3G iPhone could arrive overseas by early 2008 - Page 3

Originally Posted by TenoBell

The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.

With more MP you will take a larger picture but that does not automatically translate into a picture with more sharpness or detail. You need a proper lens that can resolve that detail and digital processing that can maintain that detail.

MP numbers don't linearly translate as to what is better or worse. Two sensors with the same number of pixels don't necessarily provide the same quality.

Originally Posted by iconsumer

nice

i thought a noob is something u you put on a sprout

Originally Posted by JDW

While this line of discussion is quickly getting off-topic, I will say this: most digital "consumer level" cameras are junk. I've not seen a serious competitor to my Canon PowerShot G5 to date, and the G5 is far from new! The manufacturers are putting out the first technology the see to grab dollars. They are not putting out better quality. They keep adding more MP's to tiny little CCD's. The average consumer is mislead in thinking this is better than older cameras, so they shell out the cash. I've got friends here in Japan that shell out the cash for almost every new model of a given brand they like, but the quality isn't getting better despite those pixels and fancy NR engines. The solution is NOT better processing to filter the noise, nor is a better lens. The solution is a bigger CCD -- which is what the pro cameras have. This is why a 5MP cell phone is largely irrelevant to me. The CCD is so tiny anyway, by the time you get to 5MP or higher, you lose pixel data to noise. For more information on the subject, direct your browser to the following site:

http://www.dpreview.com/

Originally Posted by iconsumer

...i see an improvement in mp's (which is the only advertised measure of it's " performance ") and know that there are improvements to handle the extra megs...

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat


I'm not really sure what you mean by "faster lenses" and how they're relevant here. Are you referring to shutter speed?

Even cheap plastic lenses have quite a bit of resolving power. That said, in the short term, lenses will always be sharper than the sensor.

You're right about the digital processing, at least on cellphones. I'm always pissed off that my RAZR decides to save all photos with the lossiest, blockiest JPEG compression possible.

However, more megapixels, properly handled for in terms of lenses and processing, is always better, unless file size is an issue.

Originally Posted by nvidia2008


NOW ALL OF YOU GET BACK ON TOPIC BEFORE WE ALL GET A GOOD SPANKING !!!11!!

Originally Posted by cnocbui

You're right! - that must be it, I'm a noob of butter!

well thats a relief, I have been called far worse than that

Originally Posted by cnocbui

A lens' speed is the ratio of its maximum aperture to its focal length. The speed is usually represented by an f number such as f2, f2.8, f3.5, etc. A 'fast' lens is one which has a wide maximum aperture relative to its focal length. The wider the maximum aperture the more light can be let through. With a wide aperture, more light is being let through so you can use a faster shutter speed. So the terms 'speed 'and 'fast' are really refering to the shutter speed.

If you have a lens with a focal length of 200mm and the maximum aperture is f3.5, then the diameter of the front lens will be 'roughly' 57mm. Now if you want a 'really fast' 200mm lens, say f1.8, the front lens will have to be about 111mm in diameter! The cost of such a lens can be more than a car, if it is for a 35mm film camera!

fast is good (bit like greed) because with a higher shutter speed you can freeze rapid action - say if you are a pro sports photographer - or of more relevance to most people - you can reduce the effects of camera shake.

Camera shake has a huge impact on the sharpness of results - it might be why some peoples 10mp camera appears to take worse photos than a 5mp one if the latter had a much faster lens the photos are more likely to be sharp on average.

I guess I am just greedy (therefore I must be good!) - I want 5mp in an iPhone with at least a f2.8 lens. I have a Sony Ericsson K750i and it has a very nice f2.8 lens and a 2mp sensor. It takes very impressive photos considering. The focal length is 4.8mm so the front lens must be about... 1.7mm!

Originally Posted by iconsumer

we all need a new topic
the weekend is getting longer the more this story stays last on ai

The more MP they squeeze onto a sensor the ASA sensitivity can go down if not supplemented with faster lenses and better digital processing.

Respectfully, this is almost entirely untrue.

Even cheap plastic lenses have quite a bit of resolving power. That said, in the short term, lenses will always be sharper than the sensor.

Originally Posted by gregmightdothat

While each pixel records less incident light in a higher-megapixel camera, the sensor as a whole picks up just as much light. At small sizes, the noise is irrelevant. At large sizes, more detail will always trump a blurry image, even if that detail does have some noticeable noise.