Log in

View Full Version : Mpx220's Digital Camera; Pictures Analyzed


Mike Temporale
10-13-2004, 08:31 PM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.phonemag.com/index.php/weblog/read_more/10132004_motorola_mpx220_digital_camera/' target='_blank'>http://www.phonemag.com/index.php/weblog/read_more/10132004_motorola_mpx220_digital_camera/</a><br /><br /></div>PhoneMag.com has posted a number of pictures taken from the new Motorola MPx220. I won't spoil it by telling you what PhoneMag thinks about the camera. Take a look, and let us know what you think. :D

lurch
10-13-2004, 10:28 PM
They looked pretty junky, but perhaps it was parly due to "operator error"? I saw some pics taken with an MPx220 in the past week that looked pretty good. They were outdoor, and the indoor pics by the same person looked pretty bad.

But for me personally, I would never use that camera as my camera, for real use. So I don't much care how poor the quality is. What do people expect from a 640x480 res camera? (unless this one does more? but I don't think so).

Beowulf
10-13-2004, 11:08 PM
Basically all the pictures are badly out of focus. This isn't that complicated. WTF would Motorola release a bunch of out of focus camera phones. These are inherently flawed, and they knew about it from the prototypes. That’s not acceptable to be released.

I assume these camera phones have no moving parts? Does anyone know how camera phones normally focus?

phonemag
10-14-2004, 12:15 AM
Hi Lurch,

The integrated camera on the MPx220 is actually 1.3 mega-pixel and not 640x480. There are no moving parts, or anything like that. It's rather difficult to foobar taking a picture as you so nicely put as "operator error". It's quit simple actually...hold the MPx220 up zoom then click "capture". Where in that process would there be any room for "operator error"?

They looked pretty junky, but perhaps it was parly due to "operator error"? I saw some pics taken with an MPx220 in the past week that looked pretty good. They were outdoor, and the indoor pics by the same person looked pretty bad.

But for me personally, I would never use that camera as my camera, for real use. So I don't much care how poor the quality is. What do people expect from a 640x480 res camera? (unless this one does more? but I don't think so).

phonemag
10-14-2004, 12:58 AM
It's also worth mentioning that there's a huge size difference between an image taken with a real digital camera versus the one taken by the MPx220.

HP R707 = http://www.phonemag.com/images/uploads/HPIM0191.JPG

MPx220 = http://www.phonemag.com/images/uploads/DSC_00025.jpg

lurch
10-14-2004, 01:40 AM
Hi Lurch,

The integrated camera on the MPx220 is actually 1.3 mega-pixel and not 640x480. There are no moving parts, or anything like that. It's rather difficult to foobar taking a picture as you so nicely put as "operator error". It's quit simple actually...hold the MPx220 up zoom then click "capture". Where in that process would there be any room for "operator error"?

Thanks for the response! I certainly meant no personal offense (just FYI). You're right, I just looked it up, 1.3 Megapixels corresponds to 1280x960. And what I meant by "operator error" was that sometimes people don't realize that fixed-focus (i.e. digital zoom only) have defined focal lengths and anything outside of the optimum focal length turns out poorly. I'm no camera expert though, so maybe somebody will refute that. I've often found that cameras with that low of quality (because I have bunch) typically take poor indoor closeup photos, but outdoor well-lit photos turn out okay.

But really, my main point was that I won't use the built-in camera seriously, so I don't care much about the particulars of it's quality. :)

Kris Kumar
10-14-2004, 02:01 AM
Camera phones have fixed focal length lens.

yslee
10-14-2004, 02:21 AM
Cameras in phones have their focus points fixed at a point (not just fixed focal length) where it achieves the maximum coverage between infinity and close up.

That said, this is still pretty awful. The colours are bleah!

Beowulf
10-14-2004, 02:25 AM
The only obvious thing you could do to screw up a picture would be something like a shaky hand, or something along that line. But all the pictures I have seen from this phone have been sub-standard. I know a lot of people don't see much point in having a camera in their phone, but then why put it in if its useless. In all their ads they push the camera in this phone as something special.

This phone's quality isn't even good enough to take pictures of drunken friends much less something important. Perhaps the focus is good enough for the legally blind quality team they hired at Motorola, but I hold much higher standards.

MS Mobiles
10-14-2004, 06:13 AM
I know a lot of people don't see much point in having a camera in their phone, but then why put it in if its useless. In all their ads they push the camera in this phone as something special.

Motorola embedded a megapixel camera in this phone in order be able to require premium price - to require higher price. Unfortunately they use some cheap camera of low quality, that by no means can compare with other megapixel cameras (pictures taken from megapixel Sharp and even Nokia megapixel phones are of much better quality than those from MPx220).

The only arguments why somebody would still prefer MPx220 over Audiovox STM 5600 (or other HTC Typhoon model) are:

- MPx220 is clamshell with external display and some people like clamshells so that they can feel like captain Kirk from Star Trek

- MPx220 has quad-band but really, unless you travel to europe and back to USA 5 times a month, it really doesn't matter because, being in USA, and having Audiovox STM 5600 you can very well use it in europe too.


... but if anybody says that he buys Motorola MPx220 because it has megapixel camera, then it is big misunderstanding. Due to this debacle with poor megapixel camera in MPx220, Motorola is loosing an image a lot, and I doubt therefore that Motorola MPx will be a success.

BTW: my Orange SPV C500 (the same as Audiovox STM 5600) is perfect for me in any respect and I never liked clam shells anyway...

phonemag
10-14-2004, 07:47 AM
I actually really like the "candy bar" style and really miss my SE T610's small and sleek design. However, I can deal with the flip phone and no it's not because I want to be cool like captain Kirk from Star Trek.

There's no doubt that the Audiovox STM 5600 is the hottest phone on the market...next to the MPx220 and soon to manifest itself the MPx. For me, there are a few minor and subtle differences that sway me towards the MPx220 (it's definitely not because of the awesome digital camera!). The first difference is MPx220 supports up to 512MB mini SD while the 5600 only support up to 256MB. When it comes to storing music on the go (without lugging my 4G iPod around) every single megabyte counts!

The second difference has to do with the ergonomic design and layout of the D-pad on the MPx220. I found that the D-pad gives me a familiar feeling of the iPod's scroll pad. I had an opportunity earlier today to muck around with the 5600, and compared it to my MPx220. The MPx220 won hands down for comfort and usability.

Many folks on the STM 5600’s camp will argue the battery on the MPx220 is inferior compared to the STM5600. NO PROBLEM, I’ll just invest in another battery. And as far as the crappy camera, I could care less. I’d almost rather Motorola had integrated Wi-Fi and Edge support in the place of the camera. There won’t be a tear shedding from my eyes.

Mike Temporale
10-14-2004, 11:07 AM
The only arguments why somebody would still prefer MPx220 over Audiovox STM 5600 (or other HTC Typhoon model) are:

- MPx220 is clamshell with external display and some people like clamshells so that they can feel like captain Kirk from Star Trek

- MPx220 has quad-band but really, unless you travel to europe and back to USA 5 times a month, it really doesn't matter because, being in USA, and having Audiovox STM 5600 you can very well use it in europe too.


Don't forget the RIM/BB software that's included - or should be included. We haven't found anyone to confirm this.

... but if anybody says that he buys Motorola MPx220 because it has megapixel camera, then it is big misunderstanding. Due to this debacle with poor megapixel camera in MPx220, Motorola is loosing an image a lot, and I doubt therefore that Motorola MPx will be a success.

I Agree. I don't think anyone is buying the MPx220 for the camera. At least I hope not.

phonemag
10-14-2004, 03:48 PM
Hey Mike,

The RIM/BB is gonna rock! I got word that our company will be offering it to a few selected folks(I think I'm one of them). The email feature rock big time with native support for IMAP/POP3. As an editor managing more than a handful of websites, having emails pushed down to me every 15 minutes(currently) is the next best thing to sliced bread. I love the fact the MPx220 will alert me when there are new messages.


Don't forget the RIM/BB software that's included - or should be included. We haven't found anyone to confirm this.

lurch
10-14-2004, 07:34 PM
The RIM/BB is gonna rock! I got word that our company will be offering it to a few selected folks(I think I'm one of them). The email feature rock big time with native support for IMAP/POP3. As an editor managing more than a handful of websites, having emails pushed down to me every 15 minutes(currently) is the next best thing to sliced bread. I love the fact the MPx220 will alert me when there are new messages.
This is something I'm wondering about: How does this RIM/BB work? Specifically, here's my scenario, and maybe people can respond to that.
I currently have a blackberry for work. Cingular has crappy to no data plans, or else I would trade in my blackberry at work in exchange for the company to re-imburse me for the cost of a monthly unlimited data plan. BUT, with this RIM/BB functionality, does that mean that I can shut off my blackberry and place it in a drawer and use my MPx220 (when I get it) as my blackberry was used? That is, do I need a data plan on my cell phone line to use the blackberry functionality, or can I somehow "piggyback" it on the data plan we currently pay for here at work? Keeping in mind, I believe we use Sprint at work (not sure what the BB is on) and I'm on Cingular.

If that didn't make sense, sorry, let me know and I'll try to re-explain.
Thanks!

Jerry Raia
10-18-2004, 03:38 AM
I just tried taking pictures at 1280x960 and all I get is lines across the screen, like a TV that has lost vertical sync, has anyone seen this?

Mike Temporale
10-18-2004, 03:45 AM
I just tried taking pictures at 1280x960 and all I get is lines across the screen, like a TV that has lost vertical sync, has anyone seen this?

One of the sample pictures that PhoneMag had posted on their site, had this problem. Not sure what caused it. So, I have seen it. Just don't know what causes it.

Check out this thread (http://www.smartphonethoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=42659) for the link.

Jerry Raia
10-18-2004, 04:53 AM
Yeah that was close to what I am seeing, but mine are way worse. Could be indoor evening lighting. I'll try again tomorrow in daylight.

UPDATE: In daylight unless I hold the 220 rock solid, I get the same patterns. So it seems at the highest resolution pictures can only be taken in bright sunlight on a tripod. :roll: