>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
Software, Firmware and Drivers
> C905 CamDriver Modded
Bookmark topic
DarKMaGiCiaN Posts: > 500
@jake20
Effect and ISO are the same
the only difference between them is
you have ISO manual setting
Auto
100
160
200
400
in stade of
the Effect list
--
Posted: 2009-09-25 22:48:23
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-09-25 22:48:23, DarKMaGiCiaN wrote:
@jake20
Effect and ISO are the same
the only difference between them is
you have ISO manual setting
Auto
100
160
200
400
in stade of
the Effect list
ahhh.. ok. i understand now.. thanks DM!
--
Posted: 2009-09-25 23:02:29
Edit :
Quote
It's ISO 200 and ISO 160
--
Posted: 2009-09-25 23:10:16
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-09-25 23:10:16, mikely_28 wrote:
It's ISO 200 and ISO 160
could you take the same pics, but on AUTO settings to compare? will they come out as nice?
--
Posted: 2009-09-25 23:20:46
Edit :
Quote
I'll try, but I don't promiss anything. I'm at countryside once a week. But I will take other photos with auto ISO.
--
Posted: 2009-09-25 23:28:39
Edit :
Quote
DM 3.5
--
Posted: 2009-09-26 01:06:05
Edit :
Quote
OK just one more thing about quantization table and than I will
stop mentioning it. First of al look in picture below:
http://www.mediafire.com/imag[....]p?quickkey=znjdydnommd&thumb=4
Do you find that picture look like it was taken with slow shutter speed?-I mean you probably see that grass seem blurred-but in some small parts it looks very sharp. But shutter speed was 1/250 and it shouldnt bee blurried. The strange thing is that --often when i use very qualillity quantization table (numbers close to 1) very fine details seem often blureed. I was wondering why this happens, especially because I expect if encoder dont have enough bits to encode fine details (because I rise quality of quantization table) picture should look like more blocked(like in divx).
But today i have found that some jpg endoders use JPG2000 COMPRESSION. Read more on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JPEG_2000
And because I have never seen any blocking artifact on c905 --only blurring artifacts(see example of picture up) I am now sure that C905 use JPG2000 COMPRESSION. And conclusion of this story is -that i have noticed
more blurred fine details with
very qualillity quantization matric before I know for this artifact and that this artifact is in conected with jpg encoder. For me that is no coincidence and I canot say for me that it was placebo effect because I didnt expect this sort of artifact and I thought i had shaky hands(which is for hig shutter speed almost imposible) . And also engineers in
are not probably so stupid to write somethig in camdrive that dont have any influence on picture or camera. OK C905 use variable quantization but this table in camdrive is tellin then upper limit. And if you delete q.table there is no limits for coeficients.
OK I have finished about quantization tables
.
Second question:
Supposing C905 use JPG2000 COMPRESSION. In Wikipedia is written that the main advantage offered by JPEG2000 is the significant flexibility of the codestream and it is clear from one study (
http://www.geocities.com/ee00224/btp2.html ) that JPEG2000 works better only when the image is highly compressed.
Is in this part of camdrive flexibility of the JPG2000 COMPRESSION defined?
F0 0A // JPEG_MAX_CODE_SIZE = 2800d
08 07 // JPEG_MIN_CODE_SIZE = 1800d
98 08 // JPEG_TARGET_CODE_SIZE = 2200d
Maybe if all CODE_SIZE was the same we get standard jpeg compression with constant codestream and therefore we get some blocking artifact instead of blurring artifacts. Maybe that would be apropriate ---becase we manage to get 6,5MB pictures with C905 and with low compresion-- standard jpeg compession is more suitable. Maybe, maybe
Has anybody tried to use same min,max,target CODE_SIZE?
I hope you understand my not the best english
[ This Message was edited by: igica11 on 2009-09-26 02:10 ]
--
Posted: 2009-09-26 01:51:43
Edit :
Quote
@anouk82
wow, those last two pics are
AMAZING!
what settings did you use for these?
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2009-09-26 01:34 ]
--
Posted: 2009-09-26 02:31:26
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-09-26 02:31:26, jake20 wrote:
@anouk82
wow, those last two pics are
AMAZING!
what settings did you use for these?
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2009-09-26 01:34 ]
colour correcion+ev -7
--
Posted: 2009-09-26 02:35:47
Edit :
Quote
On 2009-09-26 02:35:47, anouk82 wrote:
On 2009-09-26 02:31:26, jake20 wrote:
@anouk82
wow, those last two pics are
AMAZING!
what settings did you use for these?
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2009-09-26 01:34 ]
colour correcion+ev -7
How did U set ev value to -7? Where is that function?
--
Posted: 2009-09-26 10:11:10
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
