Sony Ericsson / Sony : Software, Firmware and Drivers : C905 Cybershot Xperience v 7.5
>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
Software, Firmware and Drivers
> C905 Cybershot Xperience v 7.5
Bookmark topic
very good
--
Posted: 2010-07-16 19:39:38
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-07-16 19:36:34, jake20 wrote:
amazing!
get ready Witchking, all of the copycats are going to come out now to steal your work
[ This Message was edited by: jake20 on 2010-07-16 18:36 ]
But we all know who made it possible FIRST and I'm sure we'd all put someone right if they claimed it was their work.
@ Witchking
Can you post the full ORIGINAL size photos of the three.
[ This Message was edited by: riksilvers on 2010-07-16 18:54 ]
--
Posted: 2010-07-16 19:50:39
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-07-16 18:59:09, witchking wrote:
@ Flori
You can compare those photos by seeing them in their full ORIGINAL size and checking the details and noise level.
I do not recommend reducing compression beyond 1.2 MBs fpor 3 MP pics as it never showed visible differences after it.
Thanks.
As you maybe know I'm making a Cybershot Camdriver for the W705...
I don't use any compression. I've removed that code and I've increased the buffer size from 1472KB to 2200KB, but that's off topic in this thread.
By the way, great work.
--
Posted: 2010-07-16 20:55:06
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-07-16 18:59:09, witchking wrote:
@ Flori
You can compare those photos by seeing them in their full ORIGINAL size and checking the details and noise level.
I do not recommend reducing compression beyond 1.2 MBs fpor 3 MP pics as it never showed visible differences after it.
--------
Guys, it's time to announce a feature never made in any camera before
It's named Virtual HDR.
I've been working for it for a long time, and it's still improving
I'm trying to make it as close to real HDR as can be done.
With Virtual HDR, all you need to get an HDR-like image is to point and shoot
No need to merge pictures by PC.
Currently, after a lot of testing, i could increase the exposure of all parts of the picture to the following level.
As it can be seen, in a strong bright sky, the auto mode does not expose it properly.
True HDR does it pretty well, VDR is quite close.
please note, VDR is still not final and will be further improved before being released.
awesome
--
Posted: 2010-07-16 23:07:18
Edit :
Quote
OMG! I need glass of cold water. I can't breath, thats awesome, really. Witchking, I've said this before, you're true KING, there's only one
--
Posted: 2010-07-16 23:43:26
Edit :
Quote
OH my Allah.Great work witchking Bhai.
--
Posted: 2010-07-17 09:03:16
Edit :
Quote
witchking is brinking revolution to mobile photography with HDR camdriver...God bless you for your efforts,dude...
--
Posted: 2010-07-17 12:46:24
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-07-16 20:55:06, Flori wrote:
On 2010-07-16 18:59:09, witchking wrote:
@ Flori
You can compare those photos by seeing them in their full ORIGINAL size and checking the details and noise level.
I do not recommend reducing compression beyond 1.2 MBs fpor 3 MP pics as it never showed visible differences after it.
Thanks.
As you maybe know I'm making a Cybershot Camdriver for the W705...
I don't use any compression. I've removed that code and I've increased the buffer size from 1472KB to 2200KB, but that's off topic in this thread.
By the way, great work.
I looked a bit into witchkings driver and found out, that he did not changed the 8MP buffer size (def. 2800k).
An older camdriver i've seen had 3500k here. Will it have any notiveable impact on picture quality if we raise the buffer size "cam_ss_jpeg_buf_size_7 = 2BC000; // 2800 KB buffer for 3264x2448 SS" ??
Or does leaving out the amounts for "JPEG_MAX_CODE_SIZE" (and the other entries) the job of achieving max detail?
I compared my c905 defailt pics with some other cams and it DOES too much compression (or whatever)! Many details are lost on trees or lawn.
[ This Message was edited by: lightangel on 2010-07-19 04:19 ]
--
Posted: 2010-07-19 05:18:06
Edit :
Quote
On 2010-07-19 05:18:06, lightangel wrote:
On 2010-07-16 20:55:06, Flori wrote:
On 2010-07-16 18:59:09, witchking wrote:
@ Flori
You can compare those photos by seeing them in their full ORIGINAL size and checking the details and noise level.
I do not recommend reducing compression beyond 1.2 MBs fpor 3 MP pics as it never showed visible differences after it.
Thanks.
As you maybe know I'm making a Cybershot Camdriver for the W705...
I don't use any compression. I've removed that code and I've increased the buffer size from 1472KB to 2200KB, but that's off topic in this thread.
By the way, great work.
I looked a bit into witchkings driver and found out, that he did not changed the 8MP buffer size (def. 2800k).
An older camdriver i've seen had 3500k here. Will it have any notiveable impact on picture quality if we raise the buffer size "cam_ss_jpeg_buf_size_7 = 2BC000; // 2800 KB buffer for 3264x2448 SS" ??
Or does leaving out the amounts for "JPEG_MAX_CODE_SIZE" (and the other entries) the job of achieving max detail?
I compared my c905 defailt pics with some other cams and it DOES too much compression (or whatever)! Many details are lost on trees or lawn.
[ This Message was edited by: lightangel on 2010-07-19 04:19 ]
agree
--
Posted: 2010-07-19 14:19:13
Edit :
Quote
If the detail isn't very good, it would/could help to increase the buffer size.
--
Posted: 2010-07-19 15:22:10
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
