Active Topics

 


Reply
Thread Tools
Posts: 124 | Thanked: 213 times | Joined on Dec 2009
#1
Now that the "dark band" bug has been fixed on the webcam, and the "mirror" app looks better.....what's the story with all the noise?

Sure, it's a basic 640x480 webcam, but WTF is with all the pixellated garbage? Even cheap webcams from Staples look infinitely better than that!

Given the nice camera on the front, I'm presuming it's some sort of driver issue - surely the hardware can't be that crappy? Surely?

Does anyone have the benefit of concrete info on this issue? Can it be fixed? Will it?
 
Posts: 716 | Thanked: 303 times | Joined on Sep 2009 @ Sheffield, UK
#2
My guess would be a lack of any real-time processing.

The crappier the camera the more processing you need to do to hide the poor quality. As the front camera seems to have been totally thrown on for no particular reason, I am guessing only the very basic driver support is there, whereas the main camera will have all sorts of bells and whistles enabled.
__________________
http://www.speedtest.net/result/877713446.png

My Websites
CSD Projects - Flickr - UAE4Maemo (UAE4All Compatibility List)

Favourite N900 Applications
Picodrive - UAE4All

Please post your UAE4All compatibility reports. Even better, post them to my UAE4Maemo site!
Not sure how UAE4All works such as mouse emulation? Read the FAQ.
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Alex Atkin UK For This Useful Post:
pagesix1536's Avatar
Posts: 232 | Thanked: 102 times | Joined on Nov 2009 @ Warren, MI, USA
#3
I'd hardly say the front camera is there for no reason. Maybe it isn't providing much benefit right now, but the possibility exists that a Skype client could show up that supports the camera and allows video calls to be made.
__________________
N900
TuxRunner.com
 

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to pagesix1536 For This Useful Post:
Fargus's Avatar
Posts: 1,217 | Thanked: 446 times | Joined on Oct 2009 @ Bedfordshire, UK
#4
front cam appears to work for Googletalk conversations at mo but heavy processing is reported.
 
Posts: 36 | Thanked: 21 times | Joined on Dec 2009 @ England
#5
i believe that with the pre-release handsets (with pre-release firmware) you could initiate a Google Talk video call, but of course the quality wasn't that great.

fact is: the camera is supposed to be there for a reason, and while the latest update has improved the image it is still no-where near what it should be. my Nokia E90 has a front facing camera and has no image quality issues. Regardless of the fact that the N900 runs Maemo, that shouldn't matter - the front facing camera image quality issue should really be addressed as soon as possible.
 
R-R's Avatar
Posts: 739 | Thanked: 242 times | Joined on Sep 2007 @ Montreal
#6
 
Posts: 124 | Thanked: 213 times | Joined on Dec 2009
#7
Just to be clear, I'm not suggesting that the camera doesn't work....it works just fine....I'm concerned about the abysmal quality of the image.

@Alex - I'm aware of post-processing, but surely the raw image data shouldn't be this bad? Even when I completely cover the camera with my thumb, I don't see a flat black image...I see the same noise!

All I want to know is the hard technical truth....
 

The Following User Says Thank You to Dak For This Useful Post:
Posts: 71 | Thanked: 12 times | Joined on Jan 2007 @ Dubai, UAE
#8
Originally Posted by Fargus View Post
front cam appears to work for Googletalk conversations at mo but heavy processing is reported.
How do you get it to work with Googletalk? I tried with no success
 
Posts: 71 | Thanked: 12 times | Joined on Jan 2007 @ Dubai, UAE
#9
Sorry, got it 'work' when initiating video chat from laptop towards N900.
With MacOSX 10.5.11 and Firefox with latest Google talk plug-in video starts for couple of seconds but then chrashes.
 
schettj's Avatar
Posts: 501 | Thanked: 292 times | Joined on Nov 2009
#10
Originally Posted by Dak View Post
Sure, it's a basic 640x480 webcam, but WTF is with all the pixellated garbage? Even cheap webcams from Staples look infinitely better than that!
I don't think its even that, I though it was qvga? Which would look like crap if it was blown up bigger then a postage stamp. So qvga meant for bright lights only?
 
Reply


 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 16:10.