Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 75
  1. #21  
    Wow!
  2. #22  
    Quote Originally Posted by 8o8o8o8o
    You callin me a liar? ;-)

    Seriously, both pics taken at exactly the same time with a Treo 600 in one hand and a Treo 650 in the other. Exact same conditions. I'll try to post some more pics again today to give you some more examples. But really...the difference is that dramatic across the board.
    If this is true, I really can't wait to grab myself one of those T650's. The detail and low light capability are like night & day!! Please post some more comparison shots.
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  3.    #23  
    First of all, my lovely wife thanks you all for the compliments, creepy though some of them were ;-)

    Second, I PROMISE to get some more pics up there as soon as I can. I'm missing a few hours of my memories after this party weekend, so give me a day or two to get back on my feet! If you go back to http://www.bomad.com and click on the comparison photo gallery, you'll see what I mean!

    Speaking of which, Happy Halloween!

    Cheers!
  4. #24  
    Would not want to break up a great couple, but if your women friend of oriental descent can switch her preferences from a cowboy hat to a Tilly Safari hat help us get connected. Oh I'm more conservative than you, if she can handle that.
  5. #25  
    Wow. Thanks for posting these pictures.
  6. #26  
    Wow,
    Those are really AWESOME pictures. The quality is amazing. I was looking around and I see a link that says Wife 2.0. Where are the pictures of Wife 1.0? Just wondering.

    Al
  7.    #27  
    Ok, finally had a chance to add some more pics to the comparison. Three more sets of indoor photos, taken at the same time with a Treo 600 in one hand and a 650 in the other. You can find it all at http://www.bomad.com.

    Enjoy!
  8. #28  
    For all the images the JPEG compression appears to be different - or something.

    In all cases the stored image for the TREO 600 is significantly smaller in total byte size than the TREO 650. For example, at the time of THIS post the "trays of cookies" picture is 160838 bytes for the 600 and 206055 for the 650. That suggests the TREO 600 image is being compressed MORE than for the TREO 650. And JPEG is a "lossy" compression technique thus more compression would suggest lousier image.

    Perhaps your two cameras are using different compression factors for JPEG images. To make this comparison "correct" you need to set their compression factors identically.

    Here's an entire thread on the subject:

    -- http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...t=43001&page=1

    And, internal to that thread, a link to a JPEG explanation:

    -- http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...0&postcount=32

    (alas, on checking that page has been removed - however you can do a simple search for "What is JPEG compression" and get a gajillion hits)

    ======

    Aside - whenever results (for anything) seem too impressive, perhaps they are.

    IMHO it would not be at ALL surprising for PalmOne to quietly reduce JPEG compression from one device to the newer to give the appearance of radical "camera" improvement.

    Be Careful Out There!
    Last edited by SeldomVisitor; 11/01/2004 at 06:10 AM. Reason: Clarified "size", added commentary
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    In all cases the stored image for the TREO 600 is significantly smaller in total byte size than the TREO 650. For example, at the time of THIS post the "trays of cookies" picture is 160838 bytes for the 600 and 206055 for the 650. That suggests the TREO 600 image is being compressed MORE than for the TREO 650. And JPEG is a "lossy" compression technique thus more compression would suggest lousier image.

    Perhaps your two cameras are using different compression factors for JPEG images. To make this comparison "correct" you need to set their compression factors identically.
    I think you have cause and effect switched. Blurry images compress better, so they end up smaller. The Treo 650 camera takes sharper images, which don't compress as much at a given compression level. Therefore, the pictures from the Treo650 are bigger.
  10. #30  
    Is it that hard to just accept that maybe P1 really improved the camera?? I mean, that is what they SAID they did, right??

    8o8o8o8o, thanks for the pics, they look great!!!
    <br><a href="http://www.theused.net/"><img src="http://www.theused.net/images/buddyIcons/buddy_used_02.gif"></a><br><br>Forever in search of the next best thing... is that the 700w?
  11. #31  
    Is it that hard to confirm that the JPEG compression is identical?
    Is it that hard to just accept that maybe P1 really improved the camera?? I mean, that is what they SAID they did, right??
    I don't remember them saying anything about improving image sharpness, only low-light handling capability.

    Prove me wrong!
  12. #32  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    For all the images the JPEG compression appears to be different - or something.

    In all cases the stored image for the TREO 600 is significantly smaller in total byte size than the TREO 650. For example, at the time of THIS post the "trays of cookies" picture is 160838 bytes for the 600 and 206055 for the 650. That suggests the TREO 600 image is being compressed MORE than for the TREO 650. And JPEG is a "lossy" compression technique thus more compression would suggest lousier image.

    Perhaps your two cameras are using different compression factors for JPEG images. To make this comparison "correct" you need to set their compression factors identically.

    Here's an entire thread on the subject:

    -- http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...t=43001&page=1

    And, internal to that thread, a link to a JPEG explanation:

    -- http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...0&postcount=32

    (alas, on checking that page has been removed - however you can do a simple search for "What is JPEG compression" and get a gajillion hits)

    ======

    Aside - whenever results (for anything) seem too impressive, perhaps they are.

    IMHO it would not be at ALL surprising for PalmOne to quietly reduce JPEG compression from one device to the newer to give the appearance of radical "camera" improvement.

    Be Careful Out There!
    SeldomRight:

    What difference does it make "how" PalmOne improved the camera. The bottom line is that all of those pictures are better thnan the original 600 camera quality. Do you somehow get paid to rag on PlamOne, or just benefit in your short-selling portfolio?
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  13. #33  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    Is it that hard to confirm that the JPEG compression is identical?

    I don't remember them saying anything about improving image sharpness, only low-light handling capability.

    Prove me wrong!
    oscarc has posted a perfectly reasonable explanation to your compression scenario.

    Secondly, if P1 has reduced 'standard' compression... that STILL makes the 650 camera BETTER. Especially to those that are just using the camera for what it is... a cell phone camera.
    <br><a href="http://www.theused.net/"><img src="http://www.theused.net/images/buddyIcons/buddy_used_02.gif"></a><br><br>Forever in search of the next best thing... is that the 700w?
  14. #34  
    dstrauss... nice work. My sentiments exactly.
    <br><a href="http://www.theused.net/"><img src="http://www.theused.net/images/buddyIcons/buddy_used_02.gif"></a><br><br>Forever in search of the next best thing... is that the 700w?
  15. #35  
    Quote Originally Posted by dstrauss
    SeldomRight:

    What difference does it make "how" PalmOne improved the camera. The bottom line is that all of those pictures are better thnan the original 600 camera quality. Do you somehow get paid to rag on PlamOne, or just benefit in your short-selling portfolio?
    I, frankly, am aghast at your post. Your hatred is so deep you fail to see what could be pure marketing crap from PalmOne.

    It matters VERY much if PalmOne simply isn't compressing images as much as before and representing it as an "improved" camera - had you followed that ancient link I provided you would have seen images produced FROM THE SAME CAMERA that were radically "improved" simply due to less compression.

    Well, like it or not, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those TREO 600 images was apparently more compressed than the TREO 650 images.

    And, like it or not, that post by me about this said "To make this a valid comparison be sure to make sure the compression is identical":

    -- http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...0&postcount=28

    Now you, in your aMAZing hatred, are saying "No, we don't have to do that!".

    Crap.

    Unbelievable.

    Get over your hatred.

    No kidding.
    Last edited by SeldomVisitor; 11/01/2004 at 07:38 AM. Reason: Added the link to my original post in this thread
  16. njchris's Avatar
    Posts
    459 Posts
    Global Posts
    475 Global Posts
    #36  
    The comparison was fair. It used the camera as is,(out of the box settings). There are no compression settings that come with the camera, so the picture comparison is completely valid.

    OBVIOUSLY, the 650 takes a much much better picture out of the box. As well, I have not seen any 600 pic posted that looks better than those 650 pics.

    I do know that program that did change the compression. I used it, but in my experience, they did not improve the picture substantially. Certainly, not even close to the 650 level.
  17. #37  
    Certainly the thought that an image produced by a "stock" TREO 650 is "better looking" than the image produced by a "stock" TREO 600 is entirely valid (assuming the images we're all referencing were all produced by stock TREO 650s and 600s!).

    The question being raised, however, is if there really IS an improvement in the TREO 650 camera with respect to, for example, "crispness" or is it literally SIMPLY a matter of a numeric value that is in software that CAN be changed.

    To make any comparison of THAT particular matter one must ensure the JPEG compression is identical.

    In fact, to BEST make that particular comparison it would be most appropriate to set BOTH cameras' compression factor to 99 - that is, essentially no compression.
  18. #38  
    While compression does make a difference, and identical compression factors would produce the best head-to-head comparison... one thing is abundantly clear in the photos....
    ..... low light conditions are handled LIGHT YEARS better by the 650 -- and that alone is a significant improvement.

    And lets not BS -- improving a HORRIBLE camera couldn't have been that difficult... and it seems they have done a great job of that.
    <br><a href="http://www.theused.net/"><img src="http://www.theused.net/images/buddyIcons/buddy_used_02.gif"></a><br><br>Forever in search of the next best thing... is that the 700w?
  19. #39  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    In fact, to BEST make that particular comparison it would be most appropriate to set BOTH cameras' compression factor to 99 - that is, essentially no compression.
    8o8o8o8o can you do this with both cameras? I would love to see this comparison, as it will be a more accurate test to me.
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  20. #40  
    I've used QSet to vary the compression of the original 600 camera. No matter how little compression you dial in, the 600 camera is NOT capable of images like those attributed to the 650 in this thread. Period.

    SV, you've been proven wrong on virtually everything to do with the 650/Ace. No one here really cares what you think any more. Why don't you go find some other forum to troll.
    Bob Meyer
    I'm out of my mind. But feel free to leave a message.
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions