Welcome to the Windows Central Forums Create Your Account or Ask a Question Answers in 5 minutes - no registration required!
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 26
Like Tree8Likes
  1. maverick2787's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    7 Posts
       #1  
  2. Curtieson's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,321 Posts
    Global Posts
    1,330 Global Posts
    #2  
    Dave Blake likes this.
  3. bawboh86's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    571 Posts
    Global Posts
    792 Global Posts
    #3  
    "PureView" is only meant to point out that it's advanced camera tech. The 920 is real PureView because they focused on camera (in this case, the floating lens). Just because something is getting an oversized camera sensor doesn't mean it's "more PureView" than what we already have.

    Now that I've said that, yes, it appears to be true (WPCentral had an article on it as well). I don't doubt that they're working to keep advancing the camera tech in phones, and this would fit right in with their Lumia release cycles thus far.
  4. tebugg's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    363 Posts
    Global Posts
    366 Global Posts
    #4  
    just wondering. so your thread title says "real pureview". so my lumia 920 has fake pureview? nokia branded my lumia 920 wrong?
  5. #5  
    Quote Originally Posted by tebugg View Post
    just wondering. so your thread title says "real pureview". so my lumia 920 has fake pureview? nokia branded my lumia 920 wrong?
    Yep, it's one of the stupidest titles for an article ever. Tom Warren, from the verge, started this nonsense. Although dozens of people pointed out the idiocy of his articles title in the comments section, he has remained stubborn.

    It's a marketing term. It means nothing. Something without meaning can't be real or fake. Just as their are no real or fake Retina displays.
    Nataku4ca and Alex Kj like this.
  6. Sukanok's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    24 Posts
    #6  
    if it was like in the picture, i'm afraid that i might miss taken it with a bar of soap.
  7. vlad0's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,035 Posts
    #7  
    I am really curious about how they plan on making the Phase 1 system work on the WP8 supported SoC .. I see two options.. they figured out how to use the custom DSP/GPU inside the camera module found on the 808, or there is a new SoC out there that can support the processing needed for oversampling 41 million pixels down to 5/8Mpix, which also happens during 1080p video. None of the currently known SoC can support that kind of processing..

    The other option is.. don't do oversampling and just give out the raw jpeg, but then the gains in quality would be almost non existent since they are still using 1.4 micron pixels.


    Also, the Xenon flash requires a mechanical shooter... and that requires precise synchronization..


    I can't wait to see what they've done :) If anyone can do it.. its Nokia.. they pretty much have the whole 41Mpix system (sensor,DSP, optics) ready to go.
    maverick2787 likes this.
  8. shingi_70's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    81 Posts
    Global Posts
    734 Global Posts
    #8  
    Guess were going to see it next month at MWC.

    Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD
  9. #9  
    Quote Originally Posted by vlad0 View Post
    I am really curious about how they plan on making the Phase 1 system work on the WP8 supported SoC .. I see two options...
    Hey Vlad, just wanted to say I always appreciate your posts. Well informed, interesting and no FUD.

    In this case I think you missed one option... just use a 20 MP instead of 41 MP sensor.

    If I read the article correctly, it was stated to be 808 like... that might mean "not identical to".

    As the resolution says nothing about sensor size, picture quality could end up being virtually identical to the 808, while offering less digital zoom but still working with current SoC's

    Just a hunch...
  10. vlad0's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,035 Posts
    #10  
    Quote Originally Posted by a5cent View Post
    Hey Vlad, just wanted to say I always appreciate your posts.
    Thanks!

    The 20Mpix option is very interesting, and it might work.. There might be two alternatives with that.

    So.. its all about pixel sizes.. lets say they take the 1/1.2'' sensor from the 808 and cut that down to 20Mpix instead of 40Mpix, which (as far as I can tell) would give them physically bigger pixels, and then then can further oversample those bigger pixels to get a better quality jpeg. The 1/1.2'' sensor cut into 41Mpix yields 1.4 micron pixels, which is no different than any of the other current top smartphones for sale, where the 808 gains a huge advantage is the fact that they take 6-7 pixels and combine them into one "bigger" one, while cleaning all the garbage (noise) in the process.

    roughly .. this is what happens with the phase 1 system



    So lets take that 1/1.2'' sensor and see how big the pixels would be if it was cut into 20Mpix instead of 41.

    For 41Mpix:

    The 808 shoots at 38Mpix max (7152 x 5368). The size of the sensor is 1/1.2'' (10,67 mm. x 8 mm.).

    There are 1000 microns in 1 mm.

    10.67 х 1000 = 10 670 microns

    10670 / 7152 = 1.49** microns/pixel ... I think the math is off because I am taking 38Mpix instead of 41. The 808 does shoot @ 1.4 microns for sure.

    For 21Mpix (which would probably be around 18 for 16:9 and 19 for 4:3)

    I will use a picture from this Amazon.com: Sony DSC-RX100 20.2 MP Exmor CMOS Sensor Digital Camera with 3.6x Zoom: SONY: Camera & Photo for reference. It has a sensor cut into 20Mpix, and the images come out at 5472×3648

    So same thing again:

    Our hypothetical Lumia EOS shoots at 20Mpix max 5472×3648. The size of the sensor is 1/1.2'' (10,67 mm. x 8 mm.).

    There are 1000 microns in 1 mm.

    10.67 х 1000 = 10 670 microns

    10670 / 5472 = ~2.0** microns/pixel

    Just to put that in perspective, the Nokia N8 shoots 1.75 microns, and to this day.. 2+ years later, there is not other smartphone (other than the 808) than can beat it in most conditions.

    That is the first option.. use the sensor from the 808, cut into 20 instead of 40, and do a bit of oversampling on top.

    The 2nd option is to use a smaller 20Mpix sensor, which would yield 1.4 micron pixels, and oversample those.. but see.. its one thing to have 6-7 pixels available for oversampling (808) and another to have 2-3 pixels available.. the effect won't be the same. The advantage here would be a smaller "hump".

    Then there is the question of the Xenon flash, which as you can see here (808):



    requires big capacitors for it to make any sense.. so the hump remains an issue, until they come up with mega powerful short burst LEDs which would eliminate the need for a xenon.

    And finally.. there is something I don't know enough about, but seem to be an issue. The ratio between the pixel sizes and the sensor is directly related to the lens somehow, but I am not sure how. It seems like the bigger the pixels are, the bigger the lens needs to be.. but I am not sure at all on this one. I just know that there are issues with that.. especially for a phone.

    Why are bigger pixels important.. they can collect more photons (light), and from there.. less noise, more detail.. here is how it looks for the DSLRs..



    I am not saying that pixels sizes are everything in imaging, there is way more than that.. but it is a pretty important part.. especially for compact/cell phone cameras.
    Thanked by:
  11. inteller's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    2,563 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,567 Global Posts
    #11  
    They don't need a 41mp whatever. They just need to max out the current Snapdragon which is 21mp I believe. Zeiss can provide them with a good enough lens and aperture that they can make this work with led flash.
  12. vlad0's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,035 Posts
    #12  
    Quote Originally Posted by inteller View Post
    They don't need a 41mp whatever. They just need to max out the current Snapdragon which is 21mp I believe. Zeiss can provide them with a good enough lens and aperture that they can make this work with led flash.
    They don't... but this is what I was trying to say, if they do use ~20Mpix, its important what kind of pixels those are, and what they can do with them. If they are going to just use 1.4 micron pixels, but more of them.. what is the point ? They might as well stay down at below 10 and not worry about the thickness of the device.
  13. sanders2232's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    223 Posts
    #13  
    Either way they go you know this new Lumia is going to blow the pants off all other cameras. I would hope the goal is to combine the 920 & 808 to bring the best of both worlds 😊
  14. Abdul Rahman Noor's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    156 Posts
    Global Posts
    157 Global Posts
    #14  
    PureView + WP8 sounds sweet!

    But I'm not too sure of the whole Aluminum body thing. Especially considering what's happening to the iPhone 5...
    ..unless there's a way to make scratch-resistant Al, I'm sticking to polycarbonate.
  15. jgbstetson's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    412 Posts
    #15  
    Quote Originally Posted by Abdul Rahman Noor View Post
    PureView + WP8 sounds sweet!

    But I'm not too sure of the whole Aluminum body thing. Especially considering what's happening to the iPhone 5...
    ..unless there's a way to make scratch-resistant Al, I'm sticking to polycarbonate.
    what no one at apple will acknowledge is that the anodize job they did was subpar. If Nokia goes with bare aluminum, you are correct, it will scratch. But a high quality, high density anodize layer is very durable. This creates a layer of hard aluminum oxide on the surface. The oxide is penetrated with a dye and then hydrated to seal the pores.
  16. #16  
    Quote Originally Posted by sanders2232 View Post
    Either way they go you know this new Lumia is going to blow the pants off all other cameras. I would hope the goal is to combine the 920 & 808 to bring the best of both worlds 😊
    I'm going to admit straight up that I'm pretty clueless about camera tech.

    However, I doubt Nokia can pull that trick off. Nokia implemented OIS by floating the entire sensor, but doing so with a sensor of the 808's size sounds like an impossibility to me. Of course they could take the more traditional mechanical IS route, but that will be BIG. I doubt they could fit that into a smartphone.

    Nokia is great with cameras, but they aren't magicians either. I suspect we will get either OIS or oversampling, but not both... unless they really do want to ship a brick, or move OIS into front mountable lenses...

    Lets not set ourselves up for disappointment by expecting too much.
  17. sanders2232's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    223 Posts
    #17  
    I take it you have never held a 808 in your hands?
  18. vlad0's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,035 Posts
    #18  
    Yes.. a Phase 1 / Phase 2 combination in one device would result in a device weight of over 200 grams, and considering all the moaning about the weight of the 920 and the 808, just imagine what would happen at 200+ grams.
  19. jdevenberg's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    1,037 Posts
    Global Posts
    2,527 Global Posts
    #19  
    They could use a dedicated image chip. HTC put one in the 8X, so its obviously something MS allows. That is how the 808 does it, its SoC couldn't handle a 41 MP camera on its own.
  20. #20  
    Quote Originally Posted by sanders2232 View Post
    I take it you have never held a 808 in your hands?
    I have. Why?
  21. #21  
    Quote Originally Posted by jdevenberg View Post
    They could use a dedicated image chip. HTC put one in the 8X, so its obviously something MS allows. That is how the 808 does it, its SoC couldn't handle a 41 MP camera on its own.
    Agreed. Vlad already mentioned that.

    MS specifies the SoC and screen resolutions. Beyond that, OEM's are free to do whatever they want, although some lower bounds must be respected... For example, using a 2 MP camera is not allowed.
  22. JammyGitz's Avatar
    Banned

    Posts
    198 Posts
    #22  
    Lumia 920 comes out pretty badly
    01.jpg
  23. TK2011's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    229 Posts
    #23  
    Quote Originally Posted by JammyGitz View Post
    Lumia 920 comes out pretty badly
    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	01.jpg 
Views:	93 
Size:	25.4 KB 
ID:	27480
    Problem with DxOMark is that they test on tripod. That's the way to do it if you are testing sensor and jpeg engine (which they mainly focus on) but it negates the whole point of OIS which comes in mainly for handheld shots. If they had a scoring column for low light handheld shots, which should have a significant weight unless you shoot in daylight all the time, 920 would trounce the competition and the average score will look much different. Low light performance difference is like night and day. We are talking getting a decent shot vs. no shot at all, not some minor difference you can see only if you zoom in which is the case for those daylight measurements. How do you score that kind of delta?
    Jari P likes this.
  24. #24  
    Quote Originally Posted by TK2011 View Post
    Problem with DxOMark is that they test on tripod.
    Yep, a theoretical test that makes absolutely no sense for a smartphone camera. Or when was the last time you mounted your smartphone on a tripod?

    OIS is actually counterproductive when used on a tripod. Not sure if L920 detects this and turns it off (unlikely).
  25. TK2011's Avatar
    Member

    Posts
    229 Posts
    #25  
    Quote Originally Posted by a5cent View Post
    Yep, a theoretical test that makes absolutely no sense for a smartphone camera. Or when was the last time you mounted your smartphone on a tripod?

    OIS is actually counterproductive when used on a tripod. Not sure if L920 detects this and turns it off (unlikely).
    Yeah I doubt it turns it off automatically.

    Getting back to DxOMark, the way they score, they measure various things and average them. Problem is they are basically doing daylight testing only. Okay, so let's say they got 66 for the 920 and 72 for iphone/GN2. Now, if we do the same set of tests handheld in lowlight, we probably get something like 66 for the 920 and 10 for iphone/GN2. And let say you use your camera in low light about half the time so you weight them equally. Now you get (66+66)/2 = 66 for the 920 and (72+10)/2 = 41 for iphone/GN2. You get my drift? Of course, iphone/GN2 users won't be using their cameras all that often in low light...because they can't! lol
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Yahoo article highlighting top 7 phones at this year's CES
    By boneycat in forum Windows Phone 7
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 01-14-2012, 11:32 AM
  2. T-Mobile Nokia Windows Phone boxing spotted.
    By btbam91 in forum Upcoming & Rumored Devices
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-22-2011, 10:33 PM
  3. Nokia Windows phone Websites
    By johnnieblack in forum Windows Phone 7
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10-12-2011, 04:41 PM
  4. nokia windows phone
    By johnnieblack in forum Windows Phone 7
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 10-10-2011, 01:43 PM
  5. Any reason they are no new phones coming this summer?
    By Winterfang in forum Windows Phone 7
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 07-02-2011, 09:12 AM

Posting Permissions