Esato

Forum > Manufacturer Discussion > Nokia > Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.

Previous  123 4 ... 141516  Next
Author Lumia 1020 vs 808 PV vs any potential rival.
lemmy31
Apple iPhone 6 Plus
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Swadlincote
PM
Posted: 2013-10-09 19:33
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2013-10-09 18:59:16, fbloise wrote:
dont know you guys but to me, the 1020 is shit compared to the 808...

plus it will probably be EOL in a couple of months, knowing Microsoft is taking over.



Don't know about you guys but what an informative, fact filled comment !!

Having used and owned both handsets the 1020 is by far the better phone to use on a daily basis, and although I thought that the camera wasn't as good at first I have to say i now personally prefer the shots ive taken with the Lumia.

As ive said before i really miss Symbian (and ive owned them all from the awesome 7650 through to the N97 debacle and then the N8 and 808) but you cant continue to live in the past.......its gone and that's that.


Bonovox
LG G4
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-09 20:04
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Have you uploaded any in the photos section lemmy31?? How is the battery so far as it's not very large compared to some??
Phone?? What phone??
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-09 20:20
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Here are some comparison photos from the latest GSMArena article staging the 1020, iP5s, and LG G2:







Just to show it's hard to come close to the 1020 at the moment from any of the modern smartphones at the market today..
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-09 20:24
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2013-10-09 15:27:20, fluke9 wrote:
Where exactly is this thread going.

808 is not exactly a current phone is it ??




As the title and the opening post of the thread suggest: Comparing the 1020 to any potential rival coming its way, as others aren't sitting still while Nokia pushes these imaging innovations.. And also compare it to its sibling the 808 to determine the differences as Nokia handled the same technology differently in a hope to reach one conclusion about the best approach we would like Nokia to implement.
lemmy31
Apple iPhone 6 Plus
Joined: Jul 06, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Swadlincote
PM
Posted: 2013-10-09 21:04
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post

On 2013-10-09 20:04:50, Bonovox wrote:
Have you uploaded any in the photos section lemmy31?? How is the battery so far as it's not very large compared to some??



Hi Sean

I have no problem with battery life but unlike most of the people on here I never use facebook or twitter, infact any social networking apps at all. I mainly use my phones for satnav, music calls, txts and the camera, along with some catch up TV on the move

I have only posted a couple of pictures in the photo section.
Bonovox
LG G4
Joined: Apr 13, 2008
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-09 21:27
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Ah ok I shall have a peep
Phone?? What phone??
etaab
Nokia N8
Joined: Jan 23, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: UK - South Yorkshire
PM
Posted: 2013-10-09 23:06
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
They're nice images what you have uploaded. Peeking at the pixels, you can see a little processing going off which is a little off putting but overall they're very good quality.
Check me out on Instagram ! search for etaab !
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-10 18:31
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
This is what you get from Steve's test

85% jpeg compression





This is 95%





I will play with the sharpness when I get a chance today or tomorrow
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-10 20:54
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
I must say the difference between 95% and 85% compression doesn't correspond to what the file sizes are suggesting of a one stop compression between the two (halving the size).. At least compared to what I am used to from other tests..
Must note though that such rich detail landscapes are way more sensitive to showing compression artifacts..

Nonetheless, the point remains the same:









I cropped the two images you shot at two areas, one at the very middle where detail is at its highest, and another where the most transitions are.

A difference is be to seen clearly. More than I personally expected. However compare it directly to the difference with that of the 1020-808 comps and conclude for yourself..
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-10 21:37
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
the 10% difference might effect different cameras in different ways.. I wish the 1020 had to option to go down to 85%.

If you set the 808 to 95 and the sharpness to +5 you will get an image that just as sharp but with less grain/noise. Then if you want the colors you just set it to vivid and bump up the saturation a little bit.

I can always spot the difference b/w a 85 and 95 shot from the 808

Here is a close up

85



95


false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-10 22:19
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
Have to note that with the above crops of the two compressions, I have the higher compression at the right side in one and the on the left in the other. Should have paid more attention to align them.

Anyway, to restate the goal of all this: Showing that the difference between 1020 and 808 lies only in the processing. And not in the potential of the hardware. If anything, testing has showed that the 1020 is capable of better resolution and noise levels.

To me, the way I see it, under same conditions (no flash, same WB, same exposure parameters with fast enough SS for the 808 to handle), in some scenes the 808 would give more pleasing results while in others the 1020.

That's why Nokia's next to-do task is implementing effective picture control settings on the Lumias..

And I would like to see still effective these settings are on the 808.


On 2013-10-10 21:37:04, cu015170 wrote:
the 10% difference might effect different cameras in different ways.. I wish the 1020 had to option to go down to 85%.


Well the compression topic is actually more complicated than it seems.

There are different scales to begin with. And I don't know what scale Nokia uses.
And while most scales go from 0/1 to 99/100 each scales refers to different compression values and never to percentages of anything btw..

It is a wrong conception that these numbers are percentages. The difference between 85 and 95 compression ratios on the 808 is not a 10% difference in compression.

Adobe use a scale of their own. There is a standard scale but not used by everyone. And there are other scales.

Adobe themselves even use different graphical scales on different applications of their while referring to same set of values!
Photoshop uses a scale of 12 steps while Lightroom (which I use to export JPEGs out of RAW) uses a scale from 0 to 100. But both are the same! Adobe use 98, 94, 91, 87, 83 down to around 50... And when I choose 90 on Lightroom for instance, it actually means 94. 85 means 91.
And a real value of 94 means different ratio to another 94 from other application.

What is remains the same is of course the ratio itself. 2:1 means halving the RAW data in size. 8:1 (mostly used) means dividing by 8.. A 24 MB RAW photo would become 3 MB.. 16:1 means 1.5 MB..

Obviously from the files sizes of the 808, it is one stop. Most probably going from 8:1 to 16:1.. But I find it weird that the differences between these two ratios is that apparent in the quality. Usually it shouldn't.

However, the content does play a significant difference. A landscape full of detail is a much different thing to a blue sky with one bird in the middle! Even the size of the JPEG at same compression would vastly differ..

If you set the 808 to 95 and the sharpness to +5 you will get an image that just as sharp but with less grain/noise. Then if you want the colors you just set it to vivid and bump up the saturation a little bit.


You have to show us this.
Same exact scene with same exposure, first with all slides set to zero, then with sharpness set +5, then with only saturation set to +5, and one with only contrast set to +5, and one with all and choosing the vivid colors..
Five photos would do. Or six with one setting the saturation to +5 and vivid colors while keeping sharpness and contrast untouched.

This would be one hell of a show.
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-12 01:06
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
All @ 95%, normal color mode

-5 sharpness



0 sharpness


+5 sharpness



vivid color mode


+5 saturation aka 1020 color mode
false_morel
Nokia Lumia 920
Joined: Feb 24, 2010
Posts: 375
PM
Posted: 2013-10-12 05:23
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post








So these are four crops, a couple at each area. First two for sharpness with the -5 at the right, 0 at the middle. And two for color, with a standard one at the right, vivid at the middle, and the +5 saturation at the right.

Regarding sharpness, the difference is subtle at best! One has to look at the two extremes to notice a difference. And still at +5, nothing like the sharpness the 1020 delivers.

As to color, the vivid version is still dead. Not even standard still in the neutral domain. Setting the saturation to plus 5 obviously boosts the saturation but does nothing to the hue, luminance, tint, or vibrance which is manipulated saturation at select parts of image.

No way to get anywhere close what the Lumia 1020 outputs. And vice-versa from the 1020 to 808 as well.

I had these settings before on the N8, and it seems Nokia did little to adjust the effectiveness of these settings on the 808.. They stand there almost useless. Even the WB settings on both the Lumias and 808 are not that useful. Nokia could also deliver here manual control over image temperature in Kelvin same as any decent stand-alone camera does.

With Post-processing using some decent PC apps one could achieve some effective changes. But still, offering internal processing varieties is different. Or of course offer the option to shoot in RAW.

Meanwhile, as far the comparison between 808 and 1020 goes, I stand by my position. I see no phone performing better than the other in terms of IQ in all situations. And with certain updates the 1020 has more potential to be better at everything.
cu015170
Nokia 808 PureView
Joined: Oct 26, 2010
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-13 22:22
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
^ we can agree to disagree.. maybe when you get a 1020 you can show us some actual shots that are better than the 808

Here is an interesting article on the oversampling differences between the two

http://allaboutwindowsphone.c[....]a_1020_and_its_oversamplin.php

808 is the cleaner image, as always



The 808 is on the bottom
mlife
T68 grey
Joined: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: > 500
PM
Posted: 2013-10-13 23:41
Reply with quoteEdit/Delete This PostPrint this post
@cu015170

I honestly can't believe you're still playing along... IMO its quite clear false either just likes to argue for no good reason or has no idea what he is talking about. Or maybe a bit of both. Either way, there is no point in going back and forth as EVER picture you post, he will down-play in one way or another. Im not saying 1020 doesn't produce good images, Im just saying it's possible there's an agenda of sorts at work here. And I'm also not disputing the fact that there may even be some people out there that simply like the "look" of 1020 images better and thats fine too... But it seems to me it's like trying to convince a 3 year old that Santa isn't real (sooner or later, they get it).

Just my .02 [addsig]
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
Previous  123 4 ... 141516  Next
Goto page:
Lock this Topic Move this Topic Delete this Topic