| Author |
SharpWX-T930 vs Samsungi8510's image quality! |
tai020381
Joined: Dec 07, 2004
Posts: > 500
PM |
For those who do not understand Chinese guess which pictures came out from which phone??
http://www.eprice.com.tw/mobile/talk/?prod_id=3319&tid=4043673
|
|
|
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
Interesting comparison which shows how a poor camera driver can ruin photo quality. Compare this i8510 photo with this from the T930. The i8510 shoots the same scene with low ISO and slower shutter while the T930 uses high ISO and fast shutter and then beats the sh*t out of the picture with its noise reduction. Depressing. SHARP have truly earned the right to wear to dunce cap.
Looks like the i-mobile 902 will not be beaten in the foreseeable future when it comes to noise-free low light shots...
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2009-02-27 17:21 ] |
masada1971
Joined: Jun 05, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2009-02-27 18:16:22, AbuBasim wrote:
Interesting comparison which shows how a poor camera driver can ruin photo quality. Compare this i8510 photo with this from the T930. The i8510 shoots the same scene with low ISO and slower shutter while the T930 uses high ISO and fast shutter and then beats the sh*t out of the picture with its noise reduction. Depressing. SHARP have truly earned the right to wear to dunce cap.
Looks like the i-mobile 902 will not be beaten in the foreseeable future when it comes to noise-free low light shots...
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2009-02-27 17:21 ]
you're rong,dude..its already being beaten by c905...where do you live,outer space,or middle ages??:D |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
I was expecting the sharp to be alot better with it's ccd sensor but it's let down by poor software, also the samsung has a better lens with a larger aperture.
|
Raiderski
Joined: Jul 03, 2006
Posts: > 500
From: Poland, Hell, Mountains
PM, WWW
|
C905 better than i-mobile 902 in low light? WHOA! Abu wrote about 'noise-free' not 'details-free' pictures. nevermind, joke was excellent! thanks
|
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2009-02-27 21:01:32, masada1971 wrote:
you're rong,dude..its already being beaten by c905...where do you live,outer space,or middle ages??:D
I'm realistic, especially when looking at photos like this one by GLOBALCOMM for example.
Compare that with this C905 shot...
Shall I post side-by-side comparison crops?
It's difficult to beat a camera with a three times more sensitive sensor and that shoots low light shots with 4 second exposure at ISO 50 without noise reduction (up to 10 seconds with EV +2)...
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2009-02-27 21:00 ] |
number1
Joined: Sep 12, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: UK,kent,Sittingbourne
PM |
The c905 lol the daylight pics are just as bad as the lowlight 1's, which dont make the low light 1's good.
|
Luhccas-U1a
Joined: Mar 24, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM, WWW
|
On 2009-02-27 21:57:25, AbuBasim wrote:
Compare that with this C905 shot...
That pic are taken with a edited camdriver
(high iso+low shutter speed = crap)...
Ex:
Iso100 1s - http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=16156 (shaked but ok...)
Iso100 1/2s - http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewfullsize.php?id=15746
Not good as a ccd sensor but acceptable.
 is a lifestyle! |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
I agree. I just picked up the first example of a low light C905 shot and it's not fair to compare brands with a modified camdriver used in the C905 shot.
|
|
|
Posted: 2009-02-27 14:40
is a lifestyle!
