Quote:
Originally Posted by iknowsquat
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 great, especially the one from the ballgame.
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. |
Ok there's a few things that attribute to the size jpeg is a compression scheme which will always give a file size smaller than the width x length x pixel depth of a RAW image the only way to determine if you are getting full 8mp size photos is to look at the image properties not file size. Looking at the photo itself will yield absolutely nothing since the screen has no where near the 8mp resolution of the photo. Most consumer lcds can only display a maximum of about 1440 x 800 or about 1.5mp the interesting part about most digital cameras is when you select lower settings you aren't actually using less of the sensor but a program removes pixels to make the picture smaller. If the program isn't very good you get blocky photos when trying to shoot 3mp photos with an 8mp sensor that wouldn't be so with a sensor actually rated at 3mp
Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk