In the PureView, Nokia uses a process called "oversampling," which -- for the PureView's 5-megapixel default resolution -- condenses the information captured in seven pixels into one they call it a "superpixel. This method should translate to higher-resolution digital print-outs and zoom-ins than you'd normally see. The technology in PureView has been five years in the making, Nokia's Alakarhu said. As CNET's Goldman has pointed out, this is an unusually large sensor for a smartphone, and it's also larger than sensors found on the vast majority of point-and-shoot cameras.
Key ingredient 2: Image processing In addition to the size and quality of the lens and sensor, there's also the image processor. Most modern high-end smartphone CPUs have dedicated graphics processors built into their chip, which, being hardware-accelerated and not just software-dependent, can quickly render images like photos, videos, and games without overtaxing the main application processor.
I promised that there was software bridging the hardware and the final image, and there is. Algorithms and other logic are what create the final image output on the phone's screen. This where the most subjective element of photography comes in -- how your eye interprets the quality of color, the photo's sharpness, and so on.
The image processor is also what helps achieve zero shutter lag, when the camera captures the photo when you press the capture button, not a beat or two after. Wait, there's more There's much more to know about the competing technology that goes into sensors, but backside-illuminated sensors are starting to be used much more in smartphones.
This type of sensor is often synonymous with better low-light performance because it increases photosensitivity. However, if you shoot in bright light, it can also blow out your image. Here are more details on how backside illumination works. The camera's sensor size and image processor may be the most crucial elements for creating quality smartphone photos, but other considerations come into play.
Higher quality components, for example, can help tease out better photos, but they could also cost more, which could lead to a marginally pricier camera. The smartphone makers I contacted for this article, like Samsung and Nokia, wouldn't share sourcing or pricing information.
Usability is king Despite the intense engineering focus that goes into the camera's physical elements, both Nokia's Juha Alakarhu and Samsung's Drew Blackard, senior manager of product planning, stress the importance of the customer's experience -- how easy is it to open the camera from a locked position, how fast do photos capture, how desired are the special effects and shooting modes? For HTC's part, the manufacturer includes extra logic in some phones, like the Amaze 4G , that detects smiles and auto-surfaces photos it considers the most technically proficient.
For most phone owners, said Samsung's Blackard, being able to quickly and easily share photos on the fly is far more important than pixel count. Just look at Instagram's runaway success in sharing simple, small photos.
Gartner analyst Jon Erensen agrees. A recent trip to Indonesia illustrates what Nokia's Alakarhu and the others mean by the whole experience taking precedent over the specs. While trekking with 22 pounds of gear on his back -- including a high-quality DSLR -- Alakarhu repeatedly reached for the Nokia PureView he kept in his pocket.
Although he considers himself an amateur photographer who will put in the time to frame a great shot, Alakarhu said he found himself using the PureView more because of its easy availability and quick start time when he didn't want to take the time to set up a more involved shot on his digital camera. We shouldn't scrap pixel count entirely when weighing smartphone cameras, but in terms of the hardware and software details that actually go into making a great photo, megapixels are highly overrated.
It's high time we focus on other areas that count more, like that undersung sensor. Already a subscriber? Sign in. Thanks for reading Scientific American. Create your free account or Sign in to continue. Details are usually pretty sharp in the center but they tend to fall off slightly towards the edges. However, it stands to reason that there would come a point where increasing the resolution would only capture the defects of the lens in increasing detail. This is caused by inaccuracies in the measurements for each pixel, and it takes the form of a speckled graininess across the image.
As a result, noise reduction also removes some of the fine detail from a photo. In dimly lit scenes, the camera must boost the exposure, and this boosts noise levels too. A small sensor has a small lens sat in front of it, which captures less light than a bigger sensor and lens. However, it is possible to increase the resolution without boosting noise levels if you also increase the physical size of the sensor.
This explains why SLRs are able to offer 24MP and higher resolutions but still deliver lower noise than compact cameras with their tiny sensors. So how many megapixels do you need? However, make sure that very high resolutions are matched by an equivalent increase in sensor size. Of course, image quality is also defined by the design of the sensor, the quality of the lens, the intelligence of the metering and automatic exposure system Of course without zooming in.
If yes, how is that? If no, when I watch at a 10mp picture on a 2mp screen, where do those 18mp pixels in excess go? A friend of mine convinced me to get the D I thought the D would have been fine.
However the the D has better water proofing bit more rugged etc. D would be a great back up body has better low noise characteristics and does not require a tripod in low light. I have set the D to a 1. This is to reduce file size There are many other considerations.
The range of apertures available to a cell phone, between fastest possible and the point where diffraction becomes a problem, is very small. Also, because of the small absolute size of available apertures smartphone images will almost always be equally sharp or equally fuzzy!!
This is great for landscapes in good light, but not for much else. It is especially bad for portraits and people shots which is ironic as that is what most people use them for. A smartphone's tiny lens and tiny sensor does not allow the differential focus that can be obtained with DSLRs. APS-H is pretty good, but the 35mm format is probably optimal.
With larger formats depth of field is too little for many subjects, and very difficult to work with. We have a 3. Over the years, at postcard size jpg' its image has proven to be almost impossible to tell from either hi end film or digital cameras used at the same time in the same conditions.
I assume that most people take snaps with their phones. Good on 'em. Nothing wrong with snapping. For hi end images tho, you need a hi end real camera with a similar lens. You have a point but output size matters too. And newer sensors, in cameras and phones, can do somewhat higher ISOs better.
And produces jpegs that can be easily printed at 12" x 18". Isn't it strange that with so many improvements in the camera capabilities of these cell phones, I still see many people walking around in their front yards, driveways, and streets trying to pick up a signal to talk on their phone?
Wouldn't it be easier to build cell phones into regular cameras? You'd still have people trying to get a signal, but at least they wouldn't have to worry so much about their picture taking capabilities.
Wouldn't it be easier to put a cell phone in a camera than the other way around? Both with VERY good glass up front. Guess what? Which, the last time I looked, is what counts, yes??? Who cares if you have 3, 8, or MP? Is it a good image. The first cameras were actually used to record scenes. They were far too slow for people. Most pictures as stated in the article are never going to be seen with a device needing more than 10MP.
Also you need to keep in mind viewing distance and apparent size. I used to print billboards, and we rarely printed at much over 75ppi. At 24" most people cannot see any improvement over ppi but let's use Apples ppi macbook as a maximum. A 20" x 30" print looks HUGE when viewed from 2 feet away. Doing the math, this requires a 29MP image. Give us a decent even if small sensor and a good lens preferably with some kind of optical zoom and very few will see any difference in resolution after 10MP.
No one needs more than 50MP unless they need to crop. I know friends who take photos of their kids with phone cameras. I don't care if the rest part be displayed at much lower resolution for "beautiful bokeh" but I think 8 MPix should be needed for facial cm2 projected better over 10 MPix because our eyes are really good at facial details. PPI doesn't actually matter until you print the image. How many people are taking pictures with their cell and hanging them in a gallery?
I'd bet less than half a percent, but that number really can't be quantified among all pictures taken with a cell. Keep in mind that as you go to larger and larger prints, you expect them to be viewed from further and further away.
I'll spare the math, but a 12MP image without cropping can manage most commonly-available print sizes comfortably. Now that it's hard to find a sensor that can't manage 12MP, the game is more about image quality than MP. Adding MP is now more about getting more room to crop and doing some tricks with light collection, along with trying to make smartphone cameras more competitive with the small camera market. But, as long as people still buy into the idea that more megapixels yields higher quality, the war will continue, because the game at that level isn't about taking pictures at all: it's about selling stuff.
What utter tosh. You want microscopic realism in a life size image viewed from 10 inches away. That is a perverse interpretation of the question "How many megapixels do we need.
Wouldn't the new iPhone 5S have a bigger 8MP sensor than the previous version? This article points to the same sensor size. The difference between the iPhone 5 and 5S is not enough to get me to "upgrade. I use the Noiseware plugin in Photoshop which can easily reduce of the noise found in low light iPhone images.
And, I have also found Photo Resize to be of help in enlarging photographs. We are going faster to bigger sensor size with bigger picture sizes. But half is okay, too, because ppi are enough. Also consider the viewing distance.
The answer was given below: the space after the size is misplaced, it should read "x 3, 18MP" and "x 4, 35MP". Marvol is right, type-o's.
A4 print at ppi 3, x 2, 9MP A3 print at ppi 4, x 3, 18MP A2 print at ppi 7, x 4, 35MP but lowering the pixel density you can double the size of the print. Throw in a bit of cropping potential and 4 to 8MP is just fine. By limiting the MPs, the cameras on smartphones could address their dire dynamic range that so massively degrades image quality compared to even disposable film cameras. How come and the "more pixeled" but the same pixel size full frame cameras, outperform much better in low light conditions than those with APS-c sensors??
Actually, that's not true. Even the highest megapixel retail full frame camera Nikon D at 36 megapixels, released has 4. Most full frame cameras actually have much larger pixels than APS-C, since the D is an outlier when it comes to pixel count in consumer cameras.
D and D have about same sized pixels but D can deliver well over a stop of better image quality. The D and D use different generations of sensor.
Sony has quite consistently added about a stop of high sensitivity performance to each successive generation of their CMOS line.
Still, as you may have noted at least in Nikon's implementation , it delivers quite impressive performance for its pixel size - in good light comparable detail 'per pixel' to the 'old' 16MP sensor, and not too far behind at higher sensitivities resulting in a net win for detail capture.
Pixel size isn't at all irrelevant to image quality - it's just that it's only one of many factors influencing IQ. And how are you even defining IQ? Low light performance, resolution, DR? Pixel size, pixel count, generation of sensor and cpu all make a difference but most of all the lens.
There are also some who do not have an argument, but they comment just to satisfy their feeling of inferiority, Victor get a life.
By the way pixel size matters, the bigger the better. Most of the noise is in the light itself, even if it were measured perfectly. This is just flat out false and perpetuates a long-held myth that DPReview helped to start and to perpetuate. In fact, more pixels in the same size usually leads to less noise not more, for various reasons. Those Aptina sensored Nikon 1 series cameras also live by this "myth". This is hilarious. Increasing exposure decreases noise, actually.
If they meant boosting amplification, it does not boost SNR, since it increases both the signal and the noise. Pixel density, not "count" has something to do with noise. As do circuit placement and heat dissipation. There's also how the computer in the camera processes the data. Um, just so you realize increased exposure can mean that the sensor gets hotter during exposure and therefore noise increases.
All right: density per square X unit, so likely per sq. CM or MM. And yes it's density per sq. CM that is important, not count in the frame. Funny, my biggest concern with deciding on how many megapixels to use was not mentioned in the article. Sorry, this is wrong.
You are enlarging the aberrations of the lens, diffraction softening, etc. While there is no theoretical limit, there is certainly a practical one. The reason is simple - mags print using half-tone dots in a regular array. The eye is brilliant at seeing patterns and at less than dpi, the linear array becomes visible. Inkjet printer, on the other hand are far more sophisticated and dither.
I have taken a 5mp Oly E-1 picture and printed out at ppi, saved the file, resized to ppi, printed out at the same size, and down to ppi again printing out at the same size. What the inkjet software does to your file behind the scenes is the issue. For pretty much most amateur photographic uses, 5MP is more than enough. Selling to magazines is another issue. And all I all I was saying is that starting with a resolution in the data file beyond ppi can be helpful.
My printer won't really recognize files beyond about ppi, even though it can lay down ink in drops much much finer than that. More MPs is always better if one likes to capture detail. Not sure why DPR felt there was a need for an article about MPs or why they decided to quantify a ridiculously low number for general purpose photography.
The problem with cameras in cell phones is not the MPs, but the size of the sensor and the folks who use them and wouldn't know good IQ if it slapped them in the face.
I would even like the Nikon 1" intercganeable option more! The majority of people needs 3 MP, max 6 MP. That would be DIN 4A at ppi or roughly 8x10". Even 3 MP is okay for that size.
That's why the zoom should go down to a quarter of the p eg. Let the social user decide the zoom minimum! My 3 year old Nokia N8 still takes excellent photos and seems to be perfectly capable to me. Image quality is perhaps also defined by the creativity of the user In ideal scenes, ie daylight landscapes the resolution and pixel quality is really quite impressive. It looks like the Lumia is the only barely acceptable camera phone.
The large sensor combined with smaller optics in the has proven itself in the new dp studio comparison that it has the softest corners, even when compared to the meager iPhone 5 and latest iphone 5s. More MP means larger files. Larger files means slower shot to shot times when taking pictures. This might cause you to loose the great shot, because your cameras was not yet ready to take it as it was still writing on the unnecessary big file of the previous shot.
Large files mean also longer transfer times from mobile to your PC. It means more Disk space, more loading time in your image processor, more time for post processing. It means longer time to upload your images, more time for your readers to download them. Video surveillance is moving toward megapixel resolution for HD video monitoring. Today, you can find wide selection of megapixel resolution cameras which adopting analog technology or digital IP technology.
Currently, the megapixel resolution format including 1. Herein we are pleased to provide some basic information about the different resolution format. In conventional analog technology, Television line TVL is the the main specification for analog cameras.
0コメント