>
New Topic
>
Reply<
Esato Forum Index
>
Sony Ericsson / Sony >
General
> K700i Picture Quality - Help Needed
Bookmark topic
Hi
Just got a K700i and when I take pictures with it they look really pixelated and of poor quality on the phone's display. I have the image settings set to 640x480, Fine and no effects. Is this normal behaviour, pictures on my V600 look great when viewing them on the phone.
I haven't got a cable yet for putting the pictures on the my PC (no BT on PC yet) so I don't know how they look actual size.
Any advice on this would be helpful, I did try searching but couldn't find anything relating to this particular problem. If this question has already been asked I apologise.
--
Posted: 2004-08-02 16:42:41
Edit :
Quote
There are tons of pictures taken with K700 in following thread. Compare and see for your self (Note! In low lighting condition, pictures may look very noisy).
http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=61289&14
--
Posted: 2004-08-02 17:37:25
Edit :
Quote
TheRealSpawn Posts: > 500
Its not "a problem" of the phone - its simply the downscaling from 640x480 to the lower resolution of the screen that pixelates it. This is quite normal. This will also happen if you for instance open a picture on your computermonitor which is larger than the resolution you are using on your screen - and the viewer downscale it.
When pictures are transfered to the pc they will look just fine.
For a non pixelated picture on your phone you need to crop it to the phones background resolution - 176x176
PS: the reason you propably didnt noticed as much pixelation on the V600 is because the images taken with the V600 vga camera are more blurred - not as sharp as the K700 camera pictures.
--
Posted: 2004-08-02 17:37:39
Edit :
Quote
This guy is OBVIOUSLY referring to the horrible noise that the phone camera produces under anything below medium-light conditions. His photos are going to look equally disgusting on his computer. The reason why he sees photos better on his V600 screen is because the V600 has a superior camera by far! It is well-known that the K700i has this problem with its camera and it is not fair to mislead this forum member into believing that he purchased a faulty unit.
--
Posted: 2004-08-02 18:58:23
Edit :
Quote
TheRealSpawn Posts: > 500
Since you OBVIOUSLY dont see well enough to notice - that noone in this thread has said anything what so ever to mislead the member into beleiving he bought a faulty unit - I'm not sure I would put to much confidence into your statement about the V600 camera being far superior to the camera of the K700
All other posters here made some friendly suggestions - but none really said anything about a faulty unit.
Agreed the k700 camera does need rather good lighting to make good shots - but having seen alot of pictures (also from the V500/V600) I cant really say I have seen that many pictures from the V600 camera looking really really good and sharp - atleast not far superior to the K700.
True it has less noise but thats mostly because its more blurred and colorfaded than the K700 which makes the noise dissapear - and with it detail and sharpness - I can use a blur filter and remove the noise (and the sharpness) from the K700 pictures also if I want to. Personally I find most of the K700 pictures better (sharper) than most of the Vxxx pictures but with variations of course.
People can judges themselves from this Vxxx picturethread:
http://www.howardforums.com/s[....]357798&perpage=15&pagenumber=1
and compare them to the pictures in this K700 picturethread:
http://www.esato.com/board/viewtopic.php?topic=61289&14
Heres an example of one of my K700 pictures:
--
Posted: 2004-08-02 20:12:33
Edit :
Quote
So in order to make the pics looks as good on my PC should I go for 160x120 then scale up on photoshop or stick with 320x240?
--
Posted: 2004-08-02 23:13:14
Edit :
Quote
No doubt. Moto VGA cams take much fuzzier pictures than SE. I believe this is caused by Moto post processing pictures to eliminate noise that usually appears.
Just a matter of taste what type of picture you like, a fuzzy one with less noise or a sharp one with little more noise.
[ This Message was edited by: Arne Anka on 2004-08-02 23:03 ]
--
Posted: 2004-08-03 00:02:20
Edit :
Quote
Sometimes it so happens that one doesn't "say" things directly but can "imply" them but indirectly. When someone says that his K700 pics don't look good, then he "obviously" took a picture at a low-level-light condition whereby it looks OK BEFORE you take the picture, but it develops all the noise AFTER you press the button! Looking at the SAVED photo it appears bad, and by telling him that it will look good if he transfers it to his PC-which won't-he will think that he has a faulty unit in hand.
I've always been a loyal SE-or Ericsson-fan but a 400 Euro "investment" will not make me blind enough as to refuse to recognize some apparent shortcomings.
This is a typical K700 photo under low-light conditions. I even removed some of the noise with Irfanview!
[ This Message was edited by: haki on 2004-08-02 23:27 ]
[ This Message was edited by: haki on 2004-08-02 23:29 ]
--
Posted: 2004-08-03 00:13:38
Edit :
Quote
TheRealSpawn Posts: > 500
#haki
Im definately not blind to the shortcomings either - Ive never said the camera was fantastic - on the contrary I usually allways try to tell people that they should not expect highqualitypictures from a mobile VGA cam - like from a normal digicam. Theres a world of difference in technology - and I totally agree that K700 does not take good low-light pictures. I might even agree that the V600 takes better lowlight pictures. But the thing is that mobile VGA cameras are simply not advanced enough to be good in all conditions - they can normally only be good in one condition - lenses, focus, lightmeassurements etc. are more or less set on a fixed setting - this can default be good under good lighting and poor under poor lighting - or good under poor lighting then bad under good lighting - or something in between where neither is really good. The V600 may be better under poor light but I beleive the K700 is better under good light.
And naturally it is a possibility that the first poster simply took some poor pictures in poor conditions and this will obviously look poor both on the phone and on the computer. But I figured that anyone can figure out that a poor picture looks poor everywhere and wouldent need me to explain that or wouldent assume they had a faulty unit by me not telling them so. Naturally If it had been obvious to me that the poster were simply talking about poor lowlight pictures I would not say they would look great on the PC - I think this is common sence. I can really only be held responsible for what I am saying - not for what people are implying or how they interpret things I do not say. I made no implication to, nor did I say anything about a faulty unit - if me not saying this interprets to a possible faulty unit - then I really dont know what to write
But let us spell it out then:
If you take a poor picture because of poor lighting - it will look just as bad on the pc as on the phone - your unit is not faulty because of this. It is just a poor picture because there was not light enough for the K700 to take a good picture - and the K700 needs light to take good pictures. If you take a picture and transfer it to the pc - and it looks good on the pc - but not so good on the phone - then the small distortion is caused by the downscaling and you should crop or resize your picture before sending it back to the phone. If you allways get very poor pictures both on the pc and on the phone no matter how good lighting you have when taking the picture - then you may have a faulty unit !
#jakester
Best camerapictures on the pc is taken with the VGA fine setting.
Best camerapictures on the phone is also taken with the VGA fine setting - then transfered to the pc - crop the important part of the image in Photoshop to 176x176pixels (or resize to 176x132 if you want the whole picture) - then transfer the picture back to the phone.
[ This Message was edited by: TheRealSpawn on 2004-08-03 00:05 ]
--
Posted: 2004-08-03 00:32:42
Edit :
Quote
...still, that creaky, squeaky, cheap, NXXXa 6230 took satisfactory pics under any-light conditions! And the Sharp GX-20 had an excellent camera by VGA standards! Slow, but good!
It appears that some manufacturers are doing a better job even within the VGA standards. Look at Siemens! Their SX-1 cannot take ANY photos under low light! Even after 4-5 firmware updates! Now they have come up with their new 65 series. I was playing with an M-65 a couple of hours ago and the damn thing was practically blind! People have been bitching about the SX-1 and eight months later Siemens incorporated the same non-existent camera technology in their new phones!
Anyway, let's hope that the 3.2 Megapixel techology, accompanied by a 3X optical zooming capability, that the Japanese have introduced in their mobile phones will soon appear on GSM units as well!
--
Posted: 2004-08-03 01:20:28
Edit :
Quote
New Topic
Reply
