I have a Nokia Lumia 1020 AMA

[SwimSwim]

Ok, I must admit, these photos are rather underwhelming, and so now I'm having second thoughts on pre-ordering this device.

But other than the camera, how's the phone itself? Screen? Performance? How does it feel to hold? Does the extra RAM help at all? How's the battery life? Is call quality good? All this and more I'd like to know.

Also, more uncompressed Nokia 1020 photos would be great, because the email app on WP compresses the photos before sending them, so we don't see the photos in their full glory, and you can't upload the full rez. photos to SkyDrive from the phone itself (you have to do that from a computer). So if we could get more full resolution photos, that'd be great, it would help with comparison.

Nonetheless, the 1020's camera doesn't seem to be as amazing as it was hyped up to be, this looks like another sunken flagship. I might still buy it though, seeing as it's a worthy upgrade over my aging Lumia 900, and it's still thinner and lighter than the Lumia 920.

 

[jhoff80]

The 900 was also a RGB AMOLED. The 925 and 1020 are PenTile.

 

[biboyflip]

Ok, I must admit, these photos are rather underwhelming, and so now I'm having second thoughts on pre-ordering this device.

But other than the camera, how's the phone itself? Screen? Performance? How does it feel to hold? Does the extra RAM help at all? How's the battery life? Is call quality good? All this and more I'd like to know.

Also, more uncompressed Nokia 1020 photos would be great, because the email app on WP compresses the photos before sending them, so we don't see the photos in their full glory, and you can't upload the full rez. photos to SkyDrive from the phone itself (you have to do that from a computer). So if we could get more full resolution photos, that'd be great, it would help with comparison.

Nonetheless, the 1020's camera doesn't seem to be as amazing as it was hyped up to be, this looks like another sunken flagship. I might still buy it though, seeing as it's a worthy upgrade over my aging Lumia 900, and it's still thinner and lighter than the Lumia 920.

check out these photos from crash1989
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=B152...152D934457008F2!3003&authkey=!AIhI2jWNbbywbu4

 

[vlad0]

Can you please right click on a video clip you recorded with the 1020, click on details, and post what it says under audio and video.. I want to see the audio recording bitrate.

And.. thanks a lot for all the information!! Great work

I believe 808 has fixed aperture also at 2.4, N86 however has variable. ND filter is not present in 1020 as confirmed by Pureview engrs. One of the advantage of 808, aside from the much larger sensor, is having iso 50 which is better in bright outdoor shots for lesser noise.

Correct. In fact, you can force 50iso in low light scenes as well... steady hand is required.

Example: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam/nokia/808_pureview/201307160408mIyB7F.jpg

All pics are compressed you can tell a pic size of 600kb, definitely not the right size for the full size

If its the distilled 5mpix image 600kb is possible.. I've gotten sub 1mb images from my 808 plenty of times. If anything, it means that the algorithm is working and its cleaning up all the junk from the jpeg.

some more pics
https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=B152...152D934457008F2!3003&authkey=!AIhI2jWNbbywbu4

Nice! I resized them down to 8-9Mpix and its looking good.. still a bit of blur towards the edge of the frame, but.. its pretty wide so..

The 808 has the same problem, but less pixels seem to be affected by it.

In terms of IQ .. I still think its a bit behind the 808, but 99.9% of people using it out there won't know, or won't care.. so it doesn't matter.

What most people don't understand is that the images you are seeing here are much, much bigger in terms of resolution compared to any other phone (expect one..) so when you look at it @ 100% it won't be any different from any other phone using 1.12 micron pixels. Okay.. it will be based on optics/jpeg processing .. but overall, the difference won't be that big.

What matters here is the pixel density, and in order to take advantage of it.. you need to oversample/combine the pixels so that you can get a cleaner image.

It will be very, very hard for Nokia to portray this to the masses... I just don't see it happening.

Everyone will look at the pics at full size and be like.. meh.. while they don't understand that their iPhone sooo far away from this monster can do

 

[bygbyron3]

Bit rate : 256 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz

 

[rmmoore80]

The original pics are not good examples, likely the 5MP compressed versions. View the images on the skydrive link and click "View Originals"

 

[bygbyron3]

The original pics are not good examples, likely the 5MP compressed versions. View the images on the skydrive link and click "View Originals"

Even then, they are not full 34/38 MP shots, as SkyDrive only uploads the 5 MP version from phones. Only ways I know of to get the full 34/38 MP copies online are by connecting it to my computer or AT&T locker.

 

[vlad0]

Bit rate : 256 Kbps
Channel(s) : 2 channels
Channel positions : Front: L R
Sampling rate : 48.0 KHz

Great!!! Thank you..

So exactly the same as the 808.. good news

 

[rmmoore80]

I thought the ones on the skydrive were uploaded correctly via PC?

 

[rmmoore80]

From my calculations the images on the skydrive are 30MP+ and are ~9MBs in size. Am I wrong?

 

[bygbyron3]

From my calculations the images on the skydrive are 30MP+ and are ~9MBs in size. Am I wrong?

That would be correct but aren't these the original ones (unternull's):

https://skydrive.live.com/?cid=2e43...2E43E54868E9048F!129&authkey=!ADRuOGpAnAK-LwM

Crash1989's pictures from SkyDrive are full resolution.

 

[vlad0]

1632 x 918 is too low for it be original : )

 

[prjkthack]

So far in almost every photo that's been posted taken by a 1020, its looked better. Maybe not a ton better, but better. Can't forget that the 920 was an excellent camera phone (if not one of the best), so I probably wouldn't compare shots to it, but the 1020 definitely is sharper, despite some grain, and the colors just look more accurate and vivid. I think the colors look especially good to be honest.

I have not been disappointed. This is going to be a great camera to have and a great phone. If I wanted a DSLR, I would have bought one, but by far these are some of the best shots I've seen from a phone. Ever.

 

[unternull]

Will post more pics tomorrow out drinkin lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

 

[prjkthack]

Will post more pics tomorrow out drinkin lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Perfect opportunity to take some low light photos and test out that Xenon flash.

 

[anon(5959407)]

Will post more pics tomorrow out drinkin lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I317 using Tapatalk 4 Beta

Please post the originals from both phones with the next batch. Most of the photos posted in the previous pages seem to be resized and fairly compressed.

 

[anon(5959407)]

1632 x 918 is too low for it be original : )

1.5MP vs 33.5MP ... Seems legit

 

[FFugue]

I like what I see so far. I don't think it's more noisy than the 920, it's just that the images are sharper than the 920, which is a good thing! The 920 images look like low quality jpgs since they're more blurry. If you take the 1020 images and blur them a little in Photoshop to get the same look as the 920 you won't see the noise anymore. Anyway the noise can be removed later if needed. And the level of noise we see isn't bad at all, especially for a phone camera. I've seen much worse on some 3000+$ DSLRs in those lighting conditions.

Also, for people saying that it's more noisy than the 808 because the pixels are smaller... actually, it doesn't really have anything to do with pixel dimension. The reason smaller pixels are more noisy is because it's more difficult to create a good quality small pixel. Like everything electronic, it's hard to fit the same technology in a smaller space, so yes smaller pixels tend to be more noisy. But at the same time, a smaller sensor from today will be less noisy than a bigger sensor from two years ago since technology is getting better and better. So we can't really compare the sensors from the 808 and 1020 based on their size alone since the quality of the individual pixels has changed since the 808 was released.

 

[vlad0]

Its the size of the sensor that matters the most, then optics.. then processing : ) The lens on the 1020 is much sharper than the one on the 920

1.5MP vs 33.5MP ... Seems legit

Ya.. pureview mode pics on the 1020 come at

3072 x 1728 in 16:9

I just noticed an interesting difference between the pureview pics from the two phones. The 1020 uses 95% jpeg compression in full auto mode, and the 808 uses 85% by default, which means that the pics from the 1020 will always be bigger in terms of file size compared to the 808.

So my previous statement about the file sizes is incorrect.. I don't think you will see very many 1020 images bellow 1mb .. they will probably be around the 2mb mark.

 

[Geronimo928]

Can you please right click on a video clip you recorded with the 1020, click on details, and post what it says under audio and video.. I want to see the audio recording bitrate.

And.. thanks a lot for all the information!! Great work



Correct. In fact, you can force 50iso in low light scenes as well... steady hand is required.

Example: http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/cam/nokia/808_pureview/201307160408mIyB7F.jpg



If its the distilled 5mpix image 600kb is possible.. I've gotten sub 1mb images from my 808 plenty of times. If anything, it means that the algorithm is working and its cleaning up all the junk from the jpeg.



Nice! I resized them down to 8-9Mpix and its looking good.. still a bit of blur towards the edge of the frame, but.. its pretty wide so..

The 808 has the same problem, but less pixels seem to be affected by it.

In terms of IQ .. I still think its a bit behind the 808, but 99.9% of people using it out there won't know, or won't care.. so it doesn't matter.

What most people don't understand is that the images you are seeing here are much, much bigger in terms of resolution compared to any other phone (expect one..) so when you look at it @ 100% it won't be any different from any other phone using 1.12 micron pixels. Okay.. it will be based on optics/jpeg processing .. but overall, the difference won't be that big.

What matters here is the pixel density, and in order to take advantage of it.. you need to oversample/combine the pixels so that you can get a cleaner image.

It will be very, very hard for Nokia to portray this to the masses... I just don't see it happening.

Everyone will look at the pics at full size and be like.. meh.. while they don't understand that their iPhone sooo far away from this monster can do

So in lamen terms? lol I was thinking generally that Nokia really needs to sell this concept well....I was looking at the 1020 pics on my l920 earlier and could not see a difference in the them until I came to my laptop...I wonder how many people are seeing the pics on their phones...even the ones Nokia officially posts up and say....meh....what's the difference...it all looks the same. But what do I know...I know nothing of photography...just know when I don't like something.