| Author |
MXE-60 reduces picture quality! |
deepy
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
Posts: 115
PM |
i've found that when i take a picture using my k750i on R1N035 using the MXE-60 flash the picture filesize is around 150kb when the same picture taken using the standard LED flash/light is 450kb. both pictures are set to fine quality etc.
maybe its a bug that it automatically uses standard picture quality and not fine when the MXE-60 is attached without saying so.
anyone else have this problem? any solutions? think its a firmware bug?
also, just checked, same problem occurs on K750i with R1L002 so its not just an R1N035 thing
[ This Message was edited by: deepy on 2005-10-30 22:41 ] |
|
|
deepy
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
Posts: 115
PM |
bump
sorry, thought i'd bump it for the new day to see if anyone else has this problem. its really annoying because it means using the mxe-60 makes things worse  |
ijefferies
Joined: Dec 24, 2004
Posts: 201
PM |
It may just be the jpeg compression. I'll assume that the images with flash are more contrasty than with the led, and thus can be compressed more. Have you compared both on a pc and is there an obvious difference?
|
Tervel
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: US, TX
PM |
I just tried to take a picture with the built in LED and with the flash. The LED pic is about 200kb larger but is due to the low light it's not very clear. I've noticed that the more dark colors you have, the larger the file size. A pic of a white wall is very very small. |
aquablade 90210
Joined: Feb 19, 2004
Posts: 12
From: India
PM |
i agree totally with tervel the better the lighting condoitions the better picture and less file size as it does not have have dark colours mxe-60 flash makes a great difference at night.
f**k YoUr FeArS LiVe YoUr DrEaMZ....
CMD-Z5>>T100>>T230>>T610>>T630>>K700i>>K750i>>W800i>>
Z530i>>K790i>>W830i>>K550i>>W610i>>P990i>>W200i>>W950i>>K850i |
Kristoffer
Joined: Oct 31, 2005
Posts: 53
From: Denmark
PM |
File size has nothing to do with picture quality. It is more about details in the picture and the compression. The picture at 150 kb with flash-light could easily be better than a picture at 450 kb with LED-light. Any way - just my knowledge. Haven’t used the MXE-60… |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
MXE mini review:
http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=95301&start=15
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2005-11-09 03:11 ] |
Tervel
Joined: Jun 30, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: US, TX
PM |
@Kristoffer - it has been my experience that Noise=larger files with the K750, with other words, the better the lighting (and lower the ISO of the pic) the smaller the file. |
deepy
Joined: Jul 19, 2004
Posts: 115
PM |
ok from what i can see pictures taken with the MXE-60 are smaller file sizes than taken with just the LED. so obviously they are more compressed. The fact that they are more compressed leads to horrible looking squares n lines in the image (typical of jpeg compression). If you take a picture that is very detailed (say alot of people in a detailed environment) then this compression leads to a very horrible looking picture whereas with using normal LED the compression isnt as great so the picture is better quality. |
Mark_Q
Joined: May 01, 2005
Posts: 138
From: Helsinki, Finland
PM |
deepy already pointed out the horrible looking squares, which you can clearly see on the comparison I made before and after the updating of firmware. I put together 1:1 crops of photos taken as follows:
Top row, from left:
- R1L002, White balance: Auto, No flash (original 143KB)
- R1L002, White balance: Daylight, No flash (original 139KB)
- R1L002, White balance: Auto, Flash MXE-60 (original 160KB)
- R1L002, White balance: Daylight, Flash MXE-60 (original 157KB)
Bottom row, from left:
- R1N035, White balance: Auto, No flash (original 154KB)
- R1N035, White balance: Daylight, No flash (original 153KB)
- R1N035, White balance: Auto, Flash MXE-60 (original 157KB)
- R1N035, White balance: Daylight, Flash MXE-60 (original 170KB)
My original posting on M-R Forum,
http://mobile-review.com/forum2/showthread.php?p=301043
[ This Message was edited by: Mark_Q on 2005-11-14 15:38 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Mark_Q on 2005-11-14 15:42 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Mark_Q on 2005-11-14 15:46 ]
[ This Message was edited by: Mark_Q on 2005-11-14 15:47 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2005-10-30 23:35
