Esato

Forum > Manufacturer Discussion > Nokia > Nokia 808 PureView Thread And Discussion

Previous  123 ... 192021 ... 939495  Next
Author Nokia 808 PureView Thread And Discussion
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2012-09-30 17:42
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
ya I don't know why it did that.. maybe its that new custom rom I put on it, I dunno.

And what do you mean about the settings ? The N8 was in auto mode for the first pic, and then night mode for the other two. The 808 was in auto for the first, and then manual for the next two.. i wrote the settings for it on top of the pics. The iphone 5 has no settings ..

Anyway, this was for low light, now I will try to test them in sunny conditions. Its just that, what I saw in low light, doesn't bond well for sunsets/sunrises for the iPhone 5..
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2012-09-30 21:05
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2012-09-30 17:42:49, cu015170 wrote:
ya I don't know why it did that.. maybe its that new custom rom I put on it, I dunno.


Could be.. It'll be clearer with further comparisons..
Problem is with JPEGs one doesn't have much control over white balance in post processing.. In raws everything is fully adjustable and with no loss in quality..

And what do you mean about the settings ? The N8 was in auto mode for the first pic, and then night mode for the other two. The 808 was in auto for the first, and then manual for the next two.. i wrote the settings for it on top of the pics. The iphone 5 has no settings ..


I meant exposure setting (Aperture, SS, ISO).. My bad, I should have been clearer there. There are no Exifs for the photos that's why..

As to Aperture I think it's 2.8 for the N8, and 2.4 for each of the 808 and iP5, right?
And 35mm equivalent focal length, is 28mm for the N8, 32mm for the iPhone and 26mm for the 808??

Anyway, this was for low light, now I will try to test them in sunny conditions. Its just that, what I saw in low light, doesn't bond well for sunsets/sunrises for the iPhone 5..


Yes bring more comparisons please.. They're just great..
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2012-10-01 09:06
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
The exif should be intact if you download the files from this folder:

https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=424646B5863880EB!2389

I think you are spot on for the aperture and the focal length.

I am collecting daylight shots.. I should have enough for a shoot out soon

Here is a quick browser test between the 808 and iPhone 5

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8kR7CSAIHtw

and also vs. flash test between these

Original files: https://skydrive.live.com/redir?resid=424646B5863880EB!2494

[img][/img]

Canon ixus 220


Nokia 808 PureView


Samsung Galaxy S3


HTC One X


Apple iPhone 4S


Nokia N8

[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2012-10-01 08:19 ]
admad
Sony Xperia T
Joined: May 26, 2005
Posts: > 500
From: Poland
PM
Posted: 2012-10-01 10:33
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
^ awesome comparison. What's surprising is the poor performance of N8 with xenon flash. Of course it's better than phones with LED flash, but PureView 808 manages so much better with same exposure and ISO. I guess it means 808 has also a pretty much powerful xenon flash. Would be cool to see how Lumia 920 would perform here
[ This Message was edited by: admad on 2012-10-01 09:33 ]
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2012-10-02 00:56
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
I'm literally stunned by the 808's flash performance!! This is mind blowing!!

It hits better white balance thsn the Canon which went on the bluish side, typical mistake for some cameras with Xenon.
808 also delivered better detail and noise levels! Unbelievable!

And one can see the vast improvement from the N8 Nokia have made! Hats off for Nokia there. This is the first Xenon module on par with stand alone compacts if not better than some! Amazing job!

As to the rest, the iPhone is frustratingly poor! The GSIII may seem better at first due to the brighter image in comparison to the N8, but it's a clear digital manipulation by Samsung leading to some unacceptable noise and banding artifacts! And skewed color representation as well. Out of the LED bunch, HTC is by far the best approach, albeit not a usable result due to extreme conditions.

The 808 is in a world of its own really! The 920 will only beat it in video mode due the stabilisation which I'd take at any given day over a slight advantage in quality. And for now in low light non-flash situations.

@ cu015170

It'd be highly appreciated if you compare the 808 to the rest of the bunch on both full manual tipoded long exposure mode and also automated mode (scenes mode and full automatic)..

It's important to see how the 808 compares to the others hand held as this is what matters for a smartphone at the end. And also compare those results to a long exposure one by the 808.
And I think for other phones and for the 808 on automated modes, better to shoot hand held. It'd leads to more realistic results.

If possible of course..
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2012-10-02 02:18
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2012-10-01 10:33:28, admad wrote:
but PureView 808 manages so much better with same exposure and ISO. I guess it means 808 has also a pretty much powerful xenon flash. Would be cool to see how Lumia 920 would perform here
[ This Message was edited by: admad on 2012-10-01 09:33 ]


The xenon on the 808 has 2x more power compared to the N8 + PureView tech .. it makes for a pretty big difference.

Look at this thing .. two capacitors.. proper!



The lumia 920 .. we have to wait, but I doubt it can beat the 808 in those conditions.


On 2012-10-02 00:56:59, false_morel wrote:
I'm literally stunned by the 808's flash performance!! This is mind blowing!!

It hits better white balance thsn the Canon which went on the bluish side, typical mistake for some cameras with Xenon.
808 also delivered better detail and noise levels! Unbelievable!

Its not just the powerful xenon flash, its the combination with the jpeg pureview algorithm, which further clean up the noise (evident from my low light shots against the iphone 5/N8) and it helps out the Xenon. Its a pretty efficient system for such a small package. Like I said.. the tech in the 808 is gold

I didn't do the flash test.. so unfortunately I can't test them further, but the 808 does very well hand held.. I mean, like any other camera, anything undr 1/40 becomes rather difficult.

Also, 2.7 seconds exposure time confirmed:

http://www.esato.com/phonephotos/viewphotos.php?pid=62045
[ This Message was edited by: cu015170 on 2012-10-02 05:48 ]
Guarulhos
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Jan 02, 2011
Posts: > 500
From: Guarulhos - Brazil
PM
Posted: 2012-10-02 08:45
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
More Highlighted Technichal Specifications Photographic 808 PureView PRO:

• Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar Wide Angle Optics 26 mm
• F-Number: f/2.3984375
• Focal Length: 8.02mm
• Focus Range: 15 Cm – Infinity
• Construction Lens: 5 Elements, 1 Group. All Lens Surfaces Are Aspherical (One High - Index, Low - Dispersion Glass Mould Lens / Mechanical Shutter With Neutral Density Filter)
Sensor: Cmos FSI (1/1.2”)
Pixel Size: 38 MP (1.4 Microns) / 8 MP (3.17 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (4.01 Microns) / 3 MP (4.30 Microns)
Total Pixel Are Used: 7728 x 5368 – 41.4 MP
• Effective Pixels Resolution: 7728 x 4354 For (16:9) / 7152 x 5368 For (4:3)


More Highlighted Technichal Specifications Photographic Lumia 920 PureView LITE:

• Carl Zeiss Vario Tessar Wide Angle Optics 26 mm
• Optical Image Stabiliser Barrel Shift type
• Stabiliser Performance Up To 3EV (8x Longer Shutter Speeds)
• F-Number: f/2.0
• Focal Length: 3.73mm
• Focus Range: 8 Cm – Infinity
• Construction Lens: 5 Elements, 1 Group. All Lens Surfaces Are Aspherical (Mechanical Shutter)
Sensor: Cmos BSI (1/3”)
Pixel Size: 1.4 Microns
Total Pixel Are Used: 3553 x 2448 – 8.7 MP
• Effective Pixels Resolution: 3552 x 1998 For 16:9 / 3264 x 2448 For 4:3.

Looking Well All The Details Technicians Of 2 Appliances And All The Images Captured By Both, You Still Discuss Who Will Be Best And The Worst ???

Simply Ridiculous And Mainly Unnecessary !

808 PureView PRO Will Better That The Lumia 920 PureView LITE In Any Type Of Scene Or Luminosity !

P.S (1): Lumia 920 PureView LITE Even Will Better That NSeries N8 !!!

P.S (2): Lumia 920 PureView LITE Even Account With a Flash Really !!!
[ This Message was edited by: Guarulhos on 2012-10-02 07:51 ]
lemmy31
Apple iPhone 6 Plus
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Swadlincote
PM
Posted: 2012-10-02 09:50
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Belle FP2 update now officially rolling out for the 808 Pureview.
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2012-10-02 23:41
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2012-10-02 08:45:58, Guarulhos wrote:
Pixel Size: 38 MP (1.4 Microns) / 8 MP (3.17 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (4.01 Microns) / 3 MP (4.30 Microns)

Brilliant.
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2012-10-03 00:05
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2012-10-02 08:45:58, Guarulhos wrote:
Pixel Size: 38 MP (1.4 Microns) / 8 MP (3.17 Microns) / 5 Megapixels (4.01 Microns) / 3 MP (4.30 Microns)


This is not accurate information!
Brief clarification: Putting first the Pureview tech aside, the native effective pixels of a sensor remain constant. That is, if a camera has a 16MP of 4 microcs pixel size, shooting at 8MP will not mean that the native pixels (photosites) of the sensor got twice as big! The sensor will still capture a 16MP image and the camera will downsample to 8MP.

Now with Pureview it's totally different since it's not a simple downsampling that's taking place, but much more complicated algortithms using the information from 4 pixels to make a totally new one, called super pixel!

Super refers to information held in that pixel and not its size obviosuly.

One could argue that this technique could lead to results as if the sensor had 4 microns, but not quite excplicitely as you stated in the specs sheet!! There is a significant difference to that!

Looking Well All The Details Technicians Of 2 Appliances And All The Images Captured By Both, You Still Discuss Who Will Be Best And The Worst ???

Simply Ridiculous And Mainly Unnecessary !


Each of the 808 and 920 excells at different areas. The 920 will outdo the 808 in its respective areas, and the 808 will outdo the 920 in the rest of the situations.
It's not difficult to comprehend really.
[ This Message was edited by: false_morel on 2012-10-02 23:06 ]
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2012-10-03 01:55
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Fact is, you are not supposed to be getting that kind of performance and quality out of 1.4 micron pixels.. so whatever they/we want to call it, it works, and the pixels behave like they are bigger, then they actually are
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2012-10-03 03:54
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
True. The noise performance you get from the 808 is not the performance you expect from a 1.4 micron photosite sensor!! No question about it.

But not on par or better than an actual 4 to 5 micron DSLR sensor!

And as far as detail goes, you're still getting 5 MP at the end. **5MP is where the PureView technology delivers its best with the 808 as explained by Nokia**

Now for printing standard sized images and web uses, 5MP is more than enough. But comparing this to the detail of 14 to 16 MP with even better noise performance, it's quite a difference.
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2012-10-03 04:43
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2012-10-03 03:54:27, false_morel wrote:
But not on par or better than an actual 4 to 5 micron DSLR sensor!

oh, ya.. no contest. There is no way to beat a physical ~5.0 micron pixel.. especially when it comes DR, then the 808s real pixel size shows up the PV tech can't compensate for that...

From my own experience, the 808's best balance is @ 8Mpix PV mode @ 95% jpeg compression and +2 sharpness from the settings. If you want crazy colors, vivid mode + maxed out saturation is required, if you want natural/real looking images, you leave those two alone.


Guarulhos
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Jan 02, 2011
Posts: > 500
From: Guarulhos - Brazil
PM
Posted: 2012-10-03 06:37
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
NOKIA CONVERSATIONS, DPREVIEW, ALL ABOUT SYMBIAN, PUREVIEWCLUB Are Reliable Sources, And Just In Which There I Took The Spite Of The Information 808 PUREVIEW PRO And 920 PUREVIEW LITE !

P.S: Who Has More Knowledge And Credibility... You Or Them ?
ILoveBhe
Apple iPhone 4S
Joined: Jul 28, 2012
Posts: 121
PM
Posted: 2012-10-03 07:29
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2012-10-03 04:43:15, cu015170 wrote:
If you want crazy colors, vivid mode + maxed out saturation is required


I have that as my C1 in my creative mode.
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
Previous  123 ... 192021 ... 939495  Next
Goto page:
Lock this Topic Move this Topic Delete this Topic