Posted by KingBooker5
It is a fact, especialy when it comes to mobile phones that megapixels DONT make pictures better. Its actualy the sensor.
The k850s 5mp cam will be destroyed compared to a dedicated cyber-shot 5mp.
More megapixels will actualy just take up more and more memory.
So is this just a marketing scam? Quote from Sapporobaby, "more mp will make you think your getting better" when really your not.
So is this the camera phone conspiracy!? I mean looking at n95's images that strongly backs this "Scam" up because the results really disapointed.
What are your thoughts?
Posted by umerhayat
Yes.you are very right.i totally agree with you
This message was posted from a W810i
Posted by SCORPIONKING1982
No its not a scam, but only if you compare cam phone with cam phone. if you think that a 5MP cam phone will beat a 5MP dedicated camera then quite honestly your deluded. but if you look at the quality of cam phones currently compared to the old VGA cam phones then there is an improvement as MP has increased.
Posted by maggflodd
...I can't find the page, but I remember an article on allaboutsymbian prior to n95 release where mr uber-reviewer mentions an occasion where he bumped into a carl-zeiss engineer who told him: "in a mobile phone anything over 3mp is useless" or some such thing - the cz-dude apparently refused to elaborate...and I didn't care, but I thought I mention it
Posted by AbuBasim
I don't know. I am happy with my 5 MP CCD i-mobile 902.
I posted two quick samples in the Photos section. (The brand name is SAMART.) This camera phone beats my previous digicams, including my old Sony DSC-F505 and DSC-S75. Maybe it's not fair to compare 2MP and 3MP digicams with a 5MP camphone.
_________________
The Tree of Life is Self-Pruning. -- DarwinAwards.com
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2007-07-03 18:26 ]
Posted by KingBooker5
Who would use 5mp in a phone tho? 3 is the best for a CMOS sensor, we saw the great pix the k800 took
Posted by AbuBasim
It depends on what you would be using your snaps for. If you never print larger than 4x6 then anything above 2MP is overkill.
Posted by belialwafu
guys, true digital cams are better even if the pixels are the same. because the processor that is inside it is made for processing pictures...so it means better quality. Not like CP processor it is made for multitasking so its pic quality is kinda low if u compare it to a digi cam...
Posted by batesie
well my 1.3MP CCD S700i took better pics than my 2.0MP W900i.
i know that having owned both for a year or more
but my N95 takes awsome shots in natural daylight....
Posted by BBS
You guys forgot one of the most important parametes - lens. Due to the miniature size of the lens in phones there is a limit for colleting light reflected from the target. Therefore, more pixels donen't mean automatically better picture.
Posted by belialwafu
On 2007-07-04 14:38:19, BBS wrote:
You guys forgot one of the most important parametes - lens. Due to the miniature size of the lens in phones there is a limit for colleting light reflected from the target. Therefore, more pixels donen't mean automatically better picture.
remember the old type nokia fones? they are big right? but still looks stylish and it constrast w/ the phone...i think it is the answer
Posted by S4k1s
It's not a scam, not even when you compare to regular digital cameras like the Canon ixus series.
Posted by QVGA
I wouldn't call it scam, as with increase in MP, the quality is also increasing. N95>N93
Posted by strizlow800
Well, it is harder to put the same megapixel sensor in a phone, than in a regular size camera. So the increase of pixels does improve the quality, but not that much as it does in a regular camera. After all, we are using phones, not professional digital cameras.
Posted by Chrispy
Not quite a scam, but definitely far, far over-hyped.
The CCD in a cell phone is bound to be smaller than that of a conventional digi-cam, regardless of it being a compact or not. Small sensor + More mega pixels = more picture noise, as less light comes onto each pixel, and longer exposure, higher ISO must be used in order to provide you with fully-exposed pictures.
An example of this, compare a D-SLR to a standard digital compact. Less noisy better pictures, even with lower MP sensors.
The tiny lens in a cell phone is also part of the equation, though less so than the actual sensor.
Hope that helps anyone confused
Posted by AbuBasim
On 2007-07-05 00:34:38, dumbrella wrote:
and longer exposure, higher ISO must be used in order to provide you with fully-exposed pictures.
Actually lower ISO values! Higher ISO = higher amplification of the sensor output = more noise. To get less noise use lower ISO values which in turn require longer exposure times.
On 2007-07-05 00:34:38, dumbrella wrote:
An example of this, compare a D-SLR to a standard digital compact. Less noisy better pictures, even with lower MP sensors.
The Canon 300D has whopper of a sensor (22.7x15.1mm) and with a firmware hack it can take ISO values up to 3200 and still give less noise than a camera phone at ISO 200!
Read this and this article for more.
_________________
The Tree of Life is Self-Pruning. -- DarwinAwards.com
[ This Message was edited by: AbuBasim on 2007-07-05 13:54 ]
Posted by massgeorge
You can also look at the DPI (dots per inch) of the pictures, my w810 @ 2mp has 72dpi and my old canon digicam has 180dpi.
I'd be curious about the different dpi between phone cam models
Posted by ch33sehead
On 2007-07-13 06:21:08, massgeorge wrote:
You can also look at the DPI (dots per inch) of the pictures, my w810 @ 2mp has 72dpi and my old canon digicam has 180dpi.
I'd be curious about the different dpi between phone cam models
Umm what? DPI is a PRINTER attribute, not a picture attribute! It stands for Dots Per Inch. Any picture can be printed at any DPI as long as the printer supports it! Your 2MP picture for the w810 can be printed at 100,000 DPI if you have a 100,000 DPI printer.
Posted by *Jojo*
Yes, I guess it's NOT a scam . . . if so, professional-people who are into photography would have SUED them by now
!
Posted by REO
I've said it once and I'll say it again..... anything above 3.0 MP in a cam phone makes no sense, as it will not be that much different than the current 2.0MP.
At least for now. We'll see what the near future brings. until then...... the difference is not substantial at all.
Posted by *Jojo*
On 2007-07-31 04:36:15, REO wrote:
I've said it once and I'll say it again..... anything above 3.0 MP in a cam phone makes no sense, as it will not be that much different than the current 2.0MP.
At least for now. We'll see what the near future brings. until then...... the difference is not substantial at all.
@reo - Let's be a bit futuristic here mate . . . what if it's a: 7 or 8 MP camfone
Posted by Prom1
I think perceptions of quality of CAM phones & whether or not artifacts & if they're "SCAMS" will VASTLY change as a consensus when ...
Liquid variable diameter/focal lenses appear (Oil or water based liquid lenses).
This technology is currently being refined to appear by late 2008 when announced in mid 2006 but they may be another year or 2 off by then.
Passing Electricity to thicken or CURVE the lense or widen or shorten the diameter. All affecting focal length, zoom, aparature, clearness etc.
Posted by ch33sehead
Okay, here's a test. The first one is a 2MP picture, second one is 3MP picture. Here are the originals (Esato automatically resizes them. Oh well.)
2MP
3MP
The Test
Then, I used Photoshop to increase the 2MP picture to 3MP using interpolation and a slight "Smart Sharpen" filter. Here are the results:
2MP interpolated to 3MP + "Smart Sharpen"
3MP (original)
Is there a quality difference? I'd say yes. If you look at the street sign, you can see that "Harbor" is a tad bit clearer in the native 3MP picture, but it is so small that it would not justify taking pictures in 3MP. It is also probably the result of processing before resizing vs. resizing before processing. If this camera gave me the RAW files (and if I had more time), I could probably do a better job.
I say it's a scam. If you look at the 2MP pictures and blow them up to actual size, you might say they truly are comparable to 2MP pictures from standalone units, but the 3MP ones cannot compare to standalone 3MP pictures.
[ This Message was edited by: ch33sehead on 2007-07-31 05:37 ]
Posted by ch33sehead
On 2007-07-31 04:16:43, *Jojo* wrote:
Yes, I guess it's NOT a scam . . . if so, professional-people who are into photography would have SUED them by now
!
What kind of professional photographer would rely on a camera phone w/ a tiny CCD? I'm sure every professional uses a dSLR of some sort. I don't think that's a very good argument.
Posted by DarKMaGiCiaN
think about it
more MP = more memory space needed (MB)
more memory space = new memory stick with high capacity
new memory stick with high capacity = more cost
more cost = benefit for the company
because I think 3 MB is enought for mobile phones
if not the 5 is enought and maybe more than enought
[ This Message was edited by: DarKMaGiCiaN on 2007-07-31 07:10 ]
Posted by JK
Id like to know why they all have the same types of cams eg: first they were all 1.3 Mp, then 2 Mp then 3.2Mp now 5Mp
The 6680, D500 V800 all had 1.3 and that was the best etc etc
Then the N90 K750 D600 all 2Mp
The N80 K800 N73 all 3.2 Mp
Now the N95 K850 are 5Mp
...........
Posted by Prom1
Ok Mods.
Since so far all this talk is related to SE phones can we somehow merge this thread which seems to be in the same line as the other thread ...
http://www.esato.com/board/vi[....]ic=148711&start=45#post2057030
"K800 Not really a 3MP Camera"
Please?
Posted by KingBooker5
Why should we merge it to that thread?
That is soley about the k800s cam, underperforming.
This thread is talking about megapixels being a scam. Megapixels ruin quality. This thread is talking about all the technical stuff of cameras. There are some nice debates going on.
These 2 threads are totaly diffrent IMO
Posted by Danny_BFC
On 2007-07-31 08:56:07, Prom1 wrote:
Ok Mods.
Since so far all this talk is related to SE phones can we somehow merge this thread which seems to be in the same line as the other thread ...
http://www.esato.com/board/vi[....]ic=148711&start=45#post2057030
"K800 Not really a 3MP Camera"
Please?
Get your tongue out of masseurs arse mate
My 2 cents
I think that It is a marketing scam. i think the manufactores are just saying the bigger numbers to make it sound like the best phone. Like the N80's 3mpx cam was no where near as good as say a k750's cam.
Cant you all remember this?
Thats the Samsung SCH-B600 10 megapixel cameraphone. It was just a proto but thats were the markets headed imo, i doubt the optical zoom will do it many favours for its looks
Posted by max_wedge
Once camera's got to about 2MP they should have slowed down on megapixel increases and concentrate more on cmos quality. That said, I'd still like to see MP keep rising, but only if they do equivalent improvements to the cmos technology. That means smaller low power cmos sensors with quality equivelent to todays CCD sensors.
Already ccd sensors are being replaced by cmos in some DSLR applications, so it's quite possible that high quality small cmos sensors are just around the corner. Once the quality of small cmos sensors is good, then people will clamour for more MP again.
And don't forget, high MP's = detail and clarity; just as important as the other qualities. I mean does it really matter how good "quality" a picture is if it's only VGA?
_________________
File System Tweaks for the K750 K750 Tricks
[ This Message was edited by: max_wedge on 2007-07-31 12:19 ]