Now, look at the iPhone 4 videos just leaked from the Czech republic. These are real videos. I checked the data of the file and downloaded the source movie.
I have the lights off with the Tv paused. This is what 9 frames per second looks like buddy. So When you made that video you had the lights off like me with only some parts of the tv screen to light you up. Shoot i even dirty the lens just to get it that low. Come on guy you were caught. Be honest 9 frames per second?????? You must have a lemon then.
I'm not seeing where you proved a point.
Less than optimal lighting and the camera sensor trying to compensate with metering adjustments is enough to kill frame rates.
The Following User Says Thank You to SporkLover For This Useful Post:
Brush up on your Digital Camera language folks. The Digital sensor in the EVO is a newer generation of sensor than whats in the Iphone 3GS, and it's manufactured by the same company, same technology, same production processes..... the words cheap is a poor way to describe the sensor. More Mega Pixel does not equal better quality. Generically, you getter better quality from larger pixels (pixel pitch) and larger camera sensors. In reality there are many specs to the camera sensor that really dictate the "quality". I'll try to keep it as simple as possible. The Iphone 3GS has a 1/4 camera sensor, the Evo a 1/3.2 camera sensor (slightly larger). The Iphone's sensor is divided into 3.1M pixels providing a 1.75 pixel pitch (Large), the Evo's sensor is divided into 8M providing a 1.4 pixel pitch (small). What this means is that although the Evo has a larger sensor and more pixels, those pixels are less "sensitive" because they have less area to capture light. This correlates directly to why low light conditions would lag in the Evo. The Iphone has larger pixels, better capable at capturing more light per pixel. In good lighting the Evo should have superior pics. Since this same sensor is responsible for video, the same applies to video capture for each phone. Now that was speaking from a purely hardware specs comparison of each sensor. The design of the sensors give the manufacturers of the phone a great deal of freedom over the operations of the sensors (metering, etc etc etc).... so the other part of that equations is going to be the software written to control the camera sensors. If I were to describe the sensor in the Evo, I would call it a marketing trick that plays into the consumers line of logic that more MP = better pictures. The engineering behind it produces 8MP, but it hampers sensitivity of the sensor, which can introduce the blurring you guys see. This is very reminiscent of the Intel vs AMD clock speed wars, where AMC proved with the Athlon line of processors that you can have a faster processor with lower clock speeds. Just to set up some of the fragile egos for the Iphone 4 release..... it will have the same size sensor as the Evo, with 5MP, giving it 1.75 pixel pitch..... theoretically producing better pics!
... on a per-pixel basis. That's the rub, particularly when downsampling, the individual pixel pitch is only directly comparable if displayed at the same size, pixel per pixel. As in digital cameras, a higher resolution often hides the individual pixel noise better when displayed at normal sizes.
This means that the evo sensor is theoretically capable of as good or better low light imaging at VGA resolution. It's a question of the software and, perhaps, the associated hardware (buffers, etc).
What we are likely seeing is the effect of a lack of time and money invested in the imaging software and/or camera firmware.
One potentially useful feature is the flash, which can be used as a video fill light.
The Following User Says Thank You to dr g For This Useful Post:
hahhahahah, Cmon No iphone would win in Phandroid, us Android fans are more loyal than apple fans!! so w.e you say you are wrong!!
the Evo Rules, Android Rules, And apple and Iphone, could go to hahahhaha
... on a per-pixel basis. That's the rub, particularly when downsampling, the individual pixel pitch is only directly comparable if displayed at the same size, pixel per pixel. As in digital cameras, a higher resolution often hides the individual pixel noise better when displayed at normal sizes.
This means that the evo sensor is theoretically capable of as good or better low light imaging at VGA resolution. It's a question of the software and, perhaps, the associated hardware (buffers, etc).
What we are likely seeing is the effect of a lack of time and money invested in the imaging software and/or camera firmware.
One potentially useful feature is the flash, which can be used as a video fill light.
Well in general I would agree with that, because Larger sensors would mean more pixels, and larger pixels. Larger and more pixels can definitely hide noise. The Evo doesn't fit that though, the pixels are smaller. Smaller and more tightly packed pixels produce more noise and have less dynamic range, all of which contribute to mediocre to disappointing low light performance.
I agree on your 2nd and 3rd points, I'm sure better performance can be had with software tweaks, and the flash is a must for low light conditions.
The Following User Says Thank You to SporkLover For This Useful Post:
Well in general I would agree with that, because Larger sensors would mean more pixels, and larger pixels. Larger and more pixels can definitely hide noise. The Evo doesn't fit that though, the pixels are smaller. Smaller and more tightly packed pixels produce more noise and have less dynamic range, all of which contribute to mediocre to disappointing low light performance.
I agree on your 2nd and 3rd points, I'm sure better performance can be had with software tweaks, and the flash is a must for low light conditions.
Dynamic range is an issue but noise is not, noise is a per-pixel issue and having more of them simply makes it less of a concern. There are plenty of examples in the digital camera world of smaller, denser pixels performing as well or better than larger, less dense pixels on a sensor of the same size. A lot has to do with software, the quality of the sensor itself and, something we have not yet even started discussing, the lens in front of the sensor.
That said, the iPhones do seem to pump the bitrate out, which leaves me wondering if there is a hardware limitation somewhere on the HTC devices. Perhaps a bandwidth difference between the SD vs inbuilt storage interfaces?
Evo videos tickle along 30fps in the best conditions (and lower resolutions) while the iPhone4 video is rock solid 30 at full 720p. Why the framerate differential?
And perhaps more importantly, why does HTC continually give camera performance short shrift? Does it just not have the resources to fully exploit the hardware?
Dynamic range is an issue but noise is not, noise is a per-pixel issue and having more of them simply makes it less of a concern. There are plenty of examples in the digital camera world of smaller, denser pixels performing as well or better than larger, less dense pixels on a sensor of the same size. A lot has to do with software, the quality of the sensor itself and, something we have not yet even started discussing, the lens in front of the sensor.
While there are great examples of small sensors performance out of compact point and shoots where high quality sensors and optics can address the issue of the noise introduced when lots of pixels are packed onto a small sensor, I would submit that in the mobile phone world, those same measures haven't been implemented, otherwise we'd have a much more expensive phone on our hands. That being said, you get a mediocre sensor like the ones in the phones, you still get noise issues from more pixels on a small sensor. Granted, as you've pointed out, that more pixels are much better at hiding noise.
Quote:
That said, the iPhones do seem to pump the bitrate out, which leaves me wondering if there is a hardware limitation somewhere on the HTC devices. Perhaps a bandwidth difference between the SD vs inbuilt storage interfaces?
Evo videos tickle along 30fps in the best conditions (and lower resolutions) while the iPhone4 video is rock solid 30 at full 720p. Why the framerate differential?
And perhaps more importantly, why does HTC continually give camera performance short shrift? Does it just not have the resources to fully exploit the hardware?
I've read on other forums that part of HTC's issues with other phone models was they did not pay the licensing fees for the appropriate drivers to "unlock" full potential of the camera sensors. The Touch Pro and Touch Pro 2 models immediately spring to mind. Those phones had paltry camera performance when it should have been better.
I've never seen proof.... but interesting theory that feeds the Software angle.
All this techno-talk just put me to sleep. Look, I want to be able to grab my cell phone and take video of my niece eating ice cream while she gets half of it on her face and have the video look half-way decent. The EVO video was a joke. HTC needs to step it up.
The Following User Says Thank You to HarryKeogh For This Useful Post:
Device(s): Htc Evo 3D w/ Seidio 4000mah, Htc Evo 4G w/ Seidio 3500mah, Google Chrome Cr-48
Thanks: 394
Thanked 188 Times in 148 Posts
Quote:
Originally Posted by reemas
Invalid or not, just look at the video and vote with your eyes. I don't think anyone cares about sensor jargon. Period. There is a reason HTC is advertising the 8MP camera. They know people want "more" megapixels regardless of quality.
And I have a good camera, but I also have other nice things.
The point is not what I have, but how HTC's 2010 Camera compares to the competitions 2008 camera.
I thought the 3GS was 2009?
Either way thanks for the comparison and I'll happily admit to anybody that iPhone has a better camera, and of course better games and a few other things. Like somebody recently posted, you gotta give credit where credit is due. Both are awesome phones and have their ups and downs. I loved my iPhone and I love my EVO.
__________________
Music Fans: Check out the song on my band's page and give feedback if you have a second? Rock and Roll is alive and well. www.facebook.com/LucyParanormal
The Following User Says Thank You to JunBringer For This Useful Post:
There isn't any reason to call someone an Apple fanboy or troll just because they post something that you don't like. Everyone praised the OP for doing the test until he revealed which phone was which and suddenly he is an evil fanboy? The rudeness is simply uncalled for. If you don't like his results, then conduct your own test. There are enough iPhones in the world that I'm sure you can find someone to help you if you don't own one already.
Please keep in mind that we do have a zero tolerance policy and it does apply to everyone. If you can't be polite then don't post. If the insults start to fly again, infractions will be handed out.
At first, I found the Evo to be terrible for still photos, despite a great thread of great snaps to the contrary. I then decided to turn off auto, set a constant ISO (typically 200, sometimes 100 or 400), definitely check White Balance and adjust as needed - but certainly to adjust Contrast, Brightness and Saturation - and Sharpness.
I haven't played with the video yet, but reemas' shots have certainly inspired me to give it a try. At VGA resolution, I'd intuitively expect the smart move would be to turn the Sharpness all the way down - meaning, no additional processing. The camera's wasting time doing that and then having to do frame compression with whatever's left over.
If you play with the two cameras in the Evo, you'll find that for nearfield - meaning, even beyond arm's length a little bit - the front camera is MUCH sharper. I think that's a natural side effect of the much smaller aperture of the front lens, but I was very surprised because while that rule of thumb holds true for film cameras, with digital cameras sharpness and detail are very much influenced by the light going to each pixel - while the back camera has over 6 times the points to distribute light to, it does seem to have a disproportionately larger aperture with which to accomplish that.
In color work, whether still photo or video, believe it or not, seeing detail comes from contrast first, resolution last - color/chroma and saturation even come before resolution. Lots of newcomers to HDTV find this counterintuitive, but it's quite true. Pop up the photos in this link, set them all to the same size, do a side-by-side comparison and see for yourself: Colorfulness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With the cameras appropriately adjusted (both Evo and iPhone), I wonder if the shoot-out results would be materially different?
I also wonder if the camera's processes are in any way prioritized in the Evo, or if it's having to fight with other running processes for CPU resources. Hopefully so, because that could portend a software fix.
I'm not holding my breath on HTC doing anything about this. They're marketing numbers - try telling them you have some negative metrics against an iPhone, and I'd be surprised if you got anyone that cared the way you may want.
Apple knew that everything about the iPhone would be under scrutiny and skepticism - remember the days before the unveiling? Remember what Steve-o said the target market was in the keynote address? I sure do. So the iPhone wasn't designed by walking down the parts aisle with a checklist against what the other phones in the line had - each component, hardware or software - were targeted to catch an untapped segment of the smartphone market.
When you add up the leading edge work Apple has always done with video-related work (the QuickTime engine, Firewire, ... a long list! ...) and the fact that their phone has gone through refinement to sell one model only - and compare that to any other typical phone manufacturer like HTC, the expectations become obvious.
Scaling and video compression algorithms can be committed to a single off-the-shelf chip. If that's how the camera is being handled in the HTC, then its video woes for scaling and compression will not be fixable by any sort of update. If it's being handled by software/firmware - those algorithms are proprietary (read: they were purchased) so HTC won't be replacing them for free. (Again, we go back to the Apple model of focused development: they've had superior scaling and compression algorithms within their purview for a great many years as anyone using a Mac mini for a home theater PC, outputting vid via DVI to 720p/60Hz, 1080p/24Hz or 1080p/60Hz can attest, as can the owners of any Apple TVs.)
Well Ser reemas, I hope you're satisfied. It wasn't as if I didn't have enough to do already with my phone, now I have to go play with the video!
PS - If anyone's skimming, and my post is TLDR, maybe you'll notice this PS. It says to go back and read SporkLover's last post (#50) on the previous page.
Last edited by EarlyMon; June 22nd, 2010 at 10:39 AM.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
I'll never understand why when someone brings up a shortcoming of someones phone they act as if they called their mother a fat, whore whale or something. I think this is a great test.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to wrchad23 For This Useful Post:
hahhahahah, Cmon No iphone would win in Phandroid, us Android fans are more loyal than apple fans!! so w.e you say you are wrong!!
the Evo Rules, Android Rules, And apple and Iphone, could go to hahahhaha
great responses! i will get outside to shoot some day/outdoor video today and will re do the test.
as for 720P, i can do that, but it will be pointless as this camera shoots BETTER in VGA (640x480).
i will flip a coin to randomize which is on the left and right again. but fwiw, the EVO compresses the crap out of the videos, so it might still be obvious which one is the EVO and which is the iPhone. we'll find out in a bit!
great responses! i will get outside to shoot some day/outdoor video today and will re do the test.
as for 720P, i can do that, but it will be pointless as this camera shoots BETTER in VGA (640x480).
i will flip a coin to randomize which is on the left and right again. but fwiw, the EVO compresses the crap out of the videos, so it might still be obvious which one is the EVO and which is the iPhone. we'll find out in a bit!
If you feel it's fair - and I think it is - try setting ISO to non-auto, turn down sharpness, maybe bump saturation up. I just tried that ISO 200, n/c to brightness and contrast, and it didn't look too bad at capturing the desert mountains on a bright day.
And if you could - kindly kill off the other non-essential apps.
In any case - kindly note your settings for both cameras.
If you feel it's fair - and I think it is - try setting ISO to non-auto, turn down sharpness, maybe bump saturation up. I just tried that ISO 200, n/c to brightness and contrast, and it didn't look too bad at capturing the desert mountains on a bright day.
And if you could - kindly kill off the other non-essential apps.
In any case - kindly note your settings for both cameras.
Thanks in advance for the retests!!!
ok i'll try to get all this right, but i don't think i can set the ISO for video.
also, FYI, i can choose H263 and MPEG4, but H263 is limited to 320x200 or something small and useless like that.
ok i didn't have time to do everything, so i'll try again later today. this is a video shot outside in bright sunlight. i actually set the EVO to 720P.
couple notes: my right hand was shaking a bit in the beginning, so i actually shook my left hand a little more. as a result, you'll notice the iPhone 3Gs handles motion a LOT better than the EVO.
also the file is huge, about 90 MB. and the resolution is EVEN bigger, so you can see the two side by side. i'll get a better test out later today hopefully with both camera on 640x480 and outdoors. but don't hold your breath, because you know what it will look like.
I just recorded a video on my Evo, brought the 3gp file over via USB, converted the 3gp file to mp4 (essentially just changing the container, not the codec) and according QT, my frame rate is 28.63 fps.
And it looks way good.
Something's very wrong with that low fps result, if I read that correctly earlier.
PS - OK, posts said that that was for low light. Not sure how low. I'm shooting indoors, daytime, getting a steady 28 fps or better - at VGA.
Just shot the same thing in 720p - got an abysmal 9.77 fps.
Huh.
PS - I use MPEG Streamclip, have for some time, swear by it, so for those of you who need that sort of thing: http://www.squared5.com/
Last edited by EarlyMon; June 22nd, 2010 at 03:54 PM.
Doh. This is a no brainer. I just noticed from your latest test that the iPhone does everything in H.264 (AVC, MPEG4 Part 10) vs. the Evo's MPEG4 Part 2 (ASP, note compatibility to H.263).
Nothing more to decide or test. H.264 is simply a superior codec.
In other news - while looking for H.264 support for Android, I did stumble across this:
Doh. This is a no brainer. I just noticed from your latest test that the iPhone does everything in H.264 (AVC, MPEG4 Part 10) vs. the Evo's MPEG4 Part 2 (ASP, note compatibility to H.263).
Nothing more to decide or test. H.264 is simply a superior codec.
MAYBE we will be able to buy an H.264 _encoder_ for the phone, in future.
And then we might get closer to the iPhone's video performance.
!
The H.264 is a vendor specific implementation. Galaxy S will have it.
Google is not just going to give it away for free. It cost money and Apple has the economy of scale to cross-license.
They have it in all their products from OS to high-end editing apps. They also have Pro apps division (Motion/FCP) so they have the talent/man power to implement a superior software solution for the recording.
So they, definitely have the upper hand and a cost advantage of $10-15 per unit over HTC (codec licenses/man power/talent for camera software, etc).
This is just one area where it is hard for others to compete.
The H.264 is a vendor specific implementation. Galaxy S will have it.
Google is not just going to give it away for free. It cost money and Apple has the economy of scale to cross-license.
They have it in all their products from OS to high-end editing apps. They also have Pro apps division (Motion/FCP) so they have the talent/man power to implement a superior software solution for the recording.
So they, definitely have the upper hand and a cost advantage of $10-15 per unit over HTC (codec licenses/man power/talent for camera software, etc).
This is just one area where it is hard for others to compete.
Ja wohl, agree completely.
The forum I'd referenced above has some speculation about the cost for this sort of thing. One guy tossed out something like $40, while the moderator/employee came back and said that about $20 would pretty much do it for this type of market - near as I could tell reading quickly, that would be an end-user price.
For an encoder and a multi-codec player as an add-on for the Evo - I'd pay it.
its a great test and shows that what the iphone does, it does well. Something google, htc and motorola need to take note. sure android is a great is but in reality root is required and a lot of bloat needs to be removed for these devices to be competitive in many aspects. Something that isn't necessary on the iphone. This will be androids biggest problem going forward.
i prefer my EVO over my iPhone, but most of that is due to the AT&T network. one day, people will realize quality > quantity...
i hope google, htc and all these other guys, hit the brakes and exercise some control. what good is a new feature if it seems kinda half assed. i know that a lot of people hear 720p and think the EVO has a great camera. i think one of the points of this thread is that there is a lot of marketing and string pulling involved in getting sales out.
obviously the android phone does many things much better than the iPhone, but the camera, multimedia, and several areas are so far behind.
i'll say it again, the June 2010 HTC phone has an inferior camera to it's direct competition (Apple's 2009 iPhone - don't even compare it to the iPhone 4). Being that HTC had a year to catch up, it's sad that the quality isn't even as good in most situations.
Last edited by reemas; June 22nd, 2010 at 07:55 PM.
i'll say it again, the June 2010 HTC phone has an inferior camera to it's direct competition (Apple's 2009 iPhone - don't even compare it to the iPhone 4). Being that HTC had a year to catch up, it's sad that the quality isn't even as good in most situations.
I got a different read on that after reading the entire year+ forum over at CoreCodec.
1. There's a right way and a wrong way to embed support for the newer codec.
2. They insist on having full SDK (software development kit) and NDK (native development kit) integration and support - not just a partial implementation.
3. To do otherwise, according to CoreCodec, is kinda half-baked and creates a dead-end of support problems.
4. Every time they thought they were on to getting there for both SDK+NDK, they found some issues they couldn't get past and started working the next Android rev.
5. They think they're getting it right - and because it's all backdoor info, if I read it right (not 100% sure) - it's looking like it needs to go into Froyo (architecture changes allow for this).
So, overall for the Android community, I think it sounds like CoreCodec / Android dev are marching down the right path.
(conference room meeting)
"Hi, Mr. Head of EVO Dev. We're here to discuss options on our upcoming EVO with the exciting new zigapixel cameras."
"Uh huh. And how do you propose we support those?"
"Well, we take stock Android, see, well not stock, the 2.1 that's going be out by our release date - of course, just guess on that rev number - but anyway, we take stock Android, and kinda shoehorn in some additional codec support and some very non-standard apps made in a rather curious way."
"Uh huh. And how long to do that?"
"Oh, well, we tried figuring that out but Android started changing again. But it's a great idea, so let's do it!"
"Uh huh. And who else is doing that?"
"Well, rumor is some of our competitors are spending that money themselves."
"Uh huh. And who else?"
"Oh, well there's this company called CoreCodecs that specializes in these advanced codecs and they're already deployed for Win, Palm and Symbian and they're being used by Samsung, Toshiba, LG, Panasonic, Motorola, Seagate, ASUS and a few others."
"Uh huh. And what are their plans?"
"They plan to replace the stock PacketVideo core in Android in one of the upcoming Android releases and then just charge a straight licensing fee."
"And if we just put out what Android already has and wait for them, we'll get this new stuff at lowest risk and lowest cost - right?"
"Well, yes, but think how important having this new feature put in will really enhance our image, make customers even happier, and.... sir? Sir?"
At first, I found the Evo to be terrible for still photos, despite a great thread of great snaps to the contrary. I then decided to turn off auto, set a constant ISO (typically 200, sometimes 100 or 400), definitely check White Balance and adjust as needed - but certainly to adjust Contrast, Brightness and Saturation - and Sharpness.
I haven't played with the video yet, but reemas' shots have certainly inspired me to give it a try. At VGA resolution, I'd intuitively expect the smart move would be to turn the Sharpness all the way down - meaning, no additional processing. The camera's wasting time doing that and then having to do frame compression with whatever's left over.
If you play with the two cameras in the Evo, you'll find that for nearfield - meaning, even beyond arm's length a little bit - the front camera is MUCH sharper. I think that's a natural side effect of the much smaller aperture of the front lens, but I was very surprised because while that rule of thumb holds true for film cameras, with digital cameras sharpness and detail are very much influenced by the light going to each pixel - while the back camera has over 6 times the points to distribute light to, it does seem to have a disproportionately larger aperture with which to accomplish that.
In color work, whether still photo or video, believe it or not, seeing detail comes from contrast first, resolution last - color/chroma and saturation even come before resolution. Lots of newcomers to HDTV find this counterintuitive, but it's quite true. Pop up the photos in this link, set them all to the same size, do a side-by-side comparison and see for yourself: Colorfulness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
With the cameras appropriately adjusted (both Evo and iPhone), I wonder if the shoot-out results would be materially different?
I also wonder if the camera's processes are in any way prioritized in the Evo, or if it's having to fight with other running processes for CPU resources. Hopefully so, because that could portend a software fix.
I'm not holding my breath on HTC doing anything about this. They're marketing numbers - try telling them you have some negative metrics against an iPhone, and I'd be surprised if you got anyone that cared the way you may want.
Apple knew that everything about the iPhone would be under scrutiny and skepticism - remember the days before the unveiling? Remember what Steve-o said the target market was in the keynote address? I sure do. So the iPhone wasn't designed by walking down the parts aisle with a checklist against what the other phones in the line had - each component, hardware or software - were targeted to catch an untapped segment of the smartphone market.
When you add up the leading edge work Apple has always done with video-related work (the QuickTime engine, Firewire, ... a long list! ...) and the fact that their phone has gone through refinement to sell one model only - and compare that to any other typical phone manufacturer like HTC, the expectations become obvious.
Scaling and video compression algorithms can be committed to a single off-the-shelf chip. If that's how the camera is being handled in the HTC, then its video woes for scaling and compression will not be fixable by any sort of update. If it's being handled by software/firmware - those algorithms are proprietary (read: they were purchased) so HTC won't be replacing them for free. (Again, we go back to the Apple model of focused development: they've had superior scaling and compression algorithms within their purview for a great many years as anyone using a Mac mini for a home theater PC, outputting vid via DVI to 720p/60Hz, 1080p/24Hz or 1080p/60Hz can attest, as can the owners of any Apple TVs.)
Well Ser reemas, I hope you're satisfied. It wasn't as if I didn't have enough to do already with my phone, now I have to go play with the video!
PS - If anyone's skimming, and my post is TLDR, maybe you'll notice this PS. It says to go back and read SporkLover's last post (#50) on the previous page.
Earlymon....what camera settings do you use on your evo?
Earlymon....what camera settings do you use on your evo?
Photo:
Brightness at 0 or -1 depending on condition
Contrast at 0 +/- 1 depending on condition
Saturation at +1, even +2 for some effects
Sharpness at usually -1 or -2
White Balance - Auto, but always check/adjust if time permits
ISO - usually at 200, never auto
Resolution 8M
Widescreen 5:3
Quality High
Self Timer - Off
Geo Tagging - Off
Review Duration - No Limit
Flicker Adjustment - 60 Hz
Metering Mode - Spot
Auto Focus Off
Face Detection Off
Shutter Sound On
Time Stamp Off
Grid Off
Post-process from there.
Video - pretty much the same, except
Resolution strictly at VGA for now
MPEG-4
Sharpness at -2
Metering - Average
Focus - usually at Auto
(still playing around with video)
PS - Your mileage may vary, I don't claim to be completely expert with this camera yet.
Last edited by EarlyMon; June 23rd, 2010 at 04:53 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to EarlyMon For This Useful Post:
Brightness at 0 or -1 depending on condition
Contrast at 0 +/- 1 depending on condition
Saturation at +1, even +2 for some effects
Sharpness at usually -1 or -2
White Balance - Auto, but always check/adjust if time permits
ISO - usually at 200, never auto
Resolution 8M
Widescreen 5:3
Quality High
Self Timer - Off
Geo Tagging - Off
Review Duration - No Limit
Flicker Adjustment - 60 Hz
Metering Mode - Spot
Auto Focus Off
Face Detection Off
Shutter Sound On
Time Stamp Off
Grid Off
Post-process from there.
Video - pretty much the same, except
Resolution strictly at VGA for now
MPEG-4
Sharpness at -2
Metering - Average
Focus - usually at Auto
(still playing around with video)
PS - Your mileage may vary, I don't claim to be completely expert with this camera yet.
Thanks a lot earlymon. What does the metering mode do?
Thanks a lot earlymon. What does the metering mode do?
Use that hand-in-glove with the focusing mode. As I use manual focus, naturally, I want light metered at that spot (*usually true* - no absolutes in photography).
The way that works is that you get the camera and scene ready, and tap the screen at the point of interest. A little wire frame lights up at that point - that's the focus and meter point with my settings.
From page 80 of the manual (and not saying to RTFM, just hoping it explains it better):
Quote:
Metering mode: Lets you set how the camera measures the amount of light to calculate the best exposure:
�� Spot metering mode allows the camera to measure light around the focus point.
�� Center area mode allows the camera to measure light in the center.
�� Average mode allows the camera to measure light in the whole image.
This option is not available when you are using the second (front) camera.
PS - OK, neverminding!
By the way - my user guide is still in the wrapper - I use this pdf:
OK, here's an advantage of my method with the EVO that goes beyond that YouTube (even though it was very good).
I tend to really exploit widescreen format wherever possible.
Note my subject on the left, but the sun - the object - is on the right.
Note also that these have had zero post-processing done to them (other than to scale it down to the file size allowed by my forum membership status) - just using my settings, saturation all the way up on the first, at +1 on the second, but brightness and contrast adjusted for the situation at hand.
Believe it or not, this was at sunset with the sky growing on the dusky side.
They may look odd to some, but they had what I was going after. Shots were taken about 5 minutes apart.
And the point - always have a camera you can trust because you never know.
I had zero plans of taking pictures the other night, these just kinda happened without planning or staging of any kind, all on their own. Just an evening stroll in the beautiful New Mexico desert.
Made friends with the nice young guy with didgeridoo, and actually used the photo to introduce him to a nice young gal we know while sharing a glass of wine.
The web has nothing on social networking, in my opinion.
Last edited by EarlyMon; June 23rd, 2010 at 06:52 PM.
OK, let's dial the nerd talk down a notch for us old fogies. Bottom line, will either the Evo or the iPhone 4 replace a real camera/videocam for special events/vacations? It's obvious the Evo won't as-is (for video), but I'm also not convinced the iPhone will make the cut. Both use digital zoom, correct? I'll still be lugging along another device for pictures and/or video, and while the Evo obviously needs work, I'm going to keep things in perspective.
I find it ironic that I can't view half of these video tests on my iPad.
good info earlymon. but notice that your sunset has some gross banding issues. this is definitely correlated to the sensor's lack of sensitivity. both your sunsets look like they were made of 3-4 colors only, instead of a smooth transition.
and cpr, you're right it won't replace a real camera, but it sure sucks to have a very lousy substitute. and truthfully, any new cell phone camera won't be worse than the EVOs, in terms of quality.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to reemas For This Useful Post:
OK, let's dial the nerd talk down a notch for us old fogies. Bottom line, will either the Evo or the iPhone 4 replace a real camera/videocam for special events/vacations? It's obvious the Evo won't as-is (for video), but I'm also not convinced the iPhone will make the cut. Both use digital zoom, correct? I'll still be lugging along another device for pictures and/or video, and while the Evo obviously needs work, I'm going to keep things in perspective.
I find it ironic that I can't view half of these video tests on my iPad.
I think the evo can replace a point and shoot with the correct settings. With video....the only hope we have is froyo. Hopefully froyo can give the evo a steady 30fps regardless of situation.
The Following User Says Thank You to bjones521 For This Useful Post:
to add to what i was saying, it's really the video that is gross. the pictures, are mediocre, and in good lighting they can be decent. that's not saying alot....
almost like saying, enjoy this new airplane. but it only flies when there is no wind.
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to reemas For This Useful Post:
If I did that right, you can see the actual guilt of my method.
That said - these snaps were to show how one could exploit the tool at hand for some artful effects. They turned out exactly as I'd intended.
Remember - not all people know this - but with decent desktop software, you can start with a picture that does not overdo things as I did, and post-process it to get better color.
And my other point is - the worst camera is the one you don't have when you need it.
And not to defend the Evo camera, just a statement of fact - this was in very low-light and I think it did well.
PS - That said, I'm so far finding the Evo still camera quite serviceable - the video camera - uh, not so much.
Quote:
the pictures, are mediocre, and in good lighting they can be decent. that's not saying alot....
Sheesh. Everybody's an art critic. You know, some pictures are made to inspire emotion.
There was a whole video-making cult built up over the Fisher-Price kiddie b/w videocam. I'll have to look up some of their stuff - that'll learn ya!
Last edited by EarlyMon; June 23rd, 2010 at 07:28 PM.
The fact that you use OSX told me everything i need to know.
You mean, like - it's the number one choice of video editing professionals, used probably by most if not all of your local network affiliates to rapidly prepare video for late-breaking news, and used extensively throughout Hollywood-land?
And that aside from things like the large, dedicated processors for that industry, they're legendary for their codec support and getting things right, especially with non-linear editing?
Yeah - the fact that he used OS X told me everything I needed to know, too.
When Sprint announced their first ever 4G handset at CTIA in March 2010, they dropped a bombshell on the mobile world. The HTC Evo 4G is a device that introduces a lot of firsts when compared to other North American handsets. This is the first Andr... Read More
hahahhaha
instead of a retort.
- True words.
