[TheScionicMan]

Which is better 16:9 or 4:3????

ZeE 10 STL100-1 LEGEND

IMO, just use the format that fits your subject matter the best.

[Varun Naive]

Sometimes my Z10 cliks fantastic photos even better than the iphone but sometimes I am disappointed....

ZeE 10 STL100-1 LEGEND

[Barracuda7772]

Why my Z10 STL100-1 captures photos not more than 1.8 Mb as compared to other devices such of android and apple which captures b/w 1.5 to 3.5 Mb 8 MP shooters...I have a 4 S which captures of size 3 Mb.....
Is my camera faulty

ZeE 10 STL100-1 LEGEND

You're not using the full 8mp sensor unless your shooting in 4:3 aspect ratio

Sent from the ocean using my waterproof Z10

[TheScionicMan]

Of course 4:3 is better. This utilise more sensor pixels than the wide format .

But are those pixels capturing anything you want? A lot of the time in 4:3, it is just capturing another inch or two of space above and below your subject. Most people would crop that out anyway, eliminating any benefit you would get from using more of the sensor.

[crazigee]

But are those pixels capturing anything you want? A lot of the time in 4:3, it is just capturing another inch or two of space above and below your subject. Most people would crop that out anyway, eliminating any benefit you would get from using more of the sensor.

Yes, I think that's true. Good point.

Posted using my Z10 via CB10

[Traxxmy]

But are those pixels capturing anything you want? A lot of the time in 4:3, it is just capturing another inch or two of space above and below your subject. Most people would crop that out anyway, eliminating any benefit you would get from using more of the sensor.

Maybe you would crop to 16:9 but after cropping, the pixel will almost be the same as when you take 16:9. For me it, worth that I get extra pixel. I always prefer 4:3 than 16:9 anyway. The picture always look bigger to me in 4:3.
2 megapixel picture is actually enough as most hd tv resolution is even up to 2 megapixel unless you buy ultra hd tv. Higher picture resolution is very useful thought for future edit and cropping. I even sometimes takes full resolution using my nokia 808. A total 38 megapixel in one picture. When zoom it looks like microscope to me hahaha.

[Traxxmy]

[QUOTE=Traxxmy;10383156]Maybe you would crop to 16:9 but after cropping, the pixel will almost be the same as when you take 16:9. For me it, worth that I get extra pixel. I always prefer 4:3 than 16:9 anyway. The picture always look bigger to me in 4:3.

[Varun Naive]

I tried 4:3 full sensor also still the size is 1.9 MB.....it captures 1 MB in HDR and 16:9

ZeE 10 STL100-1 LEGEND

[mnc76]

I tried 4:3 full sensor also still the size is 1.9 MB.....it captures 1 MB in HDR and 16:9

ZeE 10 STL100-1 LEGEND

I have 3MB 16:9 pictures on my Z10 -- they were taken on a very bright day. Try taking close-to-medium distance pictures in a bright sunlight. More light = more detail captured = less opportunity to compress the image.

The idea behind JPEG "lossy" compression is to reduce the file size with minimal loss of quality (as seen by the human eye). A dark picture has more areas with uniform color that can be compressed. E.g.: a 1,000 x 1,000 pixel image taken in total darkness can be compressed to a few bytes with *zero* loss of image quality (e.g.: with the code "1000x1000,black"). However, an image with extreme variation in pixel colors cannot be reduced to a short code, and therefore cannot be as easily compressed (without losing image quality).

Also, the level of variation in the objects you are shooting will affect how much the image can be compressed without losing image quality. A picture of a "Stop" sign will likely be more compressable than a close-up picture of tree bark, since the Stop sign has large patches of the same color, while the tree bark has more intricate variations that are harder to "summarize" with a short code.

[Varun Naive]

definitely give it a try
thaknz

[eddy_berry]

If you are seeing the two pics I posted. The one with the flowers is the smaller file. Purple and green and very little detail means it can be compressed. It's only 1.7MB. The other has tons of detail if you look closely. The bark of the tree is very detailed and same with the mushrooms. That picture is almost 3MB in size and it was taken with the exact same settings as the other. I have no idea why you want bigger file sizes. Just take a picture of the most intricately detailed thing you can find and your file size will no doubt be large.

Posted via CB10

[Varun Naive]

fantastic.....ur Z10 model ???

I prefer the 4:3 myself but will switch once in a while to 16:9. Depends on what I need. I will post pictures I took with Z10 that is 1.7MB and another that is 2.9MB. how do you like it? Both look good to me. Might be better if you saw the actual images but they are still good photos. Both taken on overcast days. Guess which is which? lol. Anyway the Z10 camera is not that bad if you play around with it. I tend not to use HDR unless it will help as it is different than what I have seen in other smartphone cameras. It forces HDR which is not always ideal. Only use it when there are very bright and very dark or shaded areas within your frame. Also moving objects don't come out in HDR.

[eddy_berry]

fantastic.....ur Z10 model ???

STL100-3 if it matters

[vader42]

I have 3MB 16:9 pictures on my Z10 -- they were taken on a very bright day. Try taking close-to-medium distance pictures in a bright sunlight. More light = more detail captured = less opportunity to compress the image.

The idea behind JPEG "lossy" compression is to reduce the file size with minimal loss of quality (as seen by the human eye). A dark picture has more areas with uniform color that can be compressed. E.g.: a 1,000 x 1,000 pixel image taken in total darkness can be compressed to a few bytes with *zero* loss of image quality (e.g.: with the code "1000x1000,black"). However, an image with extreme variation in pixel colors cannot be reduced to a short code, and therefore cannot be as easily compressed (without losing image quality).

Also, the level of variation in the objects you are shooting will affect how much the image can be compressed without losing image quality. A picture of a "Stop" sign will likely be more compressable than a close-up picture of tree bark, since the Stop sign has large patches of the same color, while the tree bark has more intricate variations that are harder to "summarize" with a short code.

Pretty much spot on! JPEG removes high frequency changes which normally go unnoticed. It characterizes the low frequency changes - the smaller the difference between pixels (ie. darker), the less data is required to characterise it (ie. smaller size).

Complicated shots have more high frequency components - this requires more information to be stored about the image. Simple images with lots of blank areas (ie. same colour) have fewer high frequency components, so smaller size.

So:
darker -> smaller size (normally)
simpler -> smaller size
less pixels (16:9 instead of 4:3) -> smaller size.

I did an experiment. I covered the lens and took a 4:3 and 16:9 photo. The sizes are:

16:9 414474
4:3 555830

I also took identical (as close as I could get) photos, one in normal, one in whiteboard (exposure +1, ie. brighter).

normal: 1222918
whiteboard: 1386111

Hope this helps

[Varun Naive]

Pretty much spot on! JPEG removes high frequency changes which normally go unnoticed. It characterizes the low frequency changes - the smaller the difference between pixels (ie. darker), the less data is required to characterise it (ie. smaller size).

Complicated shots have more high frequency components - this requires more information to be stored about the image. Simple images with lots of blank areas (ie. same colour) have fewer high frequency components, so smaller size.

So:
darker -> smaller size (normally)
simpler -> smaller size
less pixels (16:9 instead of 4:3) -> smaller size.

I did an experiment. I covered the lens and took a 4:3 and 16:9 photo. The sizes are:

16:9 414474
4:3 555830

I also took identical (as close as I could get) photos, one in normal, one in whiteboard (exposure +1, ie. brighter).

normal: 1222918
whiteboard: 1386111

Hope this helps

With which material u covered the lens....i coverd it with my hand..my image size was just 787 kb on 4:3 sensor

ZeE 10 STL100-1

[KISHAN PALADIYA]

I had just brought bb z 10.Whenever i taken a snap shot it always 1 MB size wht's he reason?

[Varun Naive]

I had just brought bb z 10.Whenever i taken a snap shot it always 1 MB size wht's he reason?

Same happened with me
Actually Z10's camera compresses the image to low size...so this happens
Try to.capture images with more details means more minute particles or things n u will get large size image....
I took a picture with with fine details n the size of that picture was 2.8 MB

ZeE 10 STL100-1

[Traxxmy]

For sake forget about the size and focus on quality. Z10 is never mean to be a great camera phone but if still restless about pictures quality compare to other devices then just do pixels to pixels comparison.

Symbian is still and always my favourite Os. Nokia 808