Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 75
  1. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #41  
    Quote Originally Posted by oscarc
    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.

    Also, dark, low-contrast images compress much more, so especially in low-light situations (eg, the pic with the girl), the 600 photo takes up much less space than that from the 650, which actually has a decent amount of contrast. No amount of jpeg compression would make the 650 picture look like the 600 picture (it would just introduce pixelation without affecting contrast).

    If you are still skeptical, download the 650 image and recompress it in photoshop as much as you can... i guarantee it won't end up looking like the 600 counterpart.
    Last edited by sbono13; 11/01/2004 at 12:08 PM.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by meyerweb
    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.
    What he said!

    Seldom: it is NOT a question of hatred - it is your unending diatribe attacking anything positive about the T650 (from whether it exists - now proven that it does - to its feature set). I still think you're shorting PalmOne, and your motive is not an altruistic attempt to prove the Treo 650 is a "bad" device.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  3. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by sbono13
    If you are still skeptical, download the 650 image and recompress it in photoshop as much as you can... i guarantee it won't end up looking like the 600 counterpart.
    I just did this for the benefit of the reader .

    the first attachment is the treo600 picture from the bomad site (90 KB).
    the second attachment is the treo650 pic from the bomad site (112 KB).
    the third attachment is the treo650 pic AFTER i used photoshop to recompress it as much as I could (17 KB).

    This comparison proves that the degree of compression alone can not explain the difference in image quality (duh)...
    QED
    Attached Images Attached Images
  4. #44  
    Nicely done sbono13.

    Hopefully that is enough 'proof' the pessimists (aka 650 haters) need to prove that while still a .3 MP camera... it is MUCH improved.

    I can't wait until we all have one so this forum gets back to the tips/tricks associated with a Treo instead of this rampant speculation/bashing/defending of a device we will ALL purchase anyway!!
    <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?
  5. #45  
    Quote Originally Posted by TreoDeJaneiro
    I can't wait until we all have one so this forum gets back to the tips/tricks associated with a Treo instead of this rampant speculation/bashing/defending of a device we will ALL purchase anyway!!
    indeed!
  6. #46  
    Quote Originally Posted by sbono13
    I just did this for the benefit of the reader .

    the first attachment is the treo600 picture from the bomad site (90 KB).
    the second attachment is the treo650 pic from the bomad site (112 KB).
    the third attachment is the treo650 pic AFTER i used photoshop to recompress it as much as I could (17 KB).

    This comparison proves that the degree of compression alone can not explain the difference in image quality (duh)...
    QED
    Excellent point sbono13. Look closely at the difference between the Treo 650 original and 17kb compressed - the artifacts in the cheaks and background. Still a much clearer and brighter image than the Treo 600 original.
    Remember, the "P" in PDA stands for personal.
    If it works for you, it is "P"erfect.
  7. #47  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    Well, like it or not, EVERY SINGLE ONE of those TREO 600 images was apparently more compressed than the TREO 650 images.
    What impact would compression have on the camera's ability to handle light balancing?
    Robert
    Please visit my moblog, Robert-O-Rama
  8. #48  
    For you guys that actually have a T650 in hand, how much manual control do you have with the camera (white balance, iris, compression, etc...)?
    Make It Happen!!
    If you don't, who will?
  9. #49  
    Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to compare the 650 camera to one taken with the 600 camera with QSet set to no compression? I get pictures with my 600 that are actually pretty good as long as there is enough light.
    Regards,

    Robert
  10. #50  
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert K.
    What impact would compression have on the camera's ability to handle light balancing?
    None that I know of.
  11. #51  
    Quote Originally Posted by rbienstock
    Out of curiosity, has anyone tried to compare the 650 camera to one taken with the 600 camera with QSet set to no compression? I get pictures with my 600 that are actually pretty good as long as there is enough light.
    Indeed, looking at some of those posts on that ancient thread about this it is fairly apparent that HIGH light conditions and no compression the TREO 600 images look quite fine.
  12. #52  
    Quote Originally Posted by sbono13
    I just did this for the benefit of the reader .

    the first attachment is the treo600 picture from the bomad site (90 KB).
    the second attachment is the treo650 pic from the bomad site (112 KB).
    the third attachment is the treo650 pic AFTER i used photoshop to recompress it as much as I could (17 KB).

    This comparison proves that the degree of compression alone can not explain the difference in image quality (duh)...
    QED
    PalmOne says lowlight level handling has been improved.

    You showed nothing other than reinforcing what PalmOne said.

    You DID show, however, that compression factors significantly affect "crispness" which was the whole point of my first post in this thread.

    Thanks!

    And I might pointedly add....

    Q.E.D.

    !
  13. #53  
    It's amazing to me that people still respond to such an obvious Troll.
  14. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #54  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    PalmOne says lowlight level handling has been improved.

    You showed nothing other than reinforcing what PalmOne said.
    Right... better low light handling = better camera. It seemed to me that you were suggesting that PLMO did NOT improve the camera.

    I've been perfectly satisfied with the "'crispness" of pictures taken with the T600 in the proper lighting conditions. The achilles heel has always been color and light handling. These comparison pictures show that the improved camera in the 650 addresses these deficiencies. If there are any improvements in "crispness," they are secondary to the more obvious and more needed improvements in color balance and both low and bright light handling. That's what most of us are "oohing" and "aahing" over when we see the comparison pictures.
    Last edited by sbono13; 11/01/2004 at 05:06 PM.
  15. #55  
    Quote Originally Posted by Primate
    It's amazing to me that people still respond to such an obvious Troll.
    I wish trolls would be banned.
  16. #56  
    Quote Originally Posted by Primate
    It's amazing to me that people still respond to such an obvious Troll.
    Yes, it's obviously being a "troll" to point out that the comparison made between two cameras was bogus because one was (purposefully?) configured differently than another to cause a difference in a known-lossy compression.

    How trollish!

    Giggle.
  17. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #57  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    Yes, it's obviously being a "troll" to point out that the comparison made between two cameras was bogus because one was (purposefully?) configured differently than another to cause a difference in a known-lossy compression.

    How trollish!

    Giggle.
    It's a valid point to make-- however, I would caution you against jumping to the conclusion that the compression settings are different in the 2 Treos. it has been pointed out in this thread that there is a distinction between "level of compression" and the "degree of compressibility." I and others have argued that the crappy camera of the T600 produces images that are intrinsically more compressible than the improved camera of the T650, which would result in a smaller file under the same compression settings. IMO, the reduced size of the compressed images from the T600 likely reflects the higher compressibility of the source image, rather than some diabolical plan from the evildoers at PLMO. You of course are free to assume the worst. Keep in mind that it don't make it true.

    Giggle.
  18. #58  
    Quote Originally Posted by sbono13
    I just did this for the benefit of the reader .

    the first attachment is the treo600 picture from the bomad site (90 KB).
    the second attachment is the treo650 pic from the bomad site (112 KB).
    the third attachment is the treo650 pic AFTER i used photoshop to recompress it as much as I could (17 KB).

    This comparison proves that the degree of compression alone can not explain the difference in image quality (duh)...
    QED
    Thanks sbono.
    It's nice to see that a 17KB image from the 650 still looks better than a 90KB image from the 600 .
  19. #59  
    At least someone other than The Silent is now admitting that perhaps it would be a good idea to turn off as much image compression as possible, then take some test images in good lightlevel conditions and see what the REAL difference is!

    Excellent!

    Progress is being made!

    (note that at least two other posters have requested this very same thing - what a bunch of trolls!)
  20. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #60  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    At least someone other than The Silent is now admitting that perhaps it would be a good idea to turn off as much image compression as possible, then take some test images in good lightlevel conditions and see what the REAL difference is!
    I would not argue that pictures taken with the Treo 600 camera under ideal lighting conditions are probably comparable to those taken with the 650... I have seen some very decent pictures from my T600. The problem is that it's so difficult to find the right lighting. The T650 looks much more forgiving in the lighting department, and that's why the camera is better.

    Regardless, back to my earlier point about the compressibility of the source image, I truly believe that a picture taken with the treo600 under ideal conditions will be the same size as the same picture taken with the treo650-- and it would not surprise me if the picture quality was the same. This is easier to test that Seldom's proposal, since we don't even know if Qset will run on the Treo 650.
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions