Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 61 to 75 of 75
  1. #61  
    Quote Originally Posted by sbono13
    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.
    As I tried to note with links etc to other threads, there actually is a "history" behind all this.

    For example (and someone who has yet to pipe up here - strange!) the user ID "mgauss" has been an unending critic of the TREO 600 camera - really pretty strong critic, too.

    Yet he took almost literally one look at the bogus camera comparison and said "Wow! That makes all the difference in the world - the 650 is for me!".

    It's reactions like that that simply are incorrect - they are, in fact, immoral. Not from the reactor's POV, of course, but from what is causing the reaction.

    The simple fact remains that ALL the TREO 600 images of exactly the same subject matter were on the order of 20-30% smaller in file size, strongly suggesting that the JPEG compression factors/algorithm had been applied differently to the two cameras.

    Prime example of a bogus comparison (literally apples and oranges).

    I, like you, remember very good TREO 600 images (in fact, isn't there an entire thread dedicated to cool pictures? http://discussion.treocentral.com/sh...ad.php?t=37992).

    Thus, like you, I say "Hmmm...maybe they're about the same in what we call "good lighting for the 600" conditions".
    Last edited by SeldomVisitor; 11/01/2004 at 05:51 PM. Reason: Added URL to the TREO 600 cool picture thread
  2. #62  
    Seldom...you are not really correct in your line of thinking...

    JPEG compression takes pixels that are similar to each other and reduces them to make the image smaller. Thus you lose some detail, but you do not alter the lighting or exposure aspects of the shot. If you use JPEG compression on an image that has a lot of the same color in it (eg. big blue sky, or something on a white background) it will compress smaller than another image of the same size and resolution that has a lot of colors or changes in it.

    One of the shots on the site has all the lighting burning out into bright white blobs, that alone will make the picture compress smaller because of all the white area, thus more opportunity to knock out similar pixels.

    No amount of JPEG compression will alter the white balance/exposure of a photo - which in my mind is the primary difference displayed in these photos. Even if the Treo 600 shot raw images with no compression, the whites would still burn out, and the images would have color casts or be under exposed - because the sensor and the lens SUCKS!

    Amount of compression aside, those images are better.
  3. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #63  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    The simple fact remains that ALL the TREO 600 images of exactly the same subject matter were on the order of 20-30% smaller in file size, strongly suggesting that the JPEG compression factors/algorithm had been applied differently to the two cameras.
    Like i said previously, this is not necessarily the correct conclusion. Ether way, it's immaterial in this discussion of whether the 650 camera is better. The betterness of the camera/sensor is primarily in the light and color handling-- factors unaffected by compression.

    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    Thus, like you, I say "Hmmm...maybe they're about the same in what we call "good lighting for the 600" conditions".
    Like I said, who cares? The T650 camera is better because it can produce a decent picture in a wider range of lighting conditions. End of story.
    Last edited by sbono13; 11/01/2004 at 05:57 PM.
  4. #64  
    Lest we forget what the original of this subthread said:

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

    That is, something's wrong with the comparison.
  5. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #65  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    That is, something's wrong with the comparison.
    But there isn't anything wrong with the comparison. Even IF you are right that the compression settings are not the same (and I'm not convinced that you are), they have no bearing on the things that stand out about the camera comparison-- the light- and color-handling, and thus, they do NOTHING to invalidate the comparison. You are bringing up a red herring.

    ("ad hominem attack" removed, in the interest of peaceful discourse).
    Last edited by sbono13; 11/01/2004 at 06:34 PM.
  6. #66  
    The indirect ad hominem attack, like all ad hominem attacks, fails completely to counterargue your point about the camera comparison.
  7. sbono13's Avatar
    Posts
    426 Posts
    Global Posts
    440 Global Posts
    #67  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    The indirect ad hominem attack, like all ad hominem attacks, fails completely to counterargue your point about the camera comparison.
    Hey, my points are valid and beyond reproach. The supplemental "attacks" are just for fun because you have such a way with words.

    No kidding.

    (Actually, a lot of kidding. Apologies if you are offended.)
  8. #68  
    Seldom,

    Your point about the compression being the reason for the image quality change is just plain wrong. I tried to explain that to you in my last post but you must have "skipped" over it.

    I would let the issue drop. You are fighting a fight in which you apparantly do not have a solid understanding of the facts. It seems like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
  9. #69  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo-mike
    Seldom,

    Your point about the compression being the reason for the image quality change is just plain wrong. I tried to explain that to you in my last post but you must have "skipped" over it.

    I would let the issue drop. You are fighting a fight in which you apparantly do not have a solid understanding of the facts. It seems like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
    I'd maintain he completely understands and is merely ignoring the facts to keep the argument going.
    He's a troll, ignore him, maybe he'll get bored and go away.
  10. #70  
    Quote Originally Posted by treo-mike
    Seldom,

    Your point about the compression being the reason for the image quality change is just plain wrong. I tried to explain that to you in my last post but you must have "skipped" over it.

    I would let the issue drop. You are fighting a fight in which you apparantly do not have a solid understanding of the facts. It seems like you are just arguing for the sake of arguing now.
    He rarely understands anything!!!!!!!!!!
  11. #71  
    Quote Originally Posted by Primate
    I'd maintain he completely understands and is merely ignoring the facts to keep the argument going.
    He's a troll, ignore him, maybe he'll get bored and go away.
    He always ingonres the facts. He a troll. I wish TreoCentral would do something about him.
  12. #72  
    Quote Originally Posted by BssinRVer
    He always ingonres the facts. He a troll. I wish TreoCentral would do something about him.
    Nazi.

    -- http://www.science.uva.nl/~mes/jargon/g/godwinslaw.html
  13. #73  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    Your so creative SOB, I mean SV.
  14. #74  
    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.
    I sure don't. Edges out of focus. Strong barrel distortion. Poor colors. Terrible contrast. QSet definitely helps but the pictures are still awful even in bright light. I wonder if the 650's improved lens can be installed in the 600? If not, I would be more tempted to get a 650 if there was a special upgrade price for it--fat chance but I can dream! I would actually use the camera quite a bit if it was better.
  15. #75  
    Quote Originally Posted by SeldomVisitor
    I actually enjoy reading SV's diatribes because he does bring up good points. Entertaining and amusing at times. There are negative people out there, and that's what the makes the world go round. It would be horribly boring if everybody agreed with each other. I for one encourage individuality.

    Here's a quote from your link:
    "whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress"

    You didn't inadvertently imply that you concede, did you?
    Palm III > Palm V > Palm Vx > (Sprint) Kyo 6035 > Handspring Treo 300
    > Handspring Treo 600 Oct.'03 > Palm Treo 700P May'06 > Treo 755P Aug.'07 > Pre(-) June'09 + TouchPad July'11 LONG LIVE webOS!!!
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Posting Permissions