Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Nokia 808 = Bye bye medium format!!!  (Read 9353 times)
PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


WWW
« Reply #20 on: February 28, 2012, 11:28:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Not sure at all a scaled up sensor (say full frame) with standard optics would benefit from that level of sensel downsizing. It's also a matter of matching sensel scale to physical focal length. I you have no choice, as in a phone, making very small pixels and compensating for the issues that arise is definitely worth the trouble. If you have enough sensor real estate and no hard constraints in terms of lenses, the exercise is a bit pointless and focusing on reducing read noise and improving photon capture using better micro-lenses yield greater rewards.

But In the area of point and shoot and smaller cameras, where size matters, yes, the evolution is a additional significant threat to that market which is already under intense phone pressure.
Logged
stpf8
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 81



WWW
« Reply #21 on: February 28, 2012, 11:54:50 AM »
ReplyReply

I like the pelvic thrust firing mechanism.  Imagine what that will do for street photography!
Logged

Stephen Penland
www.stephenpenland.com
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2307



WWW
« Reply #22 on: February 28, 2012, 11:57:52 AM »
ReplyReply

What?!? Not available in the US?  I was so there already!  Wink
Rats! I'll have to stick with my Rollei.

Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #23 on: February 28, 2012, 12:03:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually we're mocking something which is really cool apart from that flagrant 41 MP claim.
These guys have really thought seriously about some basic things others were not able to invent before.
The principle of supersampling is not new - so where have you been Canon, Nikon, Sony and all the others?
What I do not get at all why they are shooting themselves in the foot with the OS which will be a showstopper for many.
Do they really believe they can rescue their OS with a cool camera?
Logged

BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


« Reply #24 on: February 28, 2012, 12:22:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Actually we're mocking something which is really cool apart from that flagrant 41 MP claim.
What's flagrant about it? Oversampling is an uncontroversially good thing in every other area of signal digitization. Nokia has made it very clear that the 42MP are about oversampling, not feeding the appetites of 100% on-screen pixel peepers, and that the main goals are the options of either cropping/digital zooming when you cannot fill the whole frame with the desired image, or downsizing to fewer, better pixels when you can fill the frame. These, and the reduction or elimination of aliasing effects without need for an OLPF are all good options, possible only with an "over-abundance" of photosites.

I ask again: does anyone take oversampled audio at 96KHz or 192KHz, slow it down in playback so that the highest frequencies are audible, and then complain about the poor "per sample" quality? That's what 100% viewing and per pixel dynamic range measurements are!
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 12:24:24 PM by BJL » Logged
Christoph C. Feldhaim
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2508


There is no rule! No - wait ...


« Reply #25 on: February 28, 2012, 12:34:22 PM »
ReplyReply

Using 41 MP in marketing speech is flagrant.
Most people will not understand what the concept behind the camera is and I assume a comparison between large prints from a D300 and an 808 will show the difference clearly.
I also didn't say the concept is bad - right the opposite.
No need to go wild.
Logged

PierreVandevenne
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 508


WWW
« Reply #26 on: February 28, 2012, 12:51:20 PM »
ReplyReply

Well, saying "we use 41 millions smaller pixels instead of 10 millions larger pixels" has at least the merit of being accurate. Certainly not worse than the claim of "16 bits of dynamic range" because bits don't come in different sizes  Grin. I expect most people to understand the difference between "x small pixels" and "x large pixels". OTOH, very bright people have been confused by those damned shannonian creatures....
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


« Reply #27 on: February 28, 2012, 12:59:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Using 41 MP in marketing speech is flagrant.
How is an undeniably accurate, relevant, and useful fact like the total pixel count "marketing speech"?
See what Nokia actually says quite prominently in PR like this
http://europe.nokia.com/find-products/devices/nokia-808-pureview
not just in the white paper. Nokia puts clear emphasis on the ideas of (a) 7->1 downsampling to 5MP and (b) achieving "zoom" by cropping while using a small, bright, sharp prime lens. Nor do I see the slightest hint from Nokia of a claim that IQ will be comparable to that from a DSLR, so I do not see the relevance of your "comparison between large prints from a D300 and an 808"; that seems to be a straw man criticism.

More to the point, the latter feature absolutely needs a high total pixel count: a 5MP or 8MP or even 16MP 1/1.2" sensor would lose significant flexibly in a mobile phone where using a prime lens is a great advantage over a zoom lens. Crop-to-zoom is an essential part of camera-phone usage, making high total pixel count more relevant here than in compact cameras. In contrast, 18 million 1.2 micron pixels on a 1/2.3" sensor with a slow f/3.3-5.9 and f/3.2-5.8 zooms in some new Sony models is far more in the realm of marketing hype, because diffraction will almost always reduce resolution below what that 18MP promises.


What would you have Nokia do: not mention the fact of the pixel count at all, even though it is a key ingredient in the camera's zoom performance, and then try to explain the ability to maintain true 5MP resolution over a wide zoom range in contrast to competing camera-phones which "zoom" by cropping to under 1MP and then interpolating up, wasting space in a pretense of higher resolution?


This seems like the "anti-megapixel myth" at work, to coin a phrase.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 01:22:08 PM by BJL » Logged
Mr. Rib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 828


« Reply #28 on: February 28, 2012, 01:38:44 PM »
ReplyReply

+1

Not sure how 41MP is just marketing speech. For daylight shots, the sensor delivers 41MP files which are comparable in quality at 100% to most point and shoots. So what's the issue? Download the jpegs that are everywhere now. The one with the two rock climbers is quite nice of an image considering the source. I think people get there panties in a bunch because spending $20K on 40MP hurts when a camera phone has 41MP for a few hundred bucks. Sure the quality is different but for their respective uses, the sensors still have the same number of pixels.

The one fact for most shooters to get real about is the lack of innovation in the medium format market. Glacially slow progress, low volume, high cost. Anything that puts fire under their butts is needed.

Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


« Reply #29 on: February 28, 2012, 01:55:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Download the jpegs that are everywhere now. The one with the two rock climbers is quite nice of an image considering the source.
Yes, some of the samples indicate that, within the multiple restrictions of good lighting, no desire to compress contrast by bringing up deep shadows to be artificially closer to highlights, little enough subject movement to allow use of low ISO speed, and a desire for sharpness but not for unnaturally blurred backgrounds  (unnatural, in that things never look that way when we actually view a scene), then a camera like this can actually outperform many larger and more expensive cameras with up to about 12MP or even 16MP, through the greater sharpness and detail. The fun of zooming and panning around an image on-screen is, by the way, one counter-argument to being too dogmatic about "12MP is enough" or "standard viewing distance is the measure for resolution needs". (Quick quiz: what is the name of the rock-climber hanging by one hand? It is to be found in the photo.)

However, this should not cause any rational user of a larger, more expensive photographic kit to go on the defensive  --- clearly there are many, many other "use cases" to consider!
Logged
T-1000
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 579


« Reply #30 on: February 28, 2012, 04:13:39 PM »
ReplyReply

The samples are quite impressive.  These small devices are becoming more crazy every month.

I'm glad I still have my terribly heavy and slow 600MP 8x10 camera.
Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 412



WWW
« Reply #31 on: February 28, 2012, 04:30:22 PM »
ReplyReply

I think this "phone" is a truely remarkable milestone for camera technology. Why ?

This is the first real digital camera that takes into acount the specialties of electronic imaging and a combination of optimized optics, chip, onthe fly processor and software for getting new never seen before features. A lossless Zoom without moving parts using a fixed prime lens with high open aperture, a variable filesize and image aspect for various purposes , total lack of Moiree and color noise even with these tiny pixels. Liveview with zoom up to 12x again without a zoom lens.

It is the first camera that I know of which could not do the same thing with a piece of film instead of a chip- think about it ! This is new !

This all in a package with GPS, WLAN, WIFI,Phone,Radio games the usual smartphone stuff and memory cards up to 64  Gigs
for a price of 450 €.

I´d call this a word to be heard.........

Regards
Stefan
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 04:41:02 PM by Stefan.Steib » Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
Brian Hirschfeld
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 779



WWW
« Reply #32 on: February 28, 2012, 05:40:24 PM »
ReplyReply

PetaPixel has some unedited raw files from the camera which you can download. I believe they are only taken at 38mp but I believe they are indicative of the quality of the sensor.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/02/27/untouched-sample-shots-captured-with-nokias-new-41mp-camera-phone/

Direct Link to download: http://cdn.conversations.nokia.com.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Archive2.zip

I downloaded the files and played with them. The first things that hit me was that they all seemed to be slightly out of focus. Then I realized that they were truly untouched, and absolutely no sharpening at been done. After using my normal sharpening settings in Photoshop's unsharp mask, I still wanted a little but more and bumped it up a bit. I found that they were pleasant enough images after this. Of course they are no where near the quality of any real camera, but they certainly aren't to shabby for a camera phone with a tiny sensor.

Of course there is a significant amount of noise in the channels, if you look at them, especially the red channel, as is to be expected. And of course they only show samples from bright daylight. Which of course means the low light performance is absolutely terrible, like any other camera phone. And again, of course it will flop, because it is Nokia, but they certainly have generated some talk about their phone by adding such a high MP count sensor.
Logged

www.brianhirschfeldphotography.com / www.flickr.com/brianhirschfeldphotography
---------------------------------------------------------------
Leica / Nikon / Hasselblad / Mamiya ~ Proud IQ180 owner
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #33 on: February 28, 2012, 08:22:24 PM »
ReplyReply

Most people will not understand what the concept behind the camera is and I assume a comparison between large prints from a D300 and an 808 will show the difference clearly.

Come on, this is dilerious. With all writing in this forum of that dslr now is same level as medium format, surely everyone must now be convinced that 41MP from a camera phone now beats medium format. A pixel is a pixel! No matter if from medium format, drls or camera phone  Wink. Why else would all arguing of dslr vs medium format come from???

The interesting is thus that it leaves the "new" Nikon D800 E in the dust as old technology before it has reached sales...  Grin. The Nokia beats it in pixels, hence must have better image quality!!! Just add some sharpening, done.

I do like my Hy6... I wonder, is there someway I can adapt the Nokia 880 to mount in place of my Leaf back???  Wink


What?!? Not available in the US?  I was so there already!  Wink
Rats! I'll have to stick with my Rollei.

@ Eric,

Dont worry, I can help you. Can pick one up for you in Hong Kong at discounted price since no sales tax in Hong Kong. Do you have any idea how to slap it onto the back of the Hy6? Is duct tape the only means? Will look like crap, but never mind we will get same image quality as our Leaf backs and save weight in bag with money to return to the bank!  Smiley

Best regards,
Anders


« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 08:30:21 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


« Reply #34 on: February 28, 2012, 08:32:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Anders,

You seem to be forgetting the evidence and arguments that there is no clear advantage in per pixel performance of medium format CDDs and the somewhat smaller pixels of modern high end DSLR CMOS sensors, and instead in fact some evidence to the contrary, of the DSLR CMOS pixels Peking better for noise levels and dynamic range. (this still leaves lenses as a strong candidate for medium format superiority). With the Nokia 808, there is no question that its 1.4 micron CMOS pixels are far inferior, pixel to pixel, to those of DSLRs.

In short, yours is a "deliriously" false analogy.
Logged
Anders_HK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1001



WWW
« Reply #35 on: February 28, 2012, 09:22:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Anders,

You seem to be forgetting the evidence and arguments that there is no clear advantage in per pixel performance of medium format CDDs and the somewhat smaller pixels of modern high end DSLR CMOS sensors, and instead in fact some evidence to the contrary, of the DSLR CMOS pixels Peking better for noise levels and dynamic range. (this still leaves lenses as a strong candidate for medium format superiority). With the Nokia 808, there is no question that its 1.4 micron CMOS pixels are far inferior, pixel to pixel, to those of DSLRs.

In short, yours is a "deliriously" false analogy.

No, no no, if those smaller DSLR sensors can equal medium format in image quality, very surely the Nokia 808 can equal medium format too! All needed is some sharpening and done.  Roll Eyes

I will confess that if your claim is not correct of "evidence and arguments" for those smaller "modern high end DSLR CMOS sensors" being able to reach image quality same as current medium format CCD sensors (@ low ISO), then... frankly I will have to admit that my analogy of the Nokia 808 vs medium format may stand out as a sheer joke...  Grin

... but remember, with medium format we speak of low ISO, the Nokia 808 will assumably excel also at high ISO, thus there should be no point to argue compared to the D800/E  Wink

Will you upgrade your DSLR to the Nokia?? Assumably you will need to duct tape only one 808 to each of your lenses, while to maintain my current pixel count I will need duct tape two to my Hy6... Will look tad ugly but never mind. I think still shows the superiority of medium format, since I can get by to tape them to my camera body, hence save $$ compared to getting one Nokia to tape to each lens.
« Last Edit: February 28, 2012, 09:30:02 PM by Anders_HK » Logged
ErikKaffehr
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 6926


WWW
« Reply #36 on: February 28, 2012, 10:06:10 PM »
ReplyReply

Hi,

Just a few observations.

The Nokia is optimized for large apertures, the sample images are at full aperture. The sensor is large to be used in a phone camera, it's more like the ones used in compacts. The lens is fixed focal length and probably cannot be changed.

Having a large number of pixels gives a lot of flexibility. The Nokia paper indicates a lot of subsampling options.

The published images are JPEGs, and quite reasonable at around 40 MP, and also essentially sharp corner to corner. That is very impressive for a pocket size camera. The idea with a phone camera is that it's a device that is always carried, because of the phone functionality.

My impression is that the design taken with the Nokia is quite smart. It will put a lot of pressure on compacts.

I cannot say if it will match Nikon D800/D800E in image quality. It will certainly lack in noise and DR (which are essentially a function of sensor size if technology similar). From what I  have seen there is an amazing tendency for smaller formats to keep up with larger ones. It makes a lot of sense to make the pixels smaller, as long as noise can be kept low.

Finally, what is coming out of the camera depends on lens, sensor but even more importantly subject and photographer.

Best regards
Erik


No, no no, if those smaller DSLR sensors can equal medium format in image quality, very surely the Nokia 808 can equal medium format too! All needed is some sharpening and done.  Roll Eyes

I will confess that if your claim is not correct of "evidence and arguments" for those smaller "modern high end DSLR CMOS sensors" being able to reach image quality same as current medium format CCD sensors (@ low ISO), then... frankly I will have to admit that my analogy of the Nokia 808 vs medium format may stand out as a sheer joke...  Grin

... but remember, with medium format we speak of low ISO, the Nokia 808 will assumably excel also at high ISO, thus there should be no point to argue compared to the D800/E  Wink

Will you upgrade your DSLR to the Nokia?? Assumably you will need to duct tape only one 808 to each of your lenses, while to maintain my current pixel count I will need duct tape two to my Hy6... Will look tad ugly but never mind. I think still shows the superiority of medium format, since I can get by to tape them to my camera body, hence save $$ compared to getting one Nokia to tape to each lens.
Logged

Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 412



WWW
« Reply #37 on: February 29, 2012, 03:02:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Anders

I think it is out of question that current MF and as well a D800 will beat this Nokia hands down in Image quality.
But it is a landmark of what technology can achieve and what smart engineering does squeeze out of such a tiny pixel.
Do you remember the discussion when the first Hybrid Prius came out ?
People were laughing and complaining how ugly he was  and the consumption of a Diesel would be better etc.pp.
Today even Mercedes and BMW offer Hybrids , Peugot has launched a DieselHybrid now.

Can you imagine what this technology will do on a Medium format chip ? !!!
Or even more likely - on a fullformat 24x36 chip in a mirrorless Sony Nex..... whatever maybe 10 ? Remember Zeiss and Sony cooperate and Sony sells the chip to Nokia.
Now think about it and then tell me this is all nonsense.......

Regards
Stefan
« Last Edit: February 29, 2012, 03:09:00 AM by Stefan.Steib » Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5086


« Reply #38 on: February 29, 2012, 09:02:33 AM »
ReplyReply

Zeiss and Sony cooperate and Sony sells the chip to Nokia.
Nokia has identified Toshiba as its technology partner, not Sony. And Toshiba could be open to supplying various camera makers who are open to out-sourcing sensors, such as Olympus and Nikon and Pentax.

And maybe future Toshiba tablets will have killer cameras! Just add tripod and black cloth for the full view camera experience.
Logged
Stefan.Steib
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 412



WWW
« Reply #39 on: February 29, 2012, 11:20:01 AM »
ReplyReply

There is a video with one of the system devellopers Damian Dinning - he tells some things that are not in the docs, especially showing of the camera menues.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZheH4PjEows

Woa......if this is a so called bad operating system (Symbian), at least the camera partlooks smooth and very logical to me (I own an iPhone 4, but this doesn´t even come close).

There is another video- a Nokia guy speaking about the lowlight capabilities and more

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=f23fSxjRiy4

The phone has a Coprocessor /numbercruncher for the image handling supporting the CPU- this was said to be made by Toshiba. If they also do the 41Mpix sensor - I don´t know.

regards
Stefan

Logged

Because Photography is more than Technology and "as we have done this all the time"
www.hartblei.de     www.hcam.de    www.spectralize.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad