The camera sucks

[SwordOfWar]

Daywalker, the reason you can read your document is because you stuck the camera right up on the paper. Try taking a few steps back away from it and take the picture again.

When you read a piece of paper infront of your face its easy, but when you try to read it from accross a room it can be difficult. This is because you can't see much detail from further away.

Your picture is not a good example of the detail.

i just looked at your pic again. you moved. the image is out of focus.

Well, it gave green bars. If thats not enough, then I can say if I did more some it was very little. That would be another downfall of the camera's performance then, as I'm not going to be a 100% still statue everytime I want a picture.

I may have moved a little, but I was trying to be still when I took it.

 

[640k]

ws, i don't know what the heck the argument is. you should always use whatever the native application of anything is. TVs, LCD monitos, cameras... if the native MP on a camera is 5MP, that is the size you should be taking images at. the theory of taking images in lower MP lets in more light (because your multiplying the number of sensors) doesn't work that way. each sensor will be letting in the same amoutn of light. you're not magically making the sensor larger by decreasing how many that you're using. if you're using four sensors as one instead of one sensor per four picels, that "one" sensor group will let in the same amount of light per sensor regardless.

if you take an image in 5mp and you resize/scale it down to a lower resolution, you will basically enhance the image because imperfections will not be as visible (you will have effectively compressed the image).

taking pics in lower MP/resolutions does not correct issues already present with said camera.

 

[640k]

Daywalker, the reason you can read your document is because you stuck the camera right up on the paper. Try taking a few steps back away from it and take the picture again.

When you read a piece of paper infront of your face its easy, but when you try to read it from accross a room it can be difficult. This is because you can't see much detail from further away.

Your picture is not a good example of the detail.

i just looked at your pic again. you moved. the image is out of focus.

Well, it gave green bars. If thats not enough, then I can say if I did more some it was very little. That would be another downfall of the camera's performance then, as I'm not going to be a 100% still statue everytime I want a picture.

I may have moved a little, but I was trying to be still when I took it.

green bars or not, this isn't a DSLR. you moved for a split second or a split second too soon... it's hard to judge when the photo actually snaps. it's a good idea to stay still until the image reappears.

 

[windstrings]

I may have moved a little, but I was trying to be still when I took it.

I like the button on the screen rather than the physical button as the screen button is very light to the touch and the camera moves less.. I get better pictures.

 

[SwordOfWar]

ok.. let me get this straight.... Are we saying we can take "better" pics in 3mp mode than 5mp?
1. It makes sense that a higher mp picture downsized will look better than the same pic took at a lower mp.... is that the argument?
2. Everytime a pic gets resized or monkied with, pieces of information get tossed that are not needed.
That makes sense we dont want a small pic and make it bigger.... common sense says you cant get information out of thin air, so there will be gaps and it will take processing to fake and guess information to fill into the gaps to make up the difference in the act of making bigger.... which loses detail.

3. Is the argument here that the camera lens, light receptors, processing etc cannot truely process 5mp worth of information?..... if so, how does it get so big?.. Does the camera really take a 3 mp picture "because thats all it can process through the lens" and increase the size so you feel like you got a 5mp picture?

Something doesnt add up in this argument.

1. Well the argument here is that if the 5MP picture doesn't look good, we didn't need a 5MP lens (only a 3MP if thats what we are going to actually use).

2. I'm not saying that it should look good when resized. I'm saying that the fact we have to downsize the image to begin with (for better clarity) is reason enough to complain as to why it is advertised with a 5MP camera. Because if we do that, why do we need 5MP pictures to begin with?

3. The argument is that the camera, as of now, does not take a clear 5MP image. It supposedly has the hardware, but real live tests prove it fails terribly. I know phone cameras will never be as good as a dedicated camera, but for a phone thats suppose to have an excellent 5MP camera, its less than desirable in quality.

 

[640k]

another pic further back. hard to take decent shots in low (office) light.

 

[windstrings]

. it's hard to judge when the photo actually snaps. it's a good idea to stay still until the image reappears.

True, we have to remember.. that "shutter" sound is just a sound file playing and has little relation to the actual shutter activity.

I don't think you have to wait till you see the pic appear, but thats the safest.

Main thing is to give it some breathing room.

 

[640k]

ok.. let me get this straight.... Are we saying we can take "better" pics in 3mp mode than 5mp?
1. It makes sense that a higher mp picture downsized will look better than the same pic took at a lower mp.... is that the argument?
2. Everytime a pic gets resized or monkied with, pieces of information get tossed that are not needed.
That makes sense we dont want a small pic and make it bigger.... common sense says you cant get information out of thin air, so there will be gaps and it will take processing to fake and guess information to fill into the gaps to make up the difference in the act of making bigger.... which loses detail.

3. Is the argument here that the camera lens, light receptors, processing etc cannot truely process 5mp worth of information?..... if so, how does it get so big?.. Does the camera really take a 3 mp picture "because thats all it can process through the lens" and increase the size so you feel like you got a 5mp picture?

Something doesnt add up in this argument.

1. Well the argument here is that if the 5MP picture doesn't look good, we didn't need a 5MP lens (only a 3MP if thats what we are going to actually use).

2. I'm not saying that it should look good when resized. I'm saying that the fact we have to downsize the image to begin with (for better clarity) is reason enough to complain as to why it is advertised with a 5MP camera. Because if we do that, why do we need 5MP pictures to begin with?

3. The argument is that the camera, as of now, does not take a clear 5MP image. It supposedly has the hardware, but real live tests prove it fails terribly. I know phone cameras will never be as good as a dedicated camera, but for a phone thats suppose to have an excellent 5MP camera, its less than desirable in quality.

first - 5mp does NOT refer to the lens. it is the sensor. 5mp = MORE pixels per sensor, which means less light per sensor, which means if you don't have a big lens, you're going to get noisy pics.

second - 5mp does NOT equaly quality. get that out of your head once and for all. quit listening toadvertisements. it's like buying a car strictly on HP numbers. you do not automatically get better pics because of higher MP. period.

 

[atomicwedgie]

first - 5mp does NOT refer to the lens. it is the sensor. 5mp = MORE pixels per sensor, which means less light per sensor, which means if you don't have a big lens, you're going to get noisy pics.

second - 5mp does NOT equaly quality. get that out of your head once and for all. quit listening toadvertisements. it's like buying a car strictly on HP numbers. you do not automatically get better pics because of higher MP. period.

Exactly why I take the majority of my shots at 3mp. If any of you go back and look at my test shots taken in lighting controlled conditions, it is clear that the 5mp shots are way noisier.

 

[windstrings]

another pic further back. hard to take decent shots in low (office) light.

Better take that one again... if you look at the large pic.. its quite blurry. Especailly at the top portions of the picture.

This pic is a perfect example....

If the 5mp picture "which looks blurry" looks better at the lower size....
How much better would a non blurry 5mp pic look at the lower size!

 

[SwordOfWar]

ok.. let me get this straight.... Are we saying we can take "better" pics in 3mp mode than 5mp?
1. It makes sense that a higher mp picture downsized will look better than the same pic took at a lower mp.... is that the argument?
2. Everytime a pic gets resized or monkied with, pieces of information get tossed that are not needed.
That makes sense we dont want a small pic and make it bigger.... common sense says you cant get information out of thin air, so there will be gaps and it will take processing to fake and guess information to fill into the gaps to make up the difference in the act of making bigger.... which loses detail.

3. Is the argument here that the camera lens, light receptors, processing etc cannot truely process 5mp worth of information?..... if so, how does it get so big?.. Does the camera really take a 3 mp picture "because thats all it can process through the lens" and increase the size so you feel like you got a 5mp picture?

Something doesnt add up in this argument.

1. Well the argument here is that if the 5MP picture doesn't look good, we didn't need a 5MP lens (only a 3MP if thats what we are going to actually use).

2. I'm not saying that it should look good when resized. I'm saying that the fact we have to downsize the image to begin with (for better clarity) is reason enough to complain as to why it is advertised with a 5MP camera. Because if we do that, why do we need 5MP pictures to begin with?

3. The argument is that the camera, as of now, does not take a clear 5MP image. It supposedly has the hardware, but real live tests prove it fails terribly. I know phone cameras will never be as good as a dedicated camera, but for a phone thats suppose to have an excellent 5MP camera, its less than desirable in quality.

first - 5mp does NOT refer to the lens. it is the sensor. 5mp = MORE pixels per sensor, which means less light per sensor, which means if you don't have a big lens, you're going to get noisy pics.

second - 5mp does NOT equaly quality. get that out of your head once and for all. quit listening toadvertisements. it's like buying a car strictly on HP numbers. you do not automatically get better pics because of higher MP. period.

Please don't be so rude. I do not understand the mechanics of cameras well, but I do know that MP is for the amount of pixels in the outputted image. I also never said that MP = quality. All this time I have been referring to detail when speaking about the MP. Quality and detail is not the same thing.

You can have a good clear small image (quality) but not have much detail (fine noticable elements you would otherwise not be able to see).

I'll be back in a bit guys. I have to go do something. I'll try to take another picture for further comparison when I get back home. I do notice a lot worse grain in the office picture you posted. That is probably more similar to my light conditions in my example. I feel that your office light should be enough to get a bit better clarity than that, in my opinion. This is one of the things I'm complaining about.

And please try not to get heated up in this argument. I'm feeling some tension, just relax peeps. I'm just discussing the camera

@windstring,

I'm not comparing two downsized images. I'm trying to avoid having to downsize completely. I don't want to downsize to get a clear picture, that is my argument. I don't want to resort to having a smaller picture just to make it look clear. That is my argument. I don't think we are on the same page here. It should not be necessary to downsize my picture for it to be clear. If the camera worked well, the original picture would already be clear.

 

[windstrings]

@windstring,

I'm not comparing two downsized images. I'm trying to avoid having to downsize completely. I don't want to downsize to get a clear picture, that is my argument. I don't want to resort to having a smaller picture just to make it look clear. That is my argument. I don't think we are on the same page here.

I understand what your saying.. just don't think I agree.

I remember in the beginning a pic was taken at 3mp with statements that it looked better than the 5mp shot.. but someone else commented about there not being as much light or something in the 5mp shot and the issue never really got resolved.

I can agree with you "if" the software your using to downsize is trashy... a virgin 3mp picture could look better than a 5mp on taken down to the same size if the software used to so do was inferior and trashed the picture.

But in theory, I don't think that really happens.
I would rather use the cameras full ability to suck in every detail of information it can and then take that pic and compress it down into a smaller package creating even more detail.

Very similar to a HD picture on your TV... a 1080i or P signal will always look better on a smaller screen because everything is compressed into smaller square inches yet the same amount of information exist "1080 lines of resolution to make up the picture"

That why in the video store they are usually hitting all the tv's with 720i signal because all of the screens cannot handle 1080i.... so they are "all" getting the same 720 signal... a little known fact is that the larger screens will look "better" in your house than in the store because they are only getting 720i in the store and at your home you can hit them with full 1080i or p.
Another reason they try to showcase their expensive screens with a blueray player feeding it to isolate it from the rest of the bunch.

One thing for sure... .like sighting in a deer rifle... its very difficult to tell if the sights are off if the shooter moves and is not stable.

Same with a camera.. you must not flinch or move when taking a picture if your doing to bring out the loupe and start looking at quality of pics.

 

[640k]

another pic further back. hard to take decent shots in low (office) light.

Better take that one again... if you look at the large pic.. its quite blurry. Especailly at the top portions of the picture.

This pic is a perfect example....

If the 5mp picture "which looks blurry" looks better at the lower size....
How much better would a non blurry 5mp pic look at the lower size!

i'm not worried about it. it was a low light shot with too many elements going on for teh phone to behave properly. i've taken my fair share of decent quality pics with the phone's camera. i know it's possible to do so. it's about as finicky as my p&s so i pretty much know how to deal with suck.

 

[SwordOfWar]

I agree with some of what your saint here. I agree that working with a higher resolution source will yeild better end results after editing. I don't agree that downsized pictures include all the information from the higher sized image. The difference in file size proves that. The smaller Res image is not compressed in the sense that all original information is included with reduced file size. There is some data loss after downsizing. When I think of the term cropping it has always been used to describe cutting the sides of the image off. The remaining portion is not edited at all. The Droid has a cropping feature when setting contact display pics. Its that box you use to cut the extra portion around the sides off. The remaining parts remain unedited.

 

[windstrings]

True.. to make a pic of lower resoulution, not as much info is needed. But a given size pic taken at 3 meg will be so big given certain lighting conditions etc.... the same pic taken in the exact same environment, file compression and settings will be of better quality if the source was bigger and usually a tad bigger in size.

Talking about file size is tricky since there are different compression algorythms.... but I think we all have the same idea.
The higher the mp, the higher the definition "hence High def" regardless of physical size.

The term "mp" or megapixel denotes how much information is crammed into a given area of space.
Some of this is so simple, its hard.