I love this community, but as soon as the name Nokia is mentioned, half of its members keep throwing away their brains to become useless flamers.
And then there's the passive-aggressive fanboys who believe it's their duty to spend every waking hour logged into TMO ready with a knee-jerk reaction and their @ss in a knot of perfection for every little thing that might be critical. They're just as bad if not worse!
It's like kids throwing a tantrum because mommy didn't get them their favourite ice cream, so now they're also throwing away the other threats they're getting - because mommy doesn't love them anymore and that bubble gum is stupid, stupid, stupid!
In this analogy it's rarely the kids' fault. In almost every case it's the parents that are responsible for this type of behaviour.
And then there's the passive-aggressive fanboys who believe it's their duty to spend every waking hour logged into TMO ready with a knee-jerk reaction and their @ss in a knot of perfection for every little thing that might be critical. They're just as bad if not worse!
The interesting thing is, I haven't seen a single fanboy in this thread so far. Most of the people who're thanking the FCam team for their work and accept this as exiting news are people who are openly criticising Nokia in other threads.
Maybe because we don't care whether something was made/sponsored/initiated by Nokia or not - if it's beneficial for us and/or the community, we'll treasure it instead of throwing a mindless tantrum.
Originally Posted by
In this analogy it's rarely the kids' fault. In almost every case it's the parents that are responsible for this type of behaviour.
Ah, yes - the old "That poor man cannot be hold responsible for killing a dozen people - it's because of his evil parents and his hard childhood" argument. One of my favourites.
In the future we probably need a separate fcam-drivers-package (but AFAIK HAM is not sophisticated enough to handle such dependencies and conflicts) or we would need to add modules for both kernel versions to the fcam-drivers package.
A bit late here, but would'nt it work in the following way:
fcam (and other frontend programs) "Require: fcam-drivers", then have fcam-drivers package for stock-kernel that requires exact stock-kernel version (just to be sure), and have fcam-drivers-power that "Provides: fcam-drivers" (and naturally requires kernel-power itself). alternatively the fcam drivers can be incorporated in the kernel-power-modules package (it makes the build script slightly more complex) and add another Provides entry there.
I'm fairly sure HAM can resolve any dependency issue that apt-get can.
Huh. I guess you haven't bothered to use anything else, then. Seriously. It's GREAT that the N900 got fcam, but it's hardly "the first!" at anything except finally having open-source drivers for the N900... certainly not the first good camera app on a cell phone, certainly not the first to do anything other camera apps can do (and often do more and better) elsewhere.. it's just a good start. "It was the N900 that got it first" is a silly, boggling statement. It SHOULD be said, 'At least the N900 FINALLY got some potential opened up.'
What they did was ENABLE. They didn't pioneer anything with this app yet.
That's a good question. I've never really been interested in cameras that write a "raw" file, myself, so I never really looked into it. Considering there's no agreed-upon standard for a RAW file (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format), the question first must be asked what KIND of RAW file you're talking about, and then the next question is whether this RAW file is actually a valuable and recognized format coming from the N900 to use in any image manipulation software.
As for my Android handset using Camera360, it can (and I have set it up to) write a 100% quality JPEG file for a near lossless JPEG file. That's probably just as good for a 5MP cell phone as writing what you think of as a RAW format, plus the benefit of compatibility with all software that can read JPEG images.
The point of RAW is that postprocessing parameters can be applied (and changed) later - JPEG bakes those in and you cannot un-apply them. Compression artifacts are not even on the top of that list - think white balance, sharpening, demosaicing, noise reduction, darken/lighten with less loss of details, etc, etc.
The point of RAW is that postprocessing parameters can be applied (and changed) later - JPEG bakes those in and you cannot un-apply them. Compression artifacts are not even on the top of that list - think white balance, sharpening, demosaicing, noise reduction, darken/lighten with less loss of details, etc, etc.
JPEG doesn't "bake those in" any more than TIFF, DNG or RAW. Once you have the image and you begin to process the image, ALL the data is just as malleable and useful as anything RAW gives you. Hell, JPEG even borrows a page out of TIFF and records a lot of that in the EXIF metadata. RAW isn't a format. It's just a proprietary aperture dump. Putting it into a 100% quality JPEG with EXIF metadata would record most of the same information (ALL of the info, if you use the MakerNote tag in the EXIF metadata) with pretty decent quality and it would at least work everywhere. To that end, unless I'm still missing something, I don't see the utility of the RAW dump. Mind you, we're also still only talking about a 5MP cell phone camera, too.
