Nokia unveils Lumia 920 with 4.5" display, PureView camera

1789101113»

Comments

  • Reply 241 of 253
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    melgross wrote: »
    It's nice to know you're back and making absurd statements again.
    Show where Apple faked something such as this. You can't, because they haven't.
    All advertising contains statements that are intended to make their product seem better. But that doesn't include blatantly faking major aspects of your product, which Nokia has been caught doing before.

    I haven't gone anywhere, unlike you guys, I don't like the sound of my own voice.

    Now, this was the answer I was expecting from you, maybe you should take your blinkers off

    Show where Apple faked something such as this, hmm, that's not what you said about Nokia, and it wasn't what I replied with, but hey, don't let that stop you as I know this is Appleinsider where we change the rules when we are found out.

    An example of Apple telling porkies in an ad and getting in trouble for it, wasn't the first time, and wasn't the last.

    http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/8/Apple-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44891.aspx

    And remember, a disclaimer too small to see is not an excuse, and more importantly, not legal in a number of countries.
  • Reply 242 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nikon133 View Post


    I don't have problem believing you are good at photography. I don't know how good I am, but was playing with my dad's rangefinders since I was 7, got my first SLR (second hand Nikon F801s) in '91, my first DSLR in 2005... so I did gather some knowledge along the way.
    I don't see washed out bright details on that photo, which, by definition, is result of overexposing. I don't mind or care how you choose to call that, but in my eyes it remains that Nokia's gathered much more light and gave significantly more pleasing photo than iPhone, whose image was heavily underexposed.
    Anand, much as I was following Anandtech, appears to be camera enthusiast as well, so completely clueless he isn't. Could he be tricked without noticing? Maybe, but not that likely. End of the day, Lumia 920 does have some cool tech in that camera, as described here:
    http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-amazing-science-behind-the-nokia-lumia-920-camera-the-second-phase-of-pureview/
    So defending current iPhone 4s camera, in my mind, doesn't make much sense. It is great phone camera, likely the best in its time, but this good it isn't. The only question for me is, what will Apple do for new iPhone's camera. Technology like back lit sensors and image stabilisers is not invented by Nokia, Apple can implement all that and more. I hope they did for 5. I want imaging technology to progress as quick as possible.[/quote]
     


    [quote]My last gig in photography was running a medium size commercial photo lab in Manhattan for a couple of decades. I recognize overexposure when I see it. Also, as I've mentioned already, a lot of processing was used.
    [/quote]
  • Reply 243 of 253
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post




    If by backlit sensors you mean backside illuminated, the iPhone 4S already has that. Image stabilization is a no, because there simply isn't simply space.



     


    My thinking is that Apple has built stabilization and other tools into the iPhoto app, not in the iPhone camera. 



     


    I can't think of any processing method that would be able to retrospectively stabilize an image, since that would require temporally resolved data for each sensor element (as opposed to the normal integrated values) over the duration of the exposure, which would add another dimension and result in an enormous raw file size.

  • Reply 244 of 253
    muppetrymuppetry Posts: 3,331member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Lukeskymac View Post





    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?




    I'm not sure what that means—more time. If an iPhone, as an example, would take a photo that's several stops underexposed, as the video showed, then how could this take one that was overexposed? Going from f:2.4 to f:2 isn't going to do it. That's less than one stop. But there looked to me to be a good four stops difference between the photo's, maybe more, hard to tell from the video.


     


    I may be missing something here, but presumably the way that the Nokia image could be overexposed relative to the iPhone image for a similar speed lens would simply be a longer exposure time. 16 x longer for a 4 stop difference assuming a linear sensor response. Isn't that what the stabilization discussion is all about?

  • Reply 245 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    nikon133 wrote: »
    I don't have problem believing you are good at photography. I don't know how good I am, but was playing with my dad's rangefinders since I was 7, got my first SLR (second hand Nikon F801s) in '91, my first DSLR in 2005... so I did gather some knowledge along the way.
    I don't see washed out bright details on that photo, which, by definition, is result of overexposing. I don't mind or care how you choose to call that, but in my eyes it remains that Nokia's gathered much more light and gave significantly more pleasing photo than iPhone, whose image was heavily underexposed.
    Anand, much as I was following Anandtech, appears to be camera enthusiast as well, so completely clueless he isn't. Could he be tricked without noticing? Maybe, but not that likely. End of the day, Lumia 920 does have some cool tech in that camera, as described here:
    http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-amazing-science-behind-the-nokia-lumia-920-camera-the-second-phase-of-pureview/
    So defending current iPhone 4s camera, in my mind, doesn't make much sense. It is great phone camera, likely the best in its time, but this good it isn't. The only question for me is, what will Apple do for new iPhone's camera. Technology like back lit sensors and image stabilisers is not invented by Nokia, Apple can implement all that and more. I hope they did for 5. I want imaging technology to progress as quick as possible.

    My last photo gig was running a medium size commercial photo lab in NYC for over two decades. I can recognize over exposure. In addition, as I said before, there was a lot of processing done there. Too much.

    No where am I "defending" the 4S camera. Why would you think that? If you compare something new, that hasn't even come out yet, to something that, in this world of fast moving technology, is considered to already be old, as a new one will be out in just a couple of weeks, then it's not a great comparison. There's no doubt that we had a spate of announcements this week because Apple will be doing their own next week.

    After all, these phones aren't near being ready! They could have waited until the new iPhone was out, and then done their comparison.
  • Reply 246 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    cnocbui wrote: »
    Mel, with all due respect, I believe the comparison is great in the context of the comment I was addressing which declared that the camera would be no better than any other currently available 8Mp phone module.

    I understand that. But still, that currently available product will be replaced in two weeks. So the comparison isn't good. May as well do another comparison of the highly touted, when it was announced, and shown off by Nokia, 900, which is a currently available phone from Nokia, unlike the 920, which isn't.

    I remember Nokia stating how great that was, but when it was actually tested, it turned out being just so so. I expect the 920 camera to be much better. But until we get independent tests, we won't really know by how much.
  • Reply 247 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    I think the iPhone 4S lens and sensor was made by Sony.

    The sensor is designed, and made, by Sony. The lens is designed by Apple. I don't know who makes it.
  • Reply 248 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    jfanning wrote: »
    I haven't gone anywhere, unlike you guys, I don't like the sound of my own voice.
    Now, this was the answer I was expecting from you, maybe you should take your blinkers off
    Show where Apple faked something such as this, hmm, that's not what you said about Nokia, and it wasn't what I replied with, but hey, don't let that stop you as I know this is Appleinsider where we change the rules when we are found out.
    An example of Apple telling porkies in an ad and getting in trouble for it, wasn't the first time, and wasn't the last.
    http://www.asa.org.uk/ASA-action/Adjudications/2008/8/Apple-(UK)-Ltd/TF_ADJ_44891.aspx
    And remember, a disclaimer too small to see is not an excuse, and more importantly, not legal in a number of countries.

    What do you mean, it's not what I said about Nokia? We all know they faked a number of things here, and quite blatantly.

    I've never said that Apple was perfect though. I don't change the rules. It is what it is.

    In the EU, their advertising standards don't allow what is allowed most everywhere else. You can't make comparisons between products, you can't say that you're is better. Really, it's just more Big Brother, thinking that people are too stupid to know when companies are slanting things to make their own seem better. But that's not a blatant lie, or out and out fraud. This is fraud.

    Butits interesting that as we all know, Flash on phones never worked correctly anyway, and now Adobe is discontinuing it for every other phone. Java is rarely ever used anymore on web sites, as for that purpose JavaScript, which iOS does support is used.

    In fact, Apple was right, and that ruling was wrong. It's been shown by current events.
  • Reply 249 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    muppetry wrote: »
    I may be missing something here, but presumably the way that the Nokia image could be overexposed relative to the iPhone image for a similar speed lens would simply be a longer exposure time. 16 x longer for a 4 stop difference assuming a linear sensor response. Isn't that what the stabilization discussion is all about?

    Yes, that much exposure could do it. But look at the video. Did it look as though the exposure took 16 times as long? It just looks hinky. I might not be wondering if they hadn't done so much blatant fakery elsewhere for the camera.
  • Reply 250 of 253
    jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,398member
    melgross wrote: »
    What do you mean, it's not what I said about Nokia? We all know they faked a number of things here, and quite blatantly.
    I've never said that Apple was perfect though. I don't change the rules. It is what it is.
    In the EU, their advertising standards don't allow what is allowed most everywhere else. You can't make comparisons between products, you can't say that you're is better. Really, it's just more Big Brother, thinking that people are too stupid to know when companies are slanting things to make their own seem better. But that's not a blatant lie, or out and out fraud. This is fraud.
    Butits interesting that as we all know, Flash on phones never worked correctly anyway, and now Adobe is discontinuing it for every other phone. Java is rarely ever used anymore on web sites, as for that purpose JavaScript, which iOS does support is used.
    In fact, Apple was right, and that ruling was wrong. It's been shown by current events.

    Actually a lot more countries that just those in the EU have laws like that, the laws are there for a reason, to protect consumers. Or are you ok with companies advertising their phones performing action significantly faster than can actually happen?

    Apple has been found to have broken the law before, they misrepresented a situation, exactly like Nokia has done. Yet according to you, Nokia is evil, Apple is wonderful.
  • Reply 251 of 253
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    melgross wrote: »
    My last photo gig was running a medium size commercial photo lab in NYC for over two decades. I can recognize over exposure. In addition, as I said before, there was a lot of processing done there. Too much.
    No where am I "defending" the 4S camera. Why would you think that? If you compare something new, that hasn't even come out yet, to something that, in this world of fast moving technology, is considered to already be old, as a new one will be out in just a couple of weeks, then it's not a great comparison. There's no doubt that we had a spate of announcements this week because Apple will be doing their own next week.
    After all, these phones aren't near being ready! They could have waited until the new iPhone was out, and then done their comparison.

    Cool. Like I said, I have no problem believing you regarding your experience. But thanks for taking time to explain.

    So how do you define overexposure? Because I had another look at the photo, and to me exposure looks pretty much spot on.

    1000
  • Reply 252 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tylersdad View Post


    Digital image stabilization. There's a big difference between digital (iPhone) and optical (Lumia) image stabilization.



    To be pedantic, it's not optical, it's mechanical. It has nothing to do with the optical properties of the lens, but the system used to stabilize them.

  • Reply 253 of 253


    melgross, I wasn't rushing you on responding to my post: I simply noticed that between my question and my "reminder", you had quoted and responded to other posts. I didn't want you to forget that.



    Now, I've just started reading it, but I can already comment on one thing: if there's anything we learned in the past 5 years watching Apple, is that no one should give a sh!t about what the investors think. Most have minimal knowledge of what's ACTUALLY going on the company, anyway.



    While your interpretation would indicate scenarios such as "OMG only 32GB? It should have 128! SELL SELL!", the reality is closer to "No release date? Then how will you get money! Then how will *I* get money? I want my money!"

Sign In or Register to comment.