Pictures made by Nokia 6600

When I make a picture with my 6600 and view them on my PC, I see that the
pictures made are not quite sharp! Is this a fault in my 6600, or are move
people having this?

--
Henk van Loosbroek. ICQ: 50931463
My firmware:
Nokia 6600 -> v3.42.1




---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.600 / Virus Database: 381 - Release Date: 29-2-2004

---

› See More: Pictures made by Nokia 6600

"Henk Loosbroek" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> When I make a picture with my 6600 and view them on my PC, I see that the
> pictures made are not quite sharp! Is this a fault in my 6600, or are move
> people having this?
>

A 'normal' digital camera has a 'resolution' of 3 Mp or more. The 6600 has
only 640 x 480 pixels, is only 0,3 Mp, which is relative (compared with
other phones)good. In the near future we get gsm-camera's of 1 Mp (better,
but still not a real camera).

On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:45:33 +0100, "Henk Loosbroek" <[email protected]>
wrote some stuff about "Pictures made by Nokia 6600", to which I would like to
add the following:

>When I make a picture with my 6600 and view them on my PC, I see that the
>pictures made are not quite sharp! Is this a fault in my 6600, or are move
>people having this?

That's the way it is. Not just on 6600 mind you, but on absolutely any camera
phone on the market; it's adequate for sending and display on a small screen,
but looks like crap on a real screen.

Note that some pictures will work better than others. Like if there is a lot
of (or rather: any) difference in lighting in the image then crap will likely
be the result. However an object in even and adequate indirect lighting may
come out ok, especially after reducing the image size by about 50% using image
editing software. So out of 640 x 480 you end up with an acceptable looking
image of abotu 320 x 240. IF lighting was adequate and even, that is. ;-)

Cheers,
Chanchao

In this wonderful newsgroup Chanchao at [email protected]
exclaimed and announced the following:
> On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:45:33 +0100, "Henk Loosbroek"
> <[email protected]> wrote some stuff about "Pictures made by
> Nokia 6600", to which I would like to add the following:
>
>> When I make a picture with my 6600 and view them on my PC, I see
>> that the pictures made are not quite sharp! Is this a fault in my
>> 6600, or are move people having this?
>
> That's the way it is. Not just on 6600 mind you, but on absolutely
> any camera phone on the market; it's adequate for sending and display
> on a small screen, but looks like crap on a real screen.
>
> Note that some pictures will work better than others. Like if there
> is a lot of (or rather: any) difference in lighting in the image then
> crap will likely be the result. However an object in even and
> adequate indirect lighting may come out ok, especially after reducing
> the image size by about 50% using image editing software. So out of
> 640 x 480 you end up with an acceptable looking image of abotu 320 x
> 240. IF lighting was adequate and even, that is. ;-)
>
> Cheers,
> Chanchao

Aye, I've had some good pics with the 6600 after loading them up in
Photoshop CS, applying Auto Levels, 50% sharpening and resize to 320x240.
Actually they are pretty damn good and thats a statement from a keen amateur
digicam user with the EOS1D SLR digicam! One thing important though is to
clean the glass lens cover on the 6600 before taking pics. Smudgy
fingerprints will make the pics look less sharp and more blurry.

-Carl

Its also quite sensitive to motion .. both of the camera or the subject ..
still pics where you can hold the phone still while taking come out a lot
better than when your moving, or the subject is in motion ..


"Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In this wonderful newsgroup Chanchao at [email protected]
> exclaimed and announced the following:
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:45:33 +0100, "Henk Loosbroek"
> > <[email protected]> wrote some stuff about "Pictures made by
> > Nokia 6600", to which I would like to add the following:
> >
> >> When I make a picture with my 6600 and view them on my PC, I see
> >> that the pictures made are not quite sharp! Is this a fault in my
> >> 6600, or are move people having this?
> >
> > That's the way it is. Not just on 6600 mind you, but on absolutely
> > any camera phone on the market; it's adequate for sending and display
> > on a small screen, but looks like crap on a real screen.
> >
> > Note that some pictures will work better than others. Like if there
> > is a lot of (or rather: any) difference in lighting in the image then
> > crap will likely be the result. However an object in even and
> > adequate indirect lighting may come out ok, especially after reducing
> > the image size by about 50% using image editing software. So out of
> > 640 x 480 you end up with an acceptable looking image of abotu 320 x
> > 240. IF lighting was adequate and even, that is. ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chanchao
>
> Aye, I've had some good pics with the 6600 after loading them up in
> Photoshop CS, applying Auto Levels, 50% sharpening and resize to 320x240.
> Actually they are pretty damn good and thats a statement from a keen
amateur
> digicam user with the EOS1D SLR digicam! One thing important though is to
> clean the glass lens cover on the 6600 before taking pics. Smudgy
> fingerprints will make the pics look less sharp and more blurry.
>
> -Carl
>
>

I have a VERY similar problem (get my drift!?)

When I make a call with my Minolta 700si, I sometimes find that the
reception, and transmission is really quite poor.

I have found that to improve this, the caller, or indeed the person that I
am calling, would be best suited in being no longer than, say 30metres away.
This works quite well, and the transmission.reception is quite acceptable.
For OPTIMUM performance, and crisp, clear reception/transmission, I have
found that the BEST distance is about 8-10 meters. This way, both parties
have truly acceptable conversations. Better still, ensure that ears are
cleaned of wax first.

Get my drift??
"Horses for courses"

Now, where's my Swiss Army knife. I need to write a note :-))




"Lord-Data" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Its also quite sensitive to motion .. both of the camera or the subject ..
> still pics where you can hold the phone still while taking come out a lot
> better than when your moving, or the subject is in motion ..
>
>
> "Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In this wonderful newsgroup Chanchao at [email protected]
> > exclaimed and announced the following:
> > > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:45:33 +0100, "Henk Loosbroek"
> > > <[email protected]> wrote some stuff about "Pictures made by
> > > Nokia 6600", to which I would like to add the following:
> > >
> > >> When I make a picture with my 6600 and view them on my PC, I see
> > >> that the pictures made are not quite sharp! Is this a fault in my
> > >> 6600, or are move people having this?
> > >
> > > That's the way it is. Not just on 6600 mind you, but on absolutely
> > > any camera phone on the market; it's adequate for sending and display
> > > on a small screen, but looks like crap on a real screen.
> > >
> > > Note that some pictures will work better than others. Like if there
> > > is a lot of (or rather: any) difference in lighting in the image then
> > > crap will likely be the result. However an object in even and
> > > adequate indirect lighting may come out ok, especially after reducing
> > > the image size by about 50% using image editing software. So out of
> > > 640 x 480 you end up with an acceptable looking image of abotu 320 x
> > > 240. IF lighting was adequate and even, that is. ;-)
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Chanchao
> >
> > Aye, I've had some good pics with the 6600 after loading them up in
> > Photoshop CS, applying Auto Levels, 50% sharpening and resize to
320x240.
> > Actually they are pretty damn good and thats a statement from a keen
> amateur
> > digicam user with the EOS1D SLR digicam! One thing important though is
to
> > clean the glass lens cover on the 6600 before taking pics. Smudgy
> > fingerprints will make the pics look less sharp and more blurry.
> >
> > -Carl
> >
> >
>
>

Good advice thankyou anymore tips on this level concerning 6600

Mick






Aye, I've had some good pics with the 6600 after loading them up in
Photoshop CS, applying Auto Levels, 50% sharpening and resize to 320x240.
Actually they are pretty damn good and thats a statement from a keen amateur
digicam user with the EOS1D SLR digicam! One thing important though is to
clean the glass lens cover on the 6600 before taking pics. Smudgy
fingerprints will make the pics look less sharp and more blurry.

-Carl











"Carl" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In this wonderful newsgroup Chanchao at [email protected]
> exclaimed and announced the following:
> > On Mon, 1 Mar 2004 10:45:33 +0100, "Henk Loosbroek"
> > <[email protected]> wrote some stuff about "Pictures made by
> > Nokia 6600", to which I would like to add the following:
> >
> >> When I make a picture with my 6600 and view them on my PC, I see
> >> that the pictures made are not quite sharp! Is this a fault in my
> >> 6600, or are move people having this?
> >
> > That's the way it is. Not just on 6600 mind you, but on absolutely
> > any camera phone on the market; it's adequate for sending and display
> > on a small screen, but looks like crap on a real screen.
> >
> > Note that some pictures will work better than others. Like if there
> > is a lot of (or rather: any) difference in lighting in the image then
> > crap will likely be the result. However an object in even and
> > adequate indirect lighting may come out ok, especially after reducing
> > the image size by about 50% using image editing software. So out of
> > 640 x 480 you end up with an acceptable looking image of abotu 320 x
> > 240. IF lighting was adequate and even, that is. ;-)
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Chanchao
>
> Aye, I've had some good pics with the 6600 after loading them up in
> Photoshop CS, applying Auto Levels, 50% sharpening and resize to 320x240.
> Actually they are pretty damn good and thats a statement from a keen
amateur
> digicam user with the EOS1D SLR digicam! One thing important though is to
> clean the glass lens cover on the 6600 before taking pics. Smudgy
> fingerprints will make the pics look less sharp and more blurry.
>
> -Carl
>
>

On Tue, 2 Mar 2004 00:40:03 -0000, "Ugz" <[email protected]> wrote some
stuff about "Re: Pictures made by Nokia 6600", to which I would like to add
the following:

>Good advice thankyou anymore tips on this level concerning 6600

Yes: Normal mode sometimes comes out better than night-mode, even when it's
relatively dark. Night-mode seems to cause some distortion and blueish
'flakes' that are less apparent in normal mode. Also the problem getting a
good image where part of the image is lighted brightly (or when there are
direct light-sources visible) seems to worsen in night-mode.

Cheers,
Chanchao

Klaas Ensing wrote:
> A 'normal' digital camera has a 'resolution' of 3 Mp or more. The
> 6600 has only 640 x 480 pixels, is only 0,3 Mp, which is relative
> (compared with other phones)good. In the near future we get gsm-
> camera's of 1 Mp (better, but still not a real camera).


I'm not a digital camera specialist, but I know that much that the pixel
resolution of the camera is not all that counts, and in this case maybe not
even important at all. The image could be sharp even at the resolution of
640 x 480, but it's the optics in whole that what kind of image quality the
camera can produce.

--
Tero Lehto
http://lehto.net/tero/

"Tero Lehto" <[email protected]> schreef in bericht
news:[email protected]...
> Klaas Ensing wrote:
> > A 'normal' digital camera has a 'resolution' of 3 Mp or more. The
> > 6600 has only 640 x 480 pixels, is only 0,3 Mp, which is relative
> > (compared with other phones)good. In the near future we get gsm-
> > camera's of 1 Mp (better, but still not a real camera).
>
>
> I'm not a digital camera specialist, but I know that much that the pixel
> resolution of the camera is not all that counts, and in this case maybe
not
> even important at all.

It is very important, but a normal eye cannot see sharper than 300 dpi on a
print. So if you have a real camera with a good lens (not a fix focus small
piece of plastic like in de GSM-phones), you do not see the difference on a
normal print (10x 15 cm) between a camera of 3 Mp an a expensive camera with
8 Mp. But if you only have 0,3 Mp the print is only sharp if you have a very
small picture. Compare it with an old matrix-printer with seven pins to
format a sign and a modern inkjet-printer who has at least 10 times more
pixels per sign.

> The image could be sharp even at the resolution of
> 640 x 480, but it's the optics in whole that what kind of image quality
the
> camera can produce.
>
> --
> Tero Lehto
> http://lehto.net/tero/
>
>

"Tero Lehto" <[email protected]> wrote:

>I'm not a digital camera specialist, but I know that much that the pixel
>resolution of the camera is not all that counts, and in this case maybe not
>even important at all. The image could be sharp even at the resolution of
>640 x 480, but it's the optics in whole that what kind of image quality the
>camera can produce.

Another problem is, they use crappy CMOS chips, not the more expensive
CCD technology.



regards - Ralph

--

Want to get in touch? http://www.radio-link.net/whereisralph.txt

On 03/03/2004, Ralph A. Schmid, DK5RAS wrote in message
<[email protected]>:

> Another problem is, they use crappy CMOS chips, not the more expensive
> CCD technology.

Not just expensive, but very hard to power. Not the kind of
thing you want in a small light phone.

Simon.
--
Using pre-release version of newsreader.
Please tell me if it does weird things.

Simon Slavin <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Not just expensive, but very hard to power. Not the kind of
>thing you want in a small light phone.

I do not need a camera anyway in my phone But for those rare
moments when I would use this camera the higher power consumption
would not be a problem at all. Or does really anyone go around and
take hundreds of photos with a mobile phone??



regards - Ralph

--

Want to get in touch? http://www.radio-link.net/whereisralph.txt

"Simon Slavin" <[email protected]> schreef
in bericht news:[email protected]...
> On 03/03/2004, Ralph A. Schmid, DK5RAS wrote in message
> <[email protected]>:
>
> > Another problem is, they use crappy CMOS chips, not the more expensive
> > CCD technology.
>
> Not just expensive, but very hard to power. Not the kind of
> thing you want in a small light phone.
>

Mmmmm... Canon is using CMOS in his cameras, with great succes.

"Klaas Ensing" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mmmmm... Canon is using CMOS in his cameras, with great succes.

Really? Then maybe those are the non-crappy CMOS chips :-) I have also
a Canon digital camera, only a cheaper one, I have to find out what
they use...interesting! But mainly I use a "real" camera, not a
digital one *g*




regards - Ralph

--

Want to get in touch? http://www.radio-link.net/whereisralph.txt