Re: Looks like cellphones are impacting all cameras

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Feb 14, 2013.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    In article <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >In article <71e57619-6ed1-446d-b567-0069fd7f8c49
    >@e11g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...
    >> http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-final-three-results.html

    >
    >To me this is a sign that the technology is maturing and the
    >technological race is slowing down.


    I just hope that the cell phones don't end up killing the compact
    superzooms. Some of them are nice cameras.

    --
    Please reply to: | "We establish no religion in this country, we
    pciszek at panix dot com | command no worship, we mandate no belief, nor
    Autoreply is disabled | will we ever. Church and state are, and must
    | remain, separate." --Ronald Reagan, 10/26/1984
    Paul Ciszek, Feb 14, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Ciszek

    Trevor Guest

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Whilst the resolution of phone cameras may be high (12Mp in mine and 41Mp
    > in the Nokia 808 Pureview (if you can get one)) the size limitations
    > effectively rule out incorporating an optical zoom, although with the 808
    > you can electronically zoom quite a lot and still retain ample (full HD)
    > resolution.


    Which would only be the case IF the camera were capable of *true* 41MP
    resolution images.


    >OTOH this phone has quite a bulge for the optics.


    Right, and still wont get you anywhere near true 41MP performance. Sensors
    are a lot easier to make at that resolution now than cheap lenses.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 15, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Paul Ciszek

    Whisky-dave Guest

    On Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:00:15 PM UTC, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    > In article <>,
    >
    > Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <71e57619-6ed1-446d-b567-0069fd7f8c49

    >
    > >@e11g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...

    >
    > >> http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-final-three-results.html

    >
    > >

    >
    > >To me this is a sign that the technology is maturing and the

    >
    > >technological race is slowing down.

    >
    >
    >
    > I just hope that the cell phones don't end up killing the compact
    >
    > superzooms. Some of them are nice cameras.
    >


    It's about time camera manufacuters realsed the usefulness of phones and come up with a good camera that has very basic phone use too, that way people that are more interested in the camera than the phone might buy a camerathat can phone and email pictures. Haven't samsung done something like this.
    It could even be a separeate plug-in or wireless device sold as a camera accessory, I'd go for one given the chance.
    Whisky-dave, Feb 15, 2013
    #3
  4. Whisky-dave <> wrote:
    > On Thursday, February 14, 2013 8:00:15 PM UTC, Paul Ciszek wrote:
    >> In article <>,
    >>
    >> Alfred Molon <> wrote:
    >>
    >> >In article <71e57619-6ed1-446d-b567-0069fd7f8c49

    >>
    >> >@e11g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>, RichA says...

    >>
    >> >> http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-final-three-results.html

    >>
    >> >

    >>
    >> >To me this is a sign that the technology is maturing and the

    >>
    >> >technological race is slowing down.

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> I just hope that the cell phones don't end up killing the compact
    >>
    >> superzooms. Some of them are nice cameras.
    >>


    > It's about time camera manufacuters realsed the usefulness of phones and come up with a good camera that has very basic phone use too, that way people that are more interested in the camera than the phone might buy a camera that can phone and email pictures. Haven't samsung done something like this.
    > It could even be a separeate plug-in or wireless device sold as a camera accessory, I'd go for one given the chance.


    Then someone could ring me up on my camera while I was trying to take a
    photograph with my phone.

    Stop the world! I want to get off!

    --
    Chris Malcolm
    Chris Malcolm, Feb 17, 2013
    #4
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Trevor Guest

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have sent the odd full size (4kx3k) image from my N8 by MMS - they
    > compress to between 1 - 2 Mb depending on content and frequently by email.
    > OTOH this would lead to a 4-5Mb image from a Pureview 808, however the
    > default mode is 5Mp (~0.5Mb) with the pixels averaged to further reduce
    > noise.


    What rubbish, when you use large compression rates with jpeg, the block size
    ends up far bigger than the pixel size, so the *effective* pixel size is
    reduced way down as well, regardless of what you start with. Most people
    just don't understand the physics, and are happy to quote stupid figures,
    especially manufacturers who have a vested interest in promoting
    misinformation.
    What is the maximum file size for the camera? And what is the noise like
    *IF* you want, and can ever achieve, a *true* 35Mp resolution? I certainly
    have my doubts, but couldn't be bothered downloading the picture you linked
    to, since I'm certainly not in the market for such a camera/phone.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 19, 2013
    #5
  6. Paul Ciszek

    Trevor Guest

    "Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <kfurvp$jdc$>, Trevor says...
    >> What is the maximum file size for the camera? And what is the noise like
    >> *IF* you want, and can ever achieve, a *true* 35Mp resolution? I
    >> certainly
    >> have my doubts, but couldn't be bothered downloading the picture you
    >> linked
    >> to, since I'm certainly not in the market for such a camera/phone.

    >
    > It was all on the pages he linked to. You could see (downsized) samples
    > and crops enlarged to 100%. Noise and sharpness levels looked reasonably
    > good.


    Fine, I guess they'll find some buyers then, but somehow I still doubt there
    will be too many trading in their newer DSLR's and lenses on one. I
    certainly won't be :)

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 20, 2013
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek

    Trevor Guest

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> I have sent the odd full size (4kx3k) image from my N8 by MMS - they
    >>> compress to between 1 - 2 Mb depending on content and frequently by
    >>> email. OTOH this would lead to a 4-5Mb image from a Pureview 808,
    >>> however the default mode is 5Mp (~0.5Mb) with the pixels averaged to
    >>> further reduce noise.

    >>
    >> What rubbish, when you use large compression rates with jpeg, the block
    >> size ends up far bigger than the pixel size, so the *effective* pixel
    >> size is reduced way down as well, regardless of what you start with. Most
    >> people just don't understand the physics, and are happy to quote stupid
    >> figures, especially manufacturers who have a vested interest in promoting
    >> misinformation.

    >
    > When you use a LARGE compression rate of course the image quality will
    > suffer.


    Exactly.


    > If you use a modest compression rate then the image quality reduction will
    > be barely noticable as unlike zip and lharc it compresses in two
    > dimensions.
    >
    > As a simple experiment I took the Hubble Extreme Deep Field image for
    > which I happen to have the BMP, which is 14M5b. Compressed [losslessly]
    > with zip if is ~7M8b, compressed with Jpeg it is 2M4b and virtually
    > indistinguishable.


    "Virtually" is rather subjective, and the compression rates used in mobile
    phone pics are mostly higher in any case. Only specific data for the
    "camera" under discussion has any real relevence.


    >> What is the maximum file size for the camera? And what is the noise like
    >> *IF* you want, and can ever achieve, a *true* 35Mp resolution? I
    >> certainly have my doubts, but couldn't be bothered downloading the
    >> picture you linked to, since I'm certainly not in the market for such a
    >> camera/phone.

    >
    > Sour grapes then...


    Hardly, I'd be first to line up *IF* it could actually outperform any of my
    current camera's for my purposes. But then I don't take pictures with mobile
    phones. I care not what others choose to do. But claims that mobile phones
    would make all other camera's obsolete have been doing the rounds for years,
    while camera sales seem to be doing just fine. Of course the crappiest of
    compact camera's are pretty much obsolete, and good riddance AFAIC. I don't
    mourn the loss of 110 camera's either :)

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 21, 2013
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Trevor Guest

    "R. Mark Clayton" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >>> When you use a LARGE compression rate of course the image quality will
    >>> suffer.

    >>
    >> Exactly.

    >
    > By large I mean > 10


    And will suffer somewhat less for lower rates. It's not all or nothing.


    >>
    >>> If you use a modest compression rate then the image quality reduction
    >>> will be barely noticable as unlike zip and lharc it compresses in two
    >>> dimensions.
    >>>
    >>> As a simple experiment I took the Hubble Extreme Deep Field image for
    >>> which I happen to have the BMP, which is 14M5b. Compressed [losslessly]
    >>> with zip if is ~7M8b, compressed with Jpeg it is 2M4b and virtually
    >>> indistinguishable.

    >>
    >> "Virtually" is rather subjective, and the compression rates used in
    >> mobile phone pics are mostly higher in any case. Only specific data for
    >> the "camera" under discussion has any real relevence.

    >
    > Jpeg is an algorithm. Both compressions were done on a PC. If you
    > compress in one dimension then you can reduce to approx 50% (withou any
    > loss at all). If you compress in two dimensions (which suits images where
    > adjacent pixels tend to be the same) then compression of the 80% or so
    > seen above with essentially no loss is perfectly feasible.


    Yes, *IF* the effective number of pixels required is already reduced by the
    image material being somewhat uniform, then it's quite feasable. Something
    for which you probably didn't need 35Mp to start with though.
    IF you actually want an effective 35Mp of *real* resolution, you need less
    compression as I stated all along.



    >>>> What is the maximum file size for the camera? And what is the noise
    >>>> like *IF* you want, and can ever achieve, a *true* 35Mp resolution? I
    >>>> certainly have my doubts, but couldn't be bothered downloading the
    >>>> picture you linked to, since I'm certainly not in the market for such a
    >>>> camera/phone.
    >>>
    >>> Sour grapes then...

    >>
    >> Hardly, I'd be first to line up *IF* it could actually outperform any of
    >> my current camera's for my purposes. But then I don't take pictures with
    >> mobile phones. I care not what others choose to do. But claims that
    >> mobile phones would make all other camera's obsolete have been doing the
    >> rounds for years, while camera sales seem to be doing just fine.

    >
    > Really - why this thread then - er could it be Jessops etc. have gone out
    > of business.


    When Canon and Nikon go out of business, let me know. Kodak didn't keep up
    with the times either, so what?



    >> Of course the crappiest of compact camera's are pretty much obsolete,
    >> and good riddance AFAIC. I don't mourn the loss of 110 camera's either
    >> :)

    >
    > Well the N8 produces images similar to35mm film. Obviously most purpose
    > built cameras have optical zoom and phones don't, but for routine snapping
    > they are just fine.


    No argument, most people I know don't even own a DSLR. Even less owned a
    film one.


    > I used mine to snap a would be burglar last night and it only needed
    > minimal enhancement (to compensate for the weak flash) to get a
    > recognisable image.


    Good for you. Lucky you are not trying to sell it for a living though.

    Trevor.
    Trevor, Feb 23, 2013
    #8
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    891
    gunner
    Feb 11, 2007
  2. Kevin John Panzke
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    589
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Apr 18, 2006
  3. Clint Kent
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,323
    Aardvark
    Apr 21, 2007
  4. Replies:
    6
    Views:
    501
    Herbert John \Jackie\ Gleason
    Oct 18, 2007
  5. Paul Ciszek

    Re: Looks like cellphones are impacting all cameras

    Paul Ciszek, Feb 13, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    185
    PeterN
    Feb 15, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page