Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 59
  1. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by crogs571
    I'd be in for $5 IF it could provide a better picture. I'd be another that talks about cramming more MP into the same sensor as before. The amount of megapixels is meaningless if you have a junk lens and a junk sensor which the 700p is 2 for 2. All the overstuffed sensors do is introduce more noise into the picture. There's only so much in-device processing can do at that point.
    yep...precisely my point!
    ~there is no spoon~
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by sarantis
    I'm also a professional photographer and it would be near impossible to change the physical attributes of the camera to come out with brighter photos. But I think it would be nice to have some kind of user adjustable brightness settings before one would send a photo off via sms or email just so the recipient could see it better.
    this is exactly what i'm talking about...
    howabout we all pool this money together to make a Palm-Photoshop app? because honestly this hope and wish for an app to alter the existing camera hardware is really a pipe-dream...



    anyone for the palm-photoshop app...
    anyone
    bueller
    bueller
    bueller...
    ~there is no spoon~
  3. #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by mushedroom
    honestly,
    i believe i know why the imaging is poorer on the 700p with the bigger sensor...
    it's because...
    they are using the same size sensor but instead of having a certain number of receptors that pick up light and translate the data into a picture...they've overstuffed it with 1.3 million pixel receptors...
    kinda like stuffing sardines in a can...
    if you put 3-10 in a can you'll have nice fluffy undamaged sardines when you open up the can, versus stuffing 30 sardines in the same can...where you're going to get compressed flattened and damaged sardines...(gross analogy but i hope you get the point)...
    same principles in camera pixels...

    and usually when you cram that many pixels into a small sensor, it translates to really poor low light photos and more noise issues....
    hope this helps...

    I'm sorry to inform you but your analysis of this issue is incorrect. If you think back to the days of the old D1, and fast forward to the days of the new D2x, they both have the same sensor size, with a VERY large increase in the amount of photoreceptor sites. Has the quality of the image decreased at all? The quality of the image has nothing to do with the size of the sensor. If you know the Phase One digital backs, and the millions upon millions of photoreceptor sites they have, with only a marginal increase in size. An overly simplistic model of the way a CCD (or censor in general) works is that a material is divided up into many little squares. Each square senses the color of light that hits its area and reports that back to a CPU which analyses it. The quality of the image has to do on several things including the quality of the algorithm analyzing the data, the sensitivity (usually in dynamic range and ISO), and the number of pixels. If two chips, identical in specifications except for the number of pixels, were compared, the chip with the larger number of pixels would create the better image. The noise (digital or physical) will not be greater in number on a higher pixel count sensor. While your idea does work in simplistic theory, it does not apply to current CCDs. You have to realize that EVER pixel on that chip (except for several rows of the outermost), is being read, whether there are 5 or 500,000 of them.

    That said, I DO believe that the brightness of this image can be increased, at the price of the quality of the image. The brighter you make this image, the more grainy and distorted it will become. It would be very possible to create an application to allow the user control over these settings, rather then the Palm itself. Palm took it on their own to tell you what the correct balance was, and apparently, many here are not pleased with that balance.
  4. pump142's Avatar
    Posts
    787 Posts
    Global Posts
    788 Global Posts
    #24  
    soooo.. whos gonna amke the app?
    M505 -> M515 -> Kyo6035 -> Kyo 7135 -> Treo 600 ->Treo 650 -> Treo 700P -> Treo 700 WX -> Samsung Saga VZW
  5. #25  
    I was wondering, since the Camera on the Treo's is not attached or soldered onto the mainboard, it would be possible to replace the original with a different one. Providing that it is the industry standard size and connector, if such a thing exist for these things. I was able to swap out screens on the Tungsten T1 from a T2, ages ago, so it could be a possibility. I really do believe this is a hardware issue rather than a software one. If I am wrong, I can chip in $50 for whoever is able to hack the software. A better camera would make my 700p almost perfect.
  6. #26  
    ok, back in the treo600 days someone did manage a hack, that tried to help the lighting when taking pictures with that camera. I don't think this is it, but this maybe a starting point, do not know it it will work on the 700p...
    http://mytreo.net/downloads/details-111.html?Cameratest
    Jim@treo1.com
    <a href="http://treo1.com">
    treo1.com
    One Stop, plain and simple
    <a href="http://treo1.com/index650.htm"> Visit our new Treo650 optimized site!!</a>
    <a href="http://palmoscentral.com"> Visit our new website palmOSCentral.com!</a>
  7.    #27  
    damn yesss! Let's keep thins thread going until one of these jeff gibson or shadowmite types gets interested. All we need is an adjustable brightness setting. Then we as the user can choose how much we want to degrade the clarity of the image.
  8. #28  
    Ok, I can't resist. There are too many people in this thread that have no idea what they're talking about... Let me straighten things out a bit. I'm a EE and recently worked for the company that designed the image sensor for the 650 and I believe the 700. First off, almost all image sensors for cell phones are CMOS image sensors not CCD type. CamHabib you are flat out wrong. For a sensor of the same die area, decreasing the pixel size increases noise. End of story. As you decrease the pixel size of a sensor, the conversion gain of the pixel goes down. The conversion gain is basically the amount of signal you get from converting photos to electrons, so the smaller the individual pixel area is the less photos you will capture. For the case of dark images, you will not capture very many photos in each pixel and the "dark noise" of each pixel will dominate the signal. The CMOS image sensor in the treo600 was around 2.8 microns in size but have a very poor conversion gain and therefore poor signal to noise ratio. Thus in poor lighting the dark noise dominated and the image looked like crap. While the 600 was being sold, our company worked some magic on the pixel design through process improvments and active readback circuits to improve the conversion gain. Note the pixel size did not change, but they made a million other improments to make this possible. Now dark images looked phenominal and this became their claim to fame, which allowed them to beat out their competitors even though they had higher resoluition. Palm could have easily put in a 1.3mp sensor on the 650, but it would have looked like crap. The 650 has a great low light image sensor! Anyway, the megapixel craze is always at hand and so we moved to 1.3mp and shrunk the pixel to somewhere around 2.2 microns. This lowers the conversion gain beyound what you're getting with a 2.8 micron pixel and hence the crappy dark shots. So its a tradeoff between die area, pixels size, and number of pixels. Digital SLR cameras have huge pixels (like 7 microns!) to keep the signal to noise high under dark conditions.

    Now onto improving the 700p. I would be great to drop in a larger die sensor, but you would be hard pressed to find something compatible with the same size or digital interface. Also, most connectors have a bunch of custom flex crap which is hard to work with.

    Image processing software will not improve the signal to noise ratio and will probably not do much to make your dark images look better.

    Solution, maybe a flash or a better more expensive lens....
  9. #29  
    thank you. I was way too lazy to start the google searching for some of the articles I read way back when. I retain basics and research the specifics...haha.
    Pixi: Sold. Pre: Passed off to another rep. Touchpad: Just a toy until Cloud syncing arrives, and a better doc editor.
  10. #30  
    Well then I stand corrected, my apologies. My majors were Biochemistry and Computer Science, I was never really educated in the Electrical Engineering fields. Thank you for clearing that up.
  11. #31  
    If we can get a slight update in quality from a software update for the 650 also I am willing to put down $5.
  12. #32  
    No problem camhabib... I wish I would have chosen to be a dentist over a EE. The get paid more and only work 4 days a week. I'm still thinking it might not be to late. What do you guys think?
  13. #33  
    so was i right then?
    ~there is no spoon~
  14. #34  
    sorta...
    he he he
    ~there is no spoon~
  15.    #35  
    Hackers please respond!
  16. #36  
    Quote Originally Posted by proee
    I'm a EE and recently worked for the company that designed the image sensor for the 650...
    Thanks for a really informative post!

    Barry
    Psion Organiser II > Apple Newton > Palm III > Palm V > Tungsten T > Tungsten T3 > Treo 650
  17. #37  
    Quote Originally Posted by texascanuck
    I'm in for $5 which should give us a theoretical total of $105 now!

    tc
    I will put in $20
    let me know when and where to paypal too!
  18. #38  
    As far as iris goes, that is fixed, and can't be opened or closed any more than it is. However I think there could be a hack that could lighten up the darker images. All it would have to do is analyze the overall darkness of the picture and then lighten it slightly. However, this would really only work up to a point. Really dark pictures aren't going to come out good no matter how much you can lighten them. The camera isn't going to capture the finer details. So you'd end up with a light enough picture but practically everything would be blurry, out of focus, and there would be a lot of graininess. Honestly though, I don't know why anyone expects much out of this camera. It's a cell phone. If itty bitty cameras were really as good as regular point and shoot cameras, we'd have itty bitty cameras on the market for point and shoot.

    And now:
    My 700P will be better than your 700p!

    Signed,
    The n00b!

    P.s. Bow before me!

    Don't just see the n00b, be the n00b! Wait, no...
  19. #39  
    so.... what about a flash cap on the antenna or plugged into the bottom could would should it communicate with camera and powered from camera ?
  20. pump142's Avatar
    Posts
    787 Posts
    Global Posts
    788 Global Posts
    #40  
    a flash led bult into the antenna mod would be huge
    M505 -> M515 -> Kyo6035 -> Kyo 7135 -> Treo 600 ->Treo 650 -> Treo 700P -> Treo 700 WX -> Samsung Saga VZW
Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions