News Forum Phone database

> New Topic
> Reply
< Esato Forum Index > Sony Ericsson / Sony > Software, Firmware and Drivers > Video Recording and photo quality is poor in new Firmware Bookmark topic

Today im going to take a picture of the exact same place where i took one of my first K750i shots. It'll be a different time of day, but i'll see if it looks noticably worse. I doubt it will though.
--
Posted: 2005-07-01 13:00:45
Edit : Quote


Well filesize certanly depends on conditions and lot of other things when taking the pics just look at this shot its only 80Kb taken in Fine Mode



and the other two are with and without flash that without flash has double filesize



These are two shoots using R1J and R1L of course there are different amount of light etc but you can get an general idea. The filesize with R1j is actually less than that with R1L

R1A


R1L


As for the problem with over exposure I think you should use the Exposure Compensation it usally does the trick and its there for a reason. Look at the table in the pic with R1A its certanly over exposed.


[ This Message was edited by: Paulino2 on 2005-07-01 18:43 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-01 13:50:14
Edit : Quote


I know the exposurecompensation is there for a reason, I also know how to use it, my point was that I very seldom needed to use it on R1A, while on R1J it seems I need to use it all the time.

This does indicate that something has changed in the camerasoftwares ability to adapt correctly to lightconditions between version 3.8 and version 4.4




--
Posted: 2005-07-01 14:26:39
Edit : Quote


Well I havent noticed any big difference in that part form R1A to R1L but ussually white and direct sun light doesent go well togehter and when I got my K750i in may the sun wasnt as present and strong as it is now in middle of summer but I surely got overexposed pics in R1A also sorry to see that yours seem to have got more bad. Look at the two pics I posted the R1A overexposed table while the R1L isnt. One plus is that I seem to get less blur with new FW.
--
Posted: 2005-07-01 14:39:43
Edit : Quote


The coloradaption and exposure are defintaly better on your R1L picture than on your R1J picture.

I've only just updated to R1L, havent made any test pictures on that one yet, but will try.


--
Posted: 2005-07-01 14:45:50
Edit : Quote


can we just start spaming SE email about this issues!!!!!!! good idea!!!
--
Posted: 2005-07-01 14:50:55
Edit : Quote


Here are 2 shots I just made, first one is slightly overexposed, second used -0,7 exposurecompensation and it looks more like it should.




--
Posted: 2005-07-01 15:34:28
Edit : Quote


Well, as promised heres my comparison. I originally posted this picture in the post a K750i picture thread.

Picture taken 29/5/05, R1A firmware, 553kb:



Picture taken 1/7/05, R1J firmware, 405kb:



They were taken at a different time of the day, with different lighting. The one taken with R1A is slightly larger than the one taken with R1J.

I cannot really tell much difference in quality which, if there is a difference, could be explained from the different conditions, rather than the different firmware.

Pay particular attention to the horizon in the pictures. They're both sharp in both images.

Im still happy with the picture quality, since i seem to have no loss of quality with still images, but the picture file sizes have compressed a little more.

_________________
This message was posted from a desktop computer

[ This Message was edited by: etaab on 2005-07-02 00:09 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-02 01:08:10
Edit : Quote


#etaab

I think theres actually quite a bit difference in quality of these shots, the first being the best.

Sure, some can be accounted to different times of day, but never the less, the first one looks alot more natural in colors, while the second in comparison seems overexposed even if I take into account the different time of day. The road doesnt look naturall, to bright, so does the bricks up to the grass. And look at the white windows in the back, they are starting to burn out from overexposure even though they are far away. And look at the roof of the house in the middle, its almost getting white, Im sure its not like this really. Details in the grass are getting lost because of overexposure, much better grass in the first picture. I also find more compression noise in the second picture.

Second picture is not bad, but its just close to the point were it would begin to be bad, objects are close to the limit of breaking up.

First picture is definately better and more natural.



[ This Message was edited by: numb on 2005-07-02 00:44 ]
--
Posted: 2005-07-02 01:41:57
Edit : Quote


@numb and etaab: improper study. you cannot compare photos with different lighting conditions. look at the shadows: dawn/dusk vs. midday. "full on" lighting will wash out the colors.

*need 2 cameras, 2 diferent FW, same spot, same focus point, seltimer on. either way, difference should be barely perceptible (both excellent). video quality however..........
--
Posted: 2005-07-02 05:15:43
Edit : Quote

---

New Topic   Reply

Forum Index