Pentax running on android

Clavius · 07-07-2012, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by Brangdon

That you know two phones that get it wrong, doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist and works in other phones.

Ah... So you know an example of a phone, or any touch screen device, that DOES get it right then?

Originally posted by Brangdon

Touchscreens provide better user interfaces than cursor-keys and OK buttons. Not when your eye is pressed the viewfinder, of course, but at other times. Think about how virtually all phones and tablets use touch now.

Sorry for becoming cynical now. But there's a essential difference between camera's and smartphone/tablets. We don't have to operate the latter two devices whilst holding them up against our eyes. For an SLR it's really kinda handy that we can change lots of setting without having to remove it from our eye. The more functions that disappear to flimsy, childish, touch screen apps, the worse the user experience will be.

Anvh · 07-07-2012, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by marinb

I don't agree. There is a difference between shooting JP, TIFF and RAW. Even JPGs are amde from RAW. It is not correct to say that DNG/RAW is better than TIFF. Thinking this way, there is no reason to shoot JPEGs either. The reason to shoot TIFF is that it will retain more info that JPEG, but les than RAW, BUT!!! it will retain (as JPEGs do) the white ballance settings, unsharp settings, color adjustment etc. If You know, the RAW file is not afected by these settings. So, i think there is a reason to shoot in TIFF. As I said, TIFF is something in between JPEG and RAW.

For fun look at the file size of TIFF compared to that of RAW, it doesnt make much sense or is there is reason to have the whitebalance and colours fixed?
Something like JPEG XR is more likely and is actually smaller then RAW and we will see that format soon.

Anvh · 07-07-2012, 07:02 PM

Anyway you asked for android camera and here it is.

Google’s Geeky Camera Glasses Could Be the Imaging Industry’s Latest “Spork” - Imaging Resource

**nater** · 07-09-2012, 03:33 PM

Nikon WU-1a wireless mobile adapter for D3200 review: using Android as a remote trigger / wireless display -- Engadget

Gryphen · 07-10-2012, 10:17 AM

I don't think that android on a professional camera would be very good at all, it would be like a giant slow deformed cell phone that can't really do anything very well. The furthest I can see it going in that direction is to maybe have the cameras firmware be Linux based (android is also Linux based) and/or and have some kind of SDK or script interpreter so that developers can add simple plugins, e.g., a menu option for interval shooting. The last thing I think a DSLR would need would be a clunky multimedia OS running on it. As for as android and cameras I think that: smart phones could make good remotes, and maybe someone will come out with a phone that have a decent camera in it that with a real aperture, a good lens and the ability to use it in manual and semi-automatic modes.

Anvh · 07-10-2012, 06:39 PM

Are there fake apertures as well?

Gryphen · 07-10-2012, 08:57 PM

I was just exaggerating, what I mean an adjustable aperture as opposed to a fixed aperture, there is no such thing as a real or fake aperture.

Last edited by Gryphen; 07-10-2012 at 09:29 PM.

elliott · 07-10-2012, 09:59 PM

I've seen small cameras with an ND filter that slides in front of the sensor to reduce the light instead of having aperture blades, I would consider that a fake aperture.

Anvh · 07-11-2012, 11:31 AM

Originally posted by elliott

I've seen small cameras with an ND filter that slides in front of the sensor to reduce the light instead of having aperture blades, I would consider that a fake aperture.

It isnt though.
aperture is a hole where lights travel through and nd filters are tinted glass not holes.

Anvh · 07-11-2012, 11:33 AM

Originally posted by Gryphen

I was just exaggerating, what I mean an adjustable aperture as opposed to a fixed aperture, there is no such thing as a real or fake aperture.

There is so much DOF anyway so would it really matter?

They need a larger sensor and glass to begin with.

elliott · 07-11-2012, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by Anvh

It isnt though.
aperture is a hole where lights travel through and nd filters are tinted glass not holes.

Exactly, it isn't a real aperture, it is a fake one, it simulates the effect of a smaller aperture when the lens has a fixed aperture.

Here is an example of Canon doing it, they also change the aperture value in the EXIF when the filter is used:
ND Filter - CHDK Wiki

The effect on DOF of the aperture on these cameras isn't really important, since the sensors are so tiny it is pretty much infinite.

Anvh · 07-12-2012, 02:37 PM

The only simularties they have is the effect on the shutterspeed so isnt it stretching it a bit?

Ah well it doesnt matter we know what we mean right, we dont have to agree =]

Brangdon · 07-14-2012, 04:45 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Ah... So you know an example of a phone, or any touch screen device, that DOES get it right then?

I've never had a problem with my own phone (HTC Desire HD).

Quote:

For an SLR it's really kinda handy that we can change lots of setting without having to remove it from our eye.

Agreed. But there is also a lot time using the camera when it isn't pushed against our eyes. Anything done with Live View, and all reviewing of shots taken, plus quite a lot of set-up.

Quote:

The more functions that disappear to flimsy, childish, touch screen apps, the worse the user experience will be.

No-one is saying functions will disappear. A touch-screen takes the same space as a normal screen. It adds without taking anything away. You can still have all your old buttons.

It's just that those things that would benefit from touch, can now do so. (I have the same argument about touch-screens on laptops. Some people seem to think that if it isn't used exclusively, it's useless.)

(Incidentally: "flimsy, childish, touch screen apps"? I'm not talking about apps here, but basic build-it camera functions.Where does "flimsy" come from? Or "childish"? "Adult" does not have to be synonymous with "harder to use".)

Clavius · 07-14-2012, 05:02 AM

Originally posted by Brangdon

It's just that those things that would benefit from touch, can now do so. (I have the same argument about touch-screens on laptops. Some people seem to think that if it isn't used exclusively, it's useless.)

Like for example? Dirty viewscreens? I so hate the touchscreen of my smartphone. It sucks, but there are no more good alternatives now.

Brangdon · 07-14-2012, 05:22 AM

Originally posted by Clavius

Like for example?

A touch UI offers more direct manipulation. For example, navigating menus is more direct than using arrow keys to move a cursor up/down/left/right and then hit OK when the cursor is where you want. It's much easier to just touch the thing you want when you can see it on the screen. Zooming and panning are also more direct, and setting focus point is a natural fit to touch too.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Android remote to shoot Pentax camera	lepiallou	Pentax DSLR Discussion	56	03-22-2013 07:43 AM
Pentax Utility (newest 4.34V) running painfully SLOW on my Mac	mxlinn	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	4	02-08-2012 09:54 AM
Android App 'DSLR Remote': remotely control your Pentax by infrared or wire	prentax77	Pentax DSLR Discussion	5	11-08-2011 12:43 PM
It looks like the new Pentax online store is up & running	Jonathan Mac	Pentax DSLR Discussion	15	09-08-2010 10:36 AM
Is Pentax running a warranty promotion right now?	Aegon	Photographic Technique	6	05-07-2009 03:42 PM

07-07-2012, 08:52 AM	#91
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Brangdon That you know two phones that get it wrong, doesn't mean that the technology doesn't exist and works in other phones. Ah... So you know an example of a phone, or any touch screen device, that DOES get it right then? Originally posted by Brangdon Touchscreens provide better user interfaces than cursor-keys and OK buttons. Not when your eye is pressed the viewfinder, of course, but at other times. Think about how virtually all phones and tablets use touch now. Sorry for becoming cynical now. But there's a essential difference between camera's and smartphone/tablets. We don't have to operate the latter two devices whilst holding them up against our eyes. For an SLR it's really kinda handy that we can change lots of setting without having to remove it from our eye. The more functions that disappear to flimsy, childish, touch screen apps, the worse the user experience will be.

07-07-2012, 07:01 PM	#92
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by marinb I don't agree. There is a difference between shooting JP, TIFF and RAW. Even JPGs are amde from RAW. It is not correct to say that DNG/RAW is better than TIFF. Thinking this way, there is no reason to shoot JPEGs either. The reason to shoot TIFF is that it will retain more info that JPEG, but les than RAW, BUT!!! it will retain (as JPEGs do) the white ballance settings, unsharp settings, color adjustment etc. If You know, the RAW file is not afected by these settings. So, i think there is a reason to shoot in TIFF. As I said, TIFF is something in between JPEG and RAW. For fun look at the file size of TIFF compared to that of RAW, it doesnt make much sense or is there is reason to have the whitebalance and colours fixed? Something like JPEG XR is more likely and is actually smaller then RAW and we will see that format soon.

07-07-2012, 07:02 PM	#93
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Anyway you asked for android camera and here it is. Google’s Geeky Camera Glasses Could Be the Imaging Industry’s Latest “Spork” - Imaging Resource

07-09-2012, 03:33 PM	#94
nater Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2009 Location: New England Photos: Albums Posts: 706	Nikon WU-1a wireless mobile adapter for D3200 review: using Android as a remote trigger / wireless display -- Engadget

07-10-2012, 10:17 AM	#95
Gryphen New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8	I don't think that android on a professional camera would be very good at all, it would be like a giant slow deformed cell phone that can't really do anything very well. The furthest I can see it going in that direction is to maybe have the cameras firmware be Linux based (android is also Linux based) and/or and have some kind of SDK or script interpreter so that developers can add simple plugins, e.g., a menu option for interval shooting. The last thing I think a DSLR would need would be a clunky multimedia OS running on it. As for as android and cameras I think that: smart phones could make good remotes, and maybe someone will come out with a phone that have a decent camera in it that with a real aperture, a good lens and the ability to use it in manual and semi-automatic modes.

07-10-2012, 06:39 PM	#96
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Are there fake apertures as well?

07-10-2012, 08:57 PM	#97
Gryphen New Member Join Date: Jul 2010 Posts: 8	I was just exaggerating, what I mean an adjustable aperture as opposed to a fixed aperture, there is no such thing as a real or fake aperture. Last edited by Gryphen; 07-10-2012 at 09:29 PM.

07-10-2012, 09:59 PM	#98
elliott Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: North Carolina Photos: Albums Posts: 1,720	I've seen small cameras with an ND filter that slides in front of the sensor to reduce the light instead of having aperture blades, I would consider that a fake aperture.

07-11-2012, 11:31 AM	#99
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by elliott I've seen small cameras with an ND filter that slides in front of the sensor to reduce the light instead of having aperture blades, I would consider that a fake aperture. It isnt though. aperture is a hole where lights travel through and nd filters are tinted glass not holes.

07-11-2012, 11:33 AM	#100
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	Originally posted by Gryphen I was just exaggerating, what I mean an adjustable aperture as opposed to a fixed aperture, there is no such thing as a real or fake aperture. There is so much DOF anyway so would it really matter? They need a larger sensor and glass to begin with.

07-11-2012, 11:42 AM	#101
elliott Inactive Account Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: North Carolina Photos: Albums Posts: 1,720	Originally posted by Anvh It isnt though. aperture is a hole where lights travel through and nd filters are tinted glass not holes. Exactly, it isn't a real aperture, it is a fake one, it simulates the effect of a smaller aperture when the lens has a fixed aperture. Here is an example of Canon doing it, they also change the aperture value in the EXIF when the filter is used: ND Filter - CHDK Wiki The effect on DOF of the aperture on these cameras isn't really important, since the sensors are so tiny it is pretty much infinite.

07-12-2012, 02:37 PM	#102
Anvh Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2011 Posts: 4,616	The only simularties they have is the effect on the shutterspeed so isnt it stretching it a bit? Ah well it doesnt matter we know what we mean right, we dont have to agree =]

07-14-2012, 04:45 AM	#103
Brangdon Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Nottingham Posts: 172	Originally posted by Clavius Ah... So you know an example of a phone, or any touch screen device, that DOES get it right then? I've never had a problem with my own phone (HTC Desire HD). Quote: For an SLR it's really kinda handy that we can change lots of setting without having to remove it from our eye. Agreed. But there is also a lot time using the camera when it isn't pushed against our eyes. Anything done with Live View, and all reviewing of shots taken, plus quite a lot of set-up. Quote: The more functions that disappear to flimsy, childish, touch screen apps, the worse the user experience will be. No-one is saying functions will disappear. A touch-screen takes the same space as a normal screen. It adds without taking anything away. You can still have all your old buttons. It's just that those things that would benefit from touch, can now do so. (I have the same argument about touch-screens on laptops. Some people seem to think that if it isn't used exclusively, it's useless.) (Incidentally: "flimsy, childish, touch screen apps"? I'm not talking about apps here, but basic build-it camera functions.Where does "flimsy" come from? Or "childish"? "Adult" does not have to be synonymous with "harder to use".)

07-14-2012, 05:02 AM	#104
Clavius Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2011 Location: De Klundert Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,150	Originally posted by Brangdon It's just that those things that would benefit from touch, can now do so. (I have the same argument about touch-screens on laptops. Some people seem to think that if it isn't used exclusively, it's useless.) Like for example? Dirty viewscreens? I so hate the touchscreen of my smartphone. It sucks, but there are no more good alternatives now.

07-14-2012, 05:22 AM	#105
Brangdon Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Nottingham Posts: 172	Originally posted by Clavius Like for example? A touch UI offers more direct manipulation. For example, navigating menus is more direct than using arrow keys to move a cursor up/down/left/right and then hit OK when the cursor is where you want. It's much easier to just touch the thing you want when you can see it on the screen. Zooming and panning are also more direct, and setting focus point is a natural fit to touch too.