| Author |
what camera settings do you use for your k750 |
procterdc
Joined: Jun 03, 2005
Posts: 334
From: Lytham St.Annes
PM, WWW
|
which do u use normal or fine??? |
|
|
Klorin
Joined: Oct 09, 2004
Posts: 262
From: Norway
PM |
I use fine all the time, fine uses the lowest compression and I bought a 512 mb memory-card so space isn't a problem.
[ This Message was edited by: Klorin on 2005-06-27 19:53 ] |
mrao
Joined: Nov 11, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Mumbai, India
PM |
yup..since lack of external memory isnt a problem, as in the k700, that sounds like the logical thing to do
This message was posted from a P900 |
Andy-rew
Joined: Jun 13, 2005
Posts: 37
PM |
How come my pictures on 'fine' seem to have noticibly less detail than those on normal?? Resolution of things in the background is where it's most noticable.
And that's when doing back to back comparisons of the same picture.
The 'fine' pictures are considerably larger, which made me assume they were meant to be better, but i'm struggling to see it! |
Amras
Joined: Jun 20, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Bandung, Indonesia
PM, WWW
|
@andy-rew
that happens in K700i, too. but, you can transfer the pics to your PC, and you'll get big difference that the Fine quality pics are so much better than the normal ones. |
vineet_d
Joined: Apr 15, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: MumBhai
PM |
after u transfer the photos to a PC u can use photoediting tools to add some effects or else u can use neat image to make ur pictures ultra fine.
|
arnoldc
Joined: Dec 14, 2001
Posts: > 500
From: Philippines
PM, WWW
|
fine mode, with good lighting. can't wait for the flash accessory, and even without it, i already sold my canon a40  |
masseur
Joined: Jan 03, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Sydney, London
PM |
I use normal setting and generally highest resolution. haven't noticed much diff with fine
the flash accessory is definitly worthwhile. I've been using mine quite a bit. Its just a shame its only for still pictures though
just in case you missed it, there is a K750i flash MXE-60 mini review thread worth taking a looking at
_________________
Unless I'm very much mistaken...
my reviews: V800 K700i
[ This Message was edited by: masseur on 2005-06-28 07:33 ] |
rajasekharan_v
Joined: Apr 23, 2005
Posts: 211
From: Kerala..Now in Thiruvananthapu
PM |
what are the setting that you use for "neat image " software..? for image correction
K750i My Preciousssssssssss!!!! |
ilabstudios
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Posts: 213
From: London, UK
PM, WWW
|
Dear K750i users,
I am a strong believer that the K750 is an excellent camera tool and with the good settings you should get the best results, below are the settings I usually have for normal shots.
Shoot Mode: Normal unless I want to take a shot of something with a fast motion I will use Burst, which takes 4 pictures every second.
Picture Size: Large 1632x1224
Macro: On
Light: On even if outside
WhiteBalance: Usually Auto but you can play around with Fluorescent and Incandescent setting if you want a nice colour effect on your photos
Picture Quality: Always on Fine
Save to: My 2GB card as when your taking High def. pictures it will save faster on the card than the phone.
Software: I use Imagenomic Noiseware Professional which is a plugin for Photoshop which allows you to filter out the amount of noise which usually a photo from a camera phone will have. If you want a free trial version download the Noiseware Community Edition version which is an external software not a plugin, just drag your photos in the software main area space and you are able to set the amount of noise compression - Luminance and colour.
http://www.imagenomic.com/setup/NoisewareCESetupxp2501.exe |
ilabstudios
Joined: Mar 03, 2006
Posts: 213
From: London, UK
PM, WWW
|
Here are some photos I took using my K750i with those settings listed above and my software editing tool.
As you can see, theres not much different between using a digital cam and the K750i, the only plus point with a digi cam is that it has optical zoom, but generally for taking nice photos, holiday pics, experimental pics k750i is an excellent choice for doing this. |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
I use fine. When viewed at 1:1 on the computer monitor, there is obvious blurriness of fine details using Normal setting compared to Fine.
My results are the same as the earlier post in this thread with the teddy bear comparison.
Check this soft toy. The one on the left is on normal setting, one on the right on fine setting. Both pictures settings are identical in all other regards.
The DVD titles are clearer, and the fur on the soft toy is clearer also.
_________________
Get free themes from my themes site
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2006-04-03 14:03 ] |
Mark_Q
Joined: May 01, 2005
Posts: 138
From: Helsinki, Finland
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2006-04-01 17:37:43, ilabstudios wrote:
As you can see, theres not much different between using a digital cam and the K750i, the only plus point with a digi cam is that it has optical zoom, ...
|
|
You forgot something very essential; the absence of adjustable aperture, and also the absence of manuall setting of ISO sensitivity.
As now, K750 can adjust the correct exposure only by exposure time and ISO sensitivity. With adjustable aperture one "lock" on low ISO setting (=low noise level) and could let camera controll exposure by combination of aperture and exp. time. Adjustable aperture could be handy for controll of depth of field, the range of sharpness depth wise. Not such essential with the semi-wideangle lens of K750 though. Well, in close-ups, needed.
EDIT:
Just in order to clear up things: The Normal/Fine setting on K750 define the compression ratio og the lossy JPG conversion. Unfortunately we won't get out the unprocessed, unconverted image out of K750 to evaluate the true optical quality. Only more or less compressed JPG, something similar to mp3 compression.
I just took a comparison test with my K750 mounted with Cullmann Calamari claw on Minos tripod, and using the self-timer: that 1632x1224 pixels test photo had a file size of 5862KB if it were saved as lossless non-compressed image. Alternative taken with setting Normal: 267KB (= compression ratio 22x), with Fine 408KB (=compression ratio 14.4).
Here is an nice article about JPG for further self-study:
http://www.dpreview.com/learn[....]ry/Digital_Imaging/JPEG_01.htm
[ This Message was edited by: Mark_Q on 2006-04-03 15:04 ] |
|
|
Posted: 2005-06-27 20:28
