I've seen a few complaints around here about the image quality from the V20. Overall, I have to say it's pretty good. There's still some things I'm testing out and playing with, such as what impact HDR has on shot, but I'm starting to get a solid look as to what is going on with it. So what I'd like to do is have people as they have questions about the camera, post up photos pertaining to your question. Along with the photo; post the camera data (found by opening the photo on the phone in something like Google Photos and then hitting the "i" button) like the ISO and shutter speed, what mode you were in, what settings you might have had applied and/or processing done, and maybe even the conditions you were shooting in. Photography is an interesting art as it is part art but also part science. It used to be about the science of chemistry but now it's about the science of electronics and programming.
Related
The photos I have added to my phone from my PC look bad in the Touch Flo application's Photos and Videos page. They have massive JPG compression artifacting. The photos that were in the phone, and any photos I have taken with the built in camera look great. When I click on the photos to look at them full screen, they all look great, but it's just in the screen where you can "flip" through the photos that they look bad. I moved a photo from the memory card to the phone to see if that was the issue, but it still looked bad.
It's probably not that big of a deal, as the more photos I get loaded to the phone, the less likely I am to even use this "flip" function, as it would take all day to flip through a hundred photos.
On another note, what photo apps do people like that lets you organize lots of photos well?
Am I the only one with this issue? Or am I the only one that uses the built in app?
I'm no expert, but it sounds to me like the issue stems from a lack of resizing images for your screen resolution in the software. Remember, windows mobile is an inefficient hunk of junk. Just like Vista and, to a lesser extent, XP.
As such, developers rarely consider anything graphically or processor intensive when writing code (or they are simply lazy). Either way, sounds to me like the software simply can't re-size the images to fit your screen properly.
I bought a low-end digital picture frame for my grandmother a few years back. Almost all the pictures we uploaded to the thing looked horrible! Except for those images which mached it's native resolution. Go figure.
Why do pictures taken from your camera work? Dunno. I too would like to find a good photo organizer for my phone.
Just be glad your phone even takes pictures! My AT&T fuze camera flaked out, i can take pictures and view the thumbnails, but when viewing fullsize, I get a bunch of green blocks!!! (REALLY considering flashing that leaked rom and seeing how that goes)
I was testing out the HDR options for this and they do not seem to do much at all. There is a difference, but it is VERY minor. I took a shot without HDR, one with HDR, and then one using the free HDR app, and the HDR app simply blew the HTC HDR mode completely out of the water...
Has anyone else had any experience with this? Is there something I may be missing?
HDR always seemed like something better left to photo editing software to me (like photoshop). Phone camera filters always seem kind of lackluster, but then again, none of us are taking professional shots with a cell camera I assume
On topic though, I wouldn't doubt it being better. Sense stuff isn't exactly always perfection as far as software quality and HDR was probably just an afterthought tied into the camera so they could tick off a notch somewhere on some sheet for features.
Absolutely the same as my experience. I used HDR Camera from the market before this (free), and I really loved its results. When I installed the 3.0 Sense camera and saw the HDR setting, I was happy until I tried it. My theory is that it is NOT taking multiple pictures, but only doing an image adjustment --->> NOT the same thing. HDR Camera doesn't have the issues that some of you described. You do not have to be rock steady and my phone is plenty fast enough to take the three photos within about a second. The image settings are also adjustable (color, etc.).
On the other hand, the panorama mode in the Sense camera is Awesome!
yareally said:
HDR always seemed like something better left to photo editing software to me (like photoshop). Phone camera filters always seem kind of lackluster, but then again, none of us are taking professional shots with a cell camera I assume
On topic though, I wouldn't doubt it being better. Sense stuff isn't exactly always perfection as far as software quality and HDR was probably just an afterthought tied into the camera so they could tick off a notch somewhere on some sheet for features.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Software cannot do what HDR does. HDR takes 2 pictures, adjusting the gain on the sensor between low and high. It combines the best of both images to gain detail in low light areas and avoid over exposure in high light areas. Software will not work after the fact because the extra information gained from low/high gain is not present. Unfortunately the HDR option is poorly implemented by HTC. If you try HDR on the Iphone, you can see a drastic difference.
Actually, I use Pro HDR on my Evo, and it takes fantastic pictures in true HDR. It is a touch slower than a pro camera, but it does actually meter the scene and adjust the camera's aperture accordingly. It then allows for adjustments between the composite image and allows for saving the final as well as the source images, meaning you can do further editing elsewhere. Outside of some cropping, I haven't had problems.
With that said, I would be curious to know what the deal is with Sense. What's interesting is if you put it in HDR mode, it shows the little icon in the top right with multiple images...like whoever designed it at least understood how true HDR *should* operate. Then, if you push and release it instead of the regular shutter button, it beeps and you hear the lens go, and the image focuses itself. So...idk. I don't see a noticeable effect in the regular images at all...
Hey there,
it's really ridiculous. I'm either blind or disappointed on the play store and I really hope you can help me out. Until now I was driving with Camera MX that can take videos and pictures and has something called live shot, so I won't miss great moments. Unfortunately, it does not take continuous shots in full quality, instead it records a video and let allow me to select the frames I want to export as images.
This sucks in term of quality. I'm looking for an app that takes real shots. I rather want high quality with lesser shots per seconds, however most apps target for speed and decrease quality. Another big thing is I want to record videos with it, too. And this is the moment were every burst shotter fails.
I'd like to have aperture, ISO value, and exposure time settings for better night photos, too. Half of the apps did not even adjust brightness on my LGG4 (CM13), but none of them fulfilled my expectations.
I really hope anybody can help me out with that. Thank you!
For anybody who came here for the same reason, I found this website: https://softwarerecs.stackexchange....ith-shutter-mode-easy-manual-config-and-video
At the end I decided to go for OpenCamera, because A Better Camera seems not to work on CM.
I saw this coming across the wire and it piqued my interest... the latest version of Google Photos coming down the pike (v2.13, might be a little before everyone gets it) added a new video editing option; stabilization. Now, I immediately side loaded the update, because I have no patience for such things, and took a peek.
The interface is simple... load up a video, click on the pencil shaped edit button and at the bottom of the screen, you'll see "STABILIZE"
If the video is local, it'll process it then give you the option to preview and then save. At which point you can upload the stabilized video back up to Photos and it'll sit there besides the original (you will see both versions). You can also stabilize videos that are backed up, it'll just download the video locally first.
It works surprisingly well. It seems to use the standard 'crop and process' method that you'll see on something like Youtube, etc. So a discerning eye will be able to see the tell tale wobble of a stabilized video... which you really can't avoid... the lens is moving so there will always be a constant perspective change. But the results are still very impressive.
Pretty slick. The software stabilization on my 6P is OK.... but after playing with this function a bit, I am considering just flipping it off and doing all the stabilization work in post using Photos. This is only available on the Google Photos app itself; you can't load the video up on photos.google.com and edit it. Odd.
We don't need copy/pasted articles here, with no credits or source. That's called plagiarism. :good:
Thread Closed.
Just wondering if there's any way I can get an astrophotography time lapse greater than 1 second? I would love to have 60 seconds, but I know it would probably take 4 hours or something.
Just wondering if this is possible or there's any third party apps that might be able to do this (take a longer exposure than the 4 minutes that astrophotography takes)?
I don't think it is possible, the astro time-lapse is made up from the images used to and then stacked for the astro image itself so you would end up with shed loads of images as well.
Have you tried just using the normal time-lapse option in the video settings?
Exactly, take a normal night video and then slow it down with editing software.
schmeggy929 said:
Exactly, take a normal night video and then slow it down with editing software.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The dude is talking about astrophotography and long exposure shots for a reason. What will a "night video" do good? And timelapse is not slowing down the video. lmao
That is my mistake, I totally read his post wrong.
Thing is the astro time laps is made up of the individual shots taken when Astrophotography mode is active so those individual image have been taken at f1.85, if you just did a normal time lapse using the main lens the video will still be at f1.85 and with a bit of post processing it should work.
The other way around it is to just take a night mode photo every 30 seconds for 2 hours using a timer and a Bluetooth remote.
MrBelter said:
Thing is the astro time laps is made up of the individual shots taken when Astrophotography mode is active so those individual image have been taken at f1.85, if you just did a normal time lapse using the main lens the video will still be at f1.85 and with a bit of post processing it should work.
The other way around it is to just take a night mode photo every 30 seconds for 2 hours using a timer and a Bluetooth remote.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You're talking about Aperture that is FIXED and completely irrelevant in this case. It's not like you have a variable aperture on the lens so you can adjust it.
What matters in his case is the shutter speed and the exposure time.
And no, normal timelapse WON'T work because the shutter speed will be low (fast) and the phone will try to compensate by pushing the ISO high. You'll end up with very dark scenes and TONS of noise.
And what makes Astro mode very important is the FRAME STACKING. Frame stacking reduces the overall noise and increases the "quality" of the image.
Deadmau-five said:
Just wondering if there's any way I can get an astrophotography time lapse greater than 1 second? I would love to have 60 seconds, but I know it would probably take 4 hours or something.
Just wondering if this is possible or there's any third party apps that might be able to do this (take a longer exposure than the 4 minutes that astrophotography takes)?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not with stock camera.
You can try MotionCam Pro for that. It has a timelapse option where you can set your exposure time even to 15 seconds.
MotionCam is mainly for RAW video recording, but you can do photos and time-lapses. The output is absolutely GREAT. You're working with a RAW VIDEO basically and the quality is not comparable to ANY other app.
I had one Astro timelapse from it but I can't seem to find it now. It's sh**y weather outside now so can't do even a short one. I could do just a daylight one so you can see what quality I'm talking about here.
Uploaded a screenshot of the viewfinder. As you can see on the SS, you can adjust the ISO and shutter speed (among many other things) and do a timelapse.
This is basically taking RAW shots that you can later post process with various editing software like, Davinci Resolve, Adobe Premiere, Vegas, etc...
What you get is a video quality on the level of a DSLR and BETTER because there is no post-processing involved on the phone, it's basically RAW DNG images taken (sequence) that you can export (render) into a video at your QUALITY choice with YOUR post-processing involved.
Here is one sample I shot at and rendered to 4k60 (no color grading, just stock output).
Keep in mind that this is YOUTUBE, the quality of the original video is FAR better.
JohnTheFarm3r said:
You're talking about Aperture that is FIXED and completely irrelevant in this case. It's not like you have a variable aperture on the lens so you can adjust it.
What matters in his case is the shutter speed and the exposure time.
And no, normal timelapse WON'T work because the shutter speed will be low (fast) and the phone will try to compensate by pushing the ISO high. You'll end up with very dark scenes and TONS of noise.
And what makes Astro mode very important is the FRAME STACKING. Frame stacking reduces the overall noise and increases the "quality" of the image.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I know the aperture is fixed that's why i said it should work given the astrophotography mode time lapse is made up from the 16 images taken when the mode is active and not once the images have been stacked in to a single image. Given the way you talk you of all people should appreciate just how fast f1.85 is, not a single one of my Canon L lenses is that fast or even comes anywhere close to it.
The OP has nothing to lose by giving it a go before recommending extra software and shooting raw (it is raw BTW if we are getting picky, it isn't an acronym for anything).
MrBelter said:
I know the aperture is fixed that's why i said it should work given the astrophotography mode time lapse is made up from the 16 images taken when the mode is active and not once the images have been stacked in to a single image. Given the way you talk you of all people should appreciate just how fast f1.85 is, not a single one of my Canon L lenses is that fast or even comes anywhere close to it.
The OP has nothing to lose by giving it a go before recommending extra software and shooting raw (it is raw BTW if we are getting picky, it isn't an acronym for anything).
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Where did I say ANYTHING against the fixed aperture of F1.85? I just said that since it's fixed, it's not relevant to the "settings" he uses since he CAN'T change the aperture value anyway.
It's not about "losing" anything, it's about the technical part of understanding that your recommendation won't work because it doesn't use long exposure shutter speeds or frame stacking.
By NOT using frame stacking, the noise will be horrible and there is little much you can do with post-processing without killing completely the "details" on the photo by suppressing both luma and chroma noise.
Another thing is that regular timelapse doesn't push long exposures...It's just not meant to be used for "astro", that's all.
Erm ok fella but how do you think this was all done before Google and its wonderful computational photography came along?
My point about the aperture is it is very fast so it being fixed is not irrelevant at all given it is the only chance of this even working, the OP may have tried it at 0.5x or 5x where the apertures are much slower, the OP has absolutely nothing to lose by giving it a go, it might be crap, you might end up with only the brightest objects in the sky, you might end up with a noisy mush and yet it might be good fun who knows.
Sadly there is always one person that comes along and stomps on the parade because they know best though isn't there?
MrBelter said:
Erm ok fella but how do you think this was all done before Google and its wonderful computational photography came along?
My point about the aperture is it is very fast so it being fixed is not irrelevant at all given it is the only chance of this even working, the OP may have tried it at 0.5x or 5x where the apertures are much slower, the OP has absolutely nothing to lose by giving it a go, it might be crap, you might end up with only the brightest objects in the sky, you might end up with a noisy mush and yet it might be good fun who knows.
Sadly there is always one person that comes along and stomps on the parade because they know best though isn't there?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
It was done in a way that results were not even close to what we have today. Why use "outdated" methods when we have these VERY capable devices?
The app I suggested is great and has exactly what is he looking for.
Your logic of "How did we do this before XY time" is equal to "Let's just ride horses instead of cars because that's how we did it before". lmao