| Author |
did you notice the cam sensor size in k550 & w610 is 3.8mm! |
AbuBasim
Joined: Nov 04, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-11 22:46:04, max_wedge wrote:
dude, the sensor size means sfa.
|
|
A fellow countryman of yours doesn't seem to agree with you. (Scroll down to "High prosumer versus low pro...")
| |
|
janahan
Joined: Jan 13, 2003
Posts: 232
From: UK
PM |
Picture quality on any Digital camera is based on the following factors:
1) Lens Size/Quality/Quantity: A bad quality lens will ruin a picture, causing pin cushioning, uneven lines, and chromatic aberrations. Even more so for small lenses, as aberrations are more pronounced. Aberrations have less effect with larger lenses. Also more lenses in series (as in Optical zooms) also affect image quality, by either reducing light, or compounding aberrations.
2) Sensor resolution: does the sensor manage to capture 4, 8 or 16 bits of light intensity information, and how well does it resolve it
3) Sensor Filter quality: Does the sensor filter block Ultra Violet/Infra Red properly? Does it also have good quality Red/Green/Blue filters over its RGB Sensors?
4) Light availability: How much photons actually enter the sensor. The more photos, the better (until you get to the point where the sensor is full)
5) Sensor size: The larger the sensor, the more individual photons that can be captured across it's area. Also larger sensors (with larger apertures) give narrower depth of field, which can be useful in some situations, and a pain in others. However, a larger sensor size does increase the focal distance (length of the lens).
6) Number of pixels: increases image resolution, allowing capture of greater detail.
7) Individual Photocell size: This is the sensor size divided by the number of pixels in the sensor. The larger the photocell the more photons that can be captured, providing either better sensitivity, or better sensor resolution.
 Image electronics: This is a subjective point.
9) Lens Cover: Having a lens cover is vital for protecting the lens. With such small lenses, any scratch or aberration will be so much more visible. Secondly, with electronic shutters in most cheap cameras, the "sensor" is always visible, and can get "burned out" by long periods of intense light (such as leaving your phone upside down on a table in the sunlight for long periods with the cover open).
10) noise: Noise is caused by two adjacent pixels returning different values for effectively the same "colour". This can be caused by a faulty or sub par sensor, low sensor resolution (a 4 bit sensor will have bigger "jumps" between different intensity values than a 16 bit sensor), or simply poor manufacture.
The red herring is the whole CMOS vs CCD thing. In theory, CMOS should actually be better than CCD in many ways: Lower Power consumption, better colour resolution, simpler to manufacture, etc. However, until recently, CMOS Sensors were not manufactured particularly well. CCD is a mature technology, that has been around for some time, and therefore in many reviews it was seen that CCD produce superior quality pictures to CMOS. This changed with Canon's release of the EOS D30 SLR Camera. This camera had a CMOS chip that was manufactured well, and completely shocked the industry in that it provided better quality, lower noise images than the top CCD based SLRs at the time. Even now, years after, Canon's CMOS Sensors are still up there in the quality stakes.
As you can see, there are compromises all over. Increasing the number of megapixels, whilst keeping the sensor size constant, reduces individual Photocell Size, which in turn has a negative effect on the sensor resolution as less photons can be captured. Also there would be an increase in noise. as sensitivity needs to be boosted.
Increasing the sensor size to match the increased MP would result in larger lenses, and lens depth which would be inappropriate for a camera phone. It would also decrease depth of field, which may be great for well focused, professionally done portrait shots, but poor for normal "point and shoot" photos that Camera Phones are typically used for.
For normal 6x4 photos, it is totally unnecessary to have more than 3.2 Megapixels (the extra resolution is wasted). 3.2 Megapixel images can scale up to 7x5 easily. Even a good 2MP camera will produce satisfactory 6x4 pictures (I know I have printed some excellent 6x4 prints from my old Nikon 2MP camera)
Rather than Increasing Megapixels on a camera phone, effort should be made to improve the performance of the Lens, sensor resolution, Sensor quality, focussing capability and electronics. However, these things dont count on the majority public who view size matters, and buy the largest megapixels they can get they hands on.
But even in the megapixel race, there can be some improvements. IF there is such a need to provide a 5MP camera phone there should be an option to provide 3.2MP or lower processing. This doesn't mean taking a picture and processing at 5MP and then scaling down the final image to 3.2MP, as that would take a poor quality 5MP shot, and turn it into a poor quality 3MP shot, which is what current digital cameras do.
Instead the "scaling" should be done before processing. The electronics should combine adjacent results form the raw sensors using a clever pre-processing, creating a smaller, but deeper raw image, before processing it into a picture, and converting it to JPG. This means that a 5MP camera can be made to behave as a true 3.2MP or smaller camera. You have the choice of high MP and lower quality, or low MP and higher quality.
I do this all the time with my Canon EOS camera. I take pictures at 8MP raw (no processing done on the camera), then using my computer I process the raw image using a software I am developing which combines the raw RGB pixels using a jitter overlay process whilst applying brightness/contrast and other processing options which are better helped curing the combine process, to produce a significantly better quality image, wiht greater depth, and less noise, albeit at 3.2MP. I can then save it at JPG or tiff, depending on my needs.
But until such technology exists on a camera phone, I would be very wary of getting a 5MP camera phone, as it would not be usefull.
Owned (order of purchase): Nok 8110, Nok 6150, Nok 8210, Nok 6210, Eric r320s, Eric T68m, SE T300, SE P800, SE T610, SE S700i, Mot V3i, SE K800i |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
the one thing everyone is forgetting - technology does not remain constant. It is improving all the time. Once CCD was easily better than cmos, now cmos is taking over.
Likewise with sensor pitch, new methods are being discovered all the time to reduce the affect of lowered sensitivity due to smallness and closeness of pixels to one another.
As this guys says "Yes, this large a sensor size difference has that has inescapable consequences for both real resolution and noise. The smaller the sensor, the lousier it'll be in both categories, all other things being equal." http://www.dansdata.com/danletters064.htm
The key words are ALL THINGS BEING EQUAL. The fact is from one model to another things are not equal. Technology is moving forward year by year. While a 5MP camera phone two years ago would have unacceptable noise, that is not so with todays technology.
I agree partially about the pointlessness of the megapixel race, however I think 5-6MP is a good point to aim for with camera phones rather than the 3MP that people are claiming.
|
hanugro
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-21 07:07:18, max_wedge wrote:
There is far less noise in the K800 sensor than the K750.
|
|
Don't forget that K800 is AF and K750 is free focus. K750 is forced to use bigger f number to maximised DOF (depth of field). Bigger f number means smaller opening of lens and the sensor has to use higher ISO number to compensate and hence more noise.
My 1997 Nikon 2mp CoolPix950 digicam can outperform k800 3.2 mp in noise department. Don't count sharpness, color fidelity, etc. It uses 1/1.8" sensors! And yes my KM 5D dSLR is much better with 6mp but the sensor size area might be 20x bigger than K800 making each pixel (1x1) area of dSLR is almost 10x bigger than that of K800.
[ This Message was edited by: hanugro on 2007-02-23 13:15 ] |
max_wedge
Joined: Aug 29, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Australia
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-23 13:42:13, hanugro wrote:
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-21 07:07:18, max_wedge wrote:
There is far less noise in the K800 sensor than the K750.
|
|
Don't forget that K800 is AF and K750 is free focus. K750 is forced to use bigger f number to maximised DOF (depth of field). Bigger f number means smaller opening of lens and the sensor has to use higher ISO number to compensate and hence more noise.
My 1997 Nikon 2mp CoolPix950 digicam can outperform k800 3.2 mp in noise department. Don't count sharpness, color fidelity, etc. It uses 1/1.8" sensors! And yes my KM 5D dSLR is much better with 6mp but the sensor size area might be 20x bigger than K800 making each pixel (1x1) area of dSLR is almost 10x bigger than that of K800.
[ This Message was edited by: hanugro on 2007-02-23 13:15 ]
|
|
actually K750 IS autofocus. The fact remains that each SE camera phone is better than the last on noise performance. The argument that smaller chips result in more noise is relevant at the upper end of the megapixel range (5-6MP cameras and above, but not at the 3MP range. Once Camera phones hit 6-7MP, this technology will have advanced a bit more and camera phones will still remain free from the sensor size/noise ratio trade-off.
|
hanugro
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-26 00:01:13, max_wedge wrote:
actually K750 IS autofocus. The fact remains that each SE camera phone is better than the last on noise performance.
|
|
My mistake then sorry. Never had K750 and never see the result. But my wife Z610 free focus 2mp is indeed worse than K800. I think it may down to the sensor need bigger ISO number to maximised DOF.
Anyway I seldom use phone camera anyway. I boought K800 not because it is cyberphone but because of 3g and 320x240 screen. My next phone is SE that should have HSDPA and 320x240 as well.
Well if you are satisfied with 5mp camera phone than it is OK. I am not even satisfied with noise performance of any digicam (compact P&S) greater than 4mp. If you shoot on bright day it is no problem but when I bring it to shade/inside room then it is disapointing. |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-12 22:11:20, ~DC:UK~ wrote:
Nokia seem to be pulling off the 5mp picture quality in the N95 quite nicely. I'll bet SE's equivilent 5mp camera phone will look virtually like the the K800i but with the 5mp size.
I still say the best camera SE ever put in a phone quality-wise was the S700i. Some of the daylight pictures were beyond awesome for that time and I think most S700i owners would agree.
|
|
I totally agree here . . . There is just something SPECIAL on the CAMERA of the S700i back then . . . as it's result-i,ages are very much comparable with that of the K750, specially OUTDOOR shots . . . I wonder why the S-series (S700) was never followed 
[addsig] |
hanugro
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
I got S700. And yeah it took nice pict up to 4R. Nice LCD, build (material but not the painting) as well. I thought they have the W900 as the replacement. They are both swivel, QVGA, and made in Japan? My only dissapointment would be the S700 paint quality.
I am also tired to swivel the phone evertime I want to make a call that is not in my phonebook. So I am getting back to candybar with K800. |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
@han - I think there's NO NEW-release YET with the S-series fone after the S700/S710  The W900 still is a Walkman series ...
Having/owning a SWIVEL-type fone is just like always carrying with a you a SWISS-knife gadget 
[addsig] |
hanugro
Joined: Feb 28, 2005
Posts: > 500
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2007-02-26 03:22:36, *Jojo* wrote:
@han - I think there's NO NEW-release YET with the S-series fone after the S700/S710 The W900 still is a Walkman series ...
Having/owning a SWIVEL-type fone is just like always carrying with a you a SWISS-knife gadget
|
|
Actually what make W900 differ from S700? I thought W900 is S700 replacement with more function (walkman). Well if now I was ask to buy another phone like S700 again I might not buy it. Too much trouble to type SMS, etc. I'd rather buy slider like W850. But still candybar is the most convenience. |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
@han - I think they are of a different SERIES mate . . . like those of: K, J and T  model fones . . . what just made me wonder is that why the S700-S710 did NOT have (as of presstime) a succeeding-model Yup, swivel-fones is kinda hard to USE, much better to choose a SLIDING (W850) than a SWIVEL (S700) . . .
[addsig] |
REO
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: U.S.A.
PM |
I loved the swivel design on the S710, I just wish would bring it back in a slim model. My pictures with the S710 were just as good as the 2.0 MP pics.
I didn't like the 128MB max ext memory capacity
iphone rocks... |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
@reo - Yeah, I made a numerous comment back then saying that the 1.3 MP camera on the S700 is very much comparable to that of the 2.0 camfones . . . Ohhhh, so a 128 MB Memory Stick Duo is the largest capacity it can contain similar to that of the P900
[addsig] |
REO
Joined: Nov 21, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: U.S.A.
PM |
@jojo
My son now has the S710. My W810 came with a 128 MB card which I gave to my son as he had a 32MB card.
iphone rocks... |
*Jojo*
Joined: Oct 15, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM |
@reo - OK . . . and you have the 32 MB in your W810i 
@all - I am wondering does having a BIGger screen makes the image more sharper compared to those who have smaller ones
[addsig] | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2007-02-21 11:03
