Read-only archive of the All About Symbian forum (2001–2013) · About this archive
All About Symbian Forum Archive

jpeg quality N95

21 replies · 7,158 views · Started 17 June 2007

spiritflare 17 Jun 2007, 15:09

Hi,

I took a bunch of photos this wknd all at the max resolution 5mp, and when i look at them, they are 2592 x 1944 pixels, but the file size is small - i.e. 650KB when i look at it in Explorer.

This is giving the impression the photos are taken at low quality jpeg setting, not FINE.

Any clues? When I open them later, I can clearly see the degradation

thanks

~k

Quakester2000 17 Jun 2007, 17:57

Hopefully Nokia will release a firmware update to fix this, but then again they may not as it may not make images look any better.

cmlewan 18 Jun 2007, 00:48

This topic recurs once a while, yes. I don't know if it's a valid objection. One starts to wonder, yes.

ratza 18 Jun 2007, 06:50

Well, you can make a script in Python and select 100% quality for jpeg when saving. The size will be huge though, around 4-6 MB per image.

Ho66es 18 Jun 2007, 07:15

ratza wrote:Well, you can make a script in Python and select 100% quality for jpeg when saving. The size will be huge though, around 4-6 MB per image.

I don't see the file size as an issue, i would prefer greater quality to smaller file size, the camera was one of the reasons I got the n95, and its not like i use a 128meg card in it for pics.

I am sure most folks with an n95 have enough space for plenty of largish image files.

How would the python script work? and could you do it? I would sure be interested in it.

Gizza22 19 Jun 2007, 01:51

Not being rude, but i have two proffesional SLR camera's for my work, one at 5megapixel and one at 11, and both capture jpegs images at around 600mb per pic, and those pics are exstremely high quality. I dont think larger file size always mean higher quality pics. Its more to do with the camera. I adore my N95 and would never bad-mouth it, but at end of the day it is a phone camera and the capture quality will neer rival a proper proffesinal camera. The pic quality on the N95 is fine for normal everyday pics anyway!!!

Ho66es 19 Jun 2007, 07:34

Gizza22 wrote:Not being rude, but i have two proffesional SLR camera's for my work, one at 5megapixel and one at 11, and both capture jpegs images at around 600mb per pic, and those pics are exstremely high quality. I dont think larger file size always mean higher quality pics. Its more to do with the camera. I adore my N95 and would never bad-mouth it, but at end of the day it is a phone camera and the capture quality will neer rival a proper proffesinal camera. The pic quality on the N95 is fine for normal everyday pics anyway!!!

It may be a phone camera but I am sure in my images the slight? loss of quality is down in some part to over compression. I could post a few examples if you don't believe me. I think an image of twice the file size could hold some more detail. It is i think a need to balance the resolution and the compression. I just happen to think they have it slightly wrong and need to change the compression or add a lower compression option.

BTW what professional SLR captures a 600meg jpeg file?

3Shirts 19 Jun 2007, 07:37

It's just down to apeture size and compression. Dedicated cameras have wider apetures (which pick up more light etc), faster shutter and dedicated image processors.

For a phone camera, the N95 is excellent

Quakester2000 19 Jun 2007, 13:26

3Shirts wrote:It's just down to apeture size and compression. Dedicated cameras have wider apetures (which pick up more light etc), faster shutter and dedicated image processors.

For a phone camera, the N95 is excellent

Dont forget those professional cameras save Pictures in RAW format thats why they would be enormous. Unfortunately unlike a consumer camera Nokia N95 doesn't let you specify the compression levels. A consumer camera at 5 mega pixel would 1-3 megbytes at least. It all depends on compression, its a shame Nokia didn't add a feature to take pictures in raw format.

Ho66es 19 Jun 2007, 13:34

yup I agree its a great camera for a phone, i just think with a tad less compression, say 1.5meg image files it could be an awesome phone camera. The images are great but sometimes it tends to over compress areas of similar colour like a green field in the distance and turns it into a green splodge.

I just wonder if the reduced processor load in less compression would offset the time saving the larger file to storage. Maybe thats why they have gone for smaller file size.

but if the ccd is good and the lens is good, the compression option is just software and could be fixed/added in a firmware update, with detailed images its not so noticeable, but with landscapes its more noticeable.

sprint 19 Jun 2007, 16:30

hi

on my n95 most of the photos taken outside on a brightish day come out at more than a meg one is over 1.3 meg but the ones taken indoors with flash are down to 600 -700k.

My 4mp compact camera averages 1.3 -1.7meg (with flash 900k)

better camera = more detail
More detail = bigger file?

LosOutlandos 19 Jun 2007, 17:45

i'd also love the POSSIBILITY to change the compression level used for jpegs, even if it's hidden deep in image settings. nokia seems to believe their customers prefer as few possible settings as possible, in other words: are idiots!

Quakester2000 20 Jun 2007, 10:10

LosOutlandos wrote:i'd also love the POSSIBILITY to change the compression level used for jpegs, even if it's hidden deep in image settings. nokia seems to believe their customers prefer as few possible settings as possible, in other words: are idiots!

Yeah it is an annoying feature, i wonder if anyone else will write a camera app that allows saving in better quality. Though the camera API / Rom settings may already have the compression settings built in so no different app will allow it to be changed.

rt07 28 Mar 2008, 02:43

The old firmware (v11.xx) took photos over 1.5 megs on average, problems is once you "update" to the latest firmware, your stuck with it

I have messaged nokia asking if they can allow the user to speficy jpg compression ratio, this was the response

"Nokia does take into account that the requirements of customers may differ. Therefore, we have forwarded your comments regarding the quality of images captured on the Nokia N95 after the phone undergoes a software upgrade to the appropriate departments and the matter will be addressed internally."

Personally, i doubt they will actually do anything about it, so get used to it.. 😞

for the record:

a 5 mp 2592x1944x16m uncompressed photo is (14.4 megs), the n95 converts it without any options to a ridiculous 700k (0.07 megs)

zxon 28 Mar 2008, 12:06

rt07 wrote:a 5 mp 2592x1944x16m uncompressed photo is (14.4 megs), the n95 converts it without any options to a ridiculous 700k (0.07 megs)

Isn't 700k = 0.7Mb?

I've got a point-and-click 10MP digital camera. It doesn't have any option to save the images in a RAW format and yet images are saved at a respectable 5.8Mb each on average, and the camera doesn't support SDHC cards so 2Gb is the maximum it can take. I'd be more than happy if N95 photos were saved at half of that size.

chrsfrwll 28 Mar 2008, 13:32

yes, I've had a look at the dng program as well, and while it's nice to see steps in the right direction, this one is limited by the dimensions and orientation fixed at protrait.

yade 28 Mar 2008, 18:27

Remember that Nokia (and other decent camerphone manufacturers) Dont do this purely to keep filesize down. The image processing will be a balance of noise reduction, compression and image enhancement to make the picture the best it can be from the compact camera module fitted to the phone! I personally think that Nokia are leading the way with this compared to what I have seen of SE and Samsungs images (SE's having too much noise reduction applied and Samsungs images showing a lot of noise).

chrsfrwll 29 Mar 2008, 08:44

I saw on Symbian Freak an interesting Python script that made the camera save uncompressed jpegs instead. Trouble is, although some have reported success with it, I can't get the script to run, as it falls over at line 241. Also, reported success is mixed, as apparently it wasn't developed for autofocus cameras.

Yet another reason to get into Python. 😉