For Those Of You With Concerns About The DNA's Camera I Offer This...
...This was posted in another forum regarding changes to the settings that seem to make a positive difference. I tried it and provisionally I can say there really does seem to be a considerable improvement.
>>>Change the resolution from widescreen to 4.3 and most of the problems are solved. Turn auto iso off [and I assume he meant use the lowest iso setting you can which would normally be 100] and use landscape scene and I get outstanding shots with my DNA.<<<
The Following User Says Thank You to PsychDoc For This Useful Post:
Here are some random pics I took with the two sets of settings.
Original settings (First) Settings suggested in this topic (Second)
I can't say I see a real big difference in quality. Then again, the cam quality isn't all that important to me so maybe my eye just isn't as distinguishing.
Last edited by WuBoy; January 3rd, 2013 at 02:03 PM.
Wow, those kind of suck. Seems like I get much better quality pics out of my Inc4G. Maybe it's just the photographer.
Eh, maybe. Like I said, I don't really care about the cam. I'm not trying to take professional level pics with a phone, so what it does is fine with me. That notwithstanding, there still doesn't seem to be much of a difference in pic quality with the new settings.
Here are some random pics I took with the two sets of settings.
Original settings (First) Settings suggested in this topic (Second)
I can't say I see a real big difference in quality. Then again, the cam quality isn't all that important to me so maybe my eye just isn't as distinguishing.
Interesting. It seems that there's a pretty dramatic improvement in white balance (with the "new" settings) but a very clear loss of clarity. and resolution. Weird.
The quality of the pictures have a lot to do with user control. In low light situations, you need to be very, very steady with the camera and combined with the long shutter speed, it's difficult to take a clear picture indoors. That, combined with poor noise control at 1600 ISO, you get grainy, noisy, and out of focus/blurry pictures.
To fully take advantage of the camera on the DNA, outdoors in the daylight is the best scenario to use the camera. The sunlight will allow the camera to shoot at fast shutter speeds, and low ISO settings meaning pictures will come out noise free and sharp because you're able to hand hold with faster shutter speed.
I don't know how other phones compare, but there's no real way around a small camera lens in terms of picture quality in low light settings. It's just impossible to get a DSLR image quality from a tiny lens.
What's the aperture rating of the lens on the DNA? The Inc4G has an f2.2 lens and it takes very good indoor pics without the flash. I thought the One series had an f2.0 lens, which would be even better. If this has an f2.0 lens, it should take very good indoor pics, even with a small sensor and lens.
EDIT: Seems like the DNA does have the f2.0 lens, and a BSI sensor. It should take as good, or better, indoor pics sans flash as any other phone out there. D-SLR quality it isn't, but very good nonetheless.
Last edited by hilmar2k; January 4th, 2013 at 03:47 PM.
Just for kicks, I decided to take a few pics with my DNA and my wife's Note 2. Both were taken with default settings and by the same person, so the differences can't be attributed to either of those.
DNA (First) Note2 (Second)
It's pretty clear the Note 2 cam is better. Well, no phone can be the best at everything right?
Dude CLEAN YOUR LENS on the DNA. Its very obvious thats what is causing the images to be blurry. Every time my pictures come out like that it's because my lens is dirty
The lens may be dirty, or maybe he never took the little plastic film off? Also, the DNA pics all looked zoomed in a bit. That can cause some serious blur.
Damn, I feel dumb. The guy put the case on my phone when I bought it. I never even thought to check to see if he took the plastic off the cam before he put the case on. Of course he didn't. So every pic I've taken so far was with that on. I guess that really goes to show you how much I care about pic quality. Anyway, for the earlier comparison purposes, here are better versions of the pics.
DNA (First) Note2 (Second)
I think the Note 2 cam might be a lil better, but it's not that big a difference IMO. Well, the color seems much better, but the DNA cam clearly takes more detailed pics. Also, just to clarify, I'm not zooming in with the DNA. I just naturally seems to capture things looking closer. I sat in the same place when I took all the pics. The DNA seemed to capture more. For instance look, at the ceiling in both of the fireplace pics. You can see the rough surface of the ceiling way better in the DNA pics than the Note 2. I'm sure you could zoom in with the Note 2 and see more detail, but like I said, the DNA gets that without zooming.
Last edited by WuBoy; January 4th, 2013 at 11:43 PM.
i think the dna looks better in first pics. its a complete toss up between the 2 in the end i think. both look very similar.
All of the pics are fine in my opinion, but the coloring is definitely truer to reality in the Note 2 pics. The DNA's pics are good, but everything seems slightly discolored in them.
"The guy put the case on my phone when I bought it. I never even thought to check to see if he took the plastic off the cam before he put the case on."
Yep, the same thing happened to me, that's why I suggested it as a possible reason your pics looked so bad. I remember being relieved when I realized the film was what was ruining my pics.
WuBoy you had me cracking up in this thread with the plastic still on, lol.
lol The worst part is I've taken a ton of pics and videos of my baby daughter for my parents who live about 8 hours away. All that time and it never occurred to me that the graininess was because of a plastic cover over the lens.
With regard to the 2nd pics (the indoor ones), I'm not sure the comparison is entirely accurate. If you look at the natural light from the window, there is considerably more in the second pic (look at the chair on the right). Without taking an opinion on which one is better, I think that would definitely introduce a variable.
With regard to the 2nd pics (the indoor ones), I'm not sure the comparison is entirely accurate. If you look at the natural light from the window, there is considerably more in the second pic (look at the chair on the right). Without taking an opinion on which one is better, I think that would definitely introduce a variable.
I see what you're talking about, but it's not a variable. I literally took the pics from the same spot one after the other. Whatever you see in the pics is a reflection of how they operate and not extra variables. It's not like I took the pics at different times of day or with the blinds closed for one and not the other.
I see what you're talking about, but it's not a variable. I literally took the pics from the same spot one after the other. Whatever you see in the pics is a reflection of how they operate and not extra variables. It's not like I took the pics at different times of day or with the blinds closed for one and not the other.
I was wondering about that. If that's the case the difference really is quite striking. That said, I think they both take great pics. Thanks for posting them.
In the Last pictures, why is the sunlight on the chair on the right for the DNA, but on the Chair on the Left for the Note 2 if they are closely spaced in time?
In the Last pictures, why is the sunlight on the chair on the right for the DNA, but on the Chair on the Left for the Note 2 if they are closely spaced in time?
I'm not sure what you're seeing. The light shows up on different chairs in the two pics but based on the angle it's consistent. Only thing I can think of is that clouds were passing in front of the sun while I was taking the pics. It was somewhat overcast yesterday.
All it takes is a cloud to be there one second and gone the next, this has nothing to do with angle. Or.....At first it looked like the data shows them being taken 12 seconds apart at 3:58:17 for the Note 2 and 3:58:28 for the DNA. But then I noticed something. The Note 2 has an auto stamp in the naming convention and that is Jan. 5th as opposed to the Jan. 7th for picture data. This turns out to be when they were uploaded to Photo Place. It would be impossible to explain the sun shining in different places at nearly the same time in the photos. Then I noticed clear evidence that these pictures were taken well apart, or at least something is clearly afoot (pun intended, see next sentence). If you look at the bottom of the chair legs, near the table foot, the right chair has been moved. Here are the crops:
Note 2
DNA
Regardless of the timing, I have to say that the evidence is clear, there is more bright light in the DNA picture from the sun shining through and not as much with the Note 2. In fact, you can see only a smidge of sun light on the chair to the left with the Note 2 and you can see very bright sun on the carpet and right chair in the DNA picture. This will wash out out the color as there is a major difference in contrast in the DNA picture. Also, the DNA picture was taken with a slight bit of movement. The pictures in the parking lot picture I see better color in the DNA. The DNA is slightly over saturated and the Note 2 is under saturated.
All it takes is a cloud to be there one second and gone the next, this has nothing to do with angle. Or.....At first it looked like the data shows them being taken 12 seconds apart at 3:58:17 for the Note 2 and 3:58:28 for the DNA. But then I noticed something. The Note 2 has an auto stamp in the naming convention and that is Jan. 5th as opposed to the Jan. 7th for picture data. This turns out to be when they were uploaded to Photo Place. It would be impossible to explain the sun shining in different places at nearly the same time in the photos. Then I noticed clear evidence that these pictures were taken well apart, or at least something is clearly afoot (pun intended, see next sentence). If you look at the bottom of the chair legs, near the table foot, the right chair has been moved. Here are the crops:
Note 2
DNA
Regardless of the timing, I have to say that the evidence is clear, there is more bright light in the DNA picture from the sun shining through and not as much with the Note 2. In fact, you can see only a smidge of sun light on the chair to the left with the Note 2 and you can see very bright sun on the carpet and right chair in the DNA picture. This will wash out out the color as there is a major difference in contrast in the DNA picture. Also, the DNA picture was taken with a slight bit of movement. The pictures in the parking lot picture I see better color in the DNA. The DNA is slightly over saturated and the Note 2 is under saturated.
Hmmm, maybe I uploaded the wrong pic on here or something. I took several pics for this thread. At this point, I don't really care anymore. Both phones take decent pics. The coloring is different and that's not going to change no matter how much you overanalyze each pic for minor differences in lighting, angle, whatever. But whether that favors one or the other is a matter of opinion. I personally think the Note 2 has better coloring because I can look at the pics and the real articles (namely the walls) and tell that the Note 2 pics are closer to reality than what I get from the DNA. Others have expressed preference of the DNA pics despite the fact they they aren't completely accurate.
If I were to make a bottom line, I'd say the Note 2's cam is better, but not so much as to make it a selling point for that phone over the DNA.
And on another note, you dudes have way too much time on your hands. Examining these pics to point where you're identifying an inch or so shift in chair positioning is just unnecessary. This is just casual conversation. You guys are going at it like a CSI trying to solve murder mystery. lol
Last edited by WuBoy; January 8th, 2013 at 10:20 AM.
You guys are going at it like a CSI trying to solve murder mystery. lol
Well I am an amateur photographer, so I couldn't help but notice the lighting issue. I am also a former police officer and have a degree in law enforcement (no CSI here though)
"Both phones take decent pics." I agree that they are both nice cameras.
"At this point, I don't really care anymore." I am glad you posted the pictures and also appreciate the effort and opinion you provided. Cheers!
Well I am an amateur photographer, so I couldn't help but notice the lighting issue. I am also a former police officer and have a degree in law enforcement (no CSI here though)
"Both phones take decent pics." I agree that they are both nice cameras.
"At this point, I don't really care anymore." I am glad you posted the pictures and also appreciate the effort and opinion you provided. Cheers!
The camera isn't bad at all. Here are some pictures I've snapped today and the other day. These were all just point and shoot without messing with the settings. Honestly think the camera is on par with my old iphone 4....probably a little better.
Another thing that will help improve picture quality is to touch the screen on the object or person that you want the picture to be focused on. One picture that I thought could benefit from this feature is the picture of the dog.
When you're holding up the phone, you can press on the screen on the face of the dog so that the phone will focus on the dog and make that portion of the picture sharp, as opposed to focusing onto a different part of the picture that's possibly closer or further away than your intended subject.
If you select the "Settings" cog on the camera interface, then scroll to "Camera Options", checkmark the "Touch to Capture" option which will enable the camera to snap a photo as soon as you select the object of focus. It allows you to take a step out of selecting your focus, and then selecting the shutter button.
Selecting the object of focus also helps in setting exposure for the image. As a great example, point your phone towards a window with light coming in. Select an object in the room that's dark, and you'll see the picture adjust exposure for that object. Now select the window, and you'll see the window go from being blown out, to being exposed correctly, while everything in the room goes dark. Its another way to add functionality, and to take MUCH better pictures, with just one press of the screen.
Another thing that will help improve picture quality is to touch the screen on the object or person that you want the picture to be focused on. One picture that I thought could benefit from this feature is the picture of the dog.
When you're holding up the phone, you can press on the screen on the face of the dog so that the phone will focus on the dog and make that portion of the picture sharp, as opposed to focusing onto a different part of the picture that's possibly closer or further away than your intended subject.
If you select the "Settings" cog on the camera interface, then scroll to "Camera Options", checkmark the "Touch to Capture" option which will enable the camera to snap a photo as soon as you select the object of focus. It allows you to take a step out of selecting your focus, and then selecting the shutter button.
Selecting the object of focus also helps in setting exposure for the image. As a great example, point your phone towards a window with light coming in. Select an object in the room that's dark, and you'll see the picture adjust exposure for that object. Now select the window, and you'll see the window go from being blown out, to being exposed correctly, while everything in the room goes dark. Its another way to add functionality, and to take MUCH better pictures, with just one press of the screen.
Yeah, that's a good point. I figured out about that by accident, but it works.
I'm bored at work, so I figured I would illustrate my response above with some pics! Granted, these are some very extreme examples, but they're better to illustrate the point.
This first pic, you'll notice the keyboard is in focus, even though that's not where I wanted the focus of the picture to be. The text on the pen is blurry and difficult to read.
In this second picture, I tapped on the screen on the pen that I wanted in focus, and you'll notice the focus shifted from the keyboard to the pen, which made a much better picture.
Again, this is a very extreme example, and I had to actually cause the picture to do this, but it illustrates just how much exposure can be affected in a beneficial way, if you touch-select the subject of the photograph. In this first picture, the camera exposed for the light in the ceiling. You can see some detail in the light fixture, but everything else in the photo is way too dark.
Now for the second photograph, I tapped on the screen at the filing cabinets, and the camera automatically adjusted the exposure for the subject of the picture. It blew the light out, but since the light fixture was not the subject of my picture, the camera exposure did exactly what it was supposed to do.
This small tip of what to do will bring you photographs that are MUCH better balanced in color and in exposure, and will give you the sharpness you're looking for when photographing a certain subject.
The Following User Says Thank You to admile3 For This Useful Post:
HTC has broken the boundaries again with the DROID DNA. This 5-inch behemoth comes to compete directly with the Galaxy Note 2, but what gives it the edge over the popular Samsung device? Well, this guy has a full HD 1080p display. Mix that with a p... Read More
For Those Of You With Concerns About The DNA's Camera I Offer This...
