Related
The cheap camera lens seems to have no IR filter.
So this may account for a lot of the blue fringes we see around bright spots in the photograps.
seems to be a cost saving tactic on many cheap digital camera's
The infrared light is detected as blue light , but has a different refraction index, so it shows up as an out of focus blue fringe around bright objects.
I have included a picture shining an remote to the camera to show the effect.
The remote emmits no visible light , yet the camera detects a blue lightsource.
If you place a filter in front of the lens that filter out the VISIBLE light you can even make an "X-ray" camera out it for extra fun stuff.
Im not gonna explain that any further here , just look it up on google with words like "sony" "x-ray" "camera" and maybe "clothes" :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
bk227865 said:
If you place a filter in front of the lens that filter out the VISIBLE light you can even make an "X-ray" camera out it for extra fun stuff.
Im not gonna explain that any further here , just look it up on google with words like "sony" "x-ray" "camera" and maybe "clothes" :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Spoilsport ! :wink:
actually i've never seen a mobile phone camera or any pc-webcam that has an ir-filter. they all show ir-light. :wink:
I would go as far as to say: you are all wrong!
Our cameras have IR filters.
All webcams do!
The only problem is; it's not good enough..
Get yourself a cheap logitech camera, dismantle it, remove a small square piece of glass.
Connect the camera and see how much interference IR is giving!
The filters remove IR "radiation" light, but not enough to dampen a IR remote signal..
I completly disassembled two webcams until now and there was no such thing unless the lens itself has ir-filter capabilitys. that doesn't have to mean that that's the standart case, but the pictures the cams took looked pretty much the same even with all crap removed. I don't think cheap cams (and pretty much all cams are cheap unless it's a digicam for 200$ or more) include an ir-filter.
bk227865 said:
If you place a filter in front of the lens that filter out the VISIBLE light you can even make an "X-ray" camera out it for extra fun stuff.
Im not gonna explain that any further here , just look it up on google with words like "sony" "x-ray" "camera" and maybe "clothes" :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you take that with your wizard ?
NexNo said:
I completly disassembled two webcams until now and there was no such thing unless the lens itself has ir-filter capabilitys. that doesn't have to mean that that's the standart case, but the pictures the cams took looked pretty much the same even with all crap removed. I don't think cheap cams (and pretty much all cams are cheap unless it's a digicam for 200$ or more) include an ir-filter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well, the IR filter I picked out if my Logitech quick cam looks like a normal piece of glass, but if you see it from the side, you either get a green/turquoise color or red/pink color from it..
Look at your lenses; got the same color reflections?
nope. no reflections at the lens as far as I can see it. and no little piece of glass either. maybe logitech does that since it's a more expensive cam? mine was really cheap.. reeeally cheap ^^ like 8 euros or so. an old "pencam" that I teared appart got rid of the plastic case and "built" a new case out of sticky tape looks like a phreaky cocoon but is 1/3 the size of the original.
knowsleyroader said:
Did you take that with your wizard ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes,
Some remote controls have a black looking piece of plastic in front.
That is actually a filter that let's IR pass through but not visible light.
So i demollished an old remote control and with the makeshift black plastic filter taped in front of the lens i took a picture. Then i took a regular picture for comparison.
As you can see the leaves on the tree's are much lighter when viewed in IR. That is because they reflect IR radiation , (protecting themself from getting sunburned)
Ideally the sky in the IR image should register as very dark blue , but too much normal red light is seeping through the plastic filter.
LOL, all cameras I've test since I was a child can detect IR beams from a remote. no matter if they have IR filters or not... No I'm 30 years old :twisted:
Interesting... I get the same thing with my Charmer camera.
However, I was trying to shine my IR Remote to act as a torch light in total darkness, but doesn't seems to work. I need a much stronger IR light source.
When our son was born I bought a wireless video camera. Then after doing some research I removed the IR filter (there is a professional name for it, can't remember) and bought myself 8 powerfull IR leds, connected them to 12V.
It was like daylight in the middle of the night ;O)
The IR sensitivity of CMOS and CCD generaly doesn't go to much down the spectrum. Heat from a body is below that range.
Cheers
http://www.kaya-optics.com/products/overview.shtml
For a good, basic explanation of NIR
tweakradje said:
When our son was born I bought a wireless video camera. Then after doing some research I removed the IR filter (there is a professional name for it, can't remember) and bought myself 8 powerfull IR leds, connected them to 12V.
It was like daylight in the middle of the night ;O)
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Wow, that's what I call surveillance :twisted: ... big parent is watching you... ^^
bk227865 said:
The cheap camera lens seems to have no IR filter.
So this may account for a lot of the blue fringes we see around bright spots in the photograps.
seems to be a cost saving tactic on many cheap digital camera's
The infrared light is detected as blue light , but has a different refraction index, so it shows up as an out of focus blue fringe around bright objects.
I have included a picture shining an remote to the camera to show the effect.
The remote emmits no visible light , yet the camera detects a blue lightsource.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A few days ago, I was making a photo of my laptop and when I looked into the camera, I saw a little light blinking what turns out to be the infrared port of my laptop, but it soesn't bother me at all, did not have any problems yest with the pictures I took.
bk227865 said:
knowsleyroader said:
Did you take that with your wizard ?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes,
Some remote controls have a black looking piece of plastic in front.
That is actually a filter that let's IR pass through but not visible light.
So i demollished an old remote control and with the makeshift black plastic filter taped in front of the lens i took a picture. Then i took a regular picture for comparison.
As you can see the leaves on the tree's are much lighter when viewed in IR. That is because they reflect IR radiation , (protecting themself from getting sunburned)
Ideally the sky in the IR image should register as very dark blue , but too much normal red light is seeping through the plastic filter.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
So If I go to a boot sale and find any old type remote with a docking big brown/black front cover over the ir would that work ?
guys guys guys this will clear it all up ...
just read this
http://www.hoagieshouse.com/IR/
found here http://www.hackaday.com/entry/1234000110036028/
have fun browsing :wink:
any ideas how to remove IR filter from Wizard?
I've done that on nokia 3110c (destructive method) and on webcam MS vx1000(?) and there was the filter just sitting, no glue.
can be wizard modded? any ideas/hints/pictures/tutorials?
I searched for a camera fix for the HD camera with no success. Does anyone know if there's going to be a fix in the near future? I'm sure that ya'll have the same problem that I do. Camera takes pictures that look old & rustic. Brownish tint to them & not very sharp for a 5 MP camera. I have adjusted all the settings for light & junk but nothing fixes it. As far as I'm concerned, it should take pictures IDENTICAL to a normal 5 MP digital camera. I can promise you that it's not doing that. Any help would be great, thanks in advance.
Vampire2800 said:
I searched for a camera fix for the HD camera with no success. Does anyone know if there's going to be a fix in the near future? I'm sure that ya'll have the same problem that I do. Camera takes pictures that look old & rustic. Brownish tint to them & not very sharp for a 5 MP camera. I have adjusted all the settings for light & junk but nothing fixes it. As far as I'm concerned, it should take pictures IDENTICAL to a normal 5 MP digital camera. I can promise you that it's not doing that. Any help would be great, thanks in advance.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Why should it take pictures identical to a 5MP camera. The lens on the front is going to be vastly different, the sensor maybe 5MP, but what is the spacing on the sensor pixels? The closer together, the noisier the image. Colour balance will be down to the sensor too.
Regards
I'm not talking about the front camera. The normal camera on the back. I understand about the pixel thing, but it still shouldn't be so brownish, right? The pictures look like an old Polaroid picture. You know, the one's that spit the picture out as soon as you took it. Old, brown & nasty looking.
My pictures come out fine...
Hmmmmmmm...................... I'll just keep playing with it.
Vampire2800 said:
I'm not talking about the front camera. The normal camera on the back. I understand about the pixel thing, but it still shouldn't be so brownish, right? The pictures look like an old Polaroid picture. You know, the one's that spit the picture out as soon as you took it. Old, brown & nasty looking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I'm not being flippant, but is it possible you might have a dirty lens?
Lol, that was the first thing I tried. Cleaned both sides of the back cover & cleaned the lens on the camera. Good idea, though.
The "5mp" doesn't really mean much, as stated earlier, if the sensor and lens are poor quality. As far as I know, HTC haven't released a phone with a reasonable quality camera, yet.
I bounce between different smart-phones (just coming back to WM now, after a year with S60). I can say that many of the S60 devices (in particular the Nokia N95, but also the N82 with Xenon flash) have very good cameras, being similar to low-end digital cameras in daylight. They lack optical zoom and tend to over-compress images, but have good quality lenses.
imho hd camera is excelent
pictures look old & rustic only if you make them inside house without using the artificial light setting, and this is also a general rule, not specific to HD.
Never seen a good phone camera yet, including the latest 8mpixel ones. They're all terrible.
Never
This camera will NEVER take pictures anywhere near what real cameras do. The photo sites are so tiny, they are smaller then the length of waive of light. Therefore noise, lack of dynamic width, etc. No patch will ever fix that. Sorry
open back cover , clean the lens , you will see a huge difference in quality
Vampire2800 said:
Lol, that was the first thing I tried. Cleaned both sides of the back cover & cleaned the lens on the camera. Good idea, though.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Not that I'm doubting you or anything but you do realize that the back cover only has a hole through to the lens?
You might try setting the brightness higher:
If you touch the small rectangle near the bottom right side of the screen (when holding landscape)
Then select the gear symbol, then select brightness from the menu and hit the "+" until it looks better that will remove most of the darkness.
The camera is a plain disappointment. In the time the camera autofocusses, I could have bought a Sony Ericsson C905's, create a good looking photo (with xenon flash) and upload it to imageshack.
If 'your object' makes the slightest move, your photo will be blurry . This is also the case when you attempt to make a photo of someone that isn't aware he or she has to be waiting for the autofocus lag. Head moves >>> blurry pic.
iPhone camera shots are way better quality, don't ask me why. Overall my Touch HD scores 8/10, where atleast 1 full point is taken up by the camera
and it's better don't speak about the very laggy video recording
mach03 said:
iPhone camera shots are way better quality, don't ask me why.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Too many megapixels on a tiny sensor = major noise problem = blurring from denoise.
Even 2mpixels is too much for sensors this size, but people buy on marketing numbers of megapixels, not quality. You can just imagine the whining that would occur if the Touch HD came out with 1.3mpxiels, even though it would produce better pictures.
arfster said:
Too many megapixels on a tiny sensor = major noise problem = blurring from denoise.
Even 2mpixels is too much for sensors this size, but people buy on marketing numbers of megapixels, not quality. You can just imagine the whining that would occur if the Touch HD came out with 1.3mpxiels, even though it would produce better pictures.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
hehe, thats true.
mpixels dont count as much as the general public belives. the more mpix. the higher rezolution you can print the picture in. but for ordinary photos, 1.3 mpix would be enough, as long as the optics is good.
Personally, I rarely use a phone camera.
I use either my Olympus 720SW or Canon EOS.
the camera sucks **** compared to the n95 and the video recording is horrid. i know it's not meant to be as good as a dedicated camera but this is pretty bad given the price of the device.
i concur with mach03, move the camera a slight bit and eveyrthing gets blurred. one way i've semi gotten aorund this is to unlock the burst functiona nd take a sequence of pics and hope one or two coems out alright, not the most economic way to do it though...
i would ahve thought that maybe there's a way to tweak the camera to stop the blurring or even affect how much light is picked up by the lens which should also help with clarity
Vampire2800 said:
I'm not talking about the front camera. The normal camera on the back. I understand about the pixel thing, but it still shouldn't be so brownish, right? The pictures look like an old Polaroid picture. You know, the one's that spit the picture out as soon as you took it. Old, brown & nasty looking.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
A silly idea, but seriously, did you check if maybe, just maybe, you left the "sepia" effect turned on???
Hey Guys,
I have a 100% bricked unit a person donated for work.
I took some macro shots. First time. If anyone can give me hints on how to get them more clean / close etc. I will do more.
But, here you go.
Smaller images
http://www.mrcellphoneunlocker.com/vibrant_macro
Raw Images
http://www.mrcellphoneunlocker.com/vibrant_macro/Raw/
Well, you basically need to change the resolution to something higher, and change the settings in the camera to macro mode. From the looks of things though, your camera won't allow close-ups in high detail.
I change to macro. I think i need a tri-pod to keep it steady. my hands shake
Yeah, change resolution to something much higher. Even if you camera doesn't have a macro mode, we should be able to zoom in pretty well. The more natural light, the better.
New pics up using a tri-pod.
http://www.mrcellphoneunlocker.com/vibrant_macro
let me know
Hard to tell on there... not even close to macro though. You'll need to get a macro lens to get real close.
Here's true 1:1 ratio macro of the sim card slot along with a 100% crop from the same photo
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4080/4896772122_450859da8d_o.jpg
100% crop
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4099/4896176925_ee3f0d09f9_o.jpg
I took the screws out of the plastic cover and was going to take some close up shots for you, but when I did it didn't seem to come loose on it's own. I assume that I'd need to pry it apart which I wasn't going to do since it's not bricked, lol....
Mine is just a simple 12M cam. Nothing special. Its not a SLR. But if you have a vibrant open. please take using a prof cam
How did you get the black plastic cover off? Are there some tabs or anything I need to push in, will it go back on nice after I take it off? I'd glady take real closup shots of all the components if it's easy to get that off.. I took out all of the screws thinking it would just come loose, but it didn't. I don't want to jack it up, I'm not the most graceful when it comes to working with small breakable parts. Would hate to jack up my new phone, haha.
jeremiah_mn said:
How did you get the black plastic cover off? Are there some tabs or anything I need to push in, will it go back on nice after I take it off? I'd glady take real closup shots of all the components if it's easy to get that off.. I took out all of the screws thinking it would just come loose, but it didn't. I don't want to jack it up, I'm not the most graceful when it comes to working with small breakable parts. Would hate to jack up my new phone, haha.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Well this phone was taken apart already. and its a total brick.
He told me he had to remove the silver plastic.
The rest I just removed the screws and the connectors. Very simple.
What you have uploaded is maybe a 1mp image. When pulling images off the camera dont allow any resizing, and when uploading to the webpage dont allow any resizing. We need that 10mb+ file to view things properly. If your using your vibrant to take a picture of this vibrant, dont waste your time.
bubonik said:
What you have uploaded is maybe a 1mp image. When pulling images off the camera dont allow any resizing, and when uploading to the webpage dont allow any resizing. We need that 10mb+ file to view things properly. If your using your vibrant to take a picture of this vibrant, dont waste your time.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yes, You are right. the app is making them smaller. Ill upload over night. so they are bigger.
Thanks for the idea. I forgot about that
Uploading now.
Huge raw images: http://www.mrcellphoneunlocker.com/vibrant_macro/Raw/
I can't wait to see this development blossom...
Sent from my SGH-T959 using XDA App
i wonder if the FF camera from the SGS is a combined vga FFC / 5mp main camera? you can see the hole in the chassis clearly in your pictures and its RIGHT behind the main 5mp camera.
it'd be interesting if you could obtain the FFC or the dual lens (whatever, forgive my lack of knowledge on the proper terminology) unit from the SGS and put it in a vibrant.
probably more trouble than its worth, but maybe not?
MOD, Why were these two threads moved? These are DEV threads. not Gerneal threads. Please move them back.
Thanks!
I'm very impressed by the video capability of the note. Just tried out shooting at an event and the frame rate and sharpness was really good. However I want to improve it further as these are the problems I encountered.
1. Stability - definitely needs a stabilizer. Do those ebay phone brackets that have a tripod mount fit the Note? If they do I can screw in a monopod whose weight can act as the stabilizer. It'd be great if this mount had a hotshoe for an audio recorder too.
2. Exposure control - in fancy lighting situations the camera automatically adjusts exposure, and I don't want this. I want to be able to set a exposure setting manually and leave it at that. In addition, the exposure settings only offer +/-1 and +/-2. Sometimes in bright situations we need more. Can we go beyond these settings? And once we start recording there's no way to change the exposure control on the fly, is there?
3. Lenses - those cheap iphone wideangle and tele lenses look good but do they fit the note? The lens housing is square rather than round like on these lenses.
For a makeshift tripod try using one of those car suction holders. Works if you have a flat surface to stick it on.
Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk
I'm also interested in knowing how to open mp4 files created with the note's camera app. I checked the file and it contains avc h264 video, but I cannot open it in virtualdub at all. I get 'file does not have a video stream' errors, but they play fine in media player, so I'm sure I have the right codecs.
JulyDerek said:
For a makeshift tripod try using one of those car suction holders. Works if you have a flat surface to stick it on.
Sent from my Galaxy Note using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
You want to make sure that your Note has a case for this suction cup as you do not even want to try and hook it to the battery cover out of fear that it might just peel right off.
I took a couple of videos and the quality to me just isn't that great. This is with the UHD setting. Just isn't that clear for UHD.
I agree I had lots of noise/grain in mine. FHD60 seems a bit cleaner
This is a pic zoomed in half way. Looks awful. I bought this phone because the camera was supposed to be unreal. Is this normal or just maybe I have a bad cam?
Shot some video in a dark bar venue of a band playing. Using the main lens and manual settings, it turned out really well. The wide angle left a bit to be desired as shot but I think I have an idea for that lens. Shot with 1080 at 30fps high bit rate. Posted it in another thread over the weekend.
And at full zoom
Shot at 1080 30...
anth75 said:
Shot at 1080 30...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Looks as though you may have a dirty lens.
The light in the room is a give away of grease or finger prints across lens. As the ceiling light starts to chase across your shot.
Same thing can cause grainy pictures. As it effects even a camera shot the same way.
Always try cleaning the lens if the shot seems to be poor.
shwnr11 said:
Looks as though you may have a dirty lens.
The light in the room is a give away of grease or finger prints across lens. As the ceiling light starts to chase across your shot.
Same thing can cause grainy pictures. As it effects even a camera shot the same way.
Always try cleaning the lens if the shot seems to be poor.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I've tried to clean the lens, no luck. Do u think it's the phone itself?
Did you set to record in high bit rate?
Personally, I think the camera, both video and still, is the weakest part of the phone. I am not happy with that, but will live with it until the Note 8 comes out.
And you removed protector of the camera lens?
anth75 said:
Shot at 1080 30...
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What other settings did you use? (ISO, Shutter Speed, Bit Rate, Filters?)
I will say that it looks like you're using the digital zoom, which is always problem #1. Never use digital zoom unless you have to do so. Whoever came up with this gimmick should be dragged out into the street and hung. It just doesn't get you anything but a mess. Optical zoom is optimal. Bipedal zoom is your secondary option. Digital zoom just shouldn't be an option. It is quite literally the option you choose when you want to have some sort of shot, any shot, and you don't care about the quality of the shot. This goes for any device from a cellphone up to a DSLR.
---------- Post added at 12:32 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:21 PM ----------
This was shot in a very dark bar venue with mediocre stage lighting. (Strike one against getting decent footage.) ISO 3200 (Another strike against any decent footage as you're maxing out the gain on the sensor.) 1080 at 30fps so I used a shutter speed of 1/60. I used the high bit rate setting. The refocusing is me touching the screen as I couldn't tell if I had good focus since it was dark and my eyes kinda suck these days without readers. I was playing with the audio settings and had no idea how to set it for a concert so I cheated and used approximately what I found for concert settings in the HD recorder app.
Considering the conditions..... the V20 did extremely well! I could pick things out in the audio that I couldn't live in person. In person, it was just a wall of sound sometimes. The video turned out amazing for being a tiny camera sensor. The only real thing I can knock the V20 on is the video stabilization. There needs to be settings somewhere so I can turn the OIS and EIS off and on so I know if it is on or off.
Are you using the stock cam app? I don't see anything where I can change the zoom type.
anth75 said:
Are you using the stock cam app? I don't see anything where I can change the zoom type.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Yup, stock camera app. There is no setting for changing the zoom type. If you aren't clicking the one tree/three tree buttons, then you are going through a digital zoom. Only clicking those two buttons uses purely "optical zoom" although in reality, you're just completely switching cameras. (Different sensors and different lenses which presents its own issues since the wider view uses a smaller sensor and smaller aperture while the main shooter uses a "larger" sensor and larger aperture.)
Using pinch to zoom or the zoom slider means you're going through digital zoom. So if you start at the widest setting with the wide view and start zooming, the image quality is only going to get worse until you pop over into the main imaging group. Then if you continue to zoom, the image quality will degrade again. The best quality you're ever going to get out of any single focal length imaging assembly (which is what we're technically dealing with here, two single focal length imaging assemblies) is at its native focal magnification and at its base ISO. Which the photo options says is 50 but that's not always necessarily true, I'd have to look up the native sensor ISO online to be sure.
Did an unprocessed and processed test with my v20. By far the best dynamic range of any phone camera I've worked with.
---------- Post added at 01:16 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:07 PM ----------
CHH2 said:
What other settings did you use? (ISO, Shutter Speed, Bit Rate, Filters?)
I will say that it looks like you're using the digital zoom, which is always problem #1. Never use digital zoom unless you have to do so. Whoever came up with this gimmick should be dragged out into the street and hung. It just doesn't get you anything but a mess. Optical zoom is optimal. Bipedal zoom is your secondary option. Digital zoom just shouldn't be an option. It is quite literally the option you choose when you want to have some sort of shot, any shot, and you don't care about the quality of the shot. This goes for any device from a cellphone up to a DSLR.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
The only positive thing I found about the digital zoom on the v20 which is unique in my experience is that when you're shooting 1080p on other phones, even though it's a 4k sensor it zooms up on the post sampled 1080p frame instead of taking advantage of the 4k sensor and zooming up without any quality loss. The V20 appears to do just that and up to a point there's no fidelity loss with the digital zoom because you're sampling a smaller section of the sensor..
vargala81 said:
And you removed protector of the camera lens?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Don't remove that. It helps protect the glass from scratches and shatter.
anth75 said:
This is a pic zoomed in half way. Looks awful. I bought this phone because the camera was supposed to be unreal. Is this normal or just maybe I have a bad cam?
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
Did you gain any insight to help fix your grainy pic issues? I'm having the same problem. I keep seeing people suggest to remove the plastic protector but it has cutouts for the lenses and the sensors so I don't see how that makes a difference. I'm taking pictures without any zooming but when I take a look at the results and zoom in to different parts to review, it looks horrible and grainy.
arn82 said:
Did you gain any insight to help fix your grainy pic issues? I'm having the same problem. I keep seeing people suggest to remove the plastic protector but it has cutouts for the lenses and the sensors so I don't see how that makes a difference. I'm taking pictures without any zooming but when I take a look at the results and zoom in to different parts to review, it looks horrible and grainy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
What is your photo size set at? 16mp or 12mp?
arn82 said:
Did you gain any insight to help fix your grainy pic issues? I'm having the same problem. I keep seeing people suggest to remove the plastic protector but it has cutouts for the lenses and the sensors so I don't see how that makes a difference. I'm taking pictures without any zooming but when I take a look at the results and zoom in to different parts to review, it looks horrible and grainy.
Click to expand...
Click to collapse
I haven't. I wouldnt take the plastic off. As you said, it has cutouts for the lens. Not impressed at all with the camera
I'm amazed at your low light video. I also thought the camera was the weak point of the phone. Guess I need to work on my manual focus skills.
Sent from my VS995 using Tapatalk