| Author |
K800 - Not really a 3mp camera |
centur
Joined: Jun 10, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Bulgaria
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-07-30 08:55:25, mongoose3800 wrote:
Centur - Nice pic and not that badly affected. But when you view the original at "actual size" you'll see the there is a jagged effect on the bumper - cars right hand side (your left). Below is a is crop of the area i'm talking about. It's a little over zoomed to to exerate the point. But, when everything else is clear this stands out.
You'll also notice the effect if you look along gap between the bonnet and righthand guard.
You have a problem with your eyes :
Actual size :
crop :
If you zoom picture -> interpolated pixel's .
|
|
|
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
mmmm - what size screen do you have and what resolution do you run at. Looks like 1028x768. I have just looked at your image on a 14inch screen at 1028x768 res and you're right - it's not as noticable. But your picture is quite a good picture that hasn't suffered heavily from the effect. It seems my 19" screen at work running much higher res amplifies the effect. But there still is an issue. Here, have a look at the full 3.2mp version of one the examples I have given.
http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=6412
View image at actual size and look at the panel gap between back of car and the rear door. Can you see what I'm talking about? It ruins the whole picture. I can definately see it on a 14" monitor at 1024x768 res.
|
centur
Joined: Jun 10, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Bulgaria
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-07-30 11:44:22, mongoose3800 wrote:
mmmm - what size screen do you have and what resolution do you run at. Looks like 1028x768. I have just looked at your image on a 14inch screen at 1028x768 res and you're right - it's not as noticable. But your picture is quite a good picture that hasn't suffered heavily from the effect. It seems my 19" screen at work running much higher res amplifies the effect. But there still is an issue. Here, have a look at the full 3.2mp version of one the examples I have given.
View image at actual size and look at the panel gap between back of car and the rear door. Can you see what I'm talking about? It ruins the whole picture. I can definately see it on a 14" monitor at 1024x768 res.
1024 x 768
Now 1280 x 1024
Image on full screen 2048 x 1536 :
crop again this "part" :
Now you see interpolated pixel's from 1280 x 1024 crop photo on 1027 x 768 normal resolution .
|
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I'm actually getting a worse affect than the jagged edges, look at how badly compressed K800 is compared to K750:
Cork Floor, K750. Sharp edges, but high noise.
Cork Floor K800. Soft edges with wavy compression artifacts, noise smudged out by high compression:
Doorway, K750:
Doorway, K800
From these you can see the compression on K800 images "fixes" the noise, but introduces an unacceptable level compression (the "water colour" affect).
AS to the jagged lines, yes they are there but from what I can tell so far in my own photos, it's relatively minor (and doesn't seem as obvious as some of mongoose's pics):
It is worse on silver too.
I'm more concerned about the compression tbh, though the jagged edges are also frustrating because they take the smoothness out of an otherwise good pic.
|
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
Max-Wedge - Now you're seeing what i'm seeing. The camera really doesn't live up to all the hype given it. The more you look at photos the more problems you'll notice. Try taking some macro shots of leaves with both your K750 and K800. The K750 will get more detail every single time. Look at portraits taken inside - outlines don't look realistic. Sure, the K750/W800 suffered noise in photo's at night but you could edit this out. You can't edit out too much Jpg compression. I've done quite a bit of testing and in daylight the K800 has no advantage. Especially, if like me, you like to zoom in (only a little) on your photos to get a closer view. |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Hopefully the K800 camdriver can be as effectively hacked as K750 - some of the pics I have (esp. enhanced night mode) from modified camdrivers are vastly better than the stock K750 cam driver.
For now only service cable or paid hosting solutions exist for file system modifications to K800, so a good driver mod may be a way off yet..
|
Supa_Fly
Joined: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Toronto, Ontario
PM, WWW
|
@mongoose My Photo of the Dodge SRT-4 is actually a 3MP camera.
I didn't realize that Flickr would resize it as well. Something I'm miffed about.
can anyone host the actual non edited photo and post full EXIF data here pleaese?
|AppleTV2|iPhone 12Mini 256GB|iPad Pro 256GB| Previously ...  K750|Z500|Z520|K700|K790i|K850i, :Ericsson: T18z|T28World|T36m x3|T68m (Ericsson, not the rebranded T68i). |
Supa_Fly
Joined: Apr 16, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Toronto, Ontario
PM, WWW
|
Hey I just noticed something.
WHy is it that Mongoose highlights STRAIGHT EDGES in the car photos we try to debat with him. My car photo which I'm looking at on my PC at FULL resolution does show a bit of jaggedness, but nowhere NEAR what he posted from a resized 1.3MP from Flickr that he had to extrapolate to 3MP.
I noticed more so that CURVED lines are NOT or barely affected at all. I this a fault in ALL digital camera phones regardless of resolution or is it the fake glass lens over the sensor OR is it the scientific rule that a true straight line doesn't exist at all?
Hmmmmm.
PS where can I host my file for ALL to see?
|AppleTV2|iPhone 12Mini 256GB|iPad Pro 256GB| Previously ... K750|Z500|Z520|K700|K790i|K850i, :Ericsson: T18z|T28World|T36m x3|T68m (Ericsson, not the rebranded T68i). |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-07-31 09:30:03, Prom1 wrote:
. . .
I this a fault in ALL digital camera phones regardless of resolution or is it the fake glass lens over the sensor OR is it the scientific rule that a true straight line doesn't exist at all?
. . .
Not ALL camera phones. The following is a crop of a 5MP photo shot with another brand - not Nokia! and not using a CMOS sensor:
|
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
Abubasin - I agree - I haven't particularly noticed the jagged effect in Nokia photos. What I'm noticing is a trait of the K800. BTW what car is you're photo of? Looks like an Australian VY Commodore
PROM1 - Your observation is interesting. The jagged effect I noticed on your photo is because the photo has been downsized. But on a full size 3mp image from a true digicam it should not be noticable. I have found that the jagged effect is not very noticable on other camera's unless you use digital zoom. This is not a vague claim either - I have scrolled through hundreds of photos on this site and others. I have also run around at home with my K800, my old W800 and a 3mp Digicam. I have also done comparisons at work with friends cameras i.e. N73 and N95. Not one of these has demonstrated the same issue that affects the K800. It's not just car photos that are affected - it's just very easy to see the effect on a car photo. Go back to the first page of this thread where I point out a sample photo of a building where you can't miss what I'm talking about. Go take some macros shots of fine objects - if you have the luxury compare them with shots from another camera phone. |
Arne Anka
Joined: Nov 05, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden
PM |
On 2007-07-31 01:18:27, max_wedge wrote:
From these you can see the compression on K800 images "fixes" the noise, but introduces an unacceptable level compression (the "water colour" affect).
Compression is primarely used to reduce the size of pictures, not to "fix" noise introduced by a camera sensor. The noise is fixed by a noise filter.
Both actions can however add to the picture fuzziness (in both cases data has been lost). You can read more about noise in the link below.
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_noise.html
[ This Message was edited by: Arne Anka on 2007-07-31 14:50 ] |
mongoose3800
Joined: Nov 29, 2005
Posts: 416
From: Australia
PM |
O.K. I thought I would run around the house and just take a couple of random shots with a W800 (2mp) and a K800 (3mp) to demonstrate how often the picture quality is bad on the K800. No prep - just take a couple of quick shots like you would on any day. If this doesn't open your eyes to how bad the K800 is nothing will.
The first shot is nothing more than a set of Venetian blinds. View both versions at "actual size" Notice how bad the blinds look in the K800 photo - a bit like someone took a hack saw to them. Zoom in all you like on the W800 photo and you can't make it look as bad as the K800 image.
W800: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=6432
K800: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=6431
The next photo is just a wall clock taken at night. Again view both at "actual size". Now, if you can't see just how bad the K800 has rendered the edges on the clock, the hands the in circle and the numbers when compared to the W800 shot you have got to be in need of glasses. Also, where's all the detail gone in the K800 photo? The W800 has picked up far more details. What's worse, I only need one attempt to get the W800 shot - the k800 took a few goes and still resulted in a crappy shot.
W800: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=6430
K800: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=6429
Now, to those professional reviewers I have to ask - How on earth did you come to the conclusion that the K800 was a class leading camera phone?
|
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2007-07-31 14:48:38, mongoose3800 wrote:
. . .
BTW what car is you're photo of? Looks like an Australian VY Commodore
. . .
Yep. They call it Chevrolet Lumina here in the Middle East. But it's the same, they just move the steering wheel to the left side. (And leave the hand brake on the right side, for some odd reason...)
|
PowerLee
Joined: Sep 22, 2005
Posts: 344
PM |
On 2007-07-31 15:49:57, mongoose3800 wrote:
Now, to those professional reviewers I have to ask - How on earth did you come to the conclusion that the K800 was a class leading camera phone?
The 3.2 mega pixel's quoted by Sony Ericsson & Cyber-shot branding on the phone, they fall for it every time.
Like ive said before, never rated the K800I as having a decent camera.
I just hope the mega pixel race between the phone companies doesn't ruin the K850I's picture taking ability & quality.
No point having loads of mp to brag about if the phone cant take a decent picture to start with.
[ This Message was edited by: PowerLee on 2007-07-31 21:41 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
On 2007-07-31 15:30:52, Arne Anka wrote:
On 2007-07-31 01:18:27, max_wedge wrote:
From these you can see the compression on K800 images "fixes" the noise, but introduces an unacceptable level compression (the "water colour" affect).
Compression is primarely used to reduce the size of pictures, not to "fix" noise introduced by a camera sensor. The noise is fixed by a noise filter.
Both actions can however add to the picture fuzziness (in both cases data has been lost). You can read more about noise in the link below.
http://www.photoxels.com/tutorial_noise.html
[ This Message was edited by: Arne Anka on 2007-07-31 14:50 ]
I wasn't saying it was used intentionally to fix the noise, just that it is a side effect of high compression.
|
|
|
Posted: 2007-07-30 09:24
K750|Z500|Z520|K700|K790i|K850i, :Ericsson: T18z|T28World|T36m x3|T68m (Ericsson, not the rebranded 
