| Author |
N82 vs k850.......(some new good pics [800 x 600]) |
kenoby
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Posts: 407
From: 404
PM |
@ sadeghi, can you please say in which area K850i beats N82? Or I have missed a point somewhere?
I am a noob when it comes to DI but K850i made me to want to learn more about it. Even the fact that N82 is better at point at shoot I believe SE will iron it's issues out with the new fw. At least I hope....
Here really only depends about someones taste and/or preference. Both of them are very good. |
|
|
plankgatan
Joined: May 20, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Sweden fur alle
PM |
document + daylight profile (EV -0.3 or -0.7) rules bigtime with outdoor pics...i love that setting 
i have not use this setting long time at all, but here is my second pic with that setting.
once again...N82 manage low light quite bad i think, just look:
_________________
I  K850,  W810 &  T29
------------------------------------
____________________________________
(t610, t630, k700, k750, k800, k810)
[ This Message was edited by: plankgatan on 2008-01-17 16:36 ] |
kenoby
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Posts: 407
From: 404
PM |
@ plank, you reposting the photos all the time. Even in the same topic. I have broadband, but you think everyone has? I speak for myself, you begin to make me tired with this. Post the link to the post. You do have tabs in your browser? Or just use imageshack, as many ppl advised you.... |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
i agree some full sized pics would be nice. |
1889
Joined: Dec 09, 2007
Posts: 118
PM |
@Plank
I like the look of that top pic. By daylight do you mean the White Balance? |
sadeghi85
Joined: Oct 13, 2007
Posts: 341
PM |
On 2008-01-17 17:30:00, number1 wrote:
the n82 pics have already been post processed by the firmware and lost most there detail sharpning the pics won't bring back detail, at least with the k850i we can post-process them ourselfs,
Agree 100% with the idea, but this is true when we compare JPEG with RAW, N82 is not like N73 and N95-1(i don't know about N95-2) that their pics were too saturated and NR was too rough. compare these yourself:
N82
N82 + PP
that is amazing, not? can you see any detail loss? and then take into account that:
that pic is shrunken and touched by esato to write its watermark, give me the full size and see what i can come up with 
and then note that when we using NR for K850 pics we will loss some details, as you wrote it yourself. this seems like: "we should post process both K850 and N82 pics, K850 for its noisy images, N82 for its blurry images, so both are rubbish".
this is true somewhat but not 100%, why? any process by camera will take effect before JPEG compression, and you know, JPEG compression is lossy, so NR after JPEG compression is not good at all because NR is a complicated process, but sharpness is rather basic, just load jpeg to frequency space and apply a gaussian high pass filter, that's it!
i know about that problem, i complained about that before, but seems N82 is better now.
@all:
But but do you know there is an area that K850 can take better pics than N82?
who can find it first?
anyone?
[ This Message was edited by: sadeghi85 on 2008-01-18 20:37 ] |
C905
Joined: Jul 08, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Denmark
PM |
On 2008-01-17 17:39:02, kenoby wrote:
@ plank, you reposting the photos all the time. Even in the same topic. I have broadband, but you think everyone has? I speak for myself, you begin to make me tired with this. Post the link to the post. You do have tabs in your browser? Or just use imageshack, as many ppl advised you....
you wanted prove, and he showed the pics  |
darknoob
Joined: Feb 26, 2007
Posts: > 500
PM |
Mobile-Review also did compassion between N82 and K850:
Street:
K850:
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]82upd/photo/street/k850-16.jpg
N82:
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]n82upd/photo/street/n82-16.jpg
Street2:
K850:
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]82upd/photo/street/k850-15.jpg
N82:
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]n82upd/photo/street/n82-15.jpg
Street 3:
k850
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]82upd/photo/street/k850-14.jpg
n82:
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]n82upd/photo/street/n82-14.jpg
Bench:
K850
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]82upd/photo/street/k850-12.jpg
n82
http://www.mobile-review.com/[....]n82upd/photo/street/n82-12.jpg
for more:
http://www.mobile-review.com/review/nokia-n82.shtml
[ This Message was edited by: darknoob on 2008-01-17 19:47 ] |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
and a 3mp pic from my k800i, to show how crappy the 5mp cams are
http://i222.photobucket.com/a[....]d234/sniper100590/DSC00022.jpg |
soane28
Joined: Jun 12, 2006
Posts: 401
From: NZ
PM |
The biggest problem about the N82 camera is that it decides to blur a corner or part of your photo for no reason at all. Planks example is what i mean.
wheter this is noise reduction or the photographers fault for shaky hands, it is difficult to edit this out. However as i see it, you are at least able to edit the washed out colours and apply noise reduction to the grainy shots that are seen in K850 shots.
N82 has a great camera for sure, just wish nokia were easy on the blurring/noise reduction a little more. |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
it's not just the corner thats blurred on the n82, different pics have different blurry spots if the photography had shakey hands then the k850i pics would be blurred aswell but there not, it would be easy to remove the grainy noise from the k850i just apply some light filters with neatimage, but most people can't be botherd to process there pics, the colour reproduction from both phones is utter crap. |
Coquito
Joined: Mar 28, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Moca, Rep.Dom
PM, WWW
|
i like the pictures of both phones, but if i have to choose, i would choose the n82, is a great phone with a great camera.
k850 is only a phone with a great camera
for be cameraphones the quality is excellent!!
|
kenoby
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Posts: 407
From: 404
PM |
On 2008-01-17 20:05:04, k850 successor wrote:
On 2008-01-17 17:39:02, kenoby wrote:
@ plank, you reposting the photos all the time. Even in the same topic. I have broadband, but you think everyone has? I speak for myself, you begin to make me tired with this. Post the link to the post. You do have tabs in your browser? Or just use imageshack, as many ppl advised you....
you wanted prove, and he showed the pics
Serves me right then  |
Radiux399
Joined: Sep 06, 2007
Posts: 246
PM |
On 2008-01-17 20:54:06, number1 wrote:
and a 3mp pic from my k800i, to show how crappy the 5mp cams are
I too would have to agree that the K800 takes better pics than the K850. Its almost as if the K850 has the exact same CMOS sensor as the K800, and its just upscaling the images to 5mp sizes. Yeah, the pictures are larger - but the detail just isn't there. And what little extra detail does come in gets totally butchered by horrible noise reduction algorithms.
Overall i'd have to say that neither the K850 or the N82 are worthy of being called 5mp cameraphones, as their pictures are completely unusable at 100% view size. Fine details are totally lost due to compression and noise reduction, and it looks like someone smeared vaseline over the picture. Shrunken down to 50% size, both suddenly become far better looking, but i'd have to say the N82's are more appealing due to better exposure and color definition. |
kenoby
Joined: Dec 17, 2007
Posts: 407
From: 404
PM |
On 2008-01-18 03:13:16, Radiux399 wrote:
On 2008-01-17 20:54:06, number1 wrote:
and a 3mp pic from my k800i, to show how crappy the 5mp cams are
I too would have to agree that the K800 takes better pics than the K850. Its almost as if the K850 has the exact same CMOS sensor as the K800, and its just upscaling the images to 5mp sizes.
You have an argument to support it?
Yeah, the pictures are larger - but the detail just isn't there. And what little extra detail does come in gets totally butchered by horrible noise reduction algorithms.
Really?
Overall i'd have to say that neither the K850 or the N82 are worthy of being called 5mp cameraphones, as their pictures are completely unusable at 100% view size.
What's the size of the screen you have and do you have any compact cam to compare the differences with examples?
Fine details are totally lost due to compression and noise reduction, and it looks like someone smeared vaseline over the picture. Shrunken down to 50% size, both suddenly become far better looking, but i'd have to say the N82's are more appealing due to better exposure and color definition.
Probably you have any of the phones subjected here so you can demonstrate with your examples how good Nokia is.
Have you read the topic with attention or this is just your blow out of the blue?
[ This Message was edited by: kenoby on 2008-01-18 02:30 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2008-01-17 17:31
