12-17-2012, 03:21 PM #28
- 1,045 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
People are still gonna demand more fixes. Phones will never be perfect, just so you know. And I hope everyone has the knowledge that firmware updates will not fix the creeks on your phone or the rattling vibration.
- 12-17-2012, 05:15 PM #30
12-17-2012, 05:34 PM #31
- 373 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
- 12-17-2012, 05:37 PM #32
- 12-17-2012, 05:37 PM #33
I love you Nokia! I love you love you love you love you! If this were any other phone it would have been forgotten by now and all its faults glossed over and ignored, but not a Nokia, no way!
- 12-17-2012, 06:44 PM #36
- 12-17-2012, 06:49 PM #37
- 12-17-2012, 08:10 PM #38
One is the way Nokia decided to use the brand "PureView".. for some reason they thought it would be a good idea to use the name since it got a lot of praise and coverage from the media as soon as they presented the tech at MWC in Barcelona in February.. after that they got a bunch of imaging awards for it, so there is a lot of positivity associated with the name.
The problem is.. the name "pureview" was based on the technology in the 808, and it makes perfect sense there.. The results they were getting, were noise free pixels, cleaner.. purer.. so therefore "PureView" ..
quote from their own white paper:
So.. yes in that sense you are right, a lot of people were led to believe that the camera will bring amazing detail/performance, based on the original pureview product. I think using the pureview brand name for the 920 was a mistake.. they should have called it something else, and kept the PureView branding for the "real deal", but its their technology, their marketing, they can do whatever they want :)
Now the second part is ... well its us the consumers. I think we should be a little better educated when it comes to purchasing a product that we rely on every day. If you do some research, you would have found out that provided the dimensions of the phone, the sensor, and the lens, would not allow for anything "amazing" when it comes to detail. Again, a big part of that is the fact that the imaging industry has been telling everybody that more megapixels is better, and that is it. No one ever talks about sensor sizes, pixel sizes, etc.
I knew that the 920 won't provide anything even close to the 808 the moment they said that it will be around 10mm thin. Then they said it has a 1/3" sensor, and then I was 100% that the results will be average for the most part.
Don't get me wrong, the OIS works great, and it does let more light in... but the quality remains average. And also, no matter how well they can optimize the jpeg processing, your best bet is "on par" with the iPhone 5 in daylight. There is simply no way to get even close to the 808.
- 12-17-2012, 09:00 PM #40
If the fix makes that much of a difference as seen in the cat picture, it would be more than what i expected. But tbh, most other pictures don't really show, pobably due to poor selection and pic being shrinked
- 12-17-2012, 10:57 PM #41
The problem with the 920 is that when it was announced androids and the iPhone had already matched most specs. Now the 920 has been out for 6weeks and android phones are at 1.7 quad cores, 1080 screens and 13mp cameras and wireless charging. The next iPhone will most likely have colors plus a better camera . So no what's the big draw to Nokia or wp8. The apps are not coming! Its been 6weeks and the same apps that were there at launch in the new app list are still there.
- 12-17-2012, 11:48 PM #42
I would say that the 808 tech is about two years ahead of the competition, but they are basically just sitting on it right now.. for some unknown reasons. The 808 can't be selling much... not at that price and without carrier support, so ya... There should have been an WP8 phone based on the 808.. they already have the tech, and the design of the phone ready..
ya sure... there is a ring of about 50 patents around phase 1.. but I am sure Samsung and Sony are not just sitting around.
The 920 seems to be another "buffer" phone.. kind of like the 900.. but better in a lot of areas.. I would say it feels more "future proof" compared to the 900.
- 12-18-2012, 06:18 AM #43
I think the OS will mature rapidly in the coming year, thanks in large part to the apparent popularity of the 920, but it will probably be another year before it reaches the level of what the masses expect. And I really agree with the view that the use of the PureView label here was more a marketing ploy than anything else. Can one reasonably compare the cameras of the 920 and the 808? Based on the hardware specs, of course not, but Nokia itself begs the comparison given the fact that both are supposed to be "PureView" - i.e. something above and beyond in the camera department. Indeed, early indications were that the 920, although not comparable to the 808, would provide well above average photos, but those indications were dashed with Nokia's failure to follow-through at launch.
For me, the 808 really has all of my must haves, but lacks a number of the extras I get from Android whereas Android lacks a lot of what I really want and like (a good camera for one, a built-in FM transmitter for another, etc.). The 808 was my daily camera over the summer, mainly because I wanted to be able to take good pics and was willing to live without e.g. banking apps, Sirius radio and a few others I had on my SGS3. As the summer ended, I went back to my SGS3 thinking I wanted all it had to offer and that I would have less need for the camera. Of course, I used the camera more than expected and was pretty pleased with it (pics on the SGS3 screen always look stunning), but when I finally got around to transferring the photos to my computer and wide-screen TV, I was disappointed with what I saw. For me, the SGS2 takes better point-and-shoot photos than the SGS3, which itself excels with its HDR shots when you can get them to work, but both pail in comparison to the 808. Whereas a decent phone camera like the Samsung phones and iPhone can occasionally give you the "wow, the shots are pretty good considering its a phone", the 808 gives you the "wow, those shots are great for any camera" or "wow, I didn't even know that was possible".
Anyway, I had returned to using the 808 as my main smartphone, but still used the SGS3 as a surf/tab device at home. I really liked transferring the photos of the 808 to the SGS3 and viewing them on the high res screen. Then enter the 920. I was basically only hoping to get a new, true smartphone with a modern OS and a decent camera (by decent, I mean better than my SGS3) for regular daily use and I would continue to rely on the 808 for the really photo intensive days like get togethers and outings. I usually always await a review from GSMArena, but with this, I wanted to make sure I got the 920 before Xmas and jumped the gun. After I had signed up and while I was waiting for the phone to arive, a slew of reviews began coming out decrying the fuzzy outdoor photos. I nearly jumped ship, but a few days later, came the first promises of a fix. Then, the phone arived and before I even had a chance to unpack it, the GSMArena review came out with less than stellar marks for the camera. A few days later came a PhoneArena comparison to the iPhone5 and SGS3 cameras with worse than expected results for the 920. From what I've personally seen of the 920 since reflects those reviews findings. Agressive noise reduction and compression algorithms are causing splotches on all the photos. The pics in low light up to daylight was horrid. The pics in near complete darkness are, however, better than most others, but the same fuzziness and splotches are there too (although better a fuzzy, splotchy pic of a dark room that you can make some things out in than a black rectangle as provided by other phone cameras). Had this not been a "PureView" camera, this wouldn't be such a big deal, but since it is, and since early reviewers really gave the 920 good marks, I had hoped to at least have an improvement in the camera department. Hopefully this fix will give me that.
As to the OS, though, if the phone had delivered on the imaging promises it made, I would be more inclined to overlook some of the shortcomings. As it is, I'm more critical and less than impressed. My baseline requirements are a smartphone that handles numerous push email accounts flawlessly, offers Voip support in some sense (preferably SIP, but Skype would do), Word and PDF support including word counts in Word, good Internet radio options, banking app support and, last but not least (actually above all) a decent camera. All of these except the banking app support I have on the Nokia PureView 808. All of them but the decent camera I have on the SGS3. The 920 at present is missing functioning Voip support, word counts in Word, banking app support for my banks and, sadly, a decent camera. If this fix brings the 920's camera back into the PureView ballpark, I'm more than willing to stick with it for a while longer. Otherwise, I'm likely to return to my 808 and/or cross my fingers for a decent camera on the SGS4.
12-19-2012, 04:36 AM #44
- 282 Posts
- 0 Post(s)
- 0 Thread(s)
You can download original photos now from this link http://stadium.weblogsinc.com/engadg...1-0VsPR1-1.zip
Difference in sharpness is very BIG when viewing photos in full screen. This firmware completely fixes blurry photos. Just see yourself. Only downside i found is that when there is piece of blue sky or somethink else uniform blue colour there is way more noise visible. Further tweaks is still needed to get rid of that. Otherwise photos look great.
- By luckylifo in forum Nokia Lumia 920Replies: 18Last Post: 11-14-2012, 09:01 PM
- By Koltrane in forum Nokia Lumia 920Replies: 3Last Post: 11-06-2012, 06:54 AM
- By BotanicalStig in forum Windows Phone 8Replies: 37Last Post: 11-05-2012, 12:43 AM
- By gedzum in forum Nokia Lumia 800Replies: 84Last Post: 04-29-2012, 02:24 PM
- By TheWeeBear in forum Nokia Lumia 800Replies: 11Last Post: 01-31-2012, 07:15 PM