| Author |
N8īs Major Camera Desing Flaw - Poor Flare Performance |
jake20
Joined: Jan 23, 2009
Posts: > 500
From: USA
PM |
On 2010-11-08 20:31:15, mriley wrote:
What was his reply..?
Thanks for your various comments, we are looking at many areas which overlap with your requests. no promises though.
One point the video bit rate has not been changed in the hacks, it already allows up to 12mbps out of the box. But this is dynamic, it depends on the amount of detail in the scene.
re 30fps I already answered that along with compression in the original interview.
br
D |
|
|
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
On 2010-11-08 17:14:15, jake20 wrote:
1. 30FPS video is coming soon, and they didn't include it because it wasn't 100% stable yet.
Does that mean they're going to add the same functionality that otherwise you'd need to use the hacks to obtain ? such as the 100mb per minute files etc ?
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
mlife
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
I believe the bad flare issue is indeed caused by the silver ring and is easy to dupliate... in the photo below you can clearly see a curved shape flare which IMO is the silver ring around the lens (my N8 is orange).
If I simply place my finger to the right of the lens (seperating it from the light) you get this...
*my finger entering the camera lens to left is only to show HOW MUCH light is reflecting right there.....
[addsig] |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
Do you think if Nokia were or are aware of this would they see it as an issue or not?? Would they release future N8's with no silver outline?? Would they replace existing models or would that be far too expensive for them?? I guess it could put their long awaited flag ship N8 in a bad light(no pun intended) 
[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2010-11-11 14:26 ] Phone?? What phone?? |
mlife
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2010-11-11 15:26:02, Bonovox wrote:
Do you think if Nokia were or are aware of this would they see it as an issue or not?? Would they release future N8's with no silver outline?? Would they replace existing models or would that be far too expensive for them?? I guess it could put their long awaited flag ship N8 in a bad light(no pun intended)
[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2010-11-11 14:26 ]
I highly doubt they will do anything about it.... my C905a does the same thing and once your aware of the issue the solution is simple. A) try not to shoot toward bright light (ie, keep sun at your back) unless your intending to add flare to your image.. or B) just use your finger/hand to block the sun/light in those situations.... Not really a HUGE issue IMO 
[addsig] |
jake20
Joined: Jan 23, 2009
Posts: > 500
From: USA
PM |
They most likely intentionally made this ring a brushed metal surface for a reason.. it probably brings in more light in low light situations as well.. which is a good thing i guess.
But from what what I have seen so far with Nokia, is they will delete any threads on their support sites which call them out or put them in a bad light.
|
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
Guys, I'm not very sure about this, but the way I see it, those excessive flares are a downside of the wide lens optics rather than that sliver ring around the lens!
Actually, physically, or geometrically, teh ring is bended away from the lens. This means it should reflect light away from the lens not vise-versa! At extreme cases, a light ray would be reflected with 0° angle, but never negative angle towards the lens..
This is how I see it..
And actually I find it really awkward for the team developing the camera to oversee this flaw if it exists!
And at the end of day, any camera, specially with wide-angle lens, will suffer from those flares at certain angles when facing a bright light source!
Of course, the question here is whether that ring is helping worsening the situation, but in my opinion, it should be rather helping improving the conditions.
And that finger-shading effect that helps remove those flares, is actually stopping excessive light from entering the lens rather than stopping it from refelcting off the ring..
About the position of the flares, it doesn't have to be on the side of the light-source, specially if the sun is that source..
Correct me if I'm wrong..
My two cents. |
Bonovox
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM |
@mlife that photo with the flare is quite excessive. I have seen lens flare before but nothing that bad  that's a design flaw imo that Nokia have not realised. Having to stick your finger in front of the lens is just crazy
[ This Message was edited by: Bonovox on 2010-11-11 17:41 ] Phone?? What phone?? |
etaab
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM |
I agree with false_morel, i dont think its a design flaw at all since the silver rim is pointed outwards from the lens. I dont see how it could reflect light back in.
I posted in the Satio vs N8 thread when i received my first N8 that it was more prone to lens flare due to its wider angle lens. Its a no brainer for me.
I imagine putting your finger or hand around the lens to shield it from excessive light is like using a car sun visor, or when looking into the distance on a sunny day you put your hand across your forehead to shield your eyes from light in order to stop the same effect with your own human eye. No ??
For me, i think id rather just not shoot into the sun or any other light source - which naturally a good photographer wouldnt do anyway unless he was going for an artistic shot.
[ This Message was edited by: etaab on 2010-11-11 20:48 ] Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab ! |
jake20
Joined: Jan 23, 2009
Posts: > 500
From: USA
PM |
a little off topic..
are any of you guys using any kind of screen protector for the camera lens? which also may further reduce glare..
I have a nice Nokia CC-1005 green silicone skin (is nearly an identical color match of my Green N8) which further indents the camera lens so its not touching anything when i put it down, so I don't think i really need any extra protection.
Was curious to see if you guys are using anything on the camera glass for protection.. |
mlife
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
On 2010-11-11 21:47:26, etaab wrote:
I agree with false_morel, i dont think its a design flaw at all since the silver rim is pointed outwards from the lens. I dont see how it could reflect light back in.
Easy, Angle of incidence = Angle of reflection.
the blue line on the left is regular light.... it would hit the silver rim and go across the lens.....
the red line is stray light (as light comes from EVERY angle)... when light reaches it destination it has limited choices.... go through the object, scatter (in many directions) or reflect off in an equal and opposite direction... glare is created when the stray light reflects off in such a way that it illuminates the surface of the glass.....
This is what makes lens hoods (and out finger) so effective in reducing glare.... if you block the light that would skim across the glass/lens from the outter edges you can reduce or totally eliminate that effect as in my very poor illustration below. 
[ This Message was edited by: mlife on 2010-11-12 00:29 ] [addsig] |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
You simplified things too much!
And you missed some major points.
Anyway, going with your simplified basic explanation, here the points you missed:
In the picture above are two light sources, "a" and "b".
Source "a" emitting three rays, and "b" two rays.
The perpendicular black line is the Normal line to the ring's planar area.
Given the necessary conditions, those rays should reflect at the same angle they make with the Normal.
Orange1 and Red1 relflect away from the lens.
Orange2 and Red2 go directly into the lens and refract, probably causing not only flares but also artifacts.
Orange3 is our "special" ray. It reflects from the ring into lens.
Now, the issue here, for a source to emit such rays that reflect into the lens, two conditions should be met:
- That ray hits the outer region of the Normal. In this case, O3 hits the left side of the Normal.
- It should hit it at an angle greater than 45°.. Depends however on the position of the spot hit on the ring, and the curvature of the ring as well.. It could need up to 60° to make it through the lens for instanace..
However, to meet those two conditions, teh source must be within the view, in other words visible in the viewfinder! Which means it's already resulting in some excessive amount of light in and flares already there..
In the other case of Source "b", the source shouldn't be visible to the camera, but could still result in some flares (Etaab's photos!!)..
But not caused by ring reflection..
However, capturing photos whereas the light source isn't producing rays directly into the lens shouldn't result in any flares. This happens when one makes sure that source is well maintained by the right angle of view.. |
mlife
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
@ false_morel, You now contridict yourself.... in this post you say
On 2010-11-11 18:04:20, false_morel wrote:
Guys, I'm not very sure about this, but the way I see it, those excessive flares are a downside of the wide lens optics rather than that sliver ring around the lens!
Actually, physically, or geometrically, teh ring is bended away from the lens. This means it should reflect light away from the lens not vise-versa! At extreme cases, a light ray would be reflected with 0° angle, but never negative angle towards the lens..
but then you come back telling me I miss important points only to over explain the same exact thing I just said in an extremely convoluted way? You also show a diagram totally contradictory to your statement "but never negative angle towards the lens" .... how is toward the LENS a "negative angle" anyway? Its just a reflection from the silver ring to glass or across the glass itslef, no need to make more of it than it is..... its simply A POOR IDEA to have a silver reflective surface by the lens. Its not 100% the issue (I understand this) but is certainly don't help at all.
[addsig] |
rikken
Joined: Feb 23, 2007
Posts: > 500
From: Norway
PM |
On 2010-11-12 06:30:45, mlife wrote:
. . . . its simply A POOR IDEA to have a silver reflective surface by the lens.
This seems obvious. If I had a N8 and experienced flare problems, I would try a black marker to color the silver ring |
false_morel
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM |
On 2010-11-12 06:30:45, mlife wrote:
@ false_morel, You now contridict yourself.... in this post you say
but then you come back telling me I miss important points only to over explain the same exact thing I just said in an extremely convoluted way? You also show a diagram totally contradictory to your statement "but never negative angle towards the lens" .... how is toward the LENS a "negative angle" anyway? Its just a reflection from the silver ring to glass or across the glass itslef, no need to make more of it than it is..... its simply A POOR IDEA to have a silver reflective surface by the lens. Its not 100% the issue (I understand this) but is certainly don't help at all.
You missed the trick again..
When I said that there is no way for light to bounce at negative angle and into the lens, I was referring at teh case of Source "b" illustrated in the drawing I posted. Same as what happened in teh two photos of Etaab for instance.. The source isn't within the angle of view!
However, if you have some bright light source within the angle of view of the camera, it will result in flares anyway..
Now, you can argue that the ring may make it even worse. Ok, in this case I could agree. But there's no point here blaming the ring for flares as those would already be there!
Then, as to the simplification I hinted to.. You missed that the material the ring made of isn't a perfect reflecting one!
And you missed the curving part of it..
There are many given conditoins here if considered would lead for the most of light not ot be refeclted at teh first place!
Flares mainly occur of excessive light entering the lens directly and refracting. Light bouncing off objects, even extremely near objects, shouldn't be a problem!
That's why I said I'm not very sure in my first post. There's many diverse aspects to consider and you simplified things too much.
In conclusion, if that ring does have some negative effect, it's due to only when the camera facing a light source, which isn't that wise to do, and the effect is minimal in comparison to the rather natural flare effect taking place at that condition!
Again, notice the "if's"... |
|
|
Posted: 2010-11-08 20:49
