These are from the new Treo camera. They are shot at 640 x 480 but then I scaled them down to 320 x 240. At the original res they are pixelated, so I'm guessing that they really are 320 x 240 native, and the camera doubles the size in software. I think they look better at this res.
In low light it is useless, but in bright sun it does okay. Certainly a major jump from the first generation hiptop.
I plan on posting lots of photos, so now I have to go back to work on the photo uploading software so that it is a bit easier to manage.
These look good. Are you transferring them to your computer (with a cable?) at home from the mobile and then resizing them in Photoshop? And then uploading them to the Tree? (That's what I've been doing with my digicam.) It does seem silly that the camera blows them up and you have to size them back down to their real size.
Yes, that's how I uploaded these. But I can also mail them from the treo (either to someone else, or right to the website.) Now I just have to get the email to post scripts working again (I had this working once, but that was a system revision ago, I think, and I never replaced it,) and then I won't have to go through my home computer. I'll have the system do the downsizing (like how it makes the thumbnails automatically.)
The camera is not so great compared to even a very cheap digital camera, but the idea of being able to post right from the cameraphone is my dream. I want only one step. Later the quality will come.
Well, you know me. I like the immediacy, the "you are there" quality of the low res images. But I agree you should have a choice of how polished to make them.
I have some low res 30 second videos taken on a casio card camera, not any that are particularly interesting, but if I did, is that something I could post, the videos that is?
you could post it (sounds cool) but I would have to make a minor change to the upload script. do you know what format they are in? .avi?
Yeah, .avi. Like I said, pretty low quality, they look acceptable on about 3 square inch screen. And I don't really see much difference in quality between the 3.5 megabyte versions and the lowest, 1.5 megabyte versions. It might be worth experimenting with, especially when I get back to NO. Or right now I have a couple from Shennadoah NP that might be worth looking at.
If you want to do a test then email me one and I'll put it on the server and send you back a link to it.
Ok, I'll try. I had trouble sending one to myself with Yahoo, I might have an aol address I can try to use too.
cool stuff jim, wheres that photo watch phone, you promised me
- jim 11-25-2003 7:32 pm
These are from the new Treo camera. They are shot at 640 x 480 but then I scaled them down to 320 x 240. At the original res they are pixelated, so I'm guessing that they really are 320 x 240 native, and the camera doubles the size in software. I think they look better at this res.
In low light it is useless, but in bright sun it does okay. Certainly a major jump from the first generation hiptop.
I plan on posting lots of photos, so now I have to go back to work on the photo uploading software so that it is a bit easier to manage.
- jim 11-25-2003 7:37 pm
These look good. Are you transferring them to your computer (with a cable?) at home from the mobile and then resizing them in Photoshop? And then uploading them to the Tree? (That's what I've been doing with my digicam.) It does seem silly that the camera blows them up and you have to size them back down to their real size.
- tom moody 11-25-2003 7:47 pm
Yes, that's how I uploaded these. But I can also mail them from the treo (either to someone else, or right to the website.) Now I just have to get the email to post scripts working again (I had this working once, but that was a system revision ago, I think, and I never replaced it,) and then I won't have to go through my home computer. I'll have the system do the downsizing (like how it makes the thumbnails automatically.)
The camera is not so great compared to even a very cheap digital camera, but the idea of being able to post right from the cameraphone is my dream. I want only one step. Later the quality will come.
- jim 11-25-2003 7:56 pm
Well, you know me. I like the immediacy, the "you are there" quality of the low res images. But I agree you should have a choice of how polished to make them.
- tom moody 11-25-2003 8:16 pm
I have some low res 30 second videos taken on a casio card camera, not any that are particularly interesting, but if I did, is that something I could post, the videos that is?
- jimlouis 11-25-2003 8:34 pm
you could post it (sounds cool) but I would have to make a minor change to the upload script. do you know what format they are in? .avi?
- jim 11-25-2003 8:44 pm
Yeah, .avi. Like I said, pretty low quality, they look acceptable on about 3 square inch screen. And I don't really see much difference in quality between the 3.5 megabyte versions and the lowest, 1.5 megabyte versions. It might be worth experimenting with, especially when I get back to NO. Or right now I have a couple from Shennadoah NP that might be worth looking at.
- jimlouis 11-25-2003 10:26 pm
If you want to do a test then email me one and I'll put it on the server and send you back a link to it.
- jim 11-25-2003 10:47 pm
Ok, I'll try. I had trouble sending one to myself with Yahoo, I might have an aol address I can try to use too.
- jimlouis 11-25-2003 11:05 pm
cool stuff jim, wheres that photo watch phone, you promised me
- Skinny 11-26-2003 5:41 am