I have a P4350, but this seemed a more general question, this phone is supposed to have a 2mp camera, but it only takes decent pictures when its in good light, and has at least 13mb free memory, the lighting issue im guessing there is nothing that can be done, but is there a camera app that requires less hardware so as to take a better pic?
at the end of the day
the reason cams in phones
are poor compared to real digitalcams
is that they use cmos chips
and digitalcams use ccd chips
ccd are more expensive and use alot more power
cmos typicaly have issues with too much light or too little light
and they rarely get the colours just right
you cant really just change the cam in a phone because
it's solved into the pcb and even if you could find a leg compatible
cam the driver would be an issue
i'd write it off as a jack of all trades master of non situation
I must correct you partly!
Of course its a question of the inbuilt chip, but with a well adjusted camerasoftware the quality could get much better than with the preinstalled HTC camera software.
Example:
with My Qtek 2020i (1,3 Mpixel) the pictures in low light condition where waste of time, but with ateksoft`s coolcamera the result was really aceptable (in low light and sunny cond. too)
But with a HTC tytn it is waste of time to use coolcamera because the quality is the same bad result as the HTC- camera program in low light condition. (Of course the Tytn makes better pictures than the 2020i because of 2 Mpixel instead of 1.3 Mpixel, but at low light you can make only black pictures, even using the inbuilt flash)
What I want to say is that the maximum of quality you could get out from a Cmos chip is still not reached for some HTC models.
Related
-------- UPDATE ------
It appears my IIi was broken. I am getting a new one soon, and I will update this thread with some pics with the new phone. Disregard this thread as it does not appear to reflect the true quality of the IIi
-------
Guys, I bought an XDA IIi. The one with the 1.3 megapixel camera. I heard the XDA series had bad cameras particularly in low light, but this is ridiculous!
It's even worse than my very first phone cam (the plugin to 7210), or a £2 webcam.
Surely it should be better than this?
http://img60.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img60&image=image000056cq.jpg
My old nokia 6600 takes the exactly the same shot PERFECTLY just with VGA and slightly unsaturated colour balance.
NB it takes better photos in daylight, but still poor compared to 6600.
So is my IIi broken? or is this how they are?
By the way, I have tried adjusting all the ambience settings (night, daylight etc), and the contrast brightness saturation hue etc but there was no improvement.
Any chance you could post a piccy taken in daylight? Outside if possible.
OK I will do tomorrow matey when it's sunny :lol:
http://img91.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img91&image=image000079ub.jpg
http://img91.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img91&image=image000085jw.jpg
Pictures taken in daylight with a grey sky
sho ryu ken said:
http://img91.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img91&image=image000079ub.jpg
http://img91.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img91&image=image000085jw.jpg
Pictures taken in daylight with a grey sky
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
damn $h1t... (
so you get more pixels with the same sorry looking quality...
Try to reduce Sharpening... That always helped on my XDA2.
buzz
lower sharpness
http://img91.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img91&image=image000137rs.jpg
sho ryu ken said:
lower sharpness
http://img91.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img91&image=image000137rs.jpg
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
not a big help...
anyway, what a nice place, you are living... )))
buzz
OK I created a little page with a comparison between IIi and an old 6600 VGA cam.
http://homepages.nildram.co.uk/~knaib/xda/xda 2i.html
The pictures are taken in exactly the same lighting at exactly the same time.
WTF is going on?
I have an XDA II and I have the same complaint with the camera. They use some crappy CMOS chip that produces pictures with a "watercolour" effect. For a £550 device I'm not sure what the logic of including an unusable camera.
guys, is my XDA IIi broken?
or is this typical?
sho ryu ken said:
guys, is my XDA IIi broken?
or is this typical?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'd say, it is TYPICAL (
buzz
oh those pictures are really crappy, even my mda compact produces much better pics and i thought the 1.3mpx cam in it was bad!
cmos cameras will never be as good as CDD (used by real digi cams)
wrong colours
light sensitivness (grainy and such )
but they are cheap to make
and use less power
From what I've seen most other camera phones produce resonable pictures and they're using CMOS chips. It's just the XDA chip is pretty bad.
i just dont understand how it can be so bad. What the hell is the point in upgrading the camera to 1.3 megapixel if the quality doesn't improve, unless it's just a marketing scam.
I didn't expect it to be brilliant quality, but I thought it would be at least usable (or at least better than those sodding free webcams you get when you order a printer ink cartridge). I have a 14 day return period so I guess I will have to do some thinking
Also, before I take the pic, in the viewfinder it looks quite good. But when I press the button, it takes about 2 seconds to process and the final image is abysmal! It gets darker, and blurrier, and more pixellated. Is there another 3rd party camera program about or anything?
My camera version is 2.70
Since the camera should be the same as that on the imate Jam, perhaps people in this forum could comment on the picture quality. Indeed, it is disturbing to see a 1.3MP camera produce such horrible results,. If resolution were the only measure of quality, 1.3MP is more than enough for good quality photos. I have a 5MP Sony digital camera and seldom use resoultions larger than 1MP. If it is true that the quality is as bad as shown (rather than a faulty unit), predictions don't look good for the quality of the MDA IV camera.
loookin at the pics you've uploaded i am a bit confused....because one of the other user has also uploaded his side of pics taken out by xda IIi but they,re not THIS HORRIFIC !! :shock: http://forum.xda-developers.com/viewtopic.php?t=16580&highlight=
(scroll down and see a post by applecom)
but some of the pics that youve taken out in daylight are a BIT OK !! just OK !! with same crap quality image....
what the hell is wrong with HTC when are they gonna take out a pda phone which has a good camera quality and a built in lan and qwerty keyboard are they scared to take out something like this because they might run out of business or something ? :? (as tht dream pda phone will be having everything in it so no more upgraded phones ?)
i have the same opinion that the pictures are crap, i have tacken probley 50 pics and not been inpreded with any of them rearley. But espically the one of the sheep dog i posted looks not to bad.
i did not look at it until it was posted, the spec is 5 lux so no chance of a good pic in the house, the one of my daughter cleaning th car ( that cost me £10 :evil: ) has a sun blure on the wite gates, but this was at 4pm and i am in the UK, and we dont get sun this time of year so maybe just the large area of white confused the camera.
as you can see i am no photographer but tomorow i will take some more pics of the same thing using a XDA2 XDA2i and a proper camera so you can compare
John (applecom)
a comparison would just be great.... if possible also try to take out the pics from xdaIIi in open air not in the house
regards
jeetz
Hi Guys!
I'm really happy with my Touch Pro for about a month or so, but one thing really dissapoints me : the camera. Before this TP I had a N95 and it really has a great camera; fast, vivid and sharp.
I have tried virtually every available setting in the TP Camera, but I keep getting pictures that aren't really sharp. Best result is pictures taken from a short distance, but when I try to shoot for example my house or street (daylight!) it's a bit blurry.
What's with your TP camera's; are they 'great' of do you have the same impression as I do?
well the HTC company has come from far considering the camera`s.
when al the other manufactor`s like samsung or nokia had 1.3 and 2.1 MP in their phone`s, htc was still stuck with 0.3 MP in their phone`s.
second while for all the other manufactory`s the camera function was very important to them, it wasn`t for htc.
htc never was sold as a camera phone but as an PPC or PDA with a camera.
and don`t forget that a company like sony and samsung already made very good foto and video camera`s it was easy for them to implement a good camere in their phone.
so altouch you now have a nice 3.2MP with autophocus on youre HTC it stil isent a real photo camera.
it just can take picture`s and good ones for the majority of people.
still if you want to take a proffesionel looking foto you got to do it with youre real camera
personaly for me the camera in the HTC is good for a quick snapshot or a nice picture.
sure i would like to see a better camera on the Touch pro or diamond, but if it was just the good camera i wanted i was getting me a sony ericsson.
probably you did aspect more from the camera of youre HTC, and that is to bad.
maybe you did not do any research on the camera`s in the past.
or you didn`t see picture`s taken with an HTC before you bought yours and so i can understand the disappointment you are having.
but you probably haveto live with it.
there are also some settings you can adjust with, maybe you got to try it out.
point is, HTC has a camera on it but it is not the most important thing on the phone.
Are you touching the round button first to get a focus, before you depress it fully to take the shot? Lightly placing your finger on the button causes the indicator on-screen to go green, indicating focus has been achieved. If you don't do it in these two steps, the camera hasn't focussed properly and your shots will be fuzzy.
I tend to get pretty good shots with mine.
It's all there in the manual.
You really can't expect much from the pinhole camera. The focus is strictly software contrast detection fixed focus, so it will be nowhere as good as a real camera with true autofocus. Basically it's stuck at a super high aperture (fstop, like f22) so that it can focus on everything. It can't really truly "focus." With such cheap cameras, it's possible some just aren't calibrated right. I'm still waiting for those liquid lenses that were suppose to revolutionize camera phones 2 years ago or the Squiggle 5mm focusing motor.
What i found a lot of people doing is they hold the thumb over the button and hear the fake focus noise and think thats it, when it fact you have to keep your thumb there until you hear the focus beeps. Usually takes 2-3 seconds. I'm actually kinda impress how macro the focus can get. Noise is pretty bad though, you'll need to reduce the image by at least 1/4th to get rid of it via subsampling.
Thanks very much for all your quick replies!
Yep; I'm using a light touch on the button and wait for the auto-focus to become green before completely pressing. I also tried other settings like pressing once and waiting for the picture to be taken.
I complete understand your filosophy about that the HTC builds PPC's / PDA's and not camera-phones like the Sony or Nokia. In that light; the pictures of the 3.2MP camera aren't too bad.
However, I am used to carrying my phone with me everywhere and sometimes would like to take a picture without carrying my normal camera around. That was going really great with the N95; so great that most of the time I left my real camera at home. Now, with the HTC, I have to remember to carry my camera with me when I am going somewhere I might want to take a picture. That sucks in my opiniion
I did extensive research on the phone I wanted and the TP was the best match for my needs. I thought. Never thought about checking the camera-quality. Stupid me.
But... I am not thinking of getting rid of the phone because of the camera. Yet.
I don't think it's a focus problem, I think the problem is the low quality of the lens. Yes, unfortunately TP doesn't have nearly the quality of a N95 or similar, but the N series has always been about great multimedia cameraphones, which isn't TP's market. I'm not justifying the bad quality, I'm just saying I didn't expect a great camera from a professional phone.
what about the camera quality compared to a 2mp BlackBerry camera??
just curious
msmith1991 said:
what about the camera quality compared to a 2mp BlackBerry camera??
just curious
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I also have a BlackBerry Pearl from my work and its camera is about the same quality as the Touch Pro. Sometimes even a bit sharper but less colourfull. It hasn't got autofocus.
Hi Everyone,
Having got my G1 I have decided to sell my Diamond on Ebay and got £166 for it. However, the G1 has a limitation which I found my Diamond to also have... the Camera and the lack of Any flash whatsoever (not even a cheap LCD Light).
I am looking for a cheap and reliable 5mp phone with decent flash. I will need a second handset anyway for my o2 sim (I am on o2 Broadband and it works out cheaper if I top up £10 every 3 months to get the reduced rate, not sure if the sim needs to remain active aswell).
I've been looking at the n82. Does anyone else have any suggestions?
I have a budget of £166 so something cheap would be nice.
Better to buy a nice digital camera and a great HTC cellphone
Jut my opinion...
yeah even 10Mpixel don't change the fact that cellphones use CMOS image chips
which will never produce as good a result as ccd that digital cameras use
also cellphones generally don't have that good optical as digital cameras
so all more mpixels does it add more blurry pixels
5MP camera, you could easily find that cheap.
hey go for samsung pixon it has 8mp phone
Since most D2 users feel the picture quality is only so so , has anyone found a way / .cab to allow the camera to store the picture in RAW format which enables postprocessing with sw like photoshop? Otherwise any tweaks / .cabs to patch the default JPEG & better noise reduction?
I'd go for that too ... although maybe there's only so much you can do with a 5 meg camera ?
Hi
I'd go for that too ... although maybe there's only so much you can do with a 5 meg camera ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
That got me thinking, my full-sized camera is only 5 megs (a Nikon and had it a while) but takes absolutely stunning pictures.
It isn't the number of pixels reducing the quality, it is the quality of the optics. You can't expect much out of a lens the size of the one included in Topaz.
I don't think having a RAW output would help matters any.
Regards
Phil
Actually, sensor quality is the biggest issue here. Phone camera sensors are tiny and thus don't have the same image fidelity of sensors in dedicated cams. Sure, they're pulling 5MPs out like a point and shoot, but there's a lot less light sensitivity in them. Take the same shot with a cell phone and with a DSLR into an app like Adobe Lightroom and increse the brightness (not exposure). On the DSLR shot, you'd instantly see the extra detail come out of the shadows. On the cell phone shot, you'd see mostly noise and detail masked with noise.
On sensors this size, i doubt the lens would make much difference. The difference between plastic and glass (i believe) is mostly academic. About the best you could hope for is reduced chromatic abherration and flaring, but no manufacturer is going to waste the kind of money necessary to put pro-level or even prosumer glass on a phone, particularly one with a standard-sized sensor.
Also, try the demo version of Neat Image:
http://www.neatimage.com/download.html
It'll batch process up to two images. It's not a deep as the pro version, but it gets the job done.
I seem to be alone in liking the photo quality on the TD2! You need good lighting, and if you stick to ISO100 (200 at a pinch) and reduce "brightness" by "1", the results are better than a lot of compact cameras I've used. The colours in particular are excellent, and bar the occasional strange HTC processing artifact, the detail level is very good, both in the centre and into the corners. For it's minute size, the lens actually impresses me. Where the lens falls down is shooting into the sun, a stiff test for most compacts, but you could still shade it with your hand.
I think HTC's software image processing (noise reduction etc) is actually good, they don't mess with the image as much as some mainstream camera manufacturers. You get more noise, but you get more detail left too, which I prefer. I've printed some of the pics from the TD2 onto A4, and they look superb, you couldn't tell them apart from a normal compact camera.
The only issue I have is at higher ISOs (400+). I don't find the noise a problem but I get horizontal interference lines as well which are intrusive.
I suppose there might be a lot of sample variance in such a "cheap" camera though, so just because I was lucky with mine doesn't mean everyone will have got a good one.
Pete_S said:
The only issue I have is at higher ISOs (400+). I don't find the noise a problem but I get horizontal interference lines as well which are intrusive.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Indeed these horizontal interference lines is what ticks me.
I'll try your settings and see if the image quality improves.
... and unfortunately I don't think you can get rid of the interference, RAW or not. It's probably getting in via the power supply to the camera, or maybe being picked up directly, from the main processor or one of the radios. Turning the phone radio off whilst taking high ISO pics might help, I haven't tried it yet. It's the price for so much digital in such a small space. At least low ISO pics aren't affected.
I'm also really interested in raw capturing. Think on some pics we will be able to have higher quality...
Guys still can't leave this idea! I really impressed by diamond2 camera. And i think that even if we would be able to capture uncompressed data from camera, png formant for example, it would be super and would give us some space for enhancements...
for WM there are so much software, and now alternative camera soft?
Or maybe video for 30fps?
Since most D2 users feel the picture quality is only so so
Well i know that some phones have its camera function as "main argument" but other functions usually suffer there. Here we have complex device, and its camera from my point of view make decent picture.
https://www.dropbox.com/gallery/5020311/1/soso?h=7b9477
Just made +1 on contrast to have wider dynamic range, and +1 on sharpness cause internal sharp algorithm is crap, if i need i'll boost contrast and sharp in lightroom. And i have very good pictures, this phone easily replace my compact camera.
Hi all!
So tomorrow is going to be the first real test for my Sensation camera as I'm going to a concert (The National for who's interested). I was wondering which settings you would recommend for taking the best quality pictures. My expectations aren't that high but still, it's worth a shot.
Furthermore I'm interested if there are some standard todos to increase picture quality, e.g. enable/disable Automatic correction
Thanks
Tirozz said:
Hi all!
So tomorrow is going to be the first real test for my Sensation camera as I'm going to a concert (The National for who's interested). I was wondering which settings you would recommend for taking the best quality pictures. My expectations aren't that high but still, it's worth a shot.
Furthermore I'm interested if there are some standard todos to increase picture quality, e.g. enable/disable Automatic correction
Thanks
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
To increase picture quality, set the ISO to a low number, 100, 200. This will make it less grainy/pixelated. However, in low light settings, such as a concert, you won't be able to see much without a high ISO, like 800 or 1600.
Concerts and photos on phones are tricky because you can't change the shutter speed, really. Most of the pictures will turn out blurry. I forget if there's a "night" scene for the HTC camera app, but you can try that! Good luck!
Like he ^^^ said, use high iso's in low light. Your best bet is to keep it in auto mode. Or if you have a real camera i'm sure it'll outperform this camera in low-light. To give you an idea why a normal camera will take better pictures in low-light take a look at this site.
http://goo.gl/cD3tt
It shows the size of camera sensors and i'd bet money that ours is the absolute smallest on here. The 1.5X is the sensor you would find in a nikon d90, d300, d7000 etc, while the 1/3 or 1/5 is what we most likely have. The reason why low light looks bad is because the photosites/pixels are soo much smaller and don't absorb light really well. The larger the photosite, the more light is captured and that = great low-light performance. Most pocket cameras use a 2/3 image sensor which is still twice as big as our sensor meaning in theory it should capture 100% more light assuming the pocket camera had an 8MP sensor. A 12MP pocket cam in theory would still give you 50% better low light performance.
Ok, thanks for this so far! There is a 'Low light' scene option so I'll enable that plus high ISO. I'll post the results tomorrow!