Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

I'm looking for a camera phone that does a great job with
its camera function. Most important, the image has to be
sharp and vivid. Any site review with captured image
samples would be a great to help me decide.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <vsbmq0d3slrkpgopolcav0ef4k15m619rm@4ax.com> on Mon, 29 Nov 2004 09:21:54
-0500, travel <travel@smallbudget.com> wrote:

>I'm looking for a camera phone that does a great job with
>its camera function. Most important, the image has to be
>sharp and vivid.

I don't think you're going to really get that with any of the current
generation of phones. Better to use a real digital camera.

>Any site review with captured image
>samples would be a great to help me decide.

The best of the current lot is probably the Sony Ericsson S700.
http://www.mobile-review.com/revie [...] a-en.shtml

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <vsbmq0d3slrkpgopolcav0ef4k15m619rm@4ax.com>,
travel <travel@smallbudget.com> wrote:

> I'm looking for a camera phone that does a great job with
> its camera function. Most important, the image has to be
> sharp and vivid. Any site review with captured image
> samples would be a great to help me decide.

You need 2.1 megapixels to get a 4" x 6" picture (at 300 dots per inch)
- do the math.

Stateside there are no phones with such cameras.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-505DDC.09560729112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 29 Nov
2004 15:56:07 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <vsbmq0d3slrkpgopolcav0ef4k15m619rm@4ax.com>,
> travel <travel@smallbudget.com> wrote:
>
>> I'm looking for a camera phone that does a great job with
>> its camera function. Most important, the image has to be
>> sharp and vivid. Any site review with captured image
>> samples would be a great to help me decide.
>
>You need 2.1 megapixels to get a 4" x 6" picture (at 300 dots per inch)
>- do the math.

Given a good lens (a weak point on most cell phone cameras), you can get good
printed results with much less then 300 pixels (not dots) per inch. An image
of only 1.3 megapixels (currently the high end of cell phone cameras) can
produce excellent 4x6 and very good 5x7.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

that SE s710 takes a decent pic. but its still off aways.. right now you can
get a SE S700i wich is available from ebay not so cheap.
i heard someone has a 5mp phone in the making due out by the end of the
year, going to be spendy tho.
"John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:gzIqd.8360$_3.100100@typhoon.sonic.net...
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-505DDC.09560729112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 29 Nov
> 2004 15:56:07 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <vsbmq0d3slrkpgopolcav0ef4k15m619rm@4ax.com>,
> > travel <travel@smallbudget.com> wrote:
> >
> >> I'm looking for a camera phone that does a great job with
> >> its camera function. Most important, the image has to be
> >> sharp and vivid. Any site review with captured image
> >> samples would be a great to help me decide.
> >
> >You need 2.1 megapixels to get a 4" x 6" picture (at 300 dots per inch)
> >- do the math.
>
> Given a good lens (a weak point on most cell phone cameras), you can get
good
> printed results with much less then 300 pixels (not dots) per inch. An
image
> of only 1.3 megapixels (currently the high end of cell phone cameras) can
> produce excellent 4x6 and very good 5x7.
>
> --
> Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
> John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <lcmdnTg8utx9-jbcRVn-tQ@comcast.com>,
"Aaron" <aarons6@hotmail.com> wrote:

> that SE s710 takes a decent pic. but its still off aways.. right now you can
> get a SE S700i wich is available from ebay not so cheap.
> i heard someone has a 5mp phone in the making due out by the end of the
> year, going to be spendy tho.
> "John Navas" <spamfilter0@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
> news:gzIqd.8360$_3.100100@typhoon.sonic.net...
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <jzwick3-505DDC.09560729112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 29 Nov
> > 2004 15:56:07 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <vsbmq0d3slrkpgopolcav0ef4k15m619rm@4ax.com>,
> > > travel <travel@smallbudget.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'm looking for a camera phone that does a great job with
> > >> its camera function. Most important, the image has to be
> > >> sharp and vivid. Any site review with captured image
> > >> samples would be a great to help me decide.
> > >
> > >You need 2.1 megapixels to get a 4" x 6" picture (at 300 dots per inch)
> > >- do the math.
> >
> > Given a good lens (a weak point on most cell phone cameras), you can get
> good
> > printed results with much less then 300 pixels (not dots) per inch. An
> image
> > of only 1.3 megapixels (currently the high end of cell phone cameras) can
> > produce excellent 4x6 and very good 5x7.

Do the math. a 5 x 7 picture has 35 square inches. 1.3 megapixels divied
by 35 is 37000 pixels per square inch which is fewer than 200 dots
(pixels) per inch, which is about the quality of a "fine" fax. or in
other words poor, I know nobody that would call graphics on a standard
FAX very good, except for John Navas.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-F5A354.13102129112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 29 Nov
2004 19:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>> > Given a good lens (a weak point on most cell phone cameras), you can get
>> good
>> > printed results with much less then 300 pixels (not dots) per inch. An
>> image
>> > of only 1.3 megapixels (currently the high end of cell phone cameras) can
>> > produce excellent 4x6 and very good 5x7.
>
>Do the math. a 5 x 7 picture has 35 square inches. 1.3 megapixels divied
>by 35 is 37000 pixels per square inch which is fewer than 200 dots
>(pixels) per inch, which is about the quality of a "fine" fax. or in
>other words poor, I know nobody that would call graphics on a standard
>FAX very good, except for John Navas.

I see that your ignorance of cellular technology is matched by your ignorance
of digital photography.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

John Navas wrote:
> [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
>
> In <jzwick3-F5A354.13102129112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 29 Nov
> 2004 19:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>>Given a good lens (a weak point on most cell phone cameras), you can get
>>>
>>>good
>>>
>>>>printed results with much less then 300 pixels (not dots) per inch. An
>>>
>>>image
>>>
>>>>of only 1.3 megapixels (currently the high end of cell phone cameras) can
>>>>produce excellent 4x6 and very good 5x7.
>>
>>Do the math. a 5 x 7 picture has 35 square inches. 1.3 megapixels divied
>>by 35 is 37000 pixels per square inch which is fewer than 200 dots
>>(pixels) per inch, which is about the quality of a "fine" fax. or in
>>other words poor, I know nobody that would call graphics on a standard
>>FAX very good, except for John Navas.
>
>
> I see that your ignorance of cellular technology is matched by your ignorance
> of digital photography.
>


Digital photography certainly is non-intuitive. Some good links that
explain some of the issues...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] tion.shtml

http://scantips.com/

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

In article <i9SdnVn2dvqjQzbcRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com> wrote:

> John Navas wrote:
> > [POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]
> >
> > In <jzwick3-F5A354.13102129112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 29 Nov
> > 2004 19:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>Given a good lens (a weak point on most cell phone cameras), you can get
> >>>
> >>>good
> >>>
> >>>>printed results with much less then 300 pixels (not dots) per inch. An
> >>>
> >>>image
> >>>
> >>>>of only 1.3 megapixels (currently the high end of cell phone cameras) can
> >>>>produce excellent 4x6 and very good 5x7.
> >>
> >>Do the math. a 5 x 7 picture has 35 square inches. 1.3 megapixels divied
> >>by 35 is 37000 pixels per square inch which is fewer than 200 dots
> >>(pixels) per inch, which is about the quality of a "fine" fax. or in
> >>other words poor, I know nobody that would call graphics on a standard
> >>FAX very good, except for John Navas.
> >
> >
> > I see that your ignorance of cellular technology is matched by your
> > ignorance
> > of digital photography.
> >
>
>
> Digital photography certainly is non-intuitive. Some good links that
> explain some of the issues...
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/ [...] _resolutio
> n.shtml
>
> http://scantips.com/

Outdoors in Full sunlight over your left shoulder is always good.

Archived from groups: alt.cellular.cingular (More info?)

[POSTED TO alt.cellular.cingular - REPLY ON USENET PLEASE]

In <jzwick3-729C7C.02430230112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Tue, 30 Nov
2004 08:43:02 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:

>In article <i9SdnVn2dvqjQzbcRVn-ug@comcast.com>,
> Bob Horvath <usenet@horvath.com> wrote:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>> >
>> > In <jzwick3-F5A354.13102129112004@news1.east.earthlink.net> on Mon, 29 Nov
>> > 2004 19:10:21 GMT, Jack Zwick <jzwick3@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>>>Given a good lens (a weak point on most cell phone cameras), you can get
>> >>>good
>> >>>>printed results with much less then 300 pixels (not dots) per inch. An
>> >>>image
>> >>>>of only 1.3 megapixels (currently the high end of cell phone cameras) can
>> >>>>produce excellent 4x6 and very good 5x7.
>> >>
>> >>Do the math. a 5 x 7 picture has 35 square inches. 1.3 megapixels divied
>> >>by 35 is 37000 pixels per square inch which is fewer than 200 dots
>> >>(pixels) per inch, which is about the quality of a "fine" fax. or in
>> >>other words poor, I know nobody that would call graphics on a standard
>> >>FAX very good, except for John Navas.
>> >
>> > I see that your ignorance of cellular technology is matched by your
>> > ignorance
>> > of digital photography.

>Outdoors in Full sunlight over your left shoulder is always good.

Thanks for the confirmation.

--
Best regards, HELP FOR CINGULAR GSM & SONY ERICSSON PHONES:
John Navas <http://navasgrp.home.att.net/#Cingular>