Reading AAS and other sites and forums, one would get the impression that 5 MegaPixels is far too many and digital zoom is a waste of time. Don't bother with the digital zoom, seems to be the message.
That's sound advice if you're always going to be taking your pictures home, uploading them, and editing them with PaintShop Pro or whatever; but hang on, this is a mobile device. If you think of it as such it all makes far more sense. If I'm going to email or mms a photo, I can set the resolution to lowest and zoom in to my heart's content with (relatively) excellent results. At "MMS - 0.3M" resolution and maximum zoom, I can get a 40kB picture of something 100yds away that looks pretty much the same as it would have done if I'd walked up to it and taken a picture at the same resolution. The 40kB picture can then easily be emailed or MMS'd, even with only crappy GPRS coverage, and looks perfectly alright on the screen of a mobile device and frankly not too bad on a PC screen.
Attachments:
I agree with your sentiment but you must be able to see the point people are making about digital zoom. Even on a mobile device, you might as well take the photo zoomed out and then zoom in on the picture when you are reviewing it, you can use the built in editing tool on the N95 to cut it down for email/mms. All digital zoom does is crop the image 'live'.
Having said that, it is a lot quicker to zoom on an image and then email it than mess around cropping it afterwards, so I guess it has some use
At the risk of giving the impression of banging on about this, here's a better example than the car. These were both taken at minimum resolution: tiny file sizes and perfect for MMS or email over GPRS. One was taken at maximum zoom, and one was taken by walking right up to the bird table. Apart from the difference in perspective, IMO there's really not much difference in quality between the two, particularly when viewed at small size. However, for the zoomed one I didn't need to get off my arse in front of the computer, plus the bird table didn't get embarrassed or self-concious because I was shoving a cameraphone in its face.
Attachments:
neilhoskins wrote:... However, for the zoomed one I didn't need to get off my arse in front of the computer, plus the bird table didn't get embarrassed or self-concious because I was shoving a cameraphone in its face.
Lol. This comment actually made me laugh out loud as I really wasn't expecting it.
😃
the picture of the car is heavily pixellated and is unacceptable
Sorry to disagree, but I wouldn't be happy with your zoomed picture. You can see the pixellation and it has a blurred feel to it. I suppose if all you're creating is thumbnails, then fine, but as soon as you stick it up at a normal image size, the quality fails to pass muster.
chrsfrwll wrote:Sorry to disagree, but I wouldn't be happy with your zoomed picture. You can see the pixellation and it has a blurred feel to it. I suppose if all you're creating is thumbnails, then fine, but as soon as you stick it up at a normal image size, the quality fails to pass muster.
I agree, look at the difference in the grass. On the zoomed one it is just a green blurry carpet wheras the other has detail in the individual blades. Like I say, I can see you point for 'live' cropping if all you intend to do with the picture is view it on the phone or send it to someone via MMS but there is no comparison in terms of quality.
3Shirts wrote:I can see you point for 'live' cropping if all you intend to do with the picture is view it on the phone or send it to someone via MMS but there is no comparison in terms of quality.
But that's the point I'm making. All I'm arguing against is those who say 5Mpixels is too many and the digital "zoom" is useless. It's not a replacement for a proper camera with an optical zoom and never will be, but in the context of a cameraphone, small images, MMS, and emailing over a slow data connection, it all makes sense. Yes, if you want to put it that way, it's a quick, live method of cropping a 5Mpixel photo.
Just one more thing then I'll shut up. With no "zoom", the optics are an incredibly wide angle; I'd estimate 28mm equivalent. That really distorts perspective and means that you have to be really close to people/things if you don't use the "zoom".
Yeah I have to agree. If you moan about the quality of the camera and wish to use it as a camera - then don't get an N95. Everyone knows how phone cameras turn out. And its not going to change for a little while. I just can't understand why people post comments such as: capitaine the picture of the car is heavily pixellated and is unacceptable. When THIS ISN'T A PROPER CAMERA, its a flippin' phone. Gt some balls and stop whining about it.
Back2Basics wrote:I just can't understand why people post comments such as: capitaine the picture of the car is heavily pixellated and is unacceptable. When THIS ISN'T A PROPER CAMERA, its a flippin' phone. Gt some balls and stop whining about it.
Nice attitude :icon13:
Everyone has a right to their opinion. No-one in this whole thread has said anything about the camera on the N95 being a let down, it is a discussion about whether the difference between a zoomed-in picture and a non-zoomed one are comparable. Captaine was expressing his opinion (as is his right) that he wouldn't be happy with the quality from the zoomed-in one.
Put an optical zoom on the next model .. k thx 😃
