Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 21 to 34 of 34
  1. Riebs's Avatar
    Posts
    149 Posts
    Global Posts
    169 Global Posts
    #21  
    Are you serious? 100%?

    Right...because who doesn't buy a cell phone to print 21 X 28 3 megapixel pictures?
    My Evolution
    Palm Pilot
    Palm V
    Clie N760C
    Treo 650
    Centro
    Pre
  2. #22  
    To respond to an earlier comment, if you want good photos, don't rely on your cellphone camera. You might get a good snapshot but that's about it. There are simply too many physical limitations as to why it won't happen anytime soon.

    As for blurriness, there are a host of factors at play. The first is that any "camera lens" that gets thrust into a pants pocket, gets touched with bare fingers and otherwise looks as crummy as your eye does when you wake up in the morning isn't exactly conducive to good, clear picture taking. Go ask a professional photog what he thinks about dust and grime on his glass. The second, probably more pertinent factor, is that you don't have a physical shutter. No physical shutter means you are relying on software only for shutter speed. That means motion blur and motion blur means crap pics.


    Another commenter asked why manufacturers market the number of megapixels if they're not that important. Because most folks think the measure of a camera is how many MPs it has. Truth be told, the number of MPs has very little to do with the quality of a picture once you're talking 3 MPs and up.

    In my opinion, the pictures the OP posted were about as good as I would expect from the Pre's camera. I daresay they even looked decent so long as you're not going to be printing them up in a poster-size format.
  3. nhavar's Avatar
    Posts
    285 Posts
    Global Posts
    293 Global Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by DanPLC View Post
    I agree the pics from the camera are pretty bad. My digital camera is 3 MP and the difference between it and the Pre are night and day. The Pre's pictures almost all the time come out blurry. I hope a future OS update improves this. It would be nice to have a decent 3 MP camera at my disposal at all times.
    The biggest difference between the Pre and your 3 MP camera is 1) the lens and 2) focus

    The Pre camera has a fixed focus and the same cheap *** lens that 99% of other cell phone cameras have. That's the main problem with camera phones. The iPhone has an adjustable lens with autofocus but it's still extremely limited in its range compared to even a cheap dedicated camera. Phones just don't have the room, nor can they normally justify the expense of a decent lens. So instead they use software to compensate and create pictures that look just good enough for display on your phone or on a social networking site where everyone else has pictures just as crappy as yours if not much much worse.

    If you want a great camera that also happens to be a cell phone
    Samsung Innov8 Cell Phone reviews - CNET Reviews

    or see if you can find some wacky attachment like this



    The Pre camera is a huge upgrade over my previous cell phone cameras. It's quick, very little blur during action shots, has good depth of field, has a flash for close pictures in low light, cannot complain.
  4. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by mojuice View Post
    Then why market higher MP as a selling point? In the end the pics will be reduced in size to make the quality decent. I would be happy with 1 or 2 megapixels if it meant no blur.
    They market higher MP as a selling point because the unwashed masses correlate # of pixels with quality and fall for it.




    Quote Originally Posted by mojuice View Post
    No one's saying they want a DSLR from the phone. Are non-blurry pictures at native resolution too much to ask for?
    Native resolution, you say?

    Considering 3MP is 20481536 pixels, you can't even view it 100% on a typical HDTV.

    I do a bit of photography as an expensive hobby slash occasional side job and I shoot at 10.1 and 12 megapixels depending on my camera. The extra megapixels really only serve to give me sufficient room for cropping and processing (like sharpening) as I don't think I've ever had to use a shot at 100% for anything. For prints, an 8x10 at 300 dpi is only 2400x3000 or 7.2 megapixel, and frankly 300 dpi is a bit overkill when the difference between it and 200 dpi damn near requires a magnifying glass. An 8x10 print at 200 dpi is only 3.2 megapixel, so all the advertising hype in the world is meaningless to me.

    In fact, whenever a new camera is announced I am interested in, one of the first things I look at is the camera's pixel density. This is far more important to me-- all other things equal, the camera with the greater pixel density will have less noise in lower light due to bigger pixels.

    So considering nobody realistically will be doing 8x10 prints off the Pre's photos, 3 MP is more than adequate to produce great photos in the medium it is aimed at (1600x1200 and under).
  5. tarhead's Avatar
    Posts
    183 Posts
    Global Posts
    184 Global Posts
    #25  
    my camera has 7mp - and the difference between my pics and the 3mp pics will make you reconsider your choice in cameras (I can blow up to poster size with no sacrifice in quality) - which is why this thread seems a little confunkiating to my little mind. It is truly just a phone folks - a phone with the only camera you will ever get in it - enjoy what it can do & if you want more either hunt for a phone with the greatest resolution. Or simply use the phone with full knowledge of it's limitations.
  6. tarhead's Avatar
    Posts
    183 Posts
    Global Posts
    184 Global Posts
    #26  
    Oops! Almost forgot! In light of the fact that the camera in your phone is the camera in your phone + and you don't like the camera in your phone, yes, your camera in your phone sucks...
  7. Gompers's Avatar
    Posts
    124 Posts
    Global Posts
    128 Global Posts
    #27  
    Quote Originally Posted by Treotacular View Post
    To respond to an earlier comment, if you want good photos, don't rely on your cellphone camera. You might get a good snapshot but that's about it. There are simply too many physical limitations as to why it won't happen anytime soon.

    As for blurriness, there are a host of factors at play. The first is that any "camera lens" that gets thrust into a pants pocket, gets touched with bare fingers and otherwise looks as crummy as your eye does when you wake up in the morning isn't exactly conducive to good, clear picture taking. Go ask a professional photog what he thinks about dust and grime on his glass. The second, probably more pertinent factor, is that you don't have a physical shutter. No physical shutter means you are relying on software only for shutter speed. That means motion blur and motion blur means crap pics.


    Another commenter asked why manufacturers market the number of megapixels if they're not that important. Because most folks think the measure of a camera is how many MPs it has. Truth be told, the number of MPs has very little to do with the quality of a picture once you're talking 3 MPs and up.

    In my opinion, the pictures the OP posted were about as good as I would expect from the Pre's camera. I daresay they even looked decent so long as you're not going to be printing them up in a poster-size format.
    The VAST majority of cameras (even some DSLRs) have "software shutters".

    And dust/grime on a glass MAY make a difference, but it very well might not either, depending on how far away your subject is (the hyperfocal distance). It's not going to do you any favors, but it's probably not going to hurt that much either.

    Quote Originally Posted by nhavar View Post
    The biggest difference between the Pre and your 3 MP camera is 1) the lens and 2) focus

    The Pre camera has a fixed focus and the same cheap *** lens that 99% of other cell phone cameras have. That's the main problem with camera phones. The iPhone has an adjustable lens with autofocus but it's still extremely limited in its range compared to even a cheap dedicated camera. Phones just don't have the room, nor can they normally justify the expense of a decent lens. So instead they use software to compensate and create pictures that look just good enough for display on your phone or on a social networking site where everyone else has pictures just as crappy as yours if not much much worse.

    If you want a great camera that also happens to be a cell phone
    reviews.cnet.com/cell-phones/samsung-innov8/4505-6454_7-33232668-2.html?tag=mncol;txt

    or see if you can find some wacky attachment like this

    popgadget.net/images/MobilePhoneTelescopeW550i_640.jpg

    The Pre camera is a huge upgrade over my previous cell phone cameras. It's quick, very little blur during action shots, has good depth of field, has a flash for close pictures in low light, cannot complain.
    The focus thing just means that the aperature of the lens can be larger, which allows you to have more light hitting the sensor, which means that you can take better pictures in low light. That's ALL it does (though it MAY help with macro photography a bit, depending on how it's designed).

    The aperture in camera phones is designed to have a very deep field of view so that you don't have to focus (generally speaking).

    Quote Originally Posted by hypocaffeinemia View Post
    They market higher MP as a selling point because the unwashed masses correlate # of pixels with quality and fall for it.






    Native resolution, you say?

    Considering 3MP is 20481536 pixels, you can't even view it 100% on a typical HDTV.

    I do a bit of photography as an expensive hobby slash occasional side job and I shoot at 10.1 and 12 megapixels depending on my camera. The extra megapixels really only serve to give me sufficient room for cropping and processing (like sharpening) as I don't think I've ever had to use a shot at 100% for anything. For prints, an 8x10 at 300 dpi is only 2400x3000 or 7.2 megapixel, and frankly 300 dpi is a bit overkill when the difference between it and 200 dpi damn near requires a magnifying glass. An 8x10 print at 200 dpi is only 3.2 megapixel, so all the advertising hype in the world is meaningless to me.

    In fact, whenever a new camera is announced I am interested in, one of the first things I look at is the camera's pixel density. This is far more important to me-- all other things equal, the camera with the greater pixel density will have less noise in lower light due to bigger pixels.

    So considering nobody realistically will be doing 8x10 prints off the Pre's photos, 3 MP is more than adequate to produce great photos in the medium it is aimed at (1600x1200 and under).
    I agree with everything you say, except the pixel density bit. The sensor size on a 35mm DSLR is generally one of 3 sizes (1.6 crop, 1.3 crop or full frame). So, all else being equal, pixel density is directly proportional to pixel count. Greater pixel density necessitates smaller pixels. Basically, more megapixels == greater pixel density == (generally speaking) more noise.
  8. KJ78's Avatar
    Posts
    838 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,113 Global Posts
    #28  
    Quote Originally Posted by mojuice View Post
    Then why market higher MP as a selling point?
    Because they can. Its easy to say "my camera has more MP than yours" and claim it better. And it is, to a point. Its like how car companies advertise horsepower when there is no way to use it on the street, or how pc manufacturers sell based on cpu mhz/ghz, even though thats an almost worthless indicator of performance.
  9. #29  
    Quote Originally Posted by rc46 View Post
    All cell phone cameras have a sensor the size of a nail head and they all have image quality worse than the cheapest p&s camera. If you have an eye for photography you will never want to use a cell phone camera.
    Never is a strong word. An OK 3 MP shot from a Phone camera is better than a missed perfect 6-8 MP shot from one of my DSLRs sitting at home.

    Quote Originally Posted by KJ78 View Post
    Because they can. Its easy to say "my camera has more MP than yours" and claim it better. And it is, to a point. Its like how car companies advertise horsepower when there is no way to use it on the street, or how pc manufacturers sell based on cpu mhz/ghz, even though thats an almost worthless indicator of performance.
    Yep. And more MP can actually make you photos look worse, if the sensors are the same size. Low light performance goes in the toilet as MP goes up, all other things equal. The amount of light available for each pixel just gets closer and closer to the noise floor.
  10.    #30  
    Wow, didn't expect this kind of response. Thanks for jumping in everyone.

    I guess my point would be basically this:
    Quote Originally Posted by mojuice View Post
    No one's saying they want a DSLR from the phone. Are non-blurry pictures at native resolution too much to ask for?
    And no, I don't to print or even view the entire image at native resolution, but as was also mentioned, the reason to take a larger pic than you need is that you can then crop out the parts you really wanted.

    On the Pre, once you crop out a piece at 100% it already looks horrible, at least when compared to the one previous phone camera I'm familiar with, the Centro.

    But anyway, I can live with it, and will look forward to future enhancements to the on-board image processing and camera settings.

    Thanks again everyone.
  11. #31  
    those pictures look ok to me.
  12. #32  
    OPs photos look great for a cell phone. Probably not as good as the cell phones built around a digital camera - but that is to be expected. However, I do feel that it is good enough to warrant leaving my point and shoot home. The ability to snap a shot (even in the dark) and share the photos via e-mail and mms is king. When quality does count - I bring the right gear. My SLRs and my point and shoot. I won't be caught dead using a cell phone --- ANY cell phone when people are depending on me to capture their once in a lifetime moments. (Weddings, grads, etc)

    Palm doesn't tout the camera as the Pre's reason for living. However is it quite decent - you crybabies need to get over it.

    Check out the flickr pool:
    Flickr: Camera Finder: Palm: Centro
    Flickr: Camera Finder: Palm: Pre
    And a comparison of all palm phones

    These are pictures taken by your peers. Most of them don't care about you, this thread, or this forum. You all can judge the Pre against the OPs Centro and draw your own conclusions.

    Not my photo but I'm using it as an example: ... on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

    The Pre camera' strongest point is being able to capture details no matter what the lighting condition is. Keep that in mind when you go out - and if possible - disable your flash and only turn it on when you need it.
  13. #33  
    I agree with OP. Camera should be better.
  14. #34  
    Noise is not the problem, it is the resolution (all megapixels are not created equal)...that said, it takes a pretty good pic for a tiny cell. Never confuse yourself with the number of megapixels a camera has, it's a figure that amateur photographers focus on (excuse the pun) but doesn't have a lot to do with image quality.
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions