This is just another stupid rant from Steve Litchfield the Nokia fanboy. He's only published this stupid post to defend his beloved Nokia who are no longer at the top of the hill in terms of megapixels AND picture quality (ermm, and also Xenon flash, video recording - you get my point).
It's quite obvious that a fanboy is defending his beloved company when he raises a silly point like:
"A 12 megapixel photo will take longer to save to card, meaning longer shot-to-shot times, and longer to load up later on, when browsing through your phone's photo gallery."
If you hadn't noticed, everyone apart from Nokia is using the newest and most powerful processors and fast internal flash memory in their new phones, which renders the above 'point' useless.
Nice try, but try harder next time, Nokia fanboy.
maartenmk wrote:Not exactly a cry in the wilderness after all, as it seems I am about the only one to disagree here;
People have been saying the extra megapixels on phone cameras don't help , ever since two/three MP cameras started to appear, perhaps sooner. The line of what's considered useful just seems to shift.
And looking at the best camera phones out there at the moment, there is definitely a correlation between quality and MPs. Pixon and SE Satio, each at 12 MP, seem to be the best, closely followed by I8910 and N86, at 8 MP. This may have nothing to do with the amount of megapixels, but I don't have any real reason to think that, except for theories about noise levels and interference.
There certainly is too much noise in camera phone pictures overall. But zooming to 100%, the amount of noise on the I8910 doesn't seem to be any higher than on my N82, on the contrary.Maybe it only helps a few percent in the quality. But I'd take them. The file size isn't really that much of an issue with 16 or 32 GB storage. Camera speed is, that's true. But you always have the option of switching to 3 or 5MP if needed.
Nope. This debate has already been fought and won in the world of compact digital cameras. It's an acknowledged situation that small sensors + high MP = poor quality. The case in point being Fuji where it is accepted that quality doesn't match that of lower MP 3 years ago. Canon G9 to G10, read the reviews of these cameras on expert sites like dpreview.com. It's not a theory, it's fact and it's not a new fact, it's years old.
maartenmk wrote:N
There certainly is too much noise in camera phone pictures overall. But zooming to 100%, the amount of noise on the I8910 doesn't seem to be any higher than on my N82, on the contrary.
.
It's not the amount of noise in the images (although it gets far worse in low light). It's already been explained that the problem is the amount of processing that has to be performed by the DSP in the camera to reduce the noise. The more noise that has to be processed out, the more detail that is lost. Have 4000 x 3000 pixels of junk if you want.
IAmUnregistered wrote:This is just another stupid rant from Steve Litchfield the Nokia fanboy. He's only published this stupid post to defend his beloved Nokia who are no longer at the top of the hill in terms of megapixels AND picture quality (ermm, and also Xenon flash, video recording - you get my point).It's quite obvious that a fanboy is defending his beloved company when he raises a silly point like:
"A 12 megapixel photo will take longer to save to card, meaning longer shot-to-shot times, and longer to load up later on, when browsing through your phone's photo gallery."
If you hadn't noticed, everyone apart from Nokia is using the newest and most powerful processors and fast internal flash memory in their new phones, which renders the above 'point' useless.
Nice try, but try harder next time, Nokia fanboy.
Looks like the crazies are still loose!
IAmUnregistered wrote:This is just another stupid rant from Steve Litchfield the Nokia fanboy. He's only published this stupid post to defend his beloved Nokia who are no longer at the top of the hill in terms of megapixels AND picture quality (ermm, and also Xenon flash, video recording - you get my point).It's quite obvious that a fanboy is defending his beloved company when he raises a silly point like:
"A 12 megapixel photo will take longer to save to card, meaning longer shot-to-shot times, and longer to load up later on, when browsing through your phone's photo gallery."
If you hadn't noticed, everyone apart from Nokia is using the newest and most powerful processors and fast internal flash memory in their new phones, which renders the above 'point' useless.
Nice try, but try harder next time, Nokia fanboy.
Usually these posts are from Fanboys themselves, how sad.
to be honest I do not feel like cry.
I am happy and I do enjoy such news because this means progress and we go further.
as long as many phone producers including nokia, sony or LG anounced this 12 megapixel
barrier being broken, why not to enjoy it?
We will be able to record HD videos soon on our mobiles.
Is this not a good news.
What I do not understand why the majority of users get cons and against 12 Mega pixel camera phones.
just because we do not own such a phone does not mean it is not good.
or, that phone might not be good as camera, but for shure we will get the most benefits of this technology soon....
TheSpecialBoy wrote:to be honest I do not feel like cry.I am happy and I do enjoy such news because this means progress and we go further.
as long as many phone producers including nokia, sony or LG anounced this 12 megapixel
barrier being broken, why not to enjoy it?
We will be able to record HD videos soon on our mobiles.
Is this not a good news.
What I do not understand why the majority of users get cons and against 12 Mega pixel camera phones.
just because we do not own such a phone does not mean it is not good.
or, that phone might not be good as camera, but for shure we will get the most benefits of this technology soon....
This is why the manufacturers can get away with it. Gullible consumers.
To me, the ones who are truly deserving of the 'ignorant' label are those who are passing judgement on the Pixon12 purely on the fact that is a 12MPx, without having had the chance to see what's capable of in a review.
So educate yourself, head to GSM Arena which did an exhaustive review of the Pixon12, testing it again your champion the mighty N86. Here's a preview: the Pixon12 wipes the floor with the N86 in all conditions, including low-light. While there, take a look at the flash tests too; I find them... illuminating.
Here is the link to the tests performed by GSM Arena.
Unregistered wrote:It's not the amount of noise in the images (although it gets far worse in low light). It's already been explained that the problem is the amount of processing that has to be performed by the DSP in the camera to reduce the noise. The more noise that has to be processed out, the more detail that is lost. Have 4000 x 3000 pixels of junk if you want.
Well it may have been already explained, but how do you explain that the low light performance of the Pixon12 is actually quite good, even without flash? And it clearly uses far less noise reduction than the N86.
Unregistered wrote:It's not a theory, it's fact and it's not a new fact, it's years old.
Outdated then maybe? Again, the 12MP cameraphones produce the best results. Maybe this is despite the high MP count, but why would I think that? Because it used to be like that, for some dedicated cameras?
Well, if the 3mpix camphone is enough for you the 12mpix can surely set it to shoot 3mpix picture on the camera setting... you just makin this simple thing so complicated.. ofcourse 12mpix camphone as compared 3mpix camphone like N93 has a huge gap in image quality. . . . and i em so stupid to explain that just like you all. . ,have a great stupid nonsense conversation. . .
maartenmk wrote:Well it may have been already explained, but how do you explain that the low light performance of the Pixon12 is actually quite good, even without flash? And it clearly uses far less noise reduction than the N86.
How much noise reduction is used in the N86 and in the Pixon?
maartenmk wrote:
Outdated then maybe? Again, the 12MP cameraphones produce the best results. Maybe this is despite the high MP count, but why would I think that? Because it used to be like that, for some dedicated cameras?
As outdated as tomorrow. Canon are replacing their flagship compact the Powershot G10 with the Powershot G11. They have have gone down in MP, from 14.7MP on the old G10, to 10MP on the new G11. As a result they have got better low light and high ISO performance, less noise and better image quality. They were actually led by the nose by Panasonic/Leica who had already sussed this out:
"Canon G11 Defining Characteristics
In a clear slap in the face of the megapixel wars, Canon surprisingly (if not shockingly) downshifts the G11 from the 15mp of the G10 to 10mp, just like the Canon S90."
Savvy camera buyers are starting to bring some sense to he market. The tiny sensor in phones would, without a shadow of a doubt, benefit from a more conservative approach to raw resolution.
Here is the engadget take:
[QUOTE="Engadget"
So here�s the new PowerShot G11 is a prosumer camera� Canon seems to be backing out of the megapixel race with this camera since they probably know photo enthusiasts aren�t easily fooled by insane, ever-increasing megapixel counts (usually accompanied by an increase in noise, decrease in burst speed and little to no �real� resolution advantage). Canon has opted to fit the new G11 with a 10 megapixel sensor (versus 2008�s G10 14.7 megapixel CCD), which will hopefully produce better images.
[/QUOTE]
http://dpinterface.com/camera-news/canon-powershot-g11/
If a new phone comes out and everyone proclaims the camera image quality, it isn't necessarily the MegaPixels that will be the reason.
The ignorance is not the quality the pixon pictures, they might be good, but the idea that any quality is due to Megapixels is the ignorant view.
On the new Canon, here's another:
Showing Megapixel Restraint
The G11 has less megapixels on its sensor than its predecessor, the G10. The series went from 14.7MP down to 10MP, therefore satisfying the needs of photographers who wanted cleaner images. Further, with the coupling of the DIGIC 4 engine there should be less of a problem with the processing of the image noise in the your photos. One poster in the DPReview forums (via 1001 Noisy Cameras) made a connection that there may be a Sony sensor of some sort inside the body of this little digicam.This move is one that was appreciated by Nikonians when Nikon released cameras like the D300, D300s, D700 and the D3. They kept the resolution to a decent sized while ensuring that image quality remained paramount. Canon is apparently taking the same route with some of their cameras and we wonder if we will see this with the upcoming/rumored 60D and 7D.
Clearly the law of diminishing returns applies to camera sensors, in a big way. Leave the high MP to the thickies and dimwits and concentrate on the important stuff with the people who know what they are doing.
With that weight of evidence. Case dismissed. The court finds in favour of a lower MP/Sensor size ratio.
http://www.photographybay.com/2009/08/20/the-rave-about-the-canon-powershot-g11/
Unregistered wrote:Well, if the 3mpix camphone is enough for you the 12mpix can surely set it to shoot 3mpix picture on the camera setting... you just makin this simple thing so complicated.. ofcourse 12mpix camphone as compared 3mpix camphone like N93 has a huge gap in image quality. . . . and i em so stupid to explain that just like you all. . ,have a great stupid nonsense conversation. . .
You look stupid for your silly post and for your appalling literacy.
Just curious...
Let's say Nokia brings out an 'N86 12MP' tomorrow (with all the quality optics the 8MP has).
Wouldn't anyone be crying? Would anyone seriously say 'ummmm no, it's just too much, give me the 8MP please?'
😉
morpheus2702 wrote:Just curious...Let's say Nokia brings out an 'N86 12MP' tomorrow (with all the quality optics the 8MP has).
Wouldn't anyone be crying? Would anyone seriously say 'ummmm no, it's just too much, give me the 8MP please?'
😉
I don't see any relevance in that. The vast majority of buyers are suckers and will lap it up, that's precisely why the manufacturers do it. But.....more MegaPixels does not necessarily a good picture make. Regardless of manufacturer. The MegaPixel race has already been debunked in the digital camera world for savvy people. AAS has offered this article as a heads up for phone camera users, but it seems most are not yet ready for the truth, but instead prefer the simplistic formula.
Somebody posted that it would be good to have a set of standard tests that can objectively grade the image quality in a variety of conditions from a production sample unit. That would focus the manufacturers on image quality instead of just numbers.
Unregistered wrote:I don't see any relevance in that. The vast majority of buyers are suckers and will lap it up, that's precisely why the manufacturers do it. But.....more MegaPixels does not necessarily a good picture make. Regardless of manufacturer. The MegaPixel race has already been debunked in the digital camera world for savvy people. AAS has offered this article as a heads up for phone camera users, but it seems most are not yet ready for the truth, but instead prefer the simplistic formula.Somebody posted that it would be good to have a set of standard tests that can objectively grade the image quality in a variety of conditions from a production sample unit. That would focus the manufacturers on image quality instead of just numbers.
OK as a 'savvy person', where the 'N86 12MP' produced a demonstratively better image than the N86 8MP in all conditions, you would choose the 8MP?
morpheus2702 wrote:OK as a 'savvy person', where the 'N86 12MP' produced a demonstratively better image than the N86 8MP in all conditions, you would choose the 8MP?
If the 12MP were the same price or better then I would choose the camera with the better image quality.
Not a very useful hypotheses though, because the point of the whole discussion is whether higher MP necessarily produces better images or not. Canon and Nikon (who know a thing or two about photography) have decided that a lower MP produces better images - with current sensor technology for the mass market. However the consumer finds it easier to go by a simple number, therefore driving the market into a technological brick wall.
I think even the luddites amongst us really do get that raw Megapixels do not a great image make (and don't need a sermon on the Mount about what the dedicated camera companies are doing). However, thank you for highlighting the point of the discussion - I may have missed it otherwise.
Hence why I've underscored in my question that the hypothetical 'N86 12MP' phone produces an all-round better image than an a N86 8MP in all conditions. Maybe I should have added too that the 'N86 12MP' does cost exactly the same as the N86 8MP. 😊
An excerpt from Steve's original 'camera nitty gritty' mentioned:
Going up to 8mp, in the case of the Samsung i8510, the pixel numbers start to get silly - 3264 by 2448 indeed! That's just crazy, with heading towards two orders of magnitude more pixels than the first phone cameras (VGA). And no, you don't need all of them. And you have to find space on your memory card for the larger 2 to 3MB image files.
All of which sounds like I'm dismissing the new generation of 8mp camera-equipped super-phones. Not at all, more can be better - just not always. And, like I say, you really don't need 8mp.
I've not heard much on AAS to say that you don't really need the N86 8MP? And ultimately, has anyone actually looked at the images the Pixon 12 produces?
morpheus2702 wrote:(and don't need a sermon on the Mount about what the dedicated camera companies are doing.
No, you don't need to know what the leading camera makers are doing you need that information dismissed or hidden because it is an inconvenient truth that blows away the argument for more MegaPixels. It's the elephant in the corner:
again wrote:
Showing Megapixel Restraint
The G11 has less megapixels on its sensor than its predecessor, the G10. The series went from 14.7MP down to 10MP, therefore satisfying the needs of photographers who wanted cleaner images. Further, with the coupling of the DIGIC 4 engine there should be less of a problem with the processing of the image noise in the your photos. One poster in the DPReview forums (via 1001 Noisy Cameras) made a connection that there may be a Sony sensor of some sort inside the body of this little digicam.This move is one that was appreciated by Nikonians when Nikon released cameras like the D300, D300s, D700 and the D3. They kept the resolution to a decent sized while ensuring that image quality remained paramount. Canon is apparently taking the same route with some of their cameras and we wonder if we will see this with the upcoming/rumored 60D and 7D.
Don't need a sermon? Or in denial? "The series went from 14.7MP down to 10MP, therefore satisfying the needs of photographers who wanted cleaner images."
http://www.photographybay.com/2009/08/20/the-rave-about-the-canon-powershot-g11/
morpheus2702 wrote:
Hence why I've underscored in my question that the hypothetical 'N86 12MP' phone produces an all-round better image than an a N86 8MP in all conditions. Maybe I should have added too that the 'N86 12MP' does cost exactly the same as the N86 8MP. 😊I've not heard much on AAS to say that you don't really need the N86 8MP? And ultimately, has anyone actually looked at the images the Pixon 12 produces?
You move goalpost so often that they need to be on wheels. You offer an army of straw men and a mountain of irrelevance.
Even if the Pixon12 produced the best images known to humankind, images that could not be distinguished from real life in crystal conditions there still would be no proof that the reason for that incredible performance was the number of MegaPixels in the sensor or the resolution output to .jpg file.
I don't need 8MP in my phone. 3.2 is OK for me. If I want to take a good picture then I use a real camera. It's not a question of quality with the phone, it's good enough for its purpose. But for the same reason I would use a swiss army knife for occasional tasks, if I wanted to cut logs I would need a chainsaw. If having a pointless high MP ccd in the phone pushes up the price of the phone for not much benefit (which appears to be the case) then to hell with it, I'll take the 3.2MP. Otherwise I don't care. I would probably set the resolution lower so I can email my pic out quicker anyway. I already set my 3.2MP phone lower because the images go from 700KB down to 200KB and look exactly the same in an email.
I don't think it would take much for any manufacturer to source a high MP CCD and DSP subsystem in their products.
I was reading something the other day about 3 bladed shaving razors being optimum, and 4 and 5 bladed razors having their blades too close together and filling up with residue between them, which consequently degraded their effectiveness. This discussion reminds me of that silly number-led marketing to ignorant consumers.
Not an inconvenient truth to me. I'm not supporting the megapixel myth, you understand? How big and high do the letters have to be for you to comprehend that fact? Maybe my army of 'straw men' are getting in the way?
Sorry if asking if anyone has actually seen an image from the Pixon 12 and forgive me if you find my asking as another small pile of rubble on my 'mountain of irrelevance'.
Very generous of you to say too given your exalted position as 'unregistered', I am deeply honoured you even address me 😊
But given that this whole thread was sparked by that phone in question I feel it is somewhat relevant.
I promise I'll remove the wheels from my goalposts so can you keep up. Perhaps then you could give a straight answer without parroting what's gone before or rattling back on about the megapixel myth.
morpheus2702 wrote:OK as a 'savvy person', where the 'N86 12MP' produced a demonstratively better image than the N86 8MP in all conditions, you would choose the 8MP?
Ok, No. I atleast would not choose a 12mp Cam phone. for me, a phone is not just about mega pix. a phone needs to do lot many things better for me than just increasing the megapixels. I would be happy with a 3MP cam, better apps, good messaging client, good PIM support, QWERTY (Well, that's an individual preference), good GPS fix, good screen resolution and many more....
You see the point is, what have smartphones become today. If I get all that i want in a a decent MP phone, I really do not need a 12MP with that tiny sensor. I have my Sony for that.
cool, a straight answer. 😊
I see only lame sarcasm, irrelevance and position-shifting, and no substantial response on behalf of those supporting more MegaPixels (whilst claiming not to). The argument for visibilty and witness of Pixon12 output has already been addressed and destroyed.
They are not all usually this easy, but there has been some enjoyment at least.
My work here is done.
Christ, I didn't know it was Doctor Doom or Lex Luthor I was chatting to all this time!
My apologies mighty one, how dare I have doubted your encyclopedic knowledge of.... everything!
Get over yourself or get some medication to help with your self-righteous delusional state.
morpheus2702 wrote:Christ, I didn't know it was Doctor Doom or Lex Luthor I was chatting to all this time! My apologies mighty one, how dare I have doubted your encyclopedic knowledge of.... everything!
Get over yourself or get some medication to help with your self-righteous delusional state.
I just couldn't stop laughing. This was good though 😛
morpheus2702 wrote:Very generous of you to say too given your exalted position as 'unregistered', I am deeply honoured you even address me 😊
It's mildly hypocritical to point out the anonymous status of a poster when you yourself are posting under a pseudonym.
It's what web debaters do when they have got nothing left.
Ever get the feeling someone is laughing up their sleeve at you?
And I'm just laughing along with it!
and why not banish resolutions larger than 320x240, and memory cards larger than 1gb ...