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 5

post #161 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

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/$
Here is someone else who would agree with you.
http://www.laesieworks.com/digicom/MP.html
"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 #162 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

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?

In theory (where both cameras have similar sensor technology, same lens and can avoid in-camera processing), I would expect that native Nokia pixels would have more noise and less sharpness than Fuji, but I would not be surprised to see downsampled images from Nokia look smoother and more noise-free than Fuji. I would also expect Fuji to maintain better DR than Nokia, credit to larger pixels... but then again, in real life, lens, sensor characteristics and processing engine would play significant role as well.
Quote:
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?

I don't know how is exactly downsampling - or, as some prefer, supersampling working. In a nutshell, it should average block of X pixels into one middle-value, but I would expect that algorithm is more complex than that and is taking into account surrounding pixels, not just pixels that will create one super-pixel; especially that in real-life scenarios you will not be able to combine exact number of pixels into one new pixel. For example, supersampling 20MP to 5MP would make block of 2x2 pixels into one superpixel, while supersampling to 6MP would have to use 3.3333... pixels to create one superpixel, which is not clean cut. However, difference in supersampled 5MP and 6MP, in my scenario, cannot really be seen with naked eye.
Quote:
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. 

You seem to be implying that, in Fuji's case, each pixel will be 100% accurate which is not the case - Fuji will also exhibit noise, albeit less than Nokia. So the question here is, how does noise in native 12MP image compare to noise in native 41MP image supersampled to 12MP. To that question I have no answer, but I'm hoping to see some good reviews in the future.

But all that aside... we are talking here about iPhone, S4 and Nokia 1020, where Nokia does also have bigger sensor, wider aperture and image stabiliser, xenon flash and mechanical shutter - not only more pixels.
Edited by nikon133 - 8/7/13 at 2:33am
post #163 of 175
Used to love Nokia camera feature, but iPhone overwhelm it with IOS and capable of taking decent pics! I also have an SLR camera, so why should I need a Nokia just to take a nice pics? Take pictures on iPhone and it appear in my iPad and MacBook instantly at the same time! Did Nokia's add forget to mention that? Not to mention so much more features I enjoyed from IOS. It does sell. Nokia need to work harder to create and innovate to make it sells. Good luck!
post #164 of 175
Fact and fiction? Are those scenes in the add real? I prone to believe it's not (because it was a commercial). I love taking a nice and perfect picture and I rely on my 18MP SLR camera. Without a commercial everyone can tell I will get the best picture either iPhone or Nokia could never be able to do. With over 40MP Nokia still can not beat my 18MP SLR. This shows only uninformed people believe higher pixel is better. Nokia tries to sell to those uninformed and I think it as misleading. My 8MP iPhone 5 can actually make a very nice, crisp and decent pics and I love it mobility and of course in fact I take more of it than I do with my SLR camera! Plus with IOS feature I don't have to deal with cables, adapters and time to upload it to my macbook and iPad. It already there the very moment the picture was taken.
post #165 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


I would expect that native Nokia pixels would have more noise and less sharpness than Fuji, but I would not be surprised to see downsampled images from Nokia look smoother and more noise-free than Fuji.

OK, we agree Nokia will have more noise on the original 41MP image.  Downsampled images will NOT be smoother than Fuji. I'll tell you why after your dynamic range (DR) comment below.
I would also expect Fuji to maintain better DR than Nokia, credit to larger pixels... but then again, in real life, lens, sensor characteristics and processing engine would play significant role as well.
So here you are mistaken. More pixels give you more dynamic range (DR). Not less. Think about this. You have a color gradient pattern. Will more pixels over the same area or less pixels over the same area capture more even color changes dynamic range? This is assuming you have no noise.  However, in the case of Nokia sensor which is WAY over its head in terms realistic dot pitch your dynamic range will be composed of mostly dynamic NOISE instead of detail. Now downsample that. What you end up is NOT a smoother image than the Fuji. What you end up with is an over-sharpned and over-contrast image due to dropping smooth edge detail in the same process as dropping the noise. It can't tell the difference. This about what happens when it see transition from dark to light. This is the reason dpreview images show the Nokia images to be over-sharped and over-contrast. It's the downsampling. The only way "try to" remove the sharping is to apply blur, which makes you lose even more detail. For the over-contrast correct however; you are sunk. You can't restore shadow detail once its gone.  Take another look at the Nokia dpreview samples. Look at the loss of any shadow detail in the white backgrounds. It's been bleached when it took out "noise" which was actually real shadow detail.. not noise.  iPhone does not have this problem and why the photo looks more realistic instead of "mucked with"; minus the color over-saturation.
Or, go look at your 6MP RX100 (from RAW) down sampled images to prove it to yourself at 100% magnification compared to your 70S (from RAW). See the oversharpening and the over-contrast? That is because of the lost DR (both real detail and noise). You are fooling yourself if you think downsampling you are improving quality.. you are losing detail and smoothness and trading it for over-contrast, over-sharping with less noise. The best way to get rid of noise is to use a denoise algorithm or better yet, not have noise in your image in the first place.   The image will never be as good as the source however in terms of detail.   For this reason 12MP over the same area on the Fuji will be much better than the Downsampled 41-->12MP on the Nokia.  No loss in detail due to over-sharping and over-contrast with less noise to start with. 

I don't know how is exactly downsampling - or, as some prefer, supersampling working. In a nutshell, it should average block of X pixels into one middle-value, but I would expect that algorithm is more complex than that and is taking into account surrounding pixels, not just pixels that will create one super-pixel; especially that in real-life scenarios you will not be able to combine exact number of pixels into one new pixel. For example, supersampling 20MP to 5MP would make block of 2x2 pixels into one superpixel, while supersampling to 6MP would have to use 3.3333... pixels to create one superpixel, which is not clean cut. However, difference in supersampled 5MP and 6MP, in my scenario, cannot really be seen with naked eye.
You seem to be implying that, in Fuji's case, each pixel will be 100% accurate which is not the case -
I did not imply it. I made it a requirement because I knew someone would try to debate this point. I clearly stated "just enough light to get correct pixel value" on the Fuji and that same amount of light applied to the same surface area covered by 4 of the Nokia pixels.
Fuji will also exhibit noise, albeit less than Nokia.
Good. we are making progress.  So you agree 4 Nokia pixels will exhibit more noise then 1 Fuji pixel covering the same surface area.
So the question here is, how does noise in native 12MP image compare to noise in native 41MP image supersampled to 12MP. To that question I have no answer, but I'm hoping to see some good reviews in the future.
Actually, you just answered your own question in the previous response. You just need to be willing to reason it out. One good pixel covering a specific area, is always better than only a  portion of good pixels (i.e. errors) covering the same area. Use any algorythm you want to convert the 4 pixels with some containing bad data to 1 good larger pixel. it will still be inferior. The only way it won't is if the 4 pixels will always give you the right result at he same marginal light level as the 1 big pixel that just barely gave you the correct result without error (noise).


But all that aside... we are talking here about iPhone, S4 and Nokia 1020, where Nokia does also have bigger sensor, wider aperture and image stabiliser, xenon flash and mechanical shutter - not only more pixels.
No doubt the Nokia has a sensor which is 4 times the surface area of iPhone. However, they ruined the IQ by using tiny pixels. Its a no win situation. You either keep all 41 and have a noisy image, or you down sample to get over-sharped and over-contrast (lost shadow detail) image.  Your choice.  You cant cheat physics. Its not just the size of the sensor, it the size of sensor balanced with technological limits at the time to keep noise levels to an acceptable level using small pixels.   Also, the Nokia lens does have a bigger aperture..  2.2 compared to iPhone 2.4. Really?? is that need to get excited? Keeping in mind that since the aperture is fixed for both you have no ability to fix the corner softness problems of the Nokia lens. Its terrible. No amount of megapixels, downsampling or other filters is going to fix corner softness of Nokia lens.  Unless you consider cropping a filter.   Don't forget to mention the ~ 4 sec shot to shot delay picking a 41 MP sensor coupled to image processor which is not able to handle it  in a timely fashion.  Oh someone blinked.. hold for 4 seconds while I take another.  not acceptable. Anyone with a DSLR knows you take rapid shots to prevent this problem and annoyance.  iPhone 5 can take photos as fast as you can hit the volume + button.  Did I mention the almost 1 second shutter delay once you have waited the 4 seconds seconds.   Somehow dpreview falled to mention any of those things in their "preview".

Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 2:27pm
"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 #166 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by semanka View Post

.. This shows only uninformed people believe higher pixel is better. Nokia tries to sell to those uninformed and I think it as misleading. 

Nokia could have had winner on their hands in terms of camera phone.  They picked a sensor 4 times the surface area of the iPhone. That should have been enough. It could have had great low light performance without messing with "larger" aperture lens.  But they ruined it by picking a inferior "large aperture" lens (backed by a respected name brand for marketing purpose) and choose tiny pixels (again marketing purposes). What they should have done instead is go ahead and usee a non-name lens with better quality and reasonable large pixels.  Keep it at 5MP native (or less).  Dont play games taking 41MP shots only to try to down sample to get rid of noise along with shadow detail.   Its the same uninformed consumer who buy camera based on name brand and megapixels and Nokia knows it. If they were serious about better quality, they would make it 5MP native (or less) and use good glass without focusing on the lens brand name. But then it won't sell because its these same marketing people who have ruined any potential mass market sale of reasonable big pixels size by promoting absurd MP ratings over everything else.  

 

To be fair, Apple is no exception on the iPhone 5 and 4S when it comes to the MP game. But at least they are not playing downsampling games for which I would like to note there are plenty of pixels to go around too for down sampling for shots. Most of these camera phone shots which will only ever end up on anything more than computer screen or 4x6 print.  Even 5MP is going overboard. Retina iPad screen is only 3MP and most laptop computers screens (1280x800) are only around 1MP. Oh and that 4x6 print is only ~2MP at 300dpi (which is generious).  

 

Give me large pixels with great low light performance and good glass.  Not noise (errors), lost shadow and over-sharperned photos, with muddy corners.

 

Nokia, you can keep your crappy quality large fixed aperture lens and your powerful Xenon flash too. I don't want even stronger directed light from a tiny light source.

 

 3MP sounds like reasonable size to me for a camera phone.  But hey.. that's just me  who cares about real photographic quality.. not the average misguided consumer to buys into all this marketing BS and perceived quality.


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 2:35pm
"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 #167 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


Apple is just presenting facts.

Lots of people bought iPhones over the past few years. They took so many pictures that the iPhone ended up being the #1 camera in the world. It was organic. It just happened.

Now Apple is simply stating that in a commercial "Every day, more photos are taken with the iPhone than any other camera."

If I was Apple... I'd be pretty proud if that.


Yep, I'd go with that Michael.  The iPhone/iPad Mini are mobile computers in the early stages of their evolution. The fact that they can take pictures for "Billy, Susie & me" (at whatever resolution) to show their family and then archive them is wonderful.  Who knows what might come next (iWatch, full-body bio-sensors . . .)

post #168 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by semanka View Post

Fact and fiction? Are those scenes in the add real?

you mean the opening scene where the woman (carrying which I assume is iPhone) with her two daughters  HIKING  WHILE TAKING PHOTO. 1eek.gif  completely backlit no less!!  Or the second scene of the couple having their photo taken by a stranger (with iPhone I assume) also backlit!!  Or some kind of twisted comment about a child using an expensive iPhone to take photos. 

 

My first reaction when I saw that was.. "are they poking fun at Apple consumers for being morons???" 1bugeye.gif. Is this supposed to be some kind of insider joke for the Nokia engineers and photographers to laugh at? irked.gif

 

 

then I was not sure what they were trying to say.  Because in the next scene, they had the same girl talking a photo of stuffed animals under the bed with the flash clearly going off. Then they show the audience  "the result" with iPhone and Nokia 925 both labeled  "NO FLASH" . ????? what?? huh? wait.. why did you just show me that after showing me her taking it with a flash under her bed?  Or are you expecting us to believe the little girl (or adult consumer) was knowledgeable enough to turn off flash by her self while taking a photo of under a completely dark bed?  I'll lost now. 

Why did you have scenes of people talking photos through windows with the flash going off?  How about showing us the final photo of the woman taking the photo through the store window front with the flash going off with reflection clearly being off the window shown in the video camera?  Did that one turn out Nokia? The video camera footage directly behind the Nokia screen showed it did not..

 Do you know something strobists don't know, Nokia?  Why not show ALL your results for your scene, if you are going to place unreasonable expectations into people's heads through your adds.  Put up or shut up.   The left/right comparison shot of the balerina with light primary high key light source only an left side (Nokia side of course), while right side showed iPhone dark. Fair? How about looking at the skin tones of the ballerina Nokia? Her arms skin tones completely blown out like white ghost (due to over-exposure) on your LEFT side, while iPhone side she looks dark but actually has skin detail. It was not enough to cheat with having light source on the Nokia side of the scene , you had to boost the aperture further on the Nokia side.. caught ya!! why not show the full photo side by side? I'll tell you why.. because her face would be a completely blown out white ghost just like her arms on the left. Photo would have been placed into the trash. Not only are you cheaters, but you are bad cheaters. 

 

I'm confused by your tricks Nokia. At first I thought you were saying Apple iPhone users are morons.. but then you seem to be saying that all consumers are ignorant; iPhone and Nokia buyers alike in the way Nokia users were taking flash photos through windows (implying your camera will fix that problem) in your advertisement scenes and the camera will automatically switch to spot metering and blow out skin tones in their photos by cranking up exposure.  Oh except the child!!!. Who is apparently knows enough to override auto mode and disable the flash when shooting in the dark under her bed.

 

Or what did you mean "at Nokia we prefer quality over quantity"??  does that include the excessive MP rating too? quality of quantity you say! really?   After all this, I'm leaning you believe all consumers are morons and this is who the ads are targetted at. 

 

If Apple made a dissipative commercial like this the media would be all over them. Just be glad you are the underdog. People who actually cared and know much about photography would have laid into you like I did. 


Edited by snova - 8/7/13 at 5:07pm
"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 #169 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

Obviously the camera wasn't *THE* deciding factor in my choosing an iPhone, but for my wife and me it actually was *A* factor. I wanted to quit carrying a point-n-shoot and my wife wanted to be able to grab a quick video here and there without having to get out the camcorder. So in our case the camera was part of what drew our attention to the iPhone in the first place. It we were now where we were then, we would probably give the Nokia a look based on that ad.


Understood.

 

My point was that Nokia (most recently famous only for 'phones) touting their camera capabilities was a little bit "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".

 

I hope that this excellent work by Nokia in the phone/camera field will enable them to thrive for a long time in a shrinking market which Apple is dominating by providing mobile devices that offer current (and who knows what) integrated multiple functionalities.

post #170 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by DESuserIGN View Post

 

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/$

 

That's the approach HTC adopted with the One, 4 Megapixels in a larger sensor.

 

The pixels are like buckets catching water drops, having less large pixels mean there are fewer gaps for the drops to fall between, hence more are captured.

 

Water drops = photons.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #171 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

 

That's the approach HTC adopted with the One, 4 Megapixels in a larger sensor.

 

The pixels are like buckets catching water drops, having less large pixels mean there are fewer gaps for the drops to fall between, hence more are captured.

 

Water drops = photons.

I did not know that..  sounds like they went from having the worst sensors in the camera phone business to the best.  I have also heard they made good progress in build quality too. 

 

Good for HTC! hope they last long enough to keep making good decisions like this.

"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 #172 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

So here you are mistaken. More pixels give you more dynamic range (DR). Not less

This doesn't work well with sources I was looking at. like this one, from DPReview:

Pixel Size and Dynamic Range

We learned earlier that a digital camera sensor has millions of pixels collecting photons during the exposure of the sensor. You could compare this process to millions of tiny buckets collecting rain water. The brighter the captured area, the more photons are collected. After the exposure, the level of each bucket is assigned a discrete value as is explained in the analog to digital conversion topic. Empty and full buckets are assigned values of "0" and "255" respectively, and represent pure black and pure white, as perceived by the sensor. The conceptual sensor below has only 16 pixels. Those pixels which capture the bright parts of the scene get filled up very quickly.

Once they are full, they overflow (this can also cause blooming). What flows over gets lost, as indicated in red, and the values of these buckets all become 255, while they actually should have been different. In other words, detail is lost. This causes "clipped highlights" as explained in the histogram section. On the other hand, if you reduce the exposure time to prevent further highlight clipping, as we did in the above example, then many of the pixels which correspond to the darker areas of the scene may not have had enough time to capture any photons and might still have value zero (hence the term "clipped shadows" as all the values are zero, while in reality there might be minor differences).

One of the reasons that digital SLRs have a larger dynamic range is that their sensors have larger pixels. All things equal (in particular fill factor, "bucket" depth, and exposure time), pixels with a larger exposed surface can collect more photons in the shadow areas than small pixels during the exposure time that is needed to prevent the bright pixels from overflowing.

It is easy to understand that one of the reasons digital SLRs have a larger dynamic range is that their pixels are larger. Larger pixels can collect more photons in the shadow areas before the bright ones start to overflow.


http://www.dpreview.com/glossary/digital-imaging/dynamic-range
Quote:
Or, go look at your 6MP RX100 (from RAW) down sampled images to prove it to yourself at 100% magnification compared to your 70S (from RAW). See the oversharpening and the over-contrast? That is because of the lost DR (both real detail and noise).

Sorry, no. 20MP to 6MP downsampled RAW images from RX100 actually appear smoother - less jaggies, less moire, no oversharpening artifacts and no over-contrast, compared to D70 RAWs. But this is really irrelevant because RX100 sensor is at least 7 years more advanced, so it might be achieving same or better DR compared to D70s, based on technology advance, regardless of pixel size.
Quote:
No doubt the Nokia has a sensor which is 4 times the surface area of iPhone. However, they ruined the IQ by using tiny pixels. Its a no win situation. You either keep all 41 and have a noisy image, or you down sample to get over-sharped and over-contrast (lost shadow detail) image. Your choice. You cant cheat physics. Its not just the size of the sensor, it the size of sensor balanced with technological limits at the time to keep noise levels to an acceptable level using small pixels.

That doesn't make much sense. First of, you can "cheat" physics; it is called technology progress, and it gives new cameras capability to achieve better results with more smaller size pixels, compared to older cameras with less larger size pixels.

So are you saying that 8 million 1.4 micron pixels in iPhone 5 will give better results than 41 million 1.1 micron pixels in Lumia 1020? Or shall we go for another round of dragging random cameras into random comparisons? 1wink.gif

From what I have seen, Lumia 1020 compares well to PureView 808, which did have 1.4 micron pixels - same as iPhone. That would probably qualify as "cheating" of physics. And there are also 5x the number of them.
Quote:
Also, the Nokia lens does have a bigger aperture.. 2.2 compared to iPhone 2.4. Really?? is that need to get excited?

Why, yes. Letting same amount of light in less time can decrease noise, and you also get benefit of a bit shallower DOF, which personally I like; one of main reasons why I still grab D70s instead of RX100, on occasion.
Quote:
Keeping in mind that since the aperture is fixed for both you have no ability to fix the corner softness problems of the Nokia lens. Its terrible. No amount of megapixels, downsampling or other filters is going to fix corner softness of Nokia lens.

Well, this is the trade-off you pay for other bonuses. That being said, I haven't noticed that softening is that bad, but I will review available images again, on better screen.
Quote:
Don't forget to mention the ~ 4 sec shot to shot delay picking a 41 MP sensor coupled to image processor which is not able to handle it in a timely fashion. Oh someone blinked.. hold for 4 seconds while I take another. not acceptable.

I had handful of pocket cameras with few seconds between shots. I could live with that. Because this is smartphone camera and is for casual shooting - if I need serious performance, I will take my DSLR or at least RX100. But if I'm out and about and come across scene worth capturing, I will be happy to wait 4 seconds between shots - if that will provide me with superior results. And from what I have seen so far, compared to other current smartphones - it will.
Quote:
Anyone with a DSLR knows you take rapid shots to prevent this problem and annoyance. iPhone 5 can take photos as fast as you can hit the volume + button. Did I mention the almost 1 second shutter delay once you have waited the 4 seconds seconds. Somehow dpreview falled to mention any of those things in their "preview".

Somehow, DPReview didn't have issue with this while playing with Lumia 1020. How much time have you spent playing with it, for having such strong opinion?
post #173 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by snova View Post

Good for HTC! hope they last long enough to keep making good decisions like this.

 

You gotta check out the One. It really is gorgeous.

 

I recently had opportunity to speak very briefly with someone who just bought one. He said he's accustomed to the iPhone so it was too early to decide whether any objections he had were related to the product or having to learn a new system.

 

That said, he said the OS isn't too bad if you're willing to dig around in the settings, but the defaults are not productive. We didn't have time to get into what he meant by that.

 

As for battery life, he said that again the defaults are bad because everything is set to chew through batteries, but if you get in and make some adjustments you can get a full, productive day out of it. However, you must then be prepared for an overnight charge -- not the 20 mins for enough to go back out or an hour for a full charge like he'd come to expect from his iPhone.

 

He bought it for the big, bright, beautiful screen and very much likes that aspect of it, but hasn't yet decided if it's a good alternative to an iPhone.

post #174 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by semanka View Post

Fact and fiction? Are those scenes in the add real? I prone to believe it's not (because it was a commercial). I love taking a nice and perfect picture and I rely on my 18MP SLR camera. Without a commercial everyone can tell I will get the best picture either iPhone or Nokia could never be able to do. With over 40MP Nokia still can not beat my 18MP SLR. This shows only uninformed people believe higher pixel is better. Nokia tries to sell to those uninformed and I think it as misleading. My 8MP iPhone 5 can actually make a very nice, crisp and decent pics and I love it mobility and of course in fact I take more of it than I do with my SLR camera! Plus with IOS feature I don't have to deal with cables, adapters and time to upload it to my macbook and iPad. It already there the very moment the picture was taken.

 

Did anyone else notice that the action shot with the skateboard was taken with blue sky in the background whereas the shot taken with the iPhone had full cloud cover?

 

Any camera will give a better shot when you wait for a break in the clouds, compare the amount of sunlight and shadows between the Nokia and iPhone shots.

 

 

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #175 of 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60 View Post

That's the approach HTC adopted with the One, 4 Megapixels in a larger sensor.

The pixels are like buckets catching water drops, having less large pixels mean there are fewer gaps for the drops to fall between, hence more are captured.

Water drops = photons.

In theory, that should work great - right? HTC one has 2 micros pixels. Lumia 1020 has 1.1 micron pixels. More pixel size, wider aperture, more light, less noise (and need for removing it).

But apparently, there is so much more to image quality than just size of pixels, sensor and resolution in general.

I googled for "lumia 1020 htc one camera compare" and this is the first link that appeared on my search results:

http://www.phonearena.com/reviews/Nokia-Lumia-1020-vs-HTC-One_id3381/page/3#3-Nokia-Lumia-1020

If you check photos comparisons down the page, you will see... well, see for yourself, if you are interested. Maybe these guys are biased toward Lumia, maybe they were cheating. Who knows? But results are within margins I was expecting, based not only on what I know so far on Lumia 1020, but also what is known on 808, which does have comprehensive tests around - including dpreview.com test, much as I recall.

But I'm hoping there will be comprehensive 1020 test soon, so we can stop fencing around.
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