07-13-2013 06:32 PM
44 12
tools
  1. vlad0's Avatar
    I think you did... :)
    lol .. will try again later :)

    Here is a cross cut of the 1020 optics.. Zeiss .. once again amazing work



    Very similar to the 808

    07-13-2013 07:13 AM
  2. Michael Spencer's Avatar
    ^ I am more impressed with how fast the shutter on the 1020 is.. the 4 sec thing.. it will be so grainy, it would be hard to look at.

    As far as the sensor size the Nokia white paper says
    1/1.5

    Which should be 9x7 mm unless I messed up the math

    https://securecdn.disqus.com/uploads...4/original.jpg
    And 1/16000 shutter speed is just insane! Only available usually only on the semi-pro SLR.
    07-13-2013 08:27 AM
  3. JustToClarify's Avatar
    hm, how useful is that with this sensor anyway?
    07-13-2013 09:15 AM
  4. vlad0's Avatar
    hm, how useful is that with this sensor anyway?
    You should be able to freeze motion much easier..
    07-13-2013 10:17 AM
  5. JustToClarify's Avatar
    hm OK, but with 1/2700 (on 808) I don't have any problems freezing it, especially if I fire the flash :)
    07-13-2013 10:49 AM
  6. RushilPa's Avatar
    ..juha.png

    I found this on Juha Alakarhus' twitter, I guess this should shed some light on the issue haha
    Jaripi likes this.
    07-13-2013 11:13 AM
  7. JustToClarify's Avatar
    haha of course they will say only the best for 1020 since they are trying to sell the product (and they have stopped production of 808)
    07-13-2013 11:50 AM
  8. Daniel Rubino's Avatar
    Probably it compensates, but it's not sure better. We have to see comparatives. The big deal would have been BSI sensor and preserving the bigger sensor size.
    Right, which is why you then throw in OIS to the mix for longer exposures. They have also all new algorithms for color processing and noise reduction.

    Look, when it comes to digital photography, sensor size will always be too small unless you're sporting a full-frame or medium format Hasselblad. The reason why Nokia put a smaller sensor (than the 808) is to make the phone itself thinner and smaller. While the 808 took great photos, it is also significantly more chunky....and that's without the OIS rig (which is even more important for video, which a lot of people overlook).

    The trade off with going smaller is they put in BSI (awesome) and OIS (even more awesome). Toss in six lens elements and new algorithms for low-compression JPG processing and the 1020 will go beyond the 808.

    I spoke with numerous members of the Nokia photography team, saw samples, tried them myself and I don't' see anything that they did as negative. Even side by side 808/1020 shots showed the 1020 being sharper.

    Ultimately, we have to wait until we have it in our hands but I find a lot of this hand-wringing over specs on paper premature. It ignores a lot of behind the scenes stuff.
    07-13-2013 12:38 PM
  9. JustToClarify's Avatar
    808 in auto mode is set to be smooth not sharp, if you raise the sharpness it's another story, even Galaxy S4 gives a tiny bit sharper picture than 808 in automode but sharpness is not everything

    also can you explain why do you think that BSI is awesome? Logic tells that DSLR makers would be first to jump on it if that was the case...

    it's just a way to pack more pixels into a sensor without increasing the sensor size, but the tradeoffs are significant and I don't like them, at all
    Juanma Herrera and Dazzi like this.
    07-13-2013 12:52 PM
  10. Juanma Herrera's Avatar
    Right, which is why you then throw in OIS to the mix for longer exposures. They have also all new algorithms for color processing and noise reduction.

    Look, when it comes to digital photography, sensor size will always be too small unless you're sporting a full-frame or medium format Hasselblad. The reason why Nokia put a smaller sensor (than the 808) is to make the phone itself thinner and smaller. While the 808 took great photos, it is also significantly more chunky....and that's without the OIS rig (which is even more important for video, which a lot of people overlook).

    The trade off with going smaller is they put in BSI (awesome) and OIS (even more awesome). Toss in six lens elements and new algorithms for low-compression JPG processing and the 1020 will go beyond the 808.

    I spoke with numerous members of the Nokia photography team, saw samples, tried them myself and I don't' see anything that they did as negative. Even side by side 808/1020 shots showed the 1020 being sharper.

    Ultimately, we have to wait until we have it in our hands but I find a lot of this hand-wringing over specs on paper premature. It ignores a lot of behind the scenes stuff.
    Of course I will buy the phone when it releases in my country (Spain), but I'm a little bit dissapointed because of the sensor size reduction. I would have had an 808 but I didn't because of Symbian. I've been waiting for this Lumia 1020 for a long time. I think this phone will be awesome, but it could have been ever better with the bigger sensor same 808.

    Improved sharpness in 1020? OK, but I can do it in Photoshop, and not oversaturating colors. 808 images look really pure, natural. In my experience, these new BSI sensors (is Sony the manufacturer?) are very noisy because of the tiny pixel size. They capture more amount of light, right, but losing detail, creating artifitial sharpness, and with a lot of noise,

    This is a niche product, and as a photography enthusiast I was waiting for a really improvement over 808. I don't care about the phone thickness, even I preferred the 1020 to be as thick as the camera hump in the entire back and carry a 4000 mAh Battery. I don't care it is not a 4-kernel Snapdragon 800, 1080p display... I just care about the camera and Windows Phone. And I think reducing the sensor size is not something good. BSI sensors are marketing. Less noise in BSI sensor (I've read it in the 1020 white paper). LOL, it's a fake, actually 1.12 microns BSI sensors are Pure noise.

    OIS is a good improvement for video and for pics in low light with no objects moving.
    Better shoot controls? OK, I already have them in mi Lumia 920 (proshot app)
    Upgraded ISO levels? Amber update is the answer

    I love the new Lumia 1020, but it won't be the perfect photography phone I was waiting it to be. Even if future comparatives reveal 1020 is better than 808 in every different light situations (I doubt it), I will continue wondering how better could have been the new improvement (OIS, WP, BSI, 6 lens) mounted in a bigger sensor with 1.4 microns pixel size. No doubts about this would be far better than 808 for sure in that case, but actually with the 1020 specs I simply can't be sure and I need to see comparatives.

    Sorry for my english. I hope you to understand :$
    Dazzi likes this.
    07-13-2013 01:27 PM
  11. JustToClarify's Avatar
    Improved sharpness in 1020? OK, but I can do it in Photoshop, and not oversaturating colors. 808 images look really pure, natural. In my experience, these new BSI sensors (is Sony the manufacturer?) are very noisy because of the tiny pixel size. They capture more amount of light, right, but losing detail, creating artifitial sharpness, and with a lot of noise,
    yupp Sony makes them, and since their Honami is announced with 1/1.5" sensor...I wonder if it's this same sensor only with smaller resolution

    BSI sensors are marketing. Less noise in BSI sensor (I've read it in the 1020 white paper). LOL, it's a fake, actually 1.12 microns BSI sensors are Pure noise.
    glad I'm not the only one who noticed that
    Juanma Herrera likes this.
    07-13-2013 01:37 PM
  12. John20212's Avatar
    For the ultimate camera phone Nokia should have stuck to the bigger 808 sensor size, instead of trying to please ATT and others with making the phone thinner. I would have prefered it to be flush with the camera hump and have a bigger battery and microSD with the 808 sensor size; that would make it flawless.
    07-13-2013 01:55 PM
  13. vlad0's Avatar
    Before you read this, I just want to disclose that personally I think that the 1020 is an engineering marvel in many ways.. we are really picking apart very small details that most people won't care about. Also, this is all based on my personal observation and knowledge.. I don't have any professional experience or expertise in the matter.

    They have also all new algorithms for color processing and noise reduction..
    Well, so far from what we can see those new algorithms are not as good as the old ones. There seems to be more grain/noise in the jpeg compared to the 808..

    You could clearly see that the jpeg signature on the 1020 is from the same family from which all other Lumia phones came from. The 808 and the N8 came from a different one.. Personally I prefer the more natural/smooth look of the Dinning era.. I think its better to have natural color reproduction to which you can choose to add saturation, than a saturated one which you have to make more natural.. its a difficult task.

    While the 808 took great photos, it is also significantly more chunky....and that's without the OIS rig (which is even more important for video, which a lot of people overlook)...
    OIS is very important for video, and I agree 100% with you..overall the 1020 will be much better for video capture, no matter the difference in IQ. It would be negligible since we are talking about 2Mpix images being captured 30 times every second.

    However, I can't agree on the more chunky part..

    The 1020 is 6 mm taller, 11 mm wider, and more importantly takes a bit more or at least as much volume as the 808.. so when you put it in your hand or your pocket, it will take more room.

    The 808 is at: 95.5 cc
    The 1020 is at: 96.9 cc

    The most impressive part about the 1020's dimension is it's weight.. its 11 grams lighter than the 808.

    Source: Nokia 808 PureView vs. Nokia Lumia 1020 - GSMArena.com


    BSI (awesome)
    The jury is still out on that one.. if it was indeed that awesome, most high end compacts and DSLR would've moved away from FSI a long time ago. I am still to see a photograph taken with a BSI sensor that tops the N8 or the 808 in terms of raw IQ .. the 1020 might be the first one to beat the N8 by using all sorts of other clever tech.

    I recommend reading this paper by Aptina explaining the difference b/w FSI and BSI. I've read it at least 3 times, and for the part its over my head, but I think I got the basic idea, and I can see why the OEMs started pushing BSI sensors over FSI.

    BSI allows you to use smaller than 1.4 micron pixels, as the light channels/tubes which guide the light trough the front side (metal) of the FSI sensors can't be that small.. it gets messy. So as the OEMs had to increase the megapixel count, but still keep the same tiny sensors, they opted for BSI sensor and dipped below 1.4 micron pixels.

    The case with the 1020 confirms this theory as it uses 1.12 micron pixels as opposed to 1.4 microns on the 808. So.. they kept the megapixel count, but at the same time made the sensor smaller.. its a workaround.

    I am not saying that with time BSI won't yield real world benefits, but at this point.. I think its more of a compromise than anything else..

    Here is the paper: http://www.aptina.com/news/FSI-BSI-WhitePaper.pdf



    Toss in six lens elements and new algorithms for low-compression JPG processing and the 1020 will go beyond the 808
    Making the lens more complex doesn't necessarily make it better..

    From what I've seen so far, the optical system on the 1020 is not as good as the 808.. there is visible softness on the edge of the frame, which doesn't exist on most 808s.

    Example: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam...19456ov0Ac.jpg





    This might also be caused by the auto focus system.. we might have to wait and see. I noticed it on several of the official Nokia samples.

    As far as going beyond the 808.. in certain condition, maybe, but overall.. doubtful.



    Even side by side 808/1020 shots showed the 1020 being sharper..
    They are a bit sharper on default settings, but you can pump up the sharpness on the 808 and you will get a similar result.. but I was never a fan of the over sharpened look, no matter the source.

    Here: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam...2149id083t.jpg

    15mpix image from the 808 with pumped up sharpness.. I very much doubt that the 1020 can do better.

    Again, just like with the color reproduction, I would rather have a smooth image I can add sharpness to, than an over sharpened one that I have to make smoother..
    John20212 and Juanma Herrera like this.
    07-13-2013 04:42 PM
  14. Michael Spencer's Avatar
    Then would you guys rather if Lumia 1020 had lower res camera - e.g. 32MP/28MP instead what it is, due to sensor size reduction??
    07-13-2013 04:59 PM
  15. Juanma Herrera's Avatar
    I think the softness in the edges could be because of the OIS. Some Lumia 920 and some HTC One also have these problems.

    And I would have preferred same pixel count (41 mpx) but in 808 sensor size, it's keeping the pixel size in 1.4 microns, and, why not, includying BSI tech.
    07-13-2013 05:28 PM
  16. vlad0's Avatar
    Then would you guys rather if Lumia 1020 had lower res camera - e.g. 32MP/28MP instead what it is, due to sensor size reduction??
    I am yet to find an explanation to why Nokia couldn't cut that huge sensor into bigger pixels to begin with.. just bypass the zoom thing and cut it into physical ~ 4.0 micron pixels .. a similar set up will have amazing dynamic range and low light performance.

    My guess is that it has something to do with the lens.. it might require it to be even bigger, and the hump would be even more pronounce.

    I think the softness in the edges could be because of the OIS. Some Lumia 920 and some HTC One also have these problems.

    And I would have preferred same pixel count (41 mpx) but in 808 sensor size, it's keeping the pixel size in 1.4 microns, and, why not, includying BSI tech.
    If they would've kept the same sensor size.. the hump would be bigger for sure, and that was one of the main things they were trying to avoid.

    I doubt its the OIS.. but I really don't know. The Nokia N8 had a similar problem as well.. no OIS there, but mostly I think it was the optics.
    07-13-2013 06:00 PM
  17. JustToClarify's Avatar
    well if they couldn't come up with something better, I'd rather have standard Toshiba HES9 sensor and optics from 808

    Then would you guys rather if Lumia 1020 had lower res camera - e.g. 32MP/28MP instead what it is, due to sensor size reduction??
    it wouldn't change anything except you'd have a little less details in full res photo
    07-13-2013 06:09 PM
  18. JustToClarify's Avatar
    I am yet to find an explanation to why Nokia couldn't cut that huge sensor into bigger pixels to begin with.. just bypass the zoom thing and cut it into physical ~ 4.0 micron pixels .. a similar set up will have amazing dynamic range and low light performance.
    Well pixel binning gives bigger pixels no? What bothers me is that with 808 it's noticeable that PV modes give a bit better night pictures than full res while with 1020 we have the situation where difference is negligible?! It's like they don't use pixel binning at all, just resize the picture using some algorithm.

    If they would've kept the same sensor size.. the hump would be bigger for sure, and that was one of the main things they were trying to avoid.
    how much bigger? It's not that their is a big difference between sensors. 2-3 mm of difference in hump wouldn't be that noticeable, especially because 1020 is wider and longer than 808...
    07-13-2013 06:19 PM
  19. vlad0's Avatar
    Well pixel binning gives bigger pixels no? What bothers me is that with 808 it's noticeable that PV modes give a bit better night pictures than full res while with 1020 we have the situation where difference is negligible?! It's like they don't use pixel binning at all, just resize the picture using some algorithm. ...
    It does, but the 808 clearly suffers from weak DR and it often clips the highlights.. with physically bigger pixels that wouldn't be the case. Otherwise, yes.. oversampling works well and its very flexible, I think its perfect for a mobile phone.



    how much bigger? It's not that their is a big difference between sensors. 2-3 mm of difference in hump wouldn't be that noticeable, especially because 1020 is wider and longer than 808...

    Ya.. I don't know.. considering that the xenon flash is a newer generation with a much smaller capacitor and bulb, and they got rid of the loud speaker.. the difference wouldn't be that much I guess.

    Do we have a picture of the 808 and the 1020 sensor next to each other ?
    07-13-2013 06:32 PM
44 12

Similar Threads

  1. Shell Size - 920 vs. 1020
    By gwydionjhr in forum Nokia Lumia 1020
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-11-2013, 01:24 PM
  2. PureView "Zoom" Examples
    By kiddori in forum Nokia Lumia 1020
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-09-2013, 09:58 AM
  3. Lumia 928 Proximity Sensor
    By I am 711 in forum Nokia Lumia 928
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 07-08-2013, 07:08 PM
  4. Video clips size
    By shadowflare in forum Nokia Lumia 820
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 07-08-2013, 02:18 PM
  5. The 808 Pureview
    By Technoloay in forum The "Off Topic" Lounge
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 07-08-2013, 01:15 PM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD