[FINAL] OMJ's HTC EVO 2.2 Custom ROM v4.6 | FroYo 3.70.651.1 | *Updated 3/29/11*

[DarkLord]

Originally Posted by leonidm

Thank you for looking in o this! I almost sure it's the kernel, but I can't believe I'm tthe only one who is seeing this problem. This is the most popular (for a good reason) ROM for this phone. Hasn't anyone else noted that the 8M pictures got smaller in file size?

wow. honestly, it's not something i ever really even noticed. but thank you very much for pointing it out. i have the exact same result. my 8mp pics are 1.3 mb. what kernel is going to fix this nonsense?

squat. what say you?

[Karl]

on auto iso it was 1.3mb but when i change the iso to 1250 it went to 1.4mb
maybe the cam app uses high compression

but im using the updated kernel 4.1.8


tried with CameraZOOM and i got 1.1mb
so i dont thinks it the kernel

[johntiger]

So I'm have a few issuees now with wireless tether and my accelerometer slash g sensors i can connect to wireless tether of my internet speeds on my computer are extremely slow then it seems like my orientation on my phone is always incorrectand when i play my home run derby game it is not working correctly

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

[OMJ]

interesting...I'm using kingclick's #4 bfs now, my 8mp pix are just under 1mb in size. I flashed the stock kernel, got the same results.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by OMJ

interesting...I'm using kingclick's #4 bfs now, my 8mp pix are just under 1mb in size. I flashed the stock kernel, got the same results.

hey do you know if KingKlicks HAVS BFS #5 and CFS #7 have any issues with your rom ?

[juancaperez2000]

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

[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)
IMAG0051.jpg
and this is taken on the stock kernel and its SMALLER 1.08MB
IMAG0052.jpg

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
IMAG0002.jpg
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
IMAG0024.jpg

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.

[Karl]

Originally Posted by johntiger

So I'm have a few issuees now with wireless tether and my accelerometer slash g sensors i can connect to wireless tether of my internet speeds on my computer are extremely slow then it seems like my orientation on my phone is always incorrectand when i play my home run derby game it is not working correctly

Sent from my PC36100 using Tapatalk

So it was working fine before now?
try to re-calibrate the g sensor see if that helps with screen orientation
as for the tether did try a speed test ?

[OMJ]

Originally Posted by KarlE

hey do you know if KingKlicks HAVS BFS #5 and CFS #7 have any issues with your rom ?

nope, dont know

Originally Posted by juancaperez2000

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...

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 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

[johntiger]

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