Nokia unveils Lumia 920 with 4.5" display, PureView camera

179111213

Comments

  • Reply 161 of 253
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    mac-user wrote: »
    wireless playback works over some distance, but this wireless charging doesn't.

    So what's the point, wasting energy (for connecting via wifi) and limiting data bandwhith in order to avoid a plug that is on the phone anyways?

    Well... I can play music from my phone in my study (or living room) on speakers, while having phone on me. So I don't have to jump out of my recliner to grab a phone when it rings; yes, sometimes I'm that lazy.

    But probably more important... My 3Gs (and my wife's) both have cracked plastic around the connector. We are using both Apple docks and Logitech speaker box... so I'm guessing we did that damage fiddling with connectors. 3Gs hard but brittle shell probably helped a bit. I guess it cannot happen with metal surrounding 4/4s/5 connector, but based on my current experience, I like idea of connector-less charging and playback. I also think it is cool, as I did when Palm introduced same tech a few years back.
  • Reply 162 of 253
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    slurpy wrote: »
    I love how nobody can criticize anything anymore without that bullshit statement being vomited out by people like you. Apple would never, ever do something like this and if they did, with the same implementation, I would also say it's stupid and useless. So instead of a cable going from the wall to the phone, its a cable that goes from the wall to a massive brick to my phone. Awesome improvement. 

    That's why they have a bunch of patents for that very same technology.
  • Reply 163 of 253
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    kotatsu wrote: »
    The Lumia 800 design, now the 920, is still the best looking phone out there, in my opinion. Now it has what sounds like a phenomenal screen - 4.5", 322ppi, RGB (no ugly pentile matrix here) and at 1280x768 resolution. Nokia apparently also have the best black levels in the business. They're also claiming the camera is the best out there too.

    It's a stunning device for sure, and the OS looks lovely too. It even has NFC and wireless charging. I just wish I had more confidence that Win Phone 8 will actually take off, as if it's as still born as Win Phone 7 was then this will be a very beautiful museum piece before long.

    It's not going to take off. Let's face it, it sucks and very few will be sold.
  • Reply 164 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    nikon133 wrote: »
    Um... what still cameras are we talking about?
    I'm aware of Sony stills using shifting sensor instead of shifting glass elements in lens... but that is not what they call digital stabilization, to my knowledge. Digital stabilization does not shift anything - it uses larger sensor than actual frame size, and then tries to crop the same frame wherever it is on the image sensor.

    All of Sony's cameras, both D-SLR's and compact cameras. In fact, as far as I know, every camera maker except Canon and Nikon use electronic stabilization.

    Digital stabilization uses a larger sensor than is needed for the image. As the image moves around, it shifts the pixels around to stabilize it. There are a number of varying ways to do this depending on the manufacturer, but the concept is the same.

    In the beginning, optical stab. Gave between 1.5 and 2.5 stops. Electronic gave between .74 and 2 stops. This depends on the focal length. The longer the lens, the more effective it is.

    But today, optical gives between 2 and 3 stops, with a few giving up to 4 stops, very rare. Electronic stab. Goes about the same 2 to 3 stops. Effectively, neither is better any more. But optical is much more expensive. There are some advantages to optical, but we won't find it on these really cheap phone cameras from Nokia.
  • Reply 165 of 253
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,992member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AbsoluteDesignz View Post





    Where has HTC copied Apple?


     


    Unified search, slide to unlock, scrolling bounce and the other things they worked around to get around the import ban imposed by the ITC.

  • Reply 166 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    hill60 wrote: »
    Unified search, slide to unlock, scrolling bounce and the other things they worked around to get around the import ban imposed by the ITC.

    They also had to drop contextual recognition. That where the OS will recognize a phone number, a web address, etc.
  • Reply 167 of 253
    pmcdpmcd Posts: 396member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daylove22 View Post


    14 yrs old at best..all his comments are childish and Apple can do no wrong. 



    Anyone on the net can be whatever they wish. That's the problem. 


     


    philip

  • Reply 168 of 253


    The stunning PureView image stabilization was faked, the boy is filming the girl, but she passes by a window which captures a camera van.


     


     


  • Reply 169 of 253
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    melgross wrote: »
    All of Sony's cameras, both D-SLR's and compact cameras. In fact, as far as I know, every camera maker except Canon and Nikon use electronic stabilization.
    Digital stabilization uses a larger sensor than is needed for the image. As the image moves around, it shifts the pixels around to stabilize it. There are a number of varying ways to do this depending on the manufacturer, but the concept is the same.
    In the beginning, optical stab. Gave between 1.5 and 2.5 stops. Electronic gave between .74 and 2 stops. This depends on the focal length. The longer the lens, the more effective it is.
    But today, optical gives between 2 and 3 stops, with a few giving up to 4 stops, very rare. Electronic stab. Goes about the same 2 to 3 stops. Effectively, neither is better any more. But optical is much more expensive. There are some advantages to optical, but we won't find it on these really cheap phone cameras from Nokia.

    OK. But my understanding is that Sony is using shifting sensor, so while not really optical, it is still mechanical stabilization, as opposite to digital which doesn't shift anything, but uses software algorithm to figure out and minimize shaking from the image.

    Lens shift was initially considered better as it was optimized for every lens, but then it was (in theory) making lenses more expensive, and there was no way to apply stabilisation on lenses without built-in mechanism. Sensor shift is jack of all trades, working with any lens, but optimization is general rather than lens-centric.

    http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/alpha_01.html.
  • Reply 170 of 253
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    nikon133 wrote: »
    OK. But my understanding is that Sony is using shifting sensor, so while not really optical, it is still mechanical stabilization, as opposite to digital which doesn't shift anything, but uses software algorithm to figure out and minimize shaking from the image.
    Lens shift was initially considered better as it was optimized for every lens, but then it was (in theory) making lenses more expensive, and there was no way to apply stabilisation on lenses without built-in mechanism. Sensor shift is jack of all trades, working with any lens, but optimization is general rather than lens-centric.
    http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/technology/technology/theme/alpha_01.html.

    It's irrelevant as to whether it's pure digital, or part digital, in the way it's calculated, and then a mechanical part is moved. The big difference is that optical uses a rather expensive optical corrector moved by very precise motors, and the other involves the sensor. That's really the big deal.

    Optical stab. does make lenses much more expensive. Much more. Hundreds of dollars more.

    Some examples from Canon, the inventor of optical stab.:

    The best known lens:

    EF 70-200Mm f:2.8 IS II USM = $2,500. I have this lens, and it's a great one.

    Same exact lens, but without stab.: $1,340

    Of course, non pro lenses are very much cheaper than the pro versions. Their stab is Also cheaper, and doesn't do as well. Some of those lenses are in the mid hundreds and up. A. un-stab version might go for $200, and a stab version for $450.

    This is one reason why optical stab isn't used by most companies, except for camcorders, most of the time, or at least for the more expensive models. But those lenses are very much smaller than ones for even 4:3 cameras.
  • Reply 171 of 253


    I think it looks like a solid device.


     


    Certainly a cut above anything in the android world.


     


    I look forward to Apple's response next week.

  • Reply 172 of 253
    nikon133nikon133 Posts: 2,600member
    melgross wrote: »
    It's irrelevant as to whether it's pure digital, or part digital, in the way it's calculated, and then a mechanical part is moved. The big difference is that optical uses a rather expensive optical corrector moved by very precise motors, and the other involves the sensor. That's really the big deal.
    Optical stab. does make lenses much more expensive. Much more. Hundreds of dollars more.
    Some examples from Canon, the inventor of optical stab.:
    The best known lens:
    EF 70-200Mm f:2.8 IS II USM = $2,500. I have this lens, and it's a great one.
    Same exact lens, but without stab.: $1,340
    Of course, non pro lenses are very much cheaper than the pro versions. Their stab is Also cheaper, and doesn't do as well. Some of those lenses are in the mid hundreds and up. A. un-stab version might go for $200, and a stab version for $450.
    This is one reason why optical stab isn't used by most companies, except for camcorders, most of the time, or at least for the more expensive models. But those lenses are very much smaller than ones for even 4:3 cameras.

    I believe that shifting mechanism is not much different in sensor and lens shifting, main difference is what is being shifted... But that is not the point - I just wanted to clear are we talking about digital stabilisation or about sensor shift stabilisation, is all.

    Apologies to others for sidetracking off the topic.
  • Reply 173 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by FreeRange View Post





    Although IMO it is important to see and understand what the competition is offering, you asked the wrong question. The right question is, would you consider a Phone running Microsoft? And the resounding answer would be NO! To even put the phrase "even if better" is laughable.


    That answer makes no sense.  If a company makes something that is good for you it should not matter what company it is.  The exception to this could be a company who's ethics you disapprove of.  Now while you could say that you disapprove with MS's ethics in the past I don't think that could apply today.

  • Reply 174 of 253


  • Reply 175 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    It's irrelevant as to whether it's pure digital, or part digital, in the way it's calculated, and then a mechanical part is moved. The big difference is that optical uses a rather expensive optical corrector moved by very precise motors, and the other involves the sensor. That's really the big deal.

    Optical stab. does make lenses much more expensive. Much more. Hundreds of dollars more.

    Some examples from Canon, the inventor of optical stab.:

    The best known lens:

    EF 70-200Mm f:2.8 IS II USM = $2,500. I have this lens, and it's a great one.

    Same exact lens, but without stab.: $1,340

    Of course, non pro lenses are very much cheaper than the pro versions. Their stab is Also cheaper, and doesn't do as well. Some of those lenses are in the mid hundreds and up. A. un-stab version might go for $200, and a stab version for $450.

    This is one reason why optical stab isn't used by most companies, except for camcorders, most of the time, or at least for the more expensive models. But those lenses are very much smaller than ones for even 4:3 cameras.


     


    Your information is wrong.


     


    Optical Image Stabilization (OIS) is used on many cameras, from compact upwards. Panasonic, for example, uses it on many of their point-and-shoot models, and have for years. Both them and Olympus also use it on their Micro Four Thirds models. The cheap kit lens on my Panasonic G3 comes standard with it, as do most of their zoom lenses.


     


    http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/ois/index.html


     


    And for the record, the OIS on the Nokia 920 moves the entire sensor assembly, not just the lenses. There is a real comparison to a non-OIS smartphone using a proto 920 on YouTube already.

  • Reply 176 of 253
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,361member


    With the right software the PureView camera should be able to take pictures more reminiscent of film because of its high dynamic range. Finally digital cameras are catching up again.

  • Reply 177 of 253


    I got a Lumia 900 to replace my iPhone 4 because, and we all know this is true, Apple is getting complacent with the iPhone.


    They aren't creating new and exciting technology anymore, they're just reacting to the competition:



    • Apple said 7" screens were bad - the market for 7" screens explodes - Apple makes a 7" screen


    • Market for large form factor phones explodes - Apple rush to make a larger screen


    • NFC is becoming the big thing - Apple will include it sooner or later and call it magical


     


    And so on and so forth. They used to set the bar but now they're just trying to play catch up with a little bit of "me too!" thrown in there as well.


     


    I just find it hilarious that the new Lumia range is currently one of the most hyped phones right now. Some android phones may get an article or two on a tech site but the Lumia has iPhone style coverage right now! Everyone is going batty for this device and I can see why. Its got style, its got power, its got bleeding edge features.


     


    What will the iPhone 5 give us?


    Last years processor (A5X), same screen but slightly longer and a poor excuse for a wallet without NFC. The back might be made out of metal as well.


     


    Fan-freaking-tastic. Excuse me whilst I polish the edge of my seat. /s


     


    Unless the iPhone 5 has all the features of the Nokia with either better implementation or "then some" then I'll just write it off. The world has had a taste of what Samsung and Nokia are capable of and the iPhone is quickly becoming less special by the day.


     


     


    P.S. I still think the Mac is the greatest line of computers currently available and the iPad is one of the best tablets on the market. Just thought I'd clear that up before someone claims I'm a trolling Apple hater.

  • Reply 178 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by benanderson89 View Post


    • NFC is becoming the big thing - Apple will include it sooner or later and call it magical



    They will most certainly not call it NFC, but something like iMagic. It will of course not be compatible with any standards, and iFans will hype it to the heaven.

  • Reply 179 of 253

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by hill60 View Post


     


    Unified search, slide to unlock, scrolling bounce and the other things they worked around to get around the import ban imposed by the ITC.





    I had unified search on my Windows desktop, by Google, years before the iPhone was announced. Also, these patents are ridiculous. Nokia invented the smartphone. How about only they can make them. I'm pretty sure they've got the patents..

  • Reply 180 of 253
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post


     


    Well, the point is that everyone *is* just reading the specs and shooting from the hip at this point.  Most of that shooting has been following Nokia's PR crapola and assuming this is a far better camera.  I was just pointing out that based on the released specs it's essentially in the very same ballpark as any other camera on a modern smartphone.  


     


    Optical versus digital stabilisation is an argument that can go on forever.  All I can say is many industry people I have talked to say that it's "6 of one and half a dozen of the other" so that's why I repeated that.  


     


    Overall, I'm forced to assume that this *isn't* a better camera than the iPhone 4S or if it is it is only marginally so.  The main reason I say that is Nokia's total misrepresentation of "purview" technology as well as the fact that they faked the video showing how good the camera is!  Those two things together imply quite strongly to me that this isn't a great camera.   



     


    Ooooooo, Industry experts, I'm so impressed.


     


    I have an Olympus E-M5 which has an incredible 5 axis in body image stabilisation system which no digital IS can come close to matching, so your industry experts need to get up to speed.  Anadtech tried a Lumia 920 and it did rather better in low light than an iPhone:


     



     


    I told you so.

Sign In or Register to comment.