Or the first phone to have stereo front speakers.Originally Posted by kingpotnoodle
Or the full aluminium body
Or the UltraPixel camera
one x was seriously criticised for its design - lack of innovation , same feels as three year models.
They had to change and do something very different.
Sorry, I have the Sensation XE.
Damn you and your slightly-updated spec...
I was a bit annoyed about that, actually. They brought out the XE about a fortnight after I'd got my Sensation. Boy, was I peeved...
Quite correct: Samsung Galaxy Camera. Problem with that one is that it's a camera that has phone features, rather than a phone with camera features.
For my ideal device I don't need (or in fact, want) that 21x zoom ... 3x or 4x is fine. What I was thinking of was the tech that they use on "internal zoom" cameras like the Fuji FinePix Z series (and I'm sure that there's similar ones from Nikon, Canon, etc). So no extending lens to catch in a pocket.
Career status: still enjoying my new career in DevOps, but it's keeping me busy...
Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand some results are in.
http://blog.gsmarena.com/here-are-th...apixel-camera/
Really not very impressive at all. These are however pre-production, but if your shouting a headline feature for a phone which isn't going to be released for a few more months, you need to at least equal whats out on the market at the moment.
For instance:
http://st.gsmarena.com/pics//13/02/h...marena_001.jpg
Shows signs of heavy noise removal. It lacks clarity and still has a lot of noise on things like the casing on the side of the phone. Taking a look at the Exif Data, we see its quite a low ISO (slow) at 1/20th of a second, so its not that dark either.
I think the issue is that anyone who has a Lumia 920 would be laughing at this.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Ah. But those zooms still add bulk, weight and moving parts issues. You'd be amazed how much more careful a phone manafacturer has to be to mechanical failures. It will be in a pocket every day probably, vrs the camera which won't get moved, shocked, dropped half as much.
I think you might be waiting for a useable version of the 808! There have been some suggestions that Nokia are looking to bring a slightly gimped version of it to the Lumia series running WP, apparently this summer it will be unvailed.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
Using "large pixels" is a legitimate approach I guess, brightness at expense of detail. Though the sample pictures aren't exactly dazzling.
An optical zoom would just be pointless, moving parts would break and I imagine you'd kill the aperture properties.
I think the 808 pureview is still king in the camera department. The 920 I feel is more geared towards video, and it's stability only helps in certain situations.
Rumoured nokia eos/lumia 1000 will supposedly bring it over to windows phone
The low light stills from the 920 are, for a camera phone, nothing short of amazing. I think I uploaded some pictures that where taken by a friend, of sky lanterns been set off, really rather good.
The mechanical shake reduction in video isn't bad, but is something that can be done by oversampling and software reduction.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
yeh, not meaning to take away from the 920, but what I mean is that stabilisation only helps if the scene allows for a longer exposure time.
The 808's large sensor solution is a more "generic" solution
seems there needs to be a balance point between quality and MP of the image, particularly with fixed storage of phone devices.
MP war has been going on in pocket cams for years of course.. sell to the consumer with higher numbers (as with most tech...)
as for zoom, anyone remember the telephoto lenses on old pocket film cams? maybe a version of that would work as a more robust zoom, if it fits inside...
I disagree, it is actually a pretty dark scene. 1/20th of a second exposure at f/2 is pretty long - at an ISO of ~400 I'd say around typical for a poorly lit room. However at an effective focal range of 28mm what is suspicious to me is that they didn't increase the ISO a little; I would have expected high ISO to really be its advantage and for them to show it off, instead of risking a less defined image through blur.
Side by side comparisons are needed here and I await them with interest!
"That dark" is subjective. But its clearly showing signs of noise removal, which is worrying. On an image such as that on a lumia 920, I'd expect the shutter to be 1/6th, with native ISO.
Wouldn't you say thou its not setting the world on fire? I will reserve judgement until I see as you say lab controlled tests. But I don't buy in to their technical things (see above), and I've not seen anything to show otherwise.
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
I've not used the 920 - but while I agree that it might not be setting the world on fire, doesn't the 920 a) use a larger sensor and b) have pixel binning capability? Or am I making that up?
I would expect the larger sensor'd phone to have the advantage, within reason. Also 1/6th of a second would be far too slow for reliable blur free shots, but assuming native ISO is 100, it would best the One at equivalent ISO.
If the sensor sizes are the same then yes, it looks disappointing.
I think your confusing it with the 808 (which lots of people did before the 920 was announced, people desperately want the 808, but on a phone that isn't poo).
The 920 has a 1/3rd of an inch sensor, just like the HTC one, but it has smaller pixels. The 920 has image stablisation in a similar vain to how sony have been doing it, the whole 'package' (lens and sensor) are stabalised together, these are often two stage (I've not taken the 920 appart, so I don't know how they do it... yet!) which provide really easy ability to hold a slow shutter. For most phone snaps, thats a good thing.
I've found that often my 920 will go for a 1/6th, quite easily. Interestingly thou, if I use the shutter button, rather than tap on the screen, it doesn't. It might be a very clever acceleramitor thing going on!
If you look at the first image expanded in this roundup:
http://gizmodo.com/5982478/the-best-smartphone-camera
You can see how brilliant stablisation is, the iPhone does a stonkingly good job of bringing out the detail but it attacks the noise to harshly, you see splodges, not rectangles, this is due to the Bayer pattern again (which is due to our eyes been odd) and the bias for green pixels. Low light noise removal is hard and fascinating.
This is why I think HTC have missed something here. It just isn't 'good enough'. When you consider that the iPhone 5 has a smaller sensor than the HTC One, but clearly delivers better good light due to some sub sampling for something which is so low cost, f2.4 small sensor, look at all the comments about poor crystal used on launch devices.
So in a nutshell I'm not impressed on paper by HTC's offering of camera, and I'm not impressed by samples. I think they really should have had a go at sensor shift or something, just don't tell it to Canon fans, they like to think their thousands of pounds on SLR shouldn't have any sensor shift stabilisation option!
Which is why I'm tearing it appart I suppose. I don't expect innovation from DSLR makers (thats another rant), I have seen it in phones and want more, I want someone to be chasing Nokia, forcing them to make a version of the 808 I can buy!
throw new ArgumentException (String, String, Exception)
looks decent
Yeah I can see the advantage of image stabilisation in many situations. However it invariably adds bulk, which seems a touchy subject in phones
Always did bug me that Canon relies on lens stabilisation - granted, they do seem to get slightly better results on the stabilised lenses compared to stabilised sensors - but having to shell out often near twice as much for stabilised lenses vs being able to stabilise all lenses in your collection for free stings a bit.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
