View Single Post
  #3579 (permalink)  
Old 08-24-2010, 08:07 PM
OMJ's Avatar
OMJ
Retired Staff
Offline
Threadstarter
Location: MN
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 4,767
Reputation: 20305
OMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation levelOMJ can't get a higher reputation level
Mentioned: 11 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Re: OMJ's HTC EVO 2.2 Custom ROM v3.0 | FroYo 3.26.651.6 | *Updated 8/13/10*

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarlE View Post
hey do you know if KingKlicks HAVS BFS #5 and CFS #7 have any issues with your rom ?
nope, dont know

Quote:
Originally Posted by juancaperez2000 View Post
It is possible run Baked Kernels on OMJ rooms, also im just installing #5 and will see, keep reportin, also how did you check that camera got caps
dont know, give it a try

I'm not saying the camera is capped, just pointing out the file size, like squat said, it may be nothin but compression...

Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowsquat View Post
Yeah it's definitely not the kernel or the ROM or...anything. This may be much ado about nothing. I'm on the same page as Karl-some type of compression going on but after multiple pics I cant pinpoint a pattern.

It's not the kernel. Here are two pics taken 30 minutes apart. The first is 1.51MB taken with a modded kernel (8MP Standard resolution 4:3)
Attachment 76351
and this is taken on the stock kernel and its SMALLER 1.08MB
Attachment 76352

Heres even more proof (to me) that there is no issue.
One of my first pics taken, complete stock, unrooted. I know it was 8MP but it may have been in widescreen so really 6.7MP due to the different dimensions of widescreen. It's 1.73MB
Attachment 76353
This pic is on OMJ v3.0 with a modded kernel (not sure which one) and again 8MP Widescreen and it's a lot closer to the "correct" size 2.14MB
Attachment 76354

To my eye all the pics look fine.
I do not think/know if there is a correlation between file size and quality as much as there is between dimensions and quality. IMHO dimension is a much more important variable.
Hope that helps.
thx, we'll go w/ your assessment

ps...u need to mow the lawn, trim the palm trees, keep both hands on the wheel, and try not to cry when the Rays get spanked, lol
__________________
Reply With Quote