http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012/...ntcmp=features
Shame they've crippled it with Symbian.
Ya, the article states that it will probably not hit the US because of this.Quote:
Originally Posted by ham
I would love to see a comparison of this camera phone with one of the new $5,000 16 MP DSLR cameras with a top-flight lens. I bet that under certain conditions, the 41 MP camera phone would have significantly better resolution and a reasonable noise level.
I am sure I will not even want anything close to 40MP for my smartphone snapshots. What will this be good for? To allow cropping? I wonder if the lens going to keep up with this.
Arnt
It looks like cropping (superior "digital zoom") is the primary benefit that they are marketing. I see laypeople trying to get a shot with their camera phone from far away all the time. This would actually let them do it in some circumstances -- you can't just make the lens zoom, because then the phone would have to become larger (and most people would rather have a thin phone with no zoom than a thick phone). This way they can have their cake (thin phone) and eat it too (zoom).Quote:
Originally Posted by ahab1372
I can barely edit my photos now using half the megapixels of that beast.
The default generates 5 MP images, which they bill as combining pixels to reduce noise. There's also a comment about taking a 41 MP image, but then deciding which part is most interesting and saving that crop. I'm not sure that you can actually save a 41 MP image at full res.Quote:
Originally Posted by andnowimbroke
It doesn't say in the article how large a sensor this is. If you ask me all it's going to do with 41 MP is oversample the blur one gets with the typically crappy plastic, molded lenses in cell phone cameras. Yes, Nokia's cameras are on the better end but nowhere close to what would be necessary to get full use out of this.
Short focal length plastic lens so everything is "in focus" then "digitally zoom" the area of interest. Certainly not in DSLR performance range.
Sensor is 1/1.2", so it's a 1.4µm pixel size similar to many mobile phones (but still smaller pixels than even the smallest P&S cameras with 1.6µm pixels). Having said that, the sensor itself is quite large, relatively speaking - it's bigger than the S100, bigger than Fuji's X-10, and getting close to the Nikon CX size.
Pretty cool on paper!:D
Maybe not, but most probably it will be in DSLR price range:oQuote:
Originally Posted by ChadS
Speculation has it at €450.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sheiky
Yeah but with the 'oversampling' technology the pixel size would be similar to 7µm so in the DSLR range. I don't know if this was mentioned in the whitepaper or a in one of the interviews I watched.Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
In any case the technology seems very interesting and Nokia said that this will become standard tech in all their phones so eventually there will be Windows Phones with the same tech.
Here are a couple of links that explain the technology better and also a zip of some full resolution samples. This looks very interesting in my opinion and maybe finally we truly have a camera phone that will stand up to the claim that we have heard a million times: "soon we will have phones that are better than compacts".
http://europe.nokia.com/PRODUCT_METADATA_0/Products/Phones/8000-series/808/Nokia808PureView_Whitepaper.pdf
http://blog.gsmarena.com/the-amazing...sor-explained/
http://cdn.conversations.nokia.com.s...2/Archive2.zip
EDIT: The zooming in video modes seems awesome too (the end of last video): http://www.engadget.com/2012/02/27/n...play-41-megap/
At one time I was a Nokia fan. I bought a new Nokia and was talking while driving (bad boy), accidently slipped and dropped it out the window. At 50 miles an hour it bounced and came apart. I stopped and picked it up, put the parts that flew off back on and used it two more years.
The next three Nokia’s I had lasted about four or five months each before they fell apart.
I am no longer a Nokia fan and it will not matter if they have 100mp cameras. They took advantage of their good name and started making junk.
I will keep my iphone.
I have to agree here. I moved on to Android phones when Nokia fucked up their software (and hardware until the N9) after years of innovative and good phones :/Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I still wouldn't suggest throwing your phones out of a driving vehicle:p
@John, 450€ seems like a cheap deal. Newer top-model phones easily sell for that amount of money. Anyway it is in the 1100D+18-55 range :)
"Oversampling technology" - I like it when manufacturers adapt terminology to sound better than what it really means. It's downsampling, not oversampling. Still, Nikon could take a page from their book to apply to the 36 MP D800 - "When 'oversampled' to the 12 MP resolution of the D700, image noise from the D800 becomes virtually invisible."Quote:
Originally Posted by qwRad
Nokia's white paper adds, "What’s more, based on Nyqvist theorem, you actually need oversampling for good performance." Nyqvist? Is their technological white paper referring to the Nyquist-Shannon sampling theorem postulated by Harry Nyquist, or to some random musings of Swedish actor Michael Nyqvist, who was Mikael Blomkvist before Daniel Craig?
Quote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
He really should just stick with being James Bond.
Svedes sometimes svitch letters, ven writing quvick quvestions and vitty quvotations. :DQuote:
Originally Posted by neuroanatomist
And so do the Vinnish?
Thanks guys, that makes sense. At first, I thought is was just the neoclassical version of the theorem, like that big dome across the river from me, with the inscription "Massachvsetts Institvte of Technology."
Attachment 597
Nokia's white paper adds, "What’s more, based on Nyqvist theorem, you actually need oversampling for good performance." [/QUOTE]
The Nyquist criterion requires that you filter your signal so that you'e not aliasing higher frequency information down to lower frequencies. What they're doing is removing the antialiasing filter by increasing the spatial sampling frequency. I still say that for the lenses they're using all they're doing is getting a higher resolution of the blur disk - no AA filter required for that!
nice one, thanks Nevro.
(I think we better stop)
I wouldn't be so sure. Mobile phone optics providers publish MTF charts at an incredible 400 lp/mm (over 10 times higher resolution than the highest that Canon publishes) -- and even the cheap ones still have usable contrast at that spatial frequency. (I don't have the link right now, but one of them was posted to Image Sensors World a few years ago, no doubt optics have improved a little since then.)Quote:
Originally Posted by ChadS
I tend not to consider a camera phone decent unless they've gone to some measure to protect the lens. Sony Ericsson were good for that a few years ago.
Zeiss F2.0 lens - interesting. I am looking forward understanding this a bit more.
It's f/2.4, not f/2.0. There was a typo (or rouding) on some of the news stories.Quote:
Originally Posted by Busted Knuckles
I still think a scientific study is in order, throwing many different brands of phones out of the window driving at different speeds, to eliminate any statistical errors.Quote:
Originally Posted by HDNitehawk
I'll volunteer to be the driver, everyone send me your iphones and i'll happily send them flying at 200km/h :P
A decent read describing the Nokia's sensor and their oversampling / digital zoom:
http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/news/...one-camera.ars