EVO 3D optics really that subpar?

[bdGDL08]

By the way, for those who think the pictures are lacking color, there is a saturation setting for the camera... That might help.

~Drew

 

[Jerzyiroc]

So the 4G does take better pictures? Heard you had to be on drugs to think so....
You talk about how great this thing takes pics, but the only pictures you've displayed have been SUBPAR. I don't care what you were trying to display, low light levels, fast motion, vibrant colors, etc doesn't matter. This phone for the most part, and your posts support this, takes subpar pictures

Jesus christ.... How hard is it to understand what I'm trying to say? Or you're just being a dick on purpose? The 4G in absolute perfect conditions as in lighting shows better colors, but as a whole the Evo 3D takes better pictures because the quality is much sharper. In terms of everything else it blows it away. Even a blind person could see this.. How in the bloody hell can you hold pictures that were done in a way that were taken with settings that would certainly ruin the quality against it? I can take a great camera and make the settings so it would take garbage pictures.. would that make the camera garbage? No. Your logic makes absolutely no sense at all. Those low light samples are obviously going to look "subpar" because the settings were set to less than optimal settings. So what do you expect? Do you have anything that resembles a clue? And if you think those macro pictures I posted were "subpar" then you seriously need to back out of this conversation and never speak about picture quality again.

You are the reason I stopped posting on this site. Wanna be know it all's that love to stir **** up with smart ass remarks.

 

[84guy]

it just sounds like most people just keep the camera settings on auto and dont know squat about cameras. even so this camera even on auto rocks. and if it takes crappy pictures, you might need to get the phone swapped out.

 

[bdGDL08]

Jerzyiroc, you make perfect sense. Some people are just... Let's say thick.

Anyway, the settings really can give this camera a pick-me-up.

With the default settings:

With about 5 seconds of tweaked settings:

Everything else is the same, just different settings. From what I gather, the biggest thing hurting this camera is the auto white balance, and then the auto ISO. I changed the white balance to incandescent, and the ISO to 400, then fiddled with the exposure, saturation, and the contrast. With a bit of tinkering, the camera can get a lot better. So it's all software that will, hopefully, get fixed.

~Drew

 

[Jerzyiroc]

Jerzyiroc, you make perfect sense. Some people are just... Let's say thick.

Anyway, the settings really can give this camera a pick-me-up.

With the default settings:

With about 5 seconds of tweaked settings:

Everything else is the same, just different settings. From what I gather, the biggest thing hurting this camera is the auto white balance, and then the auto ISO. I changed the white balance to incandescent, and the ISO to 400, then fiddled with the exposure, saturation, and the contrast. With a bit of tinkering, the camera can get a lot better. So it's all software that will, hopefully, get fixed.

~Drew

THANK YOU. I'm not trying to say that the camera on the Evo 3D is worthy of an award, but its far from bad. Most of the issues are software issues. HTC has proven that they aren't the best at making camera software in the past and the trend hasn't stopped unfortunately. But as you said, with a tad bit of tweaking it can take some really good pictures.

 

[McPlot]

Some people are just about numbers. 8is greater then5. Like when bits mattered in video game systems. The CPU did all the work. So the more bits the better. When that stopped being true, separate sound, graphics, CPU, etc. Some people kept it at bits. The 64bit system is better then the 32 bit system. When in truth, the 32 bit was far better.

Same type of thing here now with cameras. We have been told for so long that mega pixels was all you needed to know. Now there are about 20 different things you need to look at. A 10mp camera can take better pictures then a 15 mp one. Even in phone cameras.
From my own usage, the EVO 3d takes much better pictures and videos. There is a posting comparing the two phones video. The 3d kicks the crap out of the 4g because of those other factors.

 

[brownhornet]

I think the most useful thing that could be done instead of the bickering is people actually posting what settings they're using for pics.

 

[PSYCHOTRON_CB]

Here is a few I took. I think it looks good.
Two of each kind. Hope I attached these correctly.
The 3d pics don't show. Bleh.

Sent from my EVO 3D

 

[youngzayiles]

Jerzyiroc, you make perfect sense. Some people are just... Let's say thick.

Anyway, the settings really can give this camera a pick-me-up.

With the default settings:

With about 5 seconds of tweaked settings:

Everything else is the same, just different settings. From what I gather, the biggest thing hurting this camera is the auto white balance, and then the auto ISO. I changed the white balance to incandescent, and the ISO to 400, then fiddled with the exposure, saturation, and the contrast. With a bit of tinkering, the camera can get a lot better. So it's all software that will, hopefully, get fixed.

~Drew

This is proof.. Now I just need to figure out how to use the settings.. Im far from a camera guy.. lol.. I do believe there are some people that just love to find something to complain about with the Evo.. Just because its an Evo!

 

[Jerzyiroc]

The problem is not the camera itself, it's HTC. They're absolutely horrible at camera software. Unfortunately there's no specific setting for everything. You really have to mess around with the settings for the different environments and conditions. The colors do look a bit washed out if left in the stock settings, but adjusting the settings can really bring some pop to the colors. Again, it all comes down to poor software. Here's two pictures showing the difference between a picture with default settings and one after tweaking the settings... I set this picture up on purpose. I chose the red pillow because its a deep color thats easy to manipulate and see changes. I angled the camera so you can see the dining room to the right which is only getting light from the window, and the kitchen to the left that has no light at all on, only getting light from the living room.

Auto ISO, stock settings
The first picture you can see the pillow looks washed out and despite being what was focused on its still just a bit blurry. The dining room to the right is way too over exposed and bright. It's so bright and over exposed, you barely even tell there's a wall there... And despite having no light on in the kitchen, there's still plenty of brightness there which was not an accurate representation of how it looked in real life..

ISO 400, exposure -1, contrast ), saturation +1, sharpness +1
The second image looks very different. The pillow is now nice and red, exactly how it looks in real life. It's also significantly sharper. If you look at the carpet on the lower right side, you can actually see the texture as opposed to the flat look of the first picture. And look what we have here in the dining room... A vase with a flower, and two candle holders. In the first picture you cant even see the left holder and you cant see the flower at all. Also gasp.. the wall! lol. Moving to the kitchen you'll see it has a bit more noise in there, but it's also dark, just as it should be. And lastly look at the remote controls, they're much sharper than the first.

EDIT: Added two more pics

ISO Auto, default settings
Just as above, overexposed, washed out and not sharp. The hay looks all bunched up, the grass is washed out, the railing on the far right is also washed out and overexposed, as well as the bushes and the building.

ISO 100, exposure 0, contrast +1, saturation +1, sharpness +2
Grass and bushes are green, the hay is much more detailed, you can see the wood pattern on the railing on the far right, bricks look detailed and sharp.

Are either of these perfect pictures? Of course not. But it shows the significant difference in quality when you adjust the settings. It also shows how horrible the stock settings are and how bad the ability to auto adjust for the conditions in the stock camera app.



Here's an extremely low light picture. I deleted the original stock setting one like an idiot, but let me tell you it was way different. With the stock settings I couldn't get it to capture thru the backyard and outside the window because the pictures tend to be overexposed. With some tweaks I was able to get it to capture thru the backyard, outside the window, but still keeping a reasonable level of detail inside with very minimal "noise" which honestly is hard to do. Typically when you start messing around with ISO and exposure settings you may capture light better, but lose some detail in the darkness and add a lot of noise. Not in this picture tho. Keep in mind.. there are NO lights on at all. The only light in this picture is whatever light was coming thru the windows. This is a very good low light test.

 

[wernd]

Wow, all I can say is WOW!

Also to help you out, your sig says the FAiLphone is better than all those others, your welcome
Even if you do mean it as an order in which you've owned them

 

[MacBook]

Now these are nice. Either you won the camera jackpot or I need to exchange my phone.

And that was with stock setting on a nice sunny day

 

[brownhornet]

Only issue is its annoying as hell to have to continually adjust the settings based on your surroundings.

 

[thascourge]

Only issue is its annoying as hell to have to continually adjust the settings based on your surroundings.

Once you figure out how to get perfect shots on auto all the time, I'm sure canon or nikon will pay you a ton to share your secret.

Seriously though, I have a canon 5d mk 2, and it's very easy to take ****ty photos on auto with THAT. It's a friggin $2700 camera with an AMAZING sensor. Everyone should learn to use camera settings before calling a camera outright crappy.

 

[brownhornet]

So which one of these would you say looks better?

 

[linzgeneral]

So which one of these would you say looks better?

First one to me. Colors look truer and image is sharper.

 

[youngzayiles]

So which one of these would you say looks better?

First one... Since there seems to be a major improvement adjusting your settings, why dont some of you camera guys make a thread explaining different settings for different scenarios. Just a really general explanation. IE. Low light do this or bright areas do that...That may help alot of people..

 

[brownhornet]

First one... Since there seems to be a major improvement adjusting your settings, why dont some of you camera guys make a thread explaining different settings for different scenarios. Just a really general explanation. IE. Low light do this or bright areas do that...That may help alot of people..

Well, the first pic I took with the stock camera. The only thing I changed was the ISO from auto to 100. The second pic I was using the PRO HDR app which everyone said seems to be so good with adjusting pics but I took thought it looked kinda funky.

 

[cj100570]

Sorry guys but I feel extremely compelled to rant as I am very upset with HTC and the cameras they put into the EVO 3D. I went to the mall today to spend some more time with the Sensation to put to bed my fear that its screen might be a little clearer and more colorful than the 3D. As soon as I turned the sensation on, I was horrified to find that it was a lot brighter than my 3d. After realizing that the Sensation was set to almost max brightness I proceeded to adjust the 3D to a similar level. Alas, they both appeared identical. Even with a different wallpaper it was obvious that there was really no discernable difference between the screens in terms of brightness and clarity. I went on to test the colors by observing identical apps on both screens and thought the Sensation's colors did have a little more pop, but it is practically impossible to differentiate between the two without having them next to each other and making a very concentrated effort to find a difference. That being said, I was very satisfied and concluded that both screens are in fact equivalent.

I proceeded to check the cameras in relation to stills and videos. Boy what a difference, like night and day. The Sensation's stills were colorful and sharp - very impressive. The 3D's camera seemed very dull, lacking color, and were not sharp -almost seem to be out of focus. Although I knew that the 3D camera was garbage, I thought that the video capture was OK. Boy was I wrong. The T-mobile rep, a friend of mine since I have spent so many hours with his model, pulled out his Galaxy S and took a short video of the activity in the mall. The video was very impressive, sharp, vibrant, looked like a professional camera. The Sensation also matched the GS with sharp, colorful, fluid video. My turn.. The 3d's video looked washed out and lacked any color and clarity. Wow...my heart almost hit the floor.

After all that I was shocked even more a few minutes later when I used the mirror app on both phones to check the front camera. Isn't the front cam on the 3D supposed to be 1.3 mp while the Sensation's version is only VGA? Something is wrong or someone is not telling the truth. My picture on the Sensation appeared sharp and colorful -representing my true color while the same pic appeared grainy and washed out on the 3D. What the hell? I ran a number of tests, same result. I did notice that the image on my 3D was much bigger than the one on the Sensation which tells me they are not the same camera. The Sensation was just much clearer.

In the end, I think I am experiencing buyer's remorse, something that never ever, ever crossed my mind before. The simple truth is that the 3d's optics got exposed today and lets me know that a major part of the phones upgrade was severely compromised to include the 3D feature. I love the 3D but not to this extent of sacrifice. I already sold my beloved 4G but am seriously thinking about keeping the phone for another 2 weeks to see if software could improve these shortcomings. If not I am afraid I will have to give up the QHD display I covet so much and wait for the Samsung Within. Not at all interested in the Photon and its pentile fake QHD display. Although I like the colors of the Samsung display, I am turned off by the fact that they are still using last generation resolution. At this point I am reserved to pursue the lesser of the evils.

All I want to know is did HTC really F-up this bad with the 3D optics or can this be fixed with software? I don't want to hear about settings because I never had to change anything on my 4G whose camera runs circles around the 3D in good light and the Sensation had stock setting as well and performed impressively. My wife's 5mp EVO shift's cam take much, much better pics than my next generation 3D. I have taken well over 60 pics and don't have one single one that I can keep. This is unacceptable, amazing 3D ability or not...

It would seem that at least cnet disagrees with you Videos - Free video downloads and streaming video - CNET TV