DX6490 Firmware Wishlist

brianhare said:

Penduick said:

Maybe we should consider an online international petition... I am
not sure that releasing a firmware is so difficult... What Kodak
lacks might just be motivation. That we could give it with an
online petition focusing the problems about the DX6490...

Click to expand...

Or maybe we should sit back and be patient,,,getting all up in arms
about this is no way to deal with it...

If Kodak is going to be nice enough to consider a firmware update
then we should sit and wait,,,,,maybe Val cannot get this for
us,,,I purchased this cam in DEC,,,I did not know about the
compression issue then but noticed a little something in a few
pics...
I still stand and say I do not mind (this was a really bad typo,,,sorry)
I still stand and say I really do mind if they do nothing,,,,,but
IF they do update this DC i'll be very happy to see Kodak listening
and acting on this issue.....

If not then anybody with a major problem with the artifacts can go
buy something better suited to them

I remain waiting,,,,,,to see if they'll help us on the compression
issue,,,and i will not do any petition,,,,or be part of one,,,,just
wait like we have for the wide angle lense,,,,

In the meantime i'll take some nice pics,,,enjoy my DC and discard
all the bad pics as i've done in my SLR day's....

Click to expand...

As far as i'm concerned the compression is the only issue that slightly bothers me,,,this DC takes assum pics,,,,if Kodak and Val release an update,,,,then great,,,,i'd for one appreciate it greatly,,,if not,,,then i'll live i'm sure,,,,,

Again thank you Val for your input,,,and listening to us on this,,,I appreciate it greatly,,,,,

Brian

brianhare said:

brianhare said:

Penduick said:

Maybe we should consider an online international petition... I am
not sure that releasing a firmware is so difficult... What Kodak
lacks might just be motivation. That we could give it with an
online petition focusing the problems about the DX6490...

Click to expand...

Or maybe we should sit back and be patient,,,getting all up in arms
about this is no way to deal with it...

If Kodak is going to be nice enough to consider a firmware update
then we should sit and wait,,,,,maybe Val cannot get this for
us,,,I purchased this cam in DEC,,,I did not know about the
compression issue then but noticed a little something in a few
pics...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

I'M TRYING TO FIX A TYPO BELOW,,,IT SHOULD READ " I still stand and say I do not mind If they update this DC"

I REALLY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO INSERT INSIDE AN OLD MESSAGE SO FORGIVE THIS..

brianhare said:

brianhare said:

I still stand and say I do not mind (this was a really bad typo,,,sorry)
I still stand and say I really do mind if they do nothing,,,,,but
IF they do update this DC i'll be very happy to see Kodak listening
and acting on this issue.....

If not then anybody with a major problem with the artifacts can go
buy something better suited to them

I remain waiting,,,,,,to see if they'll help us on the compression
issue,,,and i will not do any petition,,,,or be part of one,,,,just
wait like we have for the wide angle lense,,,,

In the meantime i'll take some nice pics,,,enjoy my DC and discard
all the bad pics as i've done in my SLR day's....

Click to expand...

As far as i'm concerned the compression is the only issue that
slightly bothers me,,,this DC takes assum pics,,,,if Kodak and Val
release an update,,,,then great,,,,i'd for one appreciate it
greatly,,,if not,,,then i'll live i'm sure,,,,,

Again thank you Val for your input,,,and listening to us on
this,,,I appreciate it greatly,,,,,

Brian

Click to expand...

brianhare said:

As far as i'm concerned the compression is the only issue that
slightly bothers me,,,this DC takes assum pics,,,,if Kodak and Val
release an update,,,,then great,,,,i'd for one appreciate it
greatly,,,if not,,,then i'll live i'm sure,,,,,

Again thank you Val for your input,,,and listening to us on
this,,,I appreciate it greatly,,,,,

Brian

Click to expand...

Brian,

I don't believe you will see any significant improvement in the images by using less compression. If you have not already, please take a look at the compression vs. noise reduction I posted. If you disagree please post in that thread because I would be very interested in why you feel the compression is causing a large negative impact on the image.
--
Eric R.

brianhare said:

Penduick said:

Maybe we should consider an online international petition... I am
not sure that releasing a firmware is so difficult... What Kodak
lacks might just be motivation. That we could give it with an
online petition focusing the problems about the DX6490...

Click to expand...

Or maybe we should sit back and be patient,,,getting all up in arms
about this is no way to deal with it...

If Kodak is going to be nice enough to consider a firmware update
then we should sit and wait,,,,,maybe Val cannot get this for
us,,,I purchased this cam in DEC,,,I did not know about the
compression issue then but noticed a little something in a few
pics...

I still stand and say I really do mind if they do nothing,,,,,but
IF they do update this DC i'll be very happy to see Kodak listening
and acting on this issue.....

If not then anybody with a major problem with the artifacts can go
buy something better suited to them

I remain waiting,,,,,,to see if they'll help us on the compression
issue,,,and i will not do any petition,,,,or be part of one,,,,just
wait like we have for the wide angle lense,,,,

In the meantime i'll take some nice pics,,,enjoy my DC and discard
all the bad pics as i've done in my SLR day's....

Click to expand...

Thankyou Brian for your wise view point. Getting nasty won't get us anywhere. I think by now the large # of posts on this issue has made about as much impact as any of us could with a petition.
Lets just wait it out, and see what happens.

Dale

Eric R. said:

brianhare said:

As far as i'm concerned the compression is the only issue that
slightly bothers me,,,this DC takes assum pics,,,,if Kodak and Val
release an update,,,,then great,,,,i'd for one appreciate it
greatly,,,if not,,,then i'll live i'm sure,,,,,

Again thank you Val for your input,,,and listening to us on
this,,,I appreciate it greatly,,,,,

Brian

Click to expand...

Brian,

I don't believe you will see any significant improvement in the
images by using less compression. If you have not already, please
take a look at the compression vs. noise reduction I posted. If
you disagree please post in that thread because I would be very
interested in why you feel the compression is causing a large
negative impact on the image.
--
Eric R.

Click to expand...

Here's my problem,,,i'm new to DC cams,,,I see fudgy looking tree limbs etc,,,,nothing i can't live with...

I personally do not need the update,,,I just would like to see either Kodak do this,,,,or say positively ,,,,,NO,,,,,,

The reason i'm involved is I would like to see what this would do to THIS camera,,,

I have heard that it would help a lot,,,i'm not real convinced this is the case,,,but again i'm no expert on DC cams...

I hear everybody all over the net saying this is a problem,,,,so I would like to see Kodak do something to either prove them wrong,,,or release the update if it will help so we can put this to rest......

If a variable compression update will help the fudgy pics/sky photos,,,i'm all for making this DC even better though......

You obviously know more than I on DC cams,,,your other thread is evidence of that...

But you hear a lot of negs on this cam because of just this ,,ONE,, point....Steves Forum says even the new 7630 has way too small a file and he still sees jpg artifacts,,,although he says they are exceptable..

My main question now is,,,,,the 7630 has a "fine" compression adjustment,,,,,would this "fine" adjustment if added to the DX6490 in a firmware release help and put the DX6490 into a category of "exceptable" artifacts and stop this thread and all others.....would it keep people happy and relieve this "headache" that Kodak must feel over this DC..

It must be heartbreaking to Kodak and their design/build team to build such a fine DC only to have it picked apart by everyone with a computer,,,,,,

Would this "fine" adjustment" releive their pain,,,,,,,maybe not,,,,,but it would go a long way with customer support on this issue...

Brian

Dale J Wagler said:

brianhare said:

Penduick said:

Maybe we should consider an online international petition... I am
not sure that releasing a firmware is so difficult... What Kodak
lacks might just be motivation. That we could give it with an
online petition focusing the problems about the DX6490...

Click to expand...

Or maybe we should sit back and be patient,,,getting all up in arms
about this is no way to deal with it...

If Kodak is going to be nice enough to consider a firmware update
then we should sit and wait,,,,,maybe Val cannot get this for
us,,,I purchased this cam in DEC,,,I did not know about the
compression issue then but noticed a little something in a few
pics...

I still stand and say I really do mind if they do nothing,,,,,but
IF they do update this DC i'll be very happy to see Kodak listening
and acting on this issue.....

If not then anybody with a major problem with the artifacts can go
buy something better suited to them

I remain waiting,,,,,,to see if they'll help us on the compression
issue,,,and i will not do any petition,,,,or be part of one,,,,just
wait like we have for the wide angle lense,,,,

In the meantime i'll take some nice pics,,,enjoy my DC and discard
all the bad pics as i've done in my SLR day's....

Click to expand...

Thankyou Brian for your wise view point. Getting nasty won't get us
anywhere. I think by now the large # of posts on this issue has
made about as much impact as any of us could with a petition.
Lets just wait it out, and see what happens.

Dale

Click to expand...

Dale,,,Thank you,,,it's just not going to happen if people get nasty and demanding,,,patience is a good virtue,,,

If it doesn't happen we'll all live I think pretty well without it..

Brian

The way things are going with firmware updates, lens adaptors.... It kind of makes you think that Kodak has got our money for the camera and now we are on our own. I've seen alot of lip service as to these things mentioned above. Someday we may actually get some real service!

Bob

brianhare said:

Dale J Wagler said:

brianhare said:

Penduick said:

Maybe we should consider an online international petition... I am
not sure that releasing a firmware is so difficult... What Kodak
lacks might just be motivation. That we could give it with an
online petition focusing the problems about the DX6490...

Click to expand...

Or maybe we should sit back and be patient,,,getting all up in arms
about this is no way to deal with it...

If Kodak is going to be nice enough to consider a firmware update
then we should sit and wait,,,,,maybe Val cannot get this for
us,,,I purchased this cam in DEC,,,I did not know about the
compression issue then but noticed a little something in a few
pics...

I still stand and say I really do mind if they do nothing,,,,,but
IF they do update this DC i'll be very happy to see Kodak listening
and acting on this issue.....

If not then anybody with a major problem with the artifacts can go
buy something better suited to them

I remain waiting,,,,,,to see if they'll help us on the compression
issue,,,and i will not do any petition,,,,or be part of one,,,,just
wait like we have for the wide angle lense,,,,

In the meantime i'll take some nice pics,,,enjoy my DC and discard
all the bad pics as i've done in my SLR day's....

Click to expand...

Thankyou Brian for your wise view point. Getting nasty won't get us
anywhere. I think by now the large # of posts on this issue has
made about as much impact as any of us could with a petition.
Lets just wait it out, and see what happens.

Dale

Click to expand...

Dale,,,Thank you,,,it's just not going to happen if people get
nasty and demanding,,,patience is a good virtue,,,

If it doesn't happen we'll all live I think pretty well without it..

Brian

Click to expand...

Brian

I agree with pretty much every point you make. I am by no means an expert, I just have too much time between jobs. Yes there are what I would call compression artifacts but I don't believe they are a big deal. I think that the setting change in the new Kodak camera is simply to appease public opinion. I hope I am wrong.

What I would love to see is a series of shots made with a tripod and different compression settings from that new Kodak. I am really interested in how much difference it does make.

My guess is that the noise reduction method used by Kodak in last years cameras causes quite a bit of loss of detail. And I don't think it is as easy to fix as most people think.

Just to make myself clear, I am very happy with my DX6490. If they are going to improve anything give me RAW file output then I can choose the noise reduction, white balance, sharpening, compression etc. myself. I know I am in the minority on this and that I am not really the target market for the easyshare line of cameras but the DX6490 is so close to being just right that it does me fine.

I really want to see a prosumer class of camera from Kodak please!
--
Eric R.

Eric R. said:

Brian

I agree with pretty much every point you make. I am by no means an
expert, I just have too much time between jobs. Yes there are what
I would call compression artifacts but I don't believe they are a
big deal. I think that the setting change in the new Kodak camera
is simply to appease public opinion. I hope I am wrong.

What I would love to see is a series of shots made with a tripod
and different compression settings from that new Kodak. I am
really interested in how much difference it does make.

My guess is that the noise reduction method used by Kodak in last
years cameras causes quite a bit of loss of detail. And I don't
think it is as easy to fix as most people think.

Just to make myself clear, I am very happy with my DX6490. If they
are going to improve anything give me RAW file output then I can
choose the noise reduction, white balance, sharpening, compression
etc. myself. I know I am in the minority on this and that I am not
really the target market for the easyshare line of cameras but the
DX6490 is so close to being just right that it does me fine.

I really want to see a prosumer class of camera from Kodak please!
--
Eric R.

Click to expand...

Exactly what I would like to see,,,,it would be really nice to see if the "fine" setting is doing anything for the pics or not,,,,,I too am not really convinced that a compression update will help or not,,,,but from what i hear from a lot of people that know a lot more than me,,,,,they say it definately will...

Brian

brianhare said:

Exactly what I would like to see,,,,it would be really nice to see
if the "fine" setting is doing anything for the pics or not,,,,,I
too am not really convinced that a compression update will help or
not,,,,but from what i hear from a lot of people that know a lot
more than me,,,,,they say it definately will...

Brian

Click to expand...

That's true, less compression means better quality (theoritically speaking, of course). But it also means larger file size.

For me, my dx6490 produces grrreat photos, and when I see those 2mb-3mb results from 750/FZ10/any canon, I'm grateful that mines are better looking (for me!) and also smaller in file size...

regards,
-Jr-
http://jodyr.fotopic.net

Hi. I am surprised with your posts and wonder if you, in the States, consider petitions like we do in France. And if I used the right word.

Making a peitition, for me, is not becoming nasty. It's just collecting names, and signatures to show the existing support. It's not a way to claim something or demanding it, just showing our own motivation and concern and say Kodak : "look how many persons feel concern about this issue".

For me, a petition can be respectful...

Excellent suggestion. But with Artisto (Val) monitoring these threads, aren't threads like these even better than a petition? In addition to a "signature", these threads also show our reasonings for wanting these updates.

Val, would an on-line petition help? If it will, I'm sure we'll get a few on-line signatures.

jm_mac

Penduick said:

Hi. I am surprised with your posts and wonder if you, in the
States, consider petitions like we do in France. And if I used the
right word.

Making a peitition, for me, is not becoming nasty. It's just
collecting names, and signatures to show the existing support. It's
not a way to claim something or demanding it, just showing our own
motivation and concern and say Kodak : "look how many persons feel
concern about this issue".

For me, a petition can be respectful...

Click to expand...

jm_mac said:

Excellent suggestion. But with Artisto (Val) monitoring these
threads, aren't threads like these even better than a petition? In
addition to a "signature", these threads also show our reasonings
for wanting these updates.

Click to expand...

Maybe... I don't know what artisto may really do inside Kodak. Is he working in a department which can make the decision or not ? To make it clear, I am not saying that artisto is of no use - very very very far from this and I think I have already told him how much I appreciate his infos - but do the managers of the right departments really fell concerned about our thread ?

Maybe they prefer not to release a firmware and wait for current owners to buy another Kodak camera ? This would be hazardous as, as far as I am concerned, I would probably not be likely to keep usign Kodak cameras in such a case... Moreover, I read 3 french-speaking forums about photos : on each of them, there are threads about compression and manual focusing. More and more, I see people preferring Olympus C750 to the DX6490...

Penduick said:

jm_mac said:

Excellent suggestion. But with Artisto (Val) monitoring these
threads, aren't threads like these even better than a petition? In
addition to a "signature", these threads also show our reasonings
for wanting these updates.

Click to expand...

Maybe... I don't know what artisto may really do inside Kodak. Is
he working in a department which can make the decision or not ? To
make it clear, I am not saying that artisto is of no use - very
very very far from this and I think I have already told him how
much I appreciate his infos - but do the managers of the right
departments really fell concerned about our thread ?

Maybe they prefer not to release a firmware and wait for current
owners to buy another Kodak camera ? This would be hazardous as, as
far as I am concerned, I would probably not be likely to keep usign
Kodak cameras in such a case... Moreover, I read 3 french-speaking
forums about photos : on each of them, there are threads about
compression and manual focusing. More and more, I see people
preferring Olympus C750 to the DX6490...

Click to expand...

--

David Davies - The first obvious use of firmware is to fix a problem reported by customers. Enhancement of capabilities is another thing. The first brings bad press and needs urgent action. The second can be a luxury that the money boys would prefer to go into a camera at development. After all, you were happy with the purchase in the beginning. A bit like our Ministry of Defence (an oxymoron in the UK), they put out to tender with requirements, then at intervals they request new things they have thought of. Result is cost overuns they can't afford and cancellations with heavy penalties. Kodak is a business. I do my homework and can buy or not. Sure that our titbits noted and mulled over.

brianhare said:

Exactly what I would like to see,,,,it would be really nice to see
if the "fine" setting is doing anything for the pics or not,,,,,I
too am not really convinced that a compression update will help or
not,,,,but from what i hear from a lot of people that know a lot
more than me,,,,,they say it definately will...

Brian

Click to expand...

Well maybe those knowledgable people, who are so convinced, should read the following post by Damian D. To me, it proves that Eric R. got it exactly right.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1011&message=7139656

If there was such a simple way (like altering compression) for Kodak to really improve picture quality, they would have done that from the beginning, please give them some credit!

Sorry for repeating myself in different threads, but I hope less people will be unhappy with their camera after reading this. But, Val, a FW upgrade would be nice I am sure you know better than us what could be improved on this camera, hope you can convince decision takers that it is worth releasing one.

Bas

I am planning to get my 1st digicam and like many others I have gone through and even started my own C-740/750 vs DX6490 thread in various forums. I really like the DX6490, but when I view full size sample shots of both cameras, it is clear to me that the DX6490 shots have lesser texture detail (and I am a newbie). Even if I am not going to do large blowups I like to know that I am getting all the quality I can get for my $400. If the Kodak didn´t loose that detail due to compression or noise reduction, I would buy it without hesitation. I think a LOT of potential buyers face the same issue. This is all to say that a firmware upgrade that would resolve this issue would generate new sales. A lot of potential buyers end up choosing the Oly because of this issue.

jnrob said:

I am planning to get my 1st digicam and like many others I have
gone through and even started my own C-740/750 vs DX6490 thread in
various forums. I really like the DX6490, but when I view full size
sample shots of both cameras, it is clear to me that the DX6490
shots have lesser texture detail (and I am a newbie). Even if I am
not going to do large blowups I like to know that I am getting all
the quality I can get for my $400. If the Kodak didn´t loose that
detail due to compression or noise reduction, I would buy it
without hesitation. I think a LOT of potential buyers face the same
issue. This is all to say that a firmware upgrade that would
resolve this issue would generate new sales. A lot of potential
buyers end up choosing the Oly because of this issue.

Click to expand...

Thanks
Paul

Hi jnrob,

It is great your are doing your due diligence with research such as looking at and comparing sample shots.

I understand somewhat your reasoning for choosing the Oly (wanting all the picture quality you can get for your money). But if you never make a huge enlargement, you will never notice the difference (I myself have made many 8x10, and others here have gone to 20x30 with their 6490 enlargements). Plus, the tradeoff is "ease of use." Both the Oly and the 6490 were on my short list. The Oly, however, has a reputation for being hard to use. Plus it didn't feel nearly as comfortable in my hand, so I bought the 6490 and I am still happy with my choice (even after all the new cameras were introduced this past spring).

So there are other considerations to consider in addition to the artifact issues, and all of them could be very important to how much you are satisfied with your camera.

In any case, good luck with whatever you choose!

jm_mac

jnrob said:

I am planning to get my 1st digicam and like many others I have
gone through and even started my own C-740/750 vs DX6490 thread in
various forums. I really like the DX6490, but when I view full size
sample shots of both cameras, it is clear to me that the DX6490
shots have lesser texture detail (and I am a newbie). Even if I am
not going to do large blowups I like to know that I am getting all
the quality I can get for my $400. If the Kodak didn´t loose that
detail due to compression or noise reduction, I would buy it
without hesitation. I think a LOT of potential buyers face the same
issue. This is all to say that a firmware upgrade that would
resolve this issue would generate new sales. A lot of potential
buyers end up choosing the Oly because of this issue.

Click to expand...

Hi jm_mac,

I understand the pros and cons of both cameras. In fact I particularly like the Kodak´s ease of use. That´s why I am trying to point out the financial advantages (=sales) for Kodak in releasing less agressive jpeg compression firmware. I just think there is a group of potential customers who like the Kodak´s ease of use, who do not need all the manual controls of the Oly, but that want the extra picture detail. Even if you do not make huge enlargements, you can perfectly want to crop a small part of the picture. In that case detail would be important.

It is not my intent to bash the DX6490; on the contrary I have seen plenty of beautiful pictures at pbase.com and others taken with this cam.
I just want it to be as good as possible.

Paul,

I looked at the full size sample shots in StevesDigicam reviews for these cameras.

jm_mac said:

Hi jnrob,

It is great your are doing your due diligence with research such as
looking at and comparing sample shots.

I understand somewhat your reasoning for choosing the Oly (wanting
all the picture quality you can get for your money). But if you
never make a huge enlargement, you will never notice the difference
(I myself have made many 8x10, and others here have gone to 20x30
with their 6490 enlargements). Plus, the tradeoff is "ease of
use." Both the Oly and the 6490 were on my short list. The Oly,
however, has a reputation for being hard to use. Plus it didn't
feel nearly as comfortable in my hand, so I bought the 6490 and I
am still happy with my choice (even after all the new cameras were
introduced this past spring).

So there are other considerations to consider in addition to the
artifact issues, and all of them could be very important to how
much you are satisfied with your camera.

In any case, good luck with whatever you choose!

jm_mac

Click to expand...

jnrob said:

I understand the pros and cons of both cameras. In fact I
particularly like the Kodak´s ease of use. That´s why I am trying
to point out the financial advantages (=sales) for Kodak in
releasing less agressive jpeg compression firmware. I just think
there is a group of potential customers who like the Kodak´s ease
of use, who do not need all the manual controls of the Oly, but
that want the extra picture detail. Even if you do not make huge
enlargements, you can perfectly want to crop a small part of the
picture. In that case detail would be important.
It is not my intent to bash the DX6490; on the contrary I have seen
plenty of beautiful pictures at pbase.com and others taken with
this cam.
I just want it to be as good as possible.

Paul,

I looked at the full size sample shots in StevesDigicam reviews for
these cameras.

jm_mac said:

Hi jnrob,

It is great your are doing your due diligence with research such as
looking at and comparing sample shots.

I understand somewhat your reasoning for choosing the Oly (wanting
all the picture quality you can get for your money). But if you
never make a huge enlargement, you will never notice the difference
(I myself have made many 8x10, and others here have gone to 20x30
with their 6490 enlargements). Plus, the tradeoff is "ease of
use." Both the Oly and the 6490 were on my short list. The Oly,
however, has a reputation for being hard to use. Plus it didn't
feel nearly as comfortable in my hand, so I bought the 6490 and I
am still happy with my choice (even after all the new cameras were
introduced this past spring).

So there are other considerations to consider in addition to the
artifact issues, and all of them could be very important to how
much you are satisfied with your camera.

In any case, good luck with whatever you choose!

jm_mac

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Thanks! I will check it out!

--
Paul