Jenneth Buys Pretec 1.3 MP Camera...

[Jason Dunn]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.jenneth.info/archives/00000224.htm#comments' target='_blank'>http://www.jenneth.info/archives/00...24.htm#comments</a><br /><br /></div>"It's CRAP! Unmitigated poo! The image quality is absolutely appalling, and you can forget about taking any pictures indoors. The only time I was able to get anything decent was in bright daylight about 5 cm away from the object. In any other lighting, or any further from the object, those precious memories are going to be blurry indistinguishable blobs."<br /><br />Wow. 8O There's not any easy to follow up a comment like that! So I'll just add my own two cents: I couldn't have said it any better. Pretec sent me one of these 1.3 MP cameras almost a year ago, and the quality was...atrociously horrific. So bad, in fact, that I was sure I had a defective unit. I sent them the sample images and asked (begged?) for them to comment on it. I couldn't review such a horrible product! I wish I had the images to share with you, because they were so faded I thought I had accidentally activated a "60's faded blurry white-out" filter. :? I sent Pretec several email messages, and they never got back to me about the camera. So it just sits on my shelf now, a sad example of a wonderful idea cursed by poor execution. I suppose I should have said this sooner, but until Pretec takes this camera back, smashes it with a hammer and starts over, no one should buy this camera.

[Cracknell]

Is it PPCT policy not to publish a review for bad product? Not a flame, just need to know the extent of PPCT review policy so I can find information that will stop me buying product somewhere else instead of waiting for PPCT put out the word.

[Tim Allen]

Real shame about this camera, I was ready to buy it if it turned out right, and have been waiting for an update ever since Jason's original negative report. Looks like Pretec aren't going to sort it.

[Jason Dunn]

Is it PPCT policy not to publish a review for bad product? Not a flame, just need to know the extent of PPCT review policy so I can find information that will stop me buying product somewhere else instead of waiting for PPCT put out the word.

A fair question. When dealing with companies who send in products for review, it's fair to give them a chance to respond to issues you're having as a reviewer. In this case, I honestly thought that Pretec has shipped me a defective camera - it was that bad. When they didn't get back to me on the issue, I couldn't in good conscience go ahead and review what I felt was a defective product. Add to this the fact that the card wasn't even shipping yet, and that I received word from a vendor that Pretec had bumped back the ship date several months, and the whole thing got placed on the back-burner. I didn't even know Pretec was shipping the card until I read Jenneth's blurb!

As a reviewer, if you go out and buy the product yourself, you have a lot more freedom to bash it because you know it's a shipping product that other people are buying. That's why I try to review shipping products - Viewsonic sent me a pre-production V35 that had some odd squeaks in it, and I sent it back to them because it's only fair to criticize what the customer is going to get, not what you got (within reason of course).

Now, that's not to say we won't publish negative reviews - this Anycom review (http://www.pocketpcthoughts.com/articles.php?action=expand,719) should dispel that myth. In general, we try to publish "net positive" reviews - if a product is truly bad, I'd much rather spend my time finding a good product to write about versus a bad one.

The world of editorial independence is so complex. 8O

[Ed Hansberry]

"It's CRAP! Unmitigated poo! The image quality is absolutely appalling,
Bwahahahahahahahahahaha!!!! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

No, really Jenneth, how do you feel about the camera? :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Tom W.M.]

What does the camera look like? Could you snap some "pictures" and post them?

[Mobile Bob]

Real shame about this camera, I was ready to buy it if it turned out right...

Same here. I'm ready to try video conferencing on my e740, and Microsoft's web page for Portrait lists the Pretec CompactCamera as a supported device. The wait continues. :(


http://research.microsoft.com/~jiangli/portrait/

[Janak Parekh]

Real shame about this camera, I was ready to buy it if it turned out right, and have been waiting for an update ever since Jason's original negative report. Looks like Pretec aren't going to sort it.
Yeah, same here too. I got sick of waiting and bought a Casio Exilim 2MP camera instead. I was very glad I did. Unfortunately, it won't work with Portrait...

--janak

[Tim Allen]

Yeah, same here too. I got sick of waiting and bought a Casio Exilim 2MP camera instead. I was very glad I did. Unfortunately, it won't work with Portrait...

--janak

Dumb question - how do you connect it to your Pocket PC? I bought a Canon Powershot A40 but this only has USB and TV out.

[Janak Parekh]

Dumb question - how do you connect it to your Pocket PC? I bought a Canon Powershot A40 but this only has USB and TV out.
I can't. Like I said, I can't use Portrait with it. :)

The Exilim does use SD, though, so I can easily move the images over for viewing...

--janak

[Tim Allen]

Got you - wasn't sure if you'd managed some clever hardware trick and it was just a software limitation.

[blusparkles]

Oh dear - my language may have been a bit strong when I initially wrote that post. :oops: But I had just paid 359 AUD (the retail price was actually 389!) which is roughly equivalent to 208 USD. I understand that you can't really expect good image quality from a compact flash camera, but for the price, and the fact that they marketed it as a "1.3 Megapixel camera" - I was expected much better image quality.

I mean, I really wanted to like the camera. Especially since I'd bought it from another state and it would be a hassle to bring it back to the store. Especially since I'd paid so much for it. I was even prepared to keep the camera with its warts and all, and just make sure that any picture that I took was in bright daylight and really close to the subject matter.

But after buying the HP Jornada camera (yes I bought another compact flash camera - I'm a bit thick in that respect, or naive, trusting, or something ..) and comparing the image quality, there was absolutely no way I could keep the Pretec. Straight out of the box, with no fiddling around, it took a gorgeous, crisp picture with rich colours. Check out this (http://www.jenneth.info/archives/00000232.htm) post to see the difference between the two cameras.

So did Jenneth finally find the compact flash camera of her dreams? Yes - but turns out that the software that lets you use the Jornada cameras with the iPAQ isn't compatible with the Xscale iPAQs - and my only Pocket PC is an iPAQ 3970! I discovered this after I bought the software on Handango for $30. :evil: I just can't win can I?!

I was so disappointed with the camera that I didn't even want to write a review on it. I figured that my bitterness about the whole experience would just make the review a bit unpleasant to read. But I can do a proper writeup if people are interested. There is a review on the Pretec camera in spanish: http://www.todopocketpc.com/analisis_ver_hard.asp?id_articulo=33 . Also, Gerard (frequent Brighthand poster) is working quite hard to get Pretec/MiTac to improve the software, and he's got a webpage up detailing his experiences: http://www.luthier.ca/other/forum/pretec/pretec.html.

[Sven Johannsen]

Is it PPCT policy not to publish a review for bad product? Not a flame, just need to know the extent of PPCT review policy so I can find information that will stop me buying product somewhere else instead of waiting for PPCT put out the word.

Not affiliated with thoughts but thought I'd comment a bit on this. I recall Jason's post that the camera had come, with the subsequent post that it seemed to be a bad unit. He acknowledged that he had contacted, or tried to contact, Pretec about the issue. He indicated the lack of response, and there were no further posts indicating that Pretec had either responded or replaced the camera unless the thread was deliberately dredged up. That was sufficient review in my mind :) I wanted it to work too, but I never bought one based on Jason's non-review.

There are a good number of CF camera's on the market at this point that work with every PPC with a CF slot. They are all the 640x480 (.35MP) variety. It would be interesting to see a shoot-off review (pardon the pun).

[dudelove]

Just reading the first few two words "It's Crap", and I knew exactly what you meant, because I bought the 1.3 MP Pretec 2 months ago from Handheldcanada.ca.

At first, I thought 1.3 was WOW, after seeing 640x480 and 800x600 taken from other cameras (eg. Sony NR70V built-in camera pictures are very crisp and only 640x480) so I figure, hey 1.3 must be BETTER! Dead wrong, now I know that 1.3, 2.1, 640x480, doesn't matter what resolution, what matters the MOST is if the camera can get the colours right! The Pretec 1.3 couldn't even do that. Indoor pictures were too dark, blue skies turned out gray or white, night pictures turned out black.

Funny story, I received it on January 15, brought it to school with me to take pictures between classes just to see how they'd turn out. I must of pulled the CF pretec in and out of my Ipaq expansion sleeve 15 times (while the power was on). And then... around 6PM, the thing didn't work anymore! The on screen viewfinder wouldn't pick up an image and it was completely non-functional. Thankfully Handheldcanada took it back and offered a refund, though I lost out on shipping.

Advice: avoid the Pretec 1.3 MP at all costs.

-Dudelove

[Fishie]

I dont know why but this thread reminds me of the Monty Phyton Killer joke sketch.
Hitlers reaction to that joke was hilarious in how bad it actually was in that sketch.

Here goes(lame joke alert):

My dog has no nose.
Then how does he smell?
Awfull.



Thank you, thank you people, ill be here al week. :lol:

[dh]

I dont know why but this thread reminds me of the Monty Phyton Killer joke sketch.
Hitlers reaction to that joke was hilarious in how bad it actually was in that sketch.

Here goes(lame joke alert):

My dog has no nose.
Then how does he smell?
Awfull.



Thank you, thank you people, ill be here al week. :lol:

The "World's Funniest Joke" sketch is one of the all time classics. I actually moved this week from the backwoods of New Hampshire to civilization in New Jersey (really, there is a store that sells Abbot just up the road!) and have been watching Monty Python on the BBC all evening.

[Gerard]

"Our engineers have taken a look at the suggestions everyone has been making and will give us some new samples for evaluation shortly."
from Peter Mo, Pretec rep.
That was about 6 weeks ago. I've not heard anything promising since. I will write again in the coming week, see if maybe they have found their pencils yet, or their brain cells... My informal critique (http://www.luthier.ca/other/forum/pretec/pretec.html), which Jenneth linked to above, was intended as a couple of things; something to semi-publicly inform Pretec of just what the product is like, and to warn people against buying it until and unless Pretec gets around to mending the thing. I have not heard from Pretec at all since I last modified the page.
The older version of the software, version 1.2.1 (or 1.21, depending on where you find it) was hinted at by Mr. Mo in an email. He sent me a sample image, and also a Photoshop-reworked part of that image, demonstrating how the feature-to-come-soon of a gamma slider control would probably affect colour balance. In that email, he said:
"I think having sliders for Gamma and individual RGB values should
help. Perhaps changing the type of codecs they use may also improve quality. We'll investigate all the possibilities, including those you've mentioned."
and also said this:
"It takes a bit of effort to get a good picture from the CompactCamera because everything has to be set manually. All those automatic adjustment features we take for granted in the stand-alone digital cameras have to be tweaked to get a good picture in a CompactFlash camera, but it can be done. One of the attached files (camera12.jpg) is a picture I took with an iPaq 3950, CompactCamera v1.21, 1280X1024 resolution, highest quality setting, Brightness: 50, Contrast: 60, indoors under fluorescent lighting."
So, I hunted down the version 1.21, which about a week later surfaced on their site. (re-surfaced, actually, as it had been there a month earlier). I installed this first on my Casio EG-800, then on my iPAQ 3835 when it returned from having a microphone jack added by PocketPCTechs (but that's another story). It improved rather amazingly, especially in the smaller format video capture. Finally videos were actually something it could do, if still very badly. The audio artifacting is still atrocious (except with an external mic), and the pixelation is a joke at times, especially in bright sunlight, but there's an antique sort of charm in the videos I am getting now. Sort of like early '60's experimental films.
Anyway, there are lots of problems, as anyone who looks at my preliminary review can see. I intend only to release a full pocketnow review once either a) I suspect that Pretec has abandoned us, or b) that they have remedied the situation. I expect a replacement unit from them at the very least (I purchased it via HandHeldCanada, just a hop across the water from me, so no freebie review sample constraints here). The hardware shutter button is seriously defective. But I want this to work. Even if it means gutting the thing, going to a different model of CCD (something I suspect strongly will be necessary to be rid of the gridline patterning in almost all images), new shutter button design where the thing doesn't get stuck inside the body and fail to operate, and totally new software - preferably subcontracted to someone who knows how to write decent code, like Marauderz, for instance, whose M2SimpleCam for the Casio CF camera is a small miracle.
I am not resigned that this is an utter loss. Frankly, some of the images I've managed to get are rather strikingly good. Shading the lens filter is important wherever there's a strong point light source, to avoid clouding. I'm working on a small integrated lens hood to remedy this, as cupping a hand around one side fixes it most times. The much smaller, and much less silly software install of the older version 1.2.1 (2.0 comes with the camera, on CD, but DON'T install this dog!) is not to hard to take. And the silly MMF>MPG converter to run on the PC is okay, sort of, though I'd really rather just shoot in MPG format for reasons of a deep personal hatred of the PC. Video playback of MMF files is rather cool, as a single tap on the screen bumps it instantly to fullscreen landscape mode.....
There's a lot I could write about this, but I'll save it for whenever I feel solid about releasing a proper review. Meanwhile, there's Spectec's 0.3MP SD camera to think about. They tell me they are working on a BIOS update to allow it to run on my 3835, and will send me a sample to test and review.... we'll see of that pans out.

[Ekkie Tepsupornchai]

Real shame about this camera, I was ready to buy it if it turned out right, and have been waiting for an update ever since Jason's original negative report. Looks like Pretec aren't going to sort it.
Yeah, same here too. I got sick of waiting and bought a Casio Exilim 2MP camera instead. I was very glad I did. Unfortunately, it won't work with Portrait...
So it sounds like you're pretty happy with the Exilim? I already have a 4MP Olympus C4040 and it's a great camera, but it's not the most portable. I would like to get a completely portable point-and-shoot type of camera for everyday situations and save the Olympus for scenic trips.

I was certainly giving that Casio Exilim a good long look recently. Certaily, I wouldn't want that Pretec based on the feedback here.

[Janak Parekh]

So it sounds like you're pretty happy with the Exilim?
Yes, I'm pretty happy. I'm not under an illusion that it's a high-quality 4MP camera, but it certainly does the job nicely, and it's very small. Note that there's no optical zoom on a camera that size, but Casio is coming out with a pair of new Exilims, one of which that does have 3X optical zoom (but is thicker). Check their website (www.casio.com/exilim) for more details.

--janak

p.s. Jenneth, you need to reupload your avatar - Jason nuked it by accident. ;)

[TheScream]

Seeing as we are commenting about PocketPC cameras, I thought I would chip in my 2 cents worth for the NexiCam (http://www.nexian.com/product/nexicam.asp).

I ordered it because the CF format cameras didn't look sturdy enough for my project*.

All I can say is that the quality of the pictures is about the same as a cheap web cam. It is adequate for my project* but no substitute for even a low end standalone digital camera.

Here are 2 photos of my workspace under florescent lighting with standard settings and at 800 x 600 resolution:

http://www.thescream.org/nexicam/nexi0002.jpg

http://www.thescream.org/nexicam/nexi0003.jpg

Because the monitors are quite bright compared to the rest of the office it tends to wash them out. However, considering all the white across the background of image 1 is the windows of the building it gets quite good contrast to pick up the details.

In most bright (full sunlight outside) it will take a short while for the camera to adjust to the bright environment but once it does the colours are acceptable. The camera can take pictures in 5 resolutions from 192 x 144 to 800 x 600 pixels.

An area where the camera really does well is the focusing ring on the lens. It will allow me to get within a few centimetres of an object and get a photo. See below 320 x 240 picture:

http://www.thescream.org/nexicam/nexi0021.jpg

http://www.thescream.org/nexicam/nexicam6.jpgThe user interface is quite good but there is a noticeable delay in display. The interface is set out so you use the camera in landscape mode. (with the d-pad on the left) The hardware buttons are mapped to frequency used functions such as zoom (calendar) and take picture (voice recorder button). Every picture you take is previewed on the screen giving you the option to save or discard.

Sometimes the NexiCam software does not register the camera as being attached so I need to remove it from the sleeve and re-insert it.

You can also take short (up to 45 seconds) videos but it is no better than a cheap web cam. They are recorded in a proprietary format which can be converted to avi using a desktop utility. In testing I had a 50/50 success rate with the conversions. First one converted with no problems, the second caused the app to crash.

The lens of the camera can flip around and face the user for the video conferencing, it has potential but the application provided seems flaky and I don’t have a WiFi access point to test it with yet.

The sleeve has a CF type II slot which I have not been able to test yet but I have read that it can take memory or IO cards.

http://www.nexian.com/company/images/cam3-s.jpgThe physical appearance is very similar to any other iPaq sleeve (except for those lovely silver sliders!) but is very light and doesn't feel particularly solid. It is about twice as thick as a PC Card Sleeve if you include the lens cover. The actual body of the unit is 1/3 thicker than a PC Card Sleeve. This will most likely not fit into any unmodified iPaq case.

I purchased this camera from DataAnywhere for US$149.95 (http://datanywhere.net/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Screen=PROD&amp;Store_Code=DI&amp;Product_Code=CP-NXC&amp;Category_Code=), quite reasonable for this given it features.

Overall I would give the NexiCam a high “novelty” or “convenience” rating as it can not replace a stand alone digital camera.

http://www.nexian.com/company/images/nexicam-high7.jpgIt doesn't say it on the site but the NexiCam is compatible with H3600, H3700, H3800, H3900 and H5400 iPaqs. I have tested it on both a H3970 and a H5450.

If these PocketPC cameras are going to improve in quality they will need to start changing from CMOS sensors to CCDs like are in most digital cameras and have a built in flash.

*Project: Parking inspector application using .NET compact framework which requires each ticket issued to have 1 or more photos associated with it.

[blusparkles]

I'm of the opinion that the picture quality you can get with the Jornada (640 x 480) camera is superior to that of the Nexicam (800 x 600). I'll be getting my hands on an iPAQ 3630 which I can use the Jornada camera with, and can compare it with shots on the Pretec camera - I'll post the results. In the meanwhile, the PocketNow (http://reviews.pocketnow.com/content.cgi?db=reviews&url=http://www.pocketnow.com/reviews/hppocketcam/hppocketcamb.htm) review of the Jornada camera shows some good sample shots.

[double-o-don]

I actually like the PRETEC 1.3megapixel camera a lot.
: )

I have used (and still have) the HP and the VEO and there is plainly no comparison.

I have only had the PRETEC for a week but so far it has done everything that I have hoped for.

NOTE that I have a very real and experienced understanding of what these CF cameras can and can not do.....

I do NOT do video conferencing on the handheld. I use a notebook for that.

Focusing is difficult and very imprecise.... but that is native to all manual focus cameras. I tend to keep the focus "just back from infinity".

One last point ..... if you buy a PRETEC.... note that it comes with a clear piece of cling plastic over the lense.
Perhaps those who dislike the camera did not remove it......
: (

[Gerard]

Um, no. Don't be silly. Anyway, mine didn't come with a plastic lens cover, for whatever reason. The surface is an optically perfect-looking piece of glass, with the words 'CompactCamera™' in white lettering printed on the inner surface. This 'UV filter' or whatever it's supposed to be is a big part of the problem, in that it is flush with the foremost part of the focus ring. This allows it to catch and diffract every bit of stray light into the lens. Like I said, a lens hood fixes a lot of the washing out of images, and I'm working on a solution more permanent than the half a plastic film can with a hole cut into the bottom I am currenty using, something that can stay on securely.
As for your experience being favourable, that's nice. Care to share a picture or two? How about a short video clip? The video, especially, is very bad yet. Since I have years of experience with very good videos from my Casio JK710-DC Cf camera, it is more than a little disappointing to find that the Pretec, supposedly many times better, is actually about 80% worse for video in terms of framerate, image quality, and sound artifacting. Isn't yours rather bad? And try using any image viewing application to view one of your full scale, top quality images. Then zoom out, one step at a time. PQV does this well in either PC or PPC versions, as does XnView for the PC, or IrfanView for the PC... Notice the gridlines? They are weird, and they are very real if you need to resize an image. Some sort of CCD/CMOS artifact which must be fixed in the camera itself before this is a ready-for-market device.

[double-o-don]

> Um no. Don't be silly-
You took it easy on me.... I figured I would get very very flamed over that comment about not removing the plastic cover.

> Share a picture or two....
If I could figure out how I would ......
I guess I am too "over the hill" for these new fangled message boards.
I am more of a Compuserve on 300baud kind of guy...

Seriously....I have tried to post pic's from the PRETEC on two other boards and get different and amusing error messages....
one of which said that the image could be no larger than 600 x 0.

Any simple instructions you could provide to an old @#$% like me?

> CCD/CMOS artifact- I used both Microsoft Photo Editor (XP) and IrfanView 3.75 to zoom in and out and could not see any gridline effects.
Maybe I am missing your point.

[Gerard]

Really? None at all? Have you had a look at my informal critique page (http://www.luthier.ca/other/forum/pretec/pretec.html)? It's got a number of image samples at full scale. Big though, about 2MB, so it takes a while to load over dialup.
As for uploading big images to a forum server, don't bother trying. They have enough to worry about without hosting your huge image files and coping with the bandwidth load of all the hits on it. I upload images to my webspace, then link to that. If you have an FTP client and a little knowledge of how to use it, it is pretty straightforward.
Just for reasons of avoiding huge bandwidth expenses myself I don't link to any huge files on my host from public forums. Instead, if interested, people can go look for themselves, rather than everyone who visits here being subjected to my massive JPEG image whether interested or not.

[double-o-don]

Thanks for the information.

You have a very thorough review.

You obviously spend a great deal of time trying to provide information to the rest of us, and I commend you.



Some time in the next few month I hope to have at least one of my home servers exposed again to the Internet so that I can host some things, like commentaries and critiques, again.
I recently had to move them off of direct broadband and behind a Netgear Firewall because I just didn't have the time to harden and maintain them. I got tired of getting tagged by FTP hackers and the like.

I hope I didn't mislead you with my "compuserve at 300baud" comment.

I guess that comment is really a reference to a feeling that those days were the last time that I could spend more than a one or two tries to figure something out (like posting images to some message board).

Boy those were the days.... Psion Organizers (my first), Commodores, Apples II's, and two dollar gasoline.....
... Oh.....I guess some things come back again.....