or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nokia slams iPhone 5 camera in parody of Apple ad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Nokia slams iPhone 5 camera in parody of Apple ad - Page 4

post #121 of 175
Everyday iPhones take RAW photos
Everyday Nokias take image enhanced filtered photos

:P That's what's it seems like to me. I could be wrong tho...
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
Adobe Systems - "Preventing the Case-Sensitive revolution everyday..."
Reply
post #122 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by rezwits View Post

Everyday iPhones take RAW photos
Everyday Nokias take image enhanced filtered photos

:P That's what's it seems like to me. I could be wrong tho...

You are wrong.  RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed.   Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats.    Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't.   Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.  

 

Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.    

post #123 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

No, I don't. I have 3GS in drawer. I have some 2 or 3 Nokia phones, one Sony and some Panasonic in the same. Why would anyone care about that? 

Most important, I do not see any relevance in comparing iPhone 4 with new Nokia. There are almost 3 huge mobile technology years of difference between them...Especially camera comparison shows foul intentions...

OK, if you say so. I'm under impression that people usually reply because they do care - one way or another. But I'll accept I might be wrong here.
post #124 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

I think you'll find that "talking to another person on a phone" usage of smartphones is not the primary use.   It still may have been when the iPhone was introduced, but not anymore.   Texting, Tweeting Facebook, Photos, Web Surfing, Apps, etc. (in no particular order) are all used more than the phone itself.    And with the zillions of photos taken each day, photo quality is important.   I don't think  you'd be making the statement you made if it had been Apple that had improved the camera.

As for Canon and Nikon, they're both in deep trouble because DSLR and Mirrorless sales are declining somewhat and point-and-shoot camera sales are declining rapidly.  I don't have my numbers with me, but I believe p-and-s sales are down 30% this year and that's primarily due to smartphones (of all brands).    Pentax is practically a non-player and Hasselblad is an esoteric fringe player.  

I don't necessarily agree that a high pixel count small sensor is the answer to achieving quality (since noise levels will be high at that photosite density, especially at low ISOs), but the manufacturers who are trying to compete with Apple by appearing to improve the camera are smart.   It simply gives a certain segment of people another reason to look at a smartphone that's not Apple.    And in the long run, it's good for Apple users because while Apple won't necessarily respond to every "improvement" the competition comes up with, they'll have to respond to at least some, making future Apple phones better. 

I don't think this is only for smartphones (though they probably play some role in it), but also because saturation is reached - people (mostly) migrated from film to digital, and now selling them another digital camera is a different challenge.

From my personal experience, my old Nikon D70s still works as good as it used to. Granted I'd like new DSLR body, but it is not crucial - there are many other things that have priority, as D70s still works fine for my needs.

Likewise, my wife is still using small Panasonic FX01. It should be good 6 years old by now, but she is not too touchy re IQ and it serves her well - I'm pretty sure she will be using it until it dies. Then, it is 50:50 if she will ask for a new one, or just keep using smartphone instead.

3 of my good friends are also on their first DSLRs, Canon 40D being newest of them all. Same reasoning as mine - they serve them well and they will rather get extra lens (or something completely unrelated to photography) then a new DSLR body.

Actually, I cannot recall that I know person who replaced his DSLR (or purchased 2nd body) just because.
post #125 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by faZZter View Post

I love the Nokia 920. I like the OS a lot too. Yes they are still waiting on some big apps but there really isn't much I need that I don't have. I take pictures alot and appreciate a good camera built in. Would love to upgrade to the 1020 but waiting on my two year discount. 

 

My iPhone 4 sits in the drawer now.

 

amazing how there still aren'T any important apps, despite of the fact that Nokia was actually buying apps from so-called independent 3rd party developers for years now....apps that no one used, no one cared about.

 

it'S pretty much same here: no one cares about you loving 920 and trolling about putting iPhone 4 in the drawer.  who cares.

I really don't care what the hell you think. I have Apple products and other companies products and I am stating my opinion. I loved my iPhone 4 for quite awhile but since Apple cannot make a screen bigger than a paltry 4" I moved on. No important apps? Yeah ok. What is Instagram something important to you. That's telling.

post #126 of 175

I'm a product designer, not a graphic designer. Not really a common design term though. Only people instructed in photography seem to know the term.

But I'm also a terrible speller. I like photography though, so I should know better. I know it's a Japanese word and blow the spelling (maybe it should really be spelled  "Boka" as it is in Japanese?)

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post


Your name makes me think you're a designer... your misspelling of something so common in design makes me question that assumption: BOKEH.

Edited by DESuserIGN - 8/6/13 at 5:50pm
post #127 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

What was smart phone percentage in 2007 and 2008 compared to 2012 and 2013 in total phone sales? Where was iPhone sold at the time? Through which and how many carriers in how many lands? Do you understand what you are talking about? Would you congratulate Apple for outselling Altair with Apple II?

The fact is there are 2 companies that should be important players in the mobile market today, 2 former flagship companies. But they are not, because they never understood the business they got lucky with. They may make a good phone, even a very good one, but they won't make a second break, because they did not understand the first one...

Make no mistake, I am not happy with it. 

There is usually the other side of everything.

iPhone basically had no competition - it was novelty product with revolutionary GUI and lots of fresh technology and thinking built in. It was competing against cumbersome, slow, complex to use and often buggy old-school Windows phones and Palms. I had Palm Treo, and remember it well, but not fondly.

Lumias are late to the party and are competing on market already well saturated with well known, well received, well matured and well loved iPhone and Android headsets. True, smartphone market has grown, but so has competition. True, Lumia is hitting more markets and more carriers than iPhone did, but all those markets are already covered well with solutions with big headstart.

Should I really care for Microsoft and Nokia, I would not be happy with it either - WP8 and Lumia should have appeared in 2008, 2009 at worst. But as it is, I simply take it for fact that they are late and, comparing to some other late attempts, they are doing as good as I could reasonably expect them to.

For me, question of Nokia and WP survival is not have they managed to achieve enough so far, but will they manage to keep momentum in the future. i think that, considering all, they managed to do well. But I also think that they should not let themselves in situation to have to consider all that.

In their defence, though, they have not done what many other tech companies did at some stage. IBM started PC revolution and dropped out of it, only to have ther brand resurrected as Lenovo and becaming successful again. Apple was on verge of extinction, only to reinvent themselves and have, today, some of best selling and best reviewed products across tech market. Nokia brough themselves to the edge with dated, stale offerings, only to... MAYBE... resurface as smaller, leaner, fresher company with current, actual products. Or not. We'll see.
post #128 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by faZZter View Post

I love the Nokia 920. I like the OS a lot too. Yes they are still waiting on some big apps but there really isn't much I need that I don't have. I take pictures alot and appreciate a good camera built in. Would love to upgrade to the 1020 but waiting on my two year discount. 

 

My iPhone 4 sits in the drawer now.

Any reason why not simply just sell the iPhone 4. Its worth money you know.  I sell my iPhones when I am due for an upgrade.  I end up getting enough to pay for the new iPhone upgrade.

 

Maybe you can do the same with the Nokia 920 to pay for your 1020 upgrade for free when you are eligible for an upgrade.  Right? 

Good point. I am not sure why I keep it. But on the other hand I still have a Nokia 3320 sitting in a drawer too. I have been downloading the ios 7 betas just to check it out. I have hope that Apple will someday listen to those of us who want a bigger screen and make a great large screen iPhone (around 4.5-5.0 inches) I am not happy with the look of ios7 so far but it is still very functional for the most part. As you can see I am not loyal to any manufacturer. I buy whatever suits my needs the best at the time and never wear blinders when discussing technology.

post #129 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


I don't think this is only for smartphones (though they probably play some role in it), but also because saturation is reached - people (mostly) migrated from film to digital, and now selling them another digital camera is a different challenge.

From my personal experience, my old Nikon D70s still works as good as it used to. Granted I'd like new DSLR body, but it is not crucial - there are many other things that have priority, as D70s still works fine for my needs.

Likewise, my wife is still using small Panasonic FX01. It should be good 6 years old by now, but she is not too touchy re IQ and it serves her well - I'm pretty sure she will be using it until it dies. Then, it is 50:50 if she will ask for a new one, or just keep using smartphone instead.

3 of my good friends are also on their first DSLRs, Canon 40D being newest of them all. Same reasoning as mine - they serve them well and they will rather get extra lens (or something completely unrelated to photography) then a new DSLR body.

Actually, I cannot recall that I know person who replaced his DSLR (or purchased 2nd body) just because.

 

Just as some people replace their iPhones (or whatever) whenever Apple comes out with a new model, many people replace their DLSRs when a replacement model is issued.   Certainly not everybody, but if you check the photo forums, many people do.    Back in the film days, there weren't so many reasons to do so, because it was the lens that made the biggest difference to any picture.  Any camera could make an accurate exposure based on manual settings.   Better cameras might have a shutter that vibrated less and the shutter might have lasted longer, but essentially, you could get the same image from a cheaper camera as you could from the top-of-the-line body.  That's not true today because the sensor and the associated processing software matters as much as the lens.

 

I did trade up from the Nikon D70 to the D200.   And I recently traded up from the D200 to the D800 (I probably would have gone with the D400, but they still haven't announced it.)   I did skip the D300 and D700.     But it really depends upon how often one uses a camera and what they're using it for.  Is it for personal or professional use?   Do you shoot outdoors or indoors?   One of the reasons I went from the D200 to the D800 was that I shoot a lot of music shows and while I'm there for the band, most of the venues no longer let me shoot flash.  So I needed better performance at high ISOs and I needed the high ISOs so I could still have decent exposures.  

 

I think there's a long way to go before sensors have reached peak performance and the technology is going to improve every few years.   I think the camera makers are also going to completely re-do the way they do auto-focusing.   Canon has started this process with the Dual Pixel CMOS AF that they just introduced, which will allow better continuous focusing when shooting video and better Live View focusing when shooting stills.   The D800 pretty much sucks at video continuous focusing.    And the future, even for "pro-DSLRs" may be mirrorless.    So I think a lot of changes are coming, but it's going to be relatively slow because Nikon and Canon have less money for R&D.  

post #130 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

You are wrong.  RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed.   Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats.    Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't.   Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.  

 

Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.    

actually compressed vs uncompressed has nothing to do with it.  RAW means just that. A recording of what the camera sensor recorded WITHOUT any in camera post processing.  Think of it like the digital equivalent of the negative BEFORE it has been developed.   JPEG is a post processed file that also compressed as well.. However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. Its simple. One pixel, 16,24, or 32 values for each primary color plus alpha used to compose the final color and transparency of the pixel.  The JPEG can be thought of having instructions inside the file which represent color values for ranges of pixels A to pixel B and then a variance. Its all lot more complex then what I state.. lets just say it uses lots of descriptive patterns and mappings to try to avoid describing each pixel individually.  For example, a linear cool blend operation if that is what is a good approximation of what happens.  In ether case, you can think of post processed files as digital equivalent of the final print.  It not really designed to be altered after you create it. You can but, it has a lot more limits in what you do to the image then the RAW file. 

 

Both the iPhone and Nokia 1020 require in camera post processing as far as I know. If I am wrong about Nokia I am sure someone will correct me.

 

Anyhow, the levels of post processing of the photo vs as seen by the camera sensor seem to differ substantially between iPhone and Nokia 1020. Nokia appears to be doing a lot more aggressive post processing then the iPhone.  Its debatable if its to its benefit or not. Levels of post processing is very subjective. Nokia sure appears to be working a lot harder at trying to make the photo look better then what is actually coming out of the native sensor then the iPhone.  Other than color saturation,  iPhone images looks a lot less "mucked with" with than the Nokia to me. 


Edited by snova - 8/6/13 at 6:02pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #131 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

You are wrong.  RAW means a native file format that is uncompressed or close to uncompressed.   Different manufacturers (Nikon, Canon, etc.) have developed their own RAW formats.    Most DSLRs will shoot in a raw format, but many (not all) point-and-shoot cameras can't.   Virtually all of these also output to the JPG compressed standard and that's what Apple does as well.  

 

Whether the image is enhanced or not has nothing to do with it.    

• All cameras 'shoot' RAW. They just don't all output RAW files. (which is why many cameras have been hacked to output RAW files.)

• Compression has nothing to do with RAW or not RAW. If all the original sensor information is preserved, untouched, compressed or not, it is RAW data by definition.

• Enhancement of any kind that irretrievably changes the RAW data makes it not RAW.

post #132 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by faZZter View Post

I really don't care what the hell you think. I have Apple products and other companies products and I am stating my opinion. I loved my iPhone 4 for quite awhile but since Apple cannot make a screen bigger than a paltry 4" I moved on. No important apps? Yeah ok. What is Instagram something important to you. That's telling.

you mad bro? dont let it get to ya.  you already  made your point.


Edited by snova - 8/6/13 at 6:10pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #133 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

I'm a product designer, not a graphic designer. Not really a common design term though. Only people instructed in photography seem to know the term.

But I'm also a terrible speller. I like photography though, so I should know better. I know it's a Japanese word and blow the spelling (maybe it should really be spelled  "Boka" as it is in Japanese?)

 

no worries.. I'm a terrible speller and also bad at proof reading. when I type I have to always edit later because I see words that are not really typed.

 

to be technical, isolation via DOF control and BOKEH are two separate effects.  It just happens the BOKEH effect occurs when you have a short DOF.  The quality and the pattern of the BOKEH is based on the physical design of the lens and not purely function of DOF.  right?

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #134 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

• All cameras 'shoot' RAW. They just don't all output RAW files. (which is why many cameras have been hacked to output RAW files.)

• Compression has nothing to do with RAW or not RAW. If all the original sensor information is preserved, untouched, compressed or not, it is RAW data by definition.

• Enhancement of any kind that irretrievably changes the RAW data makes it not RAW.

exactly!  much more concise then my attempt to explain. Bravo!

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #135 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


There is usually the other side of everything.

iPhone basically had no competition - it was novelty product with revolutionary GUI and lots of fresh technology and thinking built in. It was competing against cumbersome, slow, complex to use and often buggy old-school Windows phones and Palms. I had Palm Treo, and remember it well, but not fondly.

Lumias are late to the party and are competing on market already well saturated with well known, well received, well matured and well loved iPhone and Android headsets. True, smartphone market has grown, but so has competition. True, Lumia is hitting more markets and more carriers than iPhone did, but all those markets are already covered well with solutions with big headstart.

Should I really care for Microsoft and Nokia, I would not be happy with it either - WP8 and Lumia should have appeared in 2008, 2009 at worst. But as it is, I simply take it for fact that they are late and, comparing to some other late attempts, they are doing as good as I could reasonably expect them to.

For me, question of Nokia and WP survival is not have they managed to achieve enough so far, but will they manage to keep momentum in the future. i think that, considering all, they managed to do well. But I also think that they should not let themselves in situation to have to consider all that.

In their defence, though, they have not done what many other tech companies did at some stage. IBM started PC revolution and dropped out of it, only to have ther brand resurrected as Lenovo and becaming successful again. Apple was on verge of extinction, only to reinvent themselves and have, today, some of best selling and best reviewed products across tech market. Nokia brough themselves to the edge with dated, stale offerings, only to... MAYBE... resurface as smaller, leaner, fresher company with current, actual products. Or not. We'll see.

I have a lot of respect for Nokia HW and engineering.  They just seem to suffer from a management problem.   They will need to be creative to survive and continue to find ways to stand out. I am glad they are not trying to compete by design low quality HW and copy IP. They are innovating and have a loyal following.  I hope its just not too little to late. Apple needs competitors like Nokia. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #136 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

 

I did trade up from the Nikon D70 to the D200.   And I recently traded up from the D200 to the D800 (I probably would have gone with the D400, but they still haven't announced it.)   I did skip the D300 and D700.     But it really depends upon how often one uses a camera and what they're using it for.  Is it for personal or professional use?   Do you shoot outdoors or indoors?   One of the reasons I went from the D200 to the D800 was that I shoot a lot of music shows and while I'm there for the band, most of the venues no longer let me shoot flash.  So I needed better performance at high ISOs and I needed the high ISOs so I could still have decent exposures.  

 

The D800 is a significant upgrade from the D200, but costly when you factor in replacing your DX lenses to take advantage of the FX sensor.

post #137 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. . . . 

While most of what you say is right on, it's deceptive to say that the TIFF file is not compressed since  a huge amount of the RAW image data gets interpolated and tossed out during the post processing of the TIFF. Ironically an uncompressed TIFF file is usually larger than a RAW file since it has uncompressed RGB values (no alpha unless you add it later) for every pixel while the RAW file has only one value for each pixel (sensor cell.)

 

TIFF: each pixel has 8 bitsof RGB info for each pixel or 24 bits of information per pixel.

RAW: Each sensor cell has only a single R, G or B value of 12 or 16 bits, so 12 or 16 bits per sensor cell (about the same number as there are pixels in the TIIF file.)

Because of this, an uncompressed RAW file is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of an uncompressed TIFF even though it contains at least 1.5 to 2 times as much useful image information.


Edited by DESuserIGN - 8/6/13 at 6:32pm
post #138 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

exactly!  much more concise then my attempt to explain. Bravo!

 

Thanks. Conciseness has its price though. It took me much longer to compose my concise answer than it took you to write  a similar longer one.   1wink.gif

post #139 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

However, you can have post processed files without compression like TIFF. The difference is the uncompressed TIFF file has detail about every pixel. . . . 

While most of what you say is right on, it's deceptive to say that the TIFF file is not compressed since  a huge amount of the RAW image data gets interpolated and tossed out during the post processing of the TIFF. Ironically an uncompressed TIFF file is usually larger than a RAW file since it has uncompressed RGB values (no alpha unless you add it later) for every pixel while the RAW file has only one value for each pixel (sensor cell.)

 

TIFF: each pixel has 8 bitsof RGB info for each pixel or 24 bits of information per pixel.

RAW: Each sensor cell has only a single R, G or B value of 12 or 16 bits, so 12 or 16 bits per sensor cell (about the same number as there are pixels in the TIIF file.)

Because of this, an uncompressed RAW file is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of an uncompressed TIFF even though it contains at least twice as much useful image information.

 

That doesn't sound quite right if the images are of similar pixel dimension. The main reason that TIFF is larger than RAW is that RAW generally uses lossless compression, whereas basic TIFF is uncompressed. Am I missing what you meant?

post #140 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

you are right. An actual review would be good and fair. 

however, you must admit you also need it be a bit more reasonable of your expectation of camera that is based on 2004 CCD technology sensor in the D70.  How about we compare photos from my D600 Full Frame sensor  to your RX100 1" sensor.  Down sampled to 16MP.  ISO 6400.  to see which one is smoother.   You game?   

I am not asking for pissing contest here.  I just want you to be a bit more reasonable in comparing sensors technology to at least similar eras.  OK? 

I think you missed my point.

Which was that downsampling can provide significant improvements if you have enough pixels to start with, and don't need more pixels then what you end up with.

If I just crop 6MP out of RX100 image, per-pixel IQ will be below D70s 6MP image. Regardless of D70s age. Yes, D70s is old tech, but it does have DX size sensor with only 6MP on it, making individual pixels quite large. Modern DX sensor with 6MP would do much better, but modern DX sensors have much higher resolution with much smaller individual pixels, so you don't really get that much advantage in per-pixel IQ as you might expect... but I digress. You don't have to be an expert to see that - RX100 at 100% magnification will give less sharpness and more noise, even in daylight photos, especially on darker colours. I live by the ocean, and water photos on RX100 have more pronounced noise on ISO125 than D70s on base ISO200, with same exposure time.

But downsampling RX100 20MP images to same resolution as D70s gives result that is more pleasing to my eyes, even at 100% zoom. Less noise, smoother (not softer) with great detail retention.

Which is what Nokia is trying to achieve with Lumia 1020 camera tech. And I think they are, compared to other phone cameras. What is the point of bringing D600 in this dialogue? Does any current smartphone have 20MP+ FX sensor?

Re rest of your post, no I didn't have chance to check all available comparison photos. I'll do that and reply in separate post.
post #141 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

While most of what you say is right on, it's deceptive to say that the TIFF file is not compressed since  a huge amount of the RAW image data gets interpolated and tossed out during the post processing of the TIFF. Ironically an uncompressed TIFF file is usually larger than a RAW file since it has uncompressed RGB values (no alpha unless you add it later) for every pixel while the RAW file has only one value for each pixel (sensor cell.)

 

TIFF: each pixel has 8 bitsof RGB info for each pixel or 24 bits of information per pixel.

RAW: Each sensor cell has only a single R, G or B value of 12 or 16 bits, so 12 or 16 bits per sensor cell (about the same number as there are pixels in the TIIF file.)

Because of this, an uncompressed RAW file is 1/2 to 2/3 the size of an uncompressed TIFF even though it contains at least twice as much useful image information.

not sure if deceptive is the right word.   its more like TIFF is the negative AFTER it has been developed and the RAW is before it has been developed.  I would not call it compressed... more like it "lost" undeveloped information because it has gone through the development process.  But I agree with the thought behind you comment. It is post processed and by definition lost information after it was decided how it should be developed and processed.

 

not worth getting into TIFF bit hair splitting on this thread. People can "bing"  support TIFF bit formats if they like. ;-)  Same for RAW bit format.  Most RAW files I use are "lossless" compressed format. 

"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #142 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That doesn't sound quite right if the images are of similar pixel dimension. The main reason that TIFF is larger than RAW is that RAW generally uses lossless compression, whereas basic TIFF is uncompressed. Am I missing what you meant?

Yeah, it's surprising. People forget the that the sensors in a camera do not sense RGB directly, only monochrome light levels. Each sensor has a R, G or B filter over it. Because of this the sensors are arrayed in a pattern of R G and B like:

 

R G B G R G B G

G B G R G B G R

 

 (I think it's the G cell that for some good (but easily forgotten by me) reason is gets double representation.)

 

So the RAW file has a 12 or 16 bit number for each cell. In camera post processing into a TIFF interpolates (guesses) the RGB value for every cell (effectively this is when the pixel, picture element, is created.) With a RAW file the interpolation is done by you later, on your computer. This is why you can change color temperature, etc. while preserving more image information.

 

So Tiff has 24 bits of processed data for each pixel while the RAW only has 16 bits. The RAW, however can theoretically be post processed to have 36 to 64 bits of RGB data for each pixel (if nothing is thrown out.) But that's overstating the useful information content.

 

RAW processing is all about making decisions on what to keep and what to throw out.


Edited by DESuserIGN - 8/6/13 at 7:03pm
post #143 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

not sure if deceptive is the right word.   its more like TIFF is the negative AFTER it has been developed and the RAW is before it has been developed.  I would not call it compressed... more like it "lost" undeveloped information because it has gone through the development process.  But I agree with the thought behind you comment. It is post processed and by definition lost information after it was decided how it should be developed and processed.

 

not worth getting into TIFF bit hair splitting on this thread. People can "bing"  support TIFF bit formats if they like. ;-)  Same for RAW bit format.  Most RAW files I use are "lossless" compressed format. 

 

Yeah, I didn't mean to imply you were being deceptive, just that it sounds like the TIFF is untouched.

 

Your development analogy is a good one. TIFF files can't be redeveloped. It's like sending it to Walgreens to be developed. They do it how they want.

The nice thing with RAW is that you can develop the negative however you want — and more importantly, you can redevelop it however you want.

post #144 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

That doesn't sound quite right if the images are of similar pixel dimension. The main reason that TIFF is larger than RAW is that RAW generally uses lossless compression, whereas basic TIFF is uncompressed. Am I missing what you meant?

Yeah, it's surprising. People forget the that the sensors in a camera do not sense RGB directly, only monochrome light levels. Each sensor has a R, G or B filter over it. Because of this the sensors are arrayed in a pattern of R G and B like:

 

R G B G R G B G

G B G R G B G R

 

 (I think it's the G cell that for some good (but easily forgotten by me) reason is gets double representation.)

 

So the RAW file has a 12 or 16 bit number for each cell. The TIFF interpolates the RGB value for each cell (effectively this is when the pixel, picture element, is created.) With a RAW file the interpolation is done by you late, on your computer. This is why you can change color temperature, etc. while preserving more image information.

 

Agreed, but that means that the RAW file contains one 12 or 16 bit number for 4 times the number of sensor locations as there are pixels in the resulting TIFF file, where each pixel contains three 16 bit (if not lowered to 8 bit) numbers representing the RGB values. That's actually 33% more data in the RAW file if all four sensors are fully recorded. Hence my point that it is the lossless compression of the data in the RAW file that allows it to be smaller.

post #145 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


I think you missed my point.

Which was that downsampling can provide significant improvements if you have enough pixels to start with, and don't need more pixels then what you end up with.

If I just crop 6MP out of RX100 image, per-pixel IQ will be below D70s 6MP image. Regardless of D70s age. Yes, D70s is old tech, but it does have DX size sensor with only 6MP on it, making individual pixels quite large. Modern DX sensor with 6MP would do much better, but modern DX sensors have much higher resolution with much smaller individual pixels, so you don't really get that much advantage in per-pixel IQ as you might expect... but I digress. You don't have to be an expert to see that - RX100 at 100% magnification will give less sharpness and more noise, even in daylight photos, especially on darker colours. I live by the ocean, and water photos on RX100 have more pronounced noise on ISO125 than D70s on base ISO200, with same exposure time.

But downsampling RX100 20MP images to same resolution as D70s gives result that is more pleasing to my eyes, even at 100% zoom. Less noise, smoother (not softer) with great detail retention.

Which is what Nokia is trying to achieve with Lumia 1020 camera tech. And I think they are, compared to other phone cameras. What is the point of bringing D600 in this dialogue? Does any current smartphone have 20MP+ FX sensor?

Re rest of your post, no I didn't have chance to check all available comparison photos. I'll do that and reply in separate post.

You said more MP on smaller sensor when down sampled will give better photo than larger sensor with less MP.   You used CCD sensor technology from 9 year ago to prove your point against a modern CMOS sensor.  I said this was not a fair comparison and suggested using even bigger sensor in the D600 of the same era as the RX100 and both down sample to 6MP and compare. Sorry I can't get my hands on a large sensor low MP camera of similar era to the RX100.

 

CCD was never good an keeping noise in check unless you had a 3CCD sensor like in the Panasonic designs. The D70 shots were only really good up to 400 iso.   Which is a joke by modern CMOS standards with similar sensor size like in the D7000.  This is one of the reasons all camera companies abandoned CCD.

 

So to make this more fair, perhaps we should wait till dpreview does a full review using their standard images and compare image from Fuji X20 - 12MP camera 2/3" sensor with the Nokia 41MP 2/3" sensor and down sample the 41MP file to 12MP to see which one produces a better image. Did you think it will be close? ;-) 

 

Unless Nokia knows something Sony does not, I dont think 41MP on a 2/3" sensor produces yields a reasonable sensor pitch for quality images considering to the limits of industry leading Sony sensors are willing to push their other sensors today.  I think all it will be "over sampling" is a lot noise and then spending CPU cycles it filter out, which in the end will likely negatively affect the final resulting image.  I think I would rather have less pixels to start that produces a noise free capture then mess with the image full of noise (due to aggressive high pitch)  and try to carefully filter out the noise without messing up the resulting image.


Edited by snova - 8/6/13 at 7:32pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #146 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Agreed, but that means that the RAW file contains one 12 or 16 bit number for 4 times the number of sensor locations as there are pixels in the resulting TIFF file, where each pixel contains three 16 bit (if not lowered to 8 bit) numbers representing the RGB values. That's actually 33% more data in the RAW file if all four sensors are fully recorded. Hence my point that it is the lossless compression of the data in the RAW file that allows it to be smaller.

One would think so, but each sensor maps 1 to 1 with a pixel in the finished image (there are a few extra sensors at the edge.) In post processing (in camera or in RAW conversion) each pixel's values are constructed from the measured value of its corresponding sensor and the other missing values from nearby sensors. 

post #147 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

One would think so, but each sensor maps 1 to 1 with a pixel in the finished image (there are a few extra sensors at the edge.) In post processing (in camera or in RAW conversion) each pixel's values are constructed from the measured value of its corresponding sensor and the other missing values from nearby sensors. 

 

This method probably has to do with information theory, I suppose.

Many image processing methods have been explored, but this apparently provides the best result in terms of maximum high quality information produced from the RAW sensor values.

post #148 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Agreed, but that means that the RAW file contains one 12 or 16 bit number for 4 times the number of sensor locations as there are pixels in the resulting TIFF file, where each pixel contains three 16 bit (if not lowered to 8 bit) numbers representing the RGB values. That's actually 33% more data in the RAW file if all four sensors are fully recorded. Hence my point that it is the lossless compression of the data in the RAW file that allows it to be smaller.

One would think so, but each sensor maps 1 to 1 with a pixel in the finished image (there are a few extra sensors at the edge.) In post processing (in camera or in RAW conversion) each pixel's values are constructed from the measured value of its corresponding sensor and the other missing values from nearby sensors. 

 

Right - I'd forgotten that they always interpolate for the missing colors. So the TIFF image does contain extra information - two interpolated colors plus the one measured color at each pixel location (processed), and is also uncompressed by default.

post #149 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Right - I'd forgotten that they always interpolate for the missing colors. So the TIFF image does contain extra information - two interpolated colors plus the one measured color at each pixel location (processed), and is also uncompressed by default.

Yes, "extra information," in that the TIFF has a larger file size.

But it contains much less real and usable image information than the smaller RAW file.

 

The TIFF contains processed,image information. A nice abbreviation of the image (Readers Digest condensed version of the book.)

The RAW file contains all the information. A full recording of the image as shot. (It's the full original novel, as written by the author.)


Edited by DESuserIGN - 8/6/13 at 8:13pm
post #150 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

Right - I'd forgotten that they always interpolate for the missing colors. So the TIFF image does contain extra information - two interpolated colors plus the one measured color at each pixel location (processed), and is also uncompressed by default.

Yes, "extra information," in that the TIFF has a larger file size.

But it contains much less real and usable image information than the smaller RAW file.

 

Yes - that's what I meant - it contains unnecessary interpolated information and has also been processed. In theory though, if one knew the processing algorithms used to generate the TIFF from the RAW then one should be able to reconstruct the RAW from the TIFF, not that it would make any sense to want to do that.

post #151 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In theory though, if one knew the processing algorithms used to generate the TIFF from the RAW then one should be able to reconstruct the RAW from the TIFF, not that it would make any sense to want to do that.

 

Nope, it's not even theoretically reversible. The finest information, essentially the least significant figures, are tossed and that information is lost forever and cannot be reconstructed.

It's a lossy transformation, just like a JPEG but not such a severe pruning.

 

[You can't reconstruct the original "Tale of Two Cities" from the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of the book. (Probably anyone under 40 has no idea what a Reader's Digest Condensed Version of a book is!)]

post #152 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

You said more MP on smaller sensor when down sampled will give better photo than larger sensor with less MP.   You used CCD sensor technology from 9 year ago to prove your point against a modern CMOS sensor.  I said this was not a fair comparison and suggested using even bigger sensor in the D600 of the same era as the RX100 and both down sample to 6MP and compare. Sorry I can't get my hands on a large sensor low MP camera of similar era to the RX100.

CCD was never good an keeping noise in check unless you had a 3CCD sensor like in the Panasonic designs. The D70 shots were only really good up to 400 iso.   Which is a joke by modern CMOS standards with similar sensor size like in the D7000.  This is one of the reasons all camera companies abandoned CCD.

So to make this more fair, perhaps we should wait till dpreview does a full review using their standard images and compare image from Fuji X20 - 12MP camera 2/3" sensor with the Nokia 41MP 2/3" sensor and down sample the 41MP file to 12MP to see which one produces a better image. Did you think it will be close? ;-) 

Unless Nokia knows something Sony does not, I dont think 41MP on a 2/3" sensor produces yields a reasonable sensor pitch for quality images considering to the limits of industry leading Sony sensors are willing to push their other sensors today.  I think all it will be "over sampling" is a lot noise and then spending CPU cycles it filter out, which in the end will likely negatively affect the final resulting image.  I think I would rather have less pixels to start that produces a noise free capture then mess with the image full of noise (due to aggressive high pitch)  and try to carefully filter out the noise without messing up the resulting image.

Again, no - that is not what I am saying 1smile.gif

I'm saying that RX100 native pixel-level IQ is trailing behind D70s native pixel-level IQ, but when I downsample RX100 image, I get IQ boost on per-pixel level, while sacrificing pixel count. Since RX100 has so much more pixels, I can sacrifice lots of them and still have reasonably sized image for scenarios more demanding than Facebook photo upload.

Presence of D70s here is completely anecdotal - I'm mentioning it only because I have it so I can compare them, but point is that I am "improving" RX100 IQ (or, rather, dismissing it's shortcomings) by downsampling images.

If I happened to have D7000, my conclusion would be that on native resolution, RX100 has much poorer per-pixel IQ, but when I downsample RX100 images, I am getting per-pixel IQ that compares better with D7000, while reducing pixel count significantly below D7000 pixel count.

If I had D600 (awesome camera, maybe one day...) maybe I would say that on native resolution, RX100 has horrendously, must-see-it-to-believe-it poorer per-pixel IQ, but when I downsample RX100 images, I am getting per-pixel IQ that reduces gap to D600 per-pixel IQ, while reducing pixel count significantly below D600 pixel count.

In all 3 scenarios, point is not what I compare RX100 with. Point is that I get improved IQ by sacrificing pixels, and that I have enough pixels to sacrifice.

Based on that, I think I have good basis to expect that by downsampling Lumia 1020 images to 8MP, I will get better looking images than any other current smartphone on the market, while keeping same pixel count. I don't expect that will make Lumia1020 an alternative for DSLR, or even advanced pocket camera like RX100... but I do expect it will make it a better alternative to average P&S camera, and better camera than any other smartphone is at present.
post #153 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

In theory though, if one knew the processing algorithms used to generate the TIFF from the RAW then one should be able to reconstruct the RAW from the TIFF, not that it would make any sense to want to do that.

 

Nope, it's not even theoretically reversible. The finest information, essentially the least significant figures, are tossed and that information is lost forever and cannot be reconstructed.

It's a lossy transformation, just like a JPEG but not such a severe pruning.

 

[You can't reconstruct the original "Tale of Two Cities" from the Reader's Digest Condensed Version of the book. (Probably anyone under 40 has no idea what a Reader's Digest Condensed Version of a book is!)]

 

I would agree if that were so, but if the RAW and TIFF both contain 16 bit information then I guess I don't see which least significant bits are being discarded.  Lossy only applies to compression algorithms, not to interpolation. Can you elaborate?

post #154 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

to be technical, isolation via DOF control and BOKEH are two separate effects.  It just happens the BOKEH effect occurs when you have a short DOF.  The quality and the pattern of the BOKEH is based on the physical design of the lens and not purely function of DOF.  right?

 

I'm no expert on bokeh, but I think DOF isolation and bokeh refer to essentially the same thing, but people talk about the esthetic quality of the bokeh which as you point out depends on specifics of the lens and the diaphragm. Have you ever noticed that during an eclipse that sunlight passing through the tree leaves casts little highlights (whatever you call the opposite of a shadow) in a crescent shape that perfectly mimics the crescent of the eclipsed sun? You would think this wouldn't be very noticeable, but it actually is quite striking and amazingly different from what you normally see. It literally changes the mood in a subtle way.

 

I suppose an esthetically nice bokeh must be similar. A subtle difference, but aficionados notice it. (I haven't thought of it this way before. I'll have to pay more attention to it.)

 

Is this what you are referring to?

post #155 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


Again, no - that is not what I am saying 1smile.gif

I'm saying that RX100 native pixel-level IQ is trailing behind D70s native pixel-level IQ, but when I downsample RX100 image, I get IQ boost on per-pixel level, while sacrificing pixel count. Since RX100 has so much more pixels, I can sacrifice lots of them and still have reasonably sized image for scenarios more demanding than Facebook photo upload.

Presence of D70s here is completely anecdotal - I'm mentioning it only because I have it so I can compare them, but point is that I am "improving" RX100 IQ (or, rather, dismissing it's shortcomings) by downsampling images.

If I happened to have D7000, my conclusion would be that on native resolution, RX100 has much poorer per-pixel IQ, but when I downsample RX100 images, I am getting per-pixel IQ that compares better with D7000, while reducing pixel count significantly below D7000 pixel count.

If I had D600 (awesome camera, maybe one day...) maybe I would say that on native resolution, RX100 has horrendously, must-see-it-to-believe-it poorer per-pixel IQ, but when I downsample RX100 images, I am getting per-pixel IQ that reduces gap to D600 per-pixel IQ, while reducing pixel count significantly below D600 pixel count.

In all 3 scenarios, point is not what I compare RX100 with. Point is that I get improved IQ by sacrificing pixels, and that I have enough pixels to sacrifice.

Based on that, I think I have good basis to expect that by downsampling Lumia 1020 images to 8MP, I will get better looking images than any other current smartphone on the market, while keeping same pixel count. I don't expect that will make Lumia1020 an alternative for DSLR, or even advanced pocket camera like RX100... but I do expect it will make it a better alternative to average P&S camera, and better camera than any other smartphone is at present.

yes. I get what you are saying.  

Not sure you are getting what I am saying however. since this is my third attempt, this is no doubt because I must be doing a terrible job of expressing myself.  sorry.

 

So lets make this simple.

two 2/3" sensors.  One has "big" pixels the other has "little" pixels but more of them.

Mr. Big Pixel - Fuji X20 2/3" sensor  12 Million Big Pixels.

Mr. Little Pixel - Nokia 1020 2/3" sensor.    41 Million Small Pixels.  Downsample this to 12MP.   

 

Do you think a 12MP (41MP down sampled to 12MP) image will be Better from the Nokia because it has an opportunity to "oversample" and why?  Or do you think the Fuji native 12 MP will have better IQ than the (41->12MP) Nokia image and why? 

 

bonus questions:

4 Nokia small pixels roughly make up the same physical area of 1 Fuji BIG pixel.   Assume you apply just enough light to the BIG Fuji pixel to yields the correct color value without error.  Now take the same amount of light, and apply it to the 4 smaller pixels taking up the same surface area.  What is the probability that all four pixels will yield the correct color value without error (i.e. noise)?  Is it 100% or something lower? How do you down sample this to yield the correct color value for the 41->12MP conversion in which the 4 small pixels will be replaced by 1 big pixel?  Do you take the average value? Would the average value be the same what the Fuji produced? Or do you vote and find the ones which don't match? For example, 3 yield simliar values, but 1 is way off?  What is the probability of making the wrong decision in this voting technique? Is it less than 100%?  Go back and review your answers to IQ of 12MP Native Fuji vs 41MP-->12 MP downsample Nokia questions above. 


Edited by snova - 8/6/13 at 9:54pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #156 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I would agree if that were so, but if the RAW and TIFF both contain 16 bit information then I guess I don't see which least significant bits are being discarded.  Lossy only applies to compression algorithms, not to interpolation. Can you elaborate?

Oh sure. If you go to a 16 bit tiff there is no qualitative difference. 

 

I was assuming you meant processing it into an 8 bit TIFF. (In downsampling info would be lost.)

 

But once you have made all of your decisions on settings for exposure, color temp, setting the curves, retouching etc., there's no real reason to remain  at 16 bits for final output. Those extra bits are really only important if you still plan to make adjustments to the image.

 

Do digital labs accept anything other than an 8 bit jpegs for printing?


Edited by DESuserIGN - 8/6/13 at 9:31pm
post #157 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by muppetry View Post

 

I would agree if that were so, but if the RAW and TIFF both contain 16 bit information then I guess I don't see which least significant bits are being discarded.  Lossy only applies to compression algorithms, not to interpolation. Can you elaborate?

Oh sure. If you go to a 16 bit tiff there is no difference. 

 

I was assuming you meant processing it into an 8 bit TIFF. (In downsampling info would be lost.)

 

But once you have made all of your decisions on settings for exposure, color temp, setting the curves, retouching etc., there's no real reason to remain  at 16 bits for final output. Those extra bits are really only important if you still plane to make adjustments to the image.

 

Agreed.

post #158 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Do you think the image will be Better from the Nokia because it has an opportunity to "oversample" and why?  Or do you think the Fuji will have better IQ and why? 

 

My vote is for big pixels (sensors.)

Less noise and vignetting.

I would still take a 2.7 MP Nikon D-1 (OK, a 12 MP D-2x  ;-)  ) over many newer bigger pixel DSLRs.  (but that wasn't the question, I suppose.)

 

Both strategies have their advantages though. Either strategy may be superior for a particular hardware combinations. Comparison of actual results is probably the only way to decide. Philosophically though, I tend to favor a strategy that pursues results with quality rather than brute force (lots of pixels.) This is the time tested and orthodox approach though, and I appreciate iconoclastic approaches as well.


Edited by DESuserIGN - 8/6/13 at 9:53pm
post #159 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post
 Either strategy may be superior for a particular hardware combinations. 

The assumption is we are using sensor technology from a similar eras; Not 9-10 years apart.   Specifically sensor technology as it stands today.   Same sensor size; 12MP applied over 2/3" vs 41MP applied over 2/3" as it stands today.

 

here is a graphical overview of how large 2/3" sensor is compared to APS-C/DX and Full Frame.  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

 

Pixel Pitch comparison below for iPhones, Nokia vs Fuji Compact Camera of same sensor size, high end DSLR.

 

 

iPhone 5 (1/3.2") 8MP pixel pitch would yield 64MP Full Frame, 46MP DX/APS-C

iPhone 4S (1/4") 5MP pixel pitch would yield 54MP Full Frame, 36MP DX/APS-C

The Nokia (2/3") 1020 41MP dot pitch would yield 161 MP Full Frame, 107 MP DX/APS-C.

The Fuji (2/3") X20 12MP dot pixel pitch would yield 47MP Full Frame, 32 MP DX/APS-C.  

Sony sensors in high end Nikon D800 yields 36MP Full Frame, 24MP DX/APS-C in D7100.


Edited by snova - 8/6/13 at 10:43pm
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
"Building for the future?! They should be running around reacting to the present!" -John Moltz
Reply
post #160 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

The assumption is we are using sensor technology from a similar eras; Not 9-10 years apart.   Specifically sensor technology as it stands today.   Same sensor size; 12MP applied over 2/3" vs 41MP applied over 2/3" as it stands today.

 

here is a graphical overview of how large 2/3" sensor is compared to APS-C/DX and Full Frame.  Bonus points for telling me how many MP DX or Full Frame sensor we would get at the same pixel pitch rate as on the Nokia.  ;-)  anyhow?

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_sensor_format

 

I get it.

My vote is for larger sensor cells.

I prefer this approach philosophically (the nikon D-2x was just an example for illustration.)

 

Why?

1. large sensor cells -> more of the sensor surface can be light sensitive area

2. large sensor cells -> less noise

3. large sensor cells -> less vignetting

4. large sensor cells -> higher quality/$

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Nokia slams iPhone 5 camera in parody of Apple ad