Mobile Phones - Battery Life

In article , Java Jive scribeth thus

Missed those what sort of level of Moonlight full, half can you say?..

Reply to
tony sayer
Loading thread data ...

Many years ago I woke up in the middle of the night, and looked out of the window to see unusually bright moonlight, and the garden lit up with this beautiful silvery effect. So I got my camera and tripod out, and took a shot.

When I got the film back some months later it took me a while to work out why I'd taken a shot of the garden. It looked just like day.

Andy

Reply to
Andy Champ

Reply to
Java Jive

Yes, I have some examples of those, here's one taken at the same time as Ex1:

formatting link

I took several shots of the same scene, with increasing exposures, and it's noticeable how the longer the exposure, the more they just look like daylight. The above was apparently the longest. As with Ex1, the other, shorter exposures are more bluey.

Another thing that's very noticeable about the shorter exposures is how the scene darkens in the corners of the shot. You can see it a little here, but it's much more pronounced on the shorter exposures. It happens with all lens photography, but we don't normally notice it with daylight shots, only when the film is 'challenged' by marginal exposures.

Both Ex1 and this >

Reply to
Java Jive

When I used to go out with a camera at night, the make of film had a huge impact on the final image. Agfa would tend very strongly to a sort of dull green. IIRC Fuji was the most 'real'.

Reply to
polygonum

Although I agree with your ranking I also think that the Canon and Pentax are a tadge overexposed by at least half a stop and has burned out the sky too much and the Nokia has underexposed by half a stop retaining too much sky detail at the expense of the rest of the image.

The internal JPEG details and average info content are:

Canon S95 uses its own custom Qtables approx Luminance Q=93 Chroma Q~88. 2.8 bits/pixel

Pentax K5 Q=100 (both) 5.85 bits/pixel

Nokia 808 Q=100 (both) 7.1 bits/pixel

The bits/pixel is for the main image only.

So the information content in the Nokia shot *is* higher - largely because the sky isn't burnt out and amazingly the adjacent pixels are more nearly statistically independent. Impressive for such a tiny lens!

Zooming in hard on the TV aerial allows easy judgement of the psf. The Cannon S95 has applied some pretty brutal unsharp masking and its image quality might well be improved by toning it down a bit (if possible).

Reply to
Martin Brown

Reply to
Java Jive

I'm planning to start using one of my mules to pull a harrow, instead of using the tractor

:-)

Reply to
newshound

Martin Brown wrote

Very interesting analysis - thank you.

I am not concerned about the Canon S95, though there should be no image sharpening selected. 2.8 bits per pixel is crap though...

The Pentax K5 is entirely at its default settings with no manual over/under exposure. I shoot at the max jpeg quality setting. Normally I get great results with it; the only problem is that one needs a waist pack to carry it! Ground shots I rarely tweak but airborne shots usually have a lot of haze which I try to remove using various means.

The basic point about the Nokia 808 is that one no longer needs to carry a pocket camera, which I think is a great step forward, despite its limitations (mostly iffy autofocus, so one needs to take time on a shot). The bigger item is replaces rather well (again in reasonable light conditions) is a £1500 1080P camcorder...

Reply to
Peter

All well 'n good but does it work well as a mobile phone 'tho?...

Reply to
tony sayer

tony sayer wrote

Yes; as good as any other smartphone.

I even have VOIP on it.

Reply to
Peter

The cheaper Canons use custom quantisation tables that are too brutal. The image quality would be better if they used Q~95 and ~4 bits/pixel. High end Canons use scaled versions of the canonical Qtables.

It is actually very hard to detect JPEG artefacts in Q > 95 images unless they are designer test pieces intended to break the codec.

I also have a Pentax K5 it replaces my older istD (that always needed a systematic bias added to its default exposure in most lighting). I find the K5 performs very well after I got used to the chunky battery grip.

The Pentax ex camera image is hardly touched by unsharp masking and so is superficially softer but that gives you the option to do it later. You can tweak so many settings internally that it can be confusing.

I am honestly astonished by how close to diffraction limited its small lens is. I wasn't really expecting the answer that I got.

I am amazed quite how well it does in daytime conditions.

Reply to
Martin Brown

In article , Peter scribeth thus

I ask as it seems to me that users of more modern smart phones seem to have more trouble maintaining a connection than what users of older phones do...

Reply to
tony sayer

tony sayer wrote

That is definitely true for Iphones, which are generally crap for making phone calls as soon as the signal gets a bit low. An Iphone will fail to work before just about any other phone, as the signal level drops.

Nokias have normally been very good for phoning, though something like an 808 won't be as good as the 6310i.

The reason I set up VOIP was because I spend a bit of time in a location where there is NO signal but there is WIFI.

Reply to
Peter

Martin Brown wrote

The S95 was £370 when it was new ~ 2 years ago. That was a lot of money, in a market where most are £100-150.

But the £100-150 cameras were all crap in comparison.

You probably get a 4x increase in file size, on that final 5%.

But I find it is visible on line features. They are simply sharper.

Reply to
Peter

+1

You've lost me there!

Reply to
Mark

Sounds entirely reasonable. After all, you're taking a picture which is illuminated by reflected sunlight, though admittedly rather dim reflected sunlight!

Reply to
Windmill

newshound wrote in news:517ed592$0$29899$c3e8da3 $ snipped-for-privacy@news.astraweb.com:

Will go and shoot some "footage' on my SD Card later!

My digital camera sounds like an old SLR when I take a photo - why doesn't it make a noise like and old movie camera when in video mode?

Seriously - current cameras are being sold to a generation who have no empathy with old 35mm - so why perpetuate the effects and the lens equivilents?

Reply to
DerbyBorn

In article , DerbyBorn scribeth thus

Umm ... it has sound, your old camera didn't?...

Indeed I bet non of them have any idea what goes on in it or how it works...

Reply to
tony sayer

The sounds can be disabled on some and hacked/disabled on others. In some markets the sound is required for 'privacy' reasons - whether this is a legal requirement or not, I can't say.

Reply to
Grimly Curmudgeon

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.