HK

the place for sore tacos
It is currently Fri Nov 24, 2017 2:57 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:01 am 
Offline
lil' hucker
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:21 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: NY
As some of you may know or if not, Nokia just released a cell phone that can take 41-megapixel photos. It's a Nokia :lol: so you know it's trustworthy.

What are your thoughts on this?

http://petapixel.com/2012/02/27/nokia-u ... era-phone/


Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:09 am 
Offline
pussy
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:23 am
Posts: 3821
The phone above and in your link is an old Nokia running Symbian. Stay away, it is crap.
The new Nokia with a 41MPix camera is the Lumia 1020 with Windows Phone OS. My colleague has one. It is huge and freaking heavy. I'd say stay way, again.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 2:16 am 
Offline
lil' hucker
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:21 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: NY
Well, it's a start of things to come at least. Less stuff to carry as well. 41MP is impressive to say the least, fitting all that in a phone too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 3:37 am 
Offline
yappin' kitty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:39 am
Posts: 676
did anyone really WANT a 41 mp camera phone? i'd settle for 10mp with decent optics.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 4:17 am 
Offline
yappin' kitty
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 2:44 am
Posts: 881
Location: Rochester, MN
Unless you are printing billboards, anything over about 15mb is a waste. The newer sensors with ISOs over 200k are coming out now. Those suckers are almost turning darkness into light. That is where it is at.

As for this phone, too big. 41mp is just an excuse to get chatter for a dying company.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 9:16 am 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
41MP is impossible to resolve given the focal lengths and sensor size constrictions in a phone. Even one as ridiculously large (for a phone) as this one.

Don't believe me? Guess what... the super-high-end DSLRs are topping out around 35-36 megapixels. Because any more than that is just a waste of disk space and write time (and can actually degrade picture quality by causing individual pixels next to each other to under-expose compared to others, dependent on wavelength of the light).


Last edited by axisofoil on Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 11:27 am 
Offline
bad kitty!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 2343
You sure have a lot of niche knowledge Axis!


Magura :)

_________________
DIY all the way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 6:13 pm 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
I think you have your phrasing a bit off. I have a lot of time on my hands, and understand at least basic levels of most types of engineering and sciences.

Optical resolutions are part of basic astrophysics. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:21 pm 
Offline
revolting kitty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 30, 2013 4:17 am
Posts: 1319
Let me get this straight. Nokia made a Windows phone with a 41MPix camera. That's the trifecta of don't want.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 8:22 pm 
Offline
friendly kitty
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 304
My step-daughter used to make chips for the Nokia line (TI fabrication line) a few years ago ... Next time I talk to her, I'll ask about the quality of this build, and if she knows who made the CCD.

Axis,
41MP is nothing more than CCD size ... It's possible in a small package, and if Nokia did it, the World will be better off for it, as lower resolutions will eventually see a reduced price..

_________________
Nothing to see here, move along. Why are you so curious, comrade? Should we open a file on you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:44 pm 
Offline
lil' hucker
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 9:21 pm
Posts: 2314
Location: NY
Okay... tough crowd. Iphone users?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Aug 25, 2013 10:50 pm 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
BikeAbuser wrote:
My step-daughter used to make chips for the Nokia line (TI fabrication line) a few years ago ... Next time I talk to her, I'll ask about the quality of this build, and if she knows who made the CCD.

Axis,
41MP is nothing more than CCD size ... It's possible in a small package, and if Nokia did it, the World will be better off for it, as lower resolutions will eventually see a reduced price..


Not if your CCD Pixel Pitch is smaller than the amplitudes of the light waves you are attempting to resolve (remember how CCD's work... gotta catch them light particles so that they can be counted); with the added bonus that your optics won't be near perfect, so you'll have multi-axial light paths approaching the CCD.

Now, that's just about the applicability of that particular CCD to the system in question.

The next part, is whether or not you can physically resolve 41MP worth of light through optics that small (that is, to actually record 41 million DISTINCT color signatures). The answer is: no. The math is kinda weird... but you're welcome to learn it and prove me wrong (or right).


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:42 am 
Offline
pussy
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:23 am
Posts: 3821
IFAIK, they do not try to resolve 41MP. They downsample to sub-10MPix to eliminate noise and demosaicing artefacts and boost micro contrast w/o too many sharpening artefacts. The pics look good but the phones attached to the cameras are just bad.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 12:56 am 
Offline
yappin' kitty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:39 am
Posts: 676
HUTCH wrote:
Okay... tough crowd. Iphone users?
nah, just a guy who knows that the main limitation of most cameraphones is the cleanliness of the lens.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 3:09 am 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
Sti wrote:
IFAIK, they do not try to resolve 41MP. They downsample to sub-10MPix to eliminate noise and demosaicing artefacts and boost micro contrast w/o too many sharpening artefacts. The pics look good but the phones attached to the cameras are just bad.


So... they are effectively doing the same thing as if they had used a 10ish MP CCD then? Except they're using CPU power to do it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:17 am 
Offline
ridin' dirty kitty!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:00 pm
Posts: 921
i really have little faith in any camera on any phone on any given day. like bill said, the cleanliness of the lens is the primary order of importance, and depending on where you keep your phone stashed and how you handle it, whether your hands are clean or not, etc etc etc.

my galaxy s3 takes fine enough pics that are HD on my 24" monitor, and resolve very nicely in HD on my 40" 1080 tv. but i never know when i snap the pic if everything is in perfect order, and if im out on a ride snapping pics i am not spending an inordinate amount of time to try and find something clean and dry to wipe the lens.

even though im planning on getting the new garmin camera, i still want to find a decent point and shoot that i can pocket when i ride. just dont trust the phone all the time, and it takes several seconds to go into shooting mode- seconds that count when its a wildlife pic i want to grab, or a quick action shot.

_________________
http://about.me/bigterry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 5:55 am 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
I've always had good luck with the sony cybershot and nikon coolpix series of cameras for a point-and-shoot. Small, light, good battery life and pretty good picture quality.

Nothing outstanding about either of them... but they do tend to work fairly well. You're not going to get that DSLR effect without a dslr... but the point and shoots have come a long way in the past few years.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 4:38 pm 
Offline
ridin' dirty kitty!
User avatar

Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2013 6:00 pm
Posts: 921
yeah im not interested in a dslr or anything that purports to have a slew of dslr-like features. im not a photographer, wouldnt know how to use em all anyhow. just wanted something reliable and easy to use, something that is ready to grab a decent pic on a moments notice. somewhat weatherproof would be nice too, not so much for rain but for sweat and dust.

_________________
http://about.me/bigterry


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Aug 26, 2013 6:43 pm 
Offline
friendly kitty
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 304
Agreeing ... If you really want to take pictures, make sure the lens is clean, and ... Don't use a phone if you expect to get any level of real quality.

Coolpix is a pretty good point & shoot, and you'll never find it's quality in a phone, but might someday find a camera that can make phone calls.

_________________
Nothing to see here, move along. Why are you so curious, comrade? Should we open a file on you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 4:35 pm 
Offline
fat kitty!
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 10, 2013 10:08 pm
Posts: 108
Bill in Houston wrote:
nah, just a guy who knows that the main limitation of most cameraphones is the cleanliness of the lens.

That and the person operating the camera.

A local photographer forum has a section named "Your best pic taken with a camera phone" and it's pretty amazing what those guys and gals manage to capture with pretty crappy technology. At the same time, I manage to get almost everything I shoot with my pretty fancy dslr to look bland and boring.. :lol:

Technology is nice and all, but at the end of the day it's all about a clean lens and a good eye for the motif.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Aug 27, 2013 5:14 pm 
Offline
pussy
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:23 am
Posts: 3821
A good cellphone camera does make a difference. I loved the camera in my hated Nokia N8.

Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 8:02 am 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
Sandrenseren wrote:
Bill in Houston wrote:
nah, just a guy who knows that the main limitation of most cameraphones is the cleanliness of the lens.

That and the person operating the camera.

A local photographer forum has a section named "Your best pic taken with a camera phone" and it's pretty amazing what those guys and gals manage to capture with pretty crappy technology. At the same time, I manage to get almost everything I shoot with my pretty fancy dslr to look bland and boring.. :lol:

Technology is nice and all, but at the end of the day it's all about a clean lens and a good eye for the motif.



The old adage "Tis a poor craftsman that blames his tools" usually holds true.

Though, a poor craftsman with really nice tools and significant training can emulate an "ok" craftsman in most trades.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:16 am 
Offline
bad kitty!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 2343
axisofoil wrote:

The old adage "Tis a poor craftsman that blames his tools" usually holds true.

Though, a poor craftsman with really nice tools and significant training can emulate an "ok" craftsman in most trades.


Nope, not doesn't hold true for photographing. :D

I have tried the above approach, and in fact the better the camera, the worse the result.
Now I've got a $200 point and shoot camera, and I've never made better photos.


Magura :)

_________________
DIY all the way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 9:26 am 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
Yeah... that's my experience too. Hence why I said "most trades". I guess I should have expanded to explain my alcohol-ridden attempt to explain that I don't think photography is one of those trades.

I blame Maker's 46 for not making as good of a whiskey sour as Maker's Mark does.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 12:57 pm 
Offline
friendly kitty
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 304
Excessive drinking = Better pictures, until sober.

_________________
Nothing to see here, move along. Why are you so curious, comrade? Should we open a file on you?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:23 pm 
Offline
pussy
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:23 am
Posts: 3821
axisofoil wrote:
Though, a poor craftsman with really nice tools and significant training can emulate an "ok" craftsman in most trades.


I always thought that significant training, practice and competent tools is what makes a craftsman a craftsman. There is a huge difference between a craftsman and an artist though. IMHO, becoming a craftsman in photography is not hard, you just need to spend your time with it to see what works how. To become an artist, you need to have a gift, no amount of time, training of $ will get you that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 1:39 pm 
Offline
bad kitty!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 15, 2013 11:22 am
Posts: 2343
Sti wrote:
IMHO, becoming a craftsman in photography is not hard, you just need to spend your time with it to see what works how. To become an artist, you need to have a gift, no amount of time, training of $ will get you that.


A friend of mine is one of the hotshots in the photo business.
He claims quite contrary that it is indeed a matter of knowledge and practice.
In fact he offered to teach me. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find the time to take him up on that offer, as he lives in California.

As with everything else, naturally it takes some creativity as well.


Magura :)

_________________
DIY all the way


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Aug 28, 2013 5:29 pm 
Offline
friendly kitty

Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2013 10:19 pm
Posts: 463
I think in all trades (sober now)... there's a certain natural competence that must be met first, regardless of how much you want it or want to train to do it.

To say that a true craftsman is not an artist is an insult to his trade.

For example: I will never be a good painter, nor a figure skater. I'm too much of a "perfectionist" for painting, and I'm built too similar to a retired lumberjack to be a good figure skater. Some people are good at these things, however.

I could be an excellent manual machinist, given the time and experience necessary to hone my natural mechanical aptitude in that direction. Many people could not, as they just don't 'get it'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:04 am 
Offline
yappin' kitty
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jan 23, 2013 1:39 am
Posts: 676
yeah, i think you need a certain amount of talent, but most people could develop a good enough facsimile if they thought about what makes a good photo, and took lots of their own photos.

sti, that is amazing for a cameraphone.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Aug 29, 2013 3:09 pm 
Offline
friendly kitty
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2013 12:00 am
Posts: 304
I'm reminded of the phrase ... A tool is only as good as it's user.

_________________
Nothing to see here, move along. Why are you so curious, comrade? Should we open a file on you?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 33 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group
Installed by Installatron