Results 1 to 19 of 19
  1. gfc
    gfc is offline
    gfc's Avatar
    Posts
    4 Posts
       #1  
    Interesting comparrison at

    theregister.co.uk/2009/06/25/cameraphone_faceoff
  2. urkel's Avatar
    Posts
    944 Posts
    Global Posts
    946 Global Posts
    #2  
    Nice article. One major issue i've had with the Pre vs my old iphone is that the Pre color pallette seemed to be consistently off so the article at least lets me feel like i'm not alone. It's still a decent outdoor camera, but with cell makers starting to pay more attention to cameras then our expectations should be more demanding.

    Anyway, I used to use the iPhone camera to take GPS marker photos when going around with the DSLR. It makes it easy to location tag the "good" photos. im still trying to figure what the pre does different in GPS and meta tagging because something seems off for me still.
  3. #3  
    I pulled out my Pre the other day to take a picture and I got...

    "You have a touch screen camera! Cool!"

    Made me laugh.

    I am very impressed with the camera when it has enough light. The flash works enough to get a picture but there will still be noise.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  4. #4  
    The photographer in me noticed that there are a few things that bugged me about the pre camera. The author of the article kept praising the Pre's camera for it's sharpness compared to the other cameras, however to me it appeared to be too sharp. What seems to be happening is post processing, and it looks like a sharpening enhancement is being applied to the image. Look at the examples and see how harsh fine lines and edges are, and notice the halo effect around edges of certain objects, almost a subtle glow. Look at things like the grass too, and tell me it doesn't look like it could be a painting? To me, it looks like the phone is enhancing the image, when it really shouldn't have to, what do you think?

    If you look at the iphone 3GS shots, the pictures have a more natural quality to them, and the details aren't exaggerated like they are in the pre. The pre takes some nice pictures, but it really doesn't need all the processing it seems to be applying.

    I also agree about the white balance shifting, and the color tonality. I've taken outdoor shots like that and I don't want a purple sky, I want a nice blue sky. I like saturation, and the phone seems to be putting out mildly less saturated images than the competition.

    Some of this could be adjusted to taste, if they opened up some options with the camera for adjusting perceived sharpness, saturation, manual color balance, heck lets go further, give me f-stop and shutter speed control while you are at it.

    It's kind of silly to expect miracles with a 3MP cameraphone, but as consolidation of devices we carry continues to occur, I put more value in doing more with less. My hope is Palm takes things like this into consideration as they mature the Pre.
  5. wp746911's Avatar
    Posts
    69 Posts
    Global Posts
    71 Global Posts
    #5  
    dunno- my pre takes nice pictures (reasonable in focus, etc) that I can email or send effortlessly to anyone. That's what a camera phone should do-I'm very pleased with it.
  6. #6  
    Quote Originally Posted by wp746911 View Post
    dunno- my pre takes nice pictures (reasonable in focus, etc) that I can email or send effortlessly to anyone. That's what a camera phone should do-I'm very pleased with it.
    yup , im with you
  7. urkel's Avatar
    Posts
    944 Posts
    Global Posts
    946 Global Posts
    #7  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cmdr Grunt View Post
    The photographer in me noticed that there are a few things that bugged me about the pre camera. The author of the article kept praising the Pre's camera for it's sharpness compared to the other cameras, however to me it appeared to be too sharp. ... To me, it looks like the phone is enhancing the image, when it really shouldn't have to, what do you think?
    Yeah, I think that's exactly what's been annoying me about the Pre camera. Theyre just cranking sharpness a bit high and it's very unnatural.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cmdr Grunt View Post
    The pre takes some nice pictures, but it really doesn't need all the processing it seems to be applying.

    I also agree about the white balance shifting, and the color tonality. I've taken outdoor shots like that and I don't want a purple sky, I want a nice blue sky. I like saturation, and the phone seems to be putting out mildly less saturated images than the competition.
    I want to point out that I'm not demanding DSLR quality out of a cellphone. I'm just posting a few comparison shots I took at Disneyland to point out the saturation and sharpness issues that CAN be fixed with a little tweaking from Palm.

    Disneyland Castle
    Nikon D90 (This is a very accurate to what the day looked like. 75degrees and perfect.)

    iPhone 3G (A bit washed out but colors are accurate)

    Palm Pre (Oversaturated. And I'm fairly sure the sky wasn't PURPLE!)


    Minnie Mouse Statue
    Nikon D90 (Bright and Sunny California Weather)

    Palm Pre (Again with that Purple Sky!)


    Again, without comparison shots then the Pre pictures aren't worth complaining over. BUT, if settings can be adjusted then why not get the best pictures we can out of these things.
    Last edited by Urkel; 06/26/2009 at 12:50 PM.
  8. packfanlv's Avatar
    Posts
    40 Posts
    Global Posts
    48 Global Posts
    #8  
    I like the camera on the Pre, but the images seem too dark for my taste. With that said, this is the first phone that I have had where you can take any sort of a decent picture so I am complaining. Hopefully they will update the camera app with some more customizations to help the photos look a bit more realistic. Thanks for the comparison shots!
  9. Edge767's Avatar
    Posts
    98 Posts
    Global Posts
    355 Global Posts
    #9  
    Indoor image with my Pre this week in California:



    Outdoor image with my Pre this week in California:



    Indoor low-light photo with my Pre (used built-in flash):



    I think it's pretty decent for outdoors photos, but obviously no match for my D200 or my D50. Indoors it suffers a bit, but passable. I think the key is to use the Pre's camera for what it is best used for: picture mail, posting photos to sites like Facebook, etc. I used my D200 on my trip for the pictures I wanted to print and used the Pre to post photos of my trip to Facebook so my kids and friends could follow along with us. It worked out extremely well. I just wish I could have added captions to the photos as I uploaded them instead of afterward.
  10. #10  
    For me, a cameraphone is for purely spontaneous shots, that is, shots where all I care about is capturing the moment. I don't care so much about color balance and such niceties, but rather just that I get the shot off.

    And this is where I love the Pre's camera: as long as the software's running (and of course, it's trivial to just open it and leave it open) then the Pre takes nearly instantaneous pictures. Faster than any other cameraphone I've ever used, hands down. And it cycles quickly--I can get shots off faster than I can with my Canon point-and-shoot.

    The best thing is, if the sharpening is being done in software, then Palm can fix that. Same thing with the color balance. So, we can reasonably look for some improvements.
    Treo 600 > Treo 650 > HTC Mogul (*****!) > HTC Touch Pro (***** squared!) > PRE! > Epic
  11. #11  
    Here are the images again with tweaked color curves in Photoshop.





    Last edited by NickDG; 06/26/2009 at 03:45 PM.
    Palm Vx -> Treo 600 -> Treo 700p -> Centro -> Pre (Launch Phone 06/06/09) -> AT&T Pre Plus with Sprint EVDO swap -> Samsung Epic 4G w/ Froyo
  12. Leke's Avatar
    Posts
    597 Posts
    Global Posts
    603 Global Posts
    #12  
    I'm sorry but the pre has a very nice camera. Anything beyond that you might as well use a DSLR camera.
  13. urkel's Avatar
    Posts
    944 Posts
    Global Posts
    946 Global Posts
    #13  
    Quote Originally Posted by wynand32 View Post
    And this is where I love the Pre's camera: as long as the software's running (and of course, it's trivial to just open it and leave it open) then the Pre takes nearly instantaneous pictures.
    It seems like the camera goes to standby when not in use, but when we tested our Pres at Disney then my phone (w/camera in standby) was down to 20% in a few hours and her Pre (shutting app) was still at 60%.

    BTW. For those who may not know:
    - The spacebar acts as a shutter button
    - Turn off the shutter sound by putting phone in vibrate mode
  14. urkel's Avatar
    Posts
    944 Posts
    Global Posts
    946 Global Posts
    #14  
    Quote Originally Posted by Leke View Post
    I'm sorry but the pre has a very nice camera. Anything beyond that you might as well use a DSLR camera.
    That's not necessarily true anymore. There's a big shift in camera quality coming to cellphones. And it makes sense because the best camera is the one you have on you.

    Casio, Samsung and Nokia each have a pretty good cameraphones coming out and I was really surprised at the quality of the iPhone 3GS photos. Autofocus makes a big difference so hopefully they bring it to the Pre next gen.
    Flickr: Andy Ihnatko's 3GS Photo Test
  15. Gompers's Avatar
    Posts
    124 Posts
    Global Posts
    128 Global Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cmdr Grunt View Post
    The photographer in me noticed that there are a few things that bugged me about the pre camera. The author of the article kept praising the Pre's camera for it's sharpness compared to the other cameras, however to me it appeared to be too sharp. What seems to be happening is post processing, and it looks like a sharpening enhancement is being applied to the image. Look at the examples and see how harsh fine lines and edges are, and notice the halo effect around edges of certain objects, almost a subtle glow. Look at things like the grass too, and tell me it doesn't look like it could be a painting? To me, it looks like the phone is enhancing the image, when it really shouldn't have to, what do you think?

    If you look at the iphone 3GS shots, the pictures have a more natural quality to them, and the details aren't exaggerated like they are in the pre. The pre takes some nice pictures, but it really doesn't need all the processing it seems to be applying.

    I also agree about the white balance shifting, and the color tonality. I've taken outdoor shots like that and I don't want a purple sky, I want a nice blue sky. I like saturation, and the phone seems to be putting out mildly less saturated images than the competition.

    Some of this could be adjusted to taste, if they opened up some options with the camera for adjusting perceived sharpness, saturation, manual color balance, heck lets go further, give me f-stop and shutter speed control while you are at it.

    It's kind of silly to expect miracles with a 3MP cameraphone, but as consolidation of devices we carry continues to occur, I put more value in doing more with less. My hope is Palm takes things like this into consideration as they mature the Pre.
    I'd love to have a shutter speed and white-balance/color curve control, but there's no point in an aperture control on a fixed-aperture camera. Perhaps a Shutter speed/ISO control would be handy though.

    I'd like to be able to take raw images. I don't expect miracles from a camera phone, but I'd like to be able to wring the most out of it in post-processing.

    All-in-all, the review is spot on. If you're wanting to take pictures, get a camera. A camera phone is ok for some, spontaneous things, but it's no replacement for a real camera.
  16. wicketr's Avatar
    Posts
    232 Posts
    Global Posts
    249 Global Posts
    #16  
    Cellphone cameras will never work great indoors. The sensor inside them just can't compare to that of a DSLR or even a compact camera. There's not enough room to put a 2" * 2" sensor.

    Think of it like owls and the fact that they can see much, much better at night. Why? Because they have huge eyes that allow alot of light to enter the pupil and hit their large retina. Humans eyes are smaller and in darkness we just can't see enough.

    A cameraphones lens and sensor is tiny. Little light can enter and it hits a small sensor. So if you want to take a night photo or a photo indoors with your cameraphone, you best have the object within close range of the flash, otherwise the camera won't pick it up well or at all.

    The number of "megapixels" is only half the equation.
  17. #17  
    The article summed it up perfected...if you want to take great photos, get a real camera. A digital camera I bought 6 years ago still takes better photos than any phone camera I have used since. Most cellphone manufacturers have been guilty of piling on megapixels as a marketing gimmick rather than actually improving camera quality. Palm and Apple seem to be on the right track. The Pre could use a software update to fix white balance and color tones and the 3GS needs to be a tad bit sharper.
  18. twigg's Avatar
    Posts
    50 Posts
    Global Posts
    239 Global Posts
    #18  
    My iPhone 3GS sucks indoors. I want flash damn it!
  19. #19  
    Lol. I have colorblindness issues (I see some colors a little off) so I'm good with the Pre's weird color pics.

Posting Permissions