Nokia unveils Lumia 920 with 4.5" display, PureView camera

17891113

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    Nokia faked the still photos too — http://sefsar.com/nokia-faked-the-still-photos-too

    This faking images seems to be a consistent thing for Nokia. They've done this before.

    Even with the camera from the 900, where they were talking about the Zeiss lens, etc, and how great the camera was, when the photo sites finally tested it, the pictures were softer than the 4S, and the pictures taken in dim light were much worse.

    I'm sure this camera is much better. But until sites that do this for a living test it, I won't trust anything from Nokia.
  • Reply 202 of 253
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    melgross wrote: »
    So you have an in at Apple, and have been told their plans.
     
    Well, not fake like the others are, but something is hinky. There's no light in that booth they're shooting in, yet the picture the 920 took is overexposed.

    It looks compensated, not overexposed; there are no blown highlights, much as I can see.

    It is my understanding that photos were made by Anand himself, who is iPhone and MacBook user. One of the most dedicated and trustworthy names in the field, much as my experience is.
  • Reply 203 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    Nokia faked the still photos too — http://sefsar.com/nokia-faked-the-still-photos-too


    GOD DAMMIT









    See, here's a thing: In the first picture nothing is claimed except that Optical Image Stabilization was being used, something known to exist in OTHER products, even if with a different execution. The second shot - the one the very article you linked says IT'S FROM THE 920, explicitly states so.



    Also, will I have to keep posting this while I wait for someone to comment?



  • Reply 204 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



    Well, not fake like the others are, but something is hinky. There's no light in that booth they're shooting in, yet the picture the 920 took is overexposed.




    I've noticed you understand a great deal more of photography than me, but... isn't this the whole point of this particular camera? More time to gather more light?



    EDIT: I don't mean that overexposure is good, just that it could be a logical side-effect of this camera's method for low-light pictures.

     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Thanks for rendering your argument illegitimate early.



    So if I give you a history book and insert a random "apple fanboy" sentence at a random page, do you claim all the contents are illegitimate?


     


    And those happen at every phone launch, but the follow through is all that matters. Apparently people don't follow through.


     


    And Apple says "This changes everything" pretty often, but I haven't seen it since the original iPhone.


     


    Yada yada, ad homs… 


     


    You're the one liberally calling people who don't  agree with your POV trolls and I'm doing ad hominem?


     


    Well, the original point has no proof thereof, so until there's something more on that side of the argument than "it's stale", I don't have to say diddly.


     


    What about we are expecting a considerable iPhone -> iPhone 4 change and all we get is a taller iPhone 4 mercifully free of a back made of glass (but with ridiculous RF windows)?



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    No, the phones are thought to be lacking.


    Really? Do tell how.

  • Reply 205 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    nikon133 wrote: »
    It looks compensated, not overexposed; there are no blown highlights, much as I can see.
    It is my understanding that photos were made by Anand himself, who is iPhone and MacBook user. One of the most dedicated and trustworthy names in the field, much as my experience is.

    Seriously? It's definitely overexposed. I like Anand too, but the picture taken there was in control of Nokia, not him. Anand is a computer expert, not a photo expert. I'd say that I'm a photo expert, but you won't believe me anyway.
  • Reply 206 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    lukeskymac wrote: »
    GOD DAMMIT

    LL


    LL



    See, here's a thing: In the first picture nothing is claimed except that Optical Image Stabilization was being used, something known to exist in OTHER products, even if with a different execution. The second shot - the one the very article you linked says IT'S FROM THE 920, explicitly states so.


    Also, will I have to keep posting this while I wait for someone to comment?

    LL

    The first picture was taken with pro quality mobile LED lighting (I recognize what it is). The second, apparently, isn't.
  • Reply 207 of 253
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    melgross wrote: »
    This faking images seems to be a consistent thing for Nokia. They've done this before.
    Even with the camera from the 900, where they were talking about the Zeiss lens, etc, and how great the camera was, when the photo sites finally tested it, the pictures were softer than the 4S, and the pictures taken in dim light were much worse.
    I'm sure this camera is much better. But until sites that do this for a living test it, I won't trust anything from Nokia.

    Just like Apple has a history of producing misleading ads, so I assume you also have no trust of Apple?
  • Reply 208 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    The first picture was taken with pro quality mobile LED lighting (I recognize what it is). The second, apparently, isn't.




    If you recognize it as such, and Nokia states which photos are taken with their prototype 920, why the distrust?



    I haven't seen anyone commenting on the fake iPad camera shot either.

  • Reply 209 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post





    Just like Apple has a history of producing misleading ads, so I assume you also have no trust of Apple?




    The Siri ones are the most damning. It can't even differentiate between two songs with similar names, let alone allow you to specify the album.



    Example: Asking for a "New Born from album HAARP" (a live album) simply returns New Born from the Origin of Symmetry album (the original studio version). No way around it unless you ask for the entire OoS album and keep asking "Next" until I get there, as not only you can't ask for a song number, if you ask for a song before or after and try to ask "Previous" or "Next", you won't get anything as Siri creates a temporary playlist with only the song you asked for.

  • Reply 210 of 253


    Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post


    Also, will I have to keep posting this while I wait for someone to comment?








    Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

    I haven't seen anyone commenting on the fake iPad camera shot either.


     



    What's your point, that the picture on the iPad wasn't taken with an iPad? Where's your proof?


     



    Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

    So if I give you a history book and insert a random "apple fanboy" sentence at a random page, do you claim all the contents are illegitimate?



     


    If you have truth on your side, you shouldn't be inserting or have to insert swearing, ad-homs, or disparaging remarks at all. The content will speak for itself.





    And Apple says "This changes everything" pretty often, but I haven't seen it since the original iPhone.


     


    And you think this phone somehow does change anything in the same capacity?





    What about we are expecting a considerable iPhone -> iPhone 4 change and all we get is a taller iPhone 4 mercifully free of a back made of glass (but with ridiculous RF windows)?


     


    Who are "we", what are "we" "expecting", and what does "considerable" imply? This is as silly and frivolous as the "stale" arguments people don't actually have. They don't actually have them because they use the most generic words imaginable to pretend there is something inherently wrong with an existing system, and they think they can get away without expounding on what they're saying. 

  • Reply 211 of 253
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    lukeskymac wrote: »

    The Siri ones are the most damning. It can't even differentiate between two songs with similar names, let alone allow you to specify the album.


    Example: Asking for a "New Born from album HAARP" (a live album) simply returns New Born from the Origin of Symmetry album (the original studio version). No way around it unless you ask for the entire OoS album and keep asking "Next" until I get there, as not only you can't ask for a song number, if you ask for a song before or after and try to ask "Previous" or "Next", you won't get anything as Siri creates a temporary playlist with only the song you asked for.

    I don't care for the Siri ads. Not so much because they speed up the result but because they seem to ask things that Siri can't seem to reasonably understand at this point. Saying gazpacho or using in NYC? I'd much rather they do their due diligence to be clever with the writing, but only if it has been verified to be repeatable with others in the same settings.

    That said, it's hard to see that Apple's speeding up the timeframe in an ad is the same as Nokia showing off OIS as a random feature and not eluding to it being from that camera. Apple does show a disclaimer on their ads but I see no such disclaimer on the Nokia image saying it's not from the 920 or even one of their cameras. Suggesting that on another image they do state it's from the 920 so the viewer should expect to hunt for all photos about the 920 to look for one that states it specifically is hogwash.
  • Reply 212 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    That said, it's hard to see that Apple's speeding up the timeframe in an ad is the same as Nokia showing off OIS as a random feature and not eluding to it being from that camera. Apple does show a disclaimer on their ads but I see no such disclaimer on the Nokia image saying it's not from the 920 or even one of their cameras. Suggesting that on another image they do state it's from the 920 so the viewer should expect to hunt for all photos about the 920 to look for one that states it specifically is hogwash.




    Who's talking about timeframe? You are. You are the one admitting that Siri doesn't have shown functionally but proceeeds to compare Nokia's OIS picture with accelerated sequences instead. You are the one avoiding that Siri's ad is more at fault ignoring that which doesn't please you.

     


    And really. Hunting for all photos? You're just making stuff up now.

  • Reply 213 of 253
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    lukeskymac wrote: »

    Who's talking about timeframe? You are. You are the one admitting that Siri doesn't have shown functionally but proceeeds to compare Nokia's OIS picture with accelerated sequences instead. You are the one avoiding that Siri's ad is more at fault ignoring that which doesn't please you.

     
    And really. Hunting for all photos? You're just making stuff up now.

    1) I was using actual ads as evidence of things I find shady. You are using some silly example that was never presented in an ad.

    2) Nokia is clearly suggesting that the images are from the 920's camera. You stated that because some other photo somewhere else states it's from the 920 that all other photos suggesting it's the from same camera should be ignored that all viewers should look for null value and infer from there. Funny how you think that's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make about that photo. That's like me creating a site about my photography and then throwing in other people's images in there but then claiming that I never said I painted it on the photo means that I'm trying to be deceptive.
  • Reply 214 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post




     


    What's your point, that the picture on the iPad wasn't taken with an iPad? Where's your proof?


     


    Too sharp for a camera of that caliber, zero noise.


     


    If you have truth on your side, you shouldn't be inserting or have to insert swearing, ad-homs, or disparaging remarks at all. The content will speak for itself.


     


    You're such a saint.


     


    And you think this phone somehow does change anything in the same capacity?



    When did I say it changes anything? Let alone on the same level the orginial iPhone did? Blatant straw man from the guy condemning ad hominem one sentence above.



    I will say this is more innovative than every iPhone other than the original.


     


    Who are "we", what are "we" "expecting", and what does "considerable" imply? This is as silly and frivolous as the "stale" arguments people don't actually have. They don't actually have them because they use the most generic words imaginable to pretend there is something inherently wrong with an existing system, and they think they can get away without expounding on what they're saying. 


     


    Want me to write paragraphs as to why the new design "sucks"? So you can dismiss it as nitpicking or opinion two posts later?


  • Reply 215 of 253


    Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

     


     


    So no solid proof—no specifics like have been provided about the Nokia, is what you're saying.






    When did I say it changes anything? Let alone on the same level the orginial iPhone did?



     


    On the contrary, I asked if you thought it changed anything. If you don't, why do you expect the iPhone to at every release? Why don't you of other phones? 





    Want me to write paragraphs as to why the new design "sucks"? So you can dismiss it as nitpicking or opinion two posts later?


     


    I'd love some paragraphs that I can ask questions about and rebut, that's for sure. 

  • Reply 216 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    1) I was using actual ads as evidence of things I find shady. You are using some silly example that was never presented in an ad.


     


    What? I was using that example (which I would like to know why you consider silly - other than discrediting for the sake of it) to say Siri sucks, period. What you ignored (one sentence after acknowledging it) are the other actions Siri can't perform but nevertheless were used on ads...


    Quote:




    2) Nokia is clearly suggesting that the images are from the 920's camera. 





     


    ... which brings me to this. Apple did it too, and did it worse. They didn't post pictures that were clearly marked as being shot by said product when applicable, they made a frickin' TV ad that explicitly showed the iPhone 4S performing actions it can't. THIS IS FAKING.


     


     


     


    Quote:


    You stated that because some other photo somewhere else states it's from the 920 that all other photos suggesting it's the from same camera should be ignored that all viewers should look for null value and infer from there. Funny how you think that's a perfectly reasonable assumption to make about that photo. 



     




    Have you even gone to the Lumia 920 official webpage? ALL pictures taken with the 920 are grouped together and properly marked, and I can't find the aggravating picture on either the Lumia's page of PureView's. That image isn't even being used in the same context as the others. You're making stuff up.



     


    Quote:


    That's like me creating a site about my photography and then throwing in other people's images in there but then claiming that I never said I painted it on the photo means that I'm trying to be deceptive.



     


    It's an uncaptioned picture illustrating the benefits of stabilization completely separated from a different picture shot by the device at hand and marked as such. How is that supposed to be a valid comparison is a question you should be posing to yourself...

  • Reply 217 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    So no solid proof—no specifics like have been provided about the Nokia, is what you're saying.


     


    I'm sorry if there wasn't a street light post inside her home.


     


    On the contrary, I asked if you thought it changed anything. If you don't, why do you expect the iPhone to at every release? Why don't you of other phones? 


     


    Your continous twisting of words won't make you any good. You said "in the same capacity", and I was talking about the original iPhone - a different beast altogether.


     


    I'd love some paragraphs that I can ask questions about and rebut, that's for sure.


     


    You won't get anything from me if you keep squirming and reinterpreting what you said one post ago.


  • Reply 218 of 253


    Still waiting for melgross to explain me how on Earth are the Lumias lacking in anything except a release date.

  • Reply 219 of 253


    Actually, those pictures weren't in any Nokia site at all: They appeared in a video about PureView as a tech, in a section talking about the benefits of OIS. Unrelated to all the other pics. Your claims are starting to look more and more ridiculous.

  • Reply 220 of 253


    Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post

    Your continous twisting of words won't make you any good. You said "in the same capacity", and I was talking about the original iPhone - a different beast altogether.


     


    So then you do or do not expect a revolution on the order of the first iPhone with every iPhone release? And do or do not ever expect a similar change with a phone from another manufacturer?

Sign In or Register to comment.