Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 34
  1.    #1  
    I keep seeing posts and tweets about how great the Pre's camera is, and from what I've seen, I just don't get it. Yes, the image size is larger, but the 1.3mp camera on my Centro took much better pictures than I'm getting on my Pre, when each are viewed at 100% zoom.

    The Pre's images are not sharp at all, even in full sunlight. I'm not sure if it's the right technical term, but the pictures seem very "noisy" and the colors are splotchy and not even. At 100%, all of edges are already fuzzy, and zooming past that brings out the flaws even more.

    My Centro pics could handle magnification beyond 100% a lot better.

    So I'd appreciate it if someone could take a look at these and let me know if I got bad hardware or if that's how the images are supposed to be.

    http://imgur.com/tu64E.jpg

    http://imgur.com/8IBV9.jpg

    http://imgur.com/UPRHA.jpg

    And a shot from my Centro for comparison.

    http://is.gd/1iWOz

    Thanks
  2. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #2  
    Dude, you're killin' me. Did you just post that to rub it in?

    Honestly, the pictures have never really seemed that clear to me either. If it's a hardware thing, I have it too.
  3. groovy's Avatar
    Posts
    941 Posts
    Global Posts
    955 Global Posts
    #3  
    Check out this thread and see how your pics compare.

    http://forums.precentral.net/palm-pr...pics-here.html
  4.    #4  
    Quote Originally Posted by groovy View Post
    Check out this thread and see how your pics compare.

    http://forums.precentral.net/palm-pr...pics-here.html
    Yeah, ok, there weren't a lot of full size images there, but the ones that you could see the full size version mostly sucked too. This post is a good example http://forums.precentral.net/palm-pr...ml#post1678770

    They look great at 50% but the edges start to lose their crispness and get real grainy at native resolution.

    I guess I'm happy it's not just me, but it does feel like the extra image size over the Centro is a bit of a waste. I guess I can resize them all to 1280xwhatever and they'll look fine.
  5. #5  
    That looks really spotty, I havent noticed that on my pictures, unless theyr very very blown up, but i mean, it is still only 3.2 megs so thats expected.

    Maybe theres something wrong with your camera?

    Heres a link to a photo i took. (and like 60 others)

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/39589536@N05/3670471670/
  6. #6  
    The pre lacks auto focus and gives a somewhat ****ty flash that really isn't good for much as the power is low. Also like many aspects of the phone the software sharpening and focus leave much to be desired.
  7. #7  
    The 100% images on the pre aren't bad-- they've just had an extensive (too much in my opinion) amount of sharpening applied to them. It makes the images look amazing at 25%, but obviously the 100% images are rather dirty. It seems like it should be possible to modify the amount of processing done to images at some point in the future, but then again it's not like you'll be shooting RAW images to develop in lightroom/photoshop with this phone nor do I expect many people to be doing any significant printing.

    Let's face it-- 99% of all photos taken with the pre will be viewed either on the phone or sent to facebook, flickr, photobucket et al. in which case you'll never be viewing at 100% anyways.
  8. #8  
    For a phone camera, I think they are pretty good
    My Phone & My Wife's Phone Two Unlocked GSM Treo Pro's

  9. #9  
    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.
    Pilot 1000 -> Pilot 5000 ->Palm Pilot Professional -> HP 620LX -> TRG Pro -> Palm V -> Palm Vx -> Palm M505 -> Palm i705 -> Palm Tungsten|T -> Samsung i500 -> Treo 600->Treo 650 -> Treo 600-> Treo 700p ->Centro ->Treo 800w + Redfly C8n -> Palm Pre -> HP Touchpad
    R.I.P Palm 1996-2011
  10. #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by hypocaffeinemia View Post
    The 100% images on the pre aren't bad-- they've just had an extensive (too much in my opinion) amount of sharpening applied to them. It makes the images look amazing at 25%, but obviously the 100% images are rather dirty. It seems like it should be possible to modify the amount of processing done to images at some point in the future, but then again it's not like you'll be shooting RAW images to develop in lightroom/photoshop with this phone nor do I expect many people to be doing any significant printing.

    Let's face it-- 99% of all photos taken with the pre will be viewed either on the phone or sent to facebook, flickr, photobucket et al. in which case you'll never be viewing at 100% anyways.
    The image processing on the Pre does more than just sharpening (which I agree is too much). There also seems to be some noise filtering, and I'd bet there's some sort of color magic going on. The color on this phone, even on many indoor shots, is incredible. Never, ever, did I fail to get a red/orange tinged picture on my 755p. The Pre camera is significantly better than 755p and Instinct. But the processing is certainly optimized for viewing at something less than 100%. It would be really cool if we could adjust that at some point.

    I'd also like to point out that this image processing is happening UNBELIEVABLY FAST. There is very good potential here.
    Palm III-->Handspring Visor-->Sony Clie PEG-NR70-->no PDA -->Palm Treo 755p-->Palm Pre-->HP Veer
  11. #11  
    The camera isn't amazing, but its good for a phone. I'm still waiting for options in the camera app, such as image size, quality, etc. At least the basic ones would be nice to have...
  12. #12  
    I agree, they look like crap at 100%, I just resize them a little bit.
    Went from iPhone to Pre and love it!
  13. tarhead's Avatar
    Posts
    183 Posts
    Global Posts
    184 Global Posts
    #13  
    I use a kodak 712 for taking pictures. Not sure where the notion came from that phones are supposed to work better as cameras than phones. It works well enough when i'm walking around walmart & home depot - as I take pictures of sale prices to show the cashier. The grand canyon & family portraits only see my kodak. Camers are cameras and phones are phones. Although I am a little bent that I can't order a pizza with my kodak...
  14. #14  
    As mentioned earlier, don't confuse a cellphone camera with what you can get with even a basic P&S. Phone cameras are meant to quickly capture an image, be used by folks who want to update their social website, or send something that can be seen in another 2-3" phone screen in an instant message. Nobody is going to build a cellphone around a sensor found in either a DSLR or even a P&S, unless you don't mind lugging a brick with you.
  15. #15  
    No one's saying they want a DSLR from the phone. Are non-blurry pictures at native resolution too much to ask for?
  16. #16  
    Long as the pics look good on the phone or a site like flickr..who cares? I don't want more MP because the files generated are already a bear for the phone to share via MMS or email. Besides, anyone who followed cameras knows stuffing MP's into a sensor isn't a great thing and doesn't mean better pics.
  17. #17  
    Quote Originally Posted by cardfan View Post
    anyone who followed cameras knows stuffing MP's into a sensor isn't a great thing and doesn't mean better pics.
    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.
  18. #18  
    You guys are serious photographers - I looked at those pictures TWICE to figure out of this whole thread was a joke or not.

    Go by a Touch Pro, take pictures and then come back to these. The Pre's pictures look great to me - but I guess my expectations are low!
    It's not the strongest of the species that survives, nor the most intelligent, but the one most responsive to change” - Darwin
  19. #19  
    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.
  20. Gompers's Avatar
    Posts
    124 Posts
    Global Posts
    128 Global Posts
    #20  
    I have yet to see a cameraphone picture that wasn't complete and utter crap (either intentionally or otherwise). The Pre camera does a reasonable job for what it is, but pixel peeping a cameraphone photo will always be a painful experience. You've got a sensor the size of a nail behind a piece of "Glass" the size of a drop of water.

    I think it does a great job (though I wish I had the option to do the PP myself) for what it is.
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions