara
PM |
OMG etaab... I also have 1 Satio, so i can comment on image quality. In fact another friend of mine has one too, so its not a faulty unit. Its the crapy software that makes it mediocre. Why do you think i have to see YOU pictures to say something? I own one too. And believe me its not because of the resized samples. Whatever, there is no use for argument here as you are satisfied with this product to the max, and dont (wouldnt like) want any improvement.. I am one of those guys who constantly fixes things, constantly wants to improve things that i have. Too bad it cant be done on the satio as it is locked in all possible ways. Cant believe the idiots released an update for the vivaz and none for the satio.
So be happy with your satio, i know i wont buy another SE phone again. Is it so hard to say "yes its not that good, it could use some improvement, but they wont give it to us, so what can we do... just be happy with what we got".??
Well the end.
http://norbinw.blogspot.com |
gharknes1
Joined: Sep 28, 2004
Posts: 231
PM |
I agree, this thread is for pics only, perhaps a mod could remove the missplaced posts to a thread better suited |
riksilvers
Joined: May 13, 2009
Posts: 139
From: Otley, West Yorkshire, UK
PM |
Put them here !! |
Acelew
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
Posts: 62
From: Moscow
PM |
yeah,pls end it..and etaab,u r rite.. |
Acelew
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
Posts: 62
From: Moscow
PM |
Original |
Acelew
Joined: Aug 30, 2010
Posts: 62
From: Moscow
PM |
  |
norbi_nw
Joined: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Romania, Timisoara
PM |
Edit: Max i have posted the samples again on the other thread (Does anyone else hate the Satio). Samsung is 1st crop SE is 2nd.
[ This Message was edited by: norbi_nw on 2010-09-07 17:35 ] http://norbinw.blogspot.com |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
@norbi_nw, I see what you mean now, but I'm pretty sure my satio is nothing like this. I would have noticed something that bad. When I get a chance I'll post some examples.
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Infrared!
Visible light comparison:
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
the significance infrared images is that the image is composed of infrared light only, no visible light. Because different surfaces reflect infrared light differently to visible light, some things that are dark in visible light will appear bright in infrared light. Yet other things will appear aboutthe same. So infrared images, while initially look like "negative" images, are actually not negatives.
Dark things such as road surfaces appear darker (not brighter), and dark green foliage appears white.
Notice in the images above the bright white foliage - in visible light this foliage is actually dark green. Also notice the sky, which is dark compared to the bright blue of the sky in visible light.
The images are high iso, hence the graininess, because there is an Ir cut filter (blocks most Ir light) over the cmos sensor - so the camera has to increase the gain to capture the small amount of available Ir light.
With a tripod and shutterspeed control it is possible to take much better quality Ir photos.
note, these images are 'near infrared', not thermal infrared - they are not detecting heat sources; they are detecting reflected near infrared light.
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2010-09-08 13:12 ] |
norbi_nw
Joined: Nov 27, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Romania, Timisoara
PM |
And how did you took them?
http://norbinw.blogspot.com |
davidsic
Joined: May 30, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Belgium
PM |
 |
|
|
Posted: 2010-09-07 12:04
