LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.6.4-inch smartphone becomes available in the UK in Black, Blue or Red, from 1st June.
Read more.6.4-inch smartphone becomes available in the UK in Black, Blue or Red, from 1st June.
That's a phenomenal phone for such a price...
Nice! Kudos to Samsung - Great spec and a fantastic price. the spec are really good and you cant go wrong with a 6000mAh battery will last you ages.
Rear fingerprint canner?
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
Only missing IP68 certification for moi. Might get one the missus to replace her aging S7
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
I'd hate to have my finger canned! :/Originally Posted by 3dcandy
Rear fingerprint canner?
GSMArena have reviewed it:
https://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_gal...eview-2070.php
It's all very well Samsung pushing up the camera sensor pixel count up and up but, there's no chance the lens will be capable of resolving enough detail. on a tiny sensor, to come anywhere near fully utilising the sensor's potential resolution.
You know (like all newer sensors) they use pixel binning don't you?
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
As I thought - poor low light photography as no OIS. But the battery life is great at the expense of some stuttering and lag
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
The point still stands though - pixel binning has been used over a decade ago in early digital cameras,but the lens needs to be good enough. If the lens can't resolve enough detail,pixel binning won't save it!
Pixel binning tended to be used in less than optimal sensors decades ago,as a kludge to improve image quality in low light,but having large photo detector area always is better.
Also have larger photo-detector surface area,would make more sense. If you need to use pixel binning to get acceptable image quality,one has to ask the question,why they don't just use a lower MP sensor of similar size. Low light image quality will be better,and there should be quicker readout speeds,ie,you can do multi-shot averaging quicker. Also DR should be better.
Lots of phone cameras,actually use entirely plastic moulded elements,and cannot vary the aperture(only Samsung can do this is in a primitive way on their S series phones). I wish companies worked on better lenses and proper variable apertures!
Edit!!
You can also see that Apple and Google don't go overly mad on MP,but image quality on the Pixel phones is very good.
About a decade there was a MP war with compact cameras,and it the MP jumps were more marketing driven. The moment they stablised,image quality seemed to get better,as they had the same problems,ie,the lenses couldn't resolve enough detail,and there was a lot of noise reduction,etc which smudged details in the image in poor light.
Plus 12~16MP you can get very nice 12"X8" or even A3 photos,so 48~64MP seems a bit pointless when professional dSLRs have less MP!!
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 29-04-2020 at 01:18 PM.
Pixel binning is another way to get past poor sensor/lens resolution as it averages 4 pixels into one large one and is done on the sensor. It also is used as a cheap(ish) way to perform stabilisation and noise reduction. However you are totally wrong with the mp on dslr's as they are not being developed like they used to be as more people move over to mirrorless. I thoroughly expect dslr's to fade away soon to niche products (Canon and Nikon both saying sales are down 60% year on year if need proof)The point still stands though - pixel binning has been used over a decade ago in early digital cameras,but the lens needs to be good enough. If the lens can't resolve enough detail,pixel binning won't save it!
Pixel binning tended to be used in less than optimal sensors decades ago,as a kludge to improve image quality in low light,but having large photo detector area always is better.
Also have larger photo-detector surface area,would make more sense. If you need to use pixel binning to get acceptable image quality,one has to ask the question,why they don't just use a lower MP sensor of similar size. Low light image quality will be better,and there should be quicker readout speeds,ie,you can do multi-shot averaging quicker. Also DR should be better.
Lots of phone cameras,actually use entirely plastic moulded elements,and cannot vary the aperture(only Samsung can do this is in a primitive way on their S series phones). I wish companies worked on better lenses and proper variable apertures!
Edit!!
You can also see that Apple and Google don't go overly mad on MP,but image quality on the Pixel phones is very good.
About a decade there was a MP war with compact cameras,and it the MP jumps were more marketing driven. The moment they stablised,image quality seemed to get better,as they had the same problems,ie,the lenses couldn't resolve enough detail,and there was a lot of noise reduction,etc which smudged details in the image in poor light.
Plus 12~16MP you can get very nice 12"X8" or even A3 photos,so 48~64MP seems a bit pointless when professional dSLRs have less MP!!
It's all moot - Apple's phones have stagnated for years and they are way behind trends. And if you think that an iphones way overprocessed image is good (Pixel phones the same) it's good marketing right there. All of the sensors etc. are trying to process inherent small sensor sizes out either by throwing a tonne of computing at them, using multiple sensors (even Apple have started that) or pixel binning and multiple sensors like the M31. Just a different way of doing it. Just remember it's a £245 and will be focussed on battery life and a largeish display for not much money. And yes the Pixel range of phones are incredibly poor sellers especially in the UK. Samsung have said that using a periscope lens as they do in the S20 has not helped them and will probably be ditching it for next range. They also said that putting a decent lens in a phone is not the way to go and that pixel binning or extra processing is how they will be doing it from now on. Apple have also said that they prefer to process the image rather than spend extra on a lens as well. The technology to vary the lens aperture and the costs involved are simply not worth it...
Last edited by 3dcandy; 29-04-2020 at 01:53 PM. Reason: that was mangled for some reason....
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
Interesting phone. My old phone was a Nokia 808, which shared some of this one's attributes - a ton of megapixels, using "pixel binning" as 3dcandy described it (although with an option for full-resolution, for those times when you had good lighting and a tripod), as well as an OLED screen. I still kind of miss the OLED screen when compared to my iPhone SE (2016), but it's been hard to find a phone with one that's available in the West and doesn't cost an arm and a leg.
I do agree with Mark, OIS would be nice. That's the key technology that led to the iPhones and higher-end Android phones producing better-quality pictures by the mid-2010's, despite Nokia's camera hardware having the technical edge. But at this price point, it's hard to complain.
I'd also be curious about the size of the lens. Nokia went with a lens that was much larger than what most smartphones have, allowing the phone to make some use of those megapixels. I can tell from the picture the 64 MP lens is larger than the other ones, but can't tell dimensions. Again though, OLED alone at this price point makes the phone interesting, the camera aspects are the icing on the cake.
What?? Do you actually do any printing or know people who take photography for a living?? Professional dSLRs and mirrorless cameras use the same kind of sensors,and they tend to have stabilised around 20~26MP for low light bodies FX bodes,20-26MP for APS-C bodies,and 40~60MP for high res FX bodies,and upto 100MP for medium format bodies. This is why they are not moving forward in MP,especially as they are moving towards higher readout speeds,and on-sensor phase detection AF points,so they can do video better. Even with all these bodies,some of which I have used,they are limited by optics too. The lenses are getting bulkier and heavier,as the optics need to also increase in quality.
Also not sure what you are talking about pixel binning. I have worked with some quite expensive non-photography imaging sensors myself. Pixel binning does not compensate for poor sensors or lens. If the lens can't resolve detail,you can't magically get more detail. Because if you look outside consumer photography,in scientific and commercial imaging or even the astro stuff,there are always two lines of sensors.
One is high MP sensors(small pixel pitch) with low readout speeds,and the second are low MP with high readout speeds(large pixel pitch) at the same given sensor size. The high MP lines have small pixel pitches but are used for better available light scenarios where resolution is more important. Pixel binning was implemented in such kinds of sensors for decades,I have used it myself. But it was always inferior to the lower MP,high readout sensors for low light work,and the results were clearly visible. Pixel binning was also implemented on early digital cameras too - but it was always inferior to large pixel pitch photodetectors. You see this approach in everything from professional cameras,astrophotography,scientific and commercial imaging,etc.
For one,there are many kinds of noise - some are determined by the electrical characteristics of the sensors themselves,which is hard to minimise,and the other is thermal noise,which is why you have cooled sensors. A lot of the noise in an imaging sensor,is the electrical signal produced in a perfectly dark scenario. It is that relationship between electrical signals produced by photons hitting the sensors and the standard state noise,which is important. The closer the signal is to the noise,the more likely you will start to have problems.
Why do you think some of these phones have soft and oversharpened images?? Its the result of noise reduction algorithms,which then use edge detection to sharpen edges,via localised contrast enhancement.
Smaller pitch photodetectors for a given technology level,gather less photons per given time period,so that signal is much closer to the noise floor,than say a larger pitch detectors. Pixel binning is merely a way of attempting to leverage more detectors,to get a higher SNR,but the fact is its less efficient why it fell out of favour in dedicated cameras over a decade ago. For one,there is actually dead space between each photo detector,so you are loosing surface area for a given sensor size,and having more dead area(area which is light insensitive) and also with more photodetectors there is more read noise too.
Then there is the other aspects,larger arrays have slower read speeds,so its actually more difficult to pull data off the sensor too. Lower pixel count sensors work better for quicker readout. For tiny phone sensors,having higher readout speeds,means you can do image stacking and multishot bracketing can be done more effectively,because a slower sensor will take more time to do a full readout longer. These things actually can help get over some of the "apparent noise" and DR problems with smaller pitch sensors.
Also has you increase photodetector density,you actually need better and better lenses. This is the same problem which hit digital compacts a decade ago - they have all but hit a wall too,as it was not helping,and they too used to use pixel binning for low light modes.
That is the other problem with high MP less sensitive sensors - not only is the softness due to crap lenses,its also down to the fact,they need to hold exposure longer due to less sensitivity,so they are far more dependent on the OIS working properly. But the problem is the OIS can only do some much,so they either have to ramp up signal gain on the sensor(which is what the ISO on an electrical imaging sensor is),or drop exposure and underexpose for the highlights,and try to process the image after the shot. Both of these ways increases the "noise" in the image,and means you need to apply more of the noise reduction.
EIS should also work better with higher readout speed sensors too in my view. Think about it - it will take longer to do a total readout of a much higher MP sensor,than a lower MP sensor given the same technology in both.
The reason why Google,has stuck with lower MP sensors,is probably down to the readout speed then - they can do all the trickery they can do since its quicker to get the sensor to use multishot techniques. Also there is less physical data to be processed at any one time.
The fact is many of use who have been following digital imaging for the last 20 years,have seen this stupid MP war before with digital compacts. It was partly driven by marketing,and this is the same thing which is happening now. It's about oneupmanship and its easier to sell to people X MP is better than Y MP.
Its no different than people using CPU GHZ as a marketing tool,and ignoring IPC/IPS.
It is much smaller than the 808 though,and Nokia tended to focus on half decent lenses for their old ranges. The 808 was probably bigger than the P40 PRO main sensor too.
One of the problems,is also nowadays companies seemed obsessed with ultra-thin phones,so hate to have a thicker phone or hump,ie,they could fit in a better lens,but want to make the phones crapper to save 2MM in thickness. This way they can also make them more fragile and harder to repair too,and also use smaller sized batteries.
Last edited by CAT-THE-FIFTH; 29-04-2020 at 03:43 PM.
Cat - the pixel binning is done on the sensor....
It's a quick and dirty and fairly cheap way to get round various issues as you said and as it's done on the sensor you have less to worry about reading all that data as you have said. Read up about ISOCELL from Samsung for example. Apple and Google have shied away from having larger mp sensors for many reasons a big one not touched upon is that they don't have expandable storage unlike Samsung and the others. You also have a marketing way of saying more megapixels is better
What you have said is true - but all these people are costing the sensors and lenses down. Apple for example are well known for screwing the price of components including lens' and sensors way way down...
I have generalised A LOT. DSLR sensors are also not going for much higher mp as the images size starts to become an issue (filesize). Sony have also said that demand for larger size sensors has dramatically fallen in recent years and that 80% of their business is cheap small sensors paired with cheap lenses. The phones that emphasis on cameras have nearly all failed dramatically. DSLR sales are down huge amounts. Mirrorless appears the only way it is going...
Photographers tend to stick with things longer and longer. I make music and that and photography are the strangest things where opinions are concerned with all musicians and photographers I've come across have pretty polarising opinions on kit. DSLR's are falling out of favour for many as a mirrorless is just lighter and easier to carry around with the results being "good enough"
Old puter - still good enuff till I save some pennies!
My phone takes pictures.What?? Do you actually do any printing or know people who take photography for a living?? Professional dSLRs and mirrorless cameras use the same kind of sensors,and they tend to have stabilised around 20~26MP for low light bodies FX bodes,20-26MP for APS-C bodies,and 40~60MP for high res FX bodies,and upto 100MP for medium format bodies. This is why they are not moving forward in MP,especially as they are moving towards higher readout speeds,and on-sensor phase detection AF points,so they can do video better. Even with all these bodies,some of which I have used,they are limited by optics too. The lenses are getting bulkier and heavier,as the optics need to also increase in quality.
Also not sure what you are talking about pixel binning. I have worked with some quite expensive non-photography imaging sensors myself. Pixel binning does not compensate for poor sensors or lens. If the lens can't resolve detail,you can't magically get more detail. Because if you look outside consumer photography,in scientific and commercial imaging or even the astro stuff,there are always two lines of sensors.
One is high MP sensors(small pixel pitch) with low readout speeds,and the second are low MP with high readout speeds(large pixel pitch) at the same given sensor size. The high MP lines have small pixel pitches but are used for better available light scenarios where resolution is more important. Pixel binning was implemented in such kinds of sensors for decades,I have used it myself. But it was always inferior to the lower MP,high readout sensors for low light work,and the results were clearly visible. Pixel binning was also implemented on early digital cameras too - but it was always inferior to large pixel pitch photodetectors. You see this approach in everything from professional cameras,astrophotography,scientific and commercial imaging,etc.
For one,there are many kinds of noise - some are determined by the electrical characteristics of the sensors themselves,which is hard to minimise,and the other is thermal noise,which is why you have cooled sensors. A lot of the noise in an imaging sensor,is the electrical signal produced in a perfectly dark scenario. It is that relationship between electrical signals produced by photons hitting the sensors and the standard state noise,which is important. The closer the signal is to the noise,the more likely you will start to have problems.
Why do you think some of these phones have soft and oversharpened images?? Its the result of noise reduction algorithms,which then use edge detection to sharpen edges,via localised contrast enhancement.
Smaller pitch photodetectors for a given technology level,gather less photons per given time period,so that signal is much closer to the noise floor,than say a larger pitch detectors. Pixel binning is merely a way of attempting to leverage more detectors,to get a higher SNR,but the fact is its less efficient why it fell out of favour in dedicated cameras over a decade ago. For one,there is actually dead space between each photo detector,so you are loosing surface area for a given sensor size,and having more dead area(area which is light insensitive) and also with more photodetectors there is more read noise too.
Then there is the other aspects,larger arrays have slower read speeds,so its actually more difficult to pull data off the sensor too. Lower pixel count sensors work better for quicker readout. For tiny phone sensors,having higher readout speeds,means you can do image stacking and multishot bracketing can be done more effectively,because a slower sensor will take more time to do a full readout longer. These things actually can help get over some of the "apparent noise" and DR problems with smaller pitch sensors.
Also has you increase photodetector density,you actually need better and better lenses. This is the same problem which hit digital compacts a decade ago - they have all but hit a wall too,as it was not helping,and they too used to use pixel binning for low light modes.
That is the other problem with high MP less sensitive sensors - not only is the softness due to crap lenses,its also down to the fact,they need to hold exposure longer due to less sensitivity,so they are far more dependent on the OIS working properly. But the problem is the OIS can only do some much,so they either have to ramp up signal gain on the sensor(which is what the ISO on an electrical imaging sensor is),or drop exposure and underexpose for the highlights,and try to process the image after the shot. Both of these ways increases the "noise" in the image,and means you need to apply more of the noise reduction.
EIS should also work better with higher readout speed sensors too in my view. Think about it - it will take longer to do a total readout of a much higher MP sensor,than a lower MP sensor given the same technology in both.
The reason why Google,has stuck with lower MP sensors,is probably down to the readout speed then - they can do all the trickery they can do since its quicker to get the sensor to use multishot techniques. Also there is less physical data to be processed at any one time.
The fact is many of use who have been following digital imaging for the last 20 years,have seen this stupid MP war before with digital compacts. It was partly driven by marketing,and this is the same thing which is happening now. It's about oneupmanship and its easier to sell to people X MP is better than Y MP.
Its no different than people using CPU GHZ as a marketing tool,and ignoring IPC/IPS.
It is much smaller than the 808 though,and Nokia tended to focus on half decent lenses for their old ranges. The 808 was probably bigger than the P40 PRO main sensor too.
One of the problems,is also nowadays companies seemed obsessed with ultra-thin phones,so hate to have a thicker phone or hump,ie,they could fit in a better lens,but want to make the phones crapper to save 2MM in thickness. This way they can also make them more fragile and harder to repair too,and also use smaller sized batteries.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote