• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

What Android phone app allows you to save to SD (and control pic resolution?)

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
sweenish said:
The utter lack of reading comprehension failure you have shown in this and your other thread doesn't point the finger at anyone other than yourself.

People have concisely explained their viewpoints, and you've pasted links to articles that don't support what you're trying to do. You've also hurled nothing but insults and have not once successfully explained yourself.

At this point, you're just trolling.
Click to expand...


Ummm, ya think?
 
WelshBloke said:
You're using the same sensor, with the same size pixels; you're just using less of them.

You're using the same engine, with the same size cylinders; you're just using less of them.

It's a car analogy so it's not great by definition but it works.
Click to expand...

If you want to use a car analogy, this is more accurate:
You have a 80 cylinder engine.
You disable it to become an 8 cylinder engine.
People who know nothing about cars insist you have ruined your car since you now only have 10% of the cylinders.
You then drive to work in your 8 cylinder car.
 
GoodEnough said:
If you want to use a car analogy, this is more accurate:
You have a 80 cylinder engine.
You disable it to become an 8 cylinder engine.
People who know nothing about cars insist you have ruined your car since you now only have 10% of the cylinders.
You then drive to work in your 8 cylinder car.
Click to expand...

Please just stop.
 
GoodEnough said:
If you want to use a car analogy, this is more accurate:
You have a 80 cylinder engine.
You disable it to become an 8 cylinder engine.
People who know nothing about cars insist you have ruined your car since you now only have 10% of the cylinders.
You then drive to work in your 8 cylinder car.
Click to expand...

More like you know that it takes only about 25 horsepower to cruise even at highway speeds. So you only will drive a 25hp car because it's good enough.

Are you driving a 25hp car? If not, why are you a hypocrite? Is it not good enough for you?
 
GoodEnough said:
If you want to use a car analogy, this is more accurate:
You have a 80 cylinder engine.
You disable it to become an 8 cylinder engine.
People who know nothing about cars insist you have ruined your car since you now only have 10% of the cylinders.
You then drive to work in your 8 cylinder car.
Click to expand...
So you've ended up with a car that has 10% of the power that it had but still uses 100% of the petrol.

You end up with the worst of both worlds. The lower power output of the 8 cylinder engine and the fuel economy of the 80 cylinder engine.

That's exactly what you are doing with the camera sensor. You're ending up with the low resolution of a low MP sensor and the crappy light gathering ability of the small pixels of that sensor. Worst of both worlds.
 
WelshBloke said:
So you've ended up with a car that has 10% of the power that it had but still uses 100% of the petrol.

You end up with the worst of both worlds. The lower power output of the 8 cylinder engine and the fuel economy of the 80 cylinder engine.

That's exactly what you are doing with the camera sensor. You're ending up with the low resolution of a low MP sensor and the crappy light gathering ability of the small pixels of that sensor. Worst of both worlds.
Click to expand...

Wrong, the photos appear identical when compared on a screen. I will post an A/B example and let's see if anyone can identify the 2MP res photo with any accuracy better then random guessing.
 
I like how your sig got bigger, but remains just as worthless.

I mean, how in the world is your backup software meaningful information, but the brand and model of your SSD's and RAM aren't? You list the specific version of Windows for your laptop, but not the desktop. It's all over the place, and in a terrible way.

But sure, you're the knowledgeable one, asking us the questions while telling us we're wrong. Logic checks out.

That kind of deflection and personal attack, netiher of which have any bearing on the actual topic, are how you're presenting your case. Your articles have been debunked for how you want to use them, because they're about hardware, not software. But the best you can do now is just put your fingers deep into your ears and scream that we're stupid.

I feel like it's only a matter of time before your idea of "good enough" gets you into some real trouble when you find out it's anything but.
 
Last edited:
GoodEnough said:
Wrong, the photos appear identical when compared on a screen. I will post an A/B example and let's see if anyone can identify the 2MP res photo with any accuracy better then random guessing.
Click to expand...
This is probably a stupid question, but wouldn't the 20MP picture appear much larger on the screen? I mean, if you resize them to be the same size, wouldn't you just be manually doing what you're wanting the camera to do for you? (Since we're talking about photos taken with the same phone. If there were hardware differences at play, that'd obviously be an entirely different discussion.)
 
sweenish said:
I like how your sig got bigger, but remains just as worthless.

I mean, how in the world is your backup software meaningful information, but the brand and model of your SSD's and RAM aren't? You list the specific version of Windows for your laptop, but not the desktop. It's all over the place, and in a terrible way.
Click to expand...

Same reason anybody cares about his scanner or printer. 🙄

He's a TROLL.
 
raduque said:
he's a troll.
Click to expand...

Come on... are you sure? I think we should keep this conversation going...

GoodEnough: how many apps did you try so far? There's plenty of apps in the play store, one of them has to work, come on try them, don't be so lazy. I went through a few camera apps and finally decided they were all junk and used the stock samsung app, its pretty good, maybe you can port it to your phone and hope it'll allow you to change the size to 1 gigapixel in size...
 
sweenish said:
I like how your sig got bigger, but remains just as worthless.
Click to expand...

Personal attack removed Go away please.


This thread has been impassioned, but relatively benign so far. Please keep it that way. Any further personal attacks, from any poster, will be met with an infraction.

Moderator TheStu
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think people here even understand what troll means. I will try one last time. A 22MP photo DOES NOT FIT onto any screen you own. When you view your photo, it will be sized down to 2MP or less. You physically CAN NOT view 22MP even if you wanted to. My 26" LCD monitor can only display 2MP. All other devices are even smaller. Any online sharing of a photo will rescale your 22MP photo into a small fraction of that. Facebook does not allow anything larger than 4MP. Twitter's maximum size is .14MP

If this is still too complicated, maybe this will help:
http://www.tomsguide.com/us/resize-photos-online-sharing,news-19195.html
 
Last edited:
It's called zooming. I can view gigapixel pictures if I want. And if I want to see more detail, I zoom in. So yes, those pictures fit fine on my monitor. I mean, have you never heard of super-sampling?

Also, my screen is 3.6 MP. A 4K screen is 8.2 MP. But don't worry, you can still zoom in to see extra detail. Your desire for 16x9 photos at 1920x1080 is already not good enough.

My favorite part of your link is where they took a high-resolution photo, and cropped it to share. Something you wouldn't be able to do. It's also a guide that gives every example under the sun for making the filesize smaller, it's not exactly a great reference for your point at all.

Also, is Google wasting everyone's time: https://www.google.com/culturalinst...-monkeys/WAHc3JWW3F7kQA?projectId=art-project

They shouldn't bother with infrared scanning and deep zooming because I can't view the whole thing on my monitor, today, anyway? What a garbage argument. If you care this little for your photos, why are you even taking them? You've already said they'll go online never to be looked at again. So why are you even going through the motions?
 
sweenish said:
It's called zooming. I can view gigapixel pictures if I want. And if I want to see more detail, I zoom in. So yes, those pictures fit fine on my monitor. I mean, have you never heard of super-sampling?

Also, my screen is 3.6 MP. A 4K screen is 8.2 MP. But don't worry, you can still zoom in to see extra detail. Your desire for 16x9 photos at 1920x1080 is already not good enough.

My favorite part of your link is where they took a high-resolution photo, and cropped it to share. Something you wouldn't be able to do. It's also a guide that gives every example under the sun for making the filesize smaller, it's not exactly a great reference for your point at all.

Also, is Google wasting everyone's time: https://www.google.com/culturalinst...-monkeys/WAHc3JWW3F7kQA?projectId=art-project

They shouldn't bother with infrared scanning and deep zooming because I can't view the whole thing on my monitor, today, anyway? What a garbage argument. If you care this little for your photos, why are you even taking them? You've already said they'll go online never to be looked at again. So why are you even going through the motions?
Click to expand...

Remember, he perfectly composes every picture he takes, so he has zero use for cropping images. :-/
 
I have never cropped a photo in my life. Neither have most people. YMMV.
I've already explained why I do not need to crop or view my photos in the future some some spage age 30GigaPixel LCD.
 
GoodEnough said:
I have never cropped a photo in my life. Neither have most people. YMMV.
I've already explained why I do not need to crop or view my photos in the future some some spage age 30GigaPixel LCD.
Click to expand...
I'd imagine that the amount of people that have never zoomed in whilst viewing a photo on a monitor before are in the minority.
 
GoodEnough said:
I have never cropped a photo in my life. Neither have most people. YMMV.
I've already explained why I do not need to crop or view my photos in the future some some spage age 30GigaPixel LCD.
Click to expand...

I zoom and crop almost 100% of my photos, that's why the gazillion megapixel cameras exist.
 
GoodEnough said:
I have never cropped a photo in my life. Neither have most people. YMMV.
Click to expand...

Tell that to all the Facebook and Instagram users...

If this were 1998. I'd agree with you. Almost every image uploading site - heck, almost any site that has profiles and requires them to be a specific size - will let you zoom and crop after uploading.
 
Last edited:
We can agree that no one is viewing anything larger than 2MP (massive widescreen LCD)

So, if you do not crop, you only need 2MP.

However, if you're cropping, you only need 22MP if you're cropping out 90% of your photos. (and are left with 2MP)
If you're cropping 90% of your photos, you need to take some basic photography lessons.

If you're cropping some distractions around the subject, even if it's a whopping 50% of the frame, then you still only need 4MP.

Basic math, FTW.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top