VERY POOR QUALITY PHOTOS IMAGES

[MadAsh69]

                                    VERY SHOCKING and VERY DISTURBING INDEED!!!

I found the Still Images produced by the SONY HDR-PJ410 Camcorder are the POOREST IMAGE QUALITY I have ever seen; which also shows WATER MARKS in the images! And Despite that; I set the Image quality to 9.2MB the Camera ONLY produce POOR images of 1MB -1.5MB!!!!

Equally; The Tripods holes also on the WRONG position! They Should be the other way around to Fit on the Tripod Screw and Pin! despite that the Camcorder is DESIGN for VIDEO and STILL Images; SONY stated that; the reason for the POOR quality Still images is; because this Camcorder is made for Video! HOW DECEIVING THIS RESPONSE THEY MADE!?

[Mick_D]

Hi @MadAsh69

I suppose it's fair enough to claim a camcorder is made for video. It's capable of producing still images, but I've never seen a camcorder that can produce good quality still images; it's certainly not a good reason to buy one.

This is because it's designed to capture the relatively tiny individual frames that make up a movie, rather than the large files required for quality stills. As you noticed, you can produce larger files but it will always compress those files; don't confuse file size in Mb with image size in pixels. When you open the files in an image editor, you'll see they are 9.2MP (around 4000x2200) which isn't great by current stills standards, but not bad for a video camera designed to shoot 2.2MP 16:9 movies. 

I'm guessing the watermarking you refer to is the date stamp, which can be switched off in settings. I'm not sure what the problem with the tripod mount is, but I believe it's a standard quarter-inch thread.

Hopefully you can play around with the settings and shooting conditions a little more and get acceptable results. For this kind of device, you will get much better stills shooting in brightly-lit conditions than indoors, for example. It's simply not geared towards that sort of performance.

Cheers

Mick

[MadAsh69]

Hi Mick

Thank you for your reply.

However; you made a comment that; I quote; {I suppose it's fair enough to claim a camcorder is made for video}.

You have REPEATED the exact comment made by SONY.

Well Mick; if you are working for SONY I can tell you that; your Comment and SONY'S comment are a TOTAL FLAWED.

1. The Camera is DESIGNED for Video and Still Images; at the CAMCORDER setting of {STILL IMAGES 9.2M}

2. The Camcorder can take 25 Frame {Still images} per second to produce the video!

So; are you telling me that a CAMCORDER Designed for Video and Still Images can ONLY take VERY POOR QUALITY images!?

You also stated that; I quote; {I've never seen a camcorder that can produce good quality still images}

Well Mick; If you haven't seen a Video Camcorder can take Good Quality Still Images, and if you work for SONY;

I strongly advise you to go and Ask the VIKING technology; they may able to help your knowledge!

I am sorry to say that; I found Your Comments are a TOTAL: FLAWED in Magnitude and Direction. And I believe that; you have been Instructed Direct or Indirect by SONY to COVER-UP on their Manufacturers FAULTS.

Furthermore; Go and LEARN to why the Tripod have a Pin and screw to hold the camcorder before you make such FLAWED comment.

MadAsh

[IamNic]

Hi @MadAsh69,

would you mind to upload any of these bad quality images to your next reply so I can have a look.

To me it sounds like you either pulled the wrong file or that you applied some setting which causes the issues you are experiencing.

- Nic

[darkframe]

Hi @MadAsh69,

---

@MadAsh69  schrieb:

I found the Still Images produced by the SONY HDR-PJ410 Camcorder are the POOREST IMAGE QUALITY I have ever seen; which also shows WATER MARKS in the images! And Despite that; I set the Image quality to 9.2MB the Camera ONLY produce POOR images of 1MB -1.5MB!!!!

well, obviously you do not know/understand the basics of digital imaging:

• the camera takes stills of 4032 * 2272 pixels. Simple maths: 4032*2272 = 9.160.704 which is approximately 9.2 Megapixels
• 9.2 Megapixels do NOT equal 9.2 Megabyte, there's absolutely NO relation between Megapixels and Megabyte!!!
• the files stored will always be smaller than 9.2 MB as the images are stored in a compressed format (usually a JPG file)

You are comparing 9.2 Megapixels (which is the resolution of an image taken) with the file size. This is simply wrong.

Regarding water marks I'm not sure what you're talking about. If it's the data code that you'll see when connecting the camera to a TV you might have found out meanwhile that it's not going to be part of your images when stored to disk. Maybe there's a setting to do so or not. This I don't know, regarding your camera.

In your second post your wrote this:

---

Well Mick; if you are working for SONY I can tell you that; your Comment and SONY'S comment are a TOTAL FLAWED.

1. The Camera is DESIGNED for Video and Still Images; at the CAMCORDER setting of {STILL IMAGES 9.2M}

2. The Camcorder can take 25 Frame {Still images} per second to produce the video!

So; are you telling me that a CAMCORDER Designed for Video and Still Images can ONLY take VERY POOR QUALITY images!?

Sorry, but you are comparing apples with pears.

Taking a movie with 25 fps is not simply taking 25 stills per second. It almost was like that in those ancient times when movies were taken using real (!) film. Have you ever looked at a single frame of a video taken by that camera? I guess that you didn't. You'd be astonished how bad a single frame might look while the final video seems to be much better.

Digital video imaging is totally different from simply taking 25 (or more) pictures per second. I cannot explain the technology here. It would simply take too long and finally all information is around somewhere in the Internet (or better: several books).

Latest camera models are good in taking stills and videos in high quality but only a few years ago the hardware was simply not good and/or fast enough to fulfill both tasks within one camera.

You should try to inform yourself about how exactly camera sensors are working and how they were working a few years ago. Maybe that helps you in understanding why older cameras like the PJ410 cannot take better still images.

And yes, the PJ410 was designed for taking videos. As a side effect you're allowed to take stills. And another yes: Those stills are maybe worse in quality than you expected. The reason for this needs reading a book or two about digital imaging.

Cheers

darkframe

---

[MadAsh69]

Firstly; Mr darkfame Expert; or Dark Knowledge May I say; I found your Comments are nothing more than a TOTAL FLAWED and AMATEURISH by the meaning of the words.

You said I quote; {well, obviously you do not know/understand the basics of digital imaging}

Well I can tell you that Mr Darkframe; I probably have BILLION times MORE knowledge of Digital imaging than YOU Know.

1. I have HONOURS Degree in Electronic and Electrical Engineering.

2. I worked as a PROFESSIONAL Cameraman and Producer even before you probably have SEEN a Digital Camera.

You also stated; I quote; {You are comparing 9.2 Megapixels (which is the resolution of an image taken) with the file size. This is simply wrong}

My Knowledge of Image size and Image resolution is probably BILLION times of the SIZE of YOUR knowledge. And Before you make such FLAWED allegation; GO and READ the Image setting in the Camcorder which stated IMAGE SIZE and NOT image resolution.

Furthermore; You should go and LEARN what is Mp – Mb and the FLAWED M in the camcorder setting.

I have been working with SINGLE FRAMES before even you know what a single frame is; and again; GO and LEARN what is a fps in the video productions field before you make your FLAWED allegations in your Dark Frame Expertise.

Furthermore the VIDEO FRAME quality in the camcorder is HIGHER than the still Image. Therefore DO NOT make FLAWED allegations if you have NO knowledge of what you talking about.

Finally; I have been using computer and Digital Cameras from the Early days been invented. Therefore; GO and LEARN about IMAGE QUALITY before you make such FLAWED allegations.

Furthermore; If you are a Laymen been employed by SONY to make FLAWED FABRICATIONS to DECEIVE members of the Public. Firstly; You should go and lean the meaning of the word IMAGE QUALITY.

And I undertake to Challenge you and Sony through the Media and the Court of Justice if need; WITHOUT the assistant of Legal representative; and I will do the Honour to invite the media to report the matter to the Public.

WAIT and SEE what I am going to do at National and Inter5national scale.

MadAsh69

The Scandals Basher

[IamNic]

Hello @MadAsh69,

this is a user-user-forum, so I can ensure @darkframe doesn't work for Sony... you can identify Sony employees which appear from time to time on this forum by their Sony badge next to their name.

"Expert" is a status the most active members on this community receive - generally that also means that these people are not only active but also very knowledgable.

Would you still care to upload on of the "low quality" still image captures you have taken? If not, then don't verbally attack other users which try to help you. From how I understood your initial post the reply of @darkframe was more then justified, since your post sounded like you have misunderstood basic technological specs of your camcorder.

Regarding your initial post - the quarter-Inch screw is in front and the hole for the pin is in the back - that is literally standard on consumer-grade Camcorders. If your tripod plate doesn't fit, turn it around. Some plates even allow for unscrewing the pin and putting it to the front/back just like your camcorder requires.

If you film with DSLRs/SLRs you might even prefer if there is no pin at all since these cameras lack a "alignment-pin hole".

Lens (front of the camcorder) is to the left.

My first Sony camcorder (which is a consumer-grade camcorder) has the pin in the back (HDR-CX130E) as do my Sony Action Cams - my prosumer-camcorder FDR-AX100 has the pin in the front.

Also as @darkframe already said - the camcorder does take 9.2MPx photos, which are smaller in file-size as you mentioned. Nothing wrong about that.

Here are the specs:

screenshot of the specs from sony.co.uk

---

@MadAsh69  schrieb:

WAIT and SEE what I am going to do at National and Inter5national scale.

---

What will you do? Post about this on facebook/twitter?

I personally would not do this, since that would actually just cause more people to tell you that you are wrong - you would make quite the fool out of you.  

This forum doesn't have a very big/active user base, so only a few people will see this post - on other platforms that might be different.

There is nothing wrong about admitting you made a mistake or misunderstood something, yet verbally attacking other people which tried to help you simply doesn't make you look good 

- Nic

[MadAsh69]

Thank you for your comment; I will deal with the issues accordingly. People should NOT make FLAWED allegations of something they do NOT know what they talking about; by thinking that; we are stupid.

However; with regards to The Screw and Pin Holes in the SONY camcorder; they are NOT the standards on camcorders. I have 4 DIFFERENT MAKES of TRIPODS and 2 other Video Cameras which ALL are the OPPOSITE of the SCREW and PIN HOLES on the Sony Camcorders. So are these 6 DIFFERENT manufacturers are WRONG?

[IamNic]

Hello @MadAsh69,

there is no standard, please read my comment - some have it in front of the quarter inch screw, some have it behind that and some have no pin-hole at all.

I also have different tripods and tripod heads here - for them they all have the pin in the back by default - for my prosumer camcorder I have to turn these base-plates around.

My most expensive tripod allows to unscrew the pin and screw it back into the front of the quarter inch screw, since that plate is directional (it has a system in place that even if you forget to tighten the lever for the plate that it can't slide out to the front of the head).

---

@MadAsh69  schrieb:

However; with regards to The Screw and Pin Holes in the SONY camcorder; they are NOT the standards on camcorders. I have 4 DIFFERENT MAKES of TRIPODS and 2 other Video Cameras which ALL are the OPPOSITE of the SCREW and PIN HOLES on the Sony Camcorders. So are these 6 DIFFERENT manufacturers are WRONG?

---

I have 6 different makes of tripods/tripod heads, with the options to use them with both configurations of "alignment-pin" locations.

Additionally I have 9 different cameras, all of which are Sony cameras and even they differ in their configuration.

All my Action Cams have the pin in the back, my consumer camcorder has the pin in the back (always in regards to the quarter inch screw) yet my prosumer camcorders both have the pin in front of the quarter inch screw.

My photo camera has no pin-hole at all.

Weird, isn't it?

Also please finally upload one of those images you claim to be low quality.

- Nic

[MadAsh69]

Hi Nic

You seem to have the SAME camcorder and the Specification Handy!

Take some stills Images yourself and let me know of the quality; as I confirm that; this is NOT just a possible and/or may be a fault in my camcorder; as the same POOR QUALITY IMAGES produced by 2 NEW different Camcorders at all setting and NOT just a one off.

Meanwhile; I am dealing with the TRIPOD issues. Sony aware of that.