Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 43 of 43
  1. vimick's Avatar
    Posts
    45 Posts
    Global Posts
    52 Global Posts
    #41  
    yes i thought i was the only one who felt disappointed by the camera from the look of my thread:

    forums.precentral.net/palm-pre-tips-information-resources/216799-blurry-cam.html

    and it doesnt seem to be the case with other pre's. you check the thread mentioned in my thread a lot of the pre pictures simply look amazing with great detail.

    even after i transfer a picture to my computer and re-size to make it a better resolution it still looks subpar. (example , my pictures in my thread)
    Last edited by Vimick; 11/30/2009 at 02:37 PM.
  2. #42  
    Quote Originally Posted by Daemon View Post
    Nope. Most of the time comes in writing the image to the media.
    There's undoubtedly a dedicated jpeg compressor in the camera's
    hardware somewhere so it does that operation very quickly. Digital
    cameras that have raw uncompressed modes, can take several seconds
    to store each image. Same with reading the images in the photo
    app. The larger the file, the longer it takes to render.

    ian
    this is very true, and, i believe that the way images are compressed is one thing that allows for how quickly the pre can take photos

    I would like the option to use less compression and processing, at the expense of FPS.

    I like the pre's camera, but with some added settings for an enthusiast user, it could be even better, I think that is all the OP was saying.

    Ian, if you were to add one setting to the camera that you could customize, what would it be, why, and what effect do you think it would have/situation it would be useful?
    There are four lights.
  3. Daemon's Avatar
    Posts
    796 Posts
    Global Posts
    809 Global Posts
    #43  
    Quote Originally Posted by Vimick View Post
    forums.precentral.net/palm-pre-tips-information-resources/216799-blurry-cam.html

    and it doesnt seem to be the case with other pre's. you check the thread mentioned in my thread a lot of the pre pictures simply look amazing with great detail.
    You may notice that those that look good are *not* photos
    taken in low indoor mixed lighting (combinations of
    sun + incandescent + TV + florescent), taken too close to the subject,
    that forces the camera to use high gain and confused whitebalance settings.

    even after i transfer a picture to my computer and re-size to make it a better resolution it still looks subpar. (example , my pictures in my thread)
    I saw nothing in that thread worth taking a photo of.
    My digital still camera would have produced similar results
    with a little less ISO noise.

    Here's the thing. Some of the best photos every taken were captured
    with really cheap point and shoot cameras. Generally the beautiful
    photo-worthy scene simply exists on it's own, and the trick is to have a
    camera, any camera, available to capture it. If you take photos of
    random garbage in poor lighting conditions, you'll get a photo that's no
    better than the original. No camera will ever be as good as your
    eyes at adapting to low and mixed lighting conditions.

    ian
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions